## Gaia

Many thanks again, Gaia can probably supply (r, v) data for orbits that are more precise than anything to date. We then systematically apply the Newtonian v squared = MG (2 / r – 1 / a) as I did yesterday for the S2 star. So we need r, v, the semimajor axis a and the mass M of the attracting object to the highest possible precision. Deviations from Newton will give an m(r) function for each orbit. Nobody has measured the precession of the S2 star experimentally to date. There have been non EGR theories combined with computer simulations which come up with precessions which vary from – 1 degree per S2 orbit to about +2 degrees per S2 orbit. These were described in UFT375. However as I showed yesterday the S2 orbit from the closest approach of 18th May 2018 is nearly Newtonian even though the EGR precession of 0.218 degrees per S2 orbit is two orders of magnitude larger than planetary precessions. The S2 orbit takes 16.0518 earth years to complete, so in terms of earth years, EGR predicts a precession of 0.0136 degrees per earth year. One degree = 3,600 arcseconds, so the S2 precession is 48.96 arcseconds a year = 4,896 arcseconds every earth century. This compares with 43 arcseconds per earth century for Mercury.

Subject: Gaia
To: Myron Evans <myronevans123>

Dear Myron,

The ESA probe Gaia is currently mapping the sky to unbelievable precision.

Kerry

On Saturday, 10 November 2018, Myron Evans <myronevans123> wrote:

I will study the references given in the article and have a look around google myself. This is no problem. As you know there are several ways in which m theory can be applied to the problem of precession and any orbit can be described by m theory given the astronomical data. The Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics would probably have a detailed data bank on S2, and I can try to e mail the authors of the paper which reports retrograde precession. Maybe Alex Hill and Doug Lindstrom are able to do a literature search. In the meantime I will press ahead with the application of m(r) theory to light deflection, the velocity curve of a whirlpool galaxy and so on. I agree that accurate data are needed for the S2 orbit, so that initial conditions for your computation can be defined. This would be an important application of m theory. Perhaps Kerry Pendergast knows how to consult a data bank on the S2 star or other systems in astronomy. It can be seen from the paper by Borka et al that the deviations from a Newtonian orbit are very small, but I agree that it is best to have good clean data obtained by observation.

Precession of the S2 Star

Many thanks for doing the literature search by yourself. We should indeed ask the AIAS members to do such work so that we are freed for other tasks. Are there references to articles not available over the internet?
There seem not to be direct measurements of the velocity of the S2 star at certain points of the orbit. This would be important to have reliable initial conditions for a calculation. Otherwise we have to use the Newtonian formula and adapt the value so that the orbital period comes out correctly. I think I did this for the Hulse-Taylor pulsar while some (not conforming) velocity values were known as far as I remember.

Horst

Am 10.11.2018 um 09:27 schrieb Myron Evans:

Precession of the S2 Star

I recalculated the precession using the Wikipedia data on S2 in SI units: Mass of the centre of the galaxy = 8.572 ten power 36 kilograms
Semi major axis = 1.451 ten power 14 metres
eccentricity = 0.88466

These give an EGR precession of 3.8037 radians per S2 orbit of 16.0518 earth years, which is 0.218 degrees per S2 orbit. These data are very similar to those used in UFT375, which gave a precession of 0.203 degrees per orbit. I then used Google keywords “precession of the S2 star” to find one of the many papers I used for UFT375: D. Borka et al. “Constraints on R sup n Gravity from Precession of Orbits of S2 Like Stars”. This paper reports a RETROGRADE precession of – 1 degree per S2 orbit. So EGR is out by a factor of about five and in the wrong direction. The authors come from the Vinca Institute, the University of Belgrade, Astronomical Observatory Belgrade, The Institute of Theoretical and Experimental Physics in Moscow, and the renowned Bogoliubov Laboratory in Dubna. They discard EGR in favour of R sup n theory and computer simulation. I worked with authors from the Bogoliubov Laboratory in the preparation of the award winning “Modern Nonlinear Optics”. So m theory can be applied to this problem in several ways. I agree with Horst that the AIAS Fellows could carry out google searches to see if they can find any experimental data on the S2 precession. Borka et al. report that the S2 orbit is non Keplerian. So EGR is completely refuted, as in the velocity curve of a whirlpool galaxy. There are nearly a hundred refutations of EGR in the UFT papers. There does not appear to be any objection to the paper by Borka et al. In fact this discards EGR completely. So the S2 star does not agree with EGR at all.