Velocity Curve of a Whirlpool Galaxy in m Theory

November 17, 2018

In m theory, the question can be asked as to what is the most general orbit that is capable of giving a constant velocity as r goes to infinity. This question can be answered with precision using computer algebra, but I have completed a few hand calculations and in a given approximation the type of spiral galaxy is governed by m(r), so this explains the shapes of various galaxies for example. This is a particularly vivid illustration of m(r) because it can be observed with a large telescope by observing galaxies. I will finish my calculations in this subject and distribute the notes tomorrow. The shape of galaxies is determined by the type of spherical spacetime in which they have evolved. This is a vivid example of applying m(r) theory where both Einstein and Newton fail completely. As in PECE, volumes one and two they both give v dropping off to zero with r, whereas observations show that v reaches a plateau as r goes to infinity. The astronomer who first observed this was ostracized and ridiculed but is now famous. Same old story (SOS) about human nature. In New York they have a variation on SOS which cannot be mentioned here.

Book of Scientometrics Volume Two Updated to 15/11/18

November 17, 2018

There was the usual intense, high quality and steady interest from leading universities, institutes and similar worldwide.

BSlatestnovember1-152018.PDF

419(4): The Three Kepler Laws in m Theory

November 17, 2018

Thanks again. The rigorous expression is Eq. (22), which is integrated over dA, where dA is the infinitesimal of the area of the orbit A. So in Eq. (27) A was assumed to be a function of r. This gives Eq. (30). In general the functional dependence of A on r is needed. For the ellipse A = pi ab, where a and b are the semi major and minor axes of the ellipse. These have no functional dependence on r, so the area of the elliptical orbit is constant. If the area of the orbit of S2 is nearly an ellipse, as m theory and observations show, then Eq. (33) follows. However the easier way of proceeding would be to use the astronomically measured r and v at closest approach as initial conditions, the astronomically measured T, and the optimized mass M that you derived. Then compute the orbit of S2. The computation would show immediately whether the orbit is Einsteinian. If it were Einsteinian the precession should be delta phi = 6 pi MG / (a (1 – eps squared)) c squared), where eps is the astronomically measured ellipticity.

419(4): The Three Kepler Laws in m Theory

It is not fully clear to me how you obtained the result (33). In the integral (30) you assumed a constant A. I would argue that in (22) the integrand gamma/m(r) is assumed to be a constant average value. Then it can be pulled out of the integral. Writing r-dependent functions in (33) and (35) does not make much sense for me. Whatsoerver, the result is plausible.

Horst

Am 15.11.2018 um 11:59 schrieb Myron Evans:

419(4): The Three Kepler Laws in m Theory

The three famous Kepler laws are given in this Note for m theory. Kepler’s first law is that an orbit is an ellipse. This is changed completely using Eqs. (1) and (2), giving forward and retrograde precession, shrinking and expanding orbits and so on. Of particular interest is Kepler’s third law, Eq. (22), because the last note made the major discovery that the Newton theory in S2 is wildly wrong. In the m theory the central mass about which the S2 orbits is not a black hole, it is given by Eq. (35). By using Eq. (33) it is possible to find the time T for one orbit self consistently. Currently co author Horst Eckardt is working towards the same goal using a different method.

Fwd: 419(4): The Three Kepler Laws in m Theory – effective mass of S2 star

November 17, 2018

This is very interesting, it means that the orbit is nearly that with m(r) = 1, i.e. m(r) = 0.9877. If so it is not Einsteinian. The Einstein theory produces a precession of 0.218 degrees per S2 orbit. However the astronomers have not observed any precession of S2. A few theoreticians have use R power n theory and Yukawa theory to produce enormous retrograde and forward precessions respectively, but the m theory shows that those precessions cannot be true. The claim that S2 verifies Einstein is a false claim. The orbit of S2 is not Einsteinian. This can be shown using m(r) = 0.9877 and computing the precession from dH / dt = 0, dL / dt = 0 with the initial conditions from the latest data on its closest approach of 18th May 2018.

419(4): The Three Kepler Laws in m Theory – effective mass of S2 star

It is revealing that the Newtonian mass (36) of the S2 star, using the experimental values T and a, is exactly

8.572 e36 kg,

this is given so in the experimental data, i.e. derived from Newtonian theory. Now we can be quite sure that the discrepancy between orbit period calculation and exp. value is from this assumption. To obtain the right orbit period, we have to use an effective mass which is 8.3627 e36 kg. As the calculations have been shown, the gamma factor is 1.0005 in maximum, i.e. the average m function must be

m ~ sqrt(M_eff / M_Newton) = sqrt (8.3627 / 8.572) = 0.9877.

Horst

Am 16.11.2018 um 06:28 schrieb Myron Evans:

419(4): The Three Kepler Laws in m Theory

Many thanks! The orbital parameters M, a, and r and v at closest approach completely violate Kepler’s third law for the S2 star, so the m theory applied to the Kepler laws is the only theory that could attempt to explain the orbit. The parameters M , a and epsilon given in Wikipedia should result in an Einsteinian precession of 0.218 degrees per S2 orbit, but this has not been observed, so the Einstein theory is also completely refuted. This leaves the m theory as the only theory of S2.
419(4): The Three Kepler Laws in m Theory

Great achievements again!

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.

19(4): The Three Kepler Laws in m Theory

The three famous Kepler laws are given in this Note for m theory. Kepler’s first law is that an orbit is an ellipse. This is changed completely using Eqs. (1) and (2), giving forward and retrograde precession, shrinking and expanding orbits and so on. Of particular interest is Kepler’s third law, Eq. (22), because the last note made the major discovery that the Newton theory in S2 is wildly wrong. In the m theory the central mass about which the S2 orbits is not a black hole, it is given by Eq. (35). By using Eq. (33) it is possible to find the time T for one orbit self consistently. Currently co author Horst Eckardt is working towards the same goal using a different method.

Illegal Parking in Mawr

November 16, 2018

I would like to draw the attention of the traffic department of Swansea County Council to the fact that there has been illegal parking in Mawr since cars were invented. It is illegal to park on pavements in Wales unless there are signs that specifically allow it, and Swansea County Council is tightening up the enforcement of these laws. There are no such signs in Mawr, and there are no traffic wardens in Mawr. My CCTV system has captured thousands of violations, especially around the junction of Mountain Road and Rhyddwen Road. I have overwhelming CCTV evidence of cars parking too close to the junction and on pavements. This is anti social behaviour because it endangers pedestrians and inhibits the view of drivers. Double yellow lines are needed throughout Mawr. The Government is considering the introduction of £70 fines for each pavement parking offence. I keep my car off the road and have never been fined for any parking offence. The authorities in Mawr have simply let the situation deteriorate to the point where the village is jammed with large cars. The language has been allowed to become essentially extinct. This is completely irresponsible. Parking areas are needed to take cars off the road, and the number of cars per family must be reduced. In the fifties the coal miners walked to work and there were only a few, small cars. I would like to see a Councillor doing a shift underground. The Council says that this is a matter for the police, and the police say that it is a matter for the Council. As a Welsh speaking descendant of the Princes (Uchelwr or Nobleman) I say that it is the responsibility of both. Cardiff has a police of naming and shaming repeat offenders, so I have gathered all the evidence on my CCTV system.

Dr. M. W. Evans, Uchelwr, Squire or Armiger, Civil List Pensioner, D.Sc., Ph. D., B. Sc. (Wales)

cc Police Commissioner South Wales

Results of central mass variation for S2 orbit

November 16, 2018

This is exactly what is needed, everyone can then see what the orbit looks like, and whether or not it is ever Einsteinian. At present there is no experimental evidence that it is Einsteinian. The gravitational red shift can be produced from m theory with any m(r). I think that the latest value of r max is found from a – r0 on the Wikipedia site, which records data after 18th May 2018. There are two inputting groups, UCLA and the Max Planck Institute

Results of central mass variation for S2 orbit

A short hint: the curves have been obtained by solving the full relativistic equations of motion (with m(r)=1) for each M value. Precession is also an output but not shown. I will next vary the m function.
Is there a newer experimental value for the maximum radius? I think we had one found for UFT 375.

Horst

Am 16.11.2018 um 09:54 schrieb Myron Evans:

Results of central mass variation for S2 orbit

Many thanks. This is a clear and logical method of finding the optimal mass about which S2 orbits. The graphs show the dependence of T on M, the dependence of the eccentricity on M, and the dependence of rmax on M. They all show that the orbit is not Newtonian. I would suggest a computation of the orbit of S2 for the optimal mass M found with Horst’s method. This would be the rigorous computation from
dH / dt = 0

Finding the Optimal Mass and the Orbits of S2

November 16, 2018

Finding the Optimal Mass and the Orbits of S2

A method by Horst Eckardt has given a clear and logical method of finding the optimal mass. This will be reported in Section 3 of UFT419. Using the optimal mass the orbit of S2 can be found by solving dH / dt = 0 and dL / dt =0 simultaneously for the observed initial conditions of 18th May 2018: r0 = 1.7952 ten power 13 metres; v0 = 7.650 ten power 6 metres per second. Then using the optimal mass, the orbit can be computed for different m(r), to see if any m(r) gives the Einsteinian result of +0.218 degrees per orbit. Using various m(r), the above equations of motion can be used to find retrograde precession, forward precession, shrinking and expanding orbits. I realize that it may not be possible to produce precise results, but qualitative results will suffice to demonstrate what is possible. This methodology can be used with any orbit. The rigorously relativistic dH / dt = 0 and dL / dt = 0 can be used. For m(r) = 1 the numerical method should produce an ellipse in the Newtonian limit v << c. The gravitational red shift used in the standard model is found from m theory using m(r) = 1 – r0 / r. However, in m theory any function with the numerical value of 1 – r0 / r for a given r will produce the gravitational red shift claimed to have been observed. This is very interesting work. I can see that there is already a lot of interest in UFT416 and UFT 417, and we know that there is always intense international interest in our work. I will press on with the Cartesian formulation of m theory.

Orbit of S2

November 16, 2018

Many thanks, agreed. The orbit is 9% different from Newtonian, and the large precession of S2 predicted by Einstein is of course non Newtonian.

I computed the Keplerian law

with experimental a and M. The result is

T= 14.55 years

compared to the experimental T=16.05 years. There is 9% difference. Using the M value of eq.(3) of the note (with experimental v) gives

T = 14.71 years

which is not much more.

Horst

Am 14.11.2018 um 10:10 schrieb Myron Evans:

419(3): Suggested Self Consistent Procedure

The diametric self inconsistency in the standard model analysis of the S2 star is explained in this note, in that they used a Newtonian method for estimating M and claimed that this verifies black hole theory. In other words they assumed a static ellipse and claims that this verifies EGR, which gives a precessing ellipse. This is total nonsense. So I suggest integrating the m theory equations (17) and (18) with the suggestions (1) to (3) on page three. This should show whether the S2 orbit is Newtonian, or precessing.

419(3).pdf

m theory of the Kepler Laws

November 16, 2018

Many thanks! The orbital parameters M, a, and T completely violate  Kepler’s third law for the S2 star, so the m theory applied to the Kepler laws is the only theory that could attempt to explain the orbit. The parameters M , a and epsilon given in Wikipedia should result in an Einsteinian precession of 0.218 degrees per S2 orbit, but this has not been observed, so the Einstein theory is also completely refuted. This leaves the m theory as the only theory of S2.
419(4): The Three Kepler Laws in m Theory

Great achievements again!

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.

419(4): The Three Kepler Laws in m Theory

The three famous Kepler laws are given in this Note for m theory. Kepler’s first law is that an orbit is an ellipse. This is changed completely using Eqs. (1) and (2), giving forward and retrograde precession, shrinking and expanding orbits and so on. Of particular interest is Kepler’s third law, Eq. (22), because the last note made the major discovery that the Newton theory in S2 is wildly wrong. In the m theory the central mass about which the S2 orbits is not a black hole, it is given by Eq. (35). By using Eq. (33) it is possible to find the time T for one orbit self consistently. Currently co author Horst Eckardt is working towards the same goal using a different method.

419(4): The Three Kepler Laws in m Theory

November 15, 2018

The three famous Kepler laws are given in this Note for m theory. Kepler’s first law is that an orbit is an ellipse. This is changed completely using Eqs. (1) and (2), giving forward and retrograde precession, shrinking and expanding orbits and so on. Of particular interest is Kepler’s third law, Eq. (22), because the last note made the major discovery that the Newton theory in S2 is wildly wrong. In the m theory the central mass about which the S2 orbits is not a black hole, it is given by Eq. (35). By using Eq. (33) it is possible to find the time T for one orbit self consistently. Currently co author Horst Eckardt is working towards the same goal using a different method.

a419thpapernotes4.pdf

419(3): Suggested Self Consistent Procedure

November 15, 2018

This looks most promising. Kepler’s third law used with the Wikipedia data for S2 shows that the orbit of S2 is completely non Newtonian, as shown yesterday using a hand calculator (Note 419(3)). EGR is only a small correction to Newton, and the astronomers do not know the precession experimentally. So your computation will be world leading because everyone in the world of astronomy and cosmology is studying S2 now. It went through closest approach on 18th May 2018. First of all we should make sure that my calculation using the third law of Kepler is correct. It is very simple so there is nothing to go wrong, but we may as well check, and no one can challenge the fact that the standard model has crashed spectacularly into the trees on its downhill run. It is certainly going downhill. If so we have discovered another wild inconsistency in the standard model. This adds to our collection of refutations.

419(3): Suggested Self Consistent Procedure

In UFT 375 I varied initial velocity v_0 to obtain the right orbit period. Now let’s assume that the experimental values (21,22) are precise enough. Then I see two methods of finding the right orbit:
1) vary the central mass M
2) vary the function m(r) as described in the note.

I will try this tomorrow.

Horst

Am 14.11.2018 um 10:10 schrieb Myron Evans:

419(3): Suggested Self Consistent Procedure

The diametric self inconsistency in the standard model analysis of the S2 star is explained in this note, in that they used a Newtonian method for estimating M and claimed that this verifies black hole theory. In other words they assumed a static ellipse and claims that this verifies EGR, which gives a precessing ellipse. This is total nonsense. So I suggest integrating the m theory equations (17) and (18) with the suggestions (1) to (3) on page three. This should show whether the S2 orbit is Newtonian, or precessing.

Note 419(2) checked

November 15, 2018

OK many thanks!

Note 419(2) checked

I checked the calculations, all is o.k.

Horst

419(2).pdf

S2 Star Newtonian Theory

November 14, 2018

Kepler’s third law from Marion and Thornton is

T squared = 4 pi squared a cubed / (MG)

where T is the time taken for m to orbit M, a is the semi major axis and G is the gravitational constant. The data on Wikipedia for the S2 star are

T = 16.0518 years = 6.063 ten power 8 seconds
M = 8.572 ten power 36 kilograms
a = 1.451 ten power 14 metres
G = 6.67408 ten power minus 11 m cubed / s squared / kgm

These give T from the third law of Kepler of 4.59 ten power 8 seconds compared with the experimental T of 5.063 ten power 8 seconds.  Kepler’s third law must now be evaluated in m theory. I suspect that the estimate of M in the standard model is completely wrong. Obviously a Newtonian or Keplerian orbit cannot be used for S2.

Additional question to atronomers

November 14, 2018

This is an excellent idea, I can ask Kerry Pendergast first and then do a literature search. It should be easy to answer the question with Google.

Additional question to astronomers

Since we have a connection between rotating frames and m theory, it
would be interesting to know if the galactic centre Sagittarius A* is
self-rotating against the S2 ellipse. If yes, it is important to know
which angle the orbital plane of S2 has w.r.t. the rotation axis. If
this is nearly perpendicular, we could consider a rotating frame effect
that impacts orbital precession of S2. Both should be in the same direction.

Horst

419(3): Suggested Self Consistent Procedure

November 14, 2018

The diametric self inconsistency in the standard model analysis of the S2 star is explained in this note, in that they used a Newtonian method for estimating M and claimed that this verifies black hole theory. In other words they assumed a static ellipse and claims that this verifies EGR, which gives a precessing ellipse. This is total nonsense. So I suggest integrating the m theory equations (17) and (18) with the suggestions (1) to (3) on page three. This should show whether the S2 orbit is Newtonian, or precessing.

a419thpapernotes3.pdf

On the S2 Propaganda

November 13, 2018

I twigged the fact that the large central mass about which S2 orbits is estimated from the Newtonian theory by measuring v, a and r at closest approach. In this case m(r) is exactly one. If they have done this, as seems most probable, then they have tripped over a banana, because this method means no precession. The Einstein theory they are trying to hype means that there must by a huge precession. So all they have done is to use Newton to give a large central mass. That does not prove EGR at all, in fact they have fallen into a severe self contradiction. A self consistent analysis using m theory must aim at using an m function to give the central mass while at the same time producing a closed orbit. As we have seen today in a reply from Dr Zhakarov at the renowned Bogoliubov Laboratory in Dubna, there are no experimental data on the precession of the S2 star. There are only limited data which are claimed to produce a Keplerian or Newtonian ellipse. So the wikipedia propaganda is a grossly misleading shambles, it reads like something out of the Beano comic. In no way whatsoever does a static ellipse support Einsteinian general relativity.

Request for Data on the S2 Star

November 13, 2018

Many thanks, I will look up the data.

On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 9:12 AM <dusborka> wrote:

Dear prof. Evans,

we are theoreticians and we have no astronomical observations. We used
data obtained by New Technology Telescope/Very Large Telescope (NTT/VLT),
as well as by Keck telescope, which are publicly available as the
supplementary on-line data to the electronic version of the paper (S.
Gillessen, F. Eisenhauer, T. Fritz, H. Bartko, K. Dodds-Eden et al., The
orbit of the star S2 around SgrA* from VLT and Keck data, Astrophys. J.
707 (2009) L114 [arXiv:0910.3069]).

Probably, groups of prof. S. Gillessen and prof. A. Ghez now have a more
accurate data of observations of S2 star.

Best regards,
Dusko Borka.

> Drs. D. Borka and A. F. Zakharov,
>
> We are interested in
> your papers on the S2 star using R power n and Yukawa models of
> gravitation. We have recently developed a theory (www.aias.us) in which
> retrograde precession and forward precession are described. Do you have an
> accurate data bank on the S2 star defining its orbit precisely, or do you
> know where such a data bank can be found? I find from your interesting
> papers that the orbit is almost Newtonian or Keplerian, but the prospect
> of
> negative precession is very important because it would refute general
> relativity experimentally. Essentially we need data to define the initial
> conditions for a numerical integration of equations of motion defined by m
> theory, which is the development of physics in the most general
> spherically
> symmetric spacetime. As can be seen from the latest UFT papers on
> www.aias.us the m theory can produce forward and retrograde precession and
> shrinking orbits. It can also produce superluminal signalling, potential
> energy from the m(r) function of m space, the possibility of counter
> gravitation, and much more. The m(r) function could be related to the
> functions used in your own theory. We have also applied our theory to the
> velocity curve of a whirlpool galaxy.
>
> Cordially Yours,
>
> Myron Evans
>
> (Dr. M. Evans, www.aias.us)
>

The Gravitational Red Shift in m Theory

November 13, 2018

This is lambda sub infinity / lambda sub c = 1 / m(r) power half. It is claimed in the literature about S2 that m(r) = 1 – r0 / r, but if this function gives no bound states, another m(r) must be used that gives all the data self consistently.

m Theory of Light Deflection due to Gravitation

November 13, 2018

The m theory gives the light deflection in terms of m(r) in Eq. (47). In the limit m(r) goes to one the famous formula (49) is recovered. As argued in the classic papers UFT150 to UFT155, Einstein got the right result but in a hugely elaborate and mysterious way using m(r) = 1 – r0 / r. In contrast m theory is far simpler, gives an elegant result and completely refutes EGR in yet another way. Any slight deviations form the well observed Eq. (49) can be explained in terms of an m(r). This plays a role similar to something like the Debye relaxation time in dielectrics, it is characteristic of any given experiment in astronomy. The Debye correlation time characterizes any dipolar molecule in dielectrics.

a419thpapernotes2.pdf

m theory in cartesian coordinates

November 13, 2018

Good point!
m theory in cartesian coordinates

Ok, the time derivative of m then has to be replaced by a total differential:

dm/dt = partial m/partial X * DX/dt + partial m/partial Y * dY/dt.

Horst

Von meinem Samsung Gerät gesendet.

Orbit of the S2 Star with various m(r)

November 13, 2018

Refutation of EGR with the orbit of the S2 Star

I have done a new literature search using Google keywords “distance of closest approach of S2 star” and the results vary a lot. The uncertainties in the wikipedia data are not given at all. In view of this poor quality of data in wikipedia I suggest the following:

1) Use the EGR m function as a baseline calculation, with v = 7.650 ten power 6 metres per second and r = 1.7952 ten power 13 metres. Compute the orbit to see if there are bound states. In this case we know that the precession should be 0.218 degrees per S2 orbit because this is the result of EGR, in which m(r) = 1 – r0 / r.
2) If the above computation does not give bound states then EGR is refuted. That is no problem for m theory.

3) Repeat the computation with various m(r) functions until an orbit is obtained from the computation and plot the precessing orbit for various m(r).
4) By adjusting m(r) look for the very large retrograde precession claimed by R power n theory and the very large forward precession claimed by Yukawa theory. The standard modellers seem to claim that the S2 orbit is Keplerian, with no precession, but their own EGR gives a forward precession of 0.218 degrees per S2 orbit. The propagandist literature is therefore wildly self contradictory and we should aim to bring some method into this shambles.
5) Use various m(r) functions to compute the gravitational red shift. The standard modellers appear to claim that the gravitational red shift is given by m(r) = 1 – r0 / r. Again they do not give uncertainties in the data. If they claim that EGR describes the gravitational red shift, then the orbit of S2 cannot be Keplerian, EGR predicts that it must precess by +0.218 degrees per orbit, and cannot be Keplerian, Q. E. D.

Your computation is of key importance, and for the first time we can use a variable m(r) to see how the orbit is affected.

From Einstein theory we obtain

m(r) = 1 – r0/r

where

r0 = 2 M G/c^2

is the Schwarzschild radius. This gives

m(r_min) = 0.9993.

However, there is a much more severe problem: With the new initial
conditions:

r[min] = 1.7952e13 m
v(r[min]) = 7.650e6 m/s

there are no bound states in the calculation. Either the velocity or the
radius is too large. In UFT 375 I used

r[min] = 1.66618 e 13 m
v(r[min]) = 7.7529648 e 6 m/s

The minimum radius was significantly smaller. The orbit time sensitively
depends on this.

Horst

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

November 13, 2018

This computation will be of great use to the astronomers. I used a = 1.451 ten power 14 metres for the semi major axis (Wikipedia data). The closest approach is r min = 1.7952 ten power 13 metres, so the r max is a – r min. The same wikipedia article gives the mass of the S2 star as 10 to 15 solar masses. One solar mass = (1.98847 plus or minus 0.00007) ten power thirty kilograms.

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

PS: the mass of the S2 star is still missing, this is only used for angular momentum etc.

Horst

Am 12.11.2018 um 12:35 schrieb Myron Evans:

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

Many thanks a very interesting result because the orbit of the S2 star can be explained exactly with this value of m(r). Are the values of v and r at closest approach sufficient for a numerical integration to produce the precessing orbit of m theory? That will give the astronomers a much needed idea of the expected magnitude of the S2 precession, and will show whether EGR is anywhere near the truth or just totally wrong.

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

I evaluated the formulas. I used the latest value of the gravitational constant published in 2016 (see Wikipedia):
G = 6.67408(31) [SI units]

The precession values remain the same within 3-4 digits.
The ratio of v/c at r[min] is 2.55%, therefore relativistic effects are small.
The formula of m theory gives

m(r[min]) = 0.9895

For comparison, the value from the Newtonian velocity (eq.(1) of the note) gives

m(r[min]) = 0.999999

as expected. This is consistent with the fact that the ratio v/v_N is 98.9%. We do not know the experimental error.
If further velocity measurements are available, we would obtain more or less m=1, because the radius is larger there.

Horst

Am 11.11.2018 um 13:18 schrieb Myron Evans:

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.

m theory in cartesian coordinates

November 13, 2018

It is in principle possible to define the infinitesimal line element in any system of coordinates, we just use the well known transform between r and Cartesian. r squared = X squared + Y squared + Z squared. The rigorous method is to go through Carroll’s derivation of the infinitesimal line element for the most general spherically symmetric space, then set up the line element in Cartesians. In plane polars I should think that r squared = X squared + Y squared. As in your previous UFT paper using Cartesians, the computational task becomes considerably simpler. So this is a very good idea.

m theory in cartesian coordinates

So far we have used spherical coordinates because m(r) is a spherical
spacetime. The calculations for paper 375 I did with cartesian
coordinates, using the (simple) relativistic formula for these. The
evaluation I did in cartesian coordinates too, so I will start with this
version.
Concerning m theory, is it possible to extend it to a function m(X,Y,Z)
? I guess that this had to be derived from the line element in cartesian
coordinates. Then we had an alternative form of m(r); or we try to make
a generalization to arbitrary forms/coordinate dependences of m. This
would have to be compatible to the handling of line elements in Carroll,
I do not know if it is possible.

Horst

The Rake’s Progress

November 12, 2018

This is a painting by Hogarth which we studied at Pontardawe Grammar School, a painting of a dissolute drunkard dissolved in alcohol, an apt metaphor for the fruitcake bile generating site that has stolen about two thousand five hundred postings from my blog. Semrush shows that interest in fruitcake is currently zero in the United States, down 100%, and one in Britain, down 50%. It has recently been voted the most boring site in the world and has been subjected to a high level police investigation started by the Police Commissioner for South Wales. WordPress has removed some postings and under DMCA must remove all postings by law. This is a vicious hate site, and typical of the anarchic state of the internet. This is why no one reads it, it is so repulsive. “Ambition is the last refuge of the failure” (Oscar Wilde). The rake’s progress ended in the gutter.

Simplest ECE2 Theory of Precessions

November 12, 2018

This is delta phi = plus or minus omega T in frame rotation theory. Here omega is the angular velocity of the frame rotation and T is the time taken for an orbit. Forward and retrograde precessions can be described in this way and omega can be related to the m(r) function of m theory. Any observable precession can be described easily in this way. EGR fails completely to describe retrograde precession. The EGR dogmatists and its propaganda outlet, Wikipedia, are clearly obsolete, there are at least three other theories of gravitation, ECE2 and its m theory; R power n gravitation and Yukawa gravitation, probably many more. ECE and ECE2 is by far the most developed. In the first few days of November 2018, 3352 documents have already been downloaded from www.aias.us. It is particularly interesting to study the attached webalizer file for those with username and password. It contains a list of all 3,352 items found by going to “Top 100 of 3352 Total URL’s” and clicking on the small item “view all URL’s” at the foot of this table. The entire www.aias.us has been downloaded four or five times in the first few days of November. This interest defies all adjectives, it is equivalent to the energy in E = m c squared. In other words there is a tremendous impact because there are over three thousand items and tens of millions of readers. This impact has been built up during my time as Civil List Pensioner, 2005 to present. I am appointed directly by the British Head of State, Elizabeth II, and I am not an academic. At AIAS / UPITEC we have devised a new and detailed measure of impact. All indicators have shown a vast amount of interest over eighteen years. The blog www.drmyronevans.wordpress.com was established first, in 2000 by Bob Gray of Biophan Inc., followed by www.aias.us in 2002, and www.upitec.org. They are all archived on the Wayback Machine, www.archive.org.

www.aias.us/new_stats/

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

November 11, 2018

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 Yukawa 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.

a419thpapernotes1.pdf

Clean Data for Precession

November 11, 2018

The S2 star offers a clean source of data for precession, the influence of other objects being insignificant. EGR predicts that its precession should be a very large 4,896 arc seconds per earth century. These peculiar units are used in order to be able to compare directly with the famous 43 arc seconds per earth century for Mercury in the solar system. However, my analysis yesterday of the data from the 18th May 2018 closest approach of S2 to the central mass shows very clearly that the orbit of S2 deviates only slightly from Newtonian (an ellipse with no precession, or very tiny precession). Within the uncertainties it is Newtonian. The predictions of EGR are 0.218 degrees per S2 orbit, r power n gravitation gives a retrograde -1 degree per S2 orbit, and Yukawa gravitation gives +2 degrees per S2 orbit. In my analysis yesterday of the closest approach data of 18th May 2018 the orbit is essentially Newtonian within the noise, giving a precession of zero degrees plus or minus an unknown uncertainty. This means a precession of zero arcseconds per century compared with 4,896 arc seconds per century from EGR. So EGR collapses completely. r power n gravitration gives a retrograde minus 22,459 arc seconds per earth century compared with zero plus or minus something from my Newtonian analysis of the latest data. Yukawa gravitation gives plus 44,918 arc seconds per earth century. The m theory can be used to explain the difference between v squared and MG(2 / r – 1 / a) in my analysis of yesterday. In the solar system, precession data are a mess, because the overwhelming majority of the precession is due to other planets. There can be no confidence in claims that solar system precessions support EGR, when it is known to have failed completely in whirlpool galaxies, and when it is widely known that its geometry is totally wrong. UFT88 is in fact the most widely read new paper on the second Bianchi identity (any reasonably wide ranging Google keywords will bring up UFT88 on the first or second pages of Google). When torsion is correctly considered, the second Bianchi identity and Einstein field equation change completely. So nothing can be deduced from the entirely erroneous Einstein field equation. By now this is widely known. Once knowledge comes out of the toothpaste tube, it cannot be put back again. The corrected second Bianchi identity is the Jacobi Cartan Evans identity which I derived in UFT313, also by now a classic paper. It is also widely known that Wikipedia made sordid personal attacks on myself. So Wikipedia is discarded as unscientific and in some parts defamatory. It may be in violation of the malicious communications act. So it is worthless.

Application of the Equations of Motion of m Theory to Orbits

November 11, 2018

Given the initial conditions, such as r and v at the closest approach of m to M, Horst can compute any orbit in terms of an m(r) function. The orbits from m theory can be compared directly with experimental data from Gaia or any source in astronomy for any orbit. I can also calculate the velocity curve of a whirlpool galaxy from m theory, and this will be done in UFT419. Recall that neither Newton nor Einstein can describe the velocity curve of a whirlpool galaxy. They fail completely. This is described in “Principles of ECE”, already a “best seller” and a classic, available on www.aias.us and www.upitec.org. It can be seen that EGR is now regarded by leading astronomers and cosmologists as only one out of several theories of gravitation, there is r power n gravitation, Yukawa gravitation and so on. I think that m theory is superior to all these theories because it is based directly on the most general spherically symmetric spacetime. Einsteinian general relativity (EGR) is an example of m theory with m(r) = 1 – r0 / r , where r0 is the obsolete Schwarzschild radius. EGR is constrained to this one function, while in the much more powerful m theory, m(r) can be any function. So as Thoikididis (Thucydides) wrote “I gnosi choris katatoisi ein etai tipota” , “Knowledge without understanding is nothing”.

Gaia

November 11, 2018

Many thanks again, Gaia can probably supply (r, v) data for orbits that are more precise than anything to date. We then systematically apply the Newtonian v squared = MG (2 / r – 1 / a) as I did yesterday for the S2 star. So we need r, v, the semimajor axis a and the mass M of the attracting object to the highest possible precision. Deviations from Newton will give an m(r) function for each orbit. Nobody has measured the precession of the S2 star experimentally to date. There have been non EGR theories combined with computer simulations which come up with precessions which vary from – 1 degree per S2 orbit to about +2 degrees per S2 orbit. These were described in UFT375. However as I showed yesterday the S2 orbit from the closest approach of 18th May 2018 is nearly Newtonian even though the EGR precession of 0.218 degrees per S2 orbit is two orders of magnitude larger than planetary precessions. The S2 orbit takes 16.0518 earth years to complete, so in terms of earth years, EGR predicts a precession of 0.0136 degrees per earth year. One degree = 3,600 arcseconds, so the S2 precession is 48.96 arcseconds a year = 4,896 arcseconds every earth century. This compares with 43 arcseconds per earth century for Mercury.

Subject: Gaia
To: Myron Evans <myronevans123>

Dear Myron,

The ESA probe Gaia is currently mapping the sky to unbelievable precision.

Kerry

On Saturday, 10 November 2018, Myron Evans <myronevans123> wrote:

I will study the references given in the article and have a look around google myself. This is no problem. As you know there are several ways in which m theory can be applied to the problem of precession and any orbit can be described by m theory given the astronomical data. The Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics would probably have a detailed data bank on S2, and I can try to e mail the authors of the paper which reports retrograde precession. Maybe Alex Hill and Doug Lindstrom are able to do a literature search. In the meantime I will press ahead with the application of m(r) theory to light deflection, the velocity curve of a whirlpool galaxy and so on. I agree that accurate data are needed for the S2 orbit, so that initial conditions for your computation can be defined. This would be an important application of m theory. Perhaps Kerry Pendergast knows how to consult a data bank on the S2 star or other systems in astronomy. It can be seen from the paper by Borka et al that the deviations from a Newtonian orbit are very small, but I agree that it is best to have good clean data obtained by observation.

Precession of the S2 Star

Many thanks for doing the literature search by yourself. We should indeed ask the AIAS members to do such work so that we are freed for other tasks. Are there references to articles not available over the internet?
There seem not to be direct measurements of the velocity of the S2 star at certain points of the orbit. This would be important to have reliable initial conditions for a calculation. Otherwise we have to use the Newtonian formula and adapt the value so that the orbital period comes out correctly. I think I did this for the Hulse-Taylor pulsar while some (not conforming) velocity values were known as far as I remember.

Horst

Am 10.11.2018 um 09:27 schrieb Myron Evans:

Precession of the S2 Star

I recalculated the precession using the Wikipedia data on S2 in SI units: Mass of the centre of the galaxy = 8.572 ten power 36 kilograms
Semi major axis = 1.451 ten power 14 metres
eccentricity = 0.88466

These give an EGR precession of 3.8037 radians per S2 orbit of 16.0518 earth years, which is 0.218 degrees per S2 orbit. These data are very similar to those used in UFT375, which gave a precession of 0.203 degrees per orbit. I then used Google keywords “precession of the S2 star” to find one of the many papers I used for UFT375: D. Borka et al. “Constraints on R sup n Gravity from Precession of Orbits of S2 Like Stars”. This paper reports a RETROGRADE precession of – 1 degree per S2 orbit. So EGR is out by a factor of about five and in the wrong direction. The authors come from the Vinca Institute, the University of Belgrade, Astronomical Observatory Belgrade, The Institute of Theoretical and Experimental Physics in Moscow, and the renowned Bogoliubov Laboratory in Dubna. They discard EGR in favour of R sup n theory and computer simulation. I worked with authors from the Bogoliubov Laboratory in the preparation of the award winning “Modern Nonlinear Optics”. So m theory can be applied to this problem in several ways. I agree with Horst that the AIAS Fellows could carry out google searches to see if they can find any experimental data on the S2 precession. Borka et al. report that the S2 orbit is non Keplerian. So EGR is completely refuted, as in the velocity curve of a whirlpool galaxy. There are nearly a hundred refutations of EGR in the UFT papers. There does not appear to be any objection to the paper by Borka et al. In fact this discards EGR completely. So the S2 star does not agree with EGR at all.

New Orbital Data Needed

November 11, 2018

Many thanks to Kerry! I think that we should concentrate attention on new data that show non EGR orbits and interpret them with m theory. Over the next few years I expect that many data will emerge to entirely disprove EGR. We are ready to interpret these data with m theory. I will write up my messages of yesterday as Note 419(1). What is needed are clean orbital data giving the observed orbital velocity at the observed distance r from m to M. These can be any kind of (r, v) data.

Precession of the S2 Star

Dear Myron,

Two space probes have colleted definitive information. The older probe is hipparcos.

Kerry

On Saturday, 10 November 2018, Myron Evans <myronevans123> wrote:

I will study the references given in the article and have a look around google myself. This is no problem. As you know there are several ways in which m theory can be applied to the problem of precession and any orbit can be described by m theory given the astronomical data. The Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics would probably have a detailed data bank on S2, and I can try to e mail the authors of the paper which reports retrograde precession. Maybe Alex Hill and Doug Lindstrom are able to do a literature search. In the meantime I will press ahead with the application of m(r) theory to light deflection, the velocity curve of a whirlpool galaxy and so on. I agree that accurate data are needed for the S2 orbit, so that initial conditions for your computation can be defined. This would be an important application of m theory. Perhaps Kerry Pendergast knows how to consult a data bank on the S2 star or other systems in astronomy. It can be seen from the paper by Borka et al that the deviations from a Newtonian orbit are very small, but I agree that it is best to have good clean data obtained by observation.

Precession of the S2 Star

Many thanks for doing the literature search by yourself. We should indeed ask the AIAS members to do such work so that we are freed for other tasks. Are there references to articles not available over the internet?
There seem not to be direct measurements of the velocity of the S2 star at certain points of the orbit. This would be important to have reliable initial conditions for a calculation. Otherwise we have to use the Newtonian formula and adapt the value so that the orbital period comes out correctly. I think I did this for the Hulse-Taylor pulsar while some (not conforming) velocity values were known as far as I remember.

Horst

Am 10.11.2018 um 09:27 schrieb Myron Evans:

Precession of the S2 Star

I recalculated the precession using the Wikipedia data on S2 in SI units: Mass of the centre of the galaxy = 8.572 ten power 36 kilograms
Semi major axis = 1.451 ten power 14 metres
eccentricity = 0.88466

These give an EGR precession of 3.8037 radians per S2 orbit of 16.0518 earth years, which is 0.218 degrees per S2 orbit. These data are very similar to those used in UFT375, which gave a precession of 0.203 degrees per orbit. I then used Google keywords “precession of the S2 star” to find one of the many papers I used for UFT375: D. Borka et al. “Constraints on R sup n Gravity from Precession of Orbits of S2 Like Stars”. This paper reports a RETROGRADE precession of – 1 degree per S2 orbit. So EGR is out by a factor of about five and in the wrong direction. The authors come from the Vinca Institute, the University of Belgrade, Astronomical Observatory Belgrade, The Institute of Theoretical and Experimental Physics in Moscow, and the renowned Bogoliubov Laboratory in Dubna. They discard EGR in favour of R sup n theory and computer simulation. I worked with authors from the Bogoliubov Laboratory in the preparation of the award winning “Modern Nonlinear Optics”. So m theory can be applied to this problem in several ways. I agree with Horst that the AIAS Fellows could carry out google searches to see if they can find any experimental data on the S2 precession. Borka et al. report that the S2 orbit is non Keplerian. So EGR is completely refuted, as in the velocity curve of a whirlpool galaxy. There are nearly a hundred refutations of EGR in the UFT papers. There does not appear to be any objection to the paper by Borka et al. In fact this discards EGR completely. So the S2 star does not agree with EGR at all.

EGR is Clearly refuted by S2

November 10, 2018

It is simple for anyone to see that EGR gives a forward precession of the S2 star of 0.208 degrees per S2 orbit around a heavy central mass. So if EGR is magically precise the experimentally measured precession must be close to 0.208 degrees. It is not. The astronomers report – 1 degree for one type of theory and up to +2 degrees for another. There is no clean astronomical measurement of the S2 precession. The close agreement with Newtonian theory which has just been demonstrated today for the S2 star means that the experimental precession is nowhere near 0.208 degrees per orbit. This is a huge precession compared with solar system data on planetary precession, typically of the order of arc seconds per earth century. The central mass is not a “black hole” because the geometry of the black hole theory is totally wrong. Droves of people read UFT88 and know that black hole theory is totally wrong. Wikipedia still rolls out the cobblers about S2 “proving” EGR. I would like to know just how. It tried the old political trick of removing me from history when I began to write the truth and tread on its gout.

Orbital Velocity from m(r)

November 10, 2018

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 M 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 the S2 star can ever 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

November 10, 2018

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

and

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.

Request for Data on the S2 Star

November 10, 2018

Drs. D. Borka and A. F. Zakharov,
We are interested in your papers on the S2 star using R power n and Yukawa models of gravitation. We have recently developed a theory (www.aias.us) in which retrograde precession and forward precession are described. Do you have an accurate data bank on the S2 star defining its orbit precisely, or do you know where such a data bank can be found? I find from your interesting papers that the orbit is almost Newtonian or Keplerian, but the prospect of negative precession is very important because it would refute general relativity experimentally. Essentially we need data to define the initial conditions for a numerical integration of equations of motion defined by m theory, which is the development of physics in the most general spherically symmetric spacetime. As can be seen from the latest UFT papers on www.aias.us the m theory can produce forward and retrograde precession and shrinking orbits. It can also produce superluminal signalling, potential energy from the m(r) function of m space, the possibility of counter gravitation, and much more. The m(r) function could be related to the functions used in your own theory. We have also applied our theory to the velocity curve of a whirlpool galaxy.

Cordially Yours,

Myron Evans

(Dr. M. Evans, www.aias.us)

Precession of the S2 Star

November 10, 2018

I recalculated the precession using the Wikipedia data on S2 in SI units:

Mass of the centre of the galaxy = 8.572 ten power 36 kilograms
Semi major axis = 1.451 ten power 14 metres
eccentricity = 0.88466

These give an EGR precession of 3.8037 radians per S2 orbit of 16.0518 earth years, which is 0.218 degrees per S2 orbit. These data are very similar to those used in UFT375, which gave a precession of 0.203 degrees per orbit. I then used Google keywords “precession of the S2 star” to find one of the many papers I used for UFT375: D. Borka et al. “Constraints on R sup n Gravity from Precession of Orbits of S2 Like Stars”. This paper reports a RETROGRADE precession of – 1 degree per S2 orbit. So EGR is out by a factor of about five and in the wrong direction. The authors come from the Vinca Institute, the University of Belgrade, Astronomical Observatory Belgrade, The Institute of Theoretical and Experimental Physics in Moscow, and the renowned Bogoliubov Laboratory in Dubna. They discard EGR in favour of R sup n theory and computer simulation. I worked with authors from the Bogoliubov Laboratory in the preparation of the award winning “Modern Nonlinear Optics”. So m theory can be applied to this problem in several ways. I agree with Horst that the AIAS Fellows could carry out google searches to see if they can find any experimental data on the S2 precession. Borka et al. report that the S2 orbit is non Keplerian. So EGR is completely refuted, as in the velocity curve of a whirlpool galaxy. There are nearly a hundred refutations of EGR in the UFT papers. There does not appear to be any objection to the paper by Borka et al. In fact this discards EGR completely. So the S2 star does not agree with EGR at all.

FOR POSTING: UFT418 Sections 1 and 2

November 9, 2018

This paper begins the systematic development of physics in m space, with the calculation of the relativistic kinetic energy, the Einstein energy equation and the potential energy from the work theorem. There are several demonstrations of rigorous self consistency of concepts and equations.

a418thpaper.pdf

a418thpapernotes1.pdf

a418thpapernotes2.pdf

a418thpapernotes3.pdf

a418thpapernotes4.pdf

a418thpapernotes5.pdf

a418thpapernotes6.pdf

a418thpapernotes7.pdf

a418thpapernotes8.pdf

UFT417 Making an Immediate Impact

November 9, 2018

UFT417 on infinite potential energy from m(r); superluminal signalling and travel; and counter gravitation, is making an immediate impact. This morning’s report shows that it has been read in the Fraunhofer Institute for Communication, Information Processing and Ergonomics, situated in Bonn. I will shortly write up UFT418. For those Institute members with username and password the relevant webalizer report is attached.

www.aias.us/new_stats/

Turbines Kill So Many Birds They’re Effectively an Apex Predator

November 9, 2018

I think that new legislation is needed to ban wind turbines completely. UNESCO or the United Nations and similar should consider this in view of the fact that LENR is just about to be commercialized, and the new m theory develops a completely new physics that opens up the possibility of infinite potential energy from the m(r) function of spherical space time.

S2 star: gravitational red shift and other

November 8, 2018

This is a very good idea. I also read that on paper has claimed good agreement with EGR, but I discarded this because of the data I used in UFT375 in SI units:

M = 7.956 ten power 36
G = 6.67408 ten power minus 11
c = 2.99792458 ten power 8
a = 1.4253 ten power 14
eps = 0.8831
T = 15.56 earth years

The EGR gives a precession of 3.540 ten power – 3 radians = 0.203 degrees per S2 orbit, which takes 15.56 earth years. It is mentioned in UFT375 that if the observed precession is 2 degrees it is ten times bigger than EGR. If it is -1 degree it is five times bigger and in the wrong direction. It would be very interesting to apply the m theory. We know that if m = 1 – r0 / r we get the EGR theory again, but we can use any m(r). In a well defined limit the precession is delta phi = omega T , where omega is the angular velocity of frame rotation and T the time for one orbit. We also know how to relate omega to m theory. Finally the red shift can also be calculated with m theory. So if anyone can do a literature search it would be a great help. After writing up UFT418 I can do a lit search myself, but I can only use Google. In Muenich there must be a good department of physics and astronomy with journals which would contain all the data. The red shift data, if accurate, are negated by the precession data.

: S2 star: graviational red shift and other
To: Myron Evans <myronevans123>

I read in an article that the gravitational red shift has been measured
the first time by light from the S2 star and is “a new confirmation of
Einstein’s theory of general relativity”. As far as I understand this it
must be the red shift produced by the galactic centre. Perhaps we should
describe the red shift by m theory in the current of one of the next papers.

Another proposition: concerning the astronomical data about S2, it seems
to be unclear if it has a forward or backward precession. Perhaps one of
the AIAS colleagues could do a literature study and look for the
following data and compile them in a table (including precise references):

orbital parameters:
eccentricity
half right latitude
semi major axis
minimum radius (at periastron),
maximum radius (at apastron)

velocities:
at periastron
at apastron

orbital period

orbital precession (related to one orbit, one earth year or whatever)

Only the eperimentally found data are of relevance, not data derived
from them.

Horst

Latest Version of volume three of my Autobiography

November 8, 2018

This is the latest version, going up to the end of the second semester at UNCC (to about May 1993).

PW6 (1).PDF

ARTICLE on ECE Theory

November 7, 2018

FOR POSTING: Article on ECE theory by Lar Felker and Horst Eckardt

I agree with Gareth Evans that this is an excellent article. We could try giving Laurence a ring. This article is by now a classic and the update on m theory is timely and important. There has been a large spike of interest in m theory on the blog.

Since Laurence Felker is no more reachable by email I decided to publish
this updated version of the Overview article on ECE theory. We can
replace it on the web site. I changed some formulations to be compatible
with the current view of ECE theory. I mentioned some newer developments
and added some aspects as longitudinal fields and m theory.

Horst

ECE-Article_EN-2.pdf

418(7): Change in Potential Energy due to m(r)

November 6, 2018

I propose updating the terminology “energy from the vacuum” or “energy from the aether” or “energy from spacetime” to “potential energy from m(r)”. This makes it clear that the general spherical spacetime is responsible for this potential energy, which is infinite under condition (3). This note shows that there is also rest energy from m(r), and in well defined limits this imparts the well known T = (1/2) m v squared to a material particle of mass m. There is therefore a smooth transition to the classical limit. The kinetic energy T appears to come from nowhere, it is not present in classical physics or special relativity and can become infinite. I also calculated the potential energy from m(r) as Eq. (37), which needed a modification of the usual formula for integration by parts to give integration by parts from state 1 to state 2. Potential energy is always a change in energy, as realized clearly by Hamilton in deriving the famous Hamilton Principle of Least Action. The action needed to go from state 1 to state 2 is minimized. The m(r) function depends on the context of a given problem in physics. The amount of energy apparently coming form nowhere determines m(r) and the spin connection. This has been demonstrated perfectly in UFT311, where exact agreement was obtained between ECE and the Ide circuit. The standard model cannot explain this at all.

a418thpapernotes7.pdf

Comments by Horst Eckardt

November 5, 2018

Comments by Horst Eckardt

These are as usual very interesting comments, another approach to superluminal signalling.

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.

Horst

Am 05.11.2018 um 07:10 schrieb Sean:

Myron,

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.

Sean

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.

Quantum entanglement

November 5, 2018

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

and

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.

Horst

Am 05.11.2018 um 07:10 schrieb Sean:

Myron,

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.

Sean

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

November 5, 2018

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.

a418thpapernotes6.pdf

The possibility of Counter Gravitation from m Theory

November 5, 2018

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 unanimous 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.

Summary by GJE

November 4, 2018

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 SpaceTo: 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(5): A Summary of the New Classical Dynamics in m Space

November 4, 2018

This note summarizes the new classical dynamics, an entirely new subject which produces startling results such as superluminal motion and infinite vacuum energy. The new theory rewrites and corrects an obsolete textbook such as J. B. Marion and S. T. Thornton, “Classical Dynamics of Particles and Systems”. Given a hundred Ph. D. students the book could be rewritten. Horst Eckardt is working on a new textbook now, and these major advances are timely. All types of physicist or chemist can accept these equations, which go far beyond the standard model in as many ways as imagination allows. Any observable orbit can be described entirely without the obsolete Einstein field equation. The advance that might resonate most strongly with the general public is E = m(r) half m c squared, because the general public only knows one equation, E = m c squared, and has no idea what it means. It is a chant in “Lord of the Flies”. The public is told stridently and endlessly that it was derived by Einstein, but in fact it was not. Only a completely irrational person would deny these new equations, they are checked in many different ways and are produced from a well known geometry, the most general spherically symmetric spacetime. The result is a melodious symphony of new ideas.

a418thpapernotes5.pdf

gamma factor with negative m(r) function

November 2, 2018

This result is full of interest, and goes far beyond the standard model in which m(r) = 1 – r0 / r , a restriction imposed by the obsolete Einstein field equation. In order for m(r) < 1 in the standard model, the requirement MG > r c squared would be imposed. In the m(r) theory the possibility of an expanding orbit could be looked for in astronomy.

gamma factor with negative m(r) function

As can be seen from the graphics, the m function can be extended to
negative values without sacrificing the condition that the square root
in the generalized gamma factor retains positive arguments. For m(r)=0
it follos gamma=0 which leads to divergence in the equations of motion.
At this “event horizon” total energy and angular momentum are undefined.
For m(r)<0 the gamma factor first is in the superluminal regime but then
quickly rises to infinity. For these cases the equations of motion
should be solvable.
As can be seen from the classical limit of m theory (the equations I
sent over a couple of days before), in these equations the sign of m(r)
cancels out, these equations are insensitive to the sign. However the
gamma factor leads to a quite different behaviour for m>0 and m<0.
For 0<m<1 we found shrinking orbits. for m>1 the orbits should be
expanding. I will check this numerically.

Horst

FOR POSTING: Sixteen Year Feedback to End of October 2018

November 2, 2018

SixteenyearfeedbackOctober2018.PDF

Weblogs Report 15/11/18

November 17, 2018

The equivalent of 184,193 printed pages was downloaded (671.568 megabytes) from 2964 downloaded memory files (hits) and 581 distinct visits each averaging 4.3 memory pages and 16 minutes, printed pages to hits ratio 62.14, top referrals total 2,581,186, 64.3% spiders mainly from Baidu, Google, MSN and Yahoo. Technical University of Vienna UFT33; Apple Inc. spidering; Wolfram Inc. spidering; Massachusetts Institute of Technology feedback programs; Bedford Public Library Indiana PECE, PECE2, Fundamental Errors in the standard model, definitive mathematical proofs. Intense interest all sectors, webalizer file attached.

www.aias.us/new_stats/