PS: Complete m theory for shrinking orbits – part 3 – time transformation

This would be very interesting, the time t is transformed in m space into t1 =m(r1) t, a gravitational red shift. All aspects of dynamics in m space are governed by r1 and t1. The self consistent plane polar coordinate system is (r1, phi) so r in m space is replaced by r1. Therefore t in m space is replaced by t1. Black hole theory is based entirely on the Einstein field equation without torsion as you know. when torsion is correctly considered the second Bianchi identity is changed into the Jacobi Cartan Evans identity of UFT313 and this entirely changes the Einstein field equation. This was first shown in our famous UFT88, now the most read new paper on the second Bianchi identity, so it probably deserves consideration for a Fields Medal. Therefore the result m = 1 – r0 / r is meaningless, it is based on a geometry that omits torsion by construction. Here r0 is the Schwarzschild radius (SR). All the results about Big Bang are also based on the Einstein field equation, so they all must also be incorrect. This is major progress. The Einstein field equation is incorrect by an order of magnitude in the S star systems and does not give retrograde precession. So your discussion below is very interesting, in m space r is replaced by r1 and t by t1 in all occurrences. In m space r1 is the distance between m and M and the gravitational potential is – mMG / r1. The incorrect 1 – r0 / r does not give a shrinking orbit without having to postulate gravitational radiation from a binary pulsar. The theory of gravitational radiation is also incorrect because of the neglect of torsion. The singularity in the so called SR occurs at m(r) = 0 as you infer, i.e. r = r0 in the obsolete (torsionless) theory. In the new theory there is no longer a Schwarzschild metric and there is no singularity in general. The m space is the most general spherically symmetric spacetime defined by a function m(r1). Steve Crothers has devised an even more general expression for spherically symmetric spacetime. We have used the Crothers metric in a previous UFT paper. So in general there is no need to consider an m function that gives a singularity. In fact such a function cannot exist, because singularities are unphysical. So the examples that you give below begin to show that in the vicinity of a very massive object of finite mass, there is no reason for the existence of a black hole. In fact a black hole cannot exist because it is a singularity. Similarly Big Bang starts with a singularity and is totally wrong. This was pointed out by Hoyle, who immediately rejected Big Bang. So we should develop a completely new cosmology based on a spherically symmetric spacetime without any singularity. Our new theory is so powerful that it can explain any observation. The only reason why people accept rubbishy ideas such as Big Bang and black holes is that they are forced to accept mediaeval type propaganda and in general do not have the technical ability to think for themselves. If they do they keep quiet because they are afraid of being persecuted. So you are beginning to produce an entirely new cosmology with a desktop. This costs the tax payer nothing at all. Our ECE School has a huge worldwide following and is a scientific school, not propagandist media noise. So all your conclusions below are valid, and very well worked out and presented as usual. I will finish off Sections 1 and 2 shortly. The propagandist junk of standard gravitational physics is being quietly but entirely rejected as the scientometrics show. “Black hole” is itself literary junk thought up by a journalist. Wheeler did not coin the term but started to use it. Wheeler replaced Vigier as Einstein’s assistant but Vigier was Einstein’s first choice.

PS: Complete m theory for shrinking orbits – part 3 – time transformation

PS: perhaps we have to discuss if the time is also transformed by the m function. This could lead to cases where infinitesimally slow motion appears in the observer system.


Am 08.10.2018 um 14:51 schrieb Horst Eckardt:

I investigated the effect of separating two spherical regions by a surface m(r_0)=0. Here r_0 is something like an event horizon.
F21: m(r) for r_0>0.3. The negative part is not relevant.
F22: example of periodic orbit for outside the horizon. There is an alternating elliptical motion of near and and wide distances to the horizon.
F23: example of collapsing orbit for outside the horizon. The r coordinate ends at the horizon while r_1 is repelled. Wether this repelling occurs, depens on detiails of m(r) and probably initial conditions.
F24: m(r) for r_0<0.3 (inner part of horizon)
F25: periodic orbit within horizon. This is not different from outer motion, except that r and r_1 differ near to the horizon, not near to the centre.
F26: collapsing orbit within the horizon. After one round the orbit expands and the mass moves to the horizon. For the r coordinate this is the end point while r_1 goes beyond the horizon.

Comparing the behaviour with the event horizon of EGR, there is a coordinate boundary of the Lagrange coordinate r at the horizon. However there is no singularity of the coordinate. However an anomalous behaviour could appear for the oberserver coordinate r_1, which can pass through the horizon. This is similar to alleged black holes where matter can pass the event horizon which is mainly a coordinate singularity. However the standard modelers do not make a difference between the r parameter and a real radius coordinate. r is a curvature parameter as Stephen Crothers has pointed out.

I think this is enough material for section 3 of UFT 416, except some special questions that could arise during discussion additionally.


Am 07.10.2018 um 20:46 schrieb Horst Eckardt:

This is the same calculation as before with the exponential m function

F11: orbits r(phi) and r1(phi). Parameters are a bit more less deviating from m=1 than in the case I sent over before. The r1 orbit is slightly larger than the r orbit as before but both go to zero for m–>0. This may either be an effect of the curve form of m(r) or because the exponential m function behaves less exotic.
F12: The behaviour of the orbits is demonstrated by the trajectories r(t) and r1(t). Both converge.
F13: Velocities v, v1, corresponding to r, r1. Both velocities go to zero for r–>0, m–>0.


%d bloggers like this: