Happy is the crackpot who finds a theory that ‘fits where it touches’. William Clifford was a famous British mathematician who invented Clifford algebra (gee, what were the odds?). Arthur Cayley was another famous British mathematician. Neither were crackpots; although for a while Cayley thought that he could use the Earth’s gravity to power a carriage. Both of them independently determined that purely mathematical identities could explain the valences of atoms, long before the periodic table was discovered. Tait, another famous British mathematician found that the existence of the elements could be explained if each atom were a different sort of knot in the fabric of space. OK, he was a bit of a nut and co-authored a quasi-mystical book with Balfour Stewart. The point is that these theories fitted the known facts very closely. But they were wrong and had no predictive power. This is what Ron is doing, showing only the bits that touch the facts. It will be interesting to see what contortions he has to go through in order to explain the two tidal bulges. He will be pleased to know that his dismissal of centrifugal force will not be a problem: contrary to what it says in many textbooks, the second bulge is not caused by centrifugal force. And Ron, when you have contorted your mathematics some more, have a go at explaining the Roche Limit. Never heard of it Ron? Perhaps you should have looked at things closer to Earth before worrying about galactic spirals.
Archive for January, 2013
So, Ron insists that it is the rotation of space itself which explains orbits. That seems to raise unnecessary complications, contrary to the Ockam’s razor principle. If such rotation explains the orbit of the Earth around the Sun, for instance, how does Ron explain the orbit of the Moon around the Earth? It looks to us as if Ron has simply re-invented Descartes’ vortices. Or is it, as we have suggested before, that Ron has become hopelessly confused over what reference system he is using. The ‘wrong’ choice of origin can easily make it look as if the law of attraction is 1/r, and the use of a rotating reference frame naturally makes centrifugal and Coriolis forces disappear (because those fictitious forces were invented in the first place so that those in a rotating system could continue to apply Newton’s laws of motion as if it were an inertial system).
“This note shows that Newtonian dynamics fails to describe orbits.”
We are sure that Ron, with his famous schoolboy math, can manage this: imagine that the Earth has no atmosphere. Set up a very powerful gun (a rail-gun, say) parallel to the surface (i.e. perpendicular to the plumb-line). Take a projectile and drop it. Measure how long it takes to hit the ground. Now, Ron, it will take that same time whether or not it is moving at right-angles to the plumb-line. Remember Ron that the Earth’s surface ‘drops away’ at the rate of some 8 inches per mile. Now set the velocity of your gun so that the projectile travels at least a mile before it has fallen 8 inches. Do you see what you have achieved there, Ron? Low Earth Orbit (since there is nothing to impede the projectile and it will keep going for ever; that’s one of the rules, Ron). Set the muzzle velocity of your gun a little higher and you will achieve escape velocity. The above reasoning also works for the Moon, Ron! So in what sense, Ron, does Newtonian dynamics fail to describe orbits? Surely you know about the ‘correspondence principle’ of physics: that a new theory must reproduce the predictions of the old one under the same conditions for which the old theory was formulated. Perhaps you should do some pencil & paper simulations (as schoolboys used to do before computers) and not let yourself be deceived by the rubbish-in rubbish-out deliberations of Siemens’ Stain.
With apologies to Newton. Sorry, Isaac, but who could have imagined that – hundreds of years later – one would have to explain your canon thought-experiment to a scientist who was on the Civil List.
Criterion No.25 in the current Baez Crackpot Index is:
“20 points for naming something after yourself. (E.g., talking about the “The Evans Field Equation” when your name happens to be Evans.)”
That is some accolade. Readers who have never used this index should apply it to Ron. It is a fun game. But beware, one soon loses count.
Ron today posted a long list of his chums who appear in this vanity publication. But, as usual, he failed to include his hero, John Searl. Why is that? Is he embarrassed by Searl’s greater success? According to Marquis, Searl received a BA at the age of 14; makes Ron look like an academic slouch does it not? Searl has 3 companies, registered in tax-havens. Ron has one company worth £2. Searl has a factory in California. Ron has nothing but a journal which he has to edit and write himself. Ron has one website; Searl has many. There are just a few YouTube vids which mention Ron. There are hundreds devoted to Searl, and each of them attracts lively discussion every day. If Ron has millions of followers, as he claims, why is it that they are all too discreet to mention their enthusiasm via YouTube? Perhaps Ron should remove the link, to Searl, from the AIAS website. Oh dear, he cannot do that now that we have suggested it! That, dear readers, is why that glaring misspelling on the AIAS homepage will never be corrected.
“Scientometrology is the science of measuring the impact of a scholar’s work.”
True (apart from the fact that that is not the correct terminology)
” AIAS has developed an entirely new computer based system of very accurate scientometrology that is completely objective.”
Could not be more false! The AIAS has distorted the very concept of citation in order to make Ron look good. When one looks at Ron’s traditionally published works on Google Scholar, one finds that only he and other gang members have mentioned them. Any good scientometric method should automatically ignore self-citations. This would bring Ron’s impact down to near-zero. When one comes to consider citations of his online-published papers, there are none at all: looking at, or even downloading, an online paper is not a citation in any meaningful sense. It is the equivalent of browsing through or, at best photocopying, articles in a library. Until the reader does something constructive with the information, nothing at all has been achieved. So the true impact of the AIAS is, in fact, more-or-less zero.
According to Ron,
“Once awarded, a Civil List Pension is never decreased or removed.”
Well, there is always a first time for everything. Hamilton descended into alcoholism and Diogenes syndrome, but that did not undermine the honour of the Civil List Pension. Heaviside took to cycling furiously about the countryside, lived in a cottage filled with granite furniture and wrote wild letters (signed WORM) to learned societies. Even that did not undermine the honour of the accolade. But how much longer can one tolerate someone who actively undermines respect for British science by prattling about perpetual motion and antigravity and claiming to prove that every physicist is wrong? Surely, YouTube and Ron’s friend Searl already play that role! There is already a petition (http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/forfeiture-of-mistakenly-awarded-civil-list-pensions-in/signatures.html) in place, calling for the removal of unsuitable recipients. Sign it!
to lie to the Queen? Ron says today,
“As a Civil List Pensioner appointed 2005 I would like to suggest to Queen Elizabeth that the www.aias.us website be incorporated in the Royal Collection together with www.atomicprecision.com, www.upitec.org and www.et3m.net.”
To try to foist the ( first two) pseudoscientific sites on her royal person is bad enough, but to add a shady dealer in perpetual-motion machines as well?! Send Ron to the Tower for claiming that his drivel is worth preserving!
According to Ron,
” recently there has been a lot of interest in
M. W. Evans, S. J. Crothers, H. Eckardt and K. Pendergast, “Criticisms of the Einstein Field Equation”
Well, perhaps that interest will soon transmute into citations. According to Google Scholar, these currently stand at 85; all by Ron and chums (including sometimes the mysterious List brothers, C and HMC).
Some months ago, we posted the following:
“It is very possible that many of those who look at the Myron Evans blog and the AIAS website will find their way here. With the aim of getting an accurate picture of the reception of the Evans nonsense, perhaps those who have downloaded material from, or even merely looked at, the above locations could tell us briefly why they did so, and how they intend to use the information. Did they, as Evans claims, use it to revise completely their view of the world or, as we maintain, did they post it on a notice-board for the general amusement of colleagues?”
Here is our analysis of the response:
Er … there wasn’t any.
That is odd, isn’t it? All of those views/downloads which Ron so lovingly records, yet not one person was sufficiently enthusiastic/outraged to contact us (and Ron has given us plenty of publicity).