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.

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 TheoryGreat 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.

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

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

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.

]]>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(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.

]]>