Status Very Quo

April 25, 2018

Stats are Down

April 25, 2018

Stats are down for a while.”

Never mind, just make them up … as usual.


Hoist by His Own Petard Yet Again

April 25, 2018

Derivation of Planetary Geodetic Precession

April 24, 2018

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 will ignore the refutations and ask for more money from the taxpayer and more student fees. There is another way of considering the geodetic precession, and this will be developed next using ECE2 gravitomagnetism, developing UFT344 and UFT345.”

As we pointed out before, Ron, if the frame-dragging and geodetic effects were really relevant to orbital precession, then they could have been measured indirectly in that way and the decades-long GP-B experiment would have been unnecessary. But worse than that, you have just undermined your own conclusions. Why? Do you recall, some time ago, that you were proud that you had ‘discovered’ a new source of precession? Of course, it was already well known to experts. It arises because of the differing velocities of an orbiting body in different parts of the orbit. This, due to SPECIAL RELATIVITY, then causes the orbit to precess. This precession rate is about one sixth of that due to spacetime curvature. The thing is, Ron, you have apparently forgotten ‘your discovery’ and have completely failed to incorporate it into your recent precession calculations. Why is that? 

High on Hype

April 22, 2018

New Records

April 22, 2018

We are approaching a new record high for readings of ECE2 items. The rate of reading “Principles of ECE, volumes one and two”, is also on a new record high, today’s rate is 11,802 times a year off combined sites, and These refer to English and Spanish language versions. Therefore the book is already a classic after only a couple of years, and is available from the bookshop of the sites and all good bookshops worldwide. UFT88 is also on a new record high and is the famous refutation of EGR. The physics establishment, or long parliament, was the middle man, and with the new methods pioneered by AIAS / UPITEC, has been dissolved by the march of ideas and is no longer needed.”

Oooh, we shall have to see who is using it in their research. Oh, nobody. We shall have to content ourselves with reading the glowing reviews. Oh dear:


Household Tip

April 22, 2018

Our local spies are not keeping us sufficiently well informed concerning your everyday activities, so we have to ask: have you fixed your roof yet? We would not want your millions of pound’s worth of manuscripts to get wet.  

Ron’s Roof

More Puzzles

April 22, 2018

Note 406(2) : Final Version of Note 406(1)

April 22, 2018

This note extends the calculations of Note 406(1) and produces Table 1, which shows that the perihelion precessions of Venus and Earth are not described precisely by EGR. This is in fact well known, but covered up. In the standard literature they refer to this as an “anomaly”, a polite word for a disaster. I give some planetary data in Table 2, and give the theoretical EGR precessions of all the planets in Table 3. In this table the total observed precessions are given, following It is seen that the part attributed to EGR is a small fraction of the total. For a planet such as Neptune the part attributed to EGR is six orders of magnitude smaller than the total. In other words, the only observable data give a precession that is a million times larger than what is being sought. In Mercury it is over a hundred times larger as is in fact well known. This inconvenience is removed by a Newtonian theory, essentially still the same method as used in the nineteenth century, but made more precise with computers. So in describing the overwhelming majority of the precession, EGR is not used at all. So the standard physics cannot have much confidence in EGR after all. MIles Mathis in his book tears the procedure to shreds. By now, no one has any confidence in standard physics, and everyone avidly reads ECE2 in the safety of their homes, or secretly in the offices of all major universities of note. In the obsolete physics the overwhelming majority of the precession is extracted with Newtonian physics. This is a farcical way of testing a theory whose geometry is completely wrong. In addition the geodetic precession of the planets is not even considered. Despite the double dippy data reduction about $70 million dollars was spent on Gravity Probe B, which entirely neglected the EGR contribution, reporting only the geodetic and Lense Thirring contributions in a very mysterious way. They seemed to have assumed that EGR or Newtonian gravitation in the limit of EGR have no effect on their gyroscopes. In the old theory the EGR contribution is essentially the obsolete Schwarzschild line element and the geodetic contribution is the rotated Schwarzschild line element. The Thomas precession is the rotated Minkowski line element in the old theory. In ECE2 all these ancient mariners are discarded, the whole lot, and replaced by a theory based on vacuum fluctuations. I have not been able to find the experimental claims for EGR for Mars to Pluto, because I have no easy access to a library. However they may exist in the astronomy data and the ephemeris libraries, or they may never have been worked out. A reader with access to a library could maybe find them, but even if found, are meaningless. In UFT344 an entirely new explanation of the geodetic precession was given using ECE2 gravitomagnetic theory, and in UFT119 the gravitomagnetic theory was used to explain the equinoctial precession in a much simpler way that than the standard model.. So in the next note I will apply UFT345, then proceed to the equinoctial precession. More or less all the seven hundred ECE papers and books are classics, so we have an intellectual right to dissolve Parliament as did Cromwell in 1653. Cromwell used force, we use Baconian logic. We will not imprison the Levellers, but encourage them to learn, I advise people to enjoy reading the theory. If they see something wrong please do not hesitate to send an e mail. Our checking procedures are rigorous but something may have slipped through.”

Why do you keep on arguing with observational data, Ron? They are what they are. If they are explained by properly applied General Relativistic theory then that is that. If your crackpot theory does not give the correct figure then you should obey Bacon and re-think your assumptions. 

It is those sorts of outburst which make everyone doubt your sanity; could you please post that doctor’s letter again. Interesting new misspelling of the Mathis forename by the way, but you still seem to be using the wrong figure for π; he won’t like that.

You live about 10 miles from Swansea University (you could drive there in 30 minutes. Bus would take an hour longer and an athlete like yourself could walk it in 3 hours). It appears to have a well-stocked library, and it will even let ordinary members of the public (like you) in if they ask nicely. So what is the problem? Is it the agoraphobia? Or eyesight again too dodgy for driving? Have you perhaps been banned from the campus for insulting university staff. Are you perhaps afraid that the better-informed physics students will spot you and manhandle you?  On second thoughts … you are quite right; you have no business being anywhere near a scientific institution. 



Oily’s Other Friends

April 22, 2018

Our author-friend (don’t nag about the book … there is a never-ending stream of juicy new data and new loony-tunes to incorporate) points out that Oily has some other interesting friends and followers besides Ron,

Pinheiro and Brito are well known in the ‘academic’  propellantless-propulsion (aka antigravity) field. Allen is a mathematician and religious maniac who takes the biblical myth a little too far and assumes that god literally ‘had it off’ with Mary himself rather than leaving the job to some pimp of an archangel*. He prefaces all of his books with:

This book is respectively dedicated to the Holy Spirit of God, Source of all Wisdom and Knowledge and the Spirit of Truth, together with His Most Chaste Spouse, the Blessed Virgin Mary, without Whom this book could have neither been conceived nor written.

But it gets worse, Allen has co-authored a book with former AIAS stalwart (and now President of Telesio-Galilei – purveyors of crap gold medals) Dunging-Davies**. The main point of the book is to ‘explain’ Laithwaite’s spinning-top ‘levitation’ by claiming that relativistic effects can occur in everyday mechanical*** situations.  

On a personal note, is it not rather worrying that Oily is hairless? Is that a fashion-statement … or is his handling of nuclear materials as sloppy as his knowledge of physics?

*Theological note: so who had it off with cousin Elizabeth?

** Dunging-Davies award of a prize by Telesio-Galilei was not only noted as being a great honor, by his university’s yearbook, the astounding news also found its way into the Times Educational Supplement.

***Real physicists agree that special relativity has to be considered in everyday situations. It is otherwise impossible to explain various electromagnetic paradoxes without invoking ‘energy from nowhere’; hence the large proportion of loony electrical engineers. Contrary to what most encyclopedias and textbooks claim, it was not the Michelson-Morley experiment which stimulated Einstein to formulate special relativity but rather the everyday phenomenon of electromagnetic induction (it has a puzzle at its heart that 99.999% of people do not even notice!)

The Smelly and Oily Show

April 22, 2018

406(1): Precessions of Mercury and Earth : Complete Refutation of EGR

April 22, 2018

Thank you! I will continue the analysis today for the other planets, and co Horst will check as usual using Maxima. I think that you are referring to the equinoctial precession, which is developed in UFT119. In this case they used Newtonian dynamics, and they are probably correct within their assumptions, but UFT119 gives an entirely new viewpoint.

406(1): Precessions of Mercury and Earth : Complete Refutation of EGR
To: Myron Evans <myronevans123>

Great professor Evans!

The light is finally coming! Shame on the bunch of dogmatists that parroted a wrong physics for more than 100 years!

Question: you say that each precession is due to vacuum fluctuations. Is it also valid for the Earth axis precession?

IF yes: how is it possible that the classical celestial mechanics attributed such 26000 years precession to the luni-solar attraction on the equator bulge? Is it possible that Lagrange/Laplace/Tisserand/Moulton did such a quantitative macroscopic mistake?”

No, Oily, of course they were not wrong; your moronic friend Ron (does a normal person need to obtain a medical certificate to prove that he is ‘currently’ sane) cannot understand the physics of 300 years ago … and neither can you apparently. How much further are you going to follow him down his loony rabbit-hole? Don’t forget that atoms also precess; are you going to believe him when he tells everybody that all (N)MRI scans ever made (and acted upon) were wrong because of ‘dogma’. What are you going to do when he starts to invade your own domain (presumably) of nuclear stability? On that topic, would you not be in some sort of trouble if the European Atomic Energy Authority learned that you have a problem with accepted physics? And, leaving that body aside – as it would probably hush things up – what do you think would happen if journalists in your area were to learn that you are under the influence of  a foreign crackpot, and also do not believe in the physics upon which your plant is based? Máte radi nezamestnanosť?

Mad, Bad … and Dangerously Smelly to Know

April 21, 2018

406(1): Precessions of Mercury and Earth : Complete Refutation of EGR

April 21, 2018

This note gives the ECE2 explanation of precession in Eq. (2). Any observable precession is due to vacuum fluctuations, a simple and powerful new result that replaces the standard model’s elaborate and obsolete gravitational theory. For Mercury it is shown that the usual EGR analysis, repeated uncritically by dogmatists, is completely wrong. This is because it omits the geodetic and Lense Thirring precessions. The former is partly made up of the Thomas precession. When the calculation is carried out correctly, the theoretical result, the sum of the Einstein, geodetic and LT precessions of Mercury, is more than twice the experimental result. This is not “precise agreement” as claimed endlessly by the dogmatists. The ECE2 explanation of the claimed experimental result is given in Eq. (52) – the post Einstein paradigm shift. The results for Mercury are given in the Table on page 8 of the Note. The geodetic precession is larger than the Einstein precession, but in the dogmatic reiteration of the standard model, the geodetic precession of Mercury is ignored. Finally I did a spot check on the claim that the Einstein theory produces the observed precession of the Earth, but as shown in Eq. (56), it fails by a wide margin. Any reader with a calculator can check Eq. (54). So there can be no confidence in the EGR theory, and judging by the scientometrics, ECE has taken the high ground and the theory is the intellectual leader in contemporary physics. This is a magnificent achievement by the AIAS / UPITEC Institutes and congratulations to all! A vote of no confidence is moved in “the government of physics”: “you have sat here o’er long for all the good you have done, in the name of God, go!” (my ancestral cousin Oliver Cromwell in 1653).”

You poor (mo)Ron: if one gets the w(ron)g prediction by including the frame-dragging and geodetic effects, that simply proves that they should not be included in the first place. You have in fact done nothing but confirm EGR! Why would anyone (in his right mind) want to include the frame-dragging and geodetic effects anyway? They are proper to the orbiting body itself, unlike the curvature of space around the Sun, which affects the orbit of the body. Given the great difficulty of detecting the frame-dragging and geodetic effects at all, via the decades of work expended on GP-B, would it not have been simpler to detect their influence on the perihelion advance? No, because there is no detectable influence. Another overwhelming failure for the pathetic clowns of AIAS and Upitec!


That Odorous* Man Again

April 19, 2018

*Registered trade-mark, Anonymous: Oops

Plans for UFT406

April 19, 2018

Plans for UFT406

These plans are to develop the criticisms in UFT405 to orbits in general in order to show that the precessional method cannot be used to claim that the Einstein theory is precise. This has become an absurd claim because the theory collapses completely in a whirlpool galaxy and has been refuted many times to great international acclaim. ”

What international acclaim: of you and the Public Dick by the Public Dick and you? LOL. Why, by the way, do you call the whirlpool galaxy a problem for EGR? Surely it is a failure of Newtonian gravitation first and foremost. Can the component stars even be said to be ‘orbiting’, rather than being just part of a rotating mass? Two immiscible liquids of equal density, on a turntable, were often used to model galaxy formation in Victorian times. Newtonian gravitation would have to fail in either case would it not; otherwise the rotational rates of the most distant parts of the galaxy would require a (special) relativistic treatment. Do you ever think about anything?

“The total precession is all that can be observed, as is in fact well known. In the solar system the total precession is dominated almost completely by planetary influence. The tiny part attributed to relativity is wrongly attributed entirely to the Einstein theory, ”

Yes, that was spotted long ago … and the effect is cumulative so, although small per Mercurial year, it soon becomes a major challenge to Newtonian gravitational theory.  The well-known assumption of a curvature of spacetime around the Sun explains the discrepancy very nicely. Experiment always trumps theory, so the fact that EGR explains the discrepancy is itself also proof that torsion is irrelevant. By the way, the world’s leading expert on torsion in gravitation is Friedrich Hehl, and he says that it is not needed. Who are you to argue about such matters? A person who thinks that spinning-tops levitate, haha.  One British scientist, Lodge, was unhappy with the Eddington ‘Sun-grazing’ data and put his life at risk by working for months with his head near to huge flywheels which were close to bursting. Do you know why, Ron? He thought that frame-dragging by the rotating Sun might have offered an alternative explanation for the starlight deflection. It did not.  

“whereas there are contributions from the Thomas precession, de Sitter precession and Lense Thirring precession which are never considered. If the orbit is nearly circular, the velocity v of the Thomas precession is the orbital velocity of the planet. UFT405 described the de Sitter and Lense Thirring precessions in terms of effective Thomas velocities. The Einstein precession is about the same order of magnitude as the de Sitter precession. ”

Like a klutz who thinks that gyroscopes are magic, you seem to be getting your precessions confused. The above precession is that of the perihelion of a planet’s orbit. The other precessions are proper to the planet itself. In fact, the Thomas precession has – strictly speaking – nothing at all to do with gravitation; it is just a counter-intuitive aspect of ‘boosts’ in special relativity. The geodetic de Sitter and (larger) Schiff precessions arise when one body merely orbits another. The Lense-Thirring (frame-dragging) precession is due specifically to the rotation of the central body. That is why the geodetic and frame-dragging precessions are so easy to separate by using a polar orbit (do we HAVE to explain why). So you are totally confused between the precession of an orbit and the precession of the orbiting body itself. This all recalls your moronic hero, Tesla. Do you remember your participation (and that of Hill of Beans) in the idiotic ‘All about Tesla’ film? Well, Tesla once used three [sic] magazine articles to ‘prove’ that the Moon does not rotate. One ‘proof’ imagined a giant ‘spoke’ joining Earth and Moon. Oh, that looks soooo convincing to the ‘arm-chair philosopher’.  Hmmm, do you think that it rotates, Ron, or do you believe Tesla’s spoke argument? The confusion of worthless crackpots like Tesla can in fact be traced to elementary textbooks. Do you remember all of those physics problems concerning balls-on-strings, cyclists or horses travelling in a circle? Did you never notice the huge logical omission from every single problem (especially with regard to the detailed energy balance)? That is what separates experts from amateurs … and leads to worthless theorizing on the latter’s part.  

“So the standard model’s claim to magical agreement with EGR is completely wrong, it is based on assuming that the Thomas, de Sitter and Lense Thirring precessions are all zero. This is complete nonsense. There is also another major blunder in that the planetary effects are calculated using a Newtonian method as pointed out by Myles Mathis. ”

See above, where your blundering errors are exposed. Nice to see that you are still scared to spell Miles correctly lest anyone should think that you saw our past corrections. But you do not seem to be using the correct value of  π which, as MM has ‘proved’, is 4.

“They should have been calculated using a relativistic method. I will give more details of how the old physics actually calculated the de Sitter and LT precessions. They were of course calculated from the Einstein field equation, which within a proportionality factor is the incorrect second Bianchi identity of 1902, one which omits torsion. UFT88 and UFT313 show that when torsion is included, the second Bianchi identity and the Einstein equation are changed completely. UFT99 shows that if torsion is omitted, curvature vanishes, reductio ad absurdum. In the first note I will list the Thomas precessions of the planets. This is a simple calculation, delta phi ~ pi (v / c) squared.”

We refer you to the replies which we gave earlier.

That ‘Disturbed Man’* Again

April 19, 2018

*Copyright Siemens Stain:  Oops

“Principles of ECE Volumes One and Two” Heavily Studied

April 19, 2018

As can be seen from the daily reports these items are being heavily studied after posting in the blue box. PECE2 (UFT366) is the most read ECE2 item to date in April, followed by UFT399 on infinite energy from spacetime and UFT396 on the gyroscope. All the ECE2 papers and books are being read in English and Spanish, (UFT313 to UFT405 to date). The famous UFT88 is on a new record high this month,after being posted in the blue box, and its final form, UFT313, is attracting increased readership. ”

According to you. Have you no evidence that others can check?

The now obsolete establishment of physics tried to censor all 405 papers and books of ECE theory, and all 300 Spanish translations, and has been rejected by the avant garde, as always happens in any intellectual movement or paradigm shift. After a while, the avant garde becomes the solid majority. The chapters by Stephen Crothers in PECE and PECE2 are also being heavily studied, again indicating a sharp reaction against the old establishment’s savage treatment of Crothers. It is important therefore to post important items in the blue box, because the readership is sharply increased, by as much as ten times. I suggest posting the following in the blue box:”

What would be the point of censoring that which will not be read, believed or acted upon anyway?


Sample from our Bulging Filing Cabinets

April 18, 2018


Aww, did you really think that you could delete embarrassing items from the internet Ron? Who knows what other goodies we might have.

Ron’s Imploding Fantasy

April 18, 2018


April 18, 2018

Many thanks! The rate of publication over 45 years can be seen from, Omnia Opera and UFT sections. ”

Dying plants have a habit of throwing out a sudden profusion of new leaves and flowers in a last desperate attempt to survive. Does something analogous explain Ron’s current obsessive cataloguing of his supposed success and his hilarious views on GP-B (a swan-song of rationality if ever there were one)? It is not publication that matters, but its reception. All of Ron’s sane work has been rarely cited by independent readers (already making his Civil-List status hard to fathom), and his insane work is not read at all by the un(brain)dead. All that he has as ‘proof’ of fame and acceptance is his dubious scientometrics: concocted in the dead of night by himself and not mirrored by any evidence in the normal channels of scientific communication.  

“After starting as a post graduate from 1971 to 1974, it has remained roughly constant. The EDCL post doctoral group (described by the BBC as the Hall of Fame group) can be said to hold another world record of twenty fellowships won in open competition. This will never be surpassed. You won three, Mauro Ferrario won one, and I won fifteen. ”

And the success has been inversely proportional to those results! Ferrario (1) seems to have forged a successful academic career. Sewage (3) ended up in irrelevant employment as a civil servant in a minor Welsh council. Ron (15) has been unable to hold down any job at all.   

“The work was checked by computer all the time. ”

Should have had a real physicist check it instead.

“This is like winning twenty international piano competitions. ”

All played in the rarely-used flat of ‘falling’ LOL

“A career as a concert pianist is established usually by winning just one, and very rarely, two, ”

Irrelevant, see above.

“The present AIAS / UPITEC group is world famous, and all its work is checked by Horst Eckardt and others in a meticulous way. ”

They clearly are not, and proper checking is not done.

“The work is translated by Alex Hill, generating vast interest in the Spanish speaking world and in Brazil (Portuguese) and Portugal.

Translated by a perpetual-motion crank who knows zero physics. He thinks that the Watt is a unit of energy and that hydroelectric dams extract energy from gravity. What a klutz.

“However we have shredded the standard model, so we are prohibited from winning anything except the acclaim of essentially the entire world of science. So much for the physics establishment. ”

You were saved by the advent of the internet; without that you would have no voice at all.

“My high honour was teh result of Tony Blair reading the magnificent referees’ reports by Alwyn van der Merwe, Bo Lehnert and the late John B. Hart and the nomination by the RSC and perhaps also the RS. ”

Shhh! Many people consider Blair to be a war-criminal, and Lehnert has published 14 papers in the pseudoscientific rag, Progress in Physics. Those are not people with whom one wants to be associated. The RSC also gave a prestigious award to a Romanian dictator, so it is also of reprehensible character. The RS claims to be innocent in this regard … but it is still guilty of giving an undeserved award to Penderghastly. 

“I assume that the final decision was made by Queen Elizabeth, who is not a string theorist. The rate of publication for the academic world according to a recent Norwegian study is 0.7 paper equivalents per year. Of that tiny output, half is not read. ”

We can remember a couple of journalists (ugh)  who, years ago, questioned a particularly large issue of a reputable physics journal. Their fatuous (silly season?) objection was that nobody was going to read it from cover to cover and that it was therefore a scandalous waste of paper. The obvious response to that was, “who reads a telephone directory from cover to cover”. Can you grasp the analogy Ron?

“Our work is read by millions. The monographs amount to perhaps a hundred paper equivalents each. So we have out produced academia to such an extent that one must ask the question; “is your uni really necessary”. ”

‘Read by millions?” You cannot name a single rational reader of your nonsense.

“The work certainly required self discipline, and also imagination. we were very unlucky to run into a corrupt, self seeking academia,interested only in money, and not scholarship. ”

How many academics set up companies with the aim of exploiting perpetual motion and antigravity for profit? How many academics provide fake theoretical evidence to support ‘boiler-room’ investment scams? That would be you. 

“It exacted a very heavy toll on my first wife and myself for daring to think freely. Destruction of career on contrived charges, or no charges at all, loss of my first wife, who was attacked by an academic, loss of salary, pension, and a contented life in Ithaca, New York. They do not throw cement over your car in Ithaca. It is a sophisticated society reminiscent of my distant cousin Frankin Roosevelt.”

Some people cannot stand the heat, and get out of the kitchen … why don’t you do just that?


Let Us Guess …

April 17, 2018


April 17, 2018

This CV opens with my three “world records”.

CVApril2018 (3).PDF

Oh, we were wrong! We guessed that the records would be:

  1. Most undeserving recipient of a Civil List Pension
  2. Most unwanted post-doc (based on the number of academic posts that never led anywhere)
  3. Most prolific pseudoscientist who cannot even get published in the usual crackpot journals.

And that hilarious CV: they obviously gave you that DSc in order to get rid of you, and it could not have been very meaningful anyway as you now denigrate the institution that gave it to you.

Marquis entries? Meaningless, since it is a vanity publication and is packed with crackpots. including your perpetual-motion friends, Searl and Valone. You are also in lots of editions of Cambridge Biographical … but you hide that fact because everyone knows how sleazy it would look.

Arms? Anyone who is not a complete lowlife and has a few thousand pounds to spare can buy a coat-of-arms. If one has enough money, one can buy any British honor … including an FRS and (but only for billionaires) an OM. 

Without concrete proof, why should anyone believe the claimed ‘nominations’ for Nobel and other prizes; especially as it is so very easy to prove that you have blatantly lied on your CV. Where exactly are you on the list of Honorary Fellows of the University of London and its numerous satellites?

Where are you on the list of Honorary Fellows of Lancaster University (a list which did not even start until nearly two decades after you claim to have joined it)

You are not even on the list of honorary graduates:

How can you even dare to use the word, honour? Perhaps you should get an award for chutzpah … and only for chutzpah. 

CLP? Jump now, Ron, jump before you are pushed!




Siemens Stain’s Other Life

April 15, 2018

Because SS spends so much time working for Ron, it is easy to forget that he is a fully-fledged loony in his own right. Keep  up with his other activities here:


Shifty Shifts

April 15, 2018

“Principles of ECE” Two the Leading Paper

April 15, 2018

After posting in the blue box, “Principles of ECE Two” is now the most read item of the ECE2 series (UFT366). “Principles of ECE Volumes One and Two” are on new record highs together with UFT88, the famous refutation of Einsteinian General Relativity. My third volume of poetry is also attracting considerable interest. So many thanks again to Dave Burleigh for posting in the blue box above my coat of arms on the home page of”

According to Google Scholar, ECE2 The Second Paradigm Shift,  has been cited just 21 times; all due to Ron and his gang of course.  This acclaim is entirely in proportion to the significance of the shift, but why has not even Van der Merde cited it? Surely, he is the paradigm-shift expert who lauded your cranky rubbish in the first place. Googling UFT366 garners a more respectable 30 citations but again, they are all by the usual suspect. By the way, Ron, did you know that Kuhn’s paradigm-shift concept is itself a pseudoscientific concept based upon contrived evidence? That is what happens when a failed physicist takes up, ugh, sociology. Only ‘sociologists of science’ (Kuhn-spawn) and ‘philosophers of science’ (Kant-spawn) pay it any respect. And do you know who really kick-started the trend towards undermining science on the basis that it is just a ‘social construct’? That’s right! It was Adolf Hitler and the Nazi ‘voelkische’ movement: “there can be only a science of a certain type of mankind and within a certain period. Thus there is a Nordic science and a national socialistic one, in contrast to the liberalistic Jewish one.” Hitler of course was a believer in Hoerbiger’s welteislehre. That is what happens when a pump-manufacturer theorizes about cosmology. Need a pump, by the way? His company was still going strong when we last enquired, and still seemed to be quite proud of its former boss.  

“A new era of the magical explanation of the world is arising, an explanation based on Will rather than knowledge. There is no truth, in either the moral or the scientific sense. The concept of an independent Wissenschaft, free of any preconditions, could only emerge in the age of liberalism. It is absurd. Science is a social phenomenon…. With the slogan of objective science, the professoriat only wanted to free itself from the very necessary supervision by the State. That which is called the crisis of science is nothing more than [that] the gentlemen are beginning to see on their own how they have gotten on to the wrong track with their objectivity and autonomy.” A.Hitler. Table Talk.

Just Wondering …

April 14, 2018

Note 405(4): A New ECE2 Covariant Theory of All Precessions

April 14, 2018

This note shows that rotation of the ECE2 covariant metric (6) produces any experimentally reported precession of an object m orbiting an object M. The fundamental cause of all precessions is the vacuum fluctuation, ”

Everyone knows, Ron, that you are two-faced ‘to the nth degree’ but are you not out-doing even yourself these days? So now vacuum fluctuations explain everything? That is logical in a way, because vacuum fluctuations are made manifest by the observable Casimir and Lamb Shift effects and are attributed to zero-point energy. The latter is in turn routinely invoked by cranks nowadays in order to explain the functioning (LOL) of their perpetual-motion or antigravity machines. The problem is, Ron, that quantum fluctuations are ‘tied up’ with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (which you claim is wrong “because Kerry [i.e. Penderghastly] has seen atoms”) and with QCD/QED which you also say are wrong. So, before using vacuum fluctuations as an ‘explanation’, don’t you first need to provide your own independent explanatory basis for their existence?  Otherwise, your argument is circular … as well as being fatuous. In fact, why is Penderghastly not taking an interest in your funny GP-B musings? Could it be that even a former teacher from a 10th-rate school can see what a fool you are making of yourself, and does not want his Hauksbee Medal to be tarnished by your evil emanation (and, no, we don’t mean the one that the UNCC student complained about). 


Llareggub News

April 12, 2018

405(3) : Geodetic Precession as a Thomas Precession

April 12, 2018

This note gives an exact description of geodetic precession or de Sitter precession as claimed by Gravity Probe B using a velocity of frame rotation given by Eq. (21) from an ECE2 covariant Thomas precession in which both torsion and curvature are non-zero. The experimental claim is 5.48 ten power minus nine radians per orbit of Gravity Probe B (a ninety minute, almost circular, polar orbit). The standard model bases its theory on the Thomas rotation of the obsolete “Schwarzschild metric”, and this is well accepted internationally by the ECE2 School to be a completely incorrect theory. An account of the standard model theory is given just for the sake of comparison. Finally the experimental claim from Gravity Probe B for the precession due to rotation (Lense Thirring or frame dragging effect) is 3.25 ten power minus eleven radians per GPB orbit, which compares with the ECE2 result at the equator (Note 405(1)) of 4.10 ten power minus eleven radians per GBP orbit at the equator. It is as clear as mud how NASA / Stanford makes these experimental claims. The LT effect is two orders of magnitude smaller than the de Sitter effect, and NASA / Stanford ignore both the orbital precession and the Thomas precession. Yet they claim that their results verify the obsolete and incorrect Einstein theory.”

To begin at the end, as that unaccountably famous drunk did not say, the Gravity Probe B experiment was intended only to measure, and distinguish between, the frame-dragging and geodetic effects. It was not designed to answer questions about any precession of the Earth’s orbit about the Sun, and certainly not any questions about the ‘anomalous’ (non-Newtonian) precession of Mercury’s orbit … so why do you keep bringing that up? A physicist would know that the Thomas precession is subsumed by the de Sitter precession and would therefore not ask such a stupid question. On the subject of ignored effects, why do you steadfastly ignore the larger Schiff precession? Also, the short orbital period would immediately tell a physicist that it is a relatively low orbit. This means that one cannot simply use Newton’s assumption of a point-like Earth: the orbit may be circular, but the corresponding great-circle cross-section of the Earth certainly isn’t. How do you nevertheless manage to home-in on the ‘correct’ answer if you do not have all of the relevant geophysical data to hand? 

Mission Impossible

April 11, 2018

Top Ten UFT Papers

April 11, 2018

This choice is essentially impossible, but more or less at random: 1, 2, 88, 99,132,172,177, 313, 324, 328, 395, which should be read with PECE and PECE2 (UFT366). The circuit papers are 311, 321, 364, 382, 383, and all those are important. There are sets of papers such as Eckardt / Lindstrom and Evans / Morris. The textbook by Laurence Felker, “The Evans Equations of Unified Field Theory”, is useful as an introduction to the first two years of ECE Alternatively one could look at the list of most read UFT papers every month on the blog back to 2004 or play around with Google keywords to find the very high impact classics. For example “Quantum force equation” brings up UFT177 as the second paper on the first page of Google out of 4,650,000 sites.”

According to Google Scholar, the true picture is:

[1] 36 citations: 15 Ron, 8 critics, 4 other loonies, remainder unknown

[2] 78 citations: 61 Ron, 3 critics, 12 other loonies, remainder unknown

[88] 0 citations

[99] 0 citations

[132] 0 citations

[172] 1 citation by Ron

[177] 0 citations

[313] 0 citations

[324] 0 citations

[328] 0 citations

[395] 0 citations

Oh look at that Ron, there were eleven entries in your ‘Top Ten’; some mathematician you are, boyo!

[311] 8 citations: all by Ideotic or Siemens Stain

[321] 6 citations: all by Ideotic or Siemens Stain

[364] 0 citations

[382] 0 citations

[383] 0 citations

Felker Book: 324 citations, some 99% by Ron, remainder by other cranks. That is what happens when an air-conditioning engineer tries to write a physics textbook.

Ron, this performance is both pathetic and embarrassing. Give up your ridiculous claim to fame and success.  



April 10, 2018

Continuing with UFT405

April 10, 2018

I plan to continue with UFT405 by developing the de Sitter and Lense Thirring precessions as an ECE2 covariant Thomas precession.”

Don’t forget the Schiff precession. Don’t forget that the Earth is not perfectly spherical … ooh, could that be why they were measuring the distance to the satellite from the Earth’s surface rather than from its centre? Above all, don’t forget that you don’t really know WTF you’re doing!

A Suitable Case … for Treatment

April 10, 2018

The way that science is driven forward

April 10, 2018

My case shows with pristine clarity that science is driven forward by a very few dedicated individuals. My average output over forty five years of continuous work is over 32 works per year. Some of these works can be lengthy monographs. I suppose that that would mean many paper equivalents. The academic average from a recent Norwegian study is a dismal 0.71 paper equivalents per individual per year. So if they get in the way of new thought, they are just pushed aside by the colleagues around the world. Academia is no longer concerned with scholarship at all, it is concerned with itself, with self seeking and tainted glory bought with student fees. Of course there are some fine academics, but the aforementioned figures amount to a devastating condemnation of academia as a whole.”

No, your case shows that science is eminently and ruthlessly self-correcting. Seats of scientific education may make mistakes and award degrees to those who get by on rote-learning and do not grasp the basis ethos of science. Scientific associations may mistakenly recommend certain people for awards which they do not deserve. Rogue editors may pollute a journal with nonsense papers, and then try to cover it up by calling it a ‘paradigm-shift’. But the scientific community itself is the final arbiter and will ignore that work which is useless, wrong and dishonest … no matter how voluminous it may be.  Hang on to your ‘scientometrics’ for as long as you can. It is all that you have left. The real, communally-agreed scientometrics, reveal the true picture: some routine early work which was rapidly forgotten in spite of being propped up by massive self-citation, and a descent into ‘publishing’ pure pseudoscience that was ignored immediately. 


Ron Terminally Confused

April 9, 2018

Note 405(2): General Thomas Precession Theory

April 9, 2018

This note shows that any observable precession can be developed as an ECE2 covariant Thomas precession, which replaces the incorrect Einstein theory for all precessions such as the orbital, Lense Thirring and geodetic precessions, and also the equinoctial and pendulum precessions.. ”

So now Ron is trying to claim that Thomas precession, a special-relativistic effect, explains general-relativistic effects. That is odd, given that Thomas precession occurs when, say, a gyroscope is moved in a circle … whether or not there is a gravitating and/or rotating body at the centre of that circle.  

“The theory is illustrated with the experimentally observed gravitational precession (3) of any object m orbiting an object M. The ECE2 covariant force equation for any precession or any orbit is Eq. (13), the vacuum force is Eq. (14), and in general the spin connection is defined by Eq. (20), where v is the velocity of the ECE2 covariant Thomas precession defined in a space with finite torsion and curvature. The usual Thomas precession is defined in the Minkowski space in which there is no torsion and no curvature. ”

Oh, so it’s not the usual Thomas precession. How convenient.

Finally the isotropically averaged vacuum fluctuation responsible fro the ECE2 covariant Thomas precession is defined in Eq. (23), leading to Eq. (25) in which the right hand side is 43 arc seconds per century for Mercury. Note carefully that this famous 43 arc seconds per century is regarded as an astronomically observed value, and no longer attributed to the incorrect Einstein theory.

So Ron thinks that the same phenomenon is explained simultaneously by special relativity, general relativity and quantum mechanics. Is that what passes for a ‘unified theory’ in loony-land? And WTF is the highlighted sentence supposed to mean? It was always an observed fact:  EGR explained it. It did not ‘invent’ it. On the other hand, it was not detected until astronomers found that the presence of the other planets did not fully explain (using Newtonian gravitation) the overall precession. They even imagined that an unseen planet (Vulcan: how’s that for ‘dark matter’) might explain the residual precession.  So how come your theories zoom in directly on explaining the residual anomalous precession but say nothing about the overall precession? Is that not rather suspicious? Moreover, and for the umpteenth time, we ask how tidal effects are explained by your, haha, theory.  Perhaps your Telesio-Galilei medal is quite appropriate after all … given that Galileo also did not understand tides. He ‘explained’ Earth’s tides without attributing them to the Moon’s influence. LOL 

Dogmatists Busy Ignoring Torsion

April 8, 2018

Järv, L., Toporensky, A.
General relativity as an attractor for scalar-torsion cosmology
(2016) Physical Review D, 93 (2), art. no. 024051, . Cited 6 times.
Singh, T.P.
General relativity, torsion and quantum theory
(2015) Current Science, 109 (12), pp. 2258-2264. Cited 1 time.

Fonseca-Neto, J.B., Romero, C., Martinez, S.P.G.
Scalar torsion and a new symmetry of general relativity
(2013) General Relativity and Gravitation, 45 (8), pp. 1579-1601. Cited 4 times.

Schücker, T., Zouzou, S.R.
On a weak Gauss law in general relativity and torsion
(2012) Classical and Quantum Gravity, 29 (24), art. no. 245009, . Cited 1 time.

Diakonov, D., Tumanov, A.G., Vladimirov, A.A.
Low-energy general relativity with torsion: A systematic derivative expansion
(2011) Physical Review D – Particles, Fields, Gravitation and Cosmology, 84 (12), art. no. 124042, . Cited 18 times.

Banerjee, K.
Some aspects of Holst and Nieh-Yan terms in general relativity with torsion
(2010) Classical and Quantum Gravity, 27 (13), art. no. 135012, . Cited 4 times.

Gibbons, G.W., Gielen, S.
Deformed general relativity and torsion
(2009) Classical and Quantum Gravity, 26 (13), art. no. 135005, . Cited 12 times.

Cantcheff, M.B.
General relativity as a (constrained) Yang-Mills theory and a novel gravity with torsion
(2002) General Relativity and Gravitation, 34 (11), pp. 1781-1792. Cited 7 times.

Herrmann, H.J., Rückner, G., Muschik, W.
Constitutive theory in general relativity: Spin-material in spaces with torsion
(2000) Rendiconti del Seminario Matematico, 58 (2), pp. 141-146. Cited 3 times.

Soleng, H.H.
Negative energy densities in extended sources generating closed timelike curves in general relativity with and without torsion
(1994) Physical Review D, 49 (2), pp. 1124-1125. Cited 7 times.

De Sabbata, V., Sivaram, C., v. Borzeszkowski, H.‐H., Treder, H.‐J.
Quantum General Relativity, Torsion and Uncertainty Relations
(1991) Annalen der Physik, 503 (7), pp. 497-502. Cited 1 time.

Maluf, J.W.
Conformal invariance and torsion in general relativity
(1987) General Relativity and Gravitation, 19 (1), pp. 57-71. Cited 19 times.

Penrose, R.
Spinors and torsion in general relativity
(1983) Foundations of Physics, 13 (3), pp. 325-339. Cited 35 times.

Cianci, R.
On generalized torsion two-forms in general relativity: a result of null tetrad formalism
(1981) Letters in Mathematical Physics, 5 (6), pp. 481-487.

Rumpf, H.
Creation of dirac particles in general relativity with torsion and electromagnetism: III. Matter production in a model of torsion
(1979) General Relativity and Gravitation, 10 (8), pp. 647-658. Cited 16 times.

Rumpf, H.
Creation of dirac particles in general relativity with torsion and electromagnetism II: The constant electric field-A “pedagogical” example
(1979) General Relativity and Gravitation, 10 (6), pp. 525-533. Cited 11 times.

Rumpf, H.
Creation of Dirac particles in general relativity with torsion and electromagnetism I: The general formalism
(1979) General Relativity and Gravitation, 10 (6), pp. 509-523. Cited 27 times.

Smalley, L.L.
Variational principle for general relativity with torsion and non-metricity
(1977) Physics Letters A, 61 (7), pp. 436-438. Cited 24 times.

Safko, J.L., Tsamparlis, M., Elston, F.
Variational methods with torsion in general relativity
(1977) Physics Letters A, 60 (1), pp. 1-2. Cited 7 times.

Hehl, F.W., Von Der Heyde, P., Kerlick, G.D., Nester, J.M.
General relativity with spin and torsion: Foundations and prospects
(1976) Reviews of Modern Physics, 48 (3), pp. 393-416. Cited 1523 times.

Hehl, F.W.
On the relevance of general relativity with torsion at highest matter densities and in microphysics
(1975) General Relativity and Gravitation, 6 (1), pp. 123-127. Cited 11 times.

Hehl, F.W.
Spin and torsion in general relativity II: Geometry and field equations
(1974) General Relativity and Gravitation, 5 (5), pp. 491-516. Cited 110 times.

Hehl, F.W., Von Der Heyde, P., Kerlick, G.D.
General relativity with spin and torsion and its deviations from Einstein’s theory
(1974) Physical Review D, 10 (4), pp. 1066-1069. Cited 124 times.

Hehl, F.W.
Spin and torsion in general relativity: I. Foundations
(1973) General Relativity and Gravitation, 4 (4), pp. 333-349. Cited 190 times.

Ugly Features

April 8, 2018

Some Features of the Scientometrics

April 8, 2018

A systematic study of the scientometrics is strongly recommended, there are many features which will emerge. ”

Have you ever read the ‘small print’ which comes with the Webalizer?

We are always struck by this passage from the conclusion:

“It should now be obvious that there are only certain things you can determine from a web server log. There are some completely accurate numbers you can generate without question. And then, there are some wildly inaccurate and misleading numbers you can garner depending on what assumptions you make … Want to know how many ‘users’ visited your web site? Good luck with that one.. unless you go ‘outside the logs’, it will be a hit or miss stab in the dark. “

“A student of the history of science might like to study them systematically and define these features. ”

Nah. But it will be of great interest to students of pseudoscience.

“One of the most important is the emergence of classic papers, notably UFT88, which work their way on to the first page of Google. ”

“UFT88” does not yield any independent citations on Google Scholar. Meanwhile, try turning off the helpful search aids on Google itself.

“The most important feature is van der Merwe’s post Einsteinian paradigm shift. ”

Who is going to trust someone who was sacked from his post as a journal editor for letting through too many crackpot papers … mainly yours?! He was the worst editor ever, until El Naschie appeared.

“The scientometrics quantify this historic shift in a way that has never been done before ”


It takes about 1,500 hours of work every year to build up the scientometrics by filtering them. ”

You write ‘filtering’. We read ‘fiddling’.

“It is impossible to record them all by hand, but they are recorded on the webalizer file and referrals file.The result is a unique historical record kept systematically since April 30th 2004.”

See above.

“The blog stats show surges of interest, perhaps this is an organized study of the blog. There might be some grapevine by which the readership senses new work. ”

Why not watch our hit-counter carefully. Which come first, our surges or yours? BTW, where is your hit-counter; would not one of those save you a lot of time?

“Also some articles such as the third chapter of the Spanish translation of Felker’s famous “Evans Equations” generate a huge amount of interest. Similarly UFT286 on antisymmetry generates a huge amount of interest. This could be due to a group of people locking in to these items permanently. ”

Las ecuaciones de Evans de la teoría del campo unificado” has been cited only 11 times according to Google Scholar. All of the citations are due to yourself. BTW, if scientometrics are so superior, why do you still cite papers? And why does nobody else cite your papers? Are they really all too ‘scared for their jobs’? UFT286 is not mentioned at all by Google Scholar.

Everything is archived on the Wayback Machine and many other places.”

No it’s not: the Wayback Machine takes only occasional ‘snapshots’.

Confusion Reigns

April 8, 2018

FOR POSTING : UFT404 and Background Notes

April 8, 2018

Typo in UFT404: Many thanks again! For some reason NASA / Stanford reported the GPB precessions in confusing units of milliarcseconds per earth year (online Cornell arXiv preprint). In terms of millarcseconds per ninety minute orbit of GPB the precession is smaller by a factor of 90 minutes divided by an earth year. The correct S. I. units are radians per 2 pi orbit of Gravity Probe B. This polar orbit lasted for ninety minutes.

“For some reason”? It is little comments like that which give the strong impression that you are out of your depth. The data-collection period was 352 days so, apart from any other reason, /year is a reasonable unit. (BTW, fun irrelevant fact for any numerologists out there: 352 days is very close to what one gets [using consistent units] if one divides the speed of light by the acceleration due to gravity at the Earth’s surface).  But, as usual, we are more puzzled as to how you manage to get the correct answer when you do not even mention one source of relativistic drag, or take account of the fact that one of them reverses over the equator or – most importantly – how you do any of that without taking account of the effect of the oblateness of the Earth: which swamps all of the other effects!  

“In the paper it should read that the root mean square vacuum fluctuation is of about 1% of the Earth’s radius, not 10%, a small typo.”

A difference of 9% is small?

Wind-Power Beneficiary

April 8, 2018

Wind Farms causing extinctions

April 8, 2018

Many thanks to Mark Duchamp! If humankind will cause extinction of animals and ruin the environment, it will itself become extinct. In my analysis of turbines in this area carried out every day for a year and posted on this blog, it was found that turbines in Wales contribute only about 2% of demand, and frequently produce nothing when the wind is light. ”

You should protest this immediately by shutting yourself off from any and all connection with wind power. This would include breaking off any contact with those involved in any way with wind power. So here’s the rub, your assistant – Siemens Stain – works for … er … Siemens and that company is deeply involved with, and highly enthusiastic about, wind power:

It is quite clear what you have to do: you have to break off all contact with SS forthwith, otherwise you will look extremely two-faced. 

“The Anglo Norman ascendancy in Wales and its servants in the Welsh Assembly are responsible for the wholesale destruction of entire ecologies such as Mynydd y Gwair and Betws, and also responsible for the destruction of the Welsh language in this area. ”

Oh yes, we remember seeing you in TV broadcasts about the protest marches by locals. Oh, hang on, no we didn’t … because you did not lift a finger (or foot) to help in that regard. 

“These are severe violations of human rights and as Uchelwr, Squire and Civil List Pensioner I protest in the strongest possible terms. There is wholesale destruction of culture due to uncontrolled monoglot immigration into Welsh speaking areas. This must be stopped and my simple Bro Iaith policy implemented. If not, not only the Welsh language but also the Anglo Welsh culture will be destroyed completely. There will be a cultural wasteland in which chapels are used for boxing, a grotesque and mindless insult to civilization”

Quite right: former places of worship should be turned into carpet stores or offices, as they usually are in Wales. And if there is something to protest, it needs a better front-man than you with your imaginary and/or undeserved titles. Even your views as a ‘scientist’ would be laughed out of any court of enquiry because clever opponents would soon bring up your backing of perpetual motion, antigravity and quack cancer-cures to prove that you are out-of-touch with reality, commonsense and … well, keep that letter handy to fend off the guys in white coats.  

Ron Still Confused

April 7, 2018

FOR POSTING : UFT404 and Background Notes

April 7, 2018

The precession due to rotation (Lense Thirring effect of the standard physics) is shown to be due to a spin connection of ECE2 covariant physics and a root mean square vacuum fluctuation of about 10% of the Earth’s radius. The results of the Gravity Probe B experiment are severely criticised because it is not possible to separate experimentally the Lense Thirring (frame dragging) effect from the de Sitter effect (geodetic precession). The two effects are always present. So this paper accepts the NASA / Stanford claim for the sake of argument only. The classic UFT88 shows that the theory of Gravity Probe B is totally wrong, not for the first time in the history of the “standard” model of physics. We are now ready to analyse any experimentally observable precession in terms of its ECE2 covariant spin connection and vacuum fluctuation, and this is major progress away from the pathological science of “Einstein is always hyper precise” – or else. He is no such thing. The term “pathological science” was coined by Langmuir, and is one way of describing dogmatism, in which hordes of students are taught rubbish at the expense of their parents and in which millions of papers are produced which are read by no one at all. Jonathan Swift could not have written better satire.”

Ron, Ron, Ron, the entire point of the Gravity Probe B experiment was to measure (and distinguish between) the frame-dragging (Lense-Thirring) and geodetic (Schiff) effects. You seem to be confused because these effects were measured via the precession of very precise gyroscopes (spinning spheres). But the object was not to measure orbital precession. So, again, it is very odd that you claim success for your crackpot theory even though you seem to be totally unaware of the Schiff effect, and even seen to be confusing the frame-dragging data with orbital-precession data. You also appear to be only person on Earth who is trying to apply quantum-mechanical concepts to planetary orbits. That does not make you a genius iconoclast, that simply confirms that you are a crackpot. No, Langmuir was not describing dogmatism: that would imply an incorrect belief-system which is shared by a considerable number of people. What he was describing was the occasional ‘qualified scientist’ who went ‘off the reservation’ for some reason but still tried to use his supposed good academic reputation to shore up nonsense ideas. Several other people, before and since Langmuir, had/have described this phenomenon. The latest of them, Baez, awards 25 points to those cranks who name things after themselves. He specifically cites the name ‘Evans’ in that context. Is that perhaps your only claim-to-fame? Do you not think that some of Swift’s satire falls flat nowadays? ‘Turning cucumbers into sunshine’ is a silly idea? Just stick two different metals into it and put a bulb in contact with them. Voila, electromagnetic radiation. Even better (but cheating slightly): put mains current through a pickled gherkin and one gets a lovely blue glow.  We look forward to the day when the very term, pathological, becomes synonymous with ‘Myron Evans-Like’.  

PS: Tell SS that 1 milli-arcsec/year = 4.848 × 10−9 radians/year.

Injecting a Little Sanity

April 6, 2018

404(5): Final Version of Notes for UFT404

April 6, 2018

In this final version the apsidal and Larmor precessions are equated as in Eq. (8), and the vacuum fluctuation responsible for the Lense Thirring effect calculated as in Eqs. (23) ff., with the result (33). This is simpler and more incisive than previous versions. Once Horst has had a chance to look at this note, I will rewrite UFT404 and repost it. The problem posed in UFT345 remains unanswered – how did they separate the LT and de Sitter precessions? They are both always present. Also present is the orbital precession. Did they account for that? In the same way as a planet orbiting the sun precesses, GPB orbiting the earth precesses. This is once again a criticism of the standard model. There cannot be a precise fit of experiment and theory if the theory is totally wrong and the data ill defined and ill refined. However, I have always been an inductive scientist, as is co author Horst Eckardt and others of AIAS / UPITEC, so we are always looking for new ideas as well as new criticisms. So claims to the mysterious, very high precision of EGR are no longer taken seriously.”


It is quite obvious from the exchanges between SS and Ron that neither of them know what they are doing … who knew? Quite apart from trying to get by with Ron’s old university course-book, they seem completely confused over what data are needed. So here are a few clarifications concerning the Gravity Probe B experiment. Lense and Thirring noted 100 years ago that General Relativity implied a frame-dragging effect. Faraday, in fact, had already mused about whether there was a gravitational analogy to the well-known ‘drag’ that is felt when a magnet is moved over a copper sheet. Interesting facts: the Lense-Thirring effect offers the only accepted clue as to how to obtain science-fiction style levitation, and Thirring was mixed up in the inter-war enthusiasm for the paranormal (levitation again!). They tried to detect frame-dragging in the orbits of Jupiter’s satellites, but failed.  There are also ‘geodetic’ effects: one  which Ron knows of (de Sitter) and another which he does not mention (Schiff).  In order to perform their calculations of the gyroscopic precession, the real physicists had to take account of the instantaneous orbital velocity and orbit radius, the mass, moment of inertia and angular velocity of the Earth, the Lense-Thirring frame-dragging, the Schiff geodetic effect (due to motion around the Earth), the de Sitter effect (due to motion around the Sun)  and a Newtonian correction due to the satellite’s oblate orbit around the Earth.  Now Ron, can you work out why a polar orbit was chosen in the first place? Could it be something to do with this? The Schiff frame-dragging effect amounts to  39milli-arcseconds/year; a factor of four less than the 156 milli-arcsec/y Lense–Thirring effect. This in turn is because the gyroscope drag reverses over the equator. Don’t you think that that variation might well allow observers to distinguish the two effects, Ron? Just for the record, the geodetic drift-rate was −6601.8 ± 18.3 milli-arcsec/y  (GR prediction was −6606.1 ) and the frame-dragging rate was −37.2 ± 7.2 milli-arcsec/y (GR prediction was −39.2).   Yours must be a truly amazing theory Ron. It manages to give the correct answer even though you do not take account of orbit oblateness and are not even aware that there are two different sources of geodetic drag.  Or are you simply a lying **** and an embarrassment to the UK?   


April 1, 2018

Keywords for UFT88

April 1, 2018

Keywords “Bianchi differential geometry” puts UFT88 in pole position, first site on the first page of google.”

If we write it like that, nothing comes up on our computers. If we leave-off the speech-marks, there is an entry way down. Haven’t we explained this to you before, Ron? Google bases its presentation of results partly on your own previous searches. Anyway, should you not be checking Google Scholar? Nothing comes up there for us, with or without speech-marks. Why not just look for “uft88”, and see how many times it has been cited by anybody but yourself, and other loonies.

Amazing … Figure-Fiddling

March 30, 2018

404(2) : Precession Due to a Rotating Object (Apsidal and Larmor methods)

March 30, 2018

This note shows that there is very good agreement between the apsidal and Larmor methods described resepctively in Note 404(1), and UFT345, giving great confidence in both methods and in an ECE2 covariant theory rather than the incorrect Einstein theory. The Larmor method is described in UFT345, where an averaging procedure was used to obtain exact agreement with experimental data from Gravity Probe B. The apsidal method can be calculated exactly with computer algebra, I have given an approximate method using hand calculations which can be checked as usual. This note shows that there is rigorous self consistency among several concepts introduced in the past two years or so. The Larmor method relies on the ECE2 gravitomagnetic field (UFT117 and UFT345) and the apsidal method on its potential. The original calculation by Lense and Thirring completely omits torsion because it was based on the torsionless Einstein equation.”

As there is never anything new chez vous, we refer you to some answers which we gave earlier:





March 26, 2018

Inspired by Ron’s poetic efforts, one of us penned these:

Ron into Space

Pay attention to the astronautics,
astronautics is the most woolly physics of all.
Our astronautics are confused and addled,
they like to induct, they like to author.

Why would you think the gravitation is right?
the gravitation is the most wrong attraction of all.
Never forget the unsuitable and awry gravitation.

I cannot help but stop and look at incorrect equations.
Now erroneous is just the thing,
To get me wondering if equations are inaccurate.


Don’t believe that hubby is useful?
hubby is useless beyond belief.
Does hubby make you shiver?
does he?

Don’t believe that playmates can be female?
playmates are male beyond belief.
Down, down, down into the darkness of the playmates,
Gently they go – sans female, the manful, the priapic.

I cannot help but stop and look at defunct marriages.
Never forget the dead and inoperative couplings.

Did he agonize over these in a freezing garret? Did he heck. He went here:

Would anybody else care to try?

Ode to ECE theory
Once I sat engaged and tapping
Suddenly, I heard some straining
Still is attaining, still is attaining
All my soul within me containing
Through which came bolstering, bolstering, bolstering
And so I screamed, ‘Is that a bang?’
The bum laughed
I am shorn of my handicraft
Suddenly, I heard some imploding
Of ceramics that are downloading
Still is goading, still is goading
The damaging doo depleting
While I pondered, toddy and completing
The defeating and the meting
The dirt laughed
That squeezing, squeezing channeling
The brew brought such sorrow
But in the fact that it was clanging
Back into my memories tapping
All my soul within me scrapping
Back into my memories metamorphosing
Still is backslapping, still is backslapping
In there stepped a froth chitty
The sublimating slobber sputtering
The concern never flittering
Shuttering, shuttering!
As These Things Go
In Showery Mawr
A mere, deranged crackpot rails
out of equations
The low-hanging fruit
Kept aloft by the ‘bubbles’
That will never burst


Much Ado About Nothing

March 25, 2018

Comparison of Theory with Experimental Data

March 25, 2018

I always agreed with this, theory must always be tested experimentally. This type of gyroscope work was catalysed by the need to produce a theory of the Laithwaite effect (see review paper UFT400, gyroscope section). ”

There is no ‘Laithwaite effect’; demonstrators all the way back to Faraday had been performing that trick*. Faraday’s own spinning-top research had been ‘catalyzed’ in fact by the father of the founder of the Boy Scouts who had – like Laithwaite – performed some dubious spinning-top demonstrations at the RI.  Laithwaite was the first person to lie quite so blatantly about gyroscopic phenomena. NOTE WELL: apologists try to claim that this was an isolated ‘wobble’ in Laithwaite’s career. Those who look closely at said career know that it was built entirely on smoke and mirrors. He had always been a dishonest lying crank; that was just the ‘bad coming out’.

“The integration routines of Maxima were used and the results graphed by Horst, producing many new results. ”

Why is it that when you write ‘new’, we always read ‘wrong’?

“The motion of the gyroscope is far richer than hitherto thought. ”

Yes it is: the Lax and Lie aspects of the Casimirs alone are fascinating but, not being mathematicians, you will not be able to appreciate that.

“The basic method was the Euler Lagrange Hamilton method. ”

How ironic it is that Lagrange was the first to describe the peg-top mathematically. He must be spinning in his grave, haha, at your antics.

“All seven hundred papers and books of ECE compare theory with experiment, as do all two thousand plus papers and books that I have produced back to 1971. ”

Your chemical ‘opera omnia‘ is rarely cited, and it is very hard to see why it was ever thought good enough to justify a CLP.  And, if spinning objects really do exhibit unrecognized behaviours, does that not invalidate all of your modelling of spinning molecules? Alternatively, if your models gave good agreement with experimental data, does that not confirm that there are in fact no unrecognized gyroscopic effects?

“Laithwaite’s claims were verified. His lifting systems are already operational in Korean and Japanese railways. They were not used in Britain largely due to the dogmatic rejection of Laithwaite,”

Are you suggesting that those trains are levitated by spinning-tops? Are you being deceptive by deliberately confusing his magnetic-levitation and spinning-top ideas … or is the dementia kicking-in?  To be accurate, it was Laithwaite’s dogmatic pursuit of his own unworkable version of maglev which was the culprit. Historical points: maglev was invented by Clerk Maxwell in the form of one of the most beautiful thought-experiments ever devised, it was already being demonstrated as a practical possibility when Laithwaite was a child, only the British attribute maglev (and the LIM) to Laithwaite … and a recent Sussex University doctoral thesis on maglev failed to mention Laithwaite at all! Perhaps Sussex is trying to live down the memory of the ‘gyroscopic propulsion’ experiments which he performed there. 

* ‘Hurrying-on the precession’ aka The Kelvin Effect

Who’s KIDDing Who?

March 25, 2018

Note 403(10)

March 25, 2018

This looks very interesting. With a theoretical understanding as in UFT396 the gyroscope could be used for lifting in heavy engineering.

Myron Evans <myronevans123>

Thanks, we are in contact with Sandy Kidd who built the first lifting gyroscopic device.


Ron, the whole point of a gyroscope is that it is mounted in gimbals, with the express aim of ‘insulating’ it from its surroundings (and it took homo sapiens [sic] millennia to work that out). It therefore cannot help with the ‘heavy lifting’ unless, haha, you think that it can levitate. There does exist a patent application on the use of a spinning-top to counter-balance a crane … but even that looks rather unlikely. But of course you are in contact with Alexander ‘Sandy’ Kidd. He is like a disease when it comes to destroying scientific reputations. He was foisted on Dundee University thanks to the browbeating efforts of the consumate clown, Eric Laithwaite. He was welcomed with open arms by the morons at British Aerospace  (cf Project Greenglow LOL) and is still worshiped as an antigravity guru by the mentally challenged inventors who haunt the gyroscope-propulsion chat-room at (even though Mr Turner, who runs the site, denies that there is any such thing). Oh, and you know how you are always complaining about the huge salaries paid to physicists? Well, you will love this: when Kidd was being courted by Dundee University he demanded £50000pa. At the time, Dundee was offering only £9000pa to brand-new physics doctorate-holders. He needed that much remuneration apparently in order to compensate him for his loss of earnings as a tool-fitter. Why don’t you go after the tool-fitters, Ron?  Perhaps you should have become a tool-fitter … although we suspect that you are as cack-handed with your, er, hands as you are with your brain. 

Poisonous Dwarf

March 23, 2018

The Antidote to Hawking

March 23, 2018

The Intense Worldwide Study of ECE Theory – the Antidote to Dogmatism and Intolerance (Hawking’s Legacy)
The daily scientometrics record the study of ECE2 papers and books (UFT313 onwards) and the attached webalizer file distributed every early morning gives the complete record of how all seven hundred or so papers and books are being studied. These data show beyond all doubt that there is a new worldwide school of thought in natural philosophy (physics). They also show how all items on are being studied literally all the time in the different time zones of the world. So the AIAS / UPITEC group, the avant garde of a vast army of followers, already knows that it has changed physics forever. There is no going back to stone age ideas. Hawking’s legacy is totalitarianism and intolerance of intellectual freedom.”

We are sending print-outs of this, and similar, posts to the Royal Society of Chemistry, to 10 Downing Street, to Buckingham Palace and to the Honours Forfeiture Committee. You may be just an intellectual dwarf and scientific nonentity, but perhaps someone will realize that there is one CLP that they can well do without.

Further Views from their Gutter

March 21, 2018

Hawking’s Legacy

March 21, 2018

Fully agreed about Steve Crothers and Professor Robitaille. The standard model has been reduced to a heavy metal sieve floating on hydrogen. The media keep telling the sieve not to sink out of sight. All seven hundred papers and books of ECE refute Big Bang, using torsion, notably UFT88. I agree that Hawking’s battle against disability shows great courage. Similarly Roosevelt’s battle against polio. I would advise the standard modellers that all they have to fear is torsion itself.

Myron Evans <myronevans123>

Dear Myron. I have been telling people who ask me about Hawking that I admire his life story much more than his physics. I think Crothers and Robitaille are amazing, essential, scientists along with you and others in this group. Robitaille is publishing a series of short youtubes that are very useful for those so interested. He refutes the gaseous model of the sun, thus calling into question what kind of energy reactions are happening!

Very best,


Puzzled newcomers should understand that Crothers is not praising himself here; although that is probably not beneath him. No, this is that other stupid-Steve, Professor Stephen Bannister aka The Dismal Scientist, who is commenting.  Is it because organisations, like fish, ‘rot from the head’ that they do not smell the excrement on their feet? Why is Siemens (Munich) AG not fazed by having kraut-pot Siemens Stain on its payroll? Why does the economics department of the University of Utah not mind employing The Dismal Scientist? This is someone who thinks that perpetual-motion machines will revolutionize society.  Does he tell the students that? Do they laugh, or do they dutifully note it down for the next test? Who knows? After all, Utah is under the thumb of a religion whose foundations are only slightly less risible (golden book, magic spectacles, verses clearly plagiarized from the ‘later’ King James bible) than are those of scientology. We wonder whether his doctorate is even technically valid: Ron was an external examiner for his viva voce,  and Ron proves again and again that he has never read Bannister’s thesis or, if he has read it, he has not understood it. Perhaps the Dismal Scientist does not actually teach. Perhaps he just walks into the lecture hall and scrawls a list of suitable YouTube videos on the white-board. These are dark days. What chance does the USA have, with an uneducated anti-science thug like Tovarich Trump calling the shots, as it comes up against a civilization that already apparently understood the ‘parallel translation of vectors’ millennia ago.        


Gutters and Stars

March 20, 2018

Hawking’s Legacy

March 20, 2018

I agree with these arguments by Stephen Crothers, arguments which are reinforced by many refutations of the Einstein field equation. So physics has split permanently into ECE and ECE2 and the standard model.

Black hole thermodynamics and the Zeroth Law [1,2].

Show original message

(a) black hole temperature: TH = hc3/16π2GkM

The LHS is intensive but the RHS is extensive; therefore a violation of thermodynamics [1,2].

(b) black hole entropy: S = πkc3A/2hG
The LHS is extensive but the RHS is neither intensive nor extensive; therefore a violation of thermodynamics [1,2].

(c) Black holes do not exist [1-3].


[1] Robitaille, P.-M., Hawking Radiation: A Violation of the Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics, American Physical Society(ABSTRACT), March, 2018,

[2] Robitaille, P.-M., Hawking Radiation: A Violation of the Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics, American Physical Society (SLIDE PRESENTATION), March, 2018,

[3] Crothers, S.J., A Critical Analysis of LIGO’s Recent Detection of Gravitational Waves Caused by Merging Black Holes, Hadronic Journal, n.3, Vol. 39, 2016, pp.271-302,

If that is the best that the gutter-dwellers can manage, they should not have bothered. Impressed? The American Physical Society has a dismaying policy of never denying a nutter a voice. Why is that? It is because, back in the fifties, they refused to publish the work of one particular loony (an electrical engineer … of course). He ‘therefore’ went to Columbia University in order to kill the ‘guilty parties’. Stupid to the end, he went at the very time when the relevant professors were not there. So he shot dead the first secretary that he found; even reloading just to make sure. Due to the USA’s love of its military, his gravestone still often sports a US flag and mentions only his WW2 military service. It does not mention the fact that he was a scumball pseudoscientist*. 

The Hadronic Journal? That is run by Ruggero Santilli.  Remember this?

Ron now calls his gold medal ‘worthless’. See how the nutters all cling together, even when they don’t like each other?

*Stop press: it seems that he has now been interred in the same grave as his doting parents. Our author friend is dedicating his loony-bashing book to the secretary’s memory.


Tense Time

March 19, 2018

Multiple Problems with gmail

March 19, 2018

In October 2027 Google acknowledged multiple problems with gmail which can be read up by anyone on the internet. ”

It is odd that such a supposed expert on spacetime has so many problems with dates and  computer storage. Ron regularly repeats the claim that he received an accolade on a non-existent date, and also seems to be unable to master the simplest computer operations. 

Strange Bedfellows

March 19, 2018


March 19, 2018

Many thanks, and you are very welcome!
Date: Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 1:43 PM
Subject: R: Waterfront
To: Myron Evans <myronevans123>

Dear Professor Evans,

the idea of a conference structured as per below discussion is a great one according to me.

You can count on my participation if there won’t be clashes with my work duties.

All the best


Lorenzo Santini

Project Manager

Mochovce Nuclear Power Plant

Enel Produzione Spa / Seconded to Slovenské elektrarne, a.s.

3. a 4. blok Eléktrarne Mochovce, zavod

935 39 Mochovce, Slovak Republic

T +421 366 378 654

+421 911 442 421


We all know that Ron is two-faced, inconsistent and a born liar … but he is also desperate for friends. This must be why he is so friendly with Oily Lorenzo. The latter is a project manager at a nuclear power station. How does Ron reconcile that fact with his heartfelt views on nuclear power:

On the other hand, a lot of Oily Lorenzo’s power station was built by Siemens. One can have confidence in that fine German company; that one, at least, does not employ scientifically incompetent clowns … Ooops!  



Count Us In!

March 18, 2018


March 18, 2018

Your idea of a multi cultural conference is a very good one, it depends on how many will be able to attend and how many will be able to travel to the different venues, how many can attend skype sessions and so on. That cannot be done in one day, it would take more like a week. Judging by the Gordon Conference format there would be a minimum of three days, lectures by speakers, and a day or days set aside for travelling. There might be one science session devoted to recent major scientific advances, one industrial history session, and one on the history of the family, perhaps chaired by my cousin Stuart Davies, the well known historian of the Morgan Awbrey family. You could chair the industrial history session with your extensive knowledge, and be the guide to a tour of industrial sites. The scientific session could be built around UFT400, which summarizes the major advances made recently, and built around PECE and PECE2. I would like to see circuit demonstrations, gyroscope demonstrations, animations and so on.”

We shall certainly send a delegate this time; last year our closest member to Swansea was too busy (some important fingernails needed clipping apparently) to call in at the Maritime Museum. Will Sir Arthur Turner-Thomas be taking part in the history section? The local newspapers may want to interview such an exalted visitor. Do you actually have a gyroscope to show? Or do you have only one of those spinning-tops that the ignorant refer to as ‘gyroscopes’?  Will you be demonstrating a genuine Ideotic device, or will you simply modify a door-chime?


March 15, 2018

Ron could use this as a template for his next application:

“This letter is to officially offer my candidacy for the Fields medal. I want you to know that I would be very honored to receive this award. And before jumping to any conclusions about my self-nomination, rest assured that I am fully aware I am an unusual choice for the medal, given my extremely limited research credentials.


You have certainly covered many [areas]. Algebra? Yes. Topology? Yes. Logic? Number Theory? Analysis? Yes. Flower arranging? No. This is a critical and growing sub-field of combinatorics, and not once has the Fields medal committee deemed to honor it with an award. It is time to remedy this oversight. I would be proud to represent the practitioners of this burgeoning area of mathematics as a Fields medalist. Furthermore, ….. the Fields medal should not just be about past success. It should also be about potential. It’s about recognizing how a person, having produced very little so far, and what little there is has not appeared in math journals so much as gardening or bridal magazines, must be saving up for a big push some time soon. ……… You want to give it to someone who might be producing mathematics for years to come. I just might be that person


And what are the consequences if you do not choose me? Although the membership of the Fields medal committee is a secret, having made a few promises, and arranged a few flowers, I do know who you are. And although my research production has been limited, I am nonetheless quite well connected in the math community. I have the capacity to make your lives quite miserable. A job offer abruptly withdrawn due to questions of character. Students marching in protest over remarks that you don’t remember making. Flower arrangements at the banquet in your honor that are lopsided and color uncoordinated. I’m not saying I would be the cause of those things, as that would be self-incrimination, but I just wanted to put that out there …. the Fields medal … is an award that should stand for all that is good and beautiful about mathematics. It is a beacon, setting a standard to which we can all aspire. Even me.”

This is of course a spoof letter. The full version can be seen in The Mathematical Intelligencer, 40 (2018) 25. That is, if you can get past the pay-wall. Sorry Ron. The above is fair use. Any more would be copyright infringement.



March 14, 2018

“Appeal for Calm and Common Sense

March 14, 2018

As one of the world’s leading scientists”

Does the world know?

“and a U. S dual citizen ”

Does Trump know? Why should the US hang onto you when your own wife did not want to? Or did you dump her in order to take up with a Soviet-bloc citizen. Just following orders? Are you perhaps a ‘sputnik’ yourself? The Russians have always been fond of pseudoscience. Of course, Trump would see your stance as being pro-Russia anyway. Eh, Tovarich Trump?

“I appeal once again for common sense ”

From a person who thinks that he is a great physicist and yet believes in perpetual motion and spinning-top antigravity?

“and calm and resumption of diplomatic relations. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition in Westminster that the Russians probably did not murder an ex spy. ”

Every old-style Labour leader, from Wilson to Corbyn, has been suspected of being a deep-cover Soviet agent. Nobody has forgotten the mysterious death of Hugh Gaitskell after visiting Russia. Was he in the way, or simply refused to play ball? Of course, you would align yourself with Corbyn; his brother is a loony weather-pseudoscientist and climate-change denier (just like you and your gang).

“The current disaster is caused by an inexperienced and unstable, not to say hysterical, tory Prime Minister, an imperialist relic. ”

Misogynist eh? No surprise there, given your track record with women! 

“This home counties product has no experience of Wales, let alone the outside world. To deliberately return to a cold war shows a complete lack of ability to lead. The United States,, NATO and United Nations will probably make strenuous efforts to knock heads together until they calm down. Politicians are servants of the people, and have no right to disrupt the lives of peace loving citizens.”


Haha. Not everybody wants to holiday in Wales. Not so long ago, brave Welsh freedom-fighters were burning down cottages owned by the non-Welsh. The bravest Welsh warriers were the Rebecca gangs: one had to be very brave to go out in ‘drag’ in the 19th century unless one was part of a music-hall act. Only a new cold war will scare Russia; its economy could not stand it the last time around and its current GDP is only about the same as Germany’s. That must irritate Trump’s boss enormously.