419(1) : Application of m Theory to the S2 Star

Subject: 419(1) : Application of m Theory to the S2 Star

This note shows that the orbit of the S2 star is essentially Newtonian, any deviations from Newton such as those in Eqs. (2) and (3) can be explained in a well defined limit of m theory by Eq. (4), from which m(r) may be determined from the data given in this note. On May 18th 2018 the S2 star was at closest approach to the large mass that it orbits. This has a mass M of 8.572 ten power 36 kilograms. Clearly this is not a "black hole" because the theory of black holes erroneously omits torsion. By now this is very well known. Einsteinian general relativity predicts a forward S2 precession of +4,896 arcseconds per earth century. This compares with the famous +43 arcseconds per earth century for Mercury in the solar system. EGR always produces a forward precession. The experimental result however is given by Eqs. (2) and (3), which indicate that the orbit of S2 is Newtonian within the uncertainty in the astronomical data.This means that the experimental precession is zero plus or minus an uncertainty. From another point of view the difference between Eqs. (2) and (3) can be taken to indicate the need for m theory as in Eq. (4), from which m(r) can be found from the astronomical data. The R power n theory of gravitation produces a retrograde precession of minus 22,459 arcseconds per earth century and the Yuhawa theory of gravitation produces a forward precession of plus 44,917 arcseconds per earth century. There can be no confidence in the dogmatic claim that the S2 star "verifies" EGR.



Orbital Velocity from m(r)

Orbital Velocity from m(r)

This is given by Eq. (54) of Note 417(7) in a well defined limit:

v squared = m(r) power 3 / 2 MG(2 m(r) power half / r – 1 / a)

Therefore the experimental value of m(r) can be found from the S2 star data of May 18th 2018, when it made the closest approach to the mass about which it orbits. In the limit m(r) goes to 1, the Newtonian result is recovered. This is one out of many ways of describing the S2 star precession in ECE2 and m theories. I have asked two leading astronomers whether they can supply the latest experimental data on the precession. Similarly the above equation can be applied to any closest approach data inside and outside the solar system. There is no way in which a retrograde precession of S2 star system can be described by EGR. All that can be said from the data is that the orbit is nearly Newtonian. To "prove" EGR would need the precisely measured experimental precession of S2. In fact EGR is riddled by errors, and cannot be proven by any data. it is not possible to "prove" incorrect geometry. Wikipedia ignores all the precise refutations of EGR in the seven hundred UFT papers and books. It lives in a cuckoo land of its own but hopefully it has recorded the right data on S2.

Data on S2

Data on S2

At closest approach on 18th May 2018 the distance of S2 from the central mass was 120 AU = 1.7952 ten power thirteen metres (Wikipedia article). Its semi major axis is 1.451 ten power fourteen metres. The velocity of S2 at closest approach to the central mass was measured to be 7,650 kilometres per second = 7.650 ten power six metres per second. This gives a velocity v at position r, and these data may be enough to calculate the orbit from m theory. If the orbit were Newtonian then v squared = MG (2 / r – 1 / a)

where M = 8.572 ten power 36 kgm; G = 6.67407 ten power – 11 in SI units; r = 1.7952 ten power thirteen metres; a = 1.451 ten power fourteen metres. This gives:

v squared = 5.852 ten power 13 m squared


MG (2 / r – 1 / a) = 5.9769 ten power 13 m squared

So the deviation from the Newtonian result can be described by Eq. (54) of Note 417(7) in terms of an m (r) function. Assuming that the initial v and r are those at closest approach on 18th May 2018, the orbit can be computed with the code written by Dr. Horst Eckardt. This would give the precession due to m theory. For self consistency I have used throughout the data given in the Wikipedia article. I assume that wiki got it right this time.

New Expressions for Infinite Potential Energy from m(r)

New Expressions for Infinite Potential Energy from m(r)

This note produces new expressions for infinite potential energy from m(r), while conserving total energy as usual in the well known work integral method of classical dynamics. The note demonstrates the rigorous self consistency of the calculation and produces Eq. (28), which leads to the inference that the energy due to m(r) is infinite when gamma is infinite, i. e. when m(r) = v / c. This result is missing completely from the standard model, in which m(r) is restricted to 1 – r0 / r by the Einstein field equation, and missing completely from special relativity, in which m(r) = 1. The latter is discarded as obsolete in ECE and m theory. I will proceed to write up Sections 1 and 2 of UFT418, which will report several results of major importance. Section 3 by co author Horst Eckardt will be of key importance as usual.


Quantum entanglement

Quantum entanglement

Many thanks to Sean MacLachlan, Secretary of UPITEC in Boise, Idaho, USA. This is a very interesting discussion essentially on wave particle dualism and photon mass. The obsolete standard model led to the absurd idea that electromagnetic waves in four dimensions can have only transverse polarizations. The longitudinal and timelike polarizations were removed by the Gupta Bleuler method, which is ad hoc empiricism. There has been a tremendous amount of discussion on quantum entanglement, notably the Aspect experiments. The m theory opens up a completely new subject, because the de Broglie Einstein equations become:

E = m(r) gamma m c squared = h bar omega


p = gamma m v / (m(r) half)) = h bar kappa

and depend on m(r), which can be chosen for superluminal signalling as Horst as just shown. Physics is being rewritten in the most general spherical spacetime. Compton scattering theory for example is changed completely.
Quantum entanglement

The possibility of counter gravitation from m theory is an interesting aspect. Concerning Sean’s question of quantum entanglement, there is another argument. We have shown that longitudinal waves are solutions of the Maxwell-like field equations (mechanical and electrical). These waves are standing waves. Distortions of such waves are transduced simultaneously, not with the velocity of wave expansion. This mathematical fact is seldomly discussed. If we assume that each atomic nucleus establishes such a wave field as vacuum or spacetime waves, it can communicate with each other nucleus (or particle) simultaneously. Such a mechanism is propagated by some natural philosophy proponents but we have the means to describe it by ECE physics. The most astounding point for me is that such longitudinal waves only need one fixed point (the nucleus or antenna) while standard standing waves need two fixed ends to be established.


Am 05.11.2018 um 07:10 schrieb Sean:


These are all amazing advancements. The known laws of physics are being rewritten in comprehensive and self consistent manner while keeping true to the observables in nature not just to mathematical theories. As I ponder these discoveries 1 question comes to mind that links cosmology to particle physics. Does quantum entanglement use superluminal signaling perhaps through the spin connection to synchronize 2 photons, atoms or perhaps even larger groupings of elements and materials or rather is entanglement the same source of information being instantaneously shared across some universal step of time like multiple photons having an alias or reference to the same shared property that is simultaneously processed with each passing moment of time.

I think understanding which is the case will have profound implications and provide much clarity. Is entanglement a form of superluminal communication between separate particles or a single shared state with two linked particles? In computer terms an analogy would be say your mobile phone synchronizing data with a server such as your email provider to maintain parity as in the first case of superluminal communication, vs two computer variables referencing the same memory address to retrieve some piece of information such as X = Y both pointing to memory location 321Z in the computers physical memory. It may be that experiments will need to answer this question, but perhaps theory can bring clarity as well.

Keep up the amazing progress, the impact of your insights will be felt for generations to come.


On November 4, 2018 at 5:05:44 AM, Myron Evans (myronevans123) wrote:

Many thanks to the Co President! The mythical precision of the standard model no longer exists after the discovery of retrograde precession in the S2 star, and in the UFT papers multiple methods of developing and explaining cosmology have been proposed. The m theory has the great advantage of being able to use any m (r) function, and is capable of describing any astronomical data, including the velocity curves of whirlpool galaxies. The standard model is restricted to m(r) = 1 – r0/r, and this is incorrect due to neglect of torsion. A quick glance at Google will show that the books are doing very well, being on the first or second pages of Google for a good choice of keywords. For example "Principles of ECE volumes one and two" and "Criticisms of the Einstein Field Equation".There has never been any valid criticism of ECE and ECE2, and the new m theory. This is simply because the theories are based directly on the well known Cartan geometry. ECE and ECE2 are generally covariant unified field theories and are therefore also Lorentz covariant. In the S2 star the standard model is out by a factor ten and gives the wrong sign of precession. The dogmatists are out on a limb, being locked into obsolescence. I am beginning to write the third volume of my autobiography, and that will expose all the early attacks as being due to the well known propensity of obscure mediocrities to attack new ideas in a mindless way.

