Checking Note 373(1)

Many thanks for checking this note. It is becoming clear that precession can be produced by the lagrangian of ECE2 relativity (special relativity in a space with finite torsion and curvature). This is a major advance in understanding, so the latest UFT papers are being studied with particular intensity (early morning reports)..

To: EMyrone@aol.com
Sent: 18/03/2017 16:11:17 GMT Standard Time
Subj: Re: 373(1): Comparison of UFT363 and UFT372

The calculations are correct. You neglected the first Omega term in eq.(1) but this may be justified because we found that precession already follows from the radial modifications. In (49) all terms are expressed by radial dependences of a Newtonian ellipse.

Horst

Am 15.03.2017 um 13:29 schrieb EMyrone:

Both theories give orbital precession and this note is a comparison of the two theories, and also a comparison with the astronomical data. In the solar system these data can be modelled with Eq. (9). Although Eq. (9) is not the precise orbit, it represents the observations empirically. In the solar system the data can be represented empirically by Eq. (9), which can be produced exactly by both theories. The kinetic energies of the two theories are compared. In UFT363 it is a non relativistic kinetic energy modified by a spin connection. In UFT372 it is the well known relativistic kinetic energy of ECE2 relativity, which takes the format of the ell known relativistic kinetic energy of special relativity. A meaningful comparison can be made if the rest energy is subtracted from the relativistic total energy as in Eq. (32) to leave the relativistic kinetic energy. This is reduced to the non relativistic kinetic energy in the limit v << c, qllowing the spin connection to be calculated as in Eq. (49) in terms of orbital obervables. So the spin connection responsible for precession can be observed experiemntally and plotted in terms of r, the distance between m orbiting M. These results are yet another way of showing that Einsteinian gerernal relativity is incorrect and obsolete.


%d bloggers like this: