This is a comparison of ECE2 covariant and classical theories of precession (Eqs. (42) and (43)). The classical universal law of precession is given by Eq. (41) and the classical shrinkage law per orbit is given by Eq. (36). All the features of the Hulse Taylor binary pulsar can be described classically in a far simpler way than the EGR. This makes EGR irrelevant. The ECE2 theory has many advantages over the classical theory, for example it describes time dilation and length contraction, introduces the rest energy E = m c squared and so on. So a relativistic and unified field theory of the precession of orbits is of course preferred. The most important feature is frame rotation due to relativistic torsion. On the classical level frame rotation has to be introduced as a separate hypothesis. In the ECE2 unified field theory everything is rigorously a variation on Cartan geometry

## Archive for July, 2018

### Comparison of Precession Theories

July 22, 2018### Rapidly Increasing Interest in Combined Sites www.aias.us and www.upitec.org

July 22, 2018From January to June 2018 for combined sites www.aias.us and www.upitec.org there were 1,535,870 hits, an annual rate of 3.07174 million hits a year. The combined gigabytes downloaded total was 839.93, a total of 1.67986 terabytes a year (1.67986 ten power twelve bytes a year, or 1.67986 million million bytes a year). The new calibration factors are 2.42 for hits and 4.94 for gigabytes downloaded. The calibration factor used for the past two years was two. The two sites are archived on the wayback machine (www.archive.org) and contain the same UFT papers and blog. www.aias.us contains in addition the Spanish translations, autobiography, history, genealogy, poetry, photography and so on over three thousand items in all). The two sites have been in existence since the early years of the millennium, www.upitec.org was known as www.atomicprecision.com and so on. So over the fifteen years of existence of ECE and ECE2 theories, the sites would have recorded just over forty six million hits at the rate of 3.07 million hits a year and just over fifty downloaded terabytes. This is by a long way the greatest total of hits and gigabytes per author in the world. The comparative impact table on www.aias.us, prepared over a decade ago, shows that even then, www.aias.us was far ahead of the field, out impacting entire institutes with hundreds of authors. So normally such an impact would be recognized by Nobel Prizes, and I am told that I have been nominated several times for a Physics Nobel Prize. ECE and ECE2 have completely changed physics in Alwyn van der Merwe’s "post Einsteinian paradigm shift".The institutes have been recognized by several nominations of medals of the Institute of Physics. In 2005 I was recognized by the British Head of State and Prime Minister with a Civil List Pension for totality of work up to 2005. From 2005 to 2018 this total has more or less doubled. This total output of papers, books, reviews, essays and translations thereof is by far the highest in the world, and of course the highest ever produced by a scientist from Wales. I was naturalized a U. S. citizen in 2000. This output has been made possible by the colleagues at AIAS / UPITEC, a fully international institute.

### Fwd: 411(2): Orbital Shrinkage from Frame Rotation

July 22, 2018411(2): Orbital Shrinkage from Frame Rotation

Thaks, I am glad that my summary is coorect and these new developments can be seen this way.

Horst

Am 21.07.2018 um 07:02 schrieb Myron Evans:

411(2): Orbital Shrinkage from Frame Rotation

411(2): Orbital Shrinkage from Frame Rotation

This is an accurate summary of recent advances in precession theory. It has become clear that there are several ways in which precession can be developed and defined, none of which use Einsteinian general relativity (EGR). The latter theory fails by an order of magnitude in the S2 star system and has in fact been abandoned by leading astronomers outside of AIAS / UPITEC. This may be a shock to the general public but that is an anthropomorphic statement outside of Baconian natural philosophy. The truth is often a shock, especially when the public is saturated with wild media rubbish about EGR, notably big bang and black holes. I agree with this summary by Horst of recent rapid advances. Clarification occurs when it is realized that there is only one observable precession, and the different theories of precession must all reproduce the same experimental data. So the different theories can be interrelated and are not therefore independent. For example frame rotation produces precession on the classical level, and the same equation of frame rotation produces precession when used in the ECE2 covariant infinitesimal line element. The classical method, however, does not lead to time dilation and length contraction so is not able to give as much information as the relativistic frame rotation method originally introduced by de Sitter in 1916. However, the de Sitter method was applied to the so called Schwarzschild metric and is wildly incorrect due to neglect of torsion. I agree that the angular velocity of frame rotation can be very different from angular velocity of the rotating object m in orbit around M. The EGR theory is by no wisely accepted as being a mirage, it is in fact wildly incorrect. So it is being replaced by several new methods of ECE2 theory.

The situation with precessions meanwhile becomes a bit unclear. To my understanding we have three types of orbital behaviour concerning precession:

1. no precession of any kind. This is a pure Newtonian orbit (exact ellipse).

2. Precession from the relativistic line element without additional frame rotation. The mass moves on an orbit whose coordinate system is plane polar as in classical mechanics.

This case is completely handable by relativistic Lagrangian mechanics (gamma factor with v_N). Eventually positive and negative precessions can be obtained from the choice of the force law.

This case describes the effect of the genrally covariant line element on orbits, including precession.3. There is an additional frame rotation phi –> phi + omega’ * t where omega’ is a new angular velocity which indicates the rotation of the frame, additional to the time dependence of the unit vectors e_r and e_phi in plane polar coordinates. This introduces new effects via the line element, for example different line elements for omega+ and omega- .

In case the additional frame rotation angular velocity is equal to the original velocity omega of the orbiting mass, this is a very special case where the frame is completely rotated as fixed to the mass. This is the approach of de Sitter precession. It should be stressed that this is a very special choice and using independent omega+ and omega- is a general effect interpretable as the influence of the vacuum on the orbit.Points 2 and 3 have to be discerned due to their different line elements. We should be careful in using the symbol omega which only should describe the rotation of the mass, no additional frame rotation. Another point is that negative precession has been observed experimentally. This can probably only be described consistently only by case 3. There may be more than two sign cases to be discerned (except for the line element which is generally valid).

So far my points for discussion.

HorstAm 19.07.2018 um 11:39 schrieb Myron Evans:

411(2): Orbital Shrinkage from Frame Rotation

In this note it is shown that the frame rotation (1) that produces the universal law of precession self consistently produces the precessing orbit (31),a shrinking orbit, and an increasing orbital velocity as the orbit shrinks. These are the well known main features of the Hulse Taylor binary pulsar. Gravitational radiation is obviously not produced by these equations and the obsolete Einstein equation is just as obviously not used and is not needed.

### Question for Sean Maclachlan and others: Setting Up a New Blog on www.aias.us

July 22, 2018Many thanks to Sean MacLachlan, owner and webmaster of www.upitec.org. These are excellent results, especially the totals of hits and gigabytes downloaded. I will add these to www.aias.us. The combined total is astounding, much more than twice the www.aias.us results, the estimate I have been using for about two years. So I can now recalibrate this estimate. In six months from January to June 2018 there were 900,284 hits to www.upitec.org. This is a rate of 1.8 million hits a year. Added to these webalizer results will be the webalizer results for www.aias.us for January to June 2018. The interest in combined sites has been much more than I have been estimating and extends to all the countries and territories in the world. We know this from feedback since 2002. There was a tremendous amount downloaded, 669.95 gigabytes in six months, or 1.34 terabytes a year. There were 707,904 files downloaded in six months, A rate of 1.416 million files a year from www.upitec.org. The combined sites www.aias.us and www.upitec.org display the same UFT papers. In addition www.aias.us diaplays the Spanish translations and so on. So many congratulations to the UPITEC staff, based in Boise, Idaho, U. S. A. The world is looking to us to explain and produce new sources of energy. Normally such an astounding impact would earn a Nobel Prize or Prizes: Physics, Chemistry and Peace, and group prizes such as those of the Institute of Physics, the Copley Medal of the Royal Society, and so on. We have already received many nominations listed in my CV in the blue box above my coat of arms on the home page of www.aias.us

FYI

Here are the website stats for the first half of the year

Summary by Month | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Month | Daily Avg | Monthly Totals | ||||||||

Hits | Files | Pages | Visits | Sites | KBytes | Visits | Pages | Files | Hits | |

Jul 2018 | 5308 | 4486 | 737 | 225 | 2522 | 78547121 | 4736 | 15483 | 94210 | 111471 |

Jun 2018 | 5101 | 4249 | 563 | 235 | 4090 | 119961019 | 7052 | 16914 | 127483 | 153051 |

May 2018 | 5627 | 4362 | 616 | 254 | 4152 | 131796272 | 7899 | 19097 | 135225 | 174440 |

Apr 2018 | 5148 | 3974 | 542 | 222 | 3951 | 121528720 | 6663 | 16281 | 119235 | 154457 |

Mar 2018 | 5314 | 4328 | 798 | 255 | 3946 | 114253761 | 7921 | 24767 | 134173 | 164756 |

Feb 2018 | 4884 | 3842 | 460 | 209 | 4392 | 108116231 | 5871 | 12903 | 107583 | 136765 |

Jan 2018 | 3768 | 2684 | 358 | 186 | 5484 | 74292606 | 5766 | 11103 | 83205 | 116815 |

Sean

On July 21, 2018 at 12:34:42 AM, Myron Evans (myronevans123) wrote:

WordPress seems to have collapsed into chaos, so is it possible to set up a second blog on www.aias.us which would backup the wordpress blog? I could post simultaneously on both blogs. WordPress has a serious bug in its system software that they cannot get rid of, and are not admitting that they have a bug. WordPress also hosts illegal hate blogs as we all know. So I am reluctant to set up a second blog with WordPress and there may be a better blog host company. The idea is to have two blogs on www.aais.us and www.upitec.org. Maybe you can get WordPress unjammed by phoning them at 1-877-794-9757 from Idaho to California. At present wordpress support is completely useless. You kindly set up the WordPress blog in 2006. This bug is also harming your www.upitec.org site,which uses the same blog, because i cannot fix typo’s. I can still post on the blog but cannot access www.drmyronevans.wordpress.com.

### WordPress.com Password Reset

July 22, 2018Many thanks to Sean MacLachlan. The problem has not been resolved by WordPress and as you can see from this morning’s reply to another different WordPress engineer I have changed the password seven times and on each occasion the new password was rejected. WordPress does not keep a log of correspondence with engineers so on each occasion I have to explain the problem all over again and I have been told to change the password seven times. I would be most grateful if you could phone them.

On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 10:36 PM, Sean <sean> wrote:

Myron,

Has someone resolved the wordpress login issue for you?

If not I’ll look into it.Sean

On July 21, 2018 at 12:15:52 AM, Myron Evans (myronevans123) wrote:

myronevans123

### – automattic Cannot Log in

July 22, 2018### Daily Weblogs Report 20/7/18

July 22, 2018The equivalent of 292,375 printed pages was downloaded (1.066 gigabytes) from 2,480 downloaded memory files (hits) and 564 distinct visits each averaging 4.1 memory pages and 9 minutes, printed pages to hits ratio 108.65, top referrals total 2,480,564, 52.4% spiders mainly from Baidu, Google, MSN and Yahoo. Apple Inc. spidering; Wayback Machine spidering; Internet-Census general; University of Edinburgh spidering. Intense interest all sectors, webalizer file attached.

### Jedson R. answered your WordPress.com question “I have not been able to log in to my gmail account, www.”

July 21, 2018### Notes 411(1)

July 21, 2018These are good ideas, I agree that any orbit can shrink, and it may be possible to work out a method for expansion. I will think about this. The idea of a spin orbit interaction term is also interesting. It would be very interesting to graph results from the classical shrinkage equation in order to replace a favourite and destructive mythology, that EGR explains the shrinkage of the Hulse Taylor binary pulsar exactly. The dogmatists posted a graph about this on wikipedia, no less, so it must be true. Anything that appears in the newspapers must of course be true. The standard model of physics has collapsed into newspaper jargon printed in a rag.

Notes 411(1)

To: Myron Evans <myronevans123>

PS: concerning the shrinking of orbits: It would be good to have an idea for the mechanism that accelerates the angular velocities. For the Hulse-Taylor puslsar it is known that the rotation speed (spin) of the pulsar diminishes over time. This is taken as an argument for radiated "gravitational waves". What about any kind of momentum transfer between spin and orbital momentum? This is only imaginable if the vacuum is involved in this process.

Horst

Am 20.07.2018 um 14:20 schrieb Horst Eckardt:

The non-uniform frame rotation is an original idea, seems to be useful and applicable. It seems to me (as you have mentioned meanwhile by yourself too) that that a change of radius could appear in all orbital systems where precession is visible. Probably even an increase of radius is possible if there is a non-uniform reduction of angular velocity.

For the interpretation of rotations see my next email.Horst

Am 16.07.2018 um 14:11 schrieb Myron Evans:

### 411(2): Orbital Shrinkage from Frame Rotation

July 21, 2018411(2): Orbital Shrinkage from Frame Rotation

This is an accurate summary of recent advances in precession theory. It has become clear that there are several ways in which precession can be developed and defined, none of which use Einsteinian general relativity (EGR). The latter theory fails by an order of magnitude in the S2 star system and has in fact been abandoned by leading astronomers outside of AIAS / UPITEC. This may be a shock to the general public but that is an anthropomorphic statement outside of Baconian natural philosophy. The truth is often a shock, especially when the public is saturated with wild media rubbish about EGR, notably big bang and black holes. I agree with this summary by Horst of recent rapid advances. Clarification occurs when it is realized that there is only one observable precession, and the different theories of precession must all reproduce the same experimental data. So the different theories can be interrelated and are not therefore independent. For example frame rotation produces precession on the classical level, and the same equation of frame rotation produces precession when used in the ECE2 covariant infinitesimal line element. The classical method, however, does not lead to time dilation and length contraction so is not able to give as much information as the relativistic frame rotation method originally introduced by de Sitter in 1916. However, the de Sitter method was applied to the so called Schwarzschild metric and is wildly incorrect due to neglect of torsion. I agree that the angular velocity of frame rotation can be very different from angular velocity of the rotating object m in orbit around M. The EGR theory is by no wisely accepted as being a mirage, it is in fact wildly incorrect. So it is being replaced by several new methods of ECE2 theory.

The situation with precessions meanwhile becomes a bit unclear. To my understanding we have three types of orbital behaviour concerning precession:

1. no precession of any kind. This is a pure Newtonian orbit (exact ellipse).

2. Precession from the relativistic line element without additional frame rotation. The mass moves on an orbit whose coordinate system is plane polar as in classical mechanics.

This case is completely handable by relativistic Lagrangian mechanics (gamma factor with v_N). Eventually positive and negative precessions can be obtained from the choice of the force law.

This case describes the effect of the genrally covariant line element on orbits, including precession.

3. There is an additional frame rotation phi –> phi + omega’ * t where omega’ is a new angular velocity which indicates the rotation of the frame, additional to the time dependence of the unit vectors e_r and e_phi in plane polar coordinates. This introduces new effects via the line element, for example different line elements for omega+ and omega- .

In case the additional frame rotation angular velocity is equal to the original velocity omega of the orbiting mass, this is a very special case where the frame is completely rotated as fixed to the mass. This is the approach of de Sitter precession. It should be stressed that this is a very special choice and using independent omega+ and omega- is a general effect interpretable as the influence of the vacuum on the orbit.

Points 2 and 3 have to be discerned due to their different line elements. We should be careful in using the symbol omega which only should describe the rotation of the mass, no additional frame rotation. Another point is that negative precession has been observed experimentally. This can probably only be described consistently only by case 3. There may be more than two sign cases to be discerned (except for the line element which is generally valid).

So far my points for discussion.

Horst

Am 19.07.2018 um 11:39 schrieb Myron Evans:

411(2): Orbital Shrinkage from Frame Rotation

In this note it is shown that the frame rotation (1) that produces the universal law of precession self consistently produces the precessing orbit (31),a shrinking orbit, and an increasing orbital velocity as the orbit shrinks. These are the well known main features of the Hulse Taylor binary pulsar. Gravitational radiation is obviously not produced by these equations and the obsolete Einstein equation is just as obviously not used and is not needed.