This looks like a very good approach. I will study Section 3.

To: EMyrone@aol.com

Sent: 23/04/2017 12:01:09 GMT Daylight Time

Subj: Re: Plans for UFT376

Concerning fluid dynamics models, my simple approach for the orbital velocity was

r dot –> r dot – v_f bold.

In preceding papers I had used v bold with a plus sign, but then we have the strange situation that retrograde precession goes into direction of negative v_f. With the above change it becomes clear that v_f impacts the precession in direction of v_f. In particular, if the body is at rest in the surrounding medium:

r dot – v_f bold = 0,

we have the usual Newtonian case of a body at rest. Therefore the above approach seems to be the right one.

My use of a rotating vector field v_f is a model for a rotating rigid “spacetime disk” around the central mass. This is a non-relativistic approach, but I checked the disk tangential velocity at the apastron of the S2 star, it is some thousands of kilometers/s, far below light velocity. A correct description would require something like the Lense-Thirring effect, perhaps worth a thought in later papers. I will describe now the detailed numbers in section 3 of UFT 375.

Horst

Am 22.04.2017 um 14:30 schrieb EMyrone:

In UFT375, Horst has already succeeded in describing retrograde precession using ECE2 fluid gravitation, which refutes EGR. I think that UFT376 should build on this breakthrough by introducing the field equations and spin connection. I should also continue with a literature search to see if I can find some more retrograde precessions. There is also a need to investigate exactly what is meant by strong field and weak file gravitation. However for S2 like stars, weak gravitation is perfectly adequate.

### Like this:

Like Loading...

*Related*

This entry was posted on April 24, 2017 at 7:08 am and is filed under asott2. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.