note 217(6)

OK thanks for this. In my opinion you have succeeded by computer in refuting the EGR in a conclusive way, because the two sides of eq. (6) CANNOT be the same, in other words EGR does not give a precessing ellipse for x close to unity (solar system), and as Ray Delaforce and yourself have shown with remarkable graphics, the conic sections take on a fantastic new guise when x is varied. EGR cannot explain any of this. So note 217(6) is meant to emphasize this astonishing advance in mathematics and physics by cataloguing the results from eq. (2) of note 217(6) and comparing them with EGR (eq. (3) of note 217(6)). As can be seen, EGR will only give a simple line, whereas the fractal type conical sections will give a new era in mathematics, no less a description will suffice. Nothing can be more of a convincing demonstration of the post Einsteinian paradigm shift.

In a message dated 30/04/2012 09:36:30 GMT Daylight Time, writes:

In eq.(3) of 217(2) obviously a power of 1/2 is missing but the result (6) is correct. differentiating (6) in the form
theta=1/x * cos^-1 …
and taking the inverse should lead to the known expression of dr/dtheta from Einstein theory which we had derived, but it seems not to come out this result, for what reasons ever. A highly complex expression comes out, may be it can be simplified further.

Am 29.04.2012 19:57, schrieb EMyrone

All OK here, eq. (3) of note 217(6) ha been derived many times before in various notes and papers, e.g. it is eq. (11) of UFT150a, and is standard EGR. In eq. (3) of note 217(2) there is a minor typo, second term RHS should be r sub 0 / (a squared r) – just simple algebra. I recall that you checked this for UFT202 by computer algebra.

In a message dated 29/04/2012 17:00:38 GMT Daylight Time, horsteck writes:

I checked the terms dr/dtheta for ECE and Einstein theory graphically. I
compared your formulas with those obtained by Maxima from theta(r). The
term for ECE (eq.2) is correct but for eq. (3) the results differ.
Considering note 217(2), eq. (6) therein should be derived from eq.(3),
but at least a square seems to be missing in (6).