418(5): A Summary of the New Classical Dynamics in m Space To: Myron Evans <myronevans123>

It is elegant and succinct – just as Einstein may have suspected was possible. His (or his not) well known equation now extended into the Evans/Horst equation can lie at the heart of this new physics for a long time to come.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.

418(6): The Einstein Energy Equation in m Space

418(6): The Einstein Energy Equation in m Space

This is equation (9) with E0 = m c squared. So the relativistic kinetic energy must be defined for consistency as:

T = E – m(r1) half E0

where E0 = m c squared. This result is rigorously consistent with Eq. (32) of Note 417(7), which defines the reduced hamiltonian. So E0 remains the same in m space, and is the energy associated with elementary mass. In my opinion Einstein inferred the relativistic linear momentum of special relativity from the relativistic law of conservation of linear momentum (Marion and Thornton chapter (14)) and must be credited with E = m c squared because this is a simple consequence of squaring the relativistic linear momentum as the attached shows. In my opinion the major contribution of Einstein was relativistic momentum of particles. The fact that all equations must be Lorentz covariant in special relativity was a discovery of Lorentz – the Lorentz covariance. This emerged from discussions with Fitzgerald and Heaviside on the Michelson Morley experiment. However, Einstein made it clear that Lorentz covariance means that all laws of physics must be Lorentz covariant in Minkowski space. This is the principle of relativity of Einstein. Note carefully that Cartan geometry is generally covariant and reduces to Lorentz covariance. So ECE, ECE2 and m theory are generally covariant and automatically reduce to Lorentz covariance.


The possibility of Counter Gravitation from m Theory

The fact that m theory may result in expanding orbits implies counter gravitation, and so m theory is capable of providing infinite vacuum energy, superluminal motion and counter gravitation, retrograde precession, shrinking orbits and in well defined limits a simple theory of all precessions, delta phi = omega T, where omega is the angular velocity of frame rotation due to torsion, and T the time taken for any orbit. It can also give light deflection due to gravitation, geodedic and Lense Thirring precession, Thomas precession, equinoctial precession, and in general any observable precession. The m theory gives a new insight to the gyroscope. It can also explain the radiative corrections as being due to the nature of spherical spacetime itself, and explain the origin of the spin connection in terms of the nature of spherical spacetime. A new textbook of classical dynamics could be written in terms of m theory, and supercomputer simulations of classical dynamics coded in terms of m theory. The Lorentz transform is replaced by a transform based on the new generalized Lorentz factor, and the entire theory is a generally covariant unified field theory. A new subject of classical electrodynamics can be developed in the general spherical spacetime, and a new subject of quantum mechanics can be developed. The Higgs boson is already obsolete and is replaced by the vacuum particle. The m theory is startlingly powerful, and gives entirely unexpected new physics. The role of computation by co author Horst Eckardt is of central importance, and he produces many original insights of his own. So he has a complete mastery of the ECE theory. Others in AIAS / UPITEC also have a mastery of the subject. Entirely new equations of motion have been derived, both from the hamiltonian and lagrangian methods. The hamiltonian method is the basis of quantum mechanics, for example, and the lagrangian method is the basis for quantum field theory. Nuclear and particle theory can also be developed with m theory. There has been a very large amount of checking work, both numerically and analytically, so there is essentially international confidence in the theory. The way in which research results are published has changed completely, the website method makes journals obsolete. The refereeing system has been greatly improved. For each new paper there are thousands of referees, the intelligent readership. Anonymity can no longer destroy original ideas that dogmatists don’t like.