This is an important new idea defined in Eq. (10), which is simply a rewriting of the familiar four invariance (2). Eq. (10) leads to the precession (15) due to time dilatation and length contraction. Note carefully that this is accurately measurable experimentally and exists in the absence of de Sitter rotation. The latter leads to the novel invariance equation (28) and the new universal law of all observable precessions, Eq. (30).

## Archive for June, 2018

### UFT88 Read at Kanazawa Institute of Technology Japan

June 30, 2018UFT88 Read at Kanazawa Institute of Technology Japan

Kanazawa IT is ranked 601 – 800 in the world by Times and 2760 by Webometrics, unranked by QS and Shanghai. It was founded in 1965 and has 7,356 students with an acceptance rate of 42.7%. It is known for its unique educational method of relying on student initiatives in areas such as solar cars and similar. UFT88 is a famous classic which refutes the entire twentieth century in Einsteinian general relativity by showing that the second Bianchi identity is changed completely by spacetime torsion, to give the Jacobi Cartan Evans (JCE) identity of UFT313. As shown in Carroll’s online notes for example, (yesterday’s posting on this blog), the Einstein field equation is based directly on the 1902 second Bianchi identity, which is index contracted and equated to the law of conservation of canonical energy momentum. The new JCE identity of UFT313 shows that the second Bianchi identity with torsion is an intricate tensorial construction completely different from the law of conservation of canonical enegy momentum. So consderiation of torsion completely refutes the Einstein field equation and all the mythology tht has grown around it, such as false claims to preceise agreement, Big Bang, black holes, the whole lot. The twenty first century ECE / ECE2 theory has taken over from the idols of the Baconian cave – the mediaeval dogma of the twentieth century, and there are ECE schools of thought in every major university of note, including the Ivy League, Oxbridge and so on. The feedback shows this clearly and conclusively. Dogma has a corrosive effect on the human mind, and people are fed with all kinds of media nonsense about EGR. This is countered by the ECE enlightenment, which started with the new millennium in 2003.

### Book of Scientometrics Updated to 28th June 2018

June 30, 2018This is the second volume of "The Book of Scientometrics" updated to 28/6/18.

### Monthly Statistics File

June 30, 2018### Daily Weblogs Report 28/6/18

June 30, 2018The equivalent of 107,009 printed pages was downloaded (390.155 megabytes) from 2,494 downloaded memory files (hits) and 527 distinct visits each averaging 3.7 memory pages and 8 minutes, top referrals total 2,468,631, printed pages to hits ratio 4.91, 41.2% spiders mainly from Baidu, Google, MSN and Yahoo. University of Quebec Trois Rivieres UFT405 – 409; Apple spidering 83 Refutations of Einsteinian general relativity; University of Edinburgh spidering; British Library UFT409, UFT407, UFT223. Intense interest all sectors webalizer file attached.

### Second Bianchi Identity of 1902 and the Einstein Field Equation

June 29, 2018These are described in Eq. (3.87) of Carroll’s online lecture notes to "Spacetime and Geometry: an Introduction to General Relativity". Two index contractions give the 1902 second Bianchi identity as: D sup mu G sub mu nu = 0, where G sub mu nu is the Einstein tensor G sub mu nu = R sub mu nu – (1/2) R g sub mu nu. Conservation of energy / momentum is expressed as D sup mu T sub mu nu = 0 in terms of the canonical energy momentum tensor. So the Einstein field equation is

D sup mu G sub mu nu = D sup mu T sub mu nu = 0

i..e

G sub mu nu = k T sub mu nu

where k is the Einstein constant. The second Bianchi identity is now known to be completely wrong (UFT88, UFT99, UFT109, UFT255. UFT313, UFT354 and many other papers) and its correct form is given in UFT313. The Einstein field equation is completely wrong and no conclusion based on it can be correct.

### Major Problems for EGR

June 29, 2018Prior to 2003 I accepted EGR uncritically, but it immediately became clear in 2003 that a geometry without torsion is completely wrong. EGR tries to remove torsion by using a symmetric connection in a completely arbitrary way. Many UFT papers now show that the inclusion of torsion completely changes the Einstein field equation and refutes the entire output of work in EGR in standard physics. Although UFT88 is a very popular classic, it is a difficult paper because it uses tensor algebra, but the latest refutations of EGR are very simple, and can be understood by the general public. For example UFT406 shows that standard physics omits geodetic and Lense Thirring precession when attempting to describe planetary precession using only the Einstein force between m and M, so its claims to precision fall apart completely. Notes for UFT410 show that the standard theory of geodetic precession is algebraically incorrect and was corrected in Note 410(1) . It has also been shown that the standard theory of Thomas precession is incorrect. The results of Gravity Probe B are completely refuted by these latest findings. Einsteinian , geodetic and Lense Thirring precessions cannot be isolated experimentally without first assuming a theory and Gravity Probe B detects only one overall precession, and that is all. In the Hulse Taylor binary pulsar, UFT409 shows that the Einstein field equation gives completely the wrong result. It gives a precession that is only about half the observed precession. The standard modellers cobble up a non linear Einstein equation by playing around with connections. Presumably they are aware that the fabled EGR fails completely in the Hulse Taylor binary pulsar, and probably in thousands of other cases around the Universe. In consequence there is no gravitational radiation from the Hulse Tylor binary pulsar. In a whirlpool galaxy the Einstein theory does not give the correct velocity curve it fails completely (PECE and PECE2) . The Einstein theory of light bending falls apart under the criticism of UFT150 to UFT155 and many other UFT papers. The ECE2 theory of light bending is simple and precise. UFT99 shows that the omission of torsion implies the disappearance of curvature, a disaster for EGR, UFT354 by Lindstrom and Eckardt (see also PECE2) shows the consequences of not using a symmetric connection. The entire geometrical framework is completely changed, and EGR collapses completely. UFT313 shows that the second Bianchi identity with torsion is the Jacobi Cartan Evans identity, a very intricate construction of tensor algebra that is completely different from the second Buanchi identity of 1902 upon which EGR is still based, despite a huge number of refutations. The EGR “establishment” ignores millions of readings of these refutations and have lapsed into silence. Obviously the funding for EGR should be stopped. The only reason for hanging on to obsolete ideas is funding. This is the complete antithesis of Baconian science. Long Essay One can be understood by general public and summarizes all these refutations. Albert Einstein wrote that it takes only one piece of data to refute a theory, now it takes a huge number of theoretical refutations and thousands of experimental refutations. These are inconvenient because they come in the way of funding. So it is a very corrupt age. Einstein himself was never funded very much, he had no interest in funding.

### 410(1): The Correct Calculation of de Sitter Precession

June 29, 2018Fwd: 410(1): The Correct Calculation of de Sitter Precession

To: Myron Evans <myronevans123>

Many thanks again for going through this note. It is just meant to illustrate the fact that the obsolete infinitesimal line element (1) of the Einstein field equation, when subjected to the 1916 de Sitter rotation (4), gives the result (10) using simple algebra. This algebra can be double checked by computer. The infinitesimal line element of the obsolete de Sitter or geodetic precession of the standard model of physics reduces to Eq. (18), which gives Eq. (19). Eqs. (1) and (18) are defined in the observer frame, so the interval dt sub 1 is defined in the observer frame. It is algebraically equal to the interval of proper time d tau in the rotating frame. This is another discovery that appears to be entirely new, and comes from simple algebra. The wikipedia article on geodetic precession is a sad mess and incomprehensible, so I decided to work out the problem from the beginning using simple algebra. I agree that the proper time tau is the time in the moving frame, t is the time in the observer frame. In Note 410(2) I give the theory of time dilatation and length contraction in all detail, arriving at the entirely new result Eq. (31) of note 410(2). This is named "precession due to dime dilatation and length contraction", an entirely new concept.

I am a bit confused about the observer frame and frame of the moving object (proper time tau). It seems that for eqs.(18/19) dt_1 and dtau are proper time of the rotating frame, not the observer frame. Time is delated when seen from outside, so

dt > dt_1 = dtau

as stated in eq.(20).

Horst

Am 27.06.2018 um 10:01 schrieb Myron Evans:

410(1): The Correct Calculation of de Sitter Precession

This note gives the correct calculation of de Sitter precession and points out that the only correct precession is ECE2 precession. The concept is introduced of precession due to time dilatation for all metrics. There is also precession due to length contraction.

### Note 409(6): The correct expression for Thomas precession

June 29, 2018Note 409(6): The correct expression for Thomas precession

There is a very rapid development in the latest notes. The correct theory of precession using the de Sitter rotation (18) should be used, not the Wikipedia source I used for UFT110 . By now no one can have any confidence in Wikipedia. Our own method in the UFT papers is to go over an idea and derivation many times, sometimes for years. The correct result of de Sitter rotation (18) applied to the infinitesimal line element (1) gives Eq. (24) of Note 409(6), and the new law of all precessions, Eq. (25). In these equations the de Sitter rotation (18) refers to m orbiting M (e.g. a planet or in a binary pulsar). It would be interesting to find v sub theta for the planets and the Hulse Taylor binary pulsar. All observable precessions are described precisely by v sub theta. This is a simple result, easy to apply in astronomy. The correct derivation is given in Eq. (21). We have both derived this result independently. For ease of reference I give the incorrect derivation of Wikipedia in Eqs. (26) and (27). I used this uncritically in UFT110 but from now on the correct expression (25) should obviously be used in astronomy. The extra de Sitter rotation (18) refers to the object m orbiting M. Note carefully that when v sub theta goes to zero in Eq. (24) there is still a precession present. This appears to be a completely new discovery. The line element (1) itself gives a precession, without any de Sitter rotation. This is a fundamental precession due to the Lorentz transformation itself (the Lorentz boost). In the latest note 410(2) I related this new precession to time dilatation and length contraction. So the new precession is defined by experimental measurements of time dilatation and length contraction, which are very accurate.

I am a bit behind with going through the notes. It is not fully clear to me what the different kinds of rotation mean. In metric (1-3) the rotation of a coordinate value phi (connected with an orbiting mass) leads to the well known gamma factor. In (18) a frame rotation dphi’/dt is introduced that is an additonal rotation. It seems to me that this rotation has nothing to do with the rotation of the orbiting mass which is described by the angular velocity

omega = dphi/dt.

If this is an additional rotation, it leads to an additional angular velocity

omega’ = dphi’/dt.

This would mean that we cannot equate omega with omega’. The latter would have to be used in eq.(18) instead of omega and could be determined experimentally from the precession angle (23), but omega*r of the Newtonian part cannot be unified with omega’*r from frame rotation. Do I see something wrong here? Alternatively, the meaning of (18) could be that omega itself evokes an additional frame rotation. Then all is fine as described in the note.

Horst

Am 22.06.2018 um 17:09 schrieb Myron Evans:

Note 409(6): The correct expression for Thomas precession

Note 409(6): The correct expression for Thomas precession

Good to hear from you! These experiments would be most interesting, in for example a pendulum. It is possible to work fluid dynamics into the ECE2 formalism through the expression for acceleration. From 2003 to 2018 a million page equivalents of material has been produced on all aspects of ECE and ECE2 physics,and every one of these million pages is read around the world continuously. So AIAS / UPITEC is the intellectual compass for all these people. Ideas are developing very rapidly. Th ECE2 precession of the pendulum can be explained with a e sitter rotation in exactly the same was as the precession of planets and the Hulse Taylor binary pulsar.

Hi Prof. Evans,

I’ve been investigating ways to experimentally confirm aspects of the ECE2 fluid spacetime representation. This, for me, has become a somewhat difficult material science problem (owing to the limited resources here at my home). Dr. Horst Eckardt has provided additional guidance to aid in my efforts, which are ongoing.

However, I became aware of a recent publication, Relativistic fluid dynamics with spin ,Wojciech Florkowski, Bengt Friman, Amaresh Jaiswal, and Enrico Speranza Phys. Rev. C 97, 041901(R) – Published 10 April 2018 https://journals.aps.org/prc/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevC.97.041901 , to which I do not have access.

A general audience level article description (available here: When fluid flows almost as fast as light with quantum rotation, https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-06/thni-wff062118.php ) prompted me to wonder how your recent work describing Thomas precession may be related to the companion fluid spacetime representation, and how the Thomas precession finds expression at the quantum level. My initial thought was that there might be some pertinent experimental facts revealed in this Physical Review C source article, notwithstanding any of the extraneous Standard Model gibberish contained therein, which may offer additional ECE2 corroboration.

cheers,

Russ DavisMiami, FL