FOR POSTING: Sections 3 of papers 360, 363, 372

Many thanks, these results are full of interest, and a lot of work by co author Horst Eckardt has gone into them. The sections give a lot of new results, and I will compare Eq. (71) of UFT363 and Eq. (58) of UFT372. There are probably various ways of doing the comparison. The computations and graphics are well thought out as usual, and greatly clarify the equations. The recent implementation of the Maxima routine for solving Euler Lagrange equations has allowed great progress to be made very quickly, so the standard model of physics has been made completely obsolete. We have found many ways of proving that orbital precession can be deduced without using Einsteinian general relativity. In UFT372 Horst shows that features of general relativity emerge from ECE2 relativity, and the same type of features emerge from fluid gravitation. AIAS / UPITEC is efficient and productive, and our results are consulted by the best in the world. One suggestion I have is that in binary systems of stars, precession can be orders of magnitude larger than in the solar system. It is very important to realize that the geometry used by Einstein disintegrates completely when torsion is considered, a vivid demonstration of this is UFT354. I strongly recommend close study of all aspects of these three sections.

Sent: 14/03/2017 11:54:46 GMT Standard Time
Subj: Section 3 of papers 360, 363, 372

These are the numerical sections. Eq. (71) of UFT363 may be compared
with Eq. (58) of UFT372. There is a similarity, relating Omega with r0
and gamma, although not perfect, since the term r*phi dot ^2 is not
affected in UFT372.
It seems that the modification of the r equation is responsible for the
precession, not the modification of the phi equation. This may have to
do with the symmetry of modifying phi dot dot as I explained in UFT372.





%d bloggers like this: