Unphysical Drifting in the Einstein Theory

The term responsible for this drifting is given in Eq. (7.74) of Marion and Thornton, and is (3MG / c squared) u squared, where u = 1 / r. Note carefully that this term does not contain m, the mass of the orbiting object. So the drift is caused simply by increasing the attracting mass M. In some systems this mass is orders of magnitude larger than the mass of the sun. It would be important and interesting therefore to increase M to near infinity. The orbiting mass m would drift entirely away from M. It is important also to test a theory over its full range. In the S star systems the observed behaviour is normal precession around the central mass, which can be very large, and the central mass is a mass at the centre of the Milky Way. Its mass is four million times the mass of the sun. So increase M in the code to this mass and compute the orbit. Then increase M to as close to infinity as the computer can handle. Another instance of a theory producing unphysical results is r = alpha / (1 + eps cos (x phi)) used in earlier work. This gives a precessing orbit for x very close to unity, but it develops into the fractal conical sections, intricate but wholly unphysical mathematical structures. The true orbit has been given in recent work, and is obtained from the EC2 lagrangian. The ECE School of Thought, and the subject if ECE physics, rejects the unscientific dogma that has emerged from the Einstein theory: claims to mysterious precision, big bang, black holes, the whole lot. Kenneth Clark in “Civilization” described the statue of Balzac by Rodin in the same terms: it rejected all the received dogma of art. it is now in the Louvres.

To: EMyrone@aol.com
Sent: 16/10/2017 20:59:54 GMT Daylight Time
Subj: Re: 391(3): Einsteinian Orbit and Velocity Curve of a Whirlpool Galaxy

This is the solution of the Einstein Lagrangian (1) of note 391(3). Without the 1/r^3 term the closed ellipse appears as expected. Fig. 1 show the Einstein solution for small pre-factors of 1/r^3, it is an ellipse precessing in forward direction. For larger pre-factors, the orbits drifts away as found in earlier papers. This is a totally wrong solution.

Horst

Am 13.10.2017 um 13:31 schrieb EMyrone:

This note defines the relevant lagrangians in three dimensions because 3D is needed for corrrect conservation of antisymmetry. The Einsteinian lagrangian is Eq. (1), which uses the classical kinetic energy and the well known Einsteinian effective potential. According to Einstein this gives a precession of delta phi = 3MG / c squared alpha. Fortuitously, this appears to be accurate for very small phi. However, this is an illusion because in previous work it has been shown that the Einsteinian orbit becomes wildly incorrect if phi is considered over its full range, whereas the precessing orbit from the ECE2 lagrangian (6) remains stable over the full range of phi. With improvements over the past two or three years by Horst Eckardt in computational methods this result can be reinvestigated. The ECE2 lagrangian for a whirlpool galaxy is Eq. (10) and this should produce a constant v as r becomes very large, and a hyperbolic spiral orbit – the velocity curve of a whirlpool galaxy. The conservation of antisymmetry produces a lot more information than the standard model and the computational method can be checked analytically with the Binet equation as in previous papers and books.

Advertisements

Einstein Theory is Totally Wrong

This is a powerful and incisive result by Dr. Horst Eckardt, confirming earlier work that showed that the orbit of the Einstein theory is not meaningful when tested with sufficient rigour. My earlier note this morning showed that it is not even precise. I just did some simple calculations on a hand calculator. Einstein does not produce retrograde precession. On the other hand the ECE2 orbit is meaningful and produces retrograde as well as forward precession, a major discovery. The intellectually dishonest refusal of the dogmatists to accept numerous and simple refutations such as these has resulted in the emergence of the ECE2 School of Thought, splitting physics entirely into two subjects. The ECE2 School recognizes major discoveries, the dogmatists ignore them, and ignore science. They should obviously not be funded by taxation for ignoring science.

cc Prime Minister’s Ooffice, M P. Gower

To: EMyrone@aol.com
Sent: 16/10/2017 20:59:54 GMT Daylight Time
Subj: Re: 391(3): Einsteinian Orbit and Velocity Curve of a Whirlpool Galaxy

This is the solution of the Einstein Lagrangian (1) of note 391(3). Without the 1/r^3 term the closed ellipse appears as expected. Fig. 1 show the Einstein solution for small pre-factors of 1/r^3, it is an ellipse precessing in forward direction. For larger pre-factors, the orbits drifts away as found in earlier papers. This is a totally wrong solution.

Horst

Am 13.10.2017 um 13:31 schrieb EMyrone:

This note defines the relevant lagrangians in three dimensions because 3D is needed for corrrect conservation of antisymmetry. The Einsteinian lagrangian is Eq. (1), which uses the classical kinetic energy and the well known Einsteinian effective potential. According to Einstein this gives a precession of delta phi = 3MG / c squared alpha. Fortuitously, this appears to be accurate for very small phi. However, this is an illusion because in previous work it has been shown that the Einsteinian orbit becomes wildly incorrect if phi is considered over its full range, whereas the precessing orbit from the ECE2 lagrangian (6) remains stable over the full range of phi. With improvements over the past two or three years by Horst Eckardt in computational methods this result can be reinvestigated. The ECE2 lagrangian for a whirlpool galaxy is Eq. (10) and this should produce a constant v as r becomes very large, and a hyperbolic spiral orbit – the velocity curve of a whirlpool galaxy. The conservation of antisymmetry produces a lot more information than the standard model and the computational method can be checked analytically with the Binet equation as in previous papers and books.

Discussion of 391(2), perihelion precession of Mercury

This is a very interesting result once again. The data on the internet give, for Mercury

Mass of sun M = 1.989 ten power 30 kg
G = 6.67408 ten power – 11 m cubed per kilogram per square second
c = 2.9979792 ten power 8 m per second
alpha = 5.7909050 ten power 10 m

These data give

delta phi = 3MG / (c squared alpha) = 7.652 ten power minus 8 radians.

This can be checked by Maxima. Now use

one arc second = 4.84814 ten power – 6 radians

So

delta phi = 0.01578 arc seconds

In a revolution of 2 pi radians the orbital angle increases by

delta phi per revolution = 4.808 ten power – 7 radians

= 0.09915 arc seconds per revolution of 2 pi

In one hundred revolutions, each of 2 pi, delta phi = 9.915 arc seconds. The revolution of 2 pi corresponds to a Mercury year, which is 0.240846 earth years. So the result is

delta phi in a hundred earth years = 9.915 / 0.240846 = 41.17 arc seconds per earth century.

Obviously, this is not the often cited 43.03 arc seconds per year from the Einstein theory. The experimental result is claimed to be 43.11 arc seconds per year (Marion and Thornton).
It is never made clear that the 43.11 arc seconds per century refers to the earth century, not the Mercury century. So it seen that the Einstein theory is NOT a precise replication of the experimental data. I took the data for the half right latitude alpha from Wikipedia, which gives it as 57,909,050 kilometers. There are large uncertainties in the mass of the sun. I have no idea how Wikipedia got teh figure of 6.8 ten power minus six radians per orbit. It gives the eccentricity of the Mercury orbit to be eps = 0.205630.
I would suggest adjusting the new theory of UFT391(2) by simply adjusting the hamiltonian H to give 43.11 arc seconds per earth century, assuming that this is correct. The hamiltonian could contain a background potential energy for example, and your explanation below could also be correct. If we go through the planets and other precessing objects with sufficient care, it would almost certainly be found that the Einstein theory is not precise at all. Precession is a terrible way of testing a theory, as these calculations show.

To: EMyrone@aol.com
Sent: 16/10/2017 11:45:41 GMT Daylight Time
Subj: Re: Discussion of 391(2), perihelion precession of Mercury

Could you please verify that the experimental value of delta phi for Mercury is 7.99e-5 rad per one orbit? This is the result of

delta phi = 3 M G / (c^2 alpha).

From Wikipedia I read it is 1.4 arc seconds per orbit, which gives

1.4/3600*pi/180 = 6.8 e-6 rad per orbit.

With the method of note 301(2), using the Newtonian Hamiltonian, I obtain

delta phi = 3.42e-5

which is in the order of magnitude of the formula result. One has actually to compute

delta phi = acos ( 1 – cos(phi))

because cos(0)=1 at the perihelion phi=0.

Since the experimental uncertainty is very large, this is a good result.
There are two unresolved problems:
1. What does the experimental orbital velocity mean? It is orders of magnitude smaller than computed from

vN^2 = MG (2 / r – 1 / a).

Is it true that this equation only holds for ellipses? There is the condition r < 2a for vN^2 to be positive.

2. The virial theorem could be violated. It is

E_kin (vN) = 5.7 e 33 Joules
E_pot (r_min) = – 9.5 e 33 Joules

For a weak relaltivistic system it should hold

2 * E_kin = – E_pot

but only in time average. So this seems not to be a severe problem.

Horst

Am 16.10.2017 um 09:08 schrieb EMyrone:

Many thanks again! To discuss the points, one by one:

1) The hamiltonian H is simply a constant, so A and B are also constants and can be used as input parameters. I agree that H contains phi, but it is a constant of motion. So use H as an input parameters and vary it to get the observed delta phi.
2) Agreed.
3) The delta phi can be calculated analytically from Eq. (45), so the numerical dificulties can be circumvented using an analytical formula, Eq. (45).
4) Eq. (48) is simply the usual one: v sub N squared = MG (2 / r – 1 / a). The semi major axis is

a = alpha / (1 – eps squared)

and
r = alpha / ( 1 + eps cos phi))

at perihelion, cos phi = 1, so 1 / R0 = (1 + eps) / alpha, so Eq. (48) is obtained.

To: EMyrone
Sent: 15/10/2017 14:58:12 GMT Daylight Time
Subj: 2nd Re: Discussion of 391(2)

A closer inspection of the note revealed the following:
1) Eqs.(27-30) are formally correct, but A contains the hamiltonian H which in turn contains cos(phi). Therefore cos(phi) cannot be determined in this way.
2) To compare the Newtonain and relativistic hamiltonians, we have to subtract the rest energy m*c^2 from the relativistic hamiltonian.
3) The differences in the hamiltonians are very small, these are not suited to compute reliable precession angles.
4) There seems to be a problem with the orbital velocity vN at perihelion. According to the caclulation it is about 1.9e6 m/s, but from experimental tables it is only 5.9e4 m/s, a much more realistic value.

Horst

Am 15.10.2017 um 15:11 schrieb EMyrone:

This is all very interesting. The ECE2 Binet equation can be solved using the general solution of the autonomous equation of mathematics, Eq. (5) of the last note. That may lead to an analytical method for ECE2 precessions. A severe scientific pathology (i.e. self delusion or mirage) has grown up around orbital precessions. This is in fact a terrible way of testing a theory, because they are so small as you point out. Miles Mathis has cast a lot of doubt on the experimental methods. This is because Newtonian methods are used to correct for the precessions caused by other planets, (the great majority of the precession), whereas relativistic methods should have been used. So to many people a lot of laundering goes on in the alley of a thousand dustbins full of old fogma or foggy dogma. No open minded scientist would wander in to such an alley. Light deflection due to gravitation is explained by ECE2 with the utmost simplicity: the definition of the relativistic velocity leads straight to the famous result: 4MG / (c squared R0). Light deflection is a very big effect, and so is much better suited for testing a theory.

To: EMyrone
Sent: 15/10/2017 13:23:58 GMT Daylight Time
Subj: Re: 391(2): Conservation of Antisymmetry in Light Deflection

I wonder if the method of determining the angle of precession Delta phi from the Newtonian velocity v_N can be applied to determine the precession of the planet Mercury. The numerical solution of Lagrange equations is not applicable because Delta phi is so small.
In (47) you used a constant r. Since relativistic effects are by far largest at perihelion, it would be appropriate to use this radius in the calculation for Mercury. Obviously (47) is this radius already. What we need are the orbit quantities M, m, alpha, epsilon. I will look up these in the internet.

Horst

Am 11.10.2017 um 13:27 schrieb EMyrone:

In ECE2 physics light deflection due to gravitation is given immediately and exactly from the definition of relativistic velocity, Eq. (1). To me this is one of the most satisfying discoveries of ECE2 theory. It immediately makes the hugely elaborate Einstein theory of light deflection irrelevant by Ockham’s Razor, because the ECE2 theory is far simpler and works exactly for all observed precessions. As shown in UFT150 – UFT155, the Einstein theory of light deflection is riddled with obscurities, some would say cooking or fudging by Einstein to get the right result. These refutation papers are now classics. There is an upper bound on the Lorentz factor, another major discovery which completely refutes hyperrelativistic physics and zero photon mass theory, together with Higgs boson theory. The definition of the relativistic velocity occurs in any good book on special relativity, but the upper bound was missed for one hundred and ten years. This means that light deflection due to gravity automatically conserves antisymmetry because it is ECE2 covariant and so is described by the same theory as precession (see UFT390). In this note three dimensional precession theory is defined, because it takes three dimensions to conserve antisymmetry rigorously. Three dimensional forward and retrograde precession will be very interesting to graph. This has been shown in immediately preceding papers. Finally a new analytical method is given for explaining precession from ECE2 theory. This is useful but the rigorous theory must be based on the Lagrangian. So major progress is being made now in ECE2 physics and this is being acknowledged by the readership.

Preparing to Test Einstein Numerically

This will be very interesting.

EMyrone
Sent: 16/10/2017 09:47:54 GMT Daylight Time
Subj: Re: Suggestion for Testing Einstein Numerically

I will apply the Lagrangian method to the Einstein Lagrangian (1) of note 391(3). Inspecting the orbits should be enough, the application of antisymmetry equations is very laborious because we would have to use the numerical dependencies r(t) and phi(t).

Horst

Am 16.10.2017 um 09:55 schrieb EMyrone:

The suggestion is described in Note 391(3), and it is to compute g and the orbit from the lagrangian (1) of that note. The ECE2 lagrangian is given in Eq. (6) and is known to give both forward and retrograde precessions, a major discovery made numerically by Horst Eckardt. The numerical methods developed by Horst Eckardt can be applied to Eq (1) of Note 391(3) in oorder to find out whether Einstein gives forward and retrogade precessions, using exactly the same methods as used previously for Eq. (6) of Note 391(3). Once g is computed for Einstein, conservation of antisymmetry is used to compute the spin connection, vector potential, scalar spin conenction and dQ / dt. Einstein is known to be riddled with errors and obscurities, so the suggestion aims to show that these quanttities will begin to behave in a strange way. It is desirable to have as many refutations of Einstein as possible, because such a lot of taxation is wasted on his obsolete ideas in general relativity. Many of his other ideas are of course fine. There is a need for much stricter government control over the self-funders. The referees are dogmatists and will obviously fund other dogmatists and will reject new ideas without looking at them. This makes a mess out of physics and the taxpayer. Precessions in the solar systgem are very small, so I suggest using:

Lagrangian (Einstein) = (1/2) m v squared + A / r + B / r cubed

and use A and B as input parameters. A and B can be varied to give different orbits. The idea is to show that the Einstein orbit becomes wildly unstable, a purely numerical exercise. Two dimensions can be used to simplify the numerical method.

Daily Report Sunday 15/10/17

The equivalent of 137,355 printed pages was downloaded (500.796 megabytes) from 3096 downloaded memory files (hits) and 556 distinct visits each averaging 4.8 memory pages and 8 minutes, printed p[ages to hits ratio of 44.36, top referrals total of 2,313,564, main spiders Baidu, Google, MSN and Yahoo. Collected ECE2 1957, Top ten 865, Collected Evans / Morris 495, Collected scientometrics 332, F3(Sp) 287, Barddoniaeth 168, Principles of ECE 144, Collected Eckardt / Lindstrom 137, Collected Proofs 133, Autobiography volumes one and two 118, UFT88 82, MJE 81, Engineering Model 55, Evans Equations 55, PLENR 49, CV 48, PECE 38, CEFE 33, UFT311 30, ADD 28, Llais 25, UFT321 24, UFT313 21, UFT314 18, UFT315 27, UFT316 17, UFT317 27, UFT318 27, UFT319 28, UFT320 18, UFT322 22, UFT323 33, UFT324 39, UFT325 29, UFT326 18, UFT327 22, UFT328 32, UFT329 29, UFT330 18, UFT331 37, UFT332 38, UFT333 20, UFT334 15, UFT335 28, UFT336 17, UFT337 16, UFT338 15, UFT339 23, UFT340 21, UFT341 24, UFT342 19, UFT343 23, UFT344 21, UFT345 28, UFT346 26, UFT347 23, UFT348 23, UFT349 20, UFT351 38, UFT352 23, UFT353 16, UFT354 22, UFT355 21, UFT356 16, UFT357 27, UFT358 22, UFT359 17, UFT360 14, UFT361 18, UFT362 20, UFT363 21, UFT364 22, UFT365 16, UFT366 26, UFT367 23, UFT368 25, UFT369 33, UFT370 27, UFT371 25, UFT372 23, UFT373 20, UFT374 19, UFT375 20, UFT376 18, UFT377 27, UFT378 23, UFT379 19, UFT380 20, UFT381 35, UFT382 45, UFT383 39, UFT384 44, UFT385 61, UFT386 44, UFT387 45, UFT388 31, UFT389 52, UFT390 23 to date in October 2017. University of Queensland UFT33; Science World British Columbia Canada UFT175; Swiss Federal Institute (EPF) Lausanne UFT43; Princeton University UFT213; Engineering Riau University Indonesia general; Mathematics Polytechnic University of Warsaw UFT110; Institute of High Energy Physics Moscow UFT390, UFT89, Home Page; University of Anadolu Turkey UFT64, UFT235. Intense interest all sectors, updated usage file attached for October 2017.

Unauthorized

This server could not verify that you are authorized to access the document requested. Either you supplied the wrong credentials (e.g., bad password), or your browser doesn’t understand how to supply the credentials required.

