Archive for May, 2014

t’Hooft on Crothers

May 30, 2014

Mr. C attacks some generally accepted notions about black holes. It appears that the introduction of test particles is inadmissible to him. A test particle, freely falling in a gravitational field, feels no change in energy and momentum, and mathematically, we describe this situation in terms of comoving coordinate frames. This does not fit in C’s analysis, so, test particles are forbidden. A test particle is an object with almost no mass and almost no size, such as the space ship Cassini orbiting Saturn. C calls the use of almost“poetry”, but in fact this is a notion that can be defined in all mathematical rigor, as we learn in our math courses. C is “self taught”, so he had no math courses and so does not know what almost means here, in terms of carefully chosen limiting procedures.

Mr. C. adds more claims to this: In our modern notation, a radial coordinate   is used to describe the Schwarzschild solution, the prototype of a black hole. “That’s not a radial distance!”, he shouts. “To get the radial distance you have to integrate the square root of the radial component grr of the metric!!” Now that happens to be right, but a non-issue; in practice we use  r  just because it is a more convenient coordinate, and every astrophysicist knows that an accurate calculation of the radial distance, if needed, would be obtained by doing exactly that integral. “r  is defined by the inverse of the Gaussian curvature”, C continues, but this happens to be true only for the spherically symmetric case. For the Kerr and Kerr-Newman metric, this is no longer true. Moreover, the Gaussian curvature is not locally measurable so a bad definition indeed for a radial coordinate. And why should one need such a definition? We have invariance under coordinate transformations. If so desired, we can use any coordinate we like. The Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates are an example. The Finkelstein coordinates another. Look at the many different ways one can map the surface of the Earth on a flat surface. Is one mapping more fundamental than another?
“The horizon is a real singularity because at that spot the metric signature switches from (+,-,-,-) to (-,+,-,-)”, C continues. This is wrong. The switch takes place when the usual Schwarzschild coordinates are used, but does not imply any singularity. The switch disappears in coordinates that are regular at the horizon, such as the Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates. That’s why there is no physical singularity at the horizon.
But where does the black hole mass come from? Where is the source of this mass? R μν = 0 seems to imply that there is no matter at all, and yet the thing has mass! Here, both L and C suffer from the misconception that a gravitational field cannot have a mass of its own. But Einstein’s equations are non-linear, and this is why gravitational fields can be the source of additional amount of gravity, so that a gravitational field can support itself. In particle theories, similar things can happen if fields obey non-linear equations, we call these solutions “solitons”. A black hole looks like a soliton, but actually it is a bit more complicated than that.
The truth is that gravitational energy plus material energy together obey the energy conservation law. We can understand this just as we have explained it for gravitational waves.  And now there is a thing that L and C fail to grasp: a black hole can be seen to be formed when matter implodes. Start with a regular, spherically symmetric (or approximately spherically symmetric) configuration of matter, such as a heavy star or a star cluster. Assume that it obeys an equation of state. If, according to this equation of state, the pressure stays sufficiently low, one can calculate that this ball of matter will contract under its own weight. The calculation is not hard and has been carried out many times; indeed, it is a useful exercise for students. According to Einstein’s equations, the contraction continues until the pressure is sufficiently high to stop any further contraction. If that pressure is not high enough, the contraction continues and the result is well-known: a black hole forms. Matter travels onwards to the singularity at  = 0, and becomes invisible to the outside observer. All this is elementary exercise, and not in doubt by any serious researcher. However, one does see that the Schwarzschild solution (or its Kerr or Kerr-Newman generalization) emerges only partly: it is the solution in the forward time direction, but the part corresponding to a horizon in the past is actually modified by the contracting ball of matter. All this is well-known. An observer cannot look that far towards the past, so he will interpret the resulting metric as an accurate realization of the Schwarzschild metric. And its mass? The mass is dictated by energy conservation. What used to be the mass of a contracting star is turned into mass of a “ball of pure gravity”. I actually don’t care much about the particular language one should use here; for all practical purposes the best description is that a black hole has formed.
But has it really? Isn’t it so that the collapsing star hangs out forever at the horizon? Well, in terms of the Schwarzschild coordinates, this is formally true! The Schwarzschild solution is the asymptotic limit of the solution in the forward time direction. At finite times, the region behind the horizon does not exist. However, for this analysis, one can better use the Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates, where one does notice that the future part of the horizon does exist. This discussion is compounded a bit because the construction of the maximal extension of spacetime is subtle, and it is certainly not understood by C. Think of a map of the North Pole of the Earth, where it could be that coordinates were chosen such that they cannot be extended across the equator. Formally, the equator is then a horizon. But nobody who’s walking on the equator has any trouble with that.
These self proclaimed scientists in turn blame me of “not understanding functional analysis”. Indeed, L maintains that there is a difference between a mathematical calculation and its physical interpretation, which I do not understand. He makes a big point about Einstein’s “equivalence principle” being different from the “correspondence principle”, and everyone, like me, who says that they in essence amount to being the same thing, if you want physical reality to be described by mathematical models, doesn’t understand a thing or two. True. Nonsensical statements I often do not understand. What I do understand is that both ways of phrasing this principle require that one focuses on infinitesimally tiny space-time volume elements.

PS: For the curious, Mr L is C.Y.Lo: Chief Scientist and bottle-washer at a non-existent research institute.


Really, Ron, Really?

May 30, 2014

“The fringe dogmatists have used the vilest kind of personal animosity for years, so have alienated not only scientists and engineers, but the general readership.”

So how come they do not all rush to your defence? Why does nobody write an article about you and ECE for a popular science magazine, why are you not inundated with supportive e-mails? Why do we never receive critical comments on your behalf. In fact, we  once received a comment – supporting us – from (as proved by ipa-tracking) – an AIAS staff member. Just fancy that! 

Er … No

May 30, 2014

“In dismissing ‘t Hooft’s unpleasant and obsessive personal animosity, Kerry Pendergast and Gareth Evans independently made the point that only time with tell when it comes to choosing between ECE and the standard model. However, we no longer have to wait for time to tell, because we can use the attached data of The Book of Scientometrics to extrapolate confidently into the future”

Nope, present-day mathematics proves ECE wrong right now, and the scientometrics are bogus: there is no independent proof that they exist. All that exists is a sad little isolated cabal of wannabee physicists centered on one arrogant unemployed chemist. If it were not for the outrageous fact that idiots awarded him a Civil List pension, even we would lose interest.

Walked Into That

May 29, 2014

!In other words AIAS has been institutionalized. UPITEC is also institutionalized in Boise, Idaho, U. S. A.”

It  remains only for Ron to be institutionalized and we shall have the hat-trick.




For the Record

May 28, 2014

For those who cannot find it, this is what t’Hooft has to say about Ron.

Einstein had it totally wrong, and so on. Indeed, how could I forget the most vociferous player of the anti-Gerard-’t-Hooft club: Mr.E., who not only advocates a complete revision of General Relativity, but also Elementary Particle Physics and even electro-magnetism. Nearly all of present-day Theoretical Physics is based on unbelievable errors, according to E. He was quiet for some time, but now asks me to admit the errors of my ways, resign, step down as Chief Editor of Foundations of Physics, and return my Nobel prize. His arguments are difficult to follow because of a murky notation, which presumably explains how he could go so astray in the first place. For example, he asserts that “the Riemannian connection field is antisymmetric, not symmetric, in its two lower indices”, which implies that we (Einstein together with many others) “forgot to consider torsion in our field equations”, and that, “of course, the connection field should be antisymmetric, because commutators are antisymmetric, not symmetric!”  Well, I’m sorry for E, but a connection field isn’t a commutator. One could say that the only commutator involved is the commutator between two partial derivatives, which vanishes. In Particle Physics, one may regard the gauge vector potential as a connection field, and that’s antisymmetric in two of its indices (for orthogonal gauge groups) or anti-hermitean (in other cases). In gravity, one may complement the connection field with a connection for the local Lorentz group, which is nearly but not quite antisymmetric, because the Lorentz group is not quite orthogonal. It’s the Riemann curvature field that may be regarded as a commutator, and it is antisymmetric in its last two indices. So, how does E “prove” that the Riemannian connection field is antisymmetric? His arguments in his paper 139, eqs. (9)-(12), can be summarized as follows. To be proven: A=B. Proof:


A proof that he concludes with a triumphant “Q.E.D.”

Fact is that, if the Riemannian connection field were to be chosen antisymmetric, it could not serve as a connection field at all, as its coordinate transformation rule  contains an important term  ∂ 2xλ/ ∂xμ xν , which is symmetric under interchange of the indices μ and ν . But E continues, suggesting to harvest free energy out of vacuum fluctuations or things such. O, yes, according to E. the photon has a mass of  5.10-41 kg, which would give electromagnetic fields a range of no more than 7 mm, indeed a drastic modification of the Standard Model.

All Wrong

May 28, 2014

“I agree completely with Kerry Pendergast, and these remarks by the two former EDCL colleagues put things in perspective.”

Of course you do; mutual admiration is all that you have. 

“This organized campaign of villification [sic] reminds me strongly of totalitarianism of any variety. It was organized by so called wikipedia moderators, so reduces wikipedia to rubble in the context of avant garde physics.”

The fact that many people come independently to the same inescapable conclusion does not mean that they are organized. You know that; it is like when you claim that a ‘conference’ has been held on ECE when all that has really happened is a series of coincidental visits (like buses turning up in threes). 

“It is also deeply offensive to Crown and Parliament in Britain, and to society in general. It only takes good people to remain silent in the words of Burke, but they are not being silent, the entire international community has had enough of these lies.”

No it is not. It is the ‘good people’ who are pointing out your misdeeds (such as advocating that conmen like Searl should be financed by the UK government or illegally advocating quack cancer ‘cures’). We shall never remain silent.

“Kerry Pendergast makes an especially important point in that the scientometrics show a sea change in the subject.”

Unfortunately it is clear that the scientometrics are bogus. You provide the only ‘evidence’ that they exist. Google Scholar (and Scopus) prove that there is no interest in your post-breakdown ‘work’. Perhaps you would care to explain why, if your crackpot theory is so widely accepted, you are not inundated by supportive e-mails, why we never receive any mail or comments defending you, and why Penderghastly’s book receives only negative reviews (apart from the one by Penderghastly himself that is).

“In my opinion ‘t Hooft’s activity is dangerously close to being that of a troll, dangerous for him that is.”

Rubbish: expressing a fact-based opinion which reflects the views of the vast majority is not trolling. 

“Police Commissioner Alun Michael in Wales has condemned trolls as criminals. There is no statute of limitation on verbal common assault or harassment in the first degree, and a determined Government could bring prosecutions at any time in the future. Troll sites also incite to violence, another serious offence.”

We agree entirely. Trolls who do criminal things are reprehensible. However, merely pointing out facts that you alone do not accept  is not trolling, and any threats exist only in your paranoid mind. 


Those Left Behind

May 26, 2014

“The younger generation of Welsh speaking Trustees or their Appointees would be allowed to live here free of rent and as free of as much as the charges as possible (council tax, gas, coal, water, electricity, maintenance and so forth). ”

What will Mrs Ron will make of that? Or is she expected to practice some sort of suttee?

Not Even World (In)famous

May 26, 2014

“The AIAS group is world famous because of the scientometrics. The words “world famous” are so over used in society that they have almost lost meaning, but in our case they are true objectively. The Book of Scientometrics is famous in its own right, and has taken over a decade of meticulous work to compile. ”

Let’s see: if the ‘book of scientometrics’ is so famous it should return lots of Google hits. How many does it actually give? Oh, only 15? And all of those but one are due to Ron. How clever the millions of followers are at avoiding detection by Google.

Lucky Thirteen

May 23, 2014

Ron and his gang of clowns are paradigms of crackpot behaviour: they produce a theory that ‘fits only where it touches’, refuse to engage in discussion with others and – moreover – claim that the theory promises a brave new world of perpetual-motion and antigravity machines (the latter are always the driving ambitions of pseudoscientists). Now, a valid new theory should be able to reproduce all of the phenomena that are explained by the old theory. We have noted in the past that Ron’s fatuous theory  is willingly used to explain orbits, but is silent on tidal effects. Here is another example: many new solutions to the three-body problem have recently been discovered. Ron’s theory should be able reproduce these solutions … if it is valid. Over to you Ron.

Historic Level of Dishonesty

May 19, 2014

Level of Scholarship of the Genealogists

May 19, 2014

This is very impressive to me, and I wish that scholarship in theoretical physics were at the same level. “

You really want physicists to lie about everything, just as your favourite genealogist, the despicable Turner-Thomas, does?:

Nah, lying about physics (and feedback) is your department. Why don’t you, and your bunch of clowns,  just shut up shop? You are an embarrassment to Wales.


Poor Man’s Kissinger

May 15, 2014

“Although I am not part of the United States Government it freqeuntly[sic]  takes advice from my website, to which there are many visitors from Russia also, it seems to me that its economic policy is aimed at self sufficiency in order to eliminate geopolitical destabilization in the Middle East and to bring an end to the Afghan war. ”

Gee, not part of the US government? Who knew? But how do you know that the Americans and Russians are ‘taking advice’? They might all be rolling around on the floor in fits of uncontrollable laughter brought on by your delusional declarations. 



May 15, 2014

BICEP2 a dead duck!

May 15, 2014

Agreed with Stephen Crothers.”

Well you would do, wouldn’t you? If the inhabitants of the lunatic fringe do not support each other, who will? And how astonished the nutters always are at the workings of real science. See, Ron, that is how real science works: it is self-correcting. When does a loony ever announce errors in his own reasoning? When does Crothers ever admit uncertainty? What evidence would disprove your crackpot theory. Or perhaps you are not familiar with Popper’s criterion of falsifiability for separating real science from pseudoscience.

Last Nail

May 15, 2014

Gravity Research Foundation – awards 2014

May 15, 2014

These are essays so we can have a go at this award every year.”

And why not? All of the other loonies do. Even Hawking went in for the prize many years ago. And again why not? In the early days the GRF (founded by an insane stock-tipster) was handing out more money than the Nobel foundation.


May 14, 2014

“The feedback is immensely helpful, now we know the value of our work exactly. I have always suffered from patronising comments like “publishing too much” and so on, as described in auto two. So the point has been reached where AIAS produces the work, a vast readership follows it, and the standard physicists can go their own way. They can do things as they see fit, we can proceed as we see fit, and let history decide. We are no longer held hostage to career, funding, promotion and so on, and all our work is in Google Scholar, meaning that it is accepted as scholarly work.”

So, on the one hand, there is all of that feedback that Ron alone sees and interprets as being universally supportive. On the other hand, there are all of the Google Scholar citations which anyone can see but which are due almost entirely to Ron. So it is pretty much all Ron: no genuine independent proof of interest or support at all.  Isn’t that rather suspicious? Why, it is almost as if he is living out a pathetic delusion … in public.

Tetrad Pustulate

May 13, 2014

We are not fond of Rodrigues and find him to be – in some ways – as flaky as Ron and ‘Ark’. Nevertheless he does know his math and, as Ron says, one cannot argue with mathematics. So this is very relevant:

Of course, this is all rather academic (lol) as it is becoming increasingly clear that Ron provides the only proof that there is any interest in his incorrect theory. So we say again, Ron, make an appeal for your followers to contact you directly or to at least cite your post-breakdown books and papers. If your followers are now in the majority, as you claim, what do they have to fear? We realize that occupational therapy is an important aid to recovery, but could you please stick to poetry.


May 12, 2014

“This is M. W. Evans, S. J. Crothers, H. Eckardt and K. Pendergast, “Criticisms of the Einstein Field Equation” ( open source on I have gone through the daily feedback back to last November and find that it is being read on average about six hundred and fifty times a year. It shows that all solutions of the Einstein field equation are meaningless, and replaces Einsteinian cosmology with ECE cosmology, plus much else too.”

And yet, all of the 107 citations reported by Google Scholar are due to Ron. Just imagine what icy self-discipline is practised by all of those thousands of followers. They are supposedly bowled over by the genius of ECE, and yet never mention it. A quite unbelievable degree of taciturnity. Not even the ‘silence of the grave’; more the silence of an empty plot.



May 12, 2014

” This is especially important in view of the fact that a group of universities in Austria and elsewhere recently discussed UFT238b, apparently coordinated from Vienna’s City Government in an internet conference. ”

Where does he get this stuff? It is already silly enough that he deduces that every visitor supports his ‘work’, but how on Earth does he conclude that they are colluding with each other? He should ask them why they don’t invite him to contribute an opening talk, send him a program or email him the proceedings. But, of course, he cannot ask because he does not know who they are. Keep an eye on your local public toilet, folks, the apparently randomly arriving  visitors may in fact holding conferences on ECE. 


May 11, 2014

“These are my contributions to a new book: M. W. Evans, H. Eckardt, D. W. Lindstrom and S. J. Crothers, “The Principles of ECE Theory”. The text will be augmented by important input from the co authors and published open source ”

Good idea: chapter seven  alone might not in itself be enough to sink the book in ridicule. You have already included a stalwart of the German perpetual-motion bund, and an ignoramus Australian private detective, why not add a tugboat-captain? You could also change the title to the more accurate,  “The Unprincipled ECE Theory“. Can’t argue with giving it away; nobody would buy it anyway. It is rather like the Mormons, or the Gideons, giving away copies of various bibles: pure propaganda.

Red Card

May 9, 2014

“It is obvious that the refereeing system is not working when there is a radically new theory, it results in an impasse between two groups.”

No, in the case of real science, both sides present their evidence openly. Experimental evidence (or lack of it) decides the matter, as it did in the case of n-rays, polywater and cold fusion. Only pseudoscientists hide away in a corner, refuse to listen, and misinterpret a lack of interest as signalling acceptance. 

“In fact this refereeing system inhibits progress. This can be seen clearly by the fact that material which referees tried to censor became hugely popular in the best universities, not in boy scouts’ clubs.”

What, you mean your ECE rubbish? You yourself provide the only so-called evidence of its popularity. Where is the independent confirmation?

“I am among the most refereed individual scholar of recent times, ”

Only because you contribute over 90% of the references to your post-breakdown work yourself! 

“So I have devised a new refereeing system, put the material on a website and monitor the interest.”

Pure desperation: nobody will accept your nonsense for their journal, nor buy it as a book, so you make a website the only source; misinterpreting and inflating the feedback at will.

“The result is a huge amount of sustained interest in my work, and of course that of co authors. It is no longer in my interest to risk having my work subjected to intellectually dishonest anonymous activity.”

It cannot be that interesting, as nobody mentions it. And the inflated feedback is also anonymous. What is the use of saying that, for instance, UNCC  looked at something? Who, exactly, looked?  Why not, as we suggested, appeal for fans of ECE to send emails to you? Frit to admit that such fans do not really exist?

“The scientific colleagues overwhelmingly accept it, so why not listen to them?”

We do listen to ours; they have never heard of you and most of them cannot be bothered to help to point out your lies, even when they are told just how much shame you bring on the Civil List Pension..

“Any mathematical criticism of ECE theory is absurd, because it is criticism of a well known geometry that has been taught for ninety years”

As noted before, the problem is not with Cartan’s geometry, but with your misuse of it.

” The claims to precision of Einstein’s theory are also absurd, it collapsed completely in whirlpool galaxies nearly sixty years ago, while ECE does a good job of describing whirlpool galaxies. It takes only one piece of data to refute a theory. ”

Finding a map that required more than 4 colours in order to distinguish different areas would refute a well-known proof to the contrary. Making a puzzling experimental observation does not refute a theory (if that theory has millions of other supporting data); it merely implies that some details might have to be tweaked. As we have pointed out several times, the finite speed of gravitational interaction should lead to a torque on a rotating system. When a galaxy can be light-years across, who knows what such a torque might do? That is how real scientists think, Ron. 

One Chapter to Sink Them All

May 9, 2014

“These are the first three pages of the introduction to chapter seven, which describes the most important application to date of ECE theory – new sources of energy. Then I intend to get in to the details of spin connection resonance. Bearden first brought my attention to this problem back in the nineties. He is well intentioned but in my opinion his mathematics are poor. He tends to use a lot of material from myself, that is OK with me – I have produced rigorous mathematics. The point is that the world is running out of energy. A lot of mindless trolls get at Bearden, he does not deserve all that of that crackpot abuse. Alex Hill’s work is rigorous and has been taken up in a big way by industry.”

If that is the ‘most important application’ then you are deluded beyond belief. Even those who cannot see through the nonsense mathematics (not Cartan’s part but your faulty extensions) will laugh at the perpetual motion section. What sort of real scientist cannot spot blatant confidence tricksters like Searl and Bearden? Do we really have to reiterate the facts that Bearden bought his doctorate, that he carries a gun because he fears that ‘men in black’ are going to assassinate him using fancy means (ice-bullets, etc.), that you let him waffle about his MEG in an academic journal and that most of the AIAS gang ‘explained’ how it works. But it does not work, neither do the et3m gadgets: induction phenomena are very handy for fooling laymen. If you were a scientist, you would know that only openly presented and reproducible experimental data count. Merely saying that unknown people are obtaining unobserved results is just not good enough. Not to put too fine a point on it: Bearden is a conman, Searl is a conman and you are reduced to being a mere shill for crooks.  Imagine how bad that will look in the future: Faraday (multifaceted genius), Herschel (great astronomer), Hamilton (great mathematician [and drunk]), Heaviside (great electrical engineer [but insane]), Evans (shill for crackpots). Is the quality of pensioners nose-diving, or is that just a coincidence?

Small Potatoes

May 7, 2014

“If trolls are envious of an Armiger, let them petition the Earl Marshall for one of their own. If they are good enough, they will be awarded arms of their own. I cannot see an anon troll getting a coat of arms. ”

The College of Arms website says: ” The first step in applying for a grant of arms is to submit a petition, or memorial as it is called, to the Earl Marshal. This will be drafted by one of the officers of arms. There are no fixed criteria of eligibility for a grant of arms, but such things as awards or honours from the Crown, civil or military commissions, university degrees, professional qualifications, public and charitable services, and eminence or good standing in national or local life, are taken into account. ” University degrees? no problem. But the site also says, “When the memorial is submitted the fees due upon a grant of arms become payable. Such fees are laid down by Earl Marshal’s Warrant. As of 1 January 2014 the fees payable upon a personal grant of arms and crest are £5,250”. What? All that money for such a trivial thing? We shall pass on that.


Keeping Up Appearances

May 7, 2014

“In 2008 I was raised to Armiger and was featured in the Newsletter of the College of Arms, so that is pleasing but will make a troll turn sickly green.”

The College of Arms administers both the holders of coats of arms and minor nobility. That does not make armigers equal to minor nobility: learn some set-theory Ron. Your lying makes every academic sick.

“There is a huge silent readership of ECE because of the mediaeval attitudes of our own times, open criticism of Einstein is not tolerated.”

Yeah right, but they do all send you emails in secret … don’t they? It is quite pathetic how you treasure the odd (and we do mean odd) communication that you receive; whether they be from loony economics students or schoolboys. By the way, there has been no response at all to our appeal for feedback. Have you individually advised each follower not to contact us? Oh, but you can’t, can you, you don’t know who they are. Silent? No. Non-existent? Yes!

“Books about ECE such as that by Lar Felker are “best sellers”.”

How can works, that one can obtain for nothing, be best-sellers? Have Mr Bannister  explain this basic economic point to you.

“I have been told that I have received sevreral [sic] Nobel Prize nominations, and this is obviously pleasing.”

Who told you that;  other nutters like Merwe? Well, just to make you less of a liar, our more academic members will send off some nominations tomorrow. See, anybody can send a nomination; the question is whether they end up in the in-tray, or the ash-tray.

“The most pleasing thing of all is that I know that my work will last the next hundred years or so.”

Only because it is cheap to store junk electronically these days. it will certainly be a boon to future students of aberrant psychology.

“Many thanks to all the AIAS colleagues, freinds [sic] and relatives, and of course the vast readership.”

Ah, the ‘vast readership’ again. When will the ‘secret army’ rise against the Nazi orthodox occupiers? What a pity that you cannot ask that old maquisard, Vigier.

“Trolls are silly little people who do not have any technical ability.”

Funny how you can, as in the case of your ‘non-existent college’, discern the capabilities of people of whom you know nothing.

“They must be eliminated from decent society because they have started attacking a terminally ill teenager who is trying to raise money for charity before he dies, and drove a New Zealand TV personality to suicide. If this were the eighteenth century they would be hanged in chains or transported.”

That only goes to prove that we are not trolls. We are performing a public service by warning  impressionable people that you are not a ‘great scientist’  but an embarrassment to Wales.


For the Newcomer

May 6, 2014

We have noticed that a lot of people visit this blog just because of the few times that we have mentioned the incompetent mathematician, Miles Mathis.  Such visitors may be puzzled by our references to a ‘Ron’. Well, he is Dr Myron Wyn Evans, an unemployed chemist living in Wales. Indeed, he seems to be unsuitable for long-term employment* anywhere, probably because of his decidedly unpleasant personality. He believes in perpetual motion (including the Bessler wheel), antigravity (claiming, for instance, that the Levitron truly defies gravity) and quack cancer ‘cures’ (such as the Priore fraud). He has a direct link to the conman John Searl on his website, and has even recommended that the UK should back Searl. Ron believes that he is himself a power in society because he has a coat of arms and because the UK government stupidly awarded him a Civil List pension. He thinks that this makes him an employee of the Queen, and he even uses the address of her Treasury on his crackpot papers. These, by the way, are cited only by himself and his small network of similarly-minded crackpots.  He has also founded his own journal**. He writes over 90% of the articles himself … and only he and his crackpot friends cite them. In spite of the total lack of interest in his ‘work’, as measured by citations, he nevertheless claims that most scientists have secretly adopted his loony theory. He bases this belief on the number of hits on, and downloads from, his website. However, he cannot know or prove why the visitors are interested: the huge (probably inflated) reported numbers of visits are not paralleled by the large number of emails that such interest would presumably engender. Meanwhile, anyone who criticizes his theory is either accused of stalking/hate-blogging (if he does not know who they are) or are subjected to harassment and legal threats if he does know who they are. All of his other actions speak to a general two-facedness. For instance, he claims to be a cousin of the Queen (and any other historical celebrity he can think of) and yet wants Wales to split from the UK. He objects to the immigration of non Welsh-speakers, and yet has himself brought at least two non-Welsh non-native speakers to his small village.  Now that you know about him, you can forget about him. Science has.

Updates added, 13th March 2016

  • *Now retired
  • ** Now defunct

Power of the Press

May 6, 2014

“Fully agreed with Frank Snape, this is just the pointless use of the media by dogmatists.”

Never mind, Ron, all of your thousands of followers will inundate the newspaper with letters of complaint. Won’t they?

Enormous Interest in Blog

May 6, 2014

There was a huge increase in readings of our blog yesterday, but no comments or emails in response to our appeal. Still, it can be only a matter of time …

Feedback Analysis Idea

May 5, 2014

“The best combination of feedback is the attached Book of Scientometrics and the daily reports, because these are filtered to give the sector known as universities, institutes and similar. This is only 2% of te hvast total, but nevertheless the book runs to about 260 pages plus. It is so accurate that the way in which an individual paper such as UFT88 is read can be traced, leaving no doubt as to its acceptance by leading intellectuals.”

Here is an idea, Ron, if you want to trace the reception of your … ahem … accepted theory. Why not make an appeal, on or the blog, for all of those who are making use of your theory to send you an e-mail and give you all of the details? In fact, we shall help you:



As you know, Ron, this appeal will soon be picked up by the web-crawlers. How on Earth are we going to handle all of the correspondence? Nah, somehow we don’t think that it will be a problem for us … or you, if you follow our lead.