“320(3): Detailed Proof of Eqs. (18) to (23) of Note 320(2)

July 8, 2015

This is the detailed proof, showing that the gravitomagnetic field (capital omega) is the angular velocity of the earth, directed in the k axis. This is a simple but profound result in my opinion, one which greatly clarifies the nature of the gravitomagnetic field. The units of the gravitomagnetic field are those of angular velocity, radians per second. It is the equivalent of magnetic flux density B in electrodynamics, but is of course part of the complete gravitational field tensor of ECE2. The result shows that everything is self consistent, and is a multiple cross check. Each planet has its gravitomagnetic field, which is simply the angular velocity of each planet, or any spinning object in orbit. All the checks of ECE2 in UFT314 to UFT319 have given self consistent results so far. The non Newtonian effect in this case is the centrifugal acceleration. Newton never realized the existence of the centrifugal acceleration and the first to describe it was Coriolis in 1835. The teaching of physics is sometimes vague, it does not explain the origin of the centrifugal acceleration. Now we know that its origin is the gravitomagnetic Lorentz force of ECE2 generally covariant unified field theory.”

**It is Ron’s ignorance of physics which can only be described as ‘profound’. He makes pronouncements which would shame the ‘schoolboys’ who can supposedly understand his ‘work’. Apart from the inconvenient experimental fact that all of the fields surrounding the Earth have now been measured up to the limits of instrumental accuracy, leaving no room for Ron’s new imaginary forces, he does not even understand the old ‘imaginary’ forces. There must be something seriously wrong with the education system when ‘the only civil-list scientist (while it lasts)’ and a local-government ‘science officer’ cannot understand the most basic physical concepts. We have spelt it out before but, as those two proponents of perpetual-motion are particularly thick, let us spell it out again. Newton’s laws were formulated for, and only apply to, an inertial system. That is, a system undergoing no acceleration in the Newtonian sense (yes, it is somewhat of a circular definition – as Mach pointed out). Many important situations are unfortunately not Newtonian, one of them being the rotating Earth. From the point of view of an outsider, hovering in space, everything is perfectly clear (and Newtonian): satellites – including the Moon – are continuously falling towards the Earth, but never reach it. Projectiles fly perfectly linearly from point to point on the Earth’s surface, as seen by the external observer. However, the rotating Earth is not an inertial system and Newton’s laws do not apply to it. Because that is somewhat inconvenient, various ‘fixes’ have been found. D’Alembert pointed out that the mathematics could be simplified by adding new, but fictitious, forces to make the equations balance in the normal Newtonian manner. The gravitational attraction of satellites, for instance, could be balanced by a fictitious ‘centrifugal’ force, and the puzzling deviated movements of winds and cannonballs could be attributed to a fictitious ‘Coriolis’ force. One could simply ‘step back and see that a projectile appears to deviate from its path simply because the Earth is ‘rotating beneath it’, but it is simpler (even if that confuses the simple-minded) to invoke a non-existent force. Theoretically speaking, one can invoke an infinite number of fictitious forces in order to explain any conceivable departure from Newton’s laws in a non-Newtonian system. In practice, it has been found that only three are needed: centrifugal, Coriolis and one which does not even have a universally agreed name (only the designers of fairground rides seem to need to use it). Analogies are a powerful tool in physics for explaining one phenomenon in terms of another, but more familiar, one. The gravitational field for instance can be physically modeled using heat or electrical fields (because they are all governed by the same differential equation). It will come as no surprise to learn therefore that it has been known for many years that one can make interesting connections between the above fictitious forces and Maxwell’s equations. But this is a sort of ‘academic game’; one must not push analogies too far. Only loonies do that. Nevertheless it is clear that, as usual, Ron’s great insights are years out-of-date. No doubt this will all be spelt out in detail by that forthcoming ‘hatchet job’ on the ‘academic’ lunatic fringe.**

## Leave a Reply