March 23, 2017

Agreed with the AIAS Co President

March 23, 2017

Agreed with the AIAS Co President, the dogmatists of any era resort to attempted censorship.

Sent: 23/03/2017 15:09:50 GMT Standard Time
Subj: Re: The Readership of ECE Theory

Excellent summary that tells it as it is!Sent from my Samsung device”

Well, hello there Sewage. Message sent at 3.09pm? Retired now? Tea-break? Or goofing-off on the rate-payers’ dime?

So Where Is It?

March 23, 2017

The Readership of ECE Theory

March 23, 2017

The ECE unified field theory has a vast readership of the highest quality (attached), and the open access system on and means that we bring the results of original research directly to the readership without the intervention of editors of the obsolete physics. ”

You yourself admit that the ‘quality’ readings make up only 2% of the total (see below). So why are porn sites and other non-scientific ‘readers’ doing exactly the same thing as the ‘scientific’ ones? Is not the Occam’s Razor interpretation that all of the ‘readings’ are completely random … and therefore meaningless?  

“The latter might still try to block publication, although they no longer have any influence on the new physics. They cannot stop the march of ideas. ”

To put it another way, you can no longer get your nonsense into any sort of journal … not even the crackpot ones. Even Mills, the perpetual-motion crank, can still get papers published in respectable journals (provided that he says nothing stupid); ‘Science’ is far too forgiving in that regard. 

“The attached two volumes to date record only about 2% of the vast total readership, it is the sector I name “universities, institutes and similar”. A student of the history of science can already discern that ECE is permanent, because the interest is constant and intense. ”

‘Constant and intense’? Sounds like plain noise … ‘electronic noise’ in this case.

“There have been no objections from standard physicists of integrity to ECE theory. ”

Duh! Given that your crackpot theory is no longer mentioned at all in scientific circles, where would the objections appear?

“The basic geometry of ECE is exactly the same as that used by everyone else, the Cartan gemetry described by Carroll in “Spacetime and Geometry: an Introduction to General Relativity”, a book which is also available open access. ”

Yes, but then you extend the geometry, get it wrong (because you are not a mathematician), and tell Carroll that some chapters of his book are incorrect … because they disagree with your pseudo-math. 

“The geometry used by Carroll has been greatly developed and all his proofs have been given in detail from 2003 to present. ECE and ECE2 are developed with computer algebra, so there cannot be any logical criticism of the theory unless one criticises Cartan geometry itself. As far as I know no one of integrity has ever criticised Cartan geometry, no one has ever criticisied Carroll chapter three. One cannot criticise the correctness of computer algebra.”

One can clearly criticize incorrect extensions of Cartan geometry. And of course one can question computer algebra. Such programs check only that algebraic operations have been correctly performed. They will do that even if the underlying theoretical model is completely bonkers. Why do you keep lying about this?

“This means that the only things left to criticise are the hypotheses that transform the geometry into physics. That is exceedingly difficult, because the ECE and ECE2 theories produce all the main equations of physics.”

That is because they have been contrived to do that. That was always the pattern of your bona fide academic behavior: ‘glorified curve-fitting’. It is always easy to dream up a theory which will fit part of the observed data better than does the accepted model. That is why we harp on your neglect of tidal phenomena. A genuine theory would furnish that information ‘even without asking’.  We wager that you just cannot twist ECE2 that far.

“In many cases ECE and ECE2 succeed when the standard model fails. Finally ECE and ECE2 must be tested against experimental data across the whole of the physical sciences and engineering. To date they have always succeeded, because they are based on geometry.”

Oh yes, they ‘succeed’ in explaining perpetual motion (Ideotic) and antigravity (Laithwaite)! You ‘test’ them only against the data which were used to concoct them in the first place. That is known as ‘double-counting’ and is one of the most serious offences against proper scientific investigation. Another is to fail to question ones own research.  Committing either of them is sure to get ones doctoral thesis rejected. They must have been very sloppy at Aberystwyth … or did you go downhill later?


Rate of Use of ECE2 Papers

March 23, 2017

Rate of Reading of ECE2 Papers

March 23, 2017

Currently this is about thirty nine thousand times a year off combined sites and, signalling complete acceptance of ECE2 theory worldwide in the world’s best universities, and conversely, permanent and complete rejection of the obsolete physics among staff and students in the best universities, institutes and similar.”



Eppur Si Muove

March 23, 2017

Wind 9.97%, 4 – 16 mph, Wales 9 – 14 mph, 0750 local time

March 23, 2017

The effective wind speed in the Betws area now is 5 mph, an average of 14 mph minus 9 mph needed to start the turbines. So they are producing a tiny amount of power, far below their optimal range of about 20 – 40 mph of steady wind.”

Still persisting with that deceptive and loony fiddling of the figures? So, if the turbine should continue to run at the cut-in speed, it will be producing no power at all? In that case, perhaps you could then venture out and easily stop the blades with your own fair hands. If the wind-speed should drop below the cut-in speed, will the turbine stop dead or will it suck energy from the grid? Do you ever read what you are writing? You have the physics intuition of a patch of lichen! But that was always clear from your other hilarious pronouncements: hydroelectric schemes for Welsh rivers? Tidal lagoons the same thing as tidal barrages? Put turbines in dykes and flood the Netherlands? You are a fine foil for Hill-of-beans … who thinks that hydroelectric schemes extract energy from gravity LOFAO!


For the General Readership

March 22, 2017

“Complete Daily Scientometrics Now Available to the General Readership

This file gives the interest every day in all the items on adn is one of the feedback files I use to construct the by now famous filtered scientometrics. It shows daily interest in every UFT paper and indeed every item on This means that ECE is the new physics, essentially, and our distance research publication and teaching in the world’s best universities is the new method of bringing avant garde research results to the best minds. This is called “open source” research and teaching. It makes a pig’s breakfast out of any attempted censorship of ideas by a tiny minority of bigots.”

We presume that ‘general readership’ means us, and the rest of the rational world. Unfortunately, Ron omitted to supply us all with the password. Never mind, thanks to our mole in the AIAS organisation, here are the data (even if they are meaningless):

Usage Statistics for AIAS



Philip Pirrip II

March 22, 2017

The Law Dictionary Definition of Armiger

March 22, 2017

This on . An Armiger is an armour-bearer, an esquire. A title of dignity belonging to a gentleman authorized to bear arms (Cowell). Esquire or Squire ranks above Gentleman and below Knight. The contemporary Armiger is an eminent person who has been granted letters patent and a coat of arms after a petition has been submitted. It is a mark of merit. The Armiger becomes an Esquire in law of arms. I think that it is important that merit be recognized. This is exactly what did NOT happen in my early career, when the corruption of the academic system prevented merit from being recognized.”

You are just like a character out of a book by Dickens or Lawrence … or Llewellyn: the poor boy made good who goes off to London and becomes … repulsively big-headed.  Worse, you did not like the transition from being a ‘big fish in a small pool’ to being an average fish in the ocean. So frantically trying to re-establish your imagined superiority, you invent overwhelming academic success and Nobel  prize nominations as well as trying to bask in the afterglow of illustrious ancestors and affect the baubles of a bygone age. Does anybody but the AIAS gang question our analysis? Just read Ron’s autobiography! 

Nutters Praise Nutters

March 21, 2017

The ZX81 certainly kick-started home-computing in the UK, but it had its dark side. Clive Sinclair, one-time head of Mensa, made a personal fortune (circa £39,000,000) for himself amid complaints about abysmal customer service. He eventually lost the right to use his own name on products. He then re-surfaced with that ridiculous electric car. Now then, some people may remember that – just before disappearing as a computer manufacturer – he repeatedly promised that he was going to market cheap super-computers. This was going to be achieved by using entire Czochraski-process photo-engraved silicon slices without cutting them up into hundreds of separate processor units. This would eliminate a lot of the usual cutting, wiring, testing and encapsulating. It would have indeed produced a cheap computer with enormous potential. Where did it all go wrong? Sinclair had made the mistake of listening to a Mr Ivor Catt, who had already failed to sell the idea to major companies. Mr Catt, like Ron, was also unhappy with accepted physics; especially the displacement-current part of Maxwell’s equations. Catt railed against physicists for decades in the pages of Wireless World and its successors. No surprise there: before the advent of modern ‘purpose-built’ crackpot journals, Wireless World was the go-to place for the lunatic fringe (and for the plagiarist, Arthur C.Clarke). And like Ron, Catt did not speak of real scientists in polite terms. Some of his letters sounded like a Russian revolutionary exhorting other malcontents to storm the Winter Palace. This may sound like an obituary, but Catt is unfortunately still with us (unlike that former murderer, torturer and Irish Education Minister). However, some misguided Italian authors have found it worthwhile to write a book about Mr Catt’s travails. There is even talk of making a movie about him. In the lunatic fringe, that sort of naivety (the Italians call him a ‘brave thinker’) is still seen as being too critical. And so it has come to pass that their weak-kneed articles  on Catt have attracted the ire of another crackpot, the Public Dick (S.Crothers to the uninitiated). Electrical engineers are always a little flaky (having been taught physics only on a ‘need-to-know’ basis) and this explains the Italians’ too-indulgent approach to Catt. Crothers nevertheless accuses them, in an IEEE [sic] journal,  of ‘confound[ing] the Catt Anomaly with the Catt Question’. Who cares?  Both are fatuous. Much of Catt’s confusion arises because he cannot reconcile (in his mind) the facts that, whereas electrical signals propagate at near-light velocity in a metal wire, Usain Bolt could easily out-run any individual electron. 

By His Works Shall Ye Know Him

March 19, 2017

Adjustables in the Relativistic Orbit

March 19, 2017

There is only one adjustable, the constant relativistic hamiltonian H0 = H – m c squared. The non relativistic hamiltonian H sub N, can be measured experimentally using the semi major axis a of the Newtonian ellipse, H sub N = – mMG / (2a). The semi major axis is a = alpha / ( 1 – epsilon squared), where alpha is the half right latitude and epsilon the eccentricity. All quantities are in astronomical tables. Claims of accuracy for the obsolete Einsteinian general relativity (EGR) were based on the assumption that the precessions due to other planets (the great majority of the precession) had been dealt with correctly. ”

Using general relativity to treat the other planets makes no measurable difference. On the other hand, what puzzles us is that you do not apply your fatuous theory to the other planets. Your theory somehow seems to generate the discrepancy between the classical and GR result directly, rather than the GR result itself. And it does all that without having to include data on the other planets at all! And yet again we ask, what does your theory predict concerning tidal effects? That was the big failing of the theory of your Welsh rival in crackpottery, Viv Pope. He claimed that the apple hit Newton because it was orbiting at the wrong speed, not because of gravity at all. He even got a university mathematician to back him up, just as Siemens Stain backs you up.  Neither of them bothered to explain what causes the tides if there is no gravity. As you claim, there certainly are some worthless types employed by government and industry.  

“Myles Mathis has pointed out that these precessions are calculated with the Newtonian theory, whereas they should have been consistently calculated relativistically. I have never seen any logical reply to the criticisms by Myles Mathis and Stephen Crothers, and by many other good scholars. ”

We do not know who Myles Mathis is, but there is an annoying troll called Miles Mathis who writes utter drivel about mathematics and physics. If you follow his reasoning, make sure that you use the correct value of π. Mr Mathis has proved conclusively that it is equal to 4. Are you now going to use that value, and still come up (directly) with the exact discrepancy in the precession of the orbit of mercury?  We think that you could.

“I have only seen examples of scientific trolling, abuse, name calling and so on. That is unethical and illegal conduct. The laws on trolling are being tightened up rapidly worldwide. When the Einstein and Newton theories are tested against the velocity curve of a whirlpool galaxy, they both fail completely (see “Principles of ECE”). This means that the standard physicists continue to use a theory that is known to have failed completely – EGR. This is completely dishonest, the reason is that a lot of grant money is involved. Let there be no doubt that trolling is a serious criminal offence.”

As we pointed out recently, some immediate curbs should be put on the freedom of members of the lunatic fringe to misinform the general public. The damage that ridiculous pseudoscientific ideas can do to the education of young people can be long-lasting and devastating. For instance, Laithwaite’s silly ideas concerning gyroscopes (and moths) have found their way into certain encyclopedias and textbooks. Ultimately, the lunatic fringe will do as much damage to a country’s economic viability as will a TV presenter who becomes President (how ironic it is that he never served any sort of apprenticeship for that job).

More Sleight-of-Mouth

March 19, 2017

Wind 28.27%, 4 – 33 mph, Wales 18 – 33 mph, 0717 local time

March 19, 2017

The effective wind speed in the Betws area today is only 9 mph, because the mean wind speed is 18 mph and it takes 9 mph to start the turbines. So they are producing effectively nothing,”

Have you noticed the cheap trick that Ron keeps pulling here? As we pointed out on the 7th December last year, he is very fond of this form of lying. It is true that wind-turbines have a ‘cut-in speed’. So what? The blatant lie is to deduct this from the ‘rated speed’; thus implying some sort of power-sapping drag. Ron must imagine that his car works like that: it has to start in first gear, and remain there up to about 10mph before changing to 2nd gear. Now, if a speed-camera catches him driving at 40mph in a 30mph zone, will he argue that the court must deduct the 10mph which was all that he could manage in 1st? Well, it is not a perfect analogy, but it does make our point. So, either Ron cannot understand simple physics, making him an unlikely source of valid new physics concepts (who knew? LOL), or he is deliberately misleading the reader. This would make him a mere confidence-trickster. His most crafty use of sleight-of-mouth is of course to apply the word ‘trolling’ to the reasoned and reasonable pointing-out of blatant untruths.

Evidential Dilemma

March 18, 2017

Sources for the line from Bleddyn ap Maenarch

March 18, 2017

These are all found in Celtic Royal Genealogy, which is archived on the wayback machine (”

Can one really trust the ‘research’ of someone who is himself a blatant liar?