Alpha Institute for Advanced Studies

As a Civil List Pensioner I am not an academic and use website publishing. I am probably the most prolific physicist or chemist in history, having gone ahead of Harold Scheraga, former chair of chemistry at Cornell and Sir John Meurig Thomas. This website publishing now generates three million hits a year at present. It is vastly more efficient and powerful than journal publishing, where one would run into deeply ingrained ignorance and anonymous censorship. Albert Einstein published his five famous 1905 papers without refereeing. Nearly every one of the dogmatists of the era would have rejected the paper on special relativity. In fact only a few British physicists like Oliver Heaviside, Ebenezer and Campbell supported special relativity. Later on, a paper submitted by Einstein to The Phyusical Review was rejected, in 1936. This was on the NON existence of gravitational waves from the non linear Einstein equation. This is diametrically opposite to present day dogmatists like Hawking. After it was rejected, Einstein angrily dismissed The Physical Review out of hand and never published there again. Despite the millions of consultations of our websites, I suspect that PR would do the same again if a paper were submitted there. So I have gone beyond all of that academic censorship. I should add that I have published many papers in the PR and Physical Review Letters. The most notorious incident occurred just after I started as full professor at UNCC. The Physical Review E accepted a paper on B(3) and then "unaccepted" it after a completely unethical interference by Jeremy Malenfant of PRL. Theraftre a conspiracy was hatched to force me out of UNCC, causing many years of hardship and the loss of my first wife. With a system like that who needs Trump?

As a Civil List Pensioner I am not an academic and use website publishing. I am probably the most prolific physicist or chemist in history, having gone ahead of Harold Scheraga, former chair of chemistry at Cornell and Sir John Meurig Thomas. This website publishing now generates three million hits a year at present. It is vastly more efficient and powerful than journal publishing, where one would run into deeply ingrained ignorance and anonymous censorship. Albert Einstein published his five famous 1905 papers without refereeing. Nearly every one of the dogmatists of the era would have rejected the paper on special relativity. In fact only a few British physicists like Oliver Heaviside, Ebenezer and Campbell supported special relativity. Later on, a paper submitted by Einstein to The Phyusical Review was rejected, in 1936. This was on the NON existence of gravitational waves from the non linear Einstein equation. This is diametrically opposite to present day dogmatists like Hawking. After it was rejected, Einstein angrily dismissed The Physical Review out of hand and never published there again. Despite the millions of consultations of our websites, I suspect that PR would do the same again if a paper were submitted there. So I have gone beyond all of that academic censorship. I should add that I have published many papers in the PR and Physical Review Letters. The most notorious incident occurred just after I started as full professor at UNCC. The Physical Review E accepted a paper on B(3) and then "unaccepted" it after a completely unethical interference by Jeremy Malenfant of PRL. Theraftre a conspiracy was hatched to force me out of UNCC, causing many years of hardship and the loss of my first wife. With a system like that who needs Trump?

Comparison of Einstein Theory and Classical Theory of Precession

The Einstein theory is rolled out just for comparison. I found several disasters in the method used by Marion and Thornton, chapter 7, section 9 , third edition of "Classical Dynamics". The method is very dippy, and the clearest disaster is Eq. (23). It is quite a feat to contrive a theory with so many disasters, yet this is what the dogmatists still adhere to, all one of them. These disasters can all be graphed by computer algebra. In great contrast the new classical theory of precessions is simple and as elegant as the three Kepler laws. It is free of any errors. The classical theory should be used as a limit of the ECE2 covariant theory, which is also simple and free of errors. Eq. (40) is a very clear illustration of the failure of the Einstein theory, perhaps the clearest yet. After sufficient revolutions the orbit ceases entirely to be a conic section for all alpha, epsilon and delta. Of course this is never observed. It is also shown that the Einstein theory is an example of the x theory of ECE theory, which can produce very intricate orbits which are never observed but are of interest in mathematics.The x theory can be applied if and only if x – 1 goes to zero. The Einstein theory is an example of x theory The dogmatists carry on as ever ignoring Baconian science entirely. Kepler did a lot better in the year 1600.

