Archive for June, 2015

Correspondence between Isaac Newton and Richard Bentley

June 30, 2015

The Rev. Richard Bentley wrote to to Isaac Newton in the early sixteen nineties to make sure he understood the latter’s Principia of 1687. Bentley later delivered a series of sermons at St. Martin in the Field on “A Confutation of Atheism from the Origin and Frame of the World”. Newton’s views on gravitation are contained in two quotes from these letters: “You sometimes speak of gravity as essential and inherent to matter. Pray do not ascribe that notion to me, for the cause of gravity is what I do not pretend to know, and therefore would take more time to consider it.” In the fourth letter to Bentley, Newton being deeply religious, wrote that “Gravity must be caused by an agent acting constantly according to certain laws, but whether this agent be material or immaterial is a question I have left to the consideration of my readers.” This is what an author always does when he does not know the answer, and Newton was hedging his bets. He did not want to be branded as an atheist, which could end up quite nastily. As described in Koestler’s “Sleepwalkers” (open source online), Kepler was the first to think of the concept of “force” and I think that the definition F = mg predates Newton. The inverse square law appears to have been inferred intuitively or instinctively without proof by Robert Hooke (John Aubrey “Brief Lives”). Robert Hooke of Trinity College Oxford asked Newton, in a letter, about what force law (in modern terms) is needed for an elliptical orbit. According to Aubrey (who was advised in detail by Hooke), Newton at first got the answer wrong. He assumed that an inverse r law is needed whereas an inverse r squared law is needed. Hooke gave Newton the right answer much later than 1665, so Newton could not have inferred it in that year as the old story goes. Having twigged the right answer, or had it twigged for him by Hooke, Newton used fluxions and geometry to prove that an inverse square law gives an elliptical orbit. This is certainly Newton’s achievement. The easiest way to see this is through the much later Binet equation, which I have used a lot in the UFT papers. For a precessing ellipse a different force law is needed, discussed in several UFT papers. This is different from the Einstein force law, and Einstein is just plain wrong. It is a healthy thing that people worldwide are accepting the fact that Einstein was not an idol of a cave, like Dan yr Ogof, Ogof yr Esgyrn, Fynnon Ddu or Agen Allwedd in Glyn Tawe. I do not think that Einstein ever wanted to be an idol but he must have enjoyed the limelight for a while. It is boring being an idol, or stalactite, because you are expected to permanently exude marble or limestone, as Mozart says in “Amadeus”. The script used a different word and outraged all but the Emperor. The apocryphal apple certainly did not fall on Newton’s long haired head when he was a student at home at Woolsthorpe Manor because Cambridge was closed because of plague. Newton was failed in geometry by his tutor Isaac Barrow, the first Lucasian professor of mathematics at Trinity College Cambridge, but Barrow later gave up his chair for Newton, the second Lucasian professor. Look what we have now, all tied up in strings. In ECE and ECE2 gravitation is nothing but geometry itself. It exists because geometry exists. This is also the Einsteinian viewpoint of course, but corrected for torsion. The Newtonian dynamics are just a small part of ECE, they are contained in just one field equation, whereas both ECE and ECE2 have four. Finally Newton did not have a real grasp of centrifugal force, inferred by Huygens. Newton inferred the centripetal force, but did not derive the equation of orbits used today, that was derived by Leibnitz. ECE an ECE2 show that the centrifugal force can be attributed to geometry. “Ubi materia ibi geometria” was a phrase coined by Kepler, a generation before Newton. “Where there is matter there is geometry”. If you get the geometry right then you can work out the whole of natural philosophy. The right geometry is Cartan geometry. One can use other types of geometry but Cartan geometry seems to be sufficient.

Discussion Part Two of 319(2)

June 30, 2015

In order to derive Eq. (35) use Eq. (34) to find that:

g = (8 c omega sub 0 / m) p

This note is the first step towards a new theory of gravitation, sketched out in 319(3).

To: EMyrone@aol.com
Sent: 29/06/2015 13:53:54 GMT Daylight Time
Subj: Re: Discussion of 319(2)

Many thanks, the only open question for me is how you derived (35) from (28,29). How did you replace g to obtain p? We have

g bold = partial p bold / partial t
and
del * g bold = partial (del * p bold) / partial t

but this is not the LHS of (35).

Am 28.06.2015 um 07:37 schrieb EMyrone:

Agreed that Eq. (1) is based on antisymmetry. This note introduces the minimal prescription (4) – (6) so U symbolizes energy in general. There are new concepts in the note which will be used later in the development of ECE2 theory to give all the results currently attributed to Einsteinian general relativity. The three cases are just examples or limits of the general theory, Eq. (7). It can be seen that eq. (7) is more general than the Newtonian

g = – del phi

so Eq. (7) can describe non Newtonian effects such as light bending, anomalous precession, and the velocity curve of a whirlpool galaxy. Eq. (8) is the condition under which Eq. (7) can be reduced to the format of the Newtonian theory, the equation above. This results in Eq. (11). The Newtonian limit is equivalent to. (12) and (13). The quantum theory is introduced and it leads to the anticommutator equation (27). The familiar Newtonian equation F = mg is developed in to Eq. (34) and the spin connection and tetrad in the Newtonian limit defined by Eqs. (38) and (39). The equations (16) and (17) are derived as you describe and agreed that there should be a factor 2 on the right hand side of Eqs. (14) and (15), To derive Eq. (25) use Eq. (8) and (24). Eq. (25) is an operator equation and takes the format of Eq. (26). In Ryder’s “Quantum Field Theory” the method is sketched of deriving the Pauli exclusion principle from the anticommutator in quantum field theory. The whole of the development of this note can be used for electrodynamics. Agreed about eq. (31). It is more general than an Euler Bernoullli equation and del p occurs in fluid dynamics and aerodynamics. In Eqs. (35) and (36) p is changed into omega using eq. (23), and 2i h bar cancels out either side. This leads to the derivation of the tetrad and spin connection in the Newtonian limit, Eqs. (38) and (39). Agreed about Eq (43). This entire set of equations can also be used in electrodynamics and for the nuclear weak and strong fields. So counter gravitation in this theory is given by:

U omega bold > – c omega sub 0 p bold

This is a very simple condition.

To: EMyrone
Sent: 27/06/2015 17:29:31 GMT Daylight Time
Subj: Re: 319(2): New Gravitational Results from ECE2 Theory

I have a lot of questions concerning this note:
The beginning of this note is a bit confusing for me. You consider 3 cases of g, potentials and spin connections:
– ECE2
– ECE2 with antisymmetry conditions
– Newtonian case

It would be easier to understand if you used different symbols for each case, for example U, U_ant, U_Newton etc. You did this partially with the phi potential.

Is the second equality sign in eq. 1 correct? I assume you mean g with antisymm. conditions, then it is. To change p in to omega use eq. (23) and 2i h bar cancels either side. Agreed about Eq. (43).

The approaches (14,15) seem to require an additional factor of 2, a typo.

Where do eqs. 16-17 come from? Obviously you insert (14,15) into (12,13). Then (16,17) hold for the Newtonian limit.

How exactly did you derive eq.(25)?
The connection to quantum physics is interesting.

Eq.(31) reminds to fluid dynamics. Q seems to be interpretable as a velocity potential and has indeed physical dimensions of m/s.

Eqs.(35,36): How did you change g into p and omega?

Eq.(43): should it read:
– U omega > c omega_0 p ?

Am 27.06.2015 um 15:14 schrieb EMyrone:

This note uses the antisymmetry eq. (1) of ECE2 to find several new equations of ECE2 gravitation. The Newtonian limit of ECE2 is well defined by Eqs. (8), (12) and (13). These equations lead to a new anticommutator equation of quantum gravity, Eq. (27) in the Newtonian limit. This equation becomes non Newtonian if its right hand side is non zero. This is interesting because in quantum field theory the anticommutator is the origin of the Pauli exclusion principle. The famous force is mass times acceleration of the Newtonian limit is extended in ECE2 to Eq. (34). The spin conenction vector and the tetrad vector of the Newtonian limit of ECE2 are given by Eqs. (38) and (39). Non Newtonian effects of ECE2 are described by Eqs. (40) and (41), zero ECE2 gravitation by Eq. (42) and repulsive ECE2 counter gravitation by Eq. (43). These results are much simpler and more powerful than UFT318, which should be regarded as a transitional paper to UFT319. We now have a clear idea of how to engineer counter gravitation. Great progress has been made from the early attempts of ten or eleven years ago.

