Archive for April, 2018

Spin Connection for Light Deflection due to Gravitation

April 30, 2018

Dr. Myron Evans

This is intended as a preliminary calculation for this topic, and shows that for light deflection the vacuum fluctuation is at a maximum. Another approach would be to solve Eq. (6) numerically for the spin connection. I will now proceed to write up UFT406.

a406thpapernotes6.pdf

View original post

Table of precessions

April 29, 2018

Dr. Myron Evans

Many thanks, these data look to be right, For the three inner planets the total precession is larger than the part attributed to Einstein by a factor of about ten or more. For the outer planets this factor becomes much larger, so the correction of the influence of other planets has to be accurate to one part in a million, so the entire experiment becomes meaningless.

View original post

Very Positive International Reception to ECE Theory

April 28, 2018

Dr. Myron Evans

In view of the collapse of standard physics the colleagues are invited to continue to consult our sites www.aias.us, www.upitec.org and www.et3m.net as they do at present, and develop their study of the new physics into organized courses and seminars. I have checked that www.aias.us is archived on the Wayback Machine www.archive.org up to March 26th. In view of their central importance to science the three sites should be carefully archived in as many ways as possible. We have always maintained cordial relations with the enlightened colleagues of all schools of thought. The record high interest in ECE being recorded at present means that standard physics has become almost entirely obsolete. We are very careful to try to avoid any errors, however minor but if any error is detected by a reader we can attend to it.

View original post

Table of precessions

April 28, 2018

Dr. Myron Evans

Many thanks, the first column is correct, the second column should be about half of the values in the first column (see Eq. (25) of Note 406(3)), i.e. the geodetic precession is 3 pi MG / (c squared a), so the second column is right also. I agree that there is a factor 1/2 missing in the Lense Thirring formula so the values in the third column should be halved. So the LT contribution is negligible and the standard model gives a theoretical result which is much larger than the claimed experimental result. In other words the standard model itself must always give the sum of an Einstein precession and a geodetic precession, and a small LT precession. In the literature of the last century the geodetic and Lense Thirring precessions of planets hav been ignored when testing the theory against the experimental data. Of course  I agree that the…

View original post 239 more words

von Neumann: Can We Survive Technology?

April 27, 2018

via von Neumann: Can We Survive Technology?

von Neumann: Can We Survive Technology?

April 27, 2018

srkaufman72

http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2013/01/13/can-we-survive-technology/

Can we survive technology?

January 13, 2013: 8:40 AM ET

  • We live in a world of unending progress. But technological advancement poses as many difficult questions as it answers.

Editor’s note:Every Sunday, Fortune publishes a favorite storyfrom our magazine archives. This week, to mark our FutureIssue, we turn to a feature fromJune 1955 by John von Neumann tackling the profound questions wrought by radical technical advancement—in von Neumann’s day the atomic bomb and climate change. von Neumann was one of the twentieth century’s greatest and most influential geniuses. The polymath and patron saint of Game Theory was instrumental in developing America’s nuclear superiority toward the end of World War II as well as in framing the decades-long Cold War with the Soviet Union. In his time,von Neumann was said to possess “the world’s greatest mind.”Here is his characteristicallypessimisticlook on what the future…

View original post 4,325 more words

406(5) Light Deflection due to Gravitation and Vacuum Fluctuations

April 27, 2018

Dr. Myron Evans

Superluminal Travel Possible
These are very interesting graphs which can go into Section 3 of UFT406. They follow directly from the definition of the relativistic velocity using no other assumption. The observable velocity is v, and the Newtonian v sub N is the observable velocity in the case gamma goes to one. In other cases v sub N is formal as you infer. So the famous “twice Newton” result is a direct consequence of the definition of the relativistic momentum, p = gamma m v. Our work in UFT150 to UFT155 showed that the Einstein method is obscure, I think that he came dangerously close to fiddling, being fond of the violin.

Date: Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 4:50 PM
Subject: Re: Fwd: 406(5) Light Deflection due to Gravitation and Vacuum Fluctuations
To: Myron Evans <myronevans123>

I made some plots for the dependencies between gamma, v and vN. The graphics…

View original post 337 more words

406(4): Criticisms of Standard Model Precession Theory

April 27, 2018

Dr. Myron Evans

Many thanks,there is currently a surge of intense international interest as the Einstein theory disintegrates, to be replaced by ECE2.

Date: Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 3:01 PM
Subject: Re: 406(4): Criticisms of Standard Model Precession Theory
To: Myron Evans <myronevans123>

The calculated values are o.k. I will prepare a table with all three precessions for the planets.

Horst

Am 25.04.2018 um 12:08 schrieb Myron Evans:

This note summarizes some severe criticisms of standard precession theory and brings into question the very existence of Einsteinian, geodetic and Lense Thirring precessions. The only thing that can ever be observed in astronomy is their sum. So I propose abandoning the ideas of the standard model and to express all precessions in terms of vacuum fluctuations as in Eq. (19). It is worth drawing up a table for all the planets, a table that gives the separate contributions (20) to (22) and their…

View original post 59 more words

406(5) Light Deflection due to Gravitation and Vacuum Fluctuations

April 26, 2018

Dr. Myron Evans

This note gives the ECE2 force equation (6) from which light deflection due to gravitation is calculated to be exactly twice the Newton value, which is exactly the experimental result (e.g. UFT324). This result is a simple and direct consequence of the definition of relativistic velocity in ECE2 covariant general relativity. Nothing could be simpler and nothing could be more powerful. The claims of the elaborate and incorrect Einstein theory, in the context of light deflection, are well known to have been refuted in several ways in UFT150 to UFT155 and similar papers, all of which have become famous classics. The next note will calculate the spin connection and vacuum fluctuation associated with light deflection due to gravitation. In previous notes for this paper, UFT406, the Einstein theory of precession has been refuted completely in very simple ways. So all the tests of the Einstein theory have failed: planetary precession…

View original post 122 more words

Derivation of Planetary Geodetic Precession

April 24, 2018

Dr. Myron Evans

This note gives another straightforward refutation of Einsteinian general relativity, showing that the precession predicted by EGR must be the sum of the Einsteinian, geodetic and Lense Thirring precessions. This sum is more than fifty percent larger than the experimental claims for Mercury, Venus and Earth. The experimental claims are also very dubious in the solar system as argued by Miles Mathis and ourselves, and by many others for more than a century. The precessional method can only be applied in a clean system of one m orbiting one M, and the results interpreted in terms of vacuum fluctuations. The true theoretical result of the standard model itself should be Eq. (25), and this can be tabulated for all the planets using Maxima. I think that rational members of the ECE school in leading universities around the world will forget about EGR and develop other avenues of thought. The dogmatists…

View original post 39 more words