Discussion Part Two of Note 328(4)

Agreed with the first point. Eq. (10) is a rough approximation of the type that Dirac used. I think that Dirac got away with it because the results appeared to fit the experimental data. Working out p / L will be very interesting.

To: EMyrone@aol.com
Sent: 27/09/2015 21:23:02 GMT Daylight Time
Subj: Re: 328(4): More Accurate Theory of Orbital Precession in Special Relativity

PS: the RHS of (8) can be written with t or with tau, only the orbits r(theta) are different. I am not sure if (10) is a good approximation. This would mean that anyhow the change in angular momentum is smaller than in orbit.
I will work out the ratio p/L of eq.(17) Tomorrow and compare with the numerical Lagrange resutls. We will see how this fits.


Am 26.09.2015 um 14:48 schrieb EMyrone:

This note defines the precessing orbit as Eq. (15), so the ratio p / L can be calculated using Eqs. (15) and (17). This ratio can be compared with p / L from the lagrangian of special relativity Eq. (18) with gravitational potential (19), and can be compared with p / L from other theories, for example the x theory or the general precessing orbit (22). Finally, using the orbit (26), with x = gamma, the orbit (9) of special relativity can be deduced. So special relativity can be thought of as x theory with x = gamma, the Lorentz factor. This gives the precession (34), and delta theta can be calculated to be Eq. (44). At the perihelion Eq. (45) applies. In the next note 328(5) the ratio p / L will be calculated analytically by approximating the relativistic lagrangian theory, which leads to the relativistic Leibnitz equation of orbits and the definition of the relativistic angular momentum as a constant of motion. Knowing p / L analytically gives d theta / dr and the true orbit of specail relativity. The ratio p / L was computed by a scatter plot method by co author Horst Eckardt in UFT324 and UFT325.

%d bloggers like this: