Archive for November, 2012

Ike Antkare versus Ron

November 30, 2012

Since the 8th of April 2010, Ike Antkare has become one of the most highly cited scientists of the modern world. According to Scholarometer, Antkare has 102 publications (almost all in 2009) and has an h-index of 94, making him 21st of the most highly cited scientists. This score is less than that of Freud (in pole position with an h-index of 183) but better than that of Einstein (36th with an h-index of 84). Moreover, Antkare outclasses all scientists in his own  field (computer science).

Small problem: Ike Antkare does not exist. He is a device. invented by experts in scientometrics, which is intended to test the possibilities of manipulating the various citation indices.

We wonder why they do not simply use Ron as an example. We shall have to alert them to the existence of this invaluable resource.

Advertisements

Citations of Laurence G. Felker: “The Evans Equations”

November 30, 2012

As Ron says, this has been cited 184 times. What he fails to mention is that all but 3 of these citations are by Ron and his friends (yes, even Felker does not cite his own work!), The 3 exceptions are by an ‘A.Einstein’, a ‘W.Myron’ and an indecipherable Spanish name (probably Alex Hill in disguise): all of these originate from upitech.org (surprise surprise!) Please try harder, Ron, this is like shooting fish in a barrel.

Another Ron Lie Exposed

November 29, 2012

Ron, aping the gardener and odd-job man Crothers, has frequently claimed that Schwarzschild repudiated Einstein’s theory of general relativity. What actually transpired is this:

 

In his correspondence with Max Planck in 1913, Schwarzschild even more clearly expresses his doubts concerning an astronomical verification of Einstein’s theory. In a letter from January 31, 1913, Planck had asked Schwarzschild for an assessment of the feasibility and the expenses of the eclipse expedition that Erwin Freundlich was planning for the year 1914 and for which he was going to apply … for funding … Freundlich intended to search for a deflection of starlight near the solar disk as predicted by Einstein. Schwarzschild commented on the observational side of the problem in the following way:

 

In the problem itself I also have no particular confidence. The diminution of the frequency on the Sun and the shift to red of all spectral lines on the Sun that Einstein assumes can be regarded as refuted by the observations. The last word has not yet been spoken, but the shifts which for single lines are also to violet, can be too well interpreted as being due to pressure. Since this whole thing looks rather fishy, it won’t be much different for the deflection of light rays by the Sun’s gravitation.

 

When Einstein succeeded in deriving the correct value for Mercury’s perihelion shift from his theory, Schwarzschild’s appraisal of the new theory of relativity changed drastically. Einstein presented his calculation of Mercury’s perihelion advance to the Prussian Academy of sciences on November 18, 1915. Schwarzschild was on leave from his military duties at the Russian front and attended the meeting. Back in Russia, Schwarzschild wrote to Einstein:

 

“It is quite a wonderful thing that from such an abstract idea the Mercury anomaly emerges so stringently.”

 

 In a letter of the same day to Arnold Sommerfeld, Schwarzschild even explicitly states that to him the perihelion result was much more convincing than the empirical consequences of Einstein’s theory discussed earlier:

 

Did you see Einstein’s paper on the motion of Mercury’s perihelion in which he obtains the observed value correctly from his last theory of gravitation? That is something much closer to the astronomers’ heart than those minimal line shifts and ray bendings.

 

Matthias Schemmel

An Astronomical Road to General Relativity

Max-Planck Institut, 2004

 

Note for the innocent layman: the out-of-context use of quotes is a favourite trick employed by all pseudoscientists of the lunatic fringe. Be wary! (Why does Flabbergast let Ron make such embarrassing  ‘mistakes’?)

Puzzling

November 25, 2012

Ron is 100% sure that he is correct, so why then does he not submit his proofs to a real journal rather than hiding them in his blog, the AIAS website and his own crackpot journal? The traditional excuse of the pseudoscientist is that he cannot get himself published in bona fide journals because the editors are all agin him. But how can that be the case here? According to Ron, some 80% (up 10% from his previous estimate) of physicists are on his side. Are we to assume then that the 20% who dissent all just happen to be journal editors? Some coincidence! We suggest that the truth is that most physicists have never heard of him, and that those who have dismiss his work as rubbish. Moreover, if the thousands of hits on his website are due to fans, how come that none of those fans have ever sent us a rebuke for disrespecting the great man? We suggest that nobody thinks that Ron is correct, apart from Ron and his few friends.

Stop-press: using Google’s anticipatory facility, typing ‘Stephen J Crothers’ brings up various proposals. In order of priority, the 5th suggestion is ‘crackpot’ and the 8th  is ‘crank’.

Google Resources

November 24, 2012

We dislike the manner in which Google Scholar covers ‘scientific’ papers because it draws no distinction between real journals and the rags that pretend to be such. However, it compensates (probably unwittingly) for that mistake  by showing exactly who has cited the pseudoscientists. Ron’s work is cited only by Ron and his few friends, of course.  But there is another way in which (non-scholar) Google renders a useful service by outing loony-tunes. This is the helpful way in which it anticipates what one is searching for. For instance, if one types ‘Myron Evans ‘, the first  helpful prompt which is suggested is ‘crackpot’. Similarly, if one types ‘Paul Marmet ‘, the second-up suggestion is ‘crank’.

Cranks Ain’t What They Were

November 24, 2012

Sir Oliver Lodge was also unhappy with the light-deflection data that confirmed general relativity. However, rather than making subtle (and convenient) mistakes in theoretical calculations, he preferred to perform life-threatening experiments. He believed that the deflection might have been due to induced rotation, of the so-called aether, close to the Sun*. So, for months on end, Lodge sat – making optical measurements – with his head just inches away from huge metal rotors that were spinning at close to their burst limit. (On the other hand, Lodge was easily fooled by Uri Geller’s ‘spiritual predecessor’, the conman D.D.Home. Scientists are so easily fooled when they step outside of their expertise …)

*Ironically, although special relativity obviated the aether, general relativity introduced the concept of frame-dragging by spinning objects. By the way, we are surprised that Ron – and others of his ilk – have not tried to equate the Higgs field to the aether.

Ron’s Dubious Logic

November 23, 2012

According to him.

So the only thing that can be deduced from perihelion precession is x. For the earth (sic): 1 – x = 3.548 ten power – 8. The entire idea of testing a deviation form (sic) Newton by perihelion precession in planets of the solar system is absurd therefore. The precession is so small that x is for all practical purposes unity“.

Now, let’s see, how did astronomers not only know about the precession in the first place but also knew that it deviated from predictions based upon Newton’s gravitational law? Ooh! Could it be that they were entirely capable of making sufficiently accurate measurements and calculations. And it was a discrepancy which had to be explained because the cumulative deviation would only get worse and worse. But here is a crumb for Ron: in order to explain the deviation from the expected precession, some astronomers posited the influence of an invisible planet, Vulcan. How’s that for a ‘dark matter’ fiddle factor, Ron, and how come the ‘leading astronomer’, Pendergast, lets you put your foot in it like that?  

 

Perpetual Motion

November 22, 2012

Devices based on energy from spacetime are now being marketed commercially in great numbers, and there is great demand for them.”

If they are, then the salesmen are guilty of fraud.

An example is LENR. Energy from spacetime is not perpetual motion, it is not energy from nothing.“

If only there were proof, but there isn’t any (worthy of the name) so it is just another perpetual-motion scam, like that of Ron’s friend, John Searl.

The easiest way to see this is that in the original Einsteinian general relativity, the lagrangian is based on the infinitesimal line element. This is very well known.”

So why do crackpots alone think that this is proof? What exact mechanism is at work?

Any person who mindlessly insists that these devices are perpetual motion should be subjected to the most severe criticism because they know nothing about basic physics. In fact they should be ridiculed as luddites.”

Quite the opposite: any academic who claims that they are not just fraudulent perpetual motion scams should have all of his research results audited, as he is obviously incompetent. But let’s cut to the chase. If Ron and his friends claim that energy from spacetime is not perpetual motion, that thus implies that they can in fact recognize blatant perpetual motion machines when they see them. But can they? Consider these old blog posts:

The Newtonian torque in the lab frame is the sum of the torque as measured in the molecule fixed frame plus the vector product of angular velocity and angular momentum in the laboratory frame. So the torque in the molecule fixed frame is the torque in the lab frame minus omega vector product J (see Marion and Thornton (sic) or any good text on classical dynamics). These are the usual rules of classical dynamics, and they should be applied to the Bessler wheel. Unfortunately, there is no design available of the Bessler wheel, only guesswork.”

Ron on Bessler Wheel, 31st August 2008. 

Obviously it is difficult to decide if this pendulum connected to the lever can gain energy from the gravitational field or not. To my opinion this can be reduced to the question whether the energy pulse impinging the ambos is contained in the classical description of the system or not. This is the same as for the Bessler wheel. Theoreticians should try to solve this question.”

Shame of Siemens’on ‘Harnessing Gravitational Potential’, 7th September 2008

The question which perhaps can be answered without detailed calculation is whether the free-falling part of mass motion in the Bessler Wheel is part of the system or not, i.e. if we have a closed (conservative) system or not.

‘Shame of Siemens’ on Bessler Wheel, 31st August 2008

So here we have the same clowns who claim to have disproved EGR discussing the archetypal mechanical perpetual motion machine as if it might be a viable source of energy! Again Ron puts in a strong bid to become the most notorious ‘academic’ crackpot that the world has ever seen. What a feather in the Welsh cap.

Further Annotation

November 22, 2012

This is an excellent summary by Gareth Evans,”

We hope that he is not doing this during working hours. Ceredigion County Council do not pay him to think.

and is the kind of thing that chemists and engineers would say about relativists of the Einsteinian type.”

We are too polite to report what physicists say about chemists and engineers who think that they are qualified to comment negatively about EGR!

One cannot have two force laws giving the same thing, the EGR force law gives a very complicated curve in general. ”

Oh yes one can! Simple orbits can be described by two completely different force laws just by making a small change to the reference frame chosen. 

It is obvious that this cannot reduce to the correct equation of the precessing conical section. ”

We are increasingly of the opinion that this is where Ron is going wRONg. By the way, Ron’s hero, Tesla, once made a fool of himself by getting on the losing side of an argument about orbits; he also did not understand the importance of reference frames.

I would say that about 70% of scientists now reject EGR at a very conservative estimate.”

As that famous Welsh woman* famously  retorted, “well he would say that, wouldn’t he?” And in fact Ron would be lying. Only those scientists who take an interest in pathological science have even heard of him or his theory.

*The then-prostitute, Mandy Rice-Davies

 

Go Argue with Newton

November 21, 2012

Newton, in order to defend the inverse-square law, emphasized that any central force law that deviated from this law would cause the line of apsis of the Moon to rotate by some amount after each revolution. This is analogous to the later puzzle of the precession of the orbit of Mercury. As Newton wrote in the Principia (Proposition 2, Theorem 2, Book III):

[The inverse-square law] is proved with great exactness from the fact that the aphelia are at rest. For the slightest departure from the ratio of the square would (by book 1, prop. 45, cowl. 1) necessarily result in a noticeable motion of the apsides in a single revolution and an immense such motion in many revolutions.

(our emphasis). Ron does not get this accumulation effect, of course, and said today that, “The method of perihelion precession is an extremely poor way of testing any theory, because it gives an extremely tiny correction to Newtonian dynamics in the solar system”. He is also obviously unaware of the physicists’ dictum that, the next great discovery is always in the 6th place of decimals. He also said today that, “No one ever tries to argue with the refutations”. He seems to forget that we pointed out (with equations) weeks ago that the EGR correction to an orbit has the same effect as the universally accepted Clairaut (precession-producing) correction to any orbit. Of course, the reason why nobody argues with his refutations is that nobody but us reads them with any interest. His own list of referring sites (which he is now too scared to show widely) shows that his visitors come from everywhere but scientific locations (porn sites being high on the list).

It is little known that the above precession-inducing correction did not originate with Clairaut. Going back to the Principia, one finds (Proposition 43 Problem 30):

It is required to find the force that makes a body capable of moving in any trajectory that is revolving about the center of forces in the same way as another body in that same trajectory at rest.

In other words, find the perturbing force-law that will make an orbit precess. He goes on to prove geometrically that the force must be an inverse-cube one. And we have shown that the EGR inverse 4th-power correction is equivalent to this in its effect.

So the overall situation is this: every great scientist from Newton onwards has examined the equations of precession, has found no fault with them, and has used them to explain experimental observations correctly for centuries. We do not quite know what systematic error Ron and his lab-geek are making* but, when we have the time to find out, we shall be sure to broadcast it widely. Oh, we intend to make Ron (in)famous: there is no point in attacking work of which nobody (except refugees from porn sites) has heard**.

*Could it be something as simple as using the wrong angular units or the wrong reference frame?

**Here is a point for everyone to ponder: Ron claims that he has world-wide support and acceptance in the form of thousands of website hits every day. He has also been kind enough to make visitors aware of our blog (thanks for the huge boosts in our visitor-numbers, Ron). Now, among these avid supporters there must be some who are pretty forthright in defending the new dawn of ECE. So why do they never send us a sharp rebuke for doubting the great man? The only such comments that we have received have been from Ron and Tugboat. So, we ask again, does Ron enjoy an ‘invisible college’ or a non-existent one?