Archive for the ‘asott2’ Category

406(1): Precessions of Mercury and Earth : Complete Refutation of EGR

April 23, 2018

In integrating Eq. (1), delta phi is taken to be the constant experimental value, e.g. 44 seconds of arc per earth century for Mercury, so the integration gives the simple result (5), which leads to the result (10), a completely new explanation of all precessions in terms of vacuum fluctuations. This method replaces the claims of the standard physics, and can be extended to light deflection by gravitation and the velocity curve of a whirlpool galaxy. Real physics is simple, as first pointed out by William of Ockham in the context of mediaeval philosophy. He was expelled from Oxford and Paris, declared a heretic, and was given the protection of Ludwig of Bavaria.

406(1): Precessions of Mercury and Earth : Complete Refutation of EGR

The differential equation (2) contains Delta phi which you assumed constant. Doesn’t this depends on the radius r via r(phi) or specifically r(2 pi)?
I think we should precisely describe the different kinds of precession as you did in the comment for note 406(2).

Horst

Am 22.04.2018 um 08:40 schrieb Myron Evans:

406(1): Precessions of Mercury and Earth : Complete Refutation of EGR

Thank you! I will continue the analysis today for the other planets, and co Horst will check as usual using Maxima. I think that you are referring to the equinoctial precession, which is developed in UFT119. In this case they used Newtonian dynamics, and they are probably correct within their assumptions, but UFT119 gives an entirely new viewpoint.

406(1): Precessions of Mercury and Earth : Complete Refutation of EGR
To: Myron Evans <myronevans123>

Great professor Evans!

The light is finally coming! Shame on the bunch of dogmatists that parroted a wrong physics for more than 100 years!

Question: you say that each precession is due to vacuum fluctuations. Is it also valid for the Earth axis precession?

IF yes: how is it possible that the classical celestial mechanics attributed such 26000 years precession to the luni-solar attraction on the equator bulge? Is it possible that Lagrange/Laplace/Tisserand/Moulton did such a quantitative macroscopic mistake?

Lorenzo

Lorenzo Santini

Project Manager

Mochovce Nuclear Power Plant

Enel Produzione Spa / Seconded to Slovenské elektrarne, a.s.

3. a 4. blok Eléktrarne Mochovce, zavod

935 39 Mochovce, Slovak Republic

T +421 366 378 654

M +421 911 442 421

lorenzo.santini

Note 406(2) : Final Version of Note 406(1)

April 23, 2018

This is interesting, does the fourth edition contain the experimental EGR claim for all the planets? It would be interesting to find the most up to date comparisons for all the planets. Since EGR theory has been refuted in so many ways to the satisfaction of essentially all the colleagues, even exact agreement would not prove anything. As argued in note 406(1), the geodetic contribution from the obsolete EGR theory ITSELF has been completely left out of consideration. For Neptune, the Newtonian contribution to the observed precession is over a million times the EGR contribution and would have to have been removed very precisely to one part in a million, if the experiment is to mean anything at all. Newtonian methods are used to remove it, so EGR is not used to remove it. EGR is applied to less than one part in a million of the observed precession, and this is completely absurd. This argument has also been used by Miles Mathis as you know. To answer your points:

Eq. (10) comes from Eq. (6). Define A := 6 pi MG / ( c squared) , assume eps squared about zero. Then delta phi = A / a. In reduced units a sub E = 1, so

delta phi (planet ) = delta phi (earth) / a sub p.

The precession in Eq. (6) is for a rotation of 2 pi. For mercury for example this 2 pi takes 88 days. It must be adjusted to 365 days to give it in terms of the earth year of 365 days. For Mercury this is about 44 arcseconds per EARTH century. This is never made clear in the literature. So the precession per earth year (delta phi sub p) in eq. (10) is the precession per Mercury year multiplied by I / T= 365 / 88 where T is 0.2408. So combining the two adjustments we obtain Eq. (10). This is applied to Mercury in Eq. (12) and to Venus in Eq. (12b), giving the correct results in both cases. Finally, the total observed precessions are taken from the Fitzgerald site www.farside.ph.utexas.edu. For Neptune, the actually observed precession in radians per earth year is 1.76 ten power minus five. Eq. (6) gives 3.76 ten power minus eleven radians per earth year. Essentially all of the precession is explained in standard astronomy with Newtonian methods. In the most up to date research they use computer based perturbation theory and N body theory, Monte Carlo methods and so on. The observed precession of Neptune is more than a million times larger than that given by Eq. (6). This is not exactly “precise agreement” with EGR theory. Nearly all of the experimentally observed precession is attributed to the influence of objects other than the sun, and removed with supercomputers using Newtonian methods, and not by relativistic methods. What is left after that is attributed to the EGR contribution. However, I have not been able to find this experimental EGR contribution. It might be in some astronomy library. I cannot find it using Google.

