410(3): Invariance of the Square of the Time Infinitesimal
This is an important new idea defined in Eq. (10), which is simply a rewriting of the familiar four invariance (2). Eq. (10) leads to the precession (15) due to time dilatation and length contraction. Note carefully that this is accurately measurable experimentally and exists in the absence of de Sitter rotation. The latter leads to the novel invariance equation (28) and the new universal law of all observable precessions, Eq. (30).
410(1): The Correct Calculation of de Sitter Precession
To: Myron Evans <myronevans123>
Many thanks again for going through this note. It is just meant to illustrate the fact that the obsolete infinitesimal line element (1) of the Einstein field equation, when subjected to the 1916 de Sitter rotation (4), gives the result (10) using simple algebra. This algebra can be double checked by computer. The infinitesimal line element of the obsolete de Sitter or geodetic precession of the standard model of physics reduces to Eq. (18), which gives Eq. (19). Eqs. (1) and (18) are defined in the observer frame, so the interval dt sub 1 is defined in the observer frame. It is algebraically equal to the interval of proper time d tau in the rotating frame. This is another discovery that appears to be entirely new, and comes from simple algebra. The wikipedia article on geodetic precession is a sad mess and incomprehensible, so I decided to work out the problem from the beginning using simple algebra. I agree that the proper time tau is the time in the moving frame, t is the time in the observer frame. In Note 410(2) I give the theory of time dilatation and length contraction in all detail, arriving at the entirely new result Eq. (31) of note 410(2). This is named "precession due to dime dilatation and length contraction", an entirely new concept.
I am a bit confused about the observer frame and frame of the moving object (proper time tau). It seems that for eqs.(18/19) dt_1 and dtau are proper time of the rotating frame, not the observer frame. Time is delated when seen from outside, so
dt > dt_1 = dtau
as stated in eq.(20).
Horst
Am 27.06.2018 um 10:01 schrieb Myron Evans:
410(1): The Correct Calculation of de Sitter Precession
This note gives the correct calculation of de Sitter precession and points out that the only correct precession is ECE2 precession. The concept is introduced of precession due to time dilatation for all metrics. There is also precession due to length contraction.
Second Bianchi Identity of 1902 and the Einstein Field Equation
These are described in Eq. (3.87) of Carroll’s online lecture notes to "Spacetime and Geometry: an Introduction to General Relativity". Two index contractions give the 1902 second Bianchi identity as: D sup mu G sub mu nu = 0, where G sub mu nu is the Einstein tensor G sub mu nu = R sub mu nu – (1/2) R g sub mu nu. Conservation of energy / momentum is expressed as D sup mu T sub mu nu = 0 in terms of the canonical energy momentum tensor. So the Einstein field equation is
D sup mu G sub mu nu = D sup mu T sub mu nu = 0
i..e
G sub mu nu = k T sub mu nu
where k is the Einstein constant. The second Bianchi identity is now known to be completely wrong (UFT88, UFT99, UFT109, UFT255. UFT313, UFT354 and many other papers) and its correct form is given in UFT313. The Einstein field equation is completely wrong and no conclusion based on it can be correct.
Note 409(6): The correct expression for Thomas precession
To: alex.hill, avanderm, burleigh.personal, corbis, dwlindstrom, Franklin Amador <fdamador>, Gareth Evans <garethjohnevans>, Raymond Delaforce <raydela>, "Robert P. Cheshire" <rpmc_6>, sean, simon, steve.bannister, Horst Eckardt <mail>, "K. L. Rajpal" <rajpalkl>, Kerry Pendergast <pendergastkerry>, Lorenzo Santini <lorenzo.santini>, Michael Jackson <cr1460solarinc>, Russell Davies <russdavis1234>, Stephen Crothers <thenarmis>
Fwd: Note 409(6): The correct expression for Thomas precession
To: Myron Evans <myronevans123>
There is a very rapid development in the latest notes. The correct theory of precession using the de Sitter rotation (18) should be used, not the Wikipedia source I used for UFT110 . By now no one can have any confidence in Wikipedia. Our own method in the UFT papers is to go over an idea and derivation many times, sometimes for years. The correct result of de Sitter rotation (18) applied to the infinitesimal line element (1) gives Eq. (24) of Note 409(6), and the new law of all precessions, Eq. (25). In these equations the de Sitter rotation (18) refers to m orbiting M (e.g. a planet or in a binary pulsar). It would be interesting to find v sub theta for the planets and the Hulse Taylor binary pulsar. Allobervablke precessions are described precisely by v sub theta. This is a simple result, easy to apply in astronomy. The correct derivation is given in Eq. (21). We have both derived this result independently. For ease of reference I give the incorrect derivation of Wikipedia in Eqs. (26) and (27). I used this uncritically in UFT110 but from now on the correct expression (25) should obviously be used in astronomy. The extra de Sitter rotation (18) refers to the object m orbiting M. Note carefully that when v sub theta goes to zero in Eq. (24) there is still a precession present. This appears to be a completely new discovery. The line element (1) itself gives a precession, without any de Sitter rotation. This is a fundamental precession due to the Lorentz transformation itself (the Lorentz boost). In the latest note 410(2) I related this new precession to time dilatation and length contraction. So the new precession is defined by experimental measurements of time dilatation and length contraction, which are very accurate.
I am a bit behind with going through the notes. It is not fully clear to me what the different kinds of rotation mean. In metric (1-3) the rotation of a coordinate value phi (connected with an orbiting mass) leads to the well known gamma factor. In (18) a frame rotation dphi’/dt is introduced that is an additonal rotation. It seems to me that this rotation has nothing to do with the rotation of the orbiting mass which is described by the angular velocity
omega = dphi/dt.
If this is an additional rotation, it leads to an additional angular velocity
omega’ = dphi’/dt.
This would mean that we cannot equate omega with omega’. The latter would have to be used in eq.(18) instead of omega and could be determined experimentally from the precession angle (23), but omega*r of the Newtonian part cannot be unified with omega’*r from frame rotation. Do I see something wrong here? Alternatively, the meaning of (18) could be that omega itself evokes an additional frame rotation. Then all is fine as described in the note.
Horst
Am 22.06.2018 um 17:09 schrieb Myron Evans:
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 DavisMiami, FL
Fwd: Note 409(6): The correct expression for Thomas precession
To: Myron Evans <myronevans123>
There is a very rapid development in the latest notes. The correct theory of precession using the de Sitter rotation (18) should be used, not the Wikipedia source I used for UFT110 . By now no one can have any confidence in Wikipedia. Our own method in the UFT papers is to go over an idea and derivation many times, sometimes for years. The correct result of de Sitter rotation (18) applied to the infinitesimal line element (1) gives Eq. (24) of Note 409(6), and the new law of all precessions, Eq. (25). In these equations the de Sitter rotation (18) refers to m orbiting M (e.g. a planet or in a binary pulsar). It would be interesting to find v sub theta for the planets and the Hulse Taylor binary pulsar. Allobervablke precessions are described precisely by v sub theta. This is a simple result, easy to apply in astronomy. The correct derivation is given in Eq. (21). We have both derived this result independently. For ease of reference I give the incorrect derivation of Wikipedia in Eqs. (26) and (27). I used this uncritically in UFT110 but from now on the correct expression (25) should obviously be used in astronomy. The extra de Sitter rotation (18) refers to the object m orbiting M. Note carefully that when v sub theta goes to zero in Eq. (24) there is still a precession present. This appears to be a completely new discovery. The line element (1) itself gives a precession, without any de Sitter rotation. This is a fundamental precession due to the Lorentz transformation itself (the Lorentz boost). In the latest note 410(2) I related this new precession to time dilatation and length contraction. So the new precession is defined by experimental measurements of time dilatation and length contraction, which are very accurate.
I am a bit behind with going through the notes. It is not fully clear to me what the different kinds of rotation mean. In metric (1-3) the rotation of a coordinate value phi (connected with an orbiting mass) leads to the well known gamma factor. In (18) a frame rotation dphi’/dt is introduced that is an additonal rotation. It seems to me that this rotation has nothing to do with the rotation of the orbiting mass which is described by the angular velocity
omega = dphi/dt.
If this is an additional rotation, it leads to an additional angular velocity
omega’ = dphi’/dt.
This would mean that we cannot equate omega with omega’. The latter would have to be used in eq.(18) instead of omega and could be determined experimentally from the precession angle (23), but omega*r of the Newtonian part cannot be unified with omega’*r from frame rotation. Do I see something wrong here? Alternatively, the meaning of (18) could be that omega itself evokes an additional frame rotation. Then all is fine as described in the note.
Horst
Am 22.06.2018 um 17:09 schrieb Myron Evans:
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 DavisMiami, FL
410(2): Precession from Length Contraction and Time Dilatation
This note shows that it is possible to define the traditional Thomas precession from the fundamentals, without using any de Sitter rotation. The precession is defined in Eq. (31) using a three way consistency check.When de Sitter rotation is considered the Thomas precession is augmented as in recent notes and papers. Length contraction was suggested in a half page paper by Fitzgerald in 1892, and quickly developed by Lorentz and Heaviside. In my opinion planetary and binary pulsar precession can be explained using these new ideas without any use at all of the Einstein equation.
Note 409(7) : A Comparison of Conventional and New Methods
It is shown that the correct expression for precession is Eq. (23), which can be applied to any planetary, binary pulsar or pendulum precession, which can always be described precisely by the angular velocity of the de Sitter rotation (2). So experiments on pendulum precession would be very interesting. One experiment was carried out in the Netherlands a few years ago. It would be interesting to draw up a table of experimental precessions and omega calculated at a given point r such as the perihelion, aphelion, apastron or periastron. The Einstein, geodetic and Lense Thirring theories are obsolete and completely replaced by this new method. In UFT110 I used the conventional method described in Eq. (25), but it is shown in this note that that method is arbitrary and erroneous, containing several blunders. That is why students are advised not to reference Wikipedia.
Note 409(4): Description of Binary Pulsar Precession as a Thomas Precession
Note 409(4): Description of Binary Pulsar Precession as a Thomas Precession
Agreed, the numerical calculations in UFT375 were very accurate and the same numbers should be used. In this note the rigorously correct reduced mass was used throughout as in Marion and Thornton chapter seven, so the accurate Binet equation is Eq. (10). Denoting m1 = m, m2 = M, Eq. (10) uses m squared M squared / (m + M). In the binary pulsar m is about the same as M. In the solar system M >> m, so the Binet equation reduces to that used by Marion and Thornton, Eq. (17). They replace this by Eq. (20) and calculate the Einstein precession, albeit in a very dubious way as we have shown. As shown in Eq. (18), m squared M must be replaced by m squared M squared / (m + M) in the accurate calculation. This is equivalent to replacing M by M squared / (m + M) as in Eq. (19). In the solar system this is a small correction, but in the binary pulsar it is a large correction. Finally M in Eq. (20) is replaced by M squared / (m + M), leading to the albeit dubious Einstein precession (22). Agreed that the Thomas velocity for the binary pulsar is larger that the observed velocities at periastron and apastron. However, the Thomas velocity needed to give the precisely observed binary pulsar precession is by a new hypothesis the result of an underlying spacetime torsion that results in frame rotation. This is a new idea, the spacetime torsion is related to the angular velocity of the rotating frame and therefore to the Thomas velocity due to spacetime torsion. In further work I intend to show precisely how the two concepts are related. So all precessions in the universe are due, by this new hypothesis, to spacetime torsion, which expresses itself as a Thomas velocity. This is the only correct theory of precession, because it does not use the Einstein equation and its metrics. When the Thomas velocity (or ECE2 velocity) is the Newtonian velocity, the particular result is obtained that the Lorentz boost and the ECE2 rotation give the same Lorentz factor. So a Thomas (or more accurately an ECE2) velocity of 1.366 ten power six meters per second gives the observed binary pulsar precession claimed to be 4.226 plus or minus 0.002 degrees per Earth year. The usual Einstein field equation gives 2.368 degrees per earth year and is totally wrong. This becomes very clear in the binary pulsar, and there are signs of the Einstein equation going wrong also in the solar system (UFT406). I have no idea how the EGR physicists claim precise agreement. My guess is that they play around with the Einstein metrics in an essentially empirical way and call this "a non linear correction". This correction also omits torsion and is also totally wrong (UFT301). Finally the inward spiralling of the pulsar is described by a decreasing ECE2 velocity and slowly decreasing spacetime torsion. This will be the subject of future work.
According to UFT 375, the masses of the double star system are not exactly equal, they differ by about 5%. Therefore it could be better to use the exact values in the reduced mass mu but hte result will nearly be the same.
I do not understand the transition in eq.(18/19) from M to m2.
The numerical calculations are correct. In comparison, the Newtonian velocity of the pulsar (eq.12) is
v_N = 6.570*10^5 m/s
while the experimentally found velocity, probably at apastron, is 4.50*10^5 m/s. This is only a half of the Thomas velocity.
Horst
Am 19.06.2018 um 13:04 schrieb Myron Evans:
Note 409(4): Description of Binary Pulsar Precession as a Thomas Precession
This note defines the classical theory of the binary pulsar, then shows that the Einstein theory produces a precession of 2.368 degrees per earth year. The experimentally observed precession is 4.226 plus or minus 0.002 degrees per earth year. So the Einstein theory is completely wrong as usual. It is shown that a well defined Thomas velocity produces the experimental result exactly, using a rotating ECE spacetime indicative of the presence of spacetime torsion. The ECE2 field equations of gravitation and electromagnetism are based on torsion and curvature. So all precessions in the universe are Thomas precessions (more accurately they should be called ECE2 precessions) due to the existence of torsion. The latter is neglected completely in the standard theory of the Hulse Taylor binary pulsar. This i sthe showcase of EGR, a showcase which is unfortunately full of howlers. The old and creaking ideas of EGR are wolves kept in captivity. They are all howlers, the theory is full of howlers. It is also shown that the standard model produces a completely incorrect total precession of 15.046 degrees per earth year when standard de Sitter precession is added to the Einstein precession. The two precessions always coexist. The shrinking of the orbit of the binary pulsar is described in ECE2 by a decrease in the Thomas velocity, meaning that the torsion slowly decreases. The EGR theory produces a wholly mysterious precise agreement using a method which is as clear as mud. This is claimed to be based on a non linear Einstein theory and gravitational radiation. ECE2 does not produce gravitational radiation from a binary pulsar. In ECE2, gravitational radiation is produced in exactly the same was as radiation theory in electromagnetism, but is twenty three orders of magnitude weaker. Stephen Crothers has heavily criticised the standard theory of gravitational radiation. The mythical methods of non linearity of the Einstein field equation consist of playing around with metrics which are however wildly erroneous due to the neglect of torsion (UFT301 (CEFE)). They neglect the very thing that produces all observable precessions – torsion.