a411thpapenotes5.pdf

To KI Tech

In the spirit of science and fairness I think that the results of the DNVGL test should be considered in detail by AIAS / UPITEC and that one or two members of AIAS / UPITEC could visit the Rosch plant and if they are allowed to inspect it, convince themselves that it genuine. One cannot dismiss an experiment or industrial plant without even seeing it, or on the basis of hearsay or rumour. DNVGL is reputable and has 12,000 employees and it is based in Norway. A DNVGL test certificate would be convincing and conclusive. I assume that DNVGL will monitor efficiency, circuit verification, and so on. I also assume that DNVGL have expert engineers. Perhaps our engineers could be allowed to visit the plant at the same time as the DNVGL inspectors are there. Since 1995 I have been working voluntarily without any salary, except for a small salary from about 2007 to 2008, so it is obvious that I work on behalf of Baconian science. I am prepared to act as a consultant for data that has received accreditation from the reputable DNVGL. It would be optimal if we could achieve results as accurate as UFT311. If they are interested, Horst Eckardt, Douglas Lindstrom, Russ Davis, Steve Bannister and others interested could also act as consultants. I would say that ECE2 is capable of explaining any data using the concept of spacetime energy and the spin connection. The theory has been consistently applied to LENR and circuits (UFT226 ff) and UFT313, 321, 364, 382, 383. I was forced to resign from a full professorship with tenure at UNCC because of my advocacy of B(3), later I was told by Richard Amoroso, Chair of the Vigier Conferences that it had been nominated several times for a Nobel Prize in physics. There were trumped up charges at UNCC of working too much from home and so on. UNCC was condemned internationally and the injustice righted by Queen Elizabeth and Prime Minister Tony Blair in 2005 with a Civil List Pension. This is now £2,400 a year. So I decided to be an open minded scientist and not to dismiss things without scientific reason. The standard model establishment was out argued using the websites www.aias.us and www.upitec.org. These now attract three million hits a year. I built them up without any salary but with great help from the colleagues at AIAS and UPITEC. I think that the x factor you are looking for is the spin connection. It is clear that any data from the Rosch plant that is certified as genuine by DNVGL can be explained with the spin connection, in as precise a manner as possible. I am always keen to cut out all anthropomorphism and apply the Baconian philosophy in its purest form. So I am ready to start work.

Yes this as a useful summary. I will proceed today to interrelate theories of precession.

411(2): Orbital Shrinkage from Frame Rotation

Thaks, I am glad that my summary is coorect and these new developments can be seen this way.

Horst

Am 21.07.2018 um 07:02 schrieb Myron Evans:

411(2): Orbital Shrinkage from Frame Rotation

411(2): Orbital Shrinkage from Frame Rotation

This is an accurate summary of recent advances in precession theory. It has become clear that there are several ways in which precession can be developed and defined, none of which use Einsteinian general relativity (EGR). The latter theory fails by an order of magnitude in the S2 star system and has in fact been abandoned by leading astronomers outside of AIAS / UPITEC. This may be a shock to the general public but that is an anthropomorphic statement outside of Baconian natural philosophy. The truth is often a shock, especially when the public is saturated with wild media rubbish about EGR, notably big bang and black holes. I agree with this summary by Horst of recent rapid advances. Clarification occurs when it is realized that there is only one observable precession, and the different theories of precession must all reproduce the same experimental data. So the different theories can be interrelated and are not therefore independent. For example frame rotation produces precession on the classical level, and the same equation of frame rotation produces precession when used in the ECE2 covariant infinitesimal line element. The classical method, however, does not lead to time dilation and length contraction so is not able to give as much information as the relativistic frame rotation method originally introduced by de Sitter in 1916. However, the de Sitter method was applied to the so called Schwarzschild metric and is wildly incorrect due to neglect of torsion. I agree that the angular velocity of frame rotation can be very different from angular velocity of the rotating object m in orbit around M. The EGR theory is by no wisely accepted as being a mirage, it is in fact wildly incorrect. So it is being replaced by several new methods of ECE2 theory.

The situation with precessions meanwhile becomes a bit unclear. To my understanding we have three types of orbital behaviour concerning precession:

1. no precession of any kind. This is a pure Newtonian orbit (exact ellipse).

2. Precession from the relativistic line element without additional frame rotation. The mass moves on an orbit whose coordinate system is plane polar as in classical mechanics.
This case is completely handable by relativistic Lagrangian mechanics (gamma factor with v_N). Eventually positive and negative precessions can be obtained from the choice of the force law.
This case describes the effect of the genrally covariant line element on orbits, including precession.

3. There is an additional frame rotation phi –> phi + omega’ * t where omega’ is a new angular velocity which indicates the rotation of the frame, additional to the time dependence of the unit vectors e_r and e_phi in plane polar coordinates. This introduces new effects via the line element, for example different line elements for omega+ and omega- .
In case the additional frame rotation angular velocity is equal to the original velocity omega of the orbiting mass, this is a very special case where the frame is completely rotated as fixed to the mass. This is the approach of de Sitter precession. It should be stressed that this is a very special choice and using independent omega+ and omega- is a general effect interpretable as the influence of the vacuum on the orbit.

Points 2 and 3 have to be discerned due to their different line elements. We should be careful in using the symbol omega which only should describe the rotation of the mass, no additional frame rotation. Another point is that negative precession has been observed experimentally. This can probably only be described consistently only by case 3. There may be more than two sign cases to be discerned (except for the line element which is generally valid).

So far my points for discussion.
Horst

Am 19.07.2018 um 11:39 schrieb Myron Evans:

411(2): Orbital Shrinkage from Frame Rotation

In this note it is shown that the frame rotation (1) that produces the universal law of precession self consistently produces the precessing orbit (31),a shrinking orbit, and an increasing orbital velocity as the orbit shrinks. These are the well known main features of the Hulse Taylor binary pulsar. Gravitational radiation is obviously not produced by these equations and the obsolete Einstein equation is just as obviously not used and is not needed.

Notes 411(1)

These are good ideas, I agree that any orbit can shrink, and it may be possible to work out a method for expansion. I will think about this. The idea of a spin orbit interaction term is also interesting. It would be very interesting to graph results from the classical shrinkage equation in order to replace a favourite and destructive mythology, that EGR explains the shrinkage of the Hulse Taylor binary pulsar exactly. The dogmatists posted a graph about this on wikipedia, no less, so it must be true. Anything that appears in the newspapers must of course be true. The standard model of physics has collapsed into newspaper jargon printed in a rag.

Notes 411(1)
To: Myron Evans <myronevans123>

PS: concerning the shrinking of orbits: It would be good to have an idea for the mechanism that accelerates the angular velocities. For the Hulse-Taylor puslsar it is known that the rotation speed (spin) of the pulsar diminishes over time. This is taken as an argument for radiated "gravitational waves". What about any kind of momentum transfer between spin and orbital momentum? This is only imaginable if the vacuum is involved in this process.

Horst

Am 20.07.2018 um 14:20 schrieb Horst Eckardt:

The non-uniform frame rotation is an original idea, seems to be useful and applicable. It seems to me (as you have mentioned meanwhile by yourself too) that that a change of radius could appear in all orbital systems where precession is visible. Probably even an increase of radius is possible if there is a non-uniform reduction of angular velocity.
For the interpretation of rotations see my next email.

Horst

Am 16.07.2018 um 14:11 schrieb Myron Evans:

411(2): Orbital Shrinkage from Frame Rotation

411(2): Orbital Shrinkage from Frame Rotation

This is an accurate summary of recent advances in precession theory. It has become clear that there are several ways in which precession can be developed and defined, none of which use Einsteinian general relativity (EGR). The latter theory fails by an order of magnitude in the S2 star system and has in fact been abandoned by leading astronomers outside of AIAS / UPITEC. This may be a shock to the general public but that is an anthropomorphic statement outside of Baconian natural philosophy. The truth is often a shock, especially when the public is saturated with wild media rubbish about EGR, notably big bang and black holes. I agree with this summary by Horst of recent rapid advances. Clarification occurs when it is realized that there is only one observable precession, and the different theories of precession must all reproduce the same experimental data. So the different theories can be interrelated and are not therefore independent. For example frame rotation produces precession on the classical level, and the same equation of frame rotation produces precession when used in the ECE2 covariant infinitesimal line element. The classical method, however, does not lead to time dilation and length contraction so is not able to give as much information as the relativistic frame rotation method originally introduced by de Sitter in 1916. However, the de Sitter method was applied to the so called Schwarzschild metric and is wildly incorrect due to neglect of torsion. I agree that the angular velocity of frame rotation can be very different from angular velocity of the rotating object m in orbit around M. The EGR theory is by no wisely accepted as being a mirage, it is in fact wildly incorrect. So it is being replaced by several new methods of ECE2 theory.

The situation with precessions meanwhile becomes a bit unclear. To my understanding we have three types of orbital behaviour concerning precession:

1. no precession of any kind. This is a pure Newtonian orbit (exact ellipse).

2. Precession from the relativistic line element without additional frame rotation. The mass moves on an orbit whose coordinate system is plane polar as in classical mechanics.
This case is completely handable by relativistic Lagrangian mechanics (gamma factor with v_N). Eventually positive and negative precessions can be obtained from the choice of the force law.
This case describes the effect of the genrally covariant line element on orbits, including precession.

3. There is an additional frame rotation phi –> phi + omega’ * t where omega’ is a new angular velocity which indicates the rotation of the frame, additional to the time dependence of the unit vectors e_r and e_phi in plane polar coordinates. This introduces new effects via the line element, for example different line elements for omega+ and omega- .
In case the additional frame rotation angular velocity is equal to the original velocity omega of the orbiting mass, this is a very special case where the frame is completely rotated as fixed to the mass. This is the approach of de Sitter precession. It should be stressed that this is a very special choice and using independent omega+ and omega- is a general effect interpretable as the influence of the vacuum on the orbit.

Points 2 and 3 have to be discerned due to their different line elements. We should be careful in using the symbol omega which only should describe the rotation of the mass, no additional frame rotation. Another point is that negative precession has been observed experimentally. This can probably only be described consistently only by case 3. There may be more than two sign cases to be discerned (except for the line element which is generally valid).

So far my points for discussion.
Horst

Am 19.07.2018 um 11:39 schrieb Myron Evans:

411(2): Orbital Shrinkage from Frame Rotation

In this note it is shown that the frame rotation (1) that produces the universal law of precession self consistently produces the precessing orbit (31),a shrinking orbit, and an increasing orbital velocity as the orbit shrinks. These are the well known main features of the Hulse Taylor binary pulsar. Gravitational radiation is obviously not produced by these equations and the obsolete Einstein equation is just as obviously not used and is not needed.

Many thanks to Co President Gareth Evans for his comments. It is a little known fact that Barry John wrote a lot of physics in his classic "Instructions for the Fly Half". The torpedo pass from Gareth Edwards was developed from spacetime torsion.
Preliminary version of UFT 410, section 3
To: Myron Evans <myronevans123>

Thanks for checking. From the logarithmic scale of planteary radii in Fig. 2 it can be seen that there is a "hole" between the fourth and fifth planet. This may indicate that there originally was a planet that broke into pieces and is the origin of the asteroid belt. Some astronomers suppose this.

Horst

Am 19.07.2018 um 06:51 schrieb Myron Evans:

These are very interesting first results from the new universal law of precession, excellently written up by Horst Eckardt. I can find only one minor typo, the caption for Table 3 is the wrong one, accidentally taken from UFT406, but the table itself us correct, very important for astronomy, and full of interest. The caption should be something like "Table of omega, omega sub + and omega sub – ". The angular velocity of the universal law of precession changes sign between the inner and outer planets, separated by an asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter as pointed out by Horst, so the direction of spacetime torsion also changes sign between Mars and Jupiter. I was not aware of this asteroid belt when I wrote sections 1 and 2, but now that Horst has pointed it out in Section 3, it seems to be the obvious cause of the switch in sign in the angular velocity of the new universal law of precession. It is a new and original discovery in astronomy which was missed completely in the obsolete Einsteinian era because the most important feature of the solar system, spacetime torsion, was unknown to Einstein in 1915 and until ECE started in 2003, was never considered correctly.

Preliminary version of UFT 410, section 3

I preliminarily finished the section of the solar system. Hulse Taylor pulsar and S2 star will follow. Please check for consistency of the calculations and conclusions.

Horst

These are very interesting first results from the new universal law of precession, excellently written up by Horst Eckardt. I can find only one minor typo, the caption for Table 3 is the wrong one, accidentally taken from UFT406, but the table itself us correct, very important for astronomy, and full of interest. The caption should be something like "Table of omega, omega sub + and omega sub – ". The angular velocity of the universal law of precession changes sign between the inner and outer planets, separated by an asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter as pointed out by Horst, so the direction of spacetime torsion also changes sign between Mars and Jupiter. I was not aware of this asteroid belt when I wrote sections 1 and 2, but now that Horst has pointed it out in Section 3, it seems to be the obvious cause of the switch in sign in the angular velocity of the new universal law of precession. It is a new and original discovery in astronomy which was missed completely in the obsolete Einsteinian era because the most important feature of the solar system, spacetime torsion, was unknown to Einstein in 1915 and until ECE started in 2003, was never considered correctly.

Preliminary version of UFT 410, section 3

I preliminarily finished the section of the solar system. Hulse Taylor pulsar and S2 star will follow. Please check for consistency of the calculations and conclusions.

Horst

paper410-3.pdf

a411thpapernotes1.pdf