Alpha Institute for Advanced Studies

m = 1 – r0 / r

does not give a precessing ellipse at all. Anther complete disaster for the standard model. The complexity of these graphs shows what happens when one tries to force m of the above type to give a precessing ellipse. I think that these graphs by Horst are already adequate to show the complete collapse of Einsteinian general relativity in yet another way. Will comment in more detail tomorrow. These are very important results because nothing has been used except the assertions of the Einsteinian gr themselves. In other words Einsteinian gr is completely self inconsistent.

m (r0, a) = 1 – r0 / r – a / r squared

the orbits of UFT 108 are obtained. What is happening here is that the double exponential function m (R) is being reparameterized in terms of r0 (the constant 2MG / c squared) and a This process could be continued by using

m (r0, a , b) = 1 – r0 / r – a / r squared – b / r cubed – …………..

which should produce a different kind of binary pulsar orbit, and so on.

r0 = 2 MG / c squared

Here M is the mass of the sun, G is Newton’s constant and the speed of light. This could be done with a least mean squares fitting algorithm available in most computer packages. This method can be seen in my Algol code of the seventies, (code on www.aias.us) using the Numerical Algorithms Group (NAG) three variable least means squares package. If the logic of Cartan geometry is applied rigorously, the m function is the one that describes orbits. In the solar system, orbits are described in received opinion by 1 – r0 / r. The received opinion is essentially empirical, Schwarzschild did not derive this function and it seems to have been found by trial and error. In note 190(1) I will give the basic method starting with the infinitesimal line element and hamiltonian. The m function as described using a new universal constant R. So by fitting m to 1 – r0 / R the value of R can be found and m determined. The function 1 – r0 / r is known to produce precessing ellipses which reduce to ellipses in the correct limit, and to Newton’s dynamics. However, Newton’s dynamics are now due to the m function, not the Hooke / Newton inverse square law of attraction. This reasoning is another product of the post Einsteinian paradigm shift knwn as ECE theory, and is as big a leap of thought as the Einstein paradigm shift before it.

m = m sub p + m sub c

where

m sub p = 0

So the new general metric is a kind of fall transient which behaves much better than SM (graphs just sent over by HE).

a189thpapernote.pdf

I thought about this quite a lot over the weekend, and I summed up my thoughts so far in note 189(8), i.e. m is a function of a function, (eq. (1) of note 189(8)) so the chain rules apply as in note 189(8). The key equation is (4), where R is not a function of r, so no chain rule applies. I agree that t and r are linearly independent but as you know, the orbital equation is found as in standard general relativity by the chain rule:

dr / dt = (dr / d tau) (d tau / dr)

It would be very helpful to plot m(r, t) (eq. (1) of note 189(7)) against r, and compare it with a plot of

f(r) = 1 – r0 / r

to see if the two curves can be superimposed by variation of parameters.

The great advantage of this approach is that all orbits can be described in theory by eq. (9) of note 189(7). Naturally I will check all my calculations again today.