cc Prime Minister’s Office

To: EMyrone@aol.com

Sent: 02/08/2015 16:18:08 GMT Daylight Time

Subj: Re: The Incorrect Einsteinian TheoryStephen highlights absurd flaws in very simple ways. Needless to say, the flaws are carried through producing ever more divergence from reality. As you have been saying for some time Myron, a large part of modern physics is mathematical artifact with no physical basis. You do not need to be a great theoretical physicists to see this. Young students can see the confusion and contradictions that abound. They ask for the evidence – something that can be seen or measured and not something that mysteriously pops out of a theory. Some theories have a ridiculously large number of adjustable parameters. Even then they struggle to fit observation and nothing new is discovered. A wrong starting point produces a bad theory, however much it is tinkered with, with no new insight. This is why real physics has largely stagnated for a hundred years and science fiction instead has flourished.

Sent from Samsung Mobile

]]>

r = alpha / (1 + epsilon)

which is a circle with radius alpha / (1 + epsilon). For all practical purposes in perihelion precession of planets, x is very close to unity. So all looks OK. In order to address the problem of light grazing the sun with this new theory we have to use the hyperbolic conic section:

r = alpha (1 + epsilon cos (x theta))

with very large epsilon (order of a hundred thousand).

To: EMyrone@aol.com

Sent: 02/08/2015 13:38:37 GMT Daylight Time

Subj: Re: Computer Checks of notes 323(5+6)I plotted the velocity dependenc x(v/c) for epsilon=0.3 Unfortunately the x factor decreases instead increases for v –> c.

Horst

Am 02.08.2015 um 10:31 schrieb EMyrone:

Many thanks for this. It is particularly useful to calculate the dependence of x on gamma, which is the overall aim as you know, and to check that it reduces correctly to gamma = 1 for x = 1. Eq. (4) of Note 323(6) is precisely analogous to the Lorentz force equation in electrodynamics for a general boost for any v. The gravitomagnetic field cap omega plays the role of B as you know. The concepts are important to understand when dealing with the Lorentz transform. Eq. (4) can be thought of as the Newtonian force in a moving frame. In this work the frames are being transformed, not the particles. This is a key conceptual point. The cylindrical polars are produced by rotating the frame in a circle, Lorentz rotation. More generally one frame can move with respect to the other in any way in this new theory, so it is a theory of general relativity based both on torsion and curvature – ECE2 theory. The route taken in this first attempt, a hybrid theory, was to assume that the precession is given by cap omega, and to use the measured precession of the Earth, 11.45 arcseconds a year to calculate the gravitomagnetic field needed for the precession. It seems to be internationally accepted now that the Einsteinian claim to have predicted the precession cannot be right because he used an entirely incorrect geometry, one with torsion missing completely. The proofs are now being read thousands of timea a year. So now I will write up UFT323, based mainly on the later notes as usual. Usually the ideas take shape in the later notes.

To: EMyrone

Sent: 01/08/2015 11:37:25 GMT Daylight Time

Subj: Checks of notes 323(5+6)Eq.(66) of note 5 can be resolved for x, this gives the dependence of x on gamma, or v, respectively. See eq. o3 of the protocol. For gamma=1 follows x=1, QED.

Eq. (4) in note 6 is the force in the primed frame: Was this intended, although a precession is an effect in the observer’s frame?The numerical value for v[Omega] is larger by a factor 10 in my calculation, increasing the difference to the experimental value (17). Perhaps an artifact of the chosen frame?

Horst

Am 01.08.2015 um 10:19 schrieb EMyrone:

Wigner published this work in about 1939, so it has been known for seventy six years that the photon must have mass. The Higgs boson scene just ignores Wigner’s work and ignores UFT225. This was sent to CERN, who ignored this definitive refutation. Other parts of CERN routinely study ECE theory.

To: EMyrone

Sent: 01/08/2015 08:59:50 GMT Daylight Time

Subj: Re: Remarks on 323(6)Interesting inference that the photon must have mass.

Sent from Samsung Mobile

Cc:

Subject: Remarks on 323(6)An important methodology has been developed in the past few years whereby Horst Eckardt and sometimes Doug Lindstrom check every note almost every day. This is very important because computer algebra can be used to check the algebra and concepts can be checked. We are currently developing an entirely new general relativity of planar orbits based on the general Lorentz transforms in ECE2, boost and rotation. The latter was checked meticulously by Horst and myself, again using computer algebra. In this case the notation will be clarified in the final paper. The most general group is the Poincare group, named by Wigner, who realized that there are three boost generators, three rotation generators and three spacetime translation generators (see a book such as Ryder, “Quantum Field Theory”, which has some wild howlers (UFT225) but in some parts it is free of errors). Wigner also discovered the concept of the little group, and showed that the little group of a massless particle is E(2), the planar Euclidean group. So for this reason alone the massless photon is unphysical, and there can be no Higgs boson for reasons given many times on this blog and numerous UFT papers. To all but ultra specialists quantum field theory is completely incomprehensible, and so is string theory. Some attempts at field unification of the now obsolete standard model contained over a hundred adjustables. With that you could fit a van Gogh. Several string theory metrics in general relativity of the obsolete type, due to Einstein, are refuted in CEFE “Criticisms of the Einstein Field Equation”.

To: EMyrone

Sent: 31/07/2015 20:50:35 GMT Daylight Time

Subj: Re: 323(6): Calculation of the Earth's Perihelion PrecessionThe calculation gives that the 4-vector Q’ (eq. 24) is

Q’ = [ c, 0, 0, 0]

i.e.

bold Q’ = 0.

This is plausible because in the rest frame there is no relative velocity. This should also hold in the relativistic case, not only in the non-relativistic limit, eqs. 31,32.

I will check the rest tomorrow. It seems that using the same symbol v for different kinds of velocities is a bit difficult to follow for the reader, I suggest using different symbols for the relativ velocity, angular part of verlocity etc.Horst

Am 31.07.2015 um 15:36 schrieb EMyrone:

In this first, hybrid type, theory, the Earth’s perihelion precession is calculated from the general Lorentz transform by assuming that its velocity is cap omega x r where cap omega is the gravitomagnetic field. The method gives the observed precession of 11.45 arcseconds a year with a velocity for the Lorentz transform of 6.7685 ten power five metres per second. In the non relativistic theory where there is no precession, the orbital velocity of the earth about the sun is about 3 x 10 power four metres per second, or thirty kilometres per second. A more accurate method is to use a lagrangian analysis to derive the generally relativistic Binet equation. That will be the subject of the next note.

]]>

]]>

Myron Evans, “Barddoniaeth / Collected Poetry” (with New Generation, London, 97 pp, ISBN 978-1-78507-416-5, at about £8.99 or less).

I have produced poetry at a much slower rate than science, but now I know that people of all nations and cultures seem to like it I should devote more time to it and to improving my knowledge of the Welsh language. Everyone should fight like hell for the language, otherwise in the words of Auden: “Intellectual disgrace / Stares from every human face.” A six thousand year old language and culture is about to be destroyed completely by the “exigency of the machine” as R. S. Thomas put it. He was also nominated a few times for a Nobel Prize, much against his will. The book will be available shortly at the British Library in London and The National Library of Wales in Aberystwyth, which has kindly taken all my books and archived all my output from 1973 to present.

]]>

Sent: 01/08/2015 16:42:18 GMT Daylight Time Subj: Mathematical Physicists Dear Scientists,

A Few Things You Need to Know to Tell if a Mathematical Physicist is Talking Nonsense: the Black Hole – a Case Study, 29 July, 2015 http://vixra.org/pdf/1508.0007v1.pdf Yours faithfully, Stephen J. Crothers

]]>

To: EMyrone@aol.com

Sent: 01/08/2015 18:20:40 GMT Daylight Time

Subj: Re: Updated ListingHi Prof. Evans,

Thanks very much for including me on the list of all your sources of email.

I’m currently working on an idea for an implementation of a Coulomb Law spin connection resonance system. I’m looking at two possible approaches, a parametric oscillator, and a non-parametric oscillator case. I usually correspond with Horst Eckardt on various ECE details, so once I’ve made more progress in developing this particular idea, I’ll confer with him.

Cheers,

Russ Davis

Miami, FL

]]>

gamma = (1 – v squared / c squared) power minus half

where the circular part of v is omega r. It can be assumed that omega is a constant L / (m r squared), so

v squared = (L / (mr)) squared

so everything in eq. (60) is worked out in terms of r. You produced some very interesting graphical work on this problem a few years ago, graphics that gave wild and weird orbits if the Einstein claims are accepted. That made nice tasting mincemeat out of the Einstein theory. The profession worldwide now realizes that the establsihment in physics has been ignoring refutations while still demanding very large amounts of money from us, the taxpayers, and while still blasting out the meaningless propaganda. Nothing could be more remote form Baconian science.

To: EMyrone@aol.com

Sent: 01/08/2015 13:07:08 GMT Daylight Time

Subj: Re: Remarks on 323(5/6)Obviously Eq.(60) of note 5 is a kind of first principles approach for planetary precession. Comparison with x theory shows that x is not a constant. A natural way of proceeding would be to evaluate a numerical solution of (60) and compare it with the analytic solution (63). However this comparison will only be reliable if x is not too small. In this approach omega in the gamma factor is given by (62). In note 6 this is refined by v_Omega stemming from the gravitomagnetic field. Is eq.(62) sufficient for larger x values? If not, this prevents a true “first principles” approach in eq.(60).

Horst

Am 01.08.2015 um 10:19 schrieb EMyrone:

Wigner published this work in about 1939, so it has been known for seventy six years that the photon must have mass. The Higgs boson scene just ignores Wigner’s work and ignores UFT225. This was sent to CERN, who ignored this definitive refutation. Other parts of CERN routinely study ECE theory.

To: EMyrone

Sent: 01/08/2015 08:59:50 GMT Daylight Time

Subj: Re: Remarks on 323(6)Interesting inference that the photon must have mass.

Sent from Samsung Mobile

Cc:

Subject: Remarks on 323(6)An important methodology has been developed in the past few years whereby Horst Eckardt and sometimes Doug Lindstrom check every note almost every day. This is very important because computer algebra can be used to check the algebra and concepts can be checked. We are currently developing an entirely new general relativity of planar orbits based on the general Lorentz transforms in ECE2, boost and rotation. The latter was checked meticulously by Horst and myself, again using computer algebra. In this case the notation will be clarified in the final paper. The most general group is the Poincare group, named by Wigner, who realized that there are three boost generators, three rotation generators and three spacetime translation generators (see a book such as Ryder, “Quantum Field Theory”, which has some wild howlers (UFT225) but in some parts it is free of errors). Wigner also discovered the concept of the little group, and showed that the little group of a massless particle is E(2), the planar Euclidean group. So for this reason alone the massless photon is unphysical, and there can be no Higgs boson for reasons given many times on this blog and numerous UFT papers. To all but ultra specialists quantum field theory is completely incomprehensible, and so is string theory. Some attempts at field unification of the now obsolete standard model contained over a hundred adjustables. With that you could fit a van Gogh. Several string theory metrics in general relativity of the obsolete type, due to Einstein, are refuted in CEFE “Criticisms of the Einstein Field Equation”.

To: EMyrone

Sent: 31/07/2015 20:50:35 GMT Daylight Time

Subj: Re: 323(6): Calculation of the Earth's Perihelion PrecessionThe calculation gives that the 4-vector Q’ (eq. 24) is

Q’ = [ c, 0,

0, 0]i.e.

bold Q’ = 0.

This is plausible because in the rest frame there is no relative velocity. This should also hold in the relativistic case, not only in the non-relativistic limit, eqs. 31,32.

I will check the rest tomorrow. It seems that using the same symbol v for different kinds of velocities is a bit difficult to follow for the reader, I suggest using different symbols for the relativ velocity, angular part of verlocity etc.Horst

Am 31.07.2015 um 15:36 schrieb EMyrone:

In this first, hybrid type, theory, the Earth’s perihelion precession is calculated from the general Lorentz transform by assuming that its velocity is cap omega x r where cap omega is the gravitomagnetic field. The method gives the observed precession of 11.45 arcseconds a year with a velocity for the Lorentz transform of 6.7685 ten power five metres per second. In the non relativistic theory where there is no precession, the orbital velocity of the earth about the sun is about 3 x 10 power four metres per second, or thirty kilometres per second. A more accurate method is to use a lagrangian analysis to derive the generally relativistic Binet equation. That will be the subject of the next note.

]]>

To: EMyrone@aol.com

Sent: 01/08/2015 11:37:25 GMT Daylight Time

Subj: Checks of notes 323(5+6)Eq.(66) of note 5 can be resolved for x, this gives the dependence of x on gamma, or v, respectively. See eq. o3 of the protocol. For gamma=1 follows x=1, QED.

Eq. (4) in note 6 is the force in the primed frame: Was this intended, although a precession is an effect in the observer’s frame?The numerical value for v[Omega] is larger by a factor 10 in my calculation, increasing the difference to the experimental value (17). Perhaps an artifact of the chosen frame?

Horst

Am 01.08.2015 um 10:19 schrieb EMyrone:

Wigner published this work in about 1939, so it has been known for seventy six years that the photon must have mass. The Higgs boson scene just ignores Wigner’s work and ignores UFT225. This was sent to CERN, who ignored this definitive refutation. Other parts of CERN routinely study ECE theory.

To: EMyrone

Sent: 01/08/2015 08:59:50 GMT Daylight Time

Subj: Re: Remarks on 323(6)Interesting inference that the photon must have mass.

Sent from Samsung Mobile

Cc:

Subject: Remarks on 323(6)An important methodology has been developed in the past few years whereby Horst Eckardt and sometimes Doug Lindstrom check every note almost every day. This is very important because computer algebra can be used to check the algebra and concepts can be checked. We are currently developing an entirely new general relativity of planar orbits based on the general Lorentz transforms in ECE2, boost and rotation. The latter was checked meticulously by Horst and myself, again using computer algebra. In this case the notation will be clarified in the final paper. The most general group is the Poincare group, named by Wigner, who realized that there are three boost generators, three rotation generators and three spacetime translation generators (see a book such as Ryder, “Quantum Field Theory”, which has some wild howlers (UFT225) but in some parts it is free of errors). Wigner also discovered the concept of the little group, and showed that the little group of a massless particle is E(2), the planar Euclidean group. So for this reason alone the massless photon is unphysical, and there can be no Higgs boson for reasons given many times on this blog and numerous UFT papers. To all but ultra specialists quantum field theory is completely incomprehensible, and so is string theory. Some attempts at field unification of the now obsolete standard model contained over a hundred adjustables. With that you could fit a van Gogh. Several string theory metrics in general relativity of the obsolete type, due to Einstein, are refuted in CEFE “Criticisms of the Einstein Field Equation”.

To: EMyrone

Sent: 31/07/2015 20:50:35 GMT Daylight Time

Subj: Re: 323(6): Calculation of the Earth's Perihelion PrecessionThe calculation gives that the 4-vector Q’ (eq. 24) is

Q’ = [ c, 0,

0, 0]i.e.

bold Q’ = 0.

This is plausible because in the rest frame there is no relative velocity. This should also hold in the relativistic case, not only in the non-relativistic limit, eqs. 31,32.

I will check the rest tomorrow. It seems that using the same symbol v for different kinds of velocities is a bit difficult to follow for the reader, I suggest using different symbols for the relativ velocity, angular part of verlocity etc.Horst

Am 31.07.2015 um 15:36 schrieb EMyrone:

In this first, hybrid type, theory, the Earth’s perihelion precession is calculated from the general Lorentz transform by assuming that its velocity is cap omega x r where cap omega is the gravitomagnetic field. The method gives the observed precession of 11.45 arcseconds a year with a velocity for the Lorentz transform of 6.7685 ten power five metres per second. In the non relativistic theory where there is no precession, the orbital velocity of the earth about the sun is about 3 x 10 power four metres per second, or thirty kilometres per second. A more accurate method is to use a lagrangian analysis to derive the generally relativistic Binet equation. That will be the subject of the next note.

]]>

amarquiswhoswhointheworld2016.pdf

]]>

Monthly_Feedback_Statistics_for_AIAS.pdf

]]>