Alpha Institute for Advanced Studies

d squared u / d theta squared + u – delta u squared = 1 /alpha

of EGR is given by Marion and Thornton on pp. 268 ff of their third edition of “Classical Dynamics” (Harcourt 1988). I used this as a course book as a full professor of physics, with good student reaction to the course. It consists of several approximations using arbitrary trial functions and they just ignore one term which they call a “small periodic disturbance of the normal Keplerian motion”. So they ignore an inconvenient result of EGR that is not actually observed in any orbit. Einstein himself did something similar on Nov. 22nd 1915, and was immediately criticised by Schwarzschild on Dec. 22nd, 1915. This makes me very uneasy about Einstein’s own character. There was certainly pressure on him to produce a result of EGR that could be measured, because very few accepted EGR at the time. The starting point of MArion and Thornton (their Eq. (7,73 of the third edition) is exactly the same lagrangian equation that is used in UFT 193 (in prep), so they cannot be correct because the true and stable precessing ellipse gives a force law that is the sum of an inverse square and inverse cube term. Einstein tried to force a precessing ellipse out of a force law that is the sum of an inverse square and inverse fourth term. That is just not possible, yet it has been forced on science for nearly a century.

d power 2 u / d theta squared + u = 1 / alpha + delta u squared

where u = 1 / r and where alpha and delta are constants. It is now known that this cannot give a precessing ellipse, it gives some other kind of orbit.

a193rdpapernotes8.pdf

m(r) = 1 – r0 / r

a192ndpapernotes3.pdf

r = alpha / (1 + cos (x theta))

r = r0 exp (zeta theta)

where zeta is the pitch. For a very large pitch the outer arms are drawn out into a nearly straight line as observed in the Hubble space telescope. In a recent paper (UFT 190), the velocity curve of a spiral galaxy was explained with zeta goes to infinity as r goes to infinity. Einsteinian GR has no explanation at all, in fact fails completely to describe a whirlpool galaxy. The log spiral appears in shells and other natural phenomena. The so called “precision tests of the Schwarzschild metric” are complete nonsense. This can be shown very easily as in the following postings on this bog.

m(r) = 2 – exp(2exp(- r / R))

obtained from the correct torsional geometry with a single antisymmetric connection. Various analytical curves can be used to produce their own m(r) functions in spherical spacetime. In UFT 108 the binary pulsar was considered, a precessing ellipse spiralling inwards. This also has its own m(r) function and is a precessing ellipse with alpha getting smaller, where 2 alpha is the latus rectum, a characteristic of the ellipse. Ray Delaforce and Horst Eckardt could graph this function. It is, for a fixed eccentricity epsilon:

r = alpha(r) / (1 + epsilon cos(x theta))

where alpha decreases with r. For example

alpha = alpha sub 0 exp ( – r / R0)

where R0 is a characteristic radial length. This ought to be a precessing ellipse spiralling inwards and that can be checked graphically. Its m(r) function can then be found.

a192ndpapernotes5.pdf

m(r) = 1 – r0 / r

However, if GR is to reduce to a precessing ellipse, the m(r) function must again be Eq. (29). The properties of Eq. (29) can be evaluated by computer for various alpha and epsilon, a and b. So UFT 192 can again be a two authored paper. Also, these calculations can be checked by computer. It is pointless claiming precision tests of GR when the basic Einsteinian theory is so wrong. It is also pointless challenging computer algebra.

a192ndpapernotes2.pdf

m(r) = 1 – r0 /r

This is the simplest and best method that can be used now in UFT 192. After this, anyone who adheres to Einsteinian GR is not a scientist. ECE theory offers a completely new approach to cosmology. So now Horst can check my simple calculations of this note with computer algebra and we can proceed from there. Those hyperexpensive satellite trips are still very useful sources of data, but for a totally new theory. Why wasn’t this seen before? I don’t know. My guess is that it must have been sen before and covered up as usual. “Is everything we know about standard cosmology totally wrong” as the BBC asked recently? Totally right. My advice is stop reading wiki in favour of ECE and J. Found. Phys. Chem.

a192ndpapernotes3.pdf

m(r) = omega r squared / y

where

y = L c squared / E = constant of motion

a192ndpapernotes1.pdf