April 10, 2017
Many thanks again! The non relativistic angular momentum is a constant of motion but the relativistic angular momentum is not. What does the orbit look like with a relativistic angular momentum? These results are very important because the use only the lagrangian and definition of angular momentum.”
This is becoming confusing for the handful of non-loonies who take an interest in Ron and his works: first it was pure torsion, rather than general-relativistic curvature, that was supposedly causing precession. Then it was special-relativistic orbital velocity considerations that were a factor (this is, in fact, accepted … but why did it take genius-Ron so long to catch up). Now he has re-introduced an all-pervading fluid which is even more viscous than the already-undetectable classical ‘aether’. Each of the theories is claimed to give the observed precessional anomaly exactly and directly, without having to eliminate all of the conventional causes such as other orbiting bodies. (Newton himself, followed-up by Clairaut, showed that just about any mathematical fiddling with the simple Kepler orbit will cause precession). How do each of Ron’s theories give precise results ‘without treading on each other’s toes’? Or is Ron admitting that he is making a series of failed attempts at explaining precession without Einstein?