Numerical Checking and Development of Note 345(6)

Many thanks, I would say that this is the first time that the geodetic effect of Gravity Probe B has been evaluated correctly, using the methods of post Einsteinian physics based on correct geometry. The remaining discrepancy between theory and experiment can be attributed to a gravitomagnetic Lande factor. The obsolete theory claimed magical precision that cannot be true. A precise result can never be obtained from a geometry that is completely wrong. Evidently these conclusions are accepted at the world’s best universities, otherwise they would not have been studying ECE and ECE2 every day for twelve years. So now I will proceed to write up my sections of UFT345 and leave the numerical results for your Section as usual. The post Einsteinian physics also gives a precise explanation for energy from spacetime in UFT311, and also produces the light deflection by gravitation precisely. It also gives a plausible explanation for LENR in UFT226 ff. We have developed several ways of explaining perihelion precession, Lense Thirring and geodetic precessions. All of these results are studied at the best universities in the world every day. The older Einsteinian theory of general relativity was a peak of intellectual achievement, but is now obsolete as always happens in a healthy subject that does not stagnate.

Sent: 29/04/2016 15:12:47 GMT Daylight Time
Subj: Re: 345(6): ECE2 Theory of the Geodetic Effect

Your calculation is basically correct. The experimental value of the gravitomagnetic field is precisely

1.0418 * 10^ -12 rad/s

For the theoretical values of the gravitomagnetic field, I used r=7.02e6 as for the Lense-Thirring effect. The result is about half the experimental value, the ratio varying between 0.35 and 0.71. The precise values depend on the angles theta and phi. Since the j axis is chosen for the angular momentom of the probe, it makes sense to plot Omega(theta) for phi=90 degrees (see plot in attachment). Then the highest theta variance is seen. For phi=0 the value is constant but this probably makes no sense since the angular momentum then would be in the bold i direction ratherin the bold j direction (where it was chosen by definition).


Am 28.04.2016 um 14:12 schrieb EMyrone:

This is a theory of the geodetic precession of 6.6144 arc seconds a year measured by Gravity Probe B, which cost $700 million dollars. The geodetic effect is explained using the same starting equation as the Lense Thirring effect (Note 345(5)), taking into account that Gravity Probe B was in a polar orbit at an inclination of almost exactly 90 degrees, orbiting once every 90 minutes. Gravity Probe B did not “verify” the incorrect Einstein field equation. In fact this paper will be the first correct explanation of Gravity Probe B, at no cost to the taxpayer. The effect is described by a parameter x defined in Eq. (22). Values of theta and phi can be found by computer algebra from the experimental result. From the point of view of a frame of reference on Gravity Probe B, the earth rotates, and appears to be a rotating frame generating the angular momentum (11) in the j axis, because the orbit of Gravity Probe B is a polar orbit about an axis perpendicular to the rotation axis of the earth. The earth is considered to be a static shere in a spinning frame of reference for the purposes of the geodetic effect. In the Lense Thirring effect the earth is a spinning sphere in a static frame of reference. All metrics of the Einstein field equation are well known to be incorrect, the obsolete theory used these incorrect metrics, so could not have explained anything. The vast twenty first century avant garde school of physics around AIAS and UPITEC accepts that the Einstein field equation is completely wrong. We have replaced it with several theories, which are the truly accurate theoreis, and which can also describe the velocity curve of a whirlpool galaxy. The same theory has been used in the 345 UFT items. It is the first successful unified field theory.


%d bloggers like this: