It's not Lorentz invariant even as a limit of a wider transformation group. Evans made an elementary error. Forget about it.
-drl ------------------------------ On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 7:41 PM CDT Bob Cook wrote: >One of the results of ECE theory as noted in a summary of the theory at > >http://www.aias.us/index.php?goto=showPageByTitle&pageTitle=Overview_of_ECE_Theory > > >is the following relative tospin coupling: > > >“ Paper 121 gives the conservation theorems of ECE and paper 116 the >continuity theorems. The most important result is that spin connection >resonance obeys the theorems, so electric power from spacetime can be obtained >without violation of any basic conservation or continuity theorem. Spin >connection resonance (SCR) is a Bernoulli Euler resonance which does not >violate any basic theorem.” > > >I am try to understand ECE which seems to be more real than the Dirac Sea of >virtual particles and virtual particles which we cannot address >experimentally. > > > >I still consider spin coupling in LENR is the key to fractionation mass energy >to a metal lattice. > > >Bob Cook > > > > > > > > > > >Sent from Windows Mail > > > > > >From: Kevin O'Malley >Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2014 7:47 PM >To: [email protected] > > > > > > My only problem with the ECE theory so far is that I do not understand it. > > > > > > > > > >Dr. Myron Evans > >Thoughts on Science, History, Poetry and Politics > > >« Seventeenth Quarterly Archive of www.aias.us > >263(2): Calculation of Light Deflection due to Gravitation » > >Principles of ECE Theory > >This is M .W. Evans, H. Eckardt, D. W. Lindstrom and S. J. Crothers, >“Principles of ECE Theory” (Open source www.aias.us publications section, in >prep.). The manuscript containing my contribution only to date has been >archived at the British Library from the National Library of Wales, and has >started its run as I am in the habit of writing, i.e. it is beginning to be >read worldwide as I can see from feedback. Currently it is being typeset and >the other authors are preparing their contributions, then it will be published >in book and ipod formats just for some friends and colleagues, and some >copyright and local libraries, because the tremendous power of open source >publishing off www.aias.us means that books will not be sold in large numbers. >However for those who like books, they are available. For example my >autobiography volume one (see home page of www.aias.us for all details of how >to purchase the books). Open source is free of charge, so obviously only a few liberophiles will buy the book. A liberophile is not a rare and nasty kind of amoeba, it is a mixture of Latin and Geek for someone who likes books rather than computers. A computer can sometimes drive a saint into Dante’s inferno. “Beginning its run” comes from the four man bobsleigh at the winter olympics. The feedback shows exactly how every single item is being received internationally, and the feedback has been overwhelmingly positive since inception of ECE in March 2003. That is why AIAS has its own intellectual authority. That is a healthy thing for physics in my own opinion. There have been some exceedingly polite and mild differences of opinion with some dogmatists who shall be nameless. Similarly, Turner’s work was called soot and whitewash, Balzac caused a riot, Stravinsky caused another riot, and so it goes on, human nature as usual. I think we are now entering the phase: “ECE is obvious, I knew it all along”. In any case ECE is completely unstoppable as per Victor Hugo, “one cannot stop the march of ideas”. > > > > >False Dawns >June 4, 2014 > >“I waited a quarter century before accepting that LENR is reproducible and >repeatable, and in the new book “Principles of ECE Theory” (publications >section of www.aias.us) a chapter is devoted to Alex Hill’s energy devices and >to LENR. “ > >We can remember when a certain Stanley Meyer was in the ascendant: he was >‘inserted’ into a BBC documentary on cold fusion, his car-that-runs-on water >was verified by three professors (including a Professor M.A.Laughton of >London) and he was invited to present his invention to a special-interest >group at the House of Lords (probably at the insistence of an >energy-from-water crank who also happened to be a former comptroller [sic] of >the British Navy). Unfortunately, Meyer never made it to the Lords, because he >was indicted for fraud. And then he dropped dead; lying must be so stressful. >Sic transit fraudatio mundi. We wonder how Hill feels about Rossi: how many >perpetual-motion machines does the world need? Ron should check his loyalties: >Hill is hand-in-glove with Ron, but Rossi seems to have nothing good to say >about Ron. > > > > > > > > > >Recent Conceptual Advance in Orbit Theory >June 14, 2014 > >This is the realization that the angular velocity is the spin connection of >Cartan, a spin connection that describes the rotating axes of the plane polar >coordinate system, a geometry to which Cartan geometry reduces in well defined >limits. So the Cartan spin connection is responsible for the orbital velocity, >the centrifugal and Coriolis forces and so on. The spin connection is >responsible for the planar orbit itself. The precession of orbits and light >deflection due to gravitation are due to ECE theory and not to Einstein >theory. The Einstein Cartan Evans (ECE) theory is intended to be an >improvement over the original Einstein theory, and it succeeds precisely. The >accuracy of ECE theory is one part in ten power seventeen because ECE gives >the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass from anti symmetry. This is >inter alia experimental proof of the antisymmetry of the connection and the >existence of torsion. ECE also describes the Coats hyperbolic spiral orbit of stars in a whirlpool galaxy in the r to infinity limit, and also the constancy of the orbital linear velocity in this limit. Einstein fails completely to do so, and predicts that the velocity falls to zero at infinite r. Obviously ECE is preferred to Einstein on the basis of experimental data, the Baconian measuring stick. ECE describes the totality of data, solar system, all systems that show precession, and also the main features of a whirlpool galaxy, without the use of any empiricism extraneous to the ECE hypotheses (e.g. dark matter). > >Posted in asott2 | Comments Off > > >Summary of Advances in the Past Two Weeks >June 14, 2014 > >If the experimental data can be believed, the astronomically observed >precession per radian of all planar orbits is r0 / alpha, where r0 = 3MG / c >squared and alpha the half right latitude. It has been found that these data >are given precisely by R theory > >R = r + r0 = alpha / ( 1 + eps cos theta) > >which is equivalent to x theory: > >r = alpha / ( 1 + eps cos (x theta)) > >where > >x = 1 + r0 / alpha > >The latter two equations can be transformed into the habitually miscalled >Schwarzschild metric, which in ECE theory is an infinitesimal line element >that gives a turning point: > >r = alpha – r0. > >The same turning point is obtained from R theory. The R and x theories give >the experimental data in a far simpler way than the Schwarzschild metric, so >are preferred by Ockham’s Razor, and because they do not use incorrect >geometry. The experimental problem is that the precession of planets is >dominated by the gravitational effect of other planets. The anomaly habitually >attributed to r0 / alpha is claimed in the standard physics to be due to >Einstein, while the great majority of the precession is calculated using >Newton. This is self inconsistent (UFT240 and Myles Mathis site). > >Posted in asott2 | Comments Off > > >Integrating Eq. (32) Numerically >June 14, 2014 > >Would it be possible for Horst to make some more high accuracy integrations of >Eq. (32) with finite photon mass, across a given range to see what effect it >has on the angle of deflection? This is a highly non trivial, very difficult, >numerical integration, because of singularities, and I have no idea how >Einstein got the result 4MG / (R0 c squared). No doubt I am very thick, but I >cannot see any sense in the Einstein method at all, using M as a variable, >whereas it is a constant. This is discussed in UFT150B and its essays, >“Nobody’s Perfect”, “Light Deflection due to Gravitation”, and other essays >and papers such as UFT155. The philosophy being adopted now is to realize that >the misnamed Schwarzschild metric is the result of the elegant and much >simpler R theory. The two theories give the same result exactly for all planar >orbital precessions. Then I assume that the precession and light deflection >must be due to the same theory. I most certainly do not acccept the Einstein equation, I infer a wholly new R theory from Cartan geometry, deduce its metric and show that it is equivalent for precession to the old Schwarzschild metric (so called). I think that the entire ECE School, after eleven years of study, can see all this very clearly. If not I am always here to answer intelligent questions. Strangely enough, the only people who cannot see it are the dogmatists. Surely they have the mathematical training to see it well enough, but they do a Nelson. Again this puts people off physics. The public knows that this is not right, it is unethical, and ignores careful scholarship studied worldwide for over a decade. Such conduct should not be publicly funded. > >a263rdpapernotes7.pdf > >Posted in asott2 | Comments Off > > >Dismissal of the Wikipedia Site on ECE Theory >June 14, 2014 > >The attached Book of Scientometrics shows that the misleading Wikipedia site >on ECE theory has been dismissed by the ECE School of Thought, which is a >large percentage of scientists and engineers worldwide. The Wiki site is >defamatory and based on crude personal animosity. This kind of stuff evidently >fools no one, and is actually illegal. It is a kind of trolling. Since ECE is >a unified field theory, acceptance of one paper means acceptance of all. Never >before in the history of science has a series of 262 papers been produced all >on one theme of geometry. Those responsible for the Wikipedia site have either >been talked to by the police (Lakhtakia, for sending crude e mail abuse >anonymously) or have retired and degenerated into vulgar, wildly pejorative, >abuse (‘t Hooft and Rodrigues). This stuff just turns people off, like any >skin head. Although the Higgs boson has been trumpeted ad nauseam to people >who have no hope of understanding the theory, Higgs himself does not like the propaganda, and the British Government is making substantial cuts in particle physics funding, as is the Italian Government. Austria recently tried to withdraw from CERN. UFT225 completely destroys the SU(2) sector of the standard unified field theory, as does B(3), nominated several times for a Nobel prize. CERN knows all about UFT225, but does not admit anything. No wonder people don’t like physics, with people like these allowed to crudely misrepresent distinguished colleagues and new science without any effort made to control them by their university administrations: grand theories being disproven very easily and these refutations ignored with great cynicism. The attached book is now famous in its own right, and shows a vast sea of interest in ECE theory. Nothing more could possibly be asked of any theory. Yesterday, to take one of many examples, the Pontifical Catholic University at Rio in Brazil looked at the wikid garbage and dismissed it. They proceeded to study the Civil List Pension, Royal Decree and my relation to the eleventh century Norman Baron Bernard de Neufmarche. This is by marriage of the Welsh Princes. Bernard was not good news for Wales, and could be a little cutting on occasions. Eventually however he started to speak Welsh, and that made him feel much better. He could at last understand those around him. Those very few that arrive at www.aias.us via wiki tube stop take a good look at the site and think that wiki has gone clean around the bend. A good way of studying the centrifugal acceleration. I don’t read any of ‘t Hooft’s garbage, I just feel sorry for him. > >bookofscientometrics.docx > >Posted in asott2 | Comments Off > >263(7): Metric for R Theory >June 14, 2014 > >This note gives the metric for the R theory and shows that it gives the same >turning point as the misnamed “Schwarzschild metric”. Therefore all that is >attributed to the Einstein theory in the standard physics can be found in a >much simpler way from the R metric of Eq (16) and R theory, which is a theory >based on the plane polar coordinates and a sub geometry of Cartan geometry. >This is an important advance because it shows that the origin of the >Schwarzschild metric is the R metric (16) and not the incorrect Einstein >equation. The R theory gives orbital precession directly, and it can give >light deflection due to gravitation by transforming it into Eq. (32). In >UFT150B this was integrated numerically to avoid the obscurities introduced by >Einstein. So the fundamental origin of precession and light deflection due to >gravitation is now clear, it is caused by a change in the Cartan spin >connection of R theory, a change in the angular velocity. The R metric can be transformed into a Schwarzschild metric and the latter used as usual, BUT this is a mathematical procedure, it does not mean more than that in ECE theory. There is however a profound difference between the R theory and the obsolete Einstein theory. The R theory is an example of Cartan geometry, which is correct, whereas the Einstein theory incorrectly ignores torsion. By now this is widely known and accepted. This note shows, furthermore, that the famous light deflection and precession phenomena are described by theories of special relativity with r replaced by r + r0. Everything formerly attributed to the Einstein theory should now be attributed to R theory by the ECE school of thought. The Schwarzschild metric of the standard model appeared as if by magic, Schwarzschild never deduced it. So I will now proceed to writing up this note and others as UFT263 with Horst Eckardt as co author. As usual, Horst has checked all the notes. Finally note that Eq. (32) for light deflection due to gravitation should be used with an identically non zero photon mass, not an identically zero photon mass as used by Einstein. So everything is brought together in an elegant way and it is now known that ECE can reduce mathematically to Einstein and MH exactly, but is at the same time a rigorously correct theory and a unified field theory. The ECE School will know all this very well by now, and is independent of the standard physics in every way. > >a263rdpapernotes7.pdf