Discussion of 319(3): Light Deflection from Gravitation using ECE2

June 30, 2015

I think that there are several other ways in which this phenomenon can be explained in future work by ECE2 combined with the 2014 x theory. The very precise experimental data for deflection of electromagnetic radiation by gravitation are used as the starting point for an explanation in terms of correct geometry. It is accpeted now that Einstein did not know about torsion and used an incorrect theory based on curvature only. In fact Einstein is not precise at all because the theory is completely unable to describe the velocity curve of a whirlpool galaxy. This has been known since the early sixties, but the dogmatists have gone on claiming that Einstein is precise for nearly half a century. With science like this, who needs idols? They are so embedded in concrete that they cannot move. There have been thousands of studies of the key papers: UFT88, UFT99, UFT112, UFT255 and UFT313 – UFT318, and thousunds of studies of the proofs that no torsion means no gravitaion at all. The general covariance of ECE2 can be expressed through its field equations as an effective Lorentz covariance in the presence of curvature and torsion, because the structure of the field equations is the same as that of Maxwell Heaviside, but in a sapce with torsion and curvature. This means that an analysis based on an effective Minkowski metric can be used, as in UFT216 and UFT261 of x theory. There are so many papers and books of ECE now that multiple cross correlation of concepts can be used.

To: EMyrone@aol.com
Sent: 30/06/2015 07:35:56 GMT Daylight Time
Subj: Re: 319(3): Light Deflection from Gravitation using ECE2

“Twice Newton” explained correctly 400 years after the great man!!

Sent from Samsung Mobile

Book of Scientometrics Volume Two Udpated to 28/6/15

June 30, 2015

The update is found at the end of the attached docx and pdf files as usual. Up to 28/6/15 for www.aias.us there have been 79,358 files downloaded, 17.37 gigabytes downloaded, 11,849 study sessions, 55,875 page views, and 2,903 documents read from 98 countries, led by USA, Germany, Russian Federation, Mexico, Luxembourg, Britain, Japan, Czech Republic, …… The update is made as usual on the last day of the month before a key file is overwritten. The complete feedback activity for June 2015 will be reported in two or three days as usual. The visits from the top twenty nine universities in the world were: Caltech, Cornell*, MIT*, ETH, Cambridge, Imperial*, Penn State, Chicago, Toronto and Tokyo. The * denotes repeat visits. Nearly all university or institute visits are always from the top two hundred or so in the world. In June there was a visit from the U. S. Department of State in Washington D. C. There is always extensive interest in www.aias.us from the USA, Germany and Russian Federation. These are nearly always the top three countries. The top countries for the blog were for a number of years Britain, United States and Canada, recently Britain, United States and Japan. In 2015 there have already been visits to the blog from 128 countries in six months. There have been visits to the blog since 2012 from 182 countries. The details are found on this blog and in the blog archives. All the UFT papers and books feature very highly on Google, usually on the first page, many times as the lead article on Google. All items are in Google scholar. So many congratulations to the AIAS Fellows, Professors and Staff. AIAS is undoubtedly the leading small institute in the world and these scientometrics are themselves well known all over the world. Yours truly has been nominated for all the big prizes but I regard these nominations to be for the entire Institute. So the modernist avant garde in science, ECE theory, is now mainstream.

BookofScientometricsVolumeTwo.docx

Daily Reports Weekend of 27 and 28 June 2015

June 30, 2015

There were respectively 1,880 and 2,103 files downloaded from 357 and 390 reading sessions, main spiders, baidu, google, MSN, yandex and yahoo. Evans / Morris papers 489, Scientometrics 375, F3(Sp) 282, Auto1 273, Auto2 81, Proofs that no torsion means gravitation 223, UFT88 184, Principles of ECE 180, Evans Equations 165 (numerous Spanish), Eckardt / Lindstrom papers 163, Engineering Model 151, Barddoniaeth / Collected Poetry 146, CEFE 102, UFT311 63, UFT316 62, UFT315 55, UFT314 54, UFT313 49, UFT317 35 to date in June 2015. University of Chicago My page, Second Book of Poetry, and frequently asked questions; Kitsuregawa Toyoda Laboratory, Advanced Data Engineering, Institute of Industrial Science, University of Tokyo UFT123; Birmingham City University Family History. Intense interest all sectors, updated usage file attached for June 2015.

319(3): Light Deflection from Gravitation using ECE2

June 29, 2015

This note combines ECE2 theory with UFT216 and UFT261 to show that the equivalence principle of ECE2 is the powerful antisymmetry law (3), which generalizes other equivalence principles and which reduces to the quasi Newtonian equivalence principle (4) under the condition (15) on the spin connection. The Newtonian equivalence principle is a limit of ECE2 and shows that the usual Newtonian equivalence principle is part of a generally covariant unified field theory, ECE2. Zero g force is defined by the condition (19) on the spin connection. The ECE2 gravitational field equations (16) to (19) are quasi Lorentz covariant although the theory is a generally covariant unified field theory. The Minkowski like metric (20) of the Lorentz like theory, when used with the precessing conical section planar orbit (21), gives the deflection due to gravity (33) which to an excellent approximation gives the observed result (4), the famous “twice Newton” result which is due therefore to Cartan geometry with torsion. The incorrect and torsionless Einstein field equation is nowhere used. So the reason for the famous deflection due to gravitation has been found. It is due to a geometry with torsion and curvature. It cannot be explained at all with the Einstein geometry, which has just curvature. The precision of ECE2 is determined by the experimental precision of light deflection due to gravity, which is now very high, and ECE2 is of course preferred because it is mathematically correct , whreas Einstein is mathematically incorrect and not a unified field theory.

a319thpapernotes3.pdf

“Barddoniaeth / Collected Poetry”

June 29, 2015

Dave Burleigh has kindly posted “Barddoniaeth / Collected Poetry” in the Blue Box above my coat of arms on the home page of www.aias.us and it is going to be published simultaneously in a few weeks as a softback by New Generation in London, using the modern method of venture publishing. One copy wil be sent to the National Library of Wales, and one to the British Library. I guess that it will cost a fiver, two cups of coffee in Heathrow, or one cup of coffee in the James Joyce cafe in Zurich. I hold copyright on the book and all material on www.aias.us, which I own, but anyone is welcome to take what they want from the website, they do so literally in their millions. They don’t have to read the stuff on www.aias.us, they WANT to read it and they are very welcome. This is the basic idea of open source publishing. The poetry in Welsh and English is being read about 1,800 times a year now, in up to 182 countries, and this is very pleasing, the purpose of the book is to give pleasure to people after all. The great poet R. S. Thomas (an exact contemporary of Dylan Thomas) said that he wrote poetry because of an inner need, if people liked it, all to the good. If they did not, they did not have to read it. An awful lot of people have read RST now off the internet but even he had difficulty selling more than four hundred copies of a book. Poetry makes people think, and that is an effort. When I was on the receiving end of some less than entirely delightful wisdom at the EDCL I was often told that my work was of no importance, would never be of any importance, and not to try to compare myself with great scientists by publishing too much. No one remembers those trolls now and it would be difficult to find their output with an electron microscope. In actual fact it was never my intent to try to compare myself with great scientists or poets. I just liked science and poetry, and I still do. The experts of the New York office of Christie’s, the famous auctioneers, have been kind enough to describe my work to be of undoubted scientific and literary significance, so that’s good enough for me. It is not possible for an artist not to be an artist. One cannot “publish too much”, but one can easily publish nothing at all in comfortable tenure or “early retirement” as my Ph. D. supervisor Mansel Davies used to say. Turner’s work was described by the trolls of his time as “soot and whitewash”, but Turner took no notice. I have seen original Turners at Royal Holloway College, University of London, and they don’t look much like soot or whitewash. In fact they are brilliant masterpieces in vivid colour. So trolls are colour blind.

Reading of UFT2 from Bryn Mawr College

June 29, 2015

The town of Bryn Mawr in Lower Merion Pennsylvania was founded by William Ellis in the 1680’s on land granted by William Penn. Ellis’s former home had been “Bryn Mawr” near Dolgellau. Bryn Mawr College was founded in the late nineteenth century and named after the town in the Welsh Tract of Pennsylvania. Its first President was James Evans Rhoads and it was founded by Crynwyr (Quakers, The Religious Society of Friends, who are, or ought to be, pacifists). Faculty included President Woodrow Wilson and Emmy Noether, of Noether’s Theorem (1933 – 1935). Katharine Hepburn, the actress, was a graduate. Max Born, Hermann Weyl and Emmy Noether were dismissed from the University of Goettingen by the trolls of their time. The trolls of our time are no different. Albert Einstein and Hermann Weyl obtained positions at the Princeton Institute for Advanced Study and the Rockefeller Foundation gave a grant to Bryn Mawr College to invite Dr. Noether on to the faculty. Emmy Noether was a supporter of the Russian Revolution, and once laughed at a troll who turned up to class in an S. A. uniform. Sadly, she died in 1935 of cancer, and is buried under the walkway surrounding the cloisters of Bryn Mawr College. The Noether Theorem was developed after the famous 1915 conference at the famous University of Goettingen which led Einstein to use the old torsionless second Bianchi Identity of 1902. ECE is a correction of this great work. One stands on the shoulders of giants. There have been very many study visits to www.aias.us from Goettingen and many distinguished Universities throughout contemporary, democratic, Germany. In fact ECE is very heavily studied in Germany both from the site and from the blog.

Daily Reports 24 – 26 June 2015

June 29, 2015

There were respectively 2,556, 2,534 and 7,656 files downloaded from 429, 440 and 388 reading sessions, main spiders baidu, google, MSN, seznam and yahoo. Evans / Morris papers 428, Scientometrics 321, F3(Sp) 277, Auto1 260, Auto2 77, Proofs that no torsion means no gravitation 239, Evans Equations 180 (numerous Spanish); Principles of ECE Theory 174, UFT88 168, Eckardt / Lindstrom papers 168, Barddoniaeth / Collected Poetry 128, Engineering Model 127, CEFE 99, UFT311 63, UFT316 61, Llais 59, UFT315 54, UFT314 53, UFT313 48, UFT317 42 to date in June 2015. University of Queensland UFT175; University of the Andes Colombia UFT169(Sp); The Army University Ecuador F10(Sp); German National Synchrotron Facility UFT57; Bochum University of Applied Sciences 2D paper; Tectum Group Germany Spacetime Devices; Physics University of Erlangen-Nuremberg UFT175(Sp); Bryn Mawr College, Lower Merion Pennsylvania UFT2; Graduate Center City University of New York UFT43; Lincoln Laboratory Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) UFT41; University of North Carolina Chapel Hill Family History; Juan Carlos III University Madrid UFT166(Sp); University of Granada UFT169(Sp); University of Poitiers Essay 32 “Science and Pseudoscience” (also read a few days ago at the U. S. Department of State); “Libero” newspaper published in Milan UFT317; knology private site complete site download; U. S. Archives San Francisco general; PLGT Multi Resources Corporation Poland general; Intense interest all sectors, updated usage file attached for June 2015.

Light Bending by Gravitation in ECE2

June 28, 2015

The background papers to this subject are UFT216 and UFT261, In the Newtonian view the angle of deflection is

2 psi = 2 MG / (Rsub 0 c squared) = – Phi (r = R0) / c squared.

If Phi is doubled the correct experimental result is obtained. This is precisely what happens in ECE2 (Eqs. (7) and (8) of note 319(2)). This would immediately explain light deflection due to gravitation. Note carefully that ECE2 is generally covariant, while Newton is classical and non relativistic (Newton is not a theory of general relativity while ECE2 is part of a generally covariant unified field theory). So the velocity v can approach c in ECE2 without any conceptual contradiction. Classically, v cannot approach c because in a classical theory the Lorentz factor is missing.