Precession for S2 star from ECE2 Theory

This is fine, and congratulations, because it is a first attempt, giving 0.034 degrees per orbit. This is between the two experimental results of -1 and +2 degrees per orbit. The result shows that the use of the ECE2 lagrangian not only produces precession but also gives the right order of magnitude, without any adjustables at all and using the experimental initial distance and velocity. This is the first time that this has been shown. The ECE2 gravitational field equations, spin connection, and the fluid gravitational parameters have not been used as yet. The experimental result seems to be between -1 and 2 degrees per orbit. The right order fo magnitude of precession is produced using only the lagrangian and nothing else. The lagrangian is the direct result of ECE2 theory. So in effect this theory is a theory of precession where there is no aether. It is known that the fluid gravitational theory also produces precession. So this is a very interesting and important result. It would be very interesting to adjust the initial velocity to observe the effect on the precession. The correct orbital interval T is also obtained. So nothing more could be expected of the theory. The ECE2 lagrangian is essentially that of special relativity in a mathematical space with finite torsion and curvature.

To: EMyrone@aol.com
Sent: 21/04/2017 10:11:56 GMT Daylight Time
Subj: Numerical results for S2 star

I did a number of calculations and developed a numerical precedure to extract the precession of the elliptic orbit. I will describe the details in section 3 of the paper. The result is a bit disappointing: precession is only 5.9 *10 power -4 rad per orbit. It is possible to obtain the right period time by slightly adopting the initial velocity at periastron. The apastron radius comes out a bit bigger than observed and the excentricity is certainly not fully identical to that of the observations. There are some inconsistencies in the data.
I did a non-relativistic calculation and checked the resulting precession which should be zero. I obtained a value of 10 power -8 which is far enogh away from the value obtained by the relativistic theory. Introducing a x factor in the kinetic energy sensitively changes the orbit period but has nearly no impact on the precession value. It could well be that other external effects like instellar medium or fluid dynamics play a role.

Horst

Am 20.04.2017 um 14:23 schrieb EMyrone:

This paper applies ECE2 relativity to precession in the Hulse Taylor pulsar (HP) and the S2 star system. The general theory of gravitation is given for any mass m1 orbiting any mass m2. Einsteinian general relativity (EGR) is wildly incorrect by a factor of nearly forty in the HP pulsar. Using a Stanford site data, EGR gives a precession of 0.16 degrees per earth year in the HP system, and using Wikipedia data, EGR gives 0.11 degrees per earth year. The experimental result is claimed to be 4.2 degree per earth year. EGR has been completely refuted in three hundred and seventy five papers and books of the UFT series, so these discrepancies are not surprising. In the S2 star system, EGR gives 0.203 degrees per orbit of 15.56 earth years. The experimental claims vary from – 1 degree per orbit (retrograde precession which the authors describe as violating EGR, original paper posted on this blog) and 2 degrees per orbit from another site. In S2 the weak gravitation limit holds to an excellent approximation. I cannot imagine how EGR can be claimed to be precise for the HP system. Corrections of the weak field limit to give strong gravitation are small, and cannot explain such a large discrepancy. These corrections have been severely criticised in many ways by Stephen Crothers, see “Principles of ECE”. The experimental data from different sites are also wildly self inconsistent. So we can proceed to start afresh with ECE2 relativity. As more S2 type star systems are discovered it is likely that ECE2 will succeed and EGR fail qualitatively.


%d bloggers like this: