This note shows that the origin of the Thomas precession is spacetime torsion, which gives rise to the acceleration due to gravity in ECE2 theory. It is first shown that the origin of the plane polar coordinates is frame rotation, then it is shown that the Thomas precession originates in a further rotation, Eq. (35). This gives the Thomas velocity (38) and the Thomas acceleration (39). When the Thomas velocity is the Newtonian orbital velocity, the Lorentz factor is derived from a simple frame rotation, a major advance in understanding. It is usually derived from a complicated Lorentz boost as is well known. It is proposed that this type of rotation be named the ECE2 rotation in a space with finite torsion and curvature and that the resulting precession be named the ECE2 precession. The original theory by Llewellyn Thomas (1903 – 1992) was developed in a Minkowski space, with no consideration given to torsion or curvature. Finally it is shown that the ECE2 precession can be understood in terms of a change in the spin connection, another major advance in understanding. It is proposed that all precessions in the Universe be described with complete precision in terms of an ECE2 rotation, and it is further proposed that all metrics and theory based on the Einstein field equation be discarded by avant garde physicists as obsolete and incorrect. These proposals represent the culmination of a rapid advance in understanding over the past few months, resulting in a much simpler and more powerful theory that is above all, geometrically correct. Obviously this has necessitated the refutation of the Einsteinian theory of general relativity. So I will now write up UFT309 and transmit this note to Horst as usual for checking and addition of his own insights. The refutation of EGR is no longer met by howling wolves. In fact it has been accepted in a revolutionary paradigm shift named "the post Einsteinian paradigm shift" by Prof. Emeritus Alwyn van der Merwe, probably the most eminent contemporary physics editor, and a referee of my Civil List Pension nomination by the Royal Society of Chemistry.

## Archive for the ‘asott2’ Category

### Pulsed LENR Review by Douglas Lindstrom Consulted at Cornell University

June 21, 2018This means that Pulsed LENR (low energy nuclear reactions) has been accepted by mainstream physics. By now it is well funded in the usual way, and the Pulsed LENR document has been consulted thousands of times off www.aias.us. The spacetime energy circuit papers (UFT311, UFT321, UFT364, UFT382, UFT383) have also been consulted thousands of times. These have been produced by Horst Eckardt and the Muenich based experimental group.

### Refutations of EGR Consulted by Apple Corporation

June 21, 2018The document “Eighty Three Refutations of EGR” was has been consulted by Apple Corporation together with the list of AIAS staff and the description of the Buckingham Palace garden party to which I was invited as Civil List Pensioner, along with my wife Larisa. Only a few CLP’s are invited to a Garden Party, so this is again a sign of great confidence in the work of AIAS / UPITEC, both in academia and industry. Queen Elizabeth was present at the Garden Party. I was appointed by the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, as Civil List Pensioner in 2005. From 2005 to 2018 about seven hundred papers and books on ECE have been produced, along with about thirty thousand blog postings, and about six hundred essays and essay broadcasts. These have been read or heard tens of millions of times. I wish I could have invited a few members of staff of AIAS / UPITEC to the Garden Party, but only one guest is allowed.

### Daily Weblogs Report 19/6/18

June 21, 2018The equivalent of 182,534 printed pages was downloaded (665.519 megabytes) from 3,247 downloaded memory files (hits) and 584 distinct visits each averaging 4.6 memory pages and 9 minutes, printed pages to hits ratio 56.22, top referrals total 2,464,665, 56.22% spiders maoinly from Baidu, Google, MSN and Yahoo. City of Winnipeg UFT papers; University of Quebec Trois Rivieres UFT406 – UFT408; Apple Corporation Eighty three Refutations of EGR, AIAS staff, invitation to Buckingham Palace; Cornell University Pulsed Low Energy Nuclear Reactor review; Environmental Protection and Safety Center national Chiao Tung University Taiwan IFT291. Intense interest all sectors, webalizer file attached.

### Fwd: Note 409(3): Equivalence of Lorentz boost and Thomas Rotation

June 20, 2018Agreed. The Thomas rotation is generated by phi goes to phi’ = phi + omega t, so the frame spins because the angle phi spins. So (X, Y) becomes (X’, Y’). This change in phi is sufficient to produce the Thomas precession as in previous work. the infinitesimal line element is changed from

ds squared = c squared dt squared – dr squared – r squared dphi squared

to

ds squared = c squared dt squared – dr squared – r squared d ph’ squared

so dt squared remains the same. The four vector x sup mu = (ct, X, Y) goes to x’ sup mu = (ct, X’, Y’). Invariance under rotation means X squared + Y squared = X’ squared + Y ‘ squared.