Additionally, a 401 Unauthorized error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.

Suggestion for Testing Einstein Numerically

The suggestion is described in Note 391(3), and it is to compute g and the orbit from the lagrangian (1) of that note. The ECE2 lagrangian is given in Eq. (6) and is known to give both forward and retrograde precessions, a major discovery made numerically by Horst Eckardt. The numerical methods developed by Horst Eckardt can be applied to Eq (1) of Note 391(3) in oorder to find out whether Einstein gives forward and retrogade precessions, using exactly the same methods as used previously for Eq. (6) of Note 391(3). Once g is computed for Einstein, conservation of antisymmetry is used to compute the spin connection, vector potential, scalar spin conenction and dQ / dt. Einstein is known to be riddled with errors and obscurities, so the suggestion aims to show that these quanttities will begin to behave in a strange way. It is desirable to have as many refutations of Einstein as possible, because such a lot of taxation is wasted on his obsolete ideas in general relativity. Many of his other ideas are of course fine. There is a need for much stricter government control over the self-funders. The referees are dogmatists and will obviously fund other dogmatists and will reject new ideas without looking at them. This makes a mess out of physics and the taxpayer. Precessions in the solar systgem are very small, so I suggest using:

Lagrangian (Einstein) = (1/2) m v squared + A / r + B / r cubed

and use A and B as input parameters. A and B can be varied to give different orbits. The idea is to show that the Einstein orbit becomes wildly unstable, a purely numerical exercise. Two dimensions can be used to simplify the numerical method.

Discussion of 391(4)

Yes this is the same result as given by Eq. (5), which is found on http://eqworld.ipmnet.ru . There si a double integration because it is a second order autonomous differential equation. In the note, Eq. (5) was developed into Eq. (20). The factorization used by Einstein is Eq. (21). This method cannot be used because at each root the integral is singular as was shown in previous UFT papers. So Eq. (22) was used. This gives Eq. (23). Under the condition (24) the binomial approximation was used:

(1 + x(u)) power minus half = 1 – x(u) / 2

This approximation gives Eq. (25a), which can be integrated analytically using the Wolfram integrator to give a conic section plus Eq. (27). It would be very interesting to check Wolfram with Maxima and plot this orbit over the full range of phi. The aim of this note is to show that the Einstein theory gives an orbit which is not the observed orbit.

To: EMyrone@aol.com
Sent: 15/10/2017 18:56:03 GMT Daylight Time
Subj: Re: 391(4): Analytical Integration of the Binet Equation of the Eistein Theory

In Maxima the solution of the diff. eq.

is plus or minus

The u terms in the square root denominator are of third order and this prevents an analytical solution of the integral. This seems to be comparable to your eq.(7). This equation gives only a conical section if the u^3 term is omitted. Factorizing the denominator (21) gives the method we have used earlier. I do not understand how an analytical solution should be obtained including the u^3 Einstein term.
BTW, in (5) is a double integration while in the equation above is only a single u integral. A typo?

Horst

Am 15.10.2017 um 14:49 schrieb EMyrone:

It is shown that the Binet equation (1) of the Einstein theory is an example of the autonomous equation (5a) of the theory of differential equations, whose general solution is Eq. (5). The analytical solution for the Einstein orbit is Eq. (20), which can be integrated analytically. In earlier UFT papers it was shown that Einstein’s factorization method, Eq. (21), obviously produces singularities, and cannot possibly lead to the right result. This obvious howler was notoriously accepted because of the pathology of twentieth century dogma – Einstein must always be right and cannot make any errors. In fact scholars for over a hundred years have known very well that he made many errors, large and small. The orbit in the approximation (24) is Eq. (25a). Using the Wolfram online integrator this has an analytical solution which can be graphed. This entirely removes problems of numerical integration encountered in earlier UFT papers. At the point (28) the Einstein orbit becomes singular. It is also clear from the Binet equation (1) that phi of the orbit depends on the experimentally observed precession (2), and vice versa, so the Einstein orbit it is not a precessing ellipse at all, it is an intricate function which at certain points becomes singular (infinite). This is yet another way of refuting the Einstein theory completely and entirely. It would be very interesting to apply recently developed methods to the Lagrangian of the Einstein theory as in previous notes for UFT391. That would give g, the spin connection, the vector potential Q, the scalar spin connection and dQ/dt, with conservation of antisymmetry. They will all show unstable behaviour because the underlying geometry used by Einstein is wildly wrong. The analytical method of this note is not very difficult for mathematicians to follow. In the next not the general solution (5a) of the autonomous equation will be applied to the ECE2 Binet equation.