Spin Connection for Light Deflection due to Gravitation

Spin Connection for Light Deflection due to Gravitation

This is intended as a preliminary calculation for this topic, and shows that for light deflection the vacuum fluctuation is at a maximum. Another approach would be to solve Eq. (6) numerically for the spin connection. I will now proceed to write up UFT406.

a406thpapernotes6.pdf

Advertisements

Table of precessions

Many thanks, these data look to be right, For the three inner planets the total precession is larger than the part attributed to Einstein by a factor of about ten or more. For the outer planets this factor becomes much larger, so the correction of the influence of other planets has to be accurate to one part in a million, so the entire experiment becomes meaningless.

Table of precessions

Many thanks, the first column is correct, the second column should be about half of the values in the first column (see Eq. (25) of Note 406(3)), i.e. the geodetic precession is 3 pi MG / (c squared a), so the second column is right also. I agree that there is a factor 1/2 missing in the Lense Thirring formula so the values in the third column should be halved. So the LT contribution is negligible and the standard model gives a theoretical result which is much larger than the claimed experimental result. In other words the standard model itself must always give the sum of an Einstein precession and a geodetic precession, and a small LT precession. I agree of course that the standard model has been completely refuted, it is used here to show that even within its own terms of reference it is completely wrong, because the standard model neglects the geodetic and LT precessions of planets and gives only the Einstein precession of planets. The experimental claim is also very dubious as you know because the effects of other planets are calculated with a Newtonian method. strictly speaking the gravitomagnetic method was used to calculate LT, the stadnard method would give about the same, negligible, result.

Table of precessions
To: Myron Evans <myronevans123>

I computed the three precessions according to note 404(4). I am not sure if the Lense-Thirring precession is correct. You used the factor 2/5. Is there contained the factor 1/2 from

Delts_phi_LT = 1/2 Omega * t ?

For t I used one earth year. Or must this be related to one planetary year first? In the formula the factor t seems to be missing. For omega and R I used rotational frequency and radius of the sun. r is the average distance of every planetary orbit.

All values of the table are in radians per earth year, please check the entries where we already had values available.
A question concerning interpretation: if the Einstein values are void, why adding all three values in the table? Shouldn’t only the geodetic and Lense-Thirring precession be relevant?

Horst

406(4): Criticisms of Standard Model Precession Theory

Many thanks,there is currently a surge of intense international interest as the Einstein theory disintegrates, to be replaced by ECE2.

Date: Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 3:01 PM
Subject: Re: 406(4): Criticisms of Standard Model Precession Theory
To: Myron Evans <myronevans123>

The calculated values are o.k. I will prepare a table with all three precessions for the planets.

Horst

Am 25.04.2018 um 12:08 schrieb Myron Evans:

This note summarizes some severe criticisms of standard precession theory and brings into question the very existence of Einsteinian, geodetic and Lense Thirring precessions. The only thing that can ever be observed in astronomy is their sum. So I propose abandoning the ideas of the standard model and to express all precessions in terms of vacuum fluctuations as in Eq. (19). It is worth drawing up a table for all the planets, a table that gives the separate contributions (20) to (22) and their sum. This sum is always greater than the Einsteinian component. The standard model of planetary precession ignores the geodetic and Lense Thirring contributions of the standard model itself and attributes everything to the Einsteinian component. There are so many fallacies and basic errors in the Einstein theory that it should be abandoned completely in favour of ECE theory.

406(4).pdf

406(4): Criticisms of Standard Model Precession Theory

This note summarizes some severe criticisms of standard precession theory and brings into question the very existence of Einsteinian, geodetic and Lense Thirring precessions. The only thing that can ever be observed in astronomy is their sum. So I propose abandoning the ideas of the standard model and to express all precessions in terms of vacuum fluctuations as in Eq. (19). It is worth drawing up a table for all the planets, a table that gives the separate contributions (20) to (22) and their sum. This sum is always greater than the Einsteinian component. The standard model of planetary precession ignores the geodetic and Lense Thirring contributions of the standard model itself and attributes everything to the Einsteinian component. There are so many fallacies and basic errors in the Einstein theory that it should be abandoned completely in favour of ECE theory.

a406thpapernotes4.pdf

Derivation of Planetary Geodetic Precession

This note gives another straightforward refutation of Einsteinian general relativity, showing that the precession predicted by EGR must be the sum of the Einsteinian, geodetic and Lense Thirring precessions. This sum is more than fifty percent larger than the experimental claims for Mercury, Venus and Earth. The experimental claims are also very dubious in the solar system as argued by Miles Mathis and ourselves, and by many others for more than a century. The precessional method can only be applied in a clean system of one m orbiting one M, and the results interpreted in terms of vacuum fluctuations. The true theoretical result of the standard model itself should be Eq. (25), and this can be tabulated for all the planets using Maxima. I think that rational members of the ECE school in leading universities around the world will forget about EGR and develop other avenues of thought. The dogmatists will ignore the refutations and ask for more money from the taxpayer and more student fees. There is another way of considering the geodetic precession, and this will be developed next using ECE2 gravitomagnetism, developing UFT344 and UFT345.

a406thpapernotes3.pdf

Fwd: Note 406(2) : Final Version of Note 406(1)

Agreed, google "perihelion precession of the planets" and first site. Fitzgerald also gives details of the apsidal method, and this is a good site.
Note 406(2) : Final Version of Note 406(1)
To: Myron Evans <myronevans123>

ok, thanks, I now understand eq.(10). Since the eccentricities of all planets are given, you could multiply the result with a factor

(1 – epsilon_E) / (1 – epsilon_p)

but this factor is nearly unity because epsilon is quite small, except for Mercury and Pluto. I can set up tables 1 and 2 with the latest data of M&T and the Farside site. Table 8.2 of M&T does not contain more data than table 7.2 of the 3rd edition.
The site farside.ph.utexas.edu is the home page of prof. Fitzpatrick. What is the exact location of the values you found there?

Horst

Am 23.04.2018 um 10:44 schrieb Myron Evans:

This is interesting, does the fourth edition contain the experimental EGR claim for all the planets? It would be interesting to find the most up to date comparisons for all the planets. Since EGR theory has been refuted in so many ways to the satisfaction of essentially all the colleagues, even exact agreement would not prove anything. As argued in note 406(1), the geodetic contribution from the obsolete EGR theory ITSELF has been completely left out of consideration. For Neptune, the Newtonian contribution to the observed precession is over a million times the EGR contribution and would have to have been removed very precisely to one part in a million, if the experiment is to mean anything at all. Newtonian methods are used to remove it, so EGR is not used to remove it. EGR is applied to less than one part in a million of the observed precession, and this is completely absurd. This argument has also been used by Miles Mathis as you know. To answer your points:

Eq. (10) comes from Eq. (6). Define A := 6 pi MG / ( c squared) , assume eps squared about zero. Then delta phi = A / a. In reduced units a sub E = 1, so

delta phi (planet ) = delta phi (earth) / a sub p.

The precession in Eq. (6) is for a rotation of 2 pi. For mercury for example this 2 pi takes 88 days. It must be adjusted to 365 days to give it in terms of the earth year of 365 days. For Mercury this is about 44 arcseconds per EARTH century. This is never made clear in the literature. So the precession per earth year (delta phi sub p) in eq. (10) is the precession per Mercury year multiplied by I / T= 365 / 88 where T is 0.2408. So combining the two adjustments we obtain Eq. (10). This is applied to Mercury in Eq. (12) and to Venus in Eq. (12b), giving the correct results in both cases. Finally, the total observed precessions are taken from the Fitzgerald site www.farside.ph.utexa.edu. For Neptune, the actually observed precession in radians per earth year is 1.76 ten power minus five. Eq. (6) gives 3.76 ten power minus eleven radians per earth year. Essentially all of the precession is explained in standard astronomy with Newtonian methods. In the most up to date research they use computer based perturbation theory and N body theory, Monte Carlo methods and so on. The observed precession of Neptune is more than a million times larger than that given by Eq. (6). This is not exactly "precise agreement" with EGR theory. Nearly all of the experimentally observed precession is attributed to the influence of objects other than the sun, and removed with supercomputers using Newtonian methods, and not by relativistic methods. What is left after that is attributed to the EGR contribution. However, i have not been able to find this experimental EGR contribution. It might be in some astronomy library. I cannot find it using Google.

Fwd: Note 406(2) : Final Version of Note 406(1)

Obviously Marion & Thornton used slightly different values for table 7.1 (for Jupiter onwards) which is table 8.1 in the 4th edition.
Where did you get eq.(10)? Did you base this on eq.(6)? And why can you use astronomical units here instead of SI units?
What is Total Delta phi (obs.) in table 2?

Horst

Am 22.04.2018 um 13:53 schrieb Myron Evans:

Note 406(2) : Final Version of Note 406(1)

This note extends the calculations of Note 406(1) and produces Table 1, which shows that the perihelion precessions of Venus and Earth are not described precisely by EGR. This is in fact well known, but covered up. In the standard literature they refer to this as an "anomaly", a polite word for a disaster. I give some planetary data in Table 2, and give the theoretical EGR precessions of all the planets in Table 3. In this table the total observed precessions are given, following farside.ph.utexas.edu. It is seen that the part attributed to EGR is a small fraction of the total. For a planet such as Neptune the part attributed to EGR is six orders of magnitude smaller than the total. In other words, the only observable data give a precession that is a million times larger than what is being sought. In Mercury it is over a hundred times larger as is in fact well known. This inconvenience is removed by a Newtonian theory, essentially still the same method as used in the nineteenth century, but made more precise with computers. So in describing the overwhelming majority of the precession, EGR is not used at all. So the standard physics cannot have much confidence in EGR after all. MIles Mathis in his book tears the procedure to shreds. By now, no one has any confidence in standard physics, and everyone avidly reads ECE2 in the safety of their homes, or secretly in the offices of all major universities of note. In the obsolete physics the overwhelming majority of the precession is extracted with Newtonian physics. This is a farcical way of testing a theory whose geometry is completely wrong. In addition the geodetic precession of the planets is not even considered. Despite the double dippy data reduction about $70 million dollars was spent on Gravity Probe B, which entirely neglected the EGR contribution, reporting only the geodetic and Lense Thirring contributions in a very mysterious way. They seemed to have assumed that EGR or Newtonian gravitation in the limit of EGR have no effect on their gyroscopes. In the old theory the EGR contribution is essentially the obsolete Schwarzschild line element and the geodetic contribution is the rotated Schwarzschild line element. The Thomas precession is the rotated Minkowski line element in the old theory. In ECE2 all these ancient mariners are discarded, the whole lot, and replaced by a theory based on vacuum fluctuations. I have not been able to find the experimental claims for EGR for Mars to Pluto, because I have no easy access to a library. However they may exist in the astronomy data and the ephemeris libraries, or they may never have been worked out. A reader with access to a library could maybe find them, but even if found, are meaningless. In UFT344 an entirely new explanation of the geodetic precession was given using ECE2 gravitomagnetic theory, and in UFT119 the gravitomagnetic theory was used to explain the equinoctial precession in a much simpler way that than the standard model.. So in the next note I will apply UFT345, then proceed to the equinoctial precession. More or less all the seven hundred ECE papers and books are classics, so we have an intellectual right to dissolve Parliament as did Cromwell in 1653. Cromwell used force, we use Baconian logic. We will not imprison the Levellers, but encourage them to learn, I advise people to enjoy reading the theory. If they see something wrong please do not hesitate to send an e mail. Our checking procedures are rigorous but something may have slipped through.

Advertisements