Alpha Institute for Advanced Studies

Note 409(6): The correct expression for Thomas precession

Note 409(6): The correct expression for Thomas precession

Good to hear from you! These experiments would be most interesting, in for example a pendulum. It is possible to work fluid dynamics into the ECE2 formalism through the expression for acceleration. From 2003 to 2018 a million page equivalents of material has been produced on all aspects of ECE and ECE2 physics,and every one of these million pages is read around the world continuously. So AIAS / UPITEC is the intellectual compass for all these people. Ideas are developing very rapidly. Th ECE2 precession of the pendulum can be explained with a e sitter rotation in exactly the same was as the precession of planets and the Hulse Taylor binary pulsar.

Hi Prof. Evans,

I’ve been investigating ways to experimentally confirm aspects of the ECE2 fluid spacetime representation. This, for me, has become a somewhat difficult material science problem (owing to the limited resources here at my home). Dr. Horst Eckardt has provided additional guidance to aid in my efforts, which are ongoing.

However, I became aware of a recent publication, Relativistic fluid dynamics with spin ,Wojciech Florkowski, Bengt Friman, Amaresh Jaiswal, and Enrico Speranza Phys. Rev. C 97, 041901(R) – Published 10 April 2018 https://journals.aps.org/prc/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevC.97.041901 , to which I do not have access.

A general audience level article description (available here: When fluid flows almost as fast as light with quantum rotation, https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-06/thni-wff062118.php ) prompted me to wonder how your recent work describing Thomas precession may be related to the companion fluid spacetime representation, and how the Thomas precession finds expression at the quantum level. My initial thought was that there might be some pertinent experimental facts revealed in this Physical Review C source article, notwithstanding any of the extraneous Standard Model gibberish contained therein, which may offer additional ECE2 corroboration.

cheers,
Russ Davis

Miami, FL

Note 409(6): The correct expression for Thomas precession

It is shown in this note that the well known invariance condition (11) of the ECE2 four rotation produces the ECE2 precession (8) with Newtonian velocity. This is a wholly new result that shows that the Lorentz factor can be derived by four rotation in two equivaklent ways, the Lorentz boost and the precession due to four rotation. It is shown that the correct theory of Thomas precession produces the result (23), which explains why a velocity greater than the Newtonian velocity is needed to describe binary pulsar and planetary precessions. The usual theory of the Thomas precession, using the de Sitter rotation (18) produces an incorrect result (28). This is another error of the standard model that has been repeated uncritically for nearly a century. It is proposed that the correct result (23) be applied to all planetary and binary pulsar precessions. It is already known from a recent note that a velocity greater than the Newtonian velocity is needed to describe the precession of the Hulse Taylor binary pulsar. Eq. (23) shows why. It is proposed that a radical paradigm shift is now necessary, the Einstein, de Sitter and Lense Thirring precessions must be discarded completely as obsolete, and the correct result (23) used from now on for all observable precessions. The ECE School of Thought can lead this paradigm shift, following calculations of the AIAS / UPITEC group. My initial calculations are always checked very carefully by Dr. Horst Eckardt and myself. That is why there is great international confidence in our work.

a409thpapernotes6.pdf

Note 409(6): The correct expression for Thomas precession

It is shown in this note that the well known invariance condition (11) of the ECE2 four rotation produces the ECE2 precession (8) with Newtonian velocity. This is a wholly new result that shows that the Lorentz factor can be derived by four rotation in two equivaklent ways, the Lorentz boost and the precession due to four rotation. It is shown that the correct theory of Thomas precession produces the result (23), which explains why a velocity greater than the Newtonian velocity is needed to describe binary pulsar and planetary precessions. The usual theory of the Thomas precession, using the de Sitter rotation (18) produces an incorrect result (28). This is another error of the standard model that has been repeated uncritically for nearly a century. It is proposed that the correct result (23) be applied to all planetary and binary pulsar precessions. It is already known from a recent note that a velocity greater than the Newtonian velocity is needed to describe the precession of the Hulse Taylor binary pulsar. Eq. (23) shows why. It is proposed that a radical paradigm shift is now necessary, the Einstein, de Sitter and Lense Thirring precessions must be discarded completely as obsolete, and the correct result (23) used from now on for all observable precessions. The ECE School of Thought can lead this paradigm shift, following calculations of the AIAS / UPITEC group. My initial calculations are always checked very carefully by Dr. Horst Eckardt and myself. That is why there is great international confidence in our work.

a409thpapernotes6.pdf

Some Results of the Paradigm Shift

1) Any observed precession is described completely and exactly by the ECE2 velocity v and by spacetime torsion. For a given r such as the perihelion, the ECE2 angular velocity omega is found from v = omega r. 2) Electromagnetic deflection by gravitation is described completely and exactly by the relativistic velocity.

These theories amount to a major advance in understanding and the theory is far simpler and more powerful than the obsolete Einstein theory. Feedback shows that these theories have been accepted by the avant garde around the world.

Some Results of the Paradigm Shift

1) Any observed precession is described completely and exactly by the ECE2 velocity v and by spacetime torsion. For a given r such as the perihelion, the ECE2 angular velocity omega is found from v = omega r. 2) Electromagnetic deflection by gravitation is described completely and exactly by the relativistic velocity.

These theories amount to a major advance in understanding and the theory is far simpler and more powerful than the obsolete Einstein theory. Feedback shows that these theories have been accepted by the avant garde around the world.

Note 409(5) : Proof of the Origin of Thomas Precession in Spacetime Torsion

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.

a409thpapernotes5.pdf

Note 409(5) : Proof of the Origin of Thomas Precession in Spacetime Torsion

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.

a409thpapernotes5.pdf

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):

with

.

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.

Note 409(1/2)

OK thanks again.

PS: the preceding email related to note 409(2) concerning the v formulas.
Horst

Am 13.06.2018 um 12:20 schrieb Myron Evans:

Note 409(2) Relation between the Newton and Thomas velocities

This is given by Eq. (26) direct from fundamentals. The hypothesis is introduced that all cosmological precessions are Thomas precessions, because the Einstein field equation is incorrect and gives meaningless solutions such as the Schwarzschild, Kerr and black hole metrics. These are meaningless because they are based on a torsionless geometry. The Thomas precession does not depend on the Einstein field equation, the former is now undestood as the rotation of the ECE covariant metric. This rotation changes the Newtonian orbital velocity (Eq. (26)) and changes the Lorentz factor to Eq. (33). This change in the Lorentz factor means that all fundamental quantities must be re expressed in terms of the new Lorentz factor, for example the hamiltonian (42) and the lagrangian (43). In general the Thomas velocity can be found from experimental data on precession, although this is a dippy method. ECE2 gives an exact and correct description of light deflection due to gravitation.

409(1): Orbital Precession and Light Deflection in Terms of the Thomas Precession.

Many thanks. Your calculations agree with Eq. (25) of note 409(2), providing a valuable cross check. The factor 3 in you Eq. (4) also appears in the standard model de Sitter precession, but by now all standard EGR calculations should be discarded as obsolete. This seems to be the view of leading thinkers around the world, judging by the feedback.

409(1): Orbital Precession and Light Deflection in Terms of the Thomas Precession.

The note clearly states which velocity is an observable (v) and which is computed (v_N). This is important to know for an understanding.
To my knowledge the angular velocity is defined by
.
Therefore further simplifications can be made in eqs.(25-26). It follows:

and with the definiton of omega:

So with

and the ordinary velocity in spherical coordinates

the complete Thomas velocity would be
.

Horst

Am 11.06.2018 um 12:23 schrieb Myron Evans:

409(1): Orbital Precession and Light Deflection in Terms of the Thomas Precession.

This note gives a number of new results summarized on page three. The precession of any object is explained by the Thomas half and related to the vacuum fluctuation and spin connection in Eq. (21). The spin connection is expressed in terms of the Thomas half in Eq. (22). The Thomas half in orbital precession theory is therefore explained by the isotropically averaged vacuum fluctuation, spin connection and vacuum force. None of these concepts appear in Newtonian universal gravitation. Light deflection due to gravitation is explained precisely from the definition of the ECE2 covariant relativistic velocity under the upper bound (36) on the square of the Newtonian velocity (UFT406). It i shown that thi supper bound corresponds to the maximum attainable value of the Thomas half as in Eq. (42). Under this condition the relativistic velocity goes to c, and the deflection angle becomes (38), "twice Newton". This treatment of gravitation suffers from none of the fatal flaws of EGR, and is simple and elegant. The theory is for nearly circular orbits but can be made more precise as in many UFT papers. The EGR is by now a complete shambles, the only correct precessional theory is that of Thomas precession because it does not depend on solutions or metrics of the incorrect Einstein field equation. The Thomas velocity can be adjusted to reproduce the experimental data. For light deflection due to gravitation the Thomas precession theory is an exact theory. EGR is known now to be a complete shambles, some of the worst howlers have emerged in recent papers, but UFT88 is a famous classic and already a decade old. UFT88 has never been criticized and refutes EGR completely. There have been no criticisms of ECE and ECE2 for over a decade.