Fwd: Note 406(2) : Final Version of Note 406(1)

Obviously Marion & Thornton used slightly different values for table 7.1 (for Jupiter onwards) which is table 8.1 in the 4th edition.
Where did you get eq.(10)? Did you base this on eq.(6)? And why can you use astronomical units here instead of SI units?
What is Total Delta phi (obs.) in table 2?

Horst

Am 22.04.2018 um 13:53 schrieb Myron Evans:

Note 406(2) : Final Version of Note 406(1)

This note extends the calculations of Note 406(1) and produces Table 1, which shows that the perihelion precessions of Venus and Earth are not described precisely by EGR. This is in fact well known, but covered up. In the standard literature they refer to this as an “anomaly”, a polite word for a disaster. I give some planetary data in Table 2, and give the theoretical EGR precessions of all the planets in Table 3. In this table the total observed precessions are given, following farside.ph.utexas.edu. It is seen that the part attributed to EGR is a small fraction of the total. For a planet such as Neptune the part attributed to EGR is six orders of magnitude smaller than the total. In other words, the only observable data give a precession that is a million times larger than what is being sought. In Mercury it is over a hundred times larger as is in fact well known. This inconvenience is removed by a Newtonian theory, essentially still the same method as used in the nineteenth century, but made more precise with computers. So in describing the overwhelming majority of the precession, EGR is not used at all. So the standard physics cannot have much confidence in EGR after all. MIles Mathis in his book tears the procedure to shreds. By now, no one has any confidence in standard physics, and everyone avidly reads ECE2 in the safety of their homes, or secretly in the offices of all major universities of note. In the obsolete physics the overwhelming majority of the precession is extracted with Newtonian physics. This is a farcical way of testing a theory whose geometry is completely wrong. In addition the geodetic precession of the planets is not even considered. Despite the double dippy data reduction about $70 million dollars was spent on Gravity Probe B, which entirely neglected the EGR contribution, reporting only the geodetic and Lense Thirring contributions in a very mysterious way. They seemed to have assumed that EGR or Newtonian gravitation in the limit of EGR have no effect on their gyroscopes. In the old theory the EGR contribution is essentially the obsolete Schwarzschild line element and the geodetic contribution is the rotated Schwarzschild line element. The Thomas precession is the rotated Minkowski line element in the old theory. In ECE2 all these ancient mariners are discarded, the whole lot, and replaced by a theory based on vacuum fluctuations. I have not been able to find the experimental claims for EGR for Mars to Pluto, because I have no easy access to a library. However they may exist in the astronomy data and the ephemeris libraries, or they may never have been worked out. A reader with access to a library could maybe find them, but even if found, are meaningless. In UFT344 an entirely new explanation of the geodetic precession was given using ECE2 gravitomagnetic theory, and in UFT119 the gravitomagnetic theory was used to explain the equinoctial precession in a much simpler way that than the standard model.. So in the next note I will apply UFT345, then proceed to the equinoctial precession. More or less all the seven hundred ECE papers and books are classics, so we have an intellectual right to dissolve Parliament as did Cromwell in 1653. Cromwell used force, we use Baconian logic. We will not imprison the Levellers, but encourage them to learn, I advise people to enjoy reading the theory. If they see something wrong please do not hesitate to send an e mail. Our checking procedures are rigorous but something may have slipped through.

Daily Report Saturday 21/4/18

April 23, 2018

The equivalent of 233,625 printed pages was downloaded (851.798 megabytes) from 2,722 downloaded memory files (hits) and 659 distinct visits each averaging 3.9 memory pages and 7 minutes, printed pages to hits ratio 85.83, top referrals total 2,419,989, 44.9% spiders mainly from Baidu, Google, MSN and Yahoo. Collected ECE2 2937, Top ten 1097, Collected Evans / Morris 693(est), Principles of ECE 405, Collected scientometrics 359, Barddoniaeth (Collected Poetry) 273, F3(Sp) 251, Autobiography volumes one and two 194, Collected Eckardt / Lindstrom 182, UFT88 163, MJE 115, Collected Proofs 105, PECE 103, PECE2 97, Evans Equations 78, Llais 61, Engineering Model 57, CV 53, UFT311 39, UFT321 36, PLENR 25, ADD 24, UFT313 44, UFT314 24, UFT315 28, UFT316 30, UFT317 41, UFT318 35, UFT319 37, UFT320 21, UFT322 30, UFT323 37, UFT324 39, UFT325 39, UFT326 27, UFT327 37, UFT328 32, UFT329 36, UFT330 27, UFT331 37, UFT332 43, UFT333 23, UFT334 32, UFT335 43, UFT336 44, UFT337 31, UFT338 29, UFT339 20, UFT340 27, UFT341 28, UFT342 28, UT343 28, UFT344 24, UFT345 46, UFT346 35, UFT347 33, UFT348 37, UFT349 25, UFT351 36, UFT352 33, UFT353 25, UFT354 43, UFT355 24, UFT356 27, UFT357 23, UFT358 24, UFT359 21, UFT360 25, UFT361 19, UFT362 35, UFT363 32, UFT364 27, UFT365 17, UFT366 97, UFT367 43, UFT368 32, UFT369 29, UFT370 30, UFT371 24, UFT372 29, UFT373 20, UFT374 28, UFT375 19, UFT376 22, UFT377 22, UFT378 23, UFT379 13, UFT380 11, UFT381 29, UFT382 38, UFT383 37, UFT384 13, UFT385 27, UFT386 20, UFT387 22, UFT388 30, UFT389 29, UFT390 29, UFT391 35, UFT392 45, UFT393 33, UFT394 40, UFT395 34, UFT396 77, UFT397 39, UFT398 34, UFT399 101, UFT400 40, UFT401 41, UFT402 41, UFT403 40, UFT404 36, UFT405 6 to date in April 2018. University of California Santa Barbara UFT110; University of Edinburgh extensive spidering; Rhodes University South Africa general. Intense interest all sectors,webalizer file attached.

www.aias.us/new_stats/

New Records

April 22, 2018

We are approaching a new record high for readings of ECE2 items. The rate of reading "Principles of ECE, volumes one and two", is also on a new record high, today’s rate is 11,802 times a year off combined sites, www.aias.us and www.upitec.org. These refer to English and Spanish language versions. Therefore the book is already a classic after only a couple of years, and is available from the bookshop of the sites and all good bookshops worldwide. UFT88 is also on a new record high and is the famous refutation of EGR. The physics establishment, or long parliament, was the middle man, and with the new methods pioneered by AIAS / UPITEC, has been dissolved by the march of ideas and is no longer needed.

Siting of graves at Christ College Brecon.

April 22, 2018

Siting of graves at Christ College Brecon.

Siting of graves at Christ College Brecon.

Many thanks for this important information. Our family is related to Rhys ap Thomas, Morgan Awbrey Hen and the Havard Family, and the genealogy is all on www.aias.us. As you know, Rhys ap Thomas of Manor Deilo was a key supporter of Henry Tudor, so he was richly awarded by the King. It looks as if the etymology of Havard (the way it is spelt in Wales) is Ha Vardr, and Havard and Harvarad could have been used interchangeably.

I have always had difficulty in fully understanding what the location was for burials pre-reformation at the friary. I now enclose a page from a tribute to the late Terry James who was a prominent archaeologist in Carmarthenshire up to the turn of this century. He did in the 1980s/90s conduct a survey of the site of the friary in Carmarthen which had largely disappeared above ground and was to be elevated to the new status of being a site for a large supermarket. His excavations showed that many sought to be interred close to the High Altar. There were not just local nobodies, but included the most illustrious of people, including Rhys ap Thomas. He was at the time of his death, the most prominent man in West Wales. [Such was his prominence that his
tomb was moved during the reformation to the most prominent church in Carmarthen
and is there to this day.]

The photo shows on the left hand site the three steps going up to the High Altar which is off to the far right of the photo and unexcavated. I would have thought that the position of of prominent graves in Carmarthen is likely to be replicated in Brecon. In other words the prominent grave positions would be within the present Christ College chancel building itself and preserved to some extent, albeit beneath the present school assembly facilities. Perhaps Morgan Awbrey, the old lord of Brecon is there still.

There is of course the Awbrey chapel, but I was concerned as to its size and the number o prominent Awbrey individuals who could have been buried at the friary. One has to ask as to how firm these names are over the centuries. There was an article this week in the Brecon and Radnor Express which said that the Harvard Chapel was formerly know as the Lady Chapel and known for centuries as the Vicar’s Chapel. The presence of a number of loose Awbrey gravestones there, albeit not as part of the fixtures, may have been sufficient a naming device..

