These are very interesting results, the precession is immediately apparent. I would say that a smooth transition in the switching factor is necessary, a gradual transition from Newtonian to fluid dynamic orbits. So s should be a continuous function rather than a step function. Orbital precessions observable in the universe are very small, so s is a small, continuous function. As s gradually increases, the precessions gradually increase too. So I think that this is the solution.

To: EMyrone@aol.com

Sent: 04/04/2017 13:54:38 GMT Daylight Time

Subj: Note 374(5) – ExamplesI checked some examples for x(r,phi,t). There is a problem that the transition from a Newtonian orbit to an orbit in fluid spacetime is not continuous. “Switching on” the fluid velocity changes the factor in the classical equation for phi from 2 to 3. This gives a strongly precessing orbit, see Fig. 4a1.

Fig. 4b is the orbit with an x factor x(phi) with omitted v.

Fig. 4c is a combination of v and a phi-dependent x.

It is also possible to produce various spiralling orbits to outside or to inside.Is there a solution to the problem for the unsteady change when using fluid spacetime velocity? Does the usage of r and phidot in v mean that spacetime moves with the same velocity as the orbiting mass? Then a continuous switch-on factor would make sense.

Horst

Am 04.04.2017 um 12:34 schrieb EMyrone:

Looks good! These equations will give some very interesting orbits. The other equations of fluid dynamics can also be used, conservation of matter (continuity equation), conservation of angular momentum (vorticity equation) and conservation of energy. I will proceed to these next. In fact, standard fluid dynamics already contains a gravitational term in the Navier Stokes equation, plus a viscous force and another force. For this work, only the gravitational force has been used.

To: EMyrone

Sent: 04/04/2017 11:21:37 GMT Daylight Time

Subj: Re: Checking Note374(5) by ComputerThanks for these important hints. I did not include the transition of the fluid velocity to zero when checking the transition to Newtonian result. I introduced a “switching parameter” s in the calculation:

v_r = s*x*r dot,

v_phi = s*r*phi dot.The limit check now executes

x –> 1

s –> 0.This gives exactly the Newtonian results. The complete equations with fluid spacetime effects are eqs. o11,o12 of the protocol:

Am 04.04.2017 um 09:15 schrieb EMyrone:

Many thanks, these checks are important for accuracy and self consistency. The equations can be checked step by step.

1) Eq. (16) reduces to the classical result when x = 1, x dot = 0 and when the convective terms of Eq. (7) all vanish. So the convective terms must all vanish in these limits and that could be checked by computer.

2) Eq. (17) reduces to the classical result when x = 1 and when the convective terms all vanish.

3) In the limit x goes to 1 and x dot goes to zero, it should be checked that Eq. (18) is true.

4) In the limit x goes to 1, partial r dot / partial r = r double dot / r dot must vanish in order to regain the Newtonian result.Eq. (21) for the velocity field reduces correctly to the Newtonian result as x goes to one. The answer is that v sub r cannot be a function of r in the Newtonian limit, so partial r dot / partial r must vanish in this limit. So in order to regain the Newtonian limit the additional conditions (18) must be imposed as x goes to 1. The reason for this is that the velocity field v is a function of r(t), phi(t) and t, but the classical dynamic velocity v is a function only of v. So I think that this is the correct way of approaching the Newtonian limit. In any other situation R is a function in general of r(t), phi(t) and t and v is also a function of r(t), phi(t) and t. In general teh velocity field is defined by the convective derivative of R:

v = DR/Dt

and the gravitational Navier Stokes equation is:

Dv / Dt = – (MG / r squared) e sub r

in plane polar coordinates. In the Newtonian limit, v = dr / dt, and a = dv / dt = – MG / r squared e sub r. Gnuplot for example could eb used to produce some very interesting orbits. The basic idea is that the above is ECE2 unified field theory, and that spacetime or the aether is a fluid controlled by the equations of fluid dynamics. The methods of solving these are well known and can be all adapted for orbital theory. This leads to a vast number of possibilities.

To: EMyrone

Sent: 03/04/2017 17:34:20 GMT Daylight Time

Subj: Re: 374(5): The General Planar Orbit of Fluid GravitationI checked by computer. The time derivative dx/dt is taken as a total derivative by Maxima:

dx/dt = dx/dr * dr/dt + dx/dphi * dphi/dt.

Even if avoiding this, the result for x–>1 gives the right equation for r, but a factor of 3 instead of 2 in the phi equation. Is anywhere a wrong definiton?

Horst

Am 03.04.2017 um 15:47 schrieb EMyrone:

This is found from the gravitational Navier Stokes equation (4), which is a particular case of the general Navier Stokes equation (8). The velocity field is given by Eq. (21) as derived in UFT363. The orbit is worked out entirely in terms of the radial component R sub r of the position element of fluid spacetime, its r derivative and second derivative, and its time derivative. Additional equations are available from fluid dynamics: notably the continuity equation and conservation of angular momentum. These can be developed in future notes, in the meantime model functions can be used. It is already known from Horst’s numerical analysis of yesterday and this morning that a fluid spacetime or aether gives a precessing orbit, a major discovery in my opinion. In this model a planet or object of mass m around an object of mass M moves in a fluid spacetime or aether. The structure of the theory is that of Cartan geometry.