Archive for August, 2012

Cut-Down Antigravity

August 26, 2012

Readers will not be surprised to learn that Ron’s new friend is a 24ct crackpot, being a valued member of ‘Crackpot Central’ (aka the Natural Philosophy Alliance),  and claims to have evidential proof of perpetual motion and ‘inertial propulsion’ (aka propellentless propulsion or antigravity).  The latter was, in fact, the genesis of his toy:

“Jeffrey Cook demonstrates a model inertial propulsion device that he’s developed and describes it’s method of propulsion, which is based on research into physics and magnetism undertaken by Cook over the last few years. Cook has developed a lightweight electromagnetic “launcher” that pushes a small, plastic vehicle out a ramp at high-speed, and hopes to market it as a science-toy. Functionally, this inertial propulsion prototype utilizes Neodymium magnets in a strong plastic case that Cook has reinforced to ensure the magnets cannot be removed to ensure the safety of children using it.” (Free Energy News).

Ah yes, magnets are so dangerous because of all of that stored energy within them: we must protect the children from them, lol. Here’s an idea, why not replace the magnets with springs?  Cook has his own theory to explain his supposed evidence, of course. How convenient. We marvel again to see that Ron is not a member of the NPA.

Note to investors: it might be better to avoid backing the toy until there is a granted patent in place.



The Queen and Ron

August 24, 2012

Ron’s plot to meet the Queen, and tell her about perpetual motion machines, might seem far-fetched to some: but we are more worldly-wise and know that crackpots and conmen have a far greater probability of meeting ‘the great and good’ than do scientists. As Ron keeps reminding us, modern rulers are descended from mindless thugs who originally seized power by force and are therefore not genetically selected for intelligence. The obvious example of the exploitation of royal stupidity is Rasputin and the last Russian royal family. However, even non-royal rulers are susceptible to pseudoscientific fraud: for example,  Hitler and the Reagans consulted astrologers before acting. Even Margaret ‘I am a scientist’ Thatcher was falling under the spell of an Indian mystic just before she was deposed.  In the UK, the pseudoscience of homoeopathy is kept afloat almost entirely thanks to the Queen’s belief in it. There are several hospitals in the UK which are entirely devoted to homoeopathic treatments, and have the royal blessing.  Charlie is said to have used ‘lunar’ methods to grow plants (when not talking to them). So, overall, we think that the Queen would love to hear about Ron’s work with perpetual motion, and perhaps also about his dalliance with very alternative cancer-cures. We bet that Ron’s theory could explain homoeopathy for her, if he but set his mind to it; after all, it seems to be able to explain everything else (including the soul, according to Ron’s friend, Michael).

Ron’s Poor Education

August 19, 2012

Ron continually boasts about the quality of his Welsh, but his English clearly leaves much to be desired: not all of his persistent mispellings can be attributed to dyslexia. We have been waiting (lying in wait?) for years to see whether a glaring spelling mistake on the AIAS homepage would be corrected. It wasn’t; which speaks volumes about the general level of education of the AIAS members. Now Ron has repeated the error in a blog heading. The word is spelt ‘COMPARATIVE’, Ron, not comparitive. It will be interesting to see whether Ron now corrects his mispellings – thus bowing to our superior command of English – or instead insists that his spelling is correct, contrary to every dictionary, just as he insists that his theory is correct – contrary to all reason. One of our members recalls that he had the same problem with another opinionated crackpot, Professor Eric Laithwaite, many years ago. Laithwaite insisted that a certain fictitious force was called ‘Coreolis’; contrary to all biographies of G.G.Coriolis. Over to you, Ron.

One Can Tell When Ron is Lying …

August 19, 2012

… because his fingers move over his keyboard.

“The force law of Einsteinian general relativity (EGR) does not give a precessing ellipse. The correct force law is given in Eq. (9). This was effectively pointed out to Einstein on Dec. 22nd. 1915 by Schwarzschild. It seems that citation of Einstein has taken place ever since without reading his work. Careful analysis shows that it is erroneous. There is no way in which any scientist of integrity can accept obviously erroneous work.”

Details of General Relativity are picked-over on a daily basis by scientists. Ron’s claim that it is accepted in a rote manner is just typical of the sort of lie that pseudoscientists always try to foist on a scientifically ignorant general public. Elsewhere, Ron has claimed only that GR gives the wrong (4th-power) disturbing force (thus undermining his own claim above) rather than the observed (3rd-power) force. We have ourselves shown recently that this objection is fictitious.  What does Ron know of integrity? He is an epitome, however, of erroneous work.

” Accurate scientometrology shows that the great majority now rejects Einstein’s general relativity.”

The word is ‘SCIENTOMETRICS’, Ron, and the real concept  is much more sophisticated than merely counting hits on websites. As we have pointed out, Ron’s own evidence fails to identify any meaningful referring sites. And who knows who might be using the keyboards at apparently reputable organisations: has he never heard of Ludwig Plutonium – an insane janitor who used to sneak in and use university computers? Where is this ‘great majority’? Why does it not bombard us with pro-Ron rhetoric?

” It has been kept alive by a small group of dogmatists. Computer algebra has been used to show that the incorrect force law of EGR produces a very complicated orbit that is not an ellipse at all. The EGR’s own lagrangian methods wer [sic] eused [sic]  in the computer algebra. So that is teh [sic] end of teh [sic] matter.”

Quite, condemned out of his own mouth: computer algebra is not spell-check – it cannot detect errors in the submitted model. And where are these complicated orbits in Nature? Pssst, dear reader, Ron and Kerry won’t know this (being incredibly ignorant of physics) but computer algebra (sic) has shown that Newtonian gravitation permits the existence of orbits that make Ron’s erroneous ones look quite unimaginative.

“No amont of dogma can change algebra.”

True. That is why Ron is losing the argument.

“Readers are invited to check eq. (10) for themselves. We will make Dr. Horst Eckardt’s code available to them if they like.”

Hmm, put the same incorrect information into the same program and expect a different result? That is Ron’s concept of science, in a rotten nutshell.

” This is just one out of many refutations of EGR in the special issue.”

All of the issues are ‘special’! How many real journals have to be filled 90% by the editor and a few friends?

“The papers of the issue have been intensively studied for well over a year off without a single objection.”

The Occam’s Razor explanation would be that they are not being read by anyone who cares.

“I advise students that there is no point in going into a subject that is not science at all. I woudl [sic] advise gong [sic] into engineering or medicine, or perhaps chemistry.”

We advise students to study, under expert guidance,  the claims made by crackpots such as Ron. Bringing down supposedly great men has always been an incentive to students, and they will find much intellectual satisfaction in seeing how the habits of Baconian science protect against ludicrous error … provided that one adheres to them.

” Professionals in all these subjects have long been critical of the dogmatic attitudes of some physicists.”

Very true: the more that one distances oneself from physics, the more one falls into the clutches of error and pseudoscience. Take biologists, for instance, they used to use telepathy to explain observations which they could not understand. Nowadays, the flaky ones use pseudoscientific versions of quantum-mechanical concepts for that purpose.

Can Ron be Serious?

August 19, 2012

He rants, day after day, about his huge following and about the large numbers of hits on his sites but  … then he discloses exactly where the referrals are coming from ( ); thus first shooting himself in the foot and then putting it in his mouth! Have you, dear reader, ever studied this list? One could turn it into a game: trying to find a sensible referring site. One can ignore those that contain the keywords, ‘searl’  and ‘cheniere’, as being related to Ron’s conman chums, Searl and Beardon. And what should one make of sites that contain the keywords, ‘casino’, ‘poker’ and ‘credit’? It is perhaps better to throw a (seventh) veil over the sites which contain the keywords, ‘pussy’,  ‘sex’ and ‘f**k’. Can readers find any supposedly reputable referring sites? NB: we do not consider New Scientist to be reputable (since it put a crackpot antigravity machine on its cover) and, in spite of its sensible title, the Journal of Nuclear Physics is, sad to say, yet another loony publication.


Guess Who Quiz – Solution

August 16, 2012

The answer, which nobody guessed correctly was of course: Thomas Jefferson Jackson See. Our description was a paraphrasing of the Wiki article on him, and it was amazing to find how closely it might have been thought to be describing someone entirely different. On the other hand, anti-relativists are two-a-penny … and always have been.

Usual Quality of Evidence

August 16, 2012

Variable Nuclear Decay Rates (August 16, 2012)  This looks interesting, at present we are on the semi-classical level, where the weak and strong nuclear forces are introduced in a minimal prescription. I will continue along these lines for UFT225.”

Hmm, something fishy here (as usual): the download says that the paper in question was presented at the 2011 Moriond conference. However, none of the paper’s authors is listed among the participants and there is no sign that the paper was presented  there. Further cause for concern is that the lead author is Peter A Sturrock, a self-confessed ufologist and founder of the Journal of Scientific Exploration, one of the oldest and most pernicious of the crackpot rags set up specifically to service the publishing needs of the lunatic fringe.

Guess Who? Quiz

August 15, 2012

A person of high potential who ended a colorful life with no real accomplishment in physics. Renowned for a career marked by being fired from two academic staffs, grand egotistical claims, being ‘exiled’ to an isolated outpost, and for vitriolic attacks on relativity. He attended ***, graduating in *** with an undergraduate career that was outwardly stellar. He achieved honors distinction in nearly every subject. He was a critical player in the academic insurgency aimed at ousting *** (in favor of his mentor ***). This bitter in-fighting set the scene for a career perhaps unrivalled as an example of wasted talent. Nevertheless, with the outwardly strong credentials, he went to the University of *** where he received a Ph.D. in ***. With an European doctorate, he went to America with enviable credentials and a career of great promise. He left *** after failing to receive a promotion. He next worked at *** until he was fired for his arrogant attitude towards the staff. His arrogance and over-confidence caused problems throughout his career, in both professional relationships and erroneous scientific results arising from carelessness. He found himself increasingly at odds with others, and eventually suffered a breakdown. He published a work entitled *** in which he described his task to “brush aside the erroneous doctrines heretofore current, as one would the accumulated dust and cobwebs [sic, sounds familiar?] of ages.” A hagiographic biography appeared which was supposedly written by a publisher and amateur astronomer, but which many consider to have been written by our subject himself. This essentially destroyed any remaining credibility he had in the *** community. *** published a review of the book, poking fun at its extraordinary hyperbole, which included his dreaming that he should one day become “the greatest *** in the world”. He spent the years at *** pursuing fame as a discoverer of the laws of nature, issuing a series of publications on ***. He also wrote a series of articles about ***, which eventually served as the framework for his theory of everything, in which all forces were transmitted as ***. He also engaged in vitriolic attacks against Einstein and his theory of relativity, which the scientific community ignored. His numerous papers are in the collection of the ***.

Surely there could never be two people like this?

‘Playing’ the Hirsch Index

August 15, 2012

One can see how the Hirsch Index might perhaps be a valid measure for real scientists whose work influences a large number, of other real scientists, because of its obvious excellence and far-reaching consequences. The underlying logic fails however when it is applied to small groups of embittered and embattled pseudoscientists. Take, for example, the case of one Myron Wyn Evans. The Hirsch Index app gives an index of 11 on 1,117 citations. The flaw becomes obvious when one looks at the individual publications … and who exactly cited them. To cut a long story short: when one has excluded citations made by Ron, citations made by Ron’s gang members and citations made by Ron’s critics, one is left with just a handful of independent suckers of dubious worth. No, the Hirsch Index is ‘far too crude to handle crackpots’.

Vladimir Leonov

August 15, 2012

Our readers will not be surprised to learn that Ron’s new friend has a Searl Number of unity because, apart from anything else, section 10.7  of his book, Quantum Energetics, is titled “Quantum engines. The Searl effect”. He was already triply cursed: believer in cold fusion, believer in Searl and published by a ufologist. He really did not need the fourth strike of being linked to Ron. Lucky it’s pseudoscience, and not baseball.

Note how beautifully the Searl Number scheme assists laymen who may not know what to think about new scientific discoveries, now that there are so many pseudoscientists out there and they all have a glossy internet site and a crackpot-friendly publisher. All of  their protestations can be safely ignored as soon as one learns that they cannot even see through a scam and a conman as transparent as Searl. Philosophers, ‘sociologists of science’ and logicians may protest at such ad hominem methods,  but we see it as being an eminently sensible (and defensible) use of Bayesian probability theory.

More ‘Dissident Academics’ (aka Crackpots) in Marquis Who’s Who

August 14, 2012

Christo I.Christov

John Eichler

Ronald A.Fonda

Richard G.Geldard

Bernard Guy

Gary L.Herstein

Jan O.Jonson

Jaroslav G.Klyushin

More Hirsch Indices for Crackpots

August 14, 2012

Harold Aspden, H = 8

Eric Laithwaite, H = 12

Harold Puthoff, H= 17

Ron, H = 27

Aspden and Puthoff also have Searl-Numbers of 1

Florida Flyer Deconstructed

August 14, 2012

“Many thanks to that Alex Hill (, who has many spacetime devices ready for marketing ( and who invites observers to try them out under a non disclosure agreement.”

He offers gadgets that might fool non-physicists into thinking that they have a higher output than input. We presume that the ‘non-disclosure agreement’ stops disappointed victims from complaining. Perpetual motion conmen have been operating for hundreds of years and have occasionally fooled even leading scientists: David ‘Brewster Effect’ Brewster was conned by a crook called Spence to the extent of publishing a ‘scientific’ paper about the device. Hmm, what was his Hirsch rating, Ron? Of course, Hill thinks that hydroelectric plants extract energy from spacetime, so we shall excuse him … on the grounds of simple-mindedness.

“The University of Florida is a frequent visitor to

How strange then that it did not itself offer an explanation in terms of ECE if everybody now uses it – according to Ron.

“and has just made a major breakthrough in the area of energy from spacetime, using the Casimir force.”

The report says nothing of the sort: it says only that the effect might now be used to avoid stiction in nano-engineering. Friction and other surface interactions become a major problem at the nano-scale. The Casimir effect is ‘mysterious’ only to laymen. It is just one aspect of what is essentially a general geometrical effect. A macroscopic manisfestation of the effect was well known to Victorian sailors, and has even found its way into a book by William Golding. The quantum-mechanical version of the effect, discussed in the Florida article, is reproducible and has a solid theoretical explanation. Calling it ‘energy from spacetime’ is just a sly semantic trick on Ron’s part. Physicists agree that Casimir energy is real, but that it would require more energy, to extract it, than was actually obtained.

” This is the subject of the paper by Eckardt and Amador on, LCR Resonant, which has been studied intensely worldwide since it was posted a few months ago. ”

No, that ‘paper’ had nothing to say about real effects. ‘Resonance’ is one of the major tools in the conman’s box.  Impressive effects (collapsing bridges, etc.) of resonance are well known and it is easy to fool laymen by pretending that resonance is creating energy. Electrical engineers are notorious for fooling themselves: among any randomly-chosen sample of crackpots, ‘professional’ electrical engineers always make up a large proportion. This is because they do not understand physics, but think that they do because they use the same nomenclature. What are the Hirsch ratings of Harold Aspden and Eric Laithwaite, Ron?

” This is understood in ECE theory from the background potential (papers by Eckardt and Lindstrom) and the spin connection resonance. AIAS is currently conducting experiments based on this paper.”

 Nothing can be understood in terms of ECE, because it contains basic mathematical errors – as shown by Bruhn. A theory is a lingua franca to scientists, Ron, and nobody – who counts – speaks yours.

“Energy from spacetime is by now quite a mature technology.”

An outright lie.

“There are those who never invented the wheel, Hirsch index zero.”

Some indices are zero. Some people are zeroes (as in: “the whole of AIAS does not amount to an Alex Hill of beans”)

Hirsch Indices of Well-Known Crackpots

August 13, 2012

Thomas Valone: H  = 34

Myron Evans: H = 27

Thomas Bearden: H = 25


The Searl Index

August 13, 2012

As Google Scholar itself notes, their Hirsch Index is not very good because it is … er … based upon Google Scholar. As every skeptic knows, GS makes no attempt to separate science from pseudoscience. It is also very poor at distinguishing between different people who have the same initials, or even the same name. It is interesting to observe how Ron’s Hirsch Index, based upon inserting “M.W.Evans”, varies when M.W. is replaced by Myron or when steps are taken to eliminate work by oncologists, astronomers, etc. – who happen to have the same initials.

We propose instead a much more accurate scheme which is based upon the Erdos Number principle. Erdos was a famous if eccentric mathematician, and those who co-authored a paper with that genius are given an Erdos Number of 1. Those who worked with those having an EN of unity are given an EN of 2 … and so on. Now, Erdos was someone with whom mathematicians wanted to be associated.  As pseudoscience is a highly disreputable activity, it instead has to be graded from the bottom up: one has to have some utter scumbag to act as the (fool’s)-gold standard so that, in effect, others are increasingly disculpated as their number increases.

As a suitable nadir, we propose John Roy Robert Searl. This petty criminal, has absolutely no qualifications (in spite of what the worthless Marquis claims) or scientific knowledge. He has spent his entire life telling lies about a levitating perpetual motion machine which he supposedly built as a teenager. Nobody has ever seen this machine, but Searl has spent 60 years – on and off – appealing for funds for its reconstruction. He is quite the most scurrilous confidence trickster ever to use ‘science’ as a cover-story.

So, our scheme is quite simple: anyone who has ever referred to Searl in anything less than severely derogatory terms is accorded a Searl-Number of 1. Ron is eminently worthy of his Searl-Number of unity because he has recommended that the UK government should give money to Searl. The AIAS site is also accorded a SN of 1 because it has a permanent link to Searl’s website. Those, such as Kellum, who fall for Ron’s nonsense have a SN of 2.

This scheme has some unfortunate consequences for certain reputations: for instance, the Royal Society has a SN of 3 (because it praised Pendergast, and Pendergast worships Ron). We have not yet been able to work out Her Majesty’s SN, as the number of intervening suckers is still unclear).

CISP Defence Deconstructed

August 12, 2012


C: We do not suggest that ‘Cambridge’ was chosen just to fool buyers into thinking that the company has some close connection with the university … but it must help.

I: Can’t argue with that … unfortunately.

S: One can argue with that. Some of the output is worthy material in the field of metallurgy but, in addition to Ron’s journal, there is an awful lot of flaky stuff.

P: Again, a neutral term. NB we do not suggest that this is the same Victor Riecansky (formerly stateless) who was naturalized British in the 1970s, but it would explain his interest in other aliens (CISP’s VR is an ufologist).

“This is updated counter intelligence on assorted trolls.”

No, it is a self-defeating exercise in making other potential critics (and there must be millions out there who do not yet know about the insult inflicted on the memory of Faraday and other great men of science) know just what tactics upset Ron and his gang of pseudoscientists.

“1) Waldyr Rodrigues, aged about 66, under investigation by the U. S. magazine “Sign of the Times”. Lecture invitations to him are being cancelled. Described by a barrister as “wildly pejorative”. Publishes incomprehensible mathematics and unethical attacks on anyone he does not like, using his own journal. In my opinion of little interest to physics. “Chairman” of worthless shell companies in the City of London, Brazilian National.”

We hold no brief for WAR because, like Ron, he is another believer in perpetual motion (aka energy from spacetime) and works for Steriwave. Ron also does not seem to realise that SOTT is run by a nutter who ‘channels’ aliens from distant galaxies using a ouija board. She has also been accused of fraud involving a fake lottery. Oh, Ron, how did you fall so low?

“2) “Arthur Dent” – he has a record of being spoken to by Det. Constable Martin Thomas of Morriston Police Station in Swansea, traced to Barry near Cardiff, and the South Wales Police know his name and address.”

We are informed that, on that occasion, Dr Dent had to be restrained from complaining to the relevant Chief Constable, and to the South Wales Echo (no friend of Ron’s), about the waste of police time involved in attempting to suppress free speech.

“3) “Skeptical Inquirer” is based in NY State, it is not a recognized scientific journal.”

It does not pretend to be a scientific journal, unlike Ron’s journal, Progress in Physics, Journal of Scientific Exploration, The General Science Journal and all of the others that have sprung up just to service the delusions of the swelling pseudoscientific community. We are not fond of the Inquirer, however: we think that it expends far too much copy on paranormal scams and not enough on pseudoscientific scams.

“4) Gerhard Bruhn, known fraudster aged about 73 or 74, stopped trolling about 2008. Scientifically worthless.”

An excellent mathematician and skeptic who, unlike Rodriques, does not suffer from the Achilles Heel of being as deluded as Ron is about perpetual motion. Having said all that there was to be said about Ron’s incorrect mathematics, he has ‘retired victorious from the field of combat.’

“5) David Fischer, an abusive Ph. D. student in the Genome Unit in the University of Zurich, formal complaints sent to his Ph. D. supervisors. No knowledge of chemical or theoretical physics. Brings the University of Zurich into severe disrepute and suspected of being a smear blogger.”

Oh dear, oh dear. Does it not occur to Ron that, by complaining to – and about – the wrong person, he is committing the same sort of defamation of which he accuses others? Give it up, Ron, when your activities ‘hit the fan’ of criticism by the real scientific community, legal niceties will avail you nothing.

“6) Akhlesh Lakhtakia, Pakistani / U. S. dual citizen, known troll and e mail abuser, warned by his administration at U. Penn. University Park. Abusive e mailer traced by our counter intelligence to within a few hundred feet of his work place at University Park, Department of Mechanical Engineering. No knowledge of theoretical physics. Associated with the notorious UNCC.”

Again, we hold no brief for someone who once edited a book that showcased the delusions of prominent members of the lunatic fringe.

“These have had no effect on ECE theory and its unprecedentred [sic] impact and should be totally ignored from now on by professional scientists unless they commit a serious criminal offence such as assault. I have counter intelligence on a couple more. I advise using tracing methods and telephone tracing methods if they continue to be a minor nuisance.”

No, indeed: just as ECE has had no effect upon real science. We imagine that zero is quite unprecedented as ‘impacts’ go. Can Ron not appreciate the humour/irony implicit in founding a journal to ‘spread the word’ of ECE, and then having to pen over 90% of the contents himself? LOL, as they say, LOL.

BTW (as they say), Ron, we love your posts in this vein as it causes hits on our site to rise to unprecedented* heights.

*We are not dyslexic.

Apology to Warwick University

August 11, 2012

We recently suggested that readers should ask Warwick physics department about Alex Dacres. One of them did just that and was told that Dacres had indeed studied physics there BUT had not graduated. We wonder why Dacres did not mention that detail in his message to Ron. We think that Ron should snap him up as an AIAS Fellow; Dacres would improve the group’s overall integrity.

Marquis Who’s Who Crackpots, A-B

August 11, 2012

Apologies to Steven Bryant for omitting him from our previous list.

Supplementary Marquis List: A and B

August 10, 2012

As well as Ron and his AIAS gang, plus friends, there are many other crackpots (subscribers to a belief in perpetual motion, antigravity, electrical universe, etc.) listed in MWW. For instance: Dennis P.Allen, Satya P.Asija, Glenn Borchardt, Edward A.Boudreaux, Dan Brasoveanu, Donald D.Brattin and Michael H.Brill.

Tsk Tsk

August 10, 2012

“Many thanks! The mixed term vanishes simply because the algebra is of the type:

(x – y) (x + y) = x squared – y squared.”

And Ron has to explain that to Horst!!! Our nickname for him, of ‘rubbish-in rubbish out’, is well earned.


More Deconstruction

August 8, 2012

“I would like to refer to the new system of science we have established as the Einstein / de Broglie / ECE School, consisting of a large number of distinguished scientists who reject the Copenhagen School.”

No, you have gathered together the ‘halt and the lame’ (i.e. suffering from a ‘lack of status crystallisation’  or encroaching senility) of science, plus all-too-familiar characters from the lunatic fringe. How dare you abuse the memory of real scientists!

“This is an independent system of science, with its own philosophy and publishing mechanisms, and it funds itself.”

Yes, it falls back on Aristotle’s system: where any result, real or not, is immediately tacked onto a dubious theory. Bacon’s checks and balances – and the concept of theory-testing – are completely ignored. The publishing method is to offer books via print-on-demand … and hope that a few suckers pay the ludicrously high prices.

 “It can be seen using computers that it has an unprecedented and permanent worldwide following that rejects nearly all the main ideas of the standard physics. ”

Hits on websites mean nothing. They cannot be used as evidence of positive reception of claims. In spite of appeals on this blog, not one person has owned up to being a supporter of AIAS  nonsense.

“This is an independent system of science and is not susceptible to undue pressures such as career pressures, funding pressures and so on. ”

Those involved either had no pre-existing career in science, or have comprehensively impaired it by being associated with AIAS. You may as well hang together, as you will certainly hang separately.

“It regards trolls and stalkers as criminals, so there is of course no direct contact with the societal gutter.”

Nice attempt at political-style spin, but every rational scientist  who reads this knows that those vilified by Ron are merely upholding the standards of proper scientific discourse. Someone who uses dubious legal methods to try to silence valid criticism has abandoned any right to be treated in the normal way.

“The standard physics, whose ideas are in rags, has not been able to answer the refutations of this new, very powerful, school of unified physics. ”

An outright lie, as usual. A clear refutation of Ron’s latest ‘baffle-with-science’ con-trick was posted here a few days ago. Refutations of Ron’s more complicated mathematical tricks were given years ago by the excellent Professor Bruhn. That is why Ron has been reduced to name-calling.

“The new school has also developed its own refereeing methods, these are much more honest and rigorous than those of standard physics.”

Yes, thorough peer-review … by other crackpots having the same persuasion. Is that really honest?

 “We use pre publication cross checking, and post publication open source refereeing, in simple language the papers are read for many years by colleagues in their hundreds of thousands.”

Again, other crackpots rubber-stamp the rubbish which then has to be posted where it can avoid truly rigorous inspection. It is not the language that is ‘simple’; it is the minds of the readers.

” They will be read for the foreseeable future, long after the average troll has vanished into oblivion, a void so profound that even the stars seem close by comparison.”

Well, the original works on astrology and alchemy can still be read. That does not make them valid science.

” I cannot think of a more rigorous test of any paper than permanent interest for a hundred years ahead.”

How about valid mathematical operations, leading to parsimonious  explanation of universally accepted experimental results, and which also satisfy fundamental checks such as the correspondence principle?

“In my academic days I always performed with excellence, but always found that this excellence was not rewarded, in fact my excellence was treated with contempt by the trolls of that era, most of whom cannot be traced now with an electron microscope.”

A big fish in a small pool became a small fish in a big pool and did not adapt well to the change. But hey, along came the internet with its uncritical pool of mentally challenged fans, and celebrity – of sorts – was restored.

” So that academic system was a complete and utter failure, at least my experience of it. The one exception was my Ph. D. supervisor, Mansel Davies, who would have awarded me tenure if he could, or so I like to think. In my immediate circle of intellectuals now there are approximately twenty five colleagues listed in “Marquis Who’s Who in the World”, the world’s leading reference vehicle. ”

It is not a leading reference vehicle; it is a vanity-style publication. If you really believed in its validity, you would not dishonesty conceal the presence of conmen like Bearden and Searl in its pages.

“About one in a hundred thouand people are listed there, so the intellectual quality of the new School is beyond doubt. ”

We refer you to our previous comment.

“The standard school on the other hand is by now a total failure.”

We are sure that that school will be worried when it finally gets to hear of your existence. Of course, from its point of view, the AIAS is just one of a slew of crackpot groups.

“Its propaganda outlet Wikipedia is not a bona fide reference vehicle, it indulges in personal animosity and wikipedia as a system is also a complete failure. It is a catalogue of bias and mundane triviality.”

And we were wondering what you did for ‘instant authority’ when Wiki was not at your fingertips.

 “So the teaching of standard physics now falls on barren soil, and is of little relevance to society. It indulges in egotistical rant using the media. There are other subjects more worthy of funding, for example humankind.”

As we have noted many times before, yours is the seed that is falling on barren ground; given the absence of any provable shoots.

Pseudoscientific Rot in UK Education

August 8, 2012

“Dear Dr Evans
I recently studied Physics at Warwick University but as I have always been interested in “alternative physics” (free energy devices, the later work of Tesla, the Rodin Coil etc) I found that much of what I was taught was simply unable to answer the questions I had. This week I discovered ECE Unified Field Theory and although I have not yet read much of the material available online (there is so much I’m not even sure where to start although I look forward to it), it seems to be a brilliant jump forward for Physics and I was delighted to find that it also happens to be very much in line with some of my own thoughts.

I was just wondering if you are familiar with the work of Nassim Haramein and the Resonance Project? My initial impression is that you are somewhat ahead of him but Nassim also added a torsion component to Einsteins Field equations and is working on a theory that space time has geometry based on 64 tetrahedrons.

Many thanks for your contribution to science

Alex Dacres”

We think that everyone who cares about educational standards in the UK should contact Warwick University and ask whether Dacres truly studied there and, if he did, ask what on Earth is wrong with their physics staff. Can it be that the UK educational system has already started to ‘rot from the head’ due to the only current Civil List Scientist being a loudmouthed crackpot?

Deconstruction of Ron’s Latest Rant

August 8, 2012

“To scientific colleagues:”

You do not have any (that would admit it) any more. You have only pseudoscientific colleagues, and have yourself become a pariah.

“I consider it my clear duty to help maintain law and order as part of my duties as a new member of the Gentry and a descendant of the Princes here in Wales.”

You might want to think that. Whether or not anyone agrees with you is another matter.

“On the whole I agree that trolls and stalkers should be ignored insofar as it is possible, but tough new laws are needed against them.”

You can call them that, but it is perfectly clear to rational observers that they are defending the status quo against the ever-mounting tide of pseudoscientific twaddle and scams that find their natural home in cyberspace.

“The trolls and stalkers who have bothered AIAS are ineffective and childishly stupid, but in some case they can cause real harm to innocent and vulnerable people.”

Again, it will be perfectly clear to rational observers that the critics are endowed with equal scientific knowledge and education … and a good deal more humour.

“The Crown Prosecution Service here in Britain clearly recognizes this. Crime prevention is an obvious duty of any citizen.”

A recent legal decision effectively ruled that, if someone ‘asks for it’ by upsetting people, then they have no recourse in law. Ron upsets the entire scientific community, invites ridicule of British science and undermines respect for former recipients of the Civil List pension.

“Trolls are abject cowards, some more disturbed than others. They and anyone associated with them are treated with contempt once recognized for what they are. I certainly hold them in total contempt, they are not scientists at all.”

You can claim that, but we have received complaints only from you and your lapdog. Not one of your imagined supporters worldwide has contacted us. At least one of our scientist-members is writing a book which will ‘out’ your activities to the general public. You can take your ‘coward’ accusation up with him, when it appears. Prepare your parapet now.

Analysis of a Nutter’s Advice

August 8, 2012


Don’t waste any more time than is needed dealing with this or any other harraser [sic, another dyslexic or merely illiterate?].”

Quite apart from the fact that you have no answers that would satisfy real scientists.
“Hand the info off to the investigators and ignore them.”

Just as we hand the information about Ron’s misdeeds (as Civil List Scientist) to relevant academic bodies.
“Your real friends have been with you supporting you for years.”

You really should check the underdog for rabies before defending it!

“Who ever is behind this knows you’re making a real break through in rewriting particle physics and they want to distract you from making progress.”

We know just as much about the topic as Ron does – and a great deal more about how real scientific work  is conducted. Change does not come about by fiat from a nonentity who refuses to answer criticisms, it comes from consensus among experts (not tug-boat captains, software engineers and such-like).

“The best thing to do is ignore them and prove the skeptics wrong by creating a unified particle physics model.”

Of course it is. But, in the meantime, stop telling lies about its already being accepted. Only crackpots and conmen do that.
“We need to totally tear down the standard model and rip out all of the garbage that no one else but you can do.”

But first Ron has to convince experts that he even understands what he is attacking. There is no sign of that so far. Ron’s sole objection seems to be that the status quo stops him from enjoying those favourite toys of the lunatic fringe: perpetual motion and antigravity.
“Then we need to build a new model to take its place, that’s internally consistent and consistent with observed data and share it as broadly as possible.”

Get on with it then, and stop dishonestly claiming that you have already succeeded.

“AIAS as a volunteer group has done more to advance theoretical physics than thousands of physics specialists all over the world over the last 100 years spending billions of dollars and we’re just getting started.”

No, it has done nothing but make its members (especially those employed in academia – not you Ron) look incompetent. Who can ever forget the enthusiasm of some of its members in rushing to ‘explain’ the operation of the supposed perpetual-motion machine patented by Ron’s old conman friend (and buyer of degree-mill doctorates), Mr T.E.Bearden. Did you know that the latter carries a gun as protection against ‘men in black’? One just cannot make this stuff up!

“The truth will set you free.

Let us know when you learn to recognise it. Until then, you are trapped by Ron.

Note on Real Genius

August 6, 2012

Hey, Ron, ever heard of Gregori Perelman? Probably not, as he is a true mathematical genius who enjoys the admiration of real mathematicians all over the world – rather than that of a few amateur nutters. Guess what, Ron; he won the Fields Medal in 2006. You know, the medal that you think you or your gang should get for rubbish calculations. Do you know where he displays it? Er, he doesn’t. He turned it down as he does not do the work for fame or trinkets. And just to reinforce that idealism, do you know what he did more recently? He won the Clay Prize… and turned it down. But one wonders what his mother thinks of that: they live together in near-poverty. The Clay Prize is worth $1,000,000. Don’t you feel ashamed of yourself, Ron; imagining that you are even in shoe-licking distance of such a person?

Nothing New under the Sun

August 4, 2012



On this day 18 years ago, the University of Utah announced the discovery of cold fusion without giving any technical details(WN 24 Mar 89) . The peak came three weeks later when Stanley Pons received a standing ovation at the annual ACS Meeting in Dallas, but by June it was over. The Utah research was exposed as a pitiful embarrassment. For years the faithful sulked at their own annual meetings held at swank resorts around the world. There they could congratulate each other on their progress. Each year another experiment would be hailed as proof, but never survived replication. A few years ago, however, the bolder of the faithful began to reemerge from the dark, giving papers at professional society meetings. They now prefer to call their field Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR), and they held a session at the APS March Meeting in Denver. Next week they will hold a session at the ACS Meeting in Chicago. Once again, there is a new experiment that is being hailed as proof-at-last. Who knows, maybe this will be the one.”

Professor Robert Park*, What’s New, Friday, March 23, 2007

* Author of Voodoo Science

Sad to see Nagel ruining his reputation (a la Ron) and Bannister likely to wreck his PhD hopes (a la Crothers).

Further Omission from Marquis Who’s Who

August 3, 2012

Ron has again outed himself as someone who is proud of featuring in what is now no more than a vanity publication. However, he has again failed to include his fellow pseudoscientist friends, Bearden and Searl. To his credit, he has mentioned Barrett (who once wrote a paper ‘explaining’ how the non-existent Searl-Effect Generator – part of an ongoing investment fraud – functions) and Thomas Valone, who featured in a US Government report exposing federal employees who had (like Bearden) bought degree-mill doctorates.


August 2, 2012

Who, would readers say, was the most damaging academic crackpot in the history of pseudoscience? Our first choice would be Ron of course but,  given that he is not a TV personality  and does not have a job, our second choice would have to be Eric Laithwaite (even though his range of ignorance was much narrower than that of Ron’s).  London 2012

Some Equations for Ron

August 2, 2012

The two-body (NB not two-particle, Ron) orbital solution, in spite of corrections made due to the presence of other bodies, does not account for the residual precession of perihelia. The explanation in classical terms (not incorrect differential geometry, Ron) is that a small additional force causes precession. It is well known that all perturbing central forces that are proportional to r^(-m)e^(iθ), with m equal to, or greater than 3, produce a secular motion of the apsides of elliptical orbits. On the other hand one can deduce (by Newton’s theorem), from the observed planetary apside motion, the presence of a perturbing inverse-cube force which is proportional to r^(-3)e^(iθ). This result was obtained by Newton himself.  By the way, Ron, ^ here is not a tensor ‘roof’ but instead indicates exponentiation. After some trivial algebra (no need for ‘rubbish-in rubbish-out’ Horst), one obtains


u = μ/l^2 + μ/l^2[e cos(σθ-ω)]


which, allowing for the different symbols used here, readers will recognise as being Ron’s current favourite equation. It describes an ellipse which precesses around the focus with an angular velocity that is proportional to the radius vector. This description becomes more accurate as σ approaches 1. At the apsidal points,


sin(σθ-ω) = 0


Moreover, r(min) occurs when


σθ-ω = θ-[ω+(1-σ)θ] = 0


and, after one complete revolution, the angular perihelion shift is


Δω = 2π(1-σ)


Now we get to the meat of the matter:

The general relativistic Binet-form orbital equation, which is obtained from the geodesic equation in Schwarzschild spacetime, is


u” + u = μ/l^2 + 3αu^2


where α = GM/c^2 = μ/c^2 is the gravitational radius of the attracting body, and c is obvious. The corresponding equation of motion is


r** = -μ[e^(iθ)/r^2] – (3αl^2/r^4)e^(iθ)


where ** here represents double differentiation with respect to time. It is obvious that general relativity leads to an effective inverse fourth-power perturbation, as Ron is so quick to point out. From the Binet equation above, it can be deduced that


Δω = 6παμ/l^2 = 6πα/a(1-e^2)


Now, equating Δω = 2π(1- σ) to the above equation and solving for σ gives


σ^2 = 1 – 6αμ/l^2


Going back to classical (non GR) celestial mechanics, the first-order inverse-square orbital equation with an inverse-cube perturbing force is


[l^2(σ^2-1)/r^3]e^(iθ) = l^2(σ^2-1)u^3e^(iθ)


From this, and σ^2 = 1 – 6αμ/l^2 above, it is easy to deduce the inverse-cube perturbation which gives the same perihelion shift as that predicted by general relativity




That is, the point to retain is that one can obtain the same precession using either an r^(-3) or r^(-4) perturbing force.  So where is Ron’s scandal now?

Crackpot Central

August 2, 2012

Why is Ron not listed at Crackpot Central (aka The Natural Philosophy Alliance)? After all, lots of his friends are there, including Crothers, Fucilla, Selleri, Thornhill and Yarman. Perhaps the fees are putting him off. At least the listings are accurate: Crothers’ profession is given as ‘Handyman/Gardener’. One might well have guessed this from the quality of his ‘scientific’ work.


August 2, 2012

We hope that Yuri Milner possesses more scientific nous than did George Church.  Mr Church, a wealthy former chicken-strangler was conned into donating $1,000,000 towards the backing of crackpot science projects. This is the menace posed by plausible crackpots: that they will eventually steal money away from real science simply because science is a closed book to most of those who hold the purse-strings. Sure, the latter can employ advisors who are more knowledgeable … but how can they know that they have chosen the right ones? This leads to an infinite logical regress. Quite enough damage is already done by loony journal editors who ‘let in’ further crackpots. Imagine what would happen if the PM unwittingly appointed a pseudoscientific Chief Scientific Advisor. Could never happen, eh? So how did Ron get his Civil List status?