Comparison of relativistic theories of orbital motion

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


%d bloggers like this: