Archive for January, 2013

But What about Tides?

January 31, 2013

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.


What about Ockam?

January 30, 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).

Simple Exercise

January 27, 2013

“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.

Another Claim to Infame

January 24, 2013

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.

Marquis Omission

January 23, 2013

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.

Silly Scientometrics

January 21, 2013

“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.

Civil-List Pseudoscientist

January 20, 2013

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 ( in place, calling for the removal of unsuitable recipients. Sign it!

Isn’t it Some Sort of Treason …

January 18, 2013

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 website be incorporated in the Royal Collection together with, and”

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!

Where Are They? (as Fermi would have said)

January 18, 2013

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).


Appeal Feedback

January 17, 2013

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).

A Blast from the Past for Ron and Searl

January 16, 2013

“I found that whilst the majority of perpetual motion seekers were lacking in a fundamental understanding of the principles involved, some, amongst whom are famous names in the sciences, devoutly believed in perpetual motion not just as a possibility but as a means of providing power to drive Man’s machines. There is a tragic side to the story. Tales of men of great ability who devoted their whole lives to seeking perpetual motion, who went mad as a result … only to die … broken and unfulfilled men. … Other men were more cunning than deceived in their ideas. They resorted to deception and some saw the quest for discovering perpetual motion as a means toward ill-gotten gains: today we would call them confidence tricksters.”  A.W.J.G.Ord-Hume, Preface, Perpetual Motion – The History of an Obsession.

Well, this is Cosy

January 16, 2013

It looked today as though Ron was about to provide proof that staff and students at UNCC are studying his nonsense instead of, as we contend, merely checking what the big stink was all about. But no, Ron simply repeated his familiar litany about his ‘famous friends’. Unfortunately, Ron, the prevailing view is that, “crackpot is as crackpot does”. As in the case of actors, no amount of previously good acting can excuse a really dreadful performance in the latest  role. His litany does however reveal an underlying trend. We have pointed out many many times that the website was originally owned by a Mr Gray. The latter was a collaborator of John Roy Robert Searl, the notorious petty thief, saboteur and investment conman. Mr Gray was sacked by Searl, does not believe in Searl’s numerology any longer, but still believes in his antigravity perpetual-motion machine.  Now, for the uninitiated, nobody living has ever seen Searl’s machine (although a recently constructed  fake features in many YouTube videos) and, it should be needless to say, it is rendered impossible by the laws of physics. It would therefore be rather naive of someone to claim to explain how a never-seen impossible device works. Oops! Step forward and bow, ‘Terry’ Barrett: one of those mentioned by Ron as being a fan of his silly B(3) concept. Barrett obviously needs a common-sense transplant. Searl is clearly a bounder and no great scientist would touch him with the proverbial barge-pole. Oops! Wheel forward the now-defunct Professor Vigier who was given equal ‘billing’ with Searl at a crackpot conference in Weinfelden some years ago. Our spies tell us that they were seen deep in conversation on at least one occasion. There certainly exists a photograph of Vigier flirting with a Ms Manning, a conspiracy-theory journalist who is a great admirer of crackpots of all persuasions. One would think that someone who avoided a Nazi death-camp could have found some better way of spending his time.  So, to sum up, many of Ron’s friends are admirers of perhaps the most pernicious pseudoscientific conman that the world has ever known. Ron himself has suggested several times that the UK government should fund Searl. It seems to us that Searl is very much the ‘senior party’ in all of this and, just as Ron’s acolytes look up to him, they all look up to Searl. Just imagine that: an employee (according to Ron) of the Queen who is no more than a shill for an inveterate crook.

Footnote: as we have also noted many times, relationships are rather complicated in the looking-glass world of the lunatic fringe. There exists a book which offered a showcase to various ‘heretic’ scientists (i.e. crackpots) some years ago. Among the authors were Barrett and Henning Harmuth (no wonder that they accepted Ron’s B(3) tripe). The volume was edited by Akhlesh Lakhtakia, a former friend of Ron’s. However, Ron now calls AL a stalker and complains about him to campus police. We say, “a plague on all their houses”.

Some Light Reading for Investors

January 15, 2013

Got money to spare? Tempted to invest in Alex Hill’s perpetual-motion  company or even John Searl’s  aerospace company (anti-gravity  flying saucers a specialty)? Wait! First consider their more successful rivals. Such as Dr (but only a medic, not a scientist) Randall Mills, who conned $10,000,000 out of utility companies in the US. Read all about him and other perpetual motionists in:

VOODOO SCIENCE – The Road from Foolishness to Fraud by Professor Robert Park

On second thoughts, perhaps Mills does not want your money: there are plenty of corporate suckers around and they can cover their investment mistakes by putting a few cents on their product-prices. That way, even canny skeptics are made to pay for the delusions of pseudoscientists!

Deconstruction of Ron’s 15th January Post

January 15, 2013

These range from complete acceptance to abusive cynicism. Yep, complete acceptance by the lunatic fringe and gullible laymen, and abusive cynicism from physicists who bother to keep an eye on the world of cranks.  In my view it is best to take a plane to Mexico. Really, Ron, really? Have you seen the one-horse town where Hill resides? Have you seen the cracked road leading to his ‘lab’, the shabby building and flaking sign, the collapsing fence and uncut grass? Not exactly a hive of activity. and see the devices in action in one of the Fortune 50 Companies. So, list them. Not that that means anything: NASA wasted millions, against the advice of physicists, on Podkletnov’s loony anti-gravity device and even mentioned the ridiculous Dean Drive as part of its foolish Breakthrough Propulsion Project. British Aerospace dallied with the comical Kidd gyroscopic propulsion device. The most charitable interpretation of these failings is that sure-fire R&D losses earn tax write-offs. …  see the display of devices on and A visitor is allowed to try them out. Also take a trip to see one of the LENR devices in action. Duh, one cannot tell just by looking, Ron, that is not scientific. The history of perpetual motion machines is littered with very clever ways of fooling observers. One leading 19th century British scientist was so convinced that he published a ‘scientific explanation’ of how it worked. You have yet to realise how embarrassing that is. Google LENR to see hundreds of websites on this new industrial revolution. Not to mention all of the YouTube videos demonstrating working perpetual motion machines; one of the most prolific offenders being your friend, the conman John Searl. I was asked by the U. S. Navy to explain these devices qualitatively , Prove it. You are not slow to post other private correspondence. Or was it a crackpot who just happened to be in the US Navy; we know of one sailor who tried to patent a reactionless propulsion (aka antigravity) deviceI have never been given any details of circuits, which are in operation industrially. Surprise, surprise. But, gee, they are not hard to find; just look through Bedini’s patent applications. Some people refer to these devices as perpetuum mobile, Yes, physicists do.  revealing a complete ignorance of relativity Only of  your brand of madcap relativity. and the realities of industrial life. Touche. We concede that many companies (no names, no pack-drill) make a good living out of pseudoscience. I am a Baconian scientist, meaning that if an experiment is reproducible and repeatable, it must be explained theoretically and the theory tested against the data. No, you behave like Aristotle: every anecdote is explained using a catch-all theory, there is no personal experimentation and certainly no self-questioning. Quite the opposite of Bacon, who advised looking for alternative explanations, including fraud. Moreover, the experiments have to be repeatable by anyone; not just ‘believers’. I attempted this with B(3) and the inverse Faraday effect at Cornell in 1992. And everybody laughed. Eventually this led to a hugely successful theory, indeed a new physics, No, it didn’t. That is a delusion based entirely upon a misinterpretation of internet traffic. How would the ‘success’ manifest itself if the internet did not exist? but I was given plenty of trouble. And you deserve it for defiling the accolade of civil list pension and possibly confusing young people who might chance upon AIAS. The students at UNCC now study ECE theory regularly. Prove it. How do you know that they do not look at your sites pour rire? Perhaps they have been told of your olfactory experience at UNCC; an episode worthy of South Park. Much of standard physics is complete nonsense that is not even Baconian, which is why Texas for example is cutting physics by 60%. We suspect that this is not because physics is nonsense, but because it is poorly paid and more money can be made out of pseudoscience. But who will protect society from conmen when the physicists are all gone? Watch out for a new Dark Age.


On Cousins

January 13, 2013

Ron mentions that he will have to contact a lot of cousins for a planned reunion. Why so many? Let us remind Ron of that old puzzle which is often posed by schoolteachers in kindergarten: we each have 2 parents, they each had 2 parents, and so on. This means that, ‘logically’,  the Earth supported an unsustainable population just a century or so ago. The flaw in the argument is of course that families have – of necessity – always intermingled; thus restricting the population but producing dense networks of related cousins. But this, in turn, is a problem for ‘meaningful’ genealogy. In effect, all of ones relatives make up a sort of ‘fabric’ with – as it were – distaff cousins on the warp and spear cousins on the weft. If one consistently follows either line, the familial connection will be meaningful: that would be like finding two random marks on a piece of cloth which happened to lie on the same warp or weft strand. If one is not consistent, it amounts to picking two random points on a piece of cloth and then linking them by switching between warp and weft strands at will in order to make a connection. Hmm, which method does Ron use?

Another Winner!

January 13, 2013

Today Ron is – via Shame-of-Siemens (aka Siemens Stain) – excited about ‘primer fields’. If one believes the link that was provided, one might think that a David Lapoint of CERN has discovered  amazing new phenomena. In fact, Mr Lapoint is unknown at CERN (so why did he imply that he was in the link?) and appears to live in California: some commute! The device shown in the link also bears a close resemblance to Mr Lapoint’s perpetual-motion gadget (patent applied for) which is supposed to extract energy from magnets (yep, the usual story). But it is not only a perpetual motion machine! Lapoint claims that “these charged fields are also great for human, animal, life, etc. Within the 7700 sq.ft. building there is an amazing air quality”.   Note that Ron’s buddy, Searl (see Marquis Who’s Who), makes similar claims for his levitating perpetual-motion machine. But wait, there is even more: ” The spinning magnetic arrays also produce some very interesting benefits for straightening kinked fields within the human body, sore muscles, and other body tissues can be fixed in minutes at times, sometimes in seconds. Larger arrays will work for the whole body”. Jeez, how many more nutters is Ron going to admire in his capacity of ‘Civil List Scientist’? We shall refrain from making metaphorical comments about previous pensioners ‘spinning in their graves’: they would have long ago been torn apart by centrifugal (sic) forces.

On Stalking – 2

January 13, 2013

We have registered a complaint against Ron with the UK’s anti-stalking hotline on the grounds that he is ‘taking their name in vain’ in an attempt to suppress legitimate free-speech opposition to his pseudoscientific activities.

Shape of Things to Come

January 9, 2013

Some readers may be wondering why we do not address directly Ron’s crackpot claims. We are acutely aware that this may give the unfortunate impression that they are unassailable. Such is not the case. We have two reasons for not addressing them: one is that most readers would not understand the refutation any better than they do his claims. The other is that Ron (and similar academic crackpots) are to be ‘outed’ in a forthcoming book and we do not want to ‘steal any thunder’. Nevertheless, we cannot resist giving a ‘taster’.

Ron is making the classic loony mistake of finding something which appears to work better than the accepted alternative in one specific case and then trying to distort the rest of science in order to make it fit everywhere: rather like the way in which navigators still assume a geocentric universe for the sake of simplicity (although they, not being idiots, do not really believe that Mars performs pirouettes). Ron’s behaviour is thus VERY non-Baconian. To give an inkling of how Ron’s theory will be publicly dismantled, we cannot resist pointing out that he seems to be unaware that the centrifugal and Coriolis forces are just two among an infinitude of ‘fictitious’ forces. This is generally news to non-physicists because they are never mentioned in textbooks and only desultory attempts have been made to name them officially (the ‘next one up’ from Coriolis has occasionally been called the ‘transverse’ force). This is because they are significant only in certain extreme situations. Their necessary existence is easily proved mathematically (especially by means of complex numbers) and can be proved experimentally by using a simple demonstration. Now you see where this is going: can Ron further stretch his untenable theory far enough to incorporate this infinitude of forces? Ironically enough, he has already been handed a clue that this will be necessary by the self-confessedly mathematically ignorant Shame of Siemens (we dropped the Siemens Stain concept): he recently drew Ron’s attention to the existence of more complicated curvature expressions than the usual one. If they follow that clue, they will be in a position to catch up with some very interesting 19th-century mathematics … and physics. Unfortunately, the best work on the subject is in French, but that should not stymie such … polymaths.

Or have we made the whole thing up? Real physicists would know immediately, but chemist and computer-science interlopers now have the task of doing a great deal of homework on catching up … just in case … on a subject which they supposedly already know better than real physicists. It is sooo easy to mind-game the lunatic fringe.

Call for Proof

January 6, 2013

Every day, Ron lovingly lists the many visitors to and declares that they have all swallowed his crackpot theory hook, line and sinker. And yet, his published papers go uncited by all but himself and his gang, no truly independent publications using his theory appear (even in the lunatic literature) and he is pathetically pleased when he receives the odd (in every sense) and very rare direct e-mail from a fan. Surely, with so many adoring followers around (according to him), there should be more obvious signs (nobody sends critical mail to us, for instance) and, even if only a minute fraction of the fans was moved to send him an admiring e-mail, he would have to spend hours every day on replying to them.

So here is a simple challenge, Ron: post the e-mail (or ip) addresses of 100 faithful followers so that they can be contacted by ourselves and other skeptics and asked whether they really do adhere to your theory. Why do we ask for so many? So that you cannot pack the  list with just your idiot friends (we shall also discount anyone who appears on the membership-list of the Natural Philosophy Alliance).  You should also not try to plead ‘privacy’ or ‘data protection legislation’ as excuses for not complying: you have proved again and again that you have very cavalier attitudes regarding such matters. So, get listing. Our readers, if not yours, will know how exactly to interpret non-compliance.

Ron Breaks the Rules … AGAIN!

January 5, 2013

Ron, as we pointed out yesterday, seems to see things in e-mails which are not there. He also seems to fail to notice, or simply ignores, things which are there. Today he has yet again published a private e-mail in spite of its attached warning:

“… Any unauthorised use, dissemination, printing or copying of this e-mail is prohibited.”

We shall be bringing this matter  to the attention of those responsible for enforcing this rule.

Can Ron Really Read Welsh?

January 4, 2013

In his post of yesterday, Ron thanks, “… Superintendent Hurley for opening an investigation on the death under suspicious circumstances of my cousin, ”

In fact, the e-mail says only that the contents of Ron’s e-mail will be addressed and that he will receive a reply within the next few weeks. It is, essentially, an out-of-office response and we would not be surprised to learn that it was generated automatically.


January 3, 2013

Our many readers who have followed the link to Ron’s Physica B paper, and its hilarious ‘Treasury’ affiliation, may nevertheless have been impressed by its mere publication. Of course, the fact that the editor saw nothing odd in the Queen’s piggy-bank submitting a paper speaks volumes concerning that journal’s reliability. Oh, and in case those who followed the link could not (understandably) be bothered to look further, that paper has been cited only 30 times: each time by Ron and/or his gang-members.

Web Analysis

January 1, 2013

According to Alexa, the sites receiving the most traffic from the query, “myron w evans”, are 66.98% Wikipedia (from which he is missing), 14.75% aias, 7.36% (an excellent site which lists all of Ron’s mathematical errors), 3.68% (obviously looking for that excellent book-review) and 3.03% (a nest of perpetual-motion loonies). Strange to tell, ECE is nowhere among the top searches for

URL Appraisal values the site at $56.

Another successful year!