Retrograde Precession Explained with ECE2 Relativity

This is rapid and definitive progress, and congratulations! It means the end of the Einstein theory because it cannot produce the astronomically observed retrograde precession in the Source Two (S2) star, which orbits a very massive object near Saggitarius B. The rotational velocity field describes the effect of aether or spacetime on the lagrangian method, which is the simplest approach. Einsteinian general relativity (EGR) fails completely in S2 and also in whirlpool galaxies, and ECE2 takes over as the leading theory of gravitational physics. Albert Einstein would have accepted this as significant progress in natural philosophy (physics). He was not a dogmatist, he kept changing his ideas as is well known to scholars. I have known two or three people who worked with Einstein himself: Vigier, Wheeler and Sternglass. Leading astronomers have quietly abandoned EGR and “dark matter”. The huge worldwide following of ECE2 rejected these ideas over a decade ago.

To: EMyrone@aol.com
Sent: 21/04/2017 21:15:13 GMT Daylight Time
Subj: Re: Summary for S2

I worked out the dependence of several parameters on the initial velocity. the apastron radius is very sensitive but the precession angle per period is not.
Additionally I did a relativistic calculation with a fluid dynamics velocity, a rotational velocity field around the central mass. In this way it is possible to obtain retrograde precession. In the attached example it is -0.25 degrees per period. The section of the paper will contain a lot of detailed information.

Horst

Am 21.04.2017 um 14:18 schrieb EMyrone:

ECE2 gives 0.034 degrees per orbit, EGR gives 0.203 degrees per orbit. The experimental data range from -1 to 2 degrees per orbit, but at this stage in research are vague experimental claims. I can see from the latest papers on S2 that the Einstein theory has been abandoned in some of the best laboratories in the world in favour of a Newtonian approach with a modified potential as in UFT105. This is what I call real progress because EGR is completely riddled with errors, and the data are not in fact all that precise. We make no claims for ECE2 other than the fact that it is a reasonably good description. We don’t make dogmatic claims of ultra precision. The same type of thing happened in UFT85, when the claims of QED evaporated.


%d bloggers like this: