## Archive for November, 2018

### Velocity Curve of a Whirlpool Galaxy in m Theory

November 17, 2018

In m theory, the question can be asked as to what is the most general orbit that is capable of giving a constant velocity as r goes to infinity. This question can be answered with precision using computer algebra, but I have completed a few hand calculations and in a given approximation the type of spiral galaxy is governed by m(r), so this explains the shapes of various galaxies for example. This is a particularly vivid illustration of m(r) because it can be observed with a large telescope by observing galaxies. I will finish my calculations in this subject and distribute the notes tomorrow. The shape of galaxies is determined by the type of spherical spacetime in which they have evolved. This is a vivid example of applying m(r) theory where both Einstein and Newton fail completely. As in PECE, volumes one and two they both give v dropping off to zero with r, whereas observations show that v reaches a plateau as r goes to infinity. The astronomer who first observed this was ostracized and ridiculed but is now famous. Same old story (SOS) about human nature. In New York they have a variation on SOS which cannot be mentioned here.

### Book of Scientometrics Volume Two Updated to 15/11/18

November 17, 2018

There was the usual intense, high quality and steady interest from leading universities, institutes and similar worldwide.

BSlatestnovember1-152018.PDF

### 419(4): The Three Kepler Laws in m Theory

November 17, 2018

Thanks again. The rigorous expression is Eq. (22), which is integrated over dA, where dA is the infinitesimal of the area of the orbit A. So in Eq. (27) A was assumed to be a function of r. This gives Eq. (30). In general the functional dependence of A on r is needed. For the ellipse A = pi ab, where a and b are the semi major and minor axes of the ellipse. These have no functional dependence on r, so the area of the elliptical orbit is constant. If the area of the orbit of S2 is nearly an ellipse, as m theory and observations show, then Eq. (33) follows. However the easier way of proceeding would be to use the astronomically measured r and v at closest approach as initial conditions, the astronomically measured T, and the optimized mass M that you derived. Then compute the orbit of S2. The computation would show immediately whether the orbit is Einsteinian. If it were Einsteinian the precession should be delta phi = 6 pi MG / (a (1 – eps squared)) c squared), where eps is the astronomically measured ellipticity.

419(4): The Three Kepler Laws in m Theory

It is not fully clear to me how you obtained the result (33). In the integral (30) you assumed a constant A. I would argue that in (22) the integrand gamma/m(r) is assumed to be a constant average value. Then it can be pulled out of the integral. Writing r-dependent functions in (33) and (35) does not make much sense for me. Whatsoerver, the result is plausible.

Horst

Am 15.11.2018 um 11:59 schrieb Myron Evans:

419(4): The Three Kepler Laws in m Theory

The three famous Kepler laws are given in this Note for m theory. Kepler’s first law is that an orbit is an ellipse. This is changed completely using Eqs. (1) and (2), giving forward and retrograde precession, shrinking and expanding orbits and so on. Of particular interest is Kepler’s third law, Eq. (22), because the last note made the major discovery that the Newton theory in S2 is wildly wrong. In the m theory the central mass about which the S2 orbits is not a black hole, it is given by Eq. (35). By using Eq. (33) it is possible to find the time T for one orbit self consistently. Currently co author Horst Eckardt is working towards the same goal using a different method.

### Fwd: 419(4): The Three Kepler Laws in m Theory – effective mass of S2 star

November 17, 2018

This is very interesting, it means that the orbit is nearly that with m(r) = 1, i.e. m(r) = 0.9877. If so it is not Einsteinian. The Einstein theory produces a precession of 0.218 degrees per S2 orbit. However the astronomers have not observed any precession of S2. A few theoreticians have use R power n theory and Yukawa theory to produce enormous retrograde and forward precessions respectively, but the m theory shows that those precessions cannot be true. The claim that S2 verifies Einstein is a false claim. The orbit of S2 is not Einsteinian. This can be shown using m(r) = 0.9877 and computing the precession from dH / dt = 0, dL / dt = 0 with the initial conditions from the latest data on its closest approach of 18th May 2018.

419(4): The Three Kepler Laws in m Theory – effective mass of S2 star

It is revealing that the Newtonian mass (36) of the S2 star, using the experimental values T and a, is exactly

8.572 e36 kg,

this is given so in the experimental data, i.e. derived from Newtonian theory. Now we can be quite sure that the discrepancy between orbit period calculation and exp. value is from this assumption. To obtain the right orbit period, we have to use an effective mass which is 8.3627 e36 kg. As the calculations have been shown, the gamma factor is 1.0005 in maximum, i.e. the average m function must be

m ~ sqrt(M_eff / M_Newton) = sqrt (8.3627 / 8.572) = 0.9877.

Horst

Am 16.11.2018 um 06:28 schrieb Myron Evans:

419(4): The Three Kepler Laws in m Theory

Many thanks! The orbital parameters M, a, and r and v at closest approach completely violate Kepler’s third law for the S2 star, so the m theory applied to the Kepler laws is the only theory that could attempt to explain the orbit. The parameters M , a and epsilon given in Wikipedia should result in an Einsteinian precession of 0.218 degrees per S2 orbit, but this has not been observed, so the Einstein theory is also completely refuted. This leaves the m theory as the only theory of S2.
419(4): The Three Kepler Laws in m Theory

Great achievements again!

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.

19(4): The Three Kepler Laws in m Theory

The three famous Kepler laws are given in this Note for m theory. Kepler’s first law is that an orbit is an ellipse. This is changed completely using Eqs. (1) and (2), giving forward and retrograde precession, shrinking and expanding orbits and so on. Of particular interest is Kepler’s third law, Eq. (22), because the last note made the major discovery that the Newton theory in S2 is wildly wrong. In the m theory the central mass about which the S2 orbits is not a black hole, it is given by Eq. (35). By using Eq. (33) it is possible to find the time T for one orbit self consistently. Currently co author Horst Eckardt is working towards the same goal using a different method.

### Weblogs Report 15/11/18

November 17, 2018

The equivalent of 184,193 printed pages was downloaded (671.568 megabytes) from 2964 downloaded memory files (hits) and 581 distinct visits each averaging 4.3 memory pages and 16 minutes, printed pages to hits ratio 62.14, top referrals total 2,581,186, 64.3% spiders mainly from Baidu, Google, MSN and Yahoo. Technical University of Vienna UFT33; Apple Inc. spidering; Wolfram Inc. spidering; Massachusetts Institute of Technology feedback programs; Bedford Public Library Indiana PECE, PECE2, Fundamental Errors in the standard model, definitive mathematical proofs. Intense interest all sectors, webalizer file attached.

www.aias.us/new_stats/

### Illegal Parking in Mawr

November 16, 2018

I would like to draw the attention of the traffic department of Swansea County Council to the fact that there has been illegal parking in Mawr since cars were invented. It is illegal to park on pavements in Wales unless there are signs that specifically allow it, and Swansea County Council is tightening up the enforcement of these laws. There are no such signs in Mawr, and there are no traffic wardens in Mawr. My CCTV system has captured thousands of violations, especially around the junction of Mountain Road and Rhyddwen Road. I have overwhelming CCTV evidence of cars parking too close to the junction and on pavements. This is anti social behaviour because it endangers pedestrians and inhibits the view of drivers. Double yellow lines are needed throughout Mawr. The Government is considering the introduction of £70 fines for each pavement parking offence. I keep my car off the road and have never been fined for any parking offence. The authorities in Mawr have simply let the situation deteriorate to the point where the village is jammed with large cars. The language has been allowed to become essentially extinct. This is completely irresponsible. Parking areas are needed to take cars off the road, and the number of cars per family must be reduced. In the fifties the coal miners walked to work and there were only a few, small cars. I would like to see a Councillor doing a shift underground. The Council says that this is a matter for the police, and the police say that it is a matter for the Council. As a Welsh speaking descendant of the Princes (Uchelwr or Nobleman) I say that it is the responsibility of both. Cardiff has a police of naming and shaming repeat offenders, so I have gathered all the evidence on my CCTV system.

Dr. M. W. Evans, Uchelwr, Squire or Armiger, Civil List Pensioner, D.Sc., Ph. D., B. Sc. (Wales)

cc Police Commissioner South Wales

### Results of central mass variation for S2 orbit

November 16, 2018

This is exactly what is needed, everyone can then see what the orbit looks like, and whether or not it is ever Einsteinian. At present there is no experimental evidence that it is Einsteinian. The gravitational red shift can be produced from m theory with any m(r). I think that the latest value of r max is found from a – r0 on the Wikipedia site, which records data after 18th May 2018. There are two inputting groups, UCLA and the Max Planck Institute

Results of central mass variation for S2 orbit

A short hint: the curves have been obtained by solving the full relativistic equations of motion (with m(r)=1) for each M value. Precession is also an output but not shown. I will next vary the m function.
Is there a newer experimental value for the maximum radius? I think we had one found for UFT 375.

Horst

Am 16.11.2018 um 09:54 schrieb Myron Evans:

Results of central mass variation for S2 orbit

Many thanks. This is a clear and logical method of finding the optimal mass about which S2 orbits. The graphs show the dependence of T on M, the dependence of the eccentricity on M, and the dependence of rmax on M. They all show that the orbit is not Newtonian. I would suggest a computation of the orbit of S2 for the optimal mass M found with Horst’s method. This would be the rigorous computation from
dH / dt = 0

### Finding the Optimal Mass and the Orbits of S2

November 16, 2018

Finding the Optimal Mass and the Orbits of S2

A method by Horst Eckardt has given a clear and logical method of finding the optimal mass. This will be reported in Section 3 of UFT419. Using the optimal mass the orbit of S2 can be found by solving dH / dt = 0 and dL / dt =0 simultaneously for the observed initial conditions of 18th May 2018: r0 = 1.7952 ten power 13 metres; v0 = 7.650 ten power 6 metres per second. Then using the optimal mass, the orbit can be computed for different m(r), to see if any m(r) gives the Einsteinian result of +0.218 degrees per orbit. Using various m(r), the above equations of motion can be used to find retrograde precession, forward precession, shrinking and expanding orbits. I realize that it may not be possible to produce precise results, but qualitative results will suffice to demonstrate what is possible. This methodology can be used with any orbit. The rigorously relativistic dH / dt = 0 and dL / dt = 0 can be used. For m(r) = 1 the numerical method should produce an ellipse in the Newtonian limit v << c. The gravitational red shift used in the standard model is found from m theory using m(r) = 1 – r0 / r. However, in m theory any function with the numerical value of 1 – r0 / r for a given r will produce the gravitational red shift claimed to have been observed. This is very interesting work. I can see that there is already a lot of interest in UFT416 and UFT 417, and we know that there is always intense international interest in our work. I will press on with the Cartesian formulation of m theory.

### Orbit of S2

November 16, 2018

Many thanks, agreed. The orbit is 9% different from Newtonian, and the large precession of S2 predicted by Einstein is of course non Newtonian.

I computed the Keplerian law

with experimental a and M. The result is

T= 14.55 years

compared to the experimental T=16.05 years. There is 9% difference. Using the M value of eq.(3) of the note (with experimental v) gives

T = 14.71 years

which is not much more.

Horst

Am 14.11.2018 um 10:10 schrieb Myron Evans:

419(3): Suggested Self Consistent Procedure

The diametric self inconsistency in the standard model analysis of the S2 star is explained in this note, in that they used a Newtonian method for estimating M and claimed that this verifies black hole theory. In other words they assumed a static ellipse and claims that this verifies EGR, which gives a precessing ellipse. This is total nonsense. So I suggest integrating the m theory equations (17) and (18) with the suggestions (1) to (3) on page three. This should show whether the S2 orbit is Newtonian, or precessing.

419(3).pdf

### m theory of the Kepler Laws

November 16, 2018

Many thanks! The orbital parameters M, a, and T completely violate  Kepler’s third law for the S2 star, so the m theory applied to the Kepler laws is the only theory that could attempt to explain the orbit. The parameters M , a and epsilon given in Wikipedia should result in an Einsteinian precession of 0.218 degrees per S2 orbit, but this has not been observed, so the Einstein theory is also completely refuted. This leaves the m theory as the only theory of S2.
419(4): The Three Kepler Laws in m Theory

Great achievements again!

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.

419(4): The Three Kepler Laws in m Theory

The three famous Kepler laws are given in this Note for m theory. Kepler’s first law is that an orbit is an ellipse. This is changed completely using Eqs. (1) and (2), giving forward and retrograde precession, shrinking and expanding orbits and so on. Of particular interest is Kepler’s third law, Eq. (22), because the last note made the major discovery that the Newton theory in S2 is wildly wrong. In the m theory the central mass about which the S2 orbits is not a black hole, it is given by Eq. (35). By using Eq. (33) it is possible to find the time T for one orbit self consistently. Currently co author Horst Eckardt is working towards the same goal using a different method.