Stuart Davies

Siting of graves at Christ College Brecon.

April 22, 2018

Note 406(2) : Final Version of Note 406(1)

April 22, 2018

This note extends the calculations of Note 406(1) and produces Table 1, which shows that the perihelion precessions of Venus and Earth are not described precisely by EGR. This is in fact well known, but covered up. In the standard literature they refer to this as an “anomaly”, a polite word for a disaster. I give some planetary data in Table 2, and give the theoretical EGR precessions of all the planets in Table 3. In this table the total observed precessions are given, following farside.ph.utexas.edu. It is seen that the part attributed to EGR is a small fraction of the total. For a planet such as Neptune the part attributed to EGR is six orders of magnitude smaller than the total. In other words, the only observable data give a precession that is a million times larger than what is being sought. In Mercury it is over a hundred times larger as is in fact well known. This inconvenience is removed by a Newtonian theory, essentially still the same method as used in the nineteenth century, but made more precise with computers. So in describing the overwhelming majority of the precession, EGR is not used at all. So the standard physics cannot have much confidence in EGR after all. Miles Mathis in his book tears the procedure to shreds. By now, no one has any confidence in standard physics, and everyone avidly reads ECE2 in the safety of their homes, or secretly in the offices of all major universities of note. In the obsolete physics the overwhelming majority of the precession is extracted with Newtonian physics. This is a farcical way of testing a theory whose geometry is completely wrong. In addition the geodetic precession of the planets is not even considered. Despite the double dippy data reduction about $70 million dollars was spent on Gravity Probe B, which entirely neglected the EGR contribution, reporting only the geodetic and Lense Thirring contributions in a very mysterious way. They seemed to have assumed that EGR or Newtonian gravitation in the limit of EGR have no effect on their gyroscopes. In the old theory the EGR contribution is essentially the obsolete Schwarzschild line element and the geodetic contribution is the rotated Schwarzschild line element. The Thomas precession is the rotated Minkowski line element in the old theory. In ECE2 all these ancient mariners are discarded, the whole lot, and replaced by a theory based on vacuum fluctuations. I have not been able to find the experimental claims for EGR for Mars to Pluto, because I have no easy access to a library. However they may exist in the astronomy data and the ephemeris libraries, or they may never have been worked out. A reader with access to a library could maybe find them, but even if found, are meaningless. In UFT344 an entirely new explanation of the geodetic precession was given using ECE2 gravitomagnetic theory, and in UFT119 the gravitomagnetic theory was used to explain the equinoctial precession in a much simpler way that than the standard model.. So in the next note I will apply UFT344, then proceed to the equinoctial precession. More or less all the seven hundred ECE papers and books are classics, so we have an intellectual right to dissolve Parliament as did Cromwell in 1653. Cromwell used force, we use Baconian logic. We will not imprison the Levellers, but encourage them to learn, I advise people to enjoy reading the theory. If they see something wrong please do not hesitate to send an e mail. Our checking procedures are rigorous but something may have slipped through.

a406thpapernotes2.pdf

406(1): Precessions of Mercury and Earth : Complete Refutation of EGR

April 22, 2018

Thank you! I will continue the analysis today for the other planets, and Horst will check as usual using Maxima. I think that you are referring to the equinoctial precession, which is developed in UFT119. In this case they used Newtonian dynamics, and they are probably correct within their assumptions, but UFT119 gives an entirely new viewpoint.

406(1): Precessions of Mercury and Earth : Complete Refutation of EGR
To: Myron Evans <myronevans123>

Great professor Evans!

The light is finally coming! Shame on the bunch of dogmatists that parroted a wrong physics for more than 100 years!

Question: you say that each precession is due to vacuum fluctuations. Is it also valid for the Earth axis precession?

IF yes: how is it possible that the classical celestial mechanics attributed such 26000 years precession to the luni-solar attraction on the equator bulge? Is it possible that Lagrange/Laplace/Tisserand/Moulton did such a quantitative macroscopic mistake?

Lorenzo

Lorenzo Santini

Project Manager

Mochovce Nuclear Power Plant

Enel Produzione Spa / Seconded to Slovenské elektrarne, a.s.

3. a 4. blok Eléktrarne Mochovce, zavod

935 39 Mochovce, Slovak Republic

T +421 366 378 654

M +421 911 442 421

lorenzo.santini

Daily Report 20/4/18

April 22, 2018

The equivalent of 316,786 printed pages was downloaded (1.155 gigabytes) from 2,294 downloaded memory files (hits) and 692 distinct visits each averaging 3.9 memory pages and 8 minutes, printed pages to hits ratio of 96.17, top referrals total 2,419,740, 46.4% spiders mainly from Baidu, Google, MSN and Yahoo. Collected ECE2 2856, Top ten 1065, Collected Evans / Morris 660(est), Principles of ECE 388, Barddoniaeth (Collected Poetry) 263, F3(Sp) 241, Autobiography volumes one and two 186, Collected Eckardt / Lindstrom 170, UFT88 159, PECE 100, PECE2 97, Collected Proofs 92(est), Evans Equations 76, Llais 58, CV 52, UFT311 38, UFT321 33, SCI 28, PLENR 24, ADD 23, 83Ref 16, UFT313 43, UFT314 23, UFT315 27, UFT316 29, UFT317 40, UFT318 35, UFT319 33, UFT320 30, UFT322 39, UFT323 35, UFT324 38, UFT325 38, UFT326 26, UFT327 33, UFT328 31, UFT329 35, UFT330 27, UFT331 35, UFT332 40, UFT333 23, UFT334 29, UFT335 42, UFT336 42, UFT337 31, UFT338 29, UFT339 20, UFT340 24, UFT341 28, UFT342 27, UFT343 28, UFT344 21, UFT345 43, UFT346 33, UFT347 33, UFT348 37, UFT349 24, UFT351 34, UFT352 33, UFT353 23, UFT354 40, UFT355 23, UFT356 25, UFT357 22, UFT358 24, UFT359 21, UFT360 24, UFT361 19, UFT362 34, UFT363 31, UFT364 27, UFT365 16, UFT366 97, UFT367 29, UFT368 26, UFT369 29, UFT370 28, UFT371 23, UFT372 28, UFT373 20, UFT374 28, UFT375 19, UFT376 22, UFT377 22, UFT378 21, UFT379 13, UFT380 11, UFT381 28, UFT382 37, UFT383 36, UFT384 13, UFT385 25, UFT386 20, UFT387 21, UFT388 29, UFT389 28, UFT390 28, UFT391 35, UFT392 43, UFT393 31, UFT394 38, UFT395 34, UFT396 71, UFT397 38, UFT398 34, UFT399 102, UFT400 40, UFT401 41, UFT402 41, UFT403 39, UFT404 36, UFT405 6 to date in April 2018. City of Winnipeg UFT405; German Aerospace Center UFT100; Colleges Aarhus University UFT175; Middle East Technical University Turkey general; Physics Imperial College London UFT291. Intense interest all sectors, webalizer file attached

www.aias.us/new_stats/

406(1): Precessions of Mercury and Earth : Complete Refutation of EGR

April 21, 2018

This note gives the ECE2 explanation of precession in Eq. (2). Any observable precession is due to vacuum fluctuations, a simple and powerful new result that replaces the standard model’s elaborate and obsolete gravitational theory. For Mercury it is shown that the usual EGR analysis, repeated uncritically by dogmatists, is completely wrong. This is because it omits the geodetic and Lense Thirring precessions. The former is partly made up of the Thomas precession. When the calculation is carried out correctly, the theoretical result, the sum of the Einstein, geodetic and LT precessions of Mercury, is more than twice the experimental result. This is not “precise agreement” as claimed endlessly by the dogmatists. The ECE2 explanation of the claimed experimental result is given in Eq. (52) – the post Einstein paradigm shift. The results for Mercury are given in the Table on page 8 of the Note. The geodetic precession is larger than the Einstein precession, but in the dogmatic reiteration of the standard model, the geodetic precession of Mercury is ignored. Finally I did a spot check on the claim that the Einstein theory produces the observed precession of the Earth, but as shown in Eq. (56), it fails by a wide margin. Any reader with a calculator can check Eq. (54). So there can be no confidence in the EGR theory, and judging by the scientometrics, ECE has taken the high ground and the theory is the intellectual leader in contemporary physics. This is a magnificent achievement by the AIAS / UPITEC Institutes and congratulations to all! A vote of no confidence is moved in “the government of physics”: “you have sat here o’er long for all the good you have done, in the name of God, go!” (my ancestral cousin Oliver Cromwell in 1653).

a406thpapernotes1.pdf