These approaches are all valid, giving very interesting results, different signs of precession. This is a clear advance on EGR, which is capable of giving only one sign of precession. I will write out the relevant starting equations and interrelate them. The computer algebra is of course correct. I agree that t should be used in the Newton equation, which is obtained form a vector Euler Lagrange equation. There are also scalar Euler Lagrange equations in X and Y as the proper Lagrange variables. They are all correct mathematically. So we are finding wholly new and unexpected results on precession. I will write out what I mean in another note.

To: EMyrone@aol.com

Sent: 08/05/2017 23:20:03 GMT Daylight Time

Subj: Comparison of relativistic theories of orbital motion

I did a lot of cross-checks of the four variants under consideration,

see attached protocol and note. So far I listed the rewritten

accelerations for the X component only, will rewrite them to vector form

next. The Lagrange versions come out to be identical to the vector form

already given in eq.(36) of UFT 375. They differ only by a factor of

1/gamma. The Minkowski and relativistic Newton laws are missing terms

compared to the Lagrange version. This seems to have the consequence

that the relativistic angular momentum is not conserved in these laws,

an astonishing result. See the text in the note for further discussions.

I am quite confident that the results are correct after multiple

checking but you never can be sure. Please check by yourself.

Horst

force-comparison.pdf

paper377-3.pdf

### Like this:

Like Loading...

*Related*

This entry was posted on May 9, 2017 at 7:36 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.