Deconstruction of a Post by Ron

“ECE is a grand unified field theory of the four fundamental fields: gravitational, electromagnetic, weak and strong nuclear based on standard Cartan geometry. “

No, you just think that it is. GUTs are ‘two-a-penny’ in the lunatic fringe.

“It has 223 source papers ( UFT section) and many articles and books by the colleagues.”

Yes, and they are cited only by you  and ‘the colleagues’. There is no sign of any other interest. What does the ‘invisible college’ do all day?

“ECE is used by all scientists and engineers all the time because it reduces to all the known equations of physics, unifying them with geometry.”

Again, where is the evidence?

“It easily refutes some basics of the standard model, notably the U(1) sector, Einsteinian general relativity, particle physics theory, absorption and scattering theory.”

Not that easily, it seems. First there was the longitudinal wave nonsense (laughed at and ignored), then the incorrect differential geometry of ECE (laughed at and ignored) and now the misused Clairaut analysis which – as graphed by tug-boat Bob – gives clearly incorrect results.

“All these refutations are read all the time.”

And to what end? Prove that they are being read for instruction, and are not merely a cause for derision.

“One only needs to study to learn about this. In contrast the standard model is a theory of three of the fields, electromagnetic, weak and strong, using the failed U(1) sector riddled with errors and inconsistencies described even in a standard model book by Lewis Ryder, “Quantum Field Theory”.”

Hey, read the literature, as scientists do. Only amateurs believe that textbooks are ‘the latest word’. Did you know that  many  particle-physics papers have more authors than sentences? Go argue with those authors. Of course, you will have to explain who you are: the ‘the Wizard of the Welsh mountains’. Sorry, that was Grindell Matthews, wasn’t it?

“The deeply flawed U(1) sector is used to construct a completely meaningless standard unified field theory, which is no more than a mess of adjustable parameters based on an obscure idea by Higgs and several others, many years ago, called spontaneous symmetry breaking of the vacuum. In attempting to unify the three fields the standard model uses more than twenty adjustable parameters, which means that it predicts nothing. Anyone who has tred to plough through Ryder knows what an utterly obscure book it is.”

So where is your explanation for mass, and how do we know that it would fit precisely?

“The claim to have observed a Higgs boson is farcical, and is riddled with errors as in essay 66, and there are so many critics of CERN”

The vast majority of critics are to be found in the lunatic fringe.

“that the world of professional science tends to regard it as a joke.”

What do you know of the world of professional science? Your academic career seems to have been very unprofessional and preoccupied with arguing about money and status.

“The general public does not understand any of the mathematics.”

At last, a true statement. Quite, that explains why people like you, Bearden, Mathis and Searl can ‘baffle them with science’ and promise them ‘free energy’, antigravity, etc. No wonder that you all worship Tesla. Dodgy accountants probably worship Madoff.

“I think I will start an electronic petition on asking scientists worldwide to reject the Higgs boson and repudiate any Nobel Prize that may be “awarded” for it.”

And how are you going to prove that signees  are scientists or otherwise competent to judge? You have already pointed out that the general public is ignorant. This also shows up the flaw in your silly faith in direct democracy. We hear that there is also an online petition asking for a mechanism to be put in place to remove Civil-List pensions from those who have brought the honour into disrepute.

“As a chemist I have never accepted large parts of modern physics, and this is a common stance among chemists, engineers and most of physicists.”

Exactly! You are a chemist. Instead of demanding that critics prove their ability to question your work, please state where you obtained your degrees in mathematics and/or physics. Any competent person can spot an equation that does not balance. It takes a true genius – a Feynman, say – to come up with a theory that works. We can agree about the engineers: it is well known that electrical engineers are disproportionately represented in the lunatic fringe. For instance, Laithwaite, Aspden, Valone, …

“The use of annoying media propaganda by failed particle physicists”

Well then, stop doing it!

“The Miles Mathis site refutes many points of physics, making people think. One may or may not agree with Mathis, but he makes people think”

Yes, he makes everyone think that he is an idiot and outs you as an idiot for citing him. But what is the point of trying to explain that to someone with a permanent link to Searl’s nonsense?


3 Responses to “Deconstruction of a Post by Ron”

  1. metric345 Says:

    Peter Atkins and David Fischer signed a petition that reveals them as people who make false accusations to the Royal Society. Have you anything to do with the petition constructed by Aaron Vee? When did you photograph my house? You have admitted to doing so. Your writings are made up of the same type of false accusations, none proven. So no one is going to waste their time with you. Maybe you are Atkins himself. He was the referee of the first papers on B(3), and accepted them.

    • crackpotwatch Says:

      It is a false accusation to the extent that the RS apparently had no hand in your undeserved award, but that error is your fault for lying about it in the first place. A petition is an accepted part of the process of direct democracy; a process which you claim to admire and support. Not everybody who dislikes you is part of the same organization … but they should be. Anybody can photograph anything (unless prevented by law: e.g. unmarked police vehicles) and no signed disclaimer is required unless the photograph is published. Can you show disclaimers for the various photographs which you have published on your blog? All summaries of your misdeeds are going to be similar; that is perfectly obvious. We are not desperate for undeserved fame, unlike you, so whether or not their time is wasted is irrelevant to us. Professor Atkins is a wealthy best-selling author and a person of some importance; he has better things to do. On the other hand he is, like you, not a physicist and perhaps could not at first grasp the subtleties of electromagnetic wave propagation.

  2. joaquin Says:

    Miles Mathis has made quite an ass of himself with his hobby-science writings. He consistently demonstrates tunnel vision when botching the derivation of the value of pi, for instance, and concludes that it is 4.0. That should have been a tip-off to this self-proclaimed “genius” to check his work. But, being a crackpot, Mathis never checks, revises, accepts criticism of, or retracts anything he’s written. He is a quivering nutter.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: