Archive for October, 2018

Einstein did not Prove E = m c squared

October 31, 2018

I have looked up Google to find immediately that Einstein did not actually prove E = m c squared from his own special relativity. I used as my baseline calculation chapter fourteen of Marion and Thornton, third edition, which derives E = m c squared from the work integral. I then systematically extended the baseline calculation to m space. I greatly admire some of Einstein’s work but I am not fixated by any media idolization. I have first hand historical knowledge of the real character of Einstein from conversations with Jean-Pierre Vigier and Ernest Sternglass, who both knew him well. The new equation E = m(r) half m c squared totally changes the whole of physics, from particle physics to cosmology. In the past few months Horst Eckardt and I have been carrying out many exhaustive self consistency tests of the new theories, using a combination of analytical and computational techniques. The standard model is completely shredded by the new equation for the famous rest energy, because at the mythical event horizon, there would be no rest energy. That would drive standard cosmology crazy, there would be no stars for example. Every night as I do my druidical sacrifices, I see stars as I howl homage to the half god of the new moon. I do not know who first derived E = m c squared from special relativity. Many people such as Oliver Heaviside came close to it. The real history of special relativity is very much more intricate than Einsteinian mythology. Anyone can see this if they studied the internet.

418(4) : Rigorous Self Consistency and The Rest Energy in m Space

October 31, 2018

Many thanks to the Co President of AIAS, Dr. Gareth J. Evans of Room 262. I have been forwarding these discoveries to four successive Prime Ministers since I was appointed Civil List Pensioner in 2005, so they all decided to drop the standard model using a three line whip.
418(4) : Rigorous Self Consistency and The Rest Energy in m Space

Great result introducing consistency and a wealth of new information. A very major advance.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.

curvature of m function

October 31, 2018

Curvature of m function

Interesting ideas. As you know, torsion and curvature are defined by the first and second Maurer Cartan structure equations, so the choice of tetrad and spin connection would lead to positive or negative torsion and curvature. The m function is defined in the most general spherically symmetric spacetime, and there is freedom of choice of m, it can be positive or negative provided that it reduces to one in flat, Minkowski spacetime. The m theory is a startling theory with a life of its own. For example it gives a range of very severe tests of the obsolete Einstein theory, which is history of science by now. For example at the event horizon (m(r) = 0)) the hamiltonian, angular momentum, relativistic kinetic energy and relativistic linear momentum of m theory all disappear, suggesting that something is drastically wrong with the idea of event horizon and black holes. We suspected that of course, but now we know for sure.

In Cartan geometry negative curvature is possible.Is it meaningful to
extend m(r) to negative values? Then the generalized gamma factor would
be defined (i.e. real valued). I don’t know what the dynamics would look
like in that case.

Horst

Updated version of 417,3

October 31, 2018

FOR POSTING: Section 3 of UFT417
Updated version of 417,3

This is a section by co author Horst Eckardt, which should promote leading thinkers worldwide into a highly excited state, thus emitting brilliant enlightenment into the darkest recesses of the dogmatic cave.

This is the updated version with the additional diagram (Fig. 9). It
should make the connection between gamma, m(r) and v/c much clearer.

Horst

paper417-3.pdf

418(4) : Rigorous Self Consistency and The Rest Energy in m Space

October 31, 2018

This note announces the discovery of the rest energy in m space (the most general space that is spherically symmetric):

E0 = m(r1) power half m c squared

and shows that the m theory is entirely self consistent, giving a completely new physics and cosmology that can be tested experimentally in the usual way. The relativistic kinetic energy in m theory is shown to be

T = m(r1) gamma m c squared – m(r1) power half m c squared

which is rigorously consistent with the hamiltonian and angular momentum in m space, and the relativistic linear momentum in m space. These calculations extend the famous derivation in flat (Minkowki) spacetime of E0 = m c squared published by Einstein in 1905.

a418thpapernotes4.pdf

Book of Scientometrics Volume Two Updated to 29/10/18

October 31, 2018

This is the latest update of the second volume of “The Book of Scientometrics”, showing the usual intense and high quality international interest in www.aias.us from universities, institutes and similar. Final returns for October 2018 will be broadcast as usual in two days’ time.

BSlatestoctober16-292018.PDF

Daily Weblogs Report 31/10/18

October 31, 2018

The equivalent of 191,011 printed pages was downloaded (696.427 megabytes) from 1,917 memory files downloaded (hits) and 498 distinct visits each averaging 3.0 memory pages and 6 minutes, top referrals total 2,555,615, 42% spiders mainly from Baidu, Google, MSN and Yahoo. City of Winnipeg UFT section; Apple Inc spidering; The University of Pardubice Czech Republic UFT165(Sp); University of California Berkeley UFT273; Case Western Reserve University Proof One, UFT213; Mexican National Institute of Astrophysics, Optics and Electronics LCR Resonant; The World Wide Web Consortium general; Mathematics University of Cambridge UFT142. Intense interest all sectors, webalizer file attached.

www.aias.us/new_stats

418(3): Retransmitting due to missing page.

October 30, 2018

a418thpapernotes3.pdf

Final Results for Superluminal Graphics

October 30, 2018

Final Version of Superluminal Graphics

2nd try: this is the graphics file.
Horst

Important Results for Superluminal Motion

October 30, 2018

Important Results for Superluminal Motion

I will add this diagram to the paper. It shows the generalized gamma factor in dependence of the m(r) values. The curves are parameterized by v/c. gamma can drop below 1 for m(r)>1. It is seen that v/c > 1 is no problem for m theory.

Horst

Am 30.10.2018 um 08:00 schrieb Horst Eckardt:

In the last paragraph of section 3.2 it should read
gamma < 1
instead of
gamma > 1.

I will eventually make an update with an additional diagram of the generalized gamma factor.

Horst

Am 30.10.2018 um 06:44 schrieb Myron Evans:

Fwd: Section 3 of paper 417

Many thanks! This is one of the most important sections in the entire UFT series and a close study is highly recommended. It has many points of interest, for example it shows that the spherical spacetime is in itself sufficient to produce force and energy which is not present in flat spacetime and not present in the classical limit. It carefully defines the conditions for infinite energy from m space and for superluminal motion, and numerically develops the method for finding m(r) from astronomy. It is a great advance over the Einsteinian general relativity because it does not use the Einstein field equation. This means that numerical experimental can be carried out with various m(r) functions. Horst’s numerical work also shows that the spin connection must be a consequence of spherical spacetime and cannot be introduced arbitrarily because conservation of energy and angular momentum may be violated. The Einstein field equation restricts m(r) to 1 – r0 / r. This is wholly incorrect because as the famous UFT88 shows, the second Bianchi identity used by Einstein is changed completely by Cartan torsion. The Einstein field equation is based on incorrect, torsionless geometry. By now this is well known and well accepted as shown by nearly fourteen years of accumulated feedback data. Cartan torsion causes frame rotation which produces the spin connection, and frame rotation and m space theories are interlinked numerically in this section. So concepts are rigorously self consistent. It is shown numerically that some m(r) functions give well behaved results, others do not. use is made of m(r) functions that give orbital shrinking. So in summary the use of equations of motion in m space produces results of major importance. The equations of motion are dH / dt = 0 and dL / dt = 0 where H is the hamiltonian and L the angular momentum, the conserved constants of motion of any orbit in the universe, and of m space dynamics in general. This method can also produce retrograde precession, the Einsteinian general relativity cannot. So we have gone suddenly gone far ahead of the standard model in a major paradigm shift.
Section 3 of paper 417

This is section 3 with three subsections. I hope all is understandable.
The solution of the m function equations in classical limit will go into paper 418.

Horst

Am 29.10.2018 um 18:03 schrieb Myron Evans:

Yes agreed. The velocity of the frame rotation is related to omega by v sub phi = omega r, in the plus or minus direction, and omega is foujnd from the precession

Question for paper 417 To: Myron Evans <myronevans123>

In eq.(61) there is a term v_phi^2 and a term (dr/dt)^2 = v_r^2. Do I
understand it right that v_phi is the velocity of frame rotation which
is predefined, while v_r is the radial velocity component of the orbit.
Then both components are quite differently to handle. Only v_r has to be
determined from the dynamics trajectories.

Horst