## Discussion: Major Inconsistency in Hulse Taylor Pulsar Data and Einstein Theory

In terms of distance, the astronomy Cornell site gives 3.1 mm per earth year. Google “shrinking of Hulse Taylor pulsar”, the Cornell site is the first site that comes up. The second site gives a graph of cumulative shift of periastron time in seconds, 40 seconds in thirty earth years. I mistook this for arc seconds, they used the same units symbol ”. This graph is totally obscure, and completely wrong, as I will shortly demonstrate in the next note. It is completely wrong because the semi major axis and eccentricity recorded on the Stanford site give a periastron shift that is wildly wrong. I have been looking for flaws like this for some years. The Stanford site is found by googling Hulse Taylor pulsar Stanford, second site by Prof. Robert B. Loughlin (large.stanford.edu/courses/ph210/mcourt2/) .The site contains a table with the semi major axis a and the eccentricity eps. These can be used to work out the half right latitude alpha and the distance of closest approach r (the periastron). Then the orbital velocity can be found from v squared = mu G (2 / r – 1 / a) where mu is the reduced mass of the pulsar and its companion star, mp mc / (mp + mc). The Einstein theory gives a periastron shift of 6 pi mu G / (alpha c squared) and gives a result that is wildly different from the observed shift. So how can the gravitational radiation be predicted precisely? Of course it cannot because it does not exist. The geometry of the Einstein theory is a shambles (UFT88, UFT99, UFT109, UFT313, UFT354). The only type of gravitational radiation that may exist is from the field equations of ECE2. It would have the same characteristics as electromagnetic radiation theory, but about twenty three orders of magnitude weaker. Any bright student could use google to pick out these flaws and self inconsistencies between sites, and record them in a Thesis under an enlightened supervisor. Students are open minded and are not influenced by dogma that is wildly wrong. They just use dogma to pass exams. The professor uses dogma to survive, or he might get an EDCL or UNCC type chop. We all know that students have been studying www.aias.us and www.upitec in their hundreds of thousands for fifteen years.

To: EMyrone@aol.com
Sent: 13/04/2017 18:52:59 GMT Daylight Time
Subj: Re: Major Inconsistency in Hulse Taylor Pulsar Data and Einstein Theory

Many thanks for gathering the data from internet. A question: how can a shrinking of an orbit be given by arc sec? I would expect a reduction in radius, so in meters per year.

Horst

Am 13.04.2017 um 15:25 schrieb EMyrone:

After a protracted literature search I have found a site www.large.stanford.edu which seems to be a reputable site for data. I found wild inconsistencies from site to site and many weird non S. I. units and G = c = 1 units, but finally settled on this site. A lot of work had to be done translating into S. I. units.

1) Mass of pulsar m sub p = 2.8244 ten power thirty kg.
2) Mass of companion star m sub c = 2.804 ten power thirty kg.
3) Semi major axis a = 7.0225 plus or minus 0.02 10 power 8 metres.
4) Eccentricity eps = 0.617155.
5) Half right latitude alpha = a / (1 – eps squared) = 4.3478 ten power eight metres.
6) Distance of closest approach of m sub p to centre of mass = alpha / (1 + eps) = 2.6885 ten 8 metres. This is the periastron.
7) Orbital velocity at the periastron = 300 km per second = 3 power ten five metres per second.

The experimental initial conditions required by Horst are therefore (6) and (7). It is claimed that the Einstein theory is precisely right, but the Einstein theory gives a periastron advance of

delta phi = 6 pi m sub p G / (alpha c squared).

Using

8) G = 6.67408(31) ten power minus 11 m cubed per kg per square second
9) c = 2.99792458 ten power 8 metres per second

It is found that the Einstein theory gives

10) delta phi = 9.093 ten power minus five radians per second = 18,019.73 degrees per year.

Result ten is totally wrong. The claimed result is 4 degrees per year. The word “year” has been assumed to be the earth’s year (365.25 days). If it is assumed that the 4 degrees relates to the orbital interval of the binary pulsar (7.75 hours) then the Einstein theory gives:

11) delta phi = 15.93 degrees in 7.75 hours, which is still a long way from four degrees. In post factualism totally wrong means precisely right. Our new lagrangian method cannot possibly as much of a deleted expletive. We have shredded the Einstein theory in many ways (UFT88 onwards) so we are seeking to find ways of explaining phenomena with ECE2 relativity (UFT313 to UFT374 and “Principles of ECE”. we do not make wild claims of our ECE2 theory being always perfect, but it does pretty well so far. By exposing the Einstein theory as a load of old cobblers we are making progress, and sending fogmatists into paroxyms of rage. The shrinkage of the orbit has also been measured accurately over thirty years and our new theory can be tested against those data. It is again claimed post factually that the shrinkage is due to the totally wrong Einstein theory which is always precisely right, even though its geometry is a complete shambles. I am a simple minded Baconian, when something is totally wrong, it is totally wrong, even though it was “made by Einstein”. The shrinkage of the orbit has been measured as 1.3333 arc seconds an earth year, or 40 arc seconds in the thirty years since the Hulse Taylor pulsar was discovered.