So Thomas rotation – being pure space-like – leads to the time transformation of eq. (49). Is this consistent with the prerequisite (40/41), where no time transformation is assumed?

Horst

Am 20.06.2018 um 06:59 schrieb Myron Evans:

Note 409(3): Equivalence of Lorentz boost and Thomas Rotation

Many thanks, agreed with your insight below, the boost and Thomas rotation (more accurately the generally covariant ECE2 rotation) produce the same gamma factor when the rotation takes place at the Newtonian velocity. These important insights can go into your new textbook. Your Eq. (1) is an elegant result which can be used in the final paper. In Eq. (41) only the spacelike part is transformed so the timelike part is the same, so there is no prime. The prime in Eq. (43) was a typo, only the spacelike part is rotated. On the other hand the Lorentz boost as you know is a four rotation in which both timelike and spacelike parts change.

Note 409(3): Equivalence of Lorentz boost and Thomas Rotation

This note makes finally clear that the gamma factor for rotations is the same as for translations. In particular linearly moving and rotating systems can be handled by the same covariant frame formalism without principal approximations. This is a remarkable progress over Einstein’s special relativity.

According to the previous note, eq.(47) can be written (the ordering has been messed up by Maxima):

.

A question: Why is no primed “t” in eq.(41)? In eq.(43) it has been primed as expected.

Horst

Am 17.06.2018 um 12:17 schrieb Myron Evans:

Note 409(3): Equivalence of Lorentz boost and Thomas Rotation

This note shows that the Thomas rotation at the Newtonian velocity is a type of four rotation, Eq. (43) taht immediatly produces the relativistic kinetic energy , hamiltonian, lagrangian, total energy and Thomas half . The Thomas rotation produces all the fundamental concepts of ECE2 covariant physics in a simpler way than the four rotation (8) that defines the Lorentz factor and Lorentz boost. In order to define concepts from Eq. (8), additional considerations are needed, such as the work done, Eq. (17). The static ECE2 line element Eq. (13) produces the same relativistic kinetic energy as the Thomas rotated line element. However the latter method also produces an observable precession, while the Lorentz boost does not. The Thomas rotation is the origin of all precessions, such as planetary precession and pendulum precession. UFT406 shows that the planetary precession theory of EGR is completely wrong because it omits de Sitter and Lense Thirring precessions.

### UFT396 (On the Gyroscope), Read at Goddard Space Flight Center of NASA

June 20, 2018This is the paper by Horst Eckardt which introduces several important new features of the gyroscope, hitherto unknown. Other gyroscope papers of the UFT series are summarized in UFT400. The gyroscope is clearly of key importance for all kinds of aeronautics and space flight, and NASA could fund AIAS / UPITEC for this work.

### No Gravitational Radiation from a Binary Pulsar

June 20, 2018In the ECE2 theory there is no gravitational radiation from a binary pulsar. In the EGR theory the binary pulsar is claimed to emit gravitational radiation. By now it is known and accepted (by feedback 2002 to present) that there as so many errors in EGR that it has been completely rejected by the avant garde of the early twenty first century. By now there are ECE scientists, students and schools of thought in every major university in the world, including the world’s top twenty universities.

### Binary Pulsar Precession as a Thomas Precession

June 20, 2018Agreed, this is Ockham’s Razor of philosophy, and in this case the explanation of the binary pulsar precession using the Thomas velocity is far simpler than the Einstein field equation, which gives completely the wrong precession.

Binary Pulsar Precession as a Thomas Precession

Simplicity is the test between the theories

Kerry

On Tuesday, 19 June 2018, Myron Evans <myronevans123> wrote:

Note 409(4): Description of Binary Pulsar Precession as a Thomas Precession

This note defines the classical theory of the binary pulsar, then shows that the Einstein theory produces a precession of 2.368 degrees per earth year. The experimentally observed precession is 4.226 plus or minus 0.002 degrees per earth year. So the Einstein theory is completely wrong as usual. It is shown that a well defined Thomas velocity produces the experimental result exactly, using a rotating ECE spacetime indicative of the presence of spacetime torsion. The ECE2 field equations of gravitation and electromagnetism are based on torsion and curvature. So all precessions in the universe are Thomas precessions (more accurately they should be called ECE2 precessions) due to the existence of torsion. The latter is neglected completely in the standard theory of the Hulse Taylor binary pulsar. This i sthe showcase of EGR, a showcase which is unfortunately full of howlers. The old and creaking ideas of EGR are wolves kept in captivity. They are all howlers, the theory is full of howlers. It is also shown that the standard model produces a completely incorrect total precession of 15.046 degrees per earth year when standard de Sitter precession is added to the Einstein precession. The two precessions always coexist. The shrinking of the orbit of the binary pulsar is described in ECE2 by a decrease in the Thomas velocity, meaning that the torsion slowly decreases. The EGR theory produces a wholly mysterious precise agreement using a method which is as clear as mud. This is claimed to be based on a non linear Einstein theory and gravitational radiation. ECE2 does not produce gravitational radiation from a binary pulsar. In ECE2, gravitational radiation is produced in exactly the same was as radiation theory in electromagnetism, but is twenty three orders of magnitude weaker. Stephen Crothers has heavily criticised the standard theory of gravitational radiation. The mythical methods of non linearity of the Einstein field equation consist of playing around with metrics which are however wildly erroneous due to the neglect of torsion (UFT301 (CEFE)). They neglect the very thing that produces all observable precessions – torsion.

### Note 409(4): Description of Binary Pulsar Precession as a Thomas Precession

June 20, 2018Note 409(4): Description of Binary Pulsar Precession as a Thomas Precession

Agreed, the numerical calculations in UFT375 were very accurate and the same numbers should be used. In this note the rigorously correct reduced mass was used throughout as in Marion and Thornton chapter seven, so the accurate Binet equation is Eq. (10). Denoting m1 = m, m2 = M, Eq. (10) uses m squared M squared / (m + M). In the binary pulsar m is about the same as M. In the solar system M >> m, so the Binet equation reduces to that used by Marion and Thornton, Eq. (17). They replace this by Eq. (20) and calculate the Einstein precession, albeit in a very dubious way as we have shown. As shown in Eq. (18), m squared M must be replaced by m squared M squared / (m + M) in the accurate calculation. This is equivalent to replacing M by M squared / (m + M) as in Eq. (19). In the solar system this is a small correction, but in the binary pulsar it is a large correction. Finally M in Eq. (20) is replaced by M squared / (m + M), leading to the albeit dubious Einstein precession (22). Agreed that the Thomas velocity for the binary pulsar is larger that the observed velocities at periastron and apastron. However, the Thomas velocity needed to give the precisely observed binary pulsar precession is by a new hypothesis the result of an underlying spacetime torsion that results in frame rotation. This is a new idea, the spacetime torsion is related to the angular velocity of the rotating frame and therefore to the Thomas velocity due to spacetime torsion. In further work I intend to show precisely how the two concepts are related. So all precessions in the universe are due, by this new hypothesis, to spacetime torsion, which expresses itself as a Thomas velocity. This is the only correct theory of precession, because it does not use the Einstein equation and its metrics. When the Thomas velocity (or ECE2 velocity) is the Newtonian velocity, the particular result is obtained that the Lorentz boost and the ECE2 rotation give the same Lorentz factor. So a Thomas (or more accurately an ECE2) velocity of 1.366 ten power six meters per second gives the observed binary pulsar precession claimed to be 4.226 plus or minus 0.002 degrees per Earth year. The usual Einstein field equation gives 2.368 degrees per earth year and is totally wrong. This becomes very clear in the binary pulsar, and there are signs of the Einstein equation going wrong also in the solar system (UFT406). I have no idea how the EGR physicists claim precise agreement. My guess is that they play around with the Einstein metrics in an essentially empirical way and call this "a non linear correction". This correction also omits torsion and is also totally wrong (UFT301). Finally the inward spiralling of the pulsar is described by a decreasing ECE2 velocity and slowly decreasing spacetime torsion. This will be the subject of future work.

According to UFT 375, the masses of the double star system are not exactly equal, they differ by about 5%. Therefore it could be better to use the exact values in the reduced mass mu but hte result will nearly be the same.

I do not understand the transition in eq.(18/19) from M to m2.

The numerical calculations are correct. In comparison, the Newtonian velocity of the pulsar (eq.12) is

v_N = 6.570*10^5 m/s

while the experimentally found velocity, probably at apastron, is 4.50*10^5 m/s. This is only a half of the Thomas velocity.

Horst

Am 19.06.2018 um 13:04 schrieb Myron Evans:

Note 409(4): Description of Binary Pulsar Precession as a Thomas Precession

This note defines the classical theory of the binary pulsar, then shows that the Einstein theory produces a precession of 2.368 degrees per earth year. The experimentally observed precession is 4.226 plus or minus 0.002 degrees per earth year. So the Einstein theory is completely wrong as usual. It is shown that a well defined Thomas velocity produces the experimental result exactly, using a rotating ECE spacetime indicative of the presence of spacetime torsion. The ECE2 field equations of gravitation and electromagnetism are based on torsion and curvature. So all precessions in the universe are Thomas precessions (more accurately they should be called ECE2 precessions) due to the existence of torsion. The latter is neglected completely in the standard theory of the Hulse Taylor binary pulsar. This i sthe showcase of EGR, a showcase which is unfortunately full of howlers. The old and creaking ideas of EGR are wolves kept in captivity. They are all howlers, the theory is full of howlers. It is also shown that the standard model produces a completely incorrect total precession of 15.046 degrees per earth year when standard de Sitter precession is added to the Einstein precession. The two precessions always coexist. The shrinking of the orbit of the binary pulsar is described in ECE2 by a decrease in the Thomas velocity, meaning that the torsion slowly decreases. The EGR theory produces a wholly mysterious precise agreement using a method which is as clear as mud. This is claimed to be based on a non linear Einstein theory and gravitational radiation. ECE2 does not produce gravitational radiation from a binary pulsar. In ECE2, gravitational radiation is produced in exactly the same was as radiation theory in electromagnetism, but is twenty three orders of magnitude weaker. Stephen Crothers has heavily criticised the standard theory of gravitational radiation. The mythical methods of non linearity of the Einstein field equation consist of playing around with metrics which are however wildly erroneous due to the neglect of torsion (UFT301 (CEFE)). They neglect the very thing that produces all observable precessions – torsion.

### Note 409(3): Equivalence of Lorentz boost and Thomas Rotation

June 20, 2018Many thanks, agreed with your insight below, the boost and Thomas rotation (more accurately the generally covariant ECE2 rotation) produce the same gamma factor when the rotation takes place at the Newtonian velocity. These important insights can go into your new textbook. Your Eq. (1) is an elegant result which can be used in the final paper. In Eq. (41) only the spacelike part is transformed so the timelike part is the same, so there is no prime. The prime in Eq. (43) was a typo, only the spacelike part is rotated. On the other hand the Lorentz boost as you know is a four rotation in which both timelike and spacelike parts change.

Note 409(3): Equivalence of Lorentz boost and Thomas Rotation

This note makes finally clear that the gamma factor for rotations is the same as for translations. In particular linearly moving and rotating systems can be handled by the same covariant frame formalism without principal approximations. This is a remarkable progress over Einstein’s special relativity.

According to the previous note, eq.(47) can be written (the ordering has been messed up by Maxima):

.

A question: Why is no primed "t" in eq.(41)? In eq.(43) it has been primed as expected.

Horst

Am 17.06.2018 um 12:17 schrieb Myron Evans:

Note 409(3): Equivalence of Lorentz boost and Thomas Rotation

This note shows that the Thomas rotation at the Newtonian velocity is a type of four rotation, Eq. (43) taht immediatly produces the relativistic kinetic energy , hamiltonian, lagrangian, total energy and Thomas half . The Thomas rotation produces all the fundamental concepts of ECE2 covariant physics in a simpler way than the four rotation (8) that defines the Lorentz factor and Lorentz boost. In order to define concepts from Eq. (8), additional considerations are needed, such as the work done, Eq. (17). The static ECE2 line element Eq. (13) produces the same relativistic kinetic energy as the Thomas rotated line element. However the latter method also produces an observable precession, while the Lorentz boost does not. The Thomas rotation is the origin of all precessions, such as planetary precession and pendulum precession. UFT406 shows that the planetary precession theory of EGR is completely wrong because it omits de Sitter and Lense Thirring precessions.