Many thanks to the Co President for these incisive remarks and to the UPITEC President Horst Eckardt for resending these important graphics.

The Relation between m and Frame Rotation Theories

To: Myron Evans <myronevans123>

Who needs a Nobel Prize when the universe becomes your oyster! Not only does superluminal motion become a possibility but energy from spacetime is available to fuel a new technological and discovery era.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.

417(6): The Relation between m and Frame Rotation Theories

417(6): The Relation between m and Frame Rotation Theories

Many thanks! These are momentous results because superluminal motion can be explained by relativity, confirming work on tachyons by the Recami group reviewed in “Advances in Chemical Physics” vol 119 and carried out experimentally at CERN. If superluminal motion can be realized in engineering it would mean that interplanetary travel becomes possible, and travel to other star systems with planets similar to Earth. There are also momentous consequences for energy from spacetime, which can become infinite. The spin connection can be explained by the departure from Minkowski spacetime and related to the frame rotation caused by torsion. The graphics are very well worked out and clarify the mathematics. Forward and backward precession are shown to behave in a very different way so it is probable that there exist many undiscovered orbits in which retrograde precession will be pronounced.

417(6): The Relation between m and Frame Rotation Theories

I worked out the exact solutions of m(r) from the quadratic equation (20) and its counterpart for retrograde precession. The formulas are E24, E25 in the protocol. In the derivation of this note, m(r) depends on velocity components v_phi and v_r only. The orbital dependence (r,phi) has to be derived from the dynamics of a specific system. m(r) is pre-defined in this way, i.e. for frame rotation there is no arbitrary choice of m(r) possible or required, respectively.

I have graphed the two solutions of m(v_phi) plus the simple approximations (22,23) of the note. I used v_r=0.2*v_phi for simplicity. The curves are quite different for forward and backward rotation. For forward rotation (Fig. F5), the first solution is negative and unphysical, the second starts at m(v_phi)=1 (non-relativistic limit) and approaches low values for v_phi=c, which is set to unity here. The simple formula (22) deviates from the exact one above v_phi approx. c/2 and goes to negative values then. It holds only in the low velocity limit as expected.

For retrograde precession, we have to take the second solution again. m starts at unity and goes up to 2 for v_phi=c. The conformance to the simple formula is good over the whole range of v_phi.

The fact than m(r)>1 can be interpreted as superluminal motion as follows: From the generalized gamma factor we see that the m function alters the effective velocity of light:

c ^2–> m(r)*c^2.

Therefore m(r) > 1 means superluminal motion, at least it is possible from the dynamics in this case. The curves in F6 can be continued to v_phi > c without singularities. It seems that the asymptotic velocity barrier v=c is is lifted here.

An open point is why forward and backward frame rotation behave so differently. Formally this comes from the line element which is not symmetric for dphi+omega*dt and dphi – omega*dt. The consequences are enormous.

Horst

Am 21.10.2018 um 10:27 schrieb Myron Evans:

417(6): The Relation between m and Frame Rotation Theories

This note proves that frame rotation originates in the spherical spacetime and non-Minkowski metric. The forward and retrograde precessions of orbits in the classical limit are given by Eqs. (15) and (17) and the angular frequency of frame rotation is given by Eqs. (22) and (23) respectively for forward and retrograde precession. The m theory is the more fundamental theory and the whole of physics can be developed in terms of it.