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?

Annotations

November 18, 2012

Work of AIAS on New Sources of Energy

This is generally recognized worldwide as being important work, because it gives a theoretical foundation for experiments.

Defective ‘proof’ of defective ‘experiments’.

It uses the basic ideas of relativity in many new ways.

Read ‘wrong’ for ‘new’.

These new sources of energy are already available,

Such crackpot catchpennies have always been available and have never worked.

those governments and companies that do not keep up with the new industrial revolution will be left behind.

Any government which invests in pseudoscience should be voted out of office. This is sadly never the case: the Pentagon wasted money on the non-existent hafnium bomb, the CIA squandered millions on paranormal ‘remote viewing’, NASA wasted millions on the imaginary ‘Podkletnov effect’ and Stalin’s backing of the moronic Trofim Lysenko led to state-sanctioned murder of valued scientists and wrecked Russian agriculture for generations. This is why real scientists must not be polite to pseudoscientists: we can spot crackpots but others obviously cannot.

Examples are low energy nuclear reactors (LENR) and a range of devices shown on http://www.et3m.net and http://www.upitec.org.

LENR was dismissed, at the same time as cold fusion, by the physics community.

The feedback to the blog of www.aias.us has been dominated for about two months by our theories on LENR.

Yes, because LENR inevitably attracts every loony on the planet. Our own records show this. In any case, hits on a crackpot website are not feedback.

In my opinion the work of Alex Hill and his group is very important,

Your opinion counts for nothing in the scientific community and trying to foist perpetual motion on customers is fraudulent.

recently the group was visited by high ranking Mexican Government personnel, all of them capable scientists, or advised by capable scientists, and many Mexican companies and universities study www.aias.us all the time.

Prove it

This pattern is repeated in one hundred and forty six countries.

Prove it

The way in which these devices were tested by the U. S. Navy is also well known.

Oh we do so hope that the US Navy really did test them. It was the ONR’s scathing report on T.T.Brown’s so-called anti-gravity machines that demolished that crackpot’s hope for government funding.

It is well known that the U. S. Navy asked me to try to explain them.

Post the relevant letter; you are never slow to post other documents.

Another interesting device is the Alex Hill dimmer, which should be developed as quickly as possible for street lighting as pointed out by Dr. Gareth Evans,

Someone working in local Welsh government, and apparently charged with overseeing loft insulation, double glazing and drains, should be more astute.

and the small solid state device in the nuclear physics department of the University of Illinois at Urbana Campaign, which turns out several hundred watts continuously, in excess of input.

No, in the hands of a well-known pseudoscientist who somehow avoided dismissal by that university.

This is energy from spacetime.

No it’s not. On the other hand, it might be best to check for isotopes. Some years ago, Mexican (sic) thieves stole a portable radio-therapy van, melted it down and made saleable items riddled with cobalt-60.

There are many LENR devices and anyone can see this for themselves just by using google.

Google is not evidence; this ‘disinformation highway’ has been a boon to the lunatic fringe and pseudoscientific fraudsters.

Many of these are being made available for schools, and some are so simple that anyone can try them at home, or in a lab.

‘Made available’, but not accepted, one fervently hopes.

I am a Baconian scientist, and follow the rule that if experimental data are reproducible and repeatable then the data are valid in science.

Sure, with the proviso that the data has to be reproducible by everyone; not just a few friends plus similarly deluded crackpots and conmen.

Theory must be tested against experimental data. In all my work, these rules, taught in every school, are followed.

Then why are you holding Eckardt’s dubious numerical results above elementary analysis? We do not observe ‘petal’ and ‘fractal’ orbits, so how are they relevant to experiment? Newtonian mechanics has been shown by computer (sic) to permit figure-of-eight orbits; but they are not observed either! We seem to recall that this Eckardt nonsense started with a letter from a schoolboy: a schoolboy howler from a ‘real (h)Erbert’?

Much of what is called “standard physics” is not physics at all, some of it has over three hundred adjustable parameters, from which any fantasy can be constructed. A notorious example is string theory.

We hold no brief for string theory, but that is not yet science because it cannot yet be tested.

Fourteen industrial scale LENR plants have been sold or ordered so far, at a million dollars each,

We anticipate 14 fraud trials in the offing.

one is being used by the military.

Have they put it next to the hafnium bomb that they bought (and which will also never work)?

So AIAS scientists were far ahead of their time, and their work on spacetime energy has been verified experimentally many times over.

Lie

The basic point is that the energy does not come from nothing, it comes from spacetime.

It might appear that way if one gets the math wrong. There are many situations which appear to contradict Newton’s third law (and therefore the 1st law of thermodynamics) but physicists recognize them to be mere paradoxes.

Some less than educated people have called relativity “perpetual motion”.

Well, that would be uneducated. For ourselves, we merely give the term ‘free energy’ (as used by the lunatic fringe) its correct name.

Anyone with the slightest knowledge of relativity will know that the energy of the original theory of general relativity is defined by the metric and infinitesimal line element. In general relativity the lagrangian is defined by the metric, i.e. by spacetime, and by geometry. The lagrangian expresses energy, the metric expresses spacetime.

Every physicist knows that, in spite of the paradoxes of relativity and the ‘spookiness’ of quantum mechanics, one entity remains a solidly reliable guide (as it has always done in classical mechanics) and that is the Hamiltonian.

People who abuse distinguished scientists are outlaws, they commit crimes.

What about crackpots who pretend to be ‘distinguished scientists’? And since when is free speech ‘criminal? We bet that you would have got on well with Stalin … as Lysenko did.

Those who smashed the spinning jennies were outlaws, they committed crimes. It is understandable how poor and illiterate weavers were alarmed by the spinning jenny, but to attack those who work on desperately needed new sources of energy is serious criminality against which new legislation is needed.

TOO RIGHT: keep the current crop of anti-progress luddites away from the wind turbines.

For example all anonymous hate blogs should be banned from the internet, especially those that still contain ethnic abuse. The laws against ethnic abuse are particularly severe. If the anonymity is removed, the instigators face charges of aggravated harassment, carrying prison sentences of up to five years. The victims of hate bloggers should not have to go to the expense of taking out an injunction, the hate blogs should never be there in the first place. It is well known that hate bloggers are severely disturbed psychologically, many stalkers commit assaults, some commit murder.

We refer you to the answer which we gave earlier with regard to Stalin.

The South Wales Police had to open an investigation on one such hate blogger who was traced to Charlotte, North Carolina, pseudonym “Lizzie Borden”. Within a short time, hate mail was received here, and reported to the police. The hate mail has been displayed on this blog. In any era there are luddites such as these who will not accept progress, but criminality is unacceptable in any realm of society. This should be blazingly obvious.

Please post that hate mail. So far, we have seen only evidence of gentle ‘joshing’ from former colleagues. But perhaps this could be a first job for the new Crime Commissioner: looking into wastage of police time and paying attention only to ‘the gate that squeaks’. Of course, Stalin enforced a different version of that saying: ‘only the nail that sticks up gets hammered flat’.

A Walk on the Wild Side

November 18, 2012

Inspired by Ron’s boasting about ET3M, one of our number decided to take a stroll down Islas Baleares. “Never seen so many baseball caps; are the natives all on the same team, or is that attire just an excuse for having the bat undoubtedly hidden in every vehicle? Whatever; a .45 would have been very comforting (plus boots to avoid the puddles in the cracked road surface). The shabby red building with faded yellow lettering at No.110A was hardly a hive of activity. But it must hide valuable secrets, judging by the high chain-link fence topped with barbed wire; not to mention the sliding gate guarding the entrance hovel” (surely ‘hall’, Ed.). “A word of advice, Alex: no point in having an impressive fence at the front if the fence at the back is weak. You really should replace that bent fence-post; an old mattress and, ole, any peon could have it away with your bug or pickup … or perpetual motion machines. On a more business  level, it might be a good idea to register the company. There appears to be no official record of it and that might make it difficult to con money out of venture capitalists: they don’t like ‘Spanish practices’ in that regard. You should invite Ron for a visit; after Leon, CCP would seem like paradise.”

Naughty ‘Unknown’ Blogger Shadows Important Scientists

November 17, 2012

This is all that anyone ever gets from hyped up Hawking. Also, Carroll fails or refuses to correspond.” Ron,  9/30/2008

The standard model, for which you* are mainly responsible, is a fiasco, and wholly unscientific.”  Ron, 8/10/2009

* Hawking and Rees

All of Hawking’s work is pseudoscience, he is a neo-creationist, not a scientist. I have a duty to point this out as the British Civil List scientist, appointed by the Head of State and Parliament. I have never met Hawking, and when I try to communicate with him he never replies. So I assume that he cannot understand ECE theory and has never read any of it.” Ron, 8/18/2009

I have always considered Martin Rees and Stephen Hawking to be irrelevant dogmatists, not scientists.” 10/12/2012

Both Hawking and Penrose have done a disservice to science and themselves by replacing it with shallow egotism. “ Ron, 11/30/2010

People like Hawking are never slow to blow their own trumpet, which is sounding distinctly flat and out of tune. I have never seen anything interesting in his work at all. “ Ron, 11/25/2010

I get e mails from Hawking’s assistant, and I think one from Martin Rees telling me not to send him e mails. This is typical of the remoteness of these people, they are pseudo-scientists who use the wrong geometry. “ Ron, 3/22/2009

These are the claims by Atkins on quantum tunnelling    These textbooks may fall apart on scrutiny and may have false reputations.” Ron, 9/19/2012

I think that Atkins and Fischer should be rejected by the international community for personal animosity and false accusation. They are not physicists and do not have the technical ability to follow my work” Ron, 7/16/2012

Life Imitating Art

November 16, 2012

“The man is brushed and shaved, dressed in the fashion of a Royal Institution Afternoon Lecturer … and altogether in a state of extraordinary streakiness between an owlish great man and a scared abashed self-conscious bounder cruelly exposed.”

                                                                                                Filmer*, H.G.Wells

*Filmer claims to have invented a flying (anti-gravity?) machine which turns out to be a scam. He finally  immolates himself across a billiard table.

Ron’s Weasel Technique

November 16, 2012

We showed some time ago that Ron’s claim, that EGR does not predict a precessing ellipse, was fatuous … if not blatantly dishonest.  But still he applies his weasel-word technique to  the topic,

It is well known from a textbook such as Marion and Thornton that the Einstein theory does not give a precessing ellipse, but it is forced to give a precessing ellipse with a series of approximations.”

See what he did there? By ‘sleight-of-mouth’, he subtly gives laymen the impression that M&T apply one arbitrary approximation after another  in order to get the result that they want. Not at all; such dishonesty is a favourite tool only of pseudoscientists like Ron.  In fact, what M&T are doing is to apply the well-known technique of ‘successive approximations’. This gets one closer and closer to the exact result: further approximations in fact ‘home in’, rather than ‘lead astray’, as Ron would have the innocent believe.  However, as M&T point out, further approximation will not affect the qualitative behaviour of the orbit: the basic result ‘falls out’ immediately.  Perhaps Ron should start with the simpler parts of M&T. This might disabuse him of his strange belief that,

There must be a counterbalancing force of repulsion – common sense. In the foggy dogma or fogma this is “the centrifugal force”, which regrettably does not exist in Newtonian dynamics.”

So we ask again, how does Mrs Ron’s washing machine function? What is that strange whirring noise? Oh yes, it is Herschel, Hamilton, etc. … all spin-drying in their graves.

Civil List Scientist? More like a National Disaster.

Ron’s Methods

November 16, 2012

All the discussions on indices in the AIAS blog as fundamental to ECE are all wrong and show a complete lack of understanding on the fundamental issue of what is a geometrical construct, focusing instead of issues which are the antithesis of them. The Evans ansatz for the electromagnetic potential, by the same token, is wrong. I am afraid that is also wrong Myron’s derivation of the Bianchi structural equations. The ‘ conclusion’ that they are invariant under the Hodge duality operator is wrong. It is not only computationally wrong, it is antithetical to the very genesis of torsion explained

Diego Rapoport, October 2009 in an e-mail to Eckardt and Dunning-Davies.

Rapoport is clearly on record as describing ECE theory as brilliant. Several recipients witnessed this document.”

Ron’s blog, January 2010

But presumably not Eckardt. Jeez, even Dr Goebbels is on record as saying that one should always tell the truth because it would be disastrous to be caught out in a lie!

More Cold Feet?

November 16, 2012

Ron today stressed that his blog comments are covered by the Limitations Act. Can it be that, as an ‘expert’, he is now afraid that his opinionated support for perpetual-motion scams might make him liable to prosecution as an accessory  in the civil courts? By the way, some laymen may be impressed by the sale of ‘LENR technology’. Surely, they will reason, actual purchase is the acid test for validity. Sadly, if they read Robert Park’s excellent book, Voodoo Science, they will find that millions of dollars have been thrown away on ‘free energy’ devices that do not work (notably those involving Randell Mills). We know of a crackpot who openly admits that this is not always done because the purchasers are scientifically naive, but because the ‘dead loss can be passed off as a tax loss’ by crafty accountants.

Ron Getting Cold Feet?

November 14, 2012

Why the sudden concern today about the removal of honours? Has it something to do with this?

http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/forfeiture-of-mistakenly-awarded-civil-list-pensions-in.html

We are also unconvinced that the Civil List pension cannot be removed but, in general, dodgy scientists certainly have an easy time of it. After all, lawyers can be disbarred, priests can be defrocked, medics can be struck off; even chartered engineers can be curbed. But there exists no mechanism for removing a doctorate. This is strange, because the award of such a degree shows only that the candidate followed the rules of correct scientific investigation for the required time. In that respect it is like a driving licence. But how often have we all seen a driver claiming to be an expert while clearly out of his head on drink. If caught, he nevertheless loses his licence. What an interesting metaphor that is; to whom could we apply it?

 

Sic sic Sick

November 9, 2012

“In trying to deny basic democratic rights as we have just seen, the Welsh Ministers are in direct contravention of the Aarhus Convention in that they are denying basic human rights. They are insolent enough to do this through a third party, who is uenelected (sic) . The rules about lobbying M. P.’s and A. M.’s are well known, e mail must be treated as a letter, and the M. P. or A. M. is a representative who must make views known to the Government. M. P.’s adn (sic) A. M.’s are not allowed to formulate policies designed to evade this basic democratic duty. Failure to reply to a constituent is illegal. So I call on thsi (sic) blog for severe international condemnation of the Welsh Ministers. They are attempting dictatorship, and must be opposed in all ways possibel (sic). None are elecetd (sic) by a majority of teh (sic) electoral register in tehir (sic) constuencies (sic). These are matters of government. I demand a stop to all wind turbine development in Wales. I have never voted for an M. P. or A. m. and it should be clear why – they are electoral dictators. I haev (sic) never received a single reply to any e mail form (sic) M. Caton M. P., or A. Hart A. M. So I haev (sic) no choice but to urge international condemnation and withdrawal of recognition. If any Welsh Minister wishes to correpsond (sic) with me, they must do so directly and politely. I will no longer correspond with people who are trying to evade duty.”

Scholar NOT Scholarly

November 8, 2012

According to Ron, Google Scholar,

“… has a policy of using only good science.”

Nothing could be further from the truth. The bad people at Google list anything which looks scientific, and that is almost a definition of pseudoscience. Perhaps Ron would care to explain why, if GS has such high standards, it includes dozens of papers/books by loony-tunes such as Thomas Bearden (your one-time pal, Ron), Thomas Valone and the petty criminal John Searl. By the way, Ron, we have seen pictures of Searl socialising with Vigier at a crackpot conference which they both attended. Tell us, is there a ‘relativity of lunacy’? That is, if Searl and Vigier are in that situation, is Searl advancing or is Vigier retrogressing (reputation-wise)? Ron also said,

There is as much B(3) and ECE material now on Google Scholar as any other theory

Really? We count at least 10 loonies, covered by GS, each of whom has his own TOE. Ron barely has his toe in the water.  There is one very good thing about GS, and this is that it shows exactly who has cited each paper. Oh dear, this is not good news for Ron, because it reveals that he and his few friends are the only ones who cite the ‘great work’. So, not only do they peer-review their papers themselves … they also do all of the reading of them as well! This again raises the question: what do all of those site visitors do with the information which they supposedly absorb avidly?  Ron concludes,

This is immensely pleasing and congratulations to all staff.”

Yes it is pleasing, if ‘shouting down a well’ is the effect that they were really going for.

I agree that AIAS has a very high reputation to protect and I am well aware of this.”

Nah, it has no good reputation but, luckily, this is offset by the fact that they are all unknown to anyone who matters or cares.

“AIAS has not Joined PSI”

November 7, 2012

“Aftet (sic) due diligence AIAS has decided not to join PSI”

But who dumped who, and was it something that we said?

Ron Painting Himself Into a Corner

November 5, 2012

Ron spelled Lord Carlile wrongly again today. You see, he can never correct any of the errors which we point out, so he is condemned to misspell ‘comparative’, etc., for evermore as well as taking the lord’s name in vain –  as it were. More seriously, he can never implement Dr Bruhn’s corrections in his mathematics. For not only would that prove Bruhn right (legal threats do not frighten mathematical definitions, Ron), it would also cause his entire theory to collapse.  Perhaps we should start to call him w(Ron)g. He is heading for a fall anyway. We hear that there is a book ‘in the works’ which will out academic crackpots like himself for a laudable educational purpose.

Tugboat Again

November 5, 2012

Another rambling and poorly edited schoolboy-level essay from Tugboat today. Why, it is almost as if he is entirely unused to academic writing (or thinking)! We are surprised that he did not find space to mention that he hires himself out hourly on a certain website. But let us focus on two points. He says, with regard to The Universe of Myron Evans*, that, “With Italian post production, I have spotted 2 or 3 minor continuity or spelling errors only.” Really? Why did he not notice that he jarringly mispronounced the name of one of the leading French scientists of the 19th century? Why did he not mention that another famous scientist is miscaptioned? Did nobody check the rushes? Could it be that everyone concerned with that film was speaking a foreign language: i.e. fluent ignoramus? He skates over another detail which some people might find significant. That is, some might wonder how the incisive thinkers of the AIAS failed to spot that they were dealing with a major conman. But what are we saying:  the AIAS site has a permanent link to that of the notorious crook, John Searl, and Ron has suggested several times that Searl should get government funding!

*Has anybody else noticed how diffident Ron is in that film? He makes a ludicrous statement, then follows it with an inane smile – as if trying to placate someone nearby who might otherwise slap him across the face.  This cowed behaviour contrasts sharply with the implacable arrogance of everything that he writes.

Question for Ron

November 4, 2012

On the 3rd November 2012CE , it was written,

 “Kerry Pendergast is a Royal Society Hauksbee Medallist, and graduated M. Sc. …”

However, on the AIAS website, he is listed as,

K. Pendergast, Grad. RSC, PGCE

It is not considered ‘good form’ to put any of those letters after one’s name. So, in one case, Pendergast has no real qualifications while, in the other, he has an M.Sc. The latter in turn would be unusual to see, by itself, after a name because it is usually necessary to have obtained a lower degree first – so KP should have some 6 letters after his name. Thus our question is, Ron,’ were you lying then or are you lying now’?

By the way, congratulations on the link-up with Unprincipled Scientists. You like poetry. Remind us, what does it say in The Wasteland about ‘hollow men leaning together’?

 

 

Dragging Each Other Down

November 1, 2012

We are delighted at the coupling, of  Unprincipled Scientists International and Ron, as this can serve only to bring both of them down. When real scientists find out that USI has embraced a loony who believes in perpetual motion, and suffers from the delusion that he has a worldwide following, they will be able to denigrate the USI’s knowledge of science. Meanwhile, Ron’s daily lies about his importance are already undermined by the low calibre of the sort of acolyte (Tugboat, Jackson, Kellum, …) that he attracts and by his fixation that the police and judiciary have a place in science. His attitude will resonate with the activities of USI: the latter is currently claiming that Michael ‘Hockey Stick’ Mann lied about having received an award from the Nobel Peace Prize committee. That was not a lie. However, unprincipled people did what you are doing, dear reader, and assumed that he was referring to a Nobel Prize ‘tout court’. In fact, he and many other scientists received a certificate which celebrated his contribution to the IPCC (which did win the prize – together with a political sop to Al Gore). You see, Ron, real scientists do not tell lies about their success. You, on the other hand, constantly make  dubious claims that will eventually come back to bite you.