Archive for September, 2014

Long Suicide Note from AIAS

September 30, 2014

“I would like to suggest to the AIAS Fellows that the future policy of AIAS should be as follows in broad outline. Any comments from the Fellows or this inner circle are welcome.”

You have only yourselves to talk to anyway. You do not interact even with other loonies, such as the Bearden and Fucilla groups.

“1) That adherence to dogma should be regarded as unscientific, and that dogmatists be blocked electronically if they start to abuse or harass or insult Crown and Parliament. ”

What have ‘crown and parliament’ to do with pseudoscience … or science? But wait, is not using Her Majesty’s treasury as your affiliation on your, ahem, ‘scientific papers’ a sort  of abuse of the Crown? Strangely enough, when one of us sent a reprint-request to HM Treasury, he did not get a reply.  Why was that? Perhaps you would like to post the letter, from the palace, which gave you permission to use the Treasury address.

“Dogmatists harm science and should not be funded publicly.”

Dogmatic crackpots certainly do that, but also get funded. Her Majesty’s government gave money to a perpetual-motion crackpot (Peter Searl, brother of your friend Searl) and to an antigravity crackpot (Shawyer).

“2) That the Einstein field equation be viewed as meaningless, and that all its solutions be rejected as meaningless. I have just sent over the now famous proof of this fact.”

You mean the equation that real physicists have found to predict experimental and observational data to extraordinary accuracy? Your flawed ‘work’ is not famous; it is infamous.

“3) That all of physics, chemistry and engineering be developed with ECE theory.”

And will no doubt be found to ‘explain’ perpetual motion, alchemy and antigravity. The whole point of crackpot theory is to rubber-stamp street-level crackpot scams.

4) I am appointed by Crown and Parliament as a Civil List Pensioner, so persistent abuse of basic international protocol, ethics, and norms of professional conduct is in contempt of Crown and Parliament.

No, you receive a symbolic pension which puts you undeservedly into the same list as Faraday. You are not an employee, and any abuse and contempt which you attract is entirely on your own account, as it always has been … apparently.  

“I am prepared to post articles by Stephen Crothers that refute methods of solution of the meaningless Einstein equation because I think that Crothers is one of the best scholars in the world in this area and an AIAS Fellow. ”

Well you cannot exactly pick-and-choose, can you? Sam Spade is certainly unique: who else switches from private detective to PhD candidate (failed) in middle age? Better watch out that he is not snapped-up by Fucilla, as AIAS Fellow Dunging-Davies was. 

“As he points out, his role is criticism and refutation, not development of theory. ”

A physically and scientifically insignificant little heckler, indeed. How would he develop anything? He cannot even understand the subtleties of the existing theory! 

“In over ten years the obsolete physics had failed to accept that its methods are based on wildly incorrect geometry.”

‘It’ has not, because ‘they’ are not. And for the upteenth time, show us how you incorporate tidal effects into your ‘theory’. 

“A tiny minority of dogmatists has indulged in a great deal of wholly illegal abuse, cyberstalking, organized malicious hearsay and inuendo, attempted blank censorship, and outright and hostile, openly written contempt of Crown and Parliament, but no scientific answer to the refutations by ECE – literally none. ”

You are lucky to be paid any attention at all. Gee, it is fortunate that you cannot see what we write about you. But, as you say, you do not read our blog. It must be another UK resident who reads it almost every morning at 6am local time. Note, non-threatening, non-racist free speech is not illegal. Those who cannot stand the brick-bats which arise from espousing silly ideas are perhaps ‘in the wrong job’. If somebody claims that 2 + 2 = 5, a critic refutes it and yet the first person continues to write 2 + 2 = 5, what more can one do? The world just passes them by.

“As can be seen from the Book of Scientometrics I recognize that universities, institutes and similar contain the intellectual elite (the top 2% roughly of the vast readership of ECE). The very fact that there have been a quarter million visits from these elite sectors mean that the incorrect part of the old physics is finished completely and permanently. Attempts will be made to teach it – but for no purpose. They will fall on deaf ears. Its funding has been halved in Britain over the past decade, with more cuts to come.”

Why are the papers about your theory cited only by yourself? Why is the ranking of the AIAS website so low, if visits are supposedly so frequent? Why are you not inundated with emails from all of those enthusiastic followers? Why have they not at least heaped praise on you via your biography? Why do they not write their own papers, based on your work? Why can you not name any of the visitors? How indeed do you know why they visit?

Why not admit that this all just a form of occupational therapy for someone in recovery?


Really Scraping the Barrel

September 29, 2014

“Yesterday there was a visit to the site from The Principality of the Valleys of Andorra. So there have been visits to the site or this blog from all the countries of Europe. Andorra has one University, founded in 1997, and a virtual teaching system.”

Tell us, Ron, which department was that? The university does not appear to have a mathematics or physics faculty. Perhaps it was a Bannister-like sucker from the economics department, or someone from the health department looking for a suitable mental case for treatment (get your certificate translated, just in case: can Alex Hill manage Catalan?).  

Strange (?) Omission

September 28, 2014

“Webometrics World University Rankings

The top ten at present are: Harvard, MIT, Stanford, Cornell, Michigan, Berkeley, Columbia, Washington, Minnesota and Univ. Pennsylvania. There have been many visits from all of these to over more than a decade.”

Ron of course fails to mention that Webometrics also rates research institutes as well as universities. So where exactly is AIAS located in the ranking? Oh, how strange, it is not mentioned at all. 

Singing the Praises of Carroll

September 28, 2014

Carroll’s Online Notes

September 28, 2014

The commutator method of generating curvature and torsion is given by Carroll in his Eq. (3.66) of his online notes.”

Isn’t it funny that Carroll is considered correct until he disagrees with you:

Major Errors in Carroll Chapter Seven

Subject: Major Errors in Carroll Chapter Seven 
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2008 05:35:24 EDT

Dear Prof. Carroll,

I went through your chapters one to three of your notes and these are correct, I have gone through everything and also expanded greatly on the proofs. I found Cartan geometry to be very useful, and the tetrad postulate is correct. However, we have used computer algebra to show beyond doubt that black hole and big bang theories are incorrect (see papers 93 onwards on _www.aias.us_ ( ). Thsi mesn that there is no dark matter, and no Hawking radiation and so on. The fundamental problem is that neglect of torsion leads to a violation of the dual Bianchi identity (proven in many ways in the ECE papers on _www.aias.us_ ( ). This means that the Einstein field equation is geometrically incorrect, and all solutions thereof are incorrect also. We have checked this very carefully in a whole series of papers. You recognize the role of torsion in your chapter three, one of the very few to do so. In the ECE engineering model on _www.aias.us_ ( we have developed new equations of dynamics based on the Bianchi identity, and torsion plays a central role. Unfortunately therefore your chapters 4 to 8 contain many errors which have been handed down from about 1900, when Ricci and Levi Civita first introduced the symmetric connection. In papers 93, 95 and 117 on _www.aias.us_ ( computer algebra is used to show in great detail how this leads to a violation of the correct Bianchi identity of Cartan, (circa 1922 ff.). It is particularly important to refute big bang and black hole theory, because a lot of nonsense about it proliferates on TV and so on. In paper 120 we will severely criticise black hole theory. There are many errors in this chapter. For example.

1) In eq. (7.5) the generally symmetric metric leads in general to a violation of the dual identity. 2) Similarly the generally symmetric metric (7.13) leads to a violation of the dual identity. 3) In eq. (7.26), r should be r – r0 as pointed out by Schwarzschild, Dunning-Davies and Crothers independently. There is no black hole singularity. Additionally this is a metric derived from a null Ricci tensor, so there is no canonical energy momentum density present and no mass. This metric and all vacuum metrics are physically meaningless, they deal with a universe with nothing at all in it. 4) In eq. (7.30) there is a false singularity, r should be r – r0. 5) The condition r c squared 
exp (2 alpha) = 1 – 2GM / (r c squared)

must be positive or zero. This was pointed out recently by Crothers. 6) The Eddington Finkelstein transformation merely transforms one version of a null Ricci metric to another. There is no physics here, just a vacuum. 7) We have shown by computer algebra that the Kruskal transformation is incorrect, it produces a non-null Einstein tensor from an initially null Einstein tensor, and violates the dual identity. 8) The null version of the Kruskal transformation is also incorrect. 9) There can be no Hawking radiation, we have tested by computer that this theory is also incorrect because of neglect of torsion. There are no black holes in nature, no big bang and no dark matter. A great amount of pseudo-science is all that these ideas amount to. 10) We tested by computer algebra that the Reissner Nordstrom. Kerr, Kerr Newman and FLRW metrics also violate the dual identity due to neglect of torsion.

Therefore the whole of twentieth century gravitational theory is obsolete. This has been pointed out to Hawking and Rees. I believe that Penrose has retired. All of this is well known by now and well accepted, and we are proceeding with our own equations of dynamics and our own methods of publishing and education. Twentieth century gravitational theory was just pseudo-physics, and will be increasingly rejected. The above criticisms are simple to understand and cannot be remedied without proper inclusion of torsion.

British Civil List Scientist

Trapped in a Corner, Surrounded by Paint

September 28, 2014

“From now on an establishment dogmatist is going to find it very difficult to correspond with me. They have delivered innumerable ad hominem attacks, made many personal threats and so on, and have distorted history, but have failed abysmally to defend Einsteinian general relativity. My correspondence will be limited to real scientists, of this inner circle and a few others. This is in keeping with my status as a Civil List Pensioner employed directly by the Head of State, and as a member of the Gentry. It is essentially impossible to correspond with dogmatists such as Hawking and Penrose, who have admitted defeat. It is completely impossible to correspond with senior members of the Royal Family for example, and almost as impossible to correspond with self styled establishment of physics. However, anyone can read the ECE sites and this blog.”

Suits us. No real scientist wants to write to you … and they sure-as-hell do not want to hear from you. So just stay there, geographically and intellectually isolated from the world of real physics. Meanwhile we shall do everything possible to shame the RSC into petitioning Her Majesty to remove (a truly history-making event!) your Civil List status, which you serve only to bring into disrepute. On the subject of not being able to contact royalty, why not ask your friend ‘Colonel’ ‘Sir’ Turner-Thomas ‘VC’, ‘GC’ etc. to ask his employer, the Countess of Wessex, to get you an audience. Oops, we had quite forgotten that everything that Turner-Thomas claims is a blatant lie. Did he teach you that technique? 

Homework for Ron

September 28, 2014

Ignorance of Torsion

September 28, 2014

The most blatant error in black hole theory is neglect of torsion. By now this is well known internationally. The reaction of dogmatists like Barnard is also well known. ”

Ron is required to go through the following papers, and explain exactly why they are incorrect. This might be difficult, for several reasons: a) he cannot avoid the work by invoking his usual pathetic mantra, “they have neglected torsion”, b) his math in general is not good enough (have you noticed that he has a very limited repertoire of techniques?) and c) most of the papers are hidden behind a paywall (not being a proper academic, he does not have free access and – living on his investment savvy –  he cannot afford the fees). He might like to ask Sam Spade for help LOL.

Classical and Quantum Gravity

Volume 31, Issue 9, 7 May 2014, Article number 095001

Continuous phase transition and critical behaviors of 3D black hole with torsion

Ma, M.-S., Liu, F. Zhao, R.


We study the phase transition and the critical behavior of the BTZ black hole with torsion obtained in (1 + 2)-dimensional Poincaré gauge theory. According to Ehrenfest’s classification, when the parameters in the theory are arranged properly, the BTZ black hole with torsion may possess the second-order phase transition which is also a smaller mass/larger mass black hole phase transition. Nevertheless, the critical behavior is different from the one in the van der Waals liquid/gas system. We also calculated the critical exponents of the relevant thermodynamic quantities, which are the same as the ones obtained in the Hořava-Lifshitz black hole and the Born-Infeld black hole. 

Physical Review D – Particles, Fields, Gravitation and Cosmology

Volume 89, Issue 4, 5 February 2014, Article number 044005

Phase transition and entropy spectrum of the BTZ black hole with torsion

Ma, M.-S., Zhao, R.


In this paper, we study the phase transition and the entropy spectrum of the Bañados-Teitelboim-Zanelli (BTZ) black hole with torsion obtained in (1+2)-dimensional Poincaré gauge theory. By calculating the heat capacity, we find that the BTZ black hole with torsion we consider will experience phase transition at some critical point. This indicates that the critical behaviors of black holes do not only depend on the geometry of spacetime, but also have to do with the theory of gravity under consideration. In addition, we derive the entropy spectrum of the BTZ black hole according to the quasinormal modes and the adiabatic invariance. It shows that the area or entropy spectrum will also rely on the concrete gravitational action. 

Physical Review D – Particles, Fields, Gravitation and Cosmology

Volume 89, Issue 2, 8 January 2014, Article number 023001

Dirac quasinormal modes of Chern-Simons and BTZ black holes with torsion

Bécar, R., González, P.A., Vásquez, Y.

View references (60)


We study Chern-Simons black holes in d dimensions and we calculate analytically the quasinormal modes of fermionic perturbations. Also, we consider as background the five-dimensional Chern-Simons black hole with torsion and the BTZ black hole with torsion. We have found that the quasinormal modes depend on the highest power of curvature present in the Chern-Simons theory, such as that which occurs for the quasinormal modes of scalar perturbations. We also show that the effect of the torsion is to modify the real part of the quasinormal frequencies, which modify the oscillation frequency of the field for the five-dimensional case. However, for the BTZ black hole with torsion, the effect is to modify the imaginary part of these frequencies, that is, the relaxation time for the decay of the black hole perturbation. The imaginary part of the quasinormal frequencies is negative, which guarantees the stability of these black holes under fermionic field perturbations. 

Physical Review D – Particles, Fields, Gravitation and Cosmology

Volume 88, Issue 10, 11 November 2013, Article number 101501

“Exotic” black holes with torsion

Blagojević, M., Cvetković, B., Vasilić, M.


In the context of three-dimensional gravity with torsion, the concepts of standard and “exotic” Bañados-Teitelboim-Zanelli black holes are generalized by going over to black holes with torsion. This approach provides a unified insight into thermodynamics of black holes, with or without torsion. 

Journal of High Energy Physics

Volume 2013, Issue 2, 2013, Article number 039

Exact charged black-hole solutions in D-dimensional f (T) gravity: Torsion vs curvature analysis

Capozziello, S.ab, González, P.A., Saridakis, E.N., Vásquez, Y.


We extract exact charged black-hole solutions with flat transverse sections in the framework of D-dimensional Maxwell-f (T) gravity, and we analyze the singularities and horizons based on both torsion and curvature invariants. Interestingly enough, we find that in some particular solution subclasses there appear more singularities in the curvature scalars than in the torsion ones. This difference disappears in the uncharged case, or in the case where f (T) gravity becomes the usual linear-in-T teleparallel gravity, that is General Relativity. Curvature and torsion invariants behave very differently when matter fields are present, and thus f (R) gravity and f (T) gravity exhibit different features and cannot be directly re-casted each other.

Journal of Physics: Conference Series

Volume 128, 2008, Article number 012001

Supersymmetric 3D gravity with torsion: Asymptotic symmetries and black hole stability

Cvetković, B., Blagojević, M.

We show that N = 1+1 supersymmetric extension of 3D gravity with torsion, with suitable boundary conditions, has the asymptotic superconformal symmetry. The existence of exact supersymmetries implies the stability conditions for the black hole solutions. 

Modern Physics Letters A

Volume 22, Issue 40, 28 December 2007, Pages 3047-3055

Stability of 3D black hole with torsion

Cvetkovic, B., Blagojević, M.


Using N = 1+1 supersymmetric extension of the three-dimensional gravity with torsion, we show that a generic black hole has no exact supersymmetries, the extremal black hole has only one, while the zero-energy black hole has two. Combining these results with the asymptotic supersymmetry algebra, we are naturally led to interpret the zero-energy black hole as the ground state of the Ramond sector, and analogously, the anti-de Sitter solution as the ground state of the Neveu-Schwarz sector. 

Proceedings of the 4th Summer School in Modern Mathematical Physics, MPHYS 2006

2006, Pages 51-62

The influence of torsion on the black hole entropy in 3D gravity

Blagojević, M., Cvetković, B.


We study thermodynamic properties of the black hole with torsion in the semi-classical approximation to the gravitational partition function. The entropy of the black hole differs from the standard Beckenstein-Hawking result, but its form is in complete agreement with the first law of black hole mechanics.

Journal of High Energy Physics

Volume 2006, Issue 10, 1 October 2006, Article number 005

Black hole entropy from the boundary conformal structure in 3D gravity with torsion

Blagojević, M., Cvetković, B.


Asymptotic symmetry of the Euclidean 3D gravity with torsion is described by two independent Virasoro algebras with different central charges. Elements of this boundary conformal structure are combined with Cardy’s formula to calculate the black hole entropy. 

Physics Letters, Section B: Nuclear, Elementary Particle and High-Energy Physics

Volume 319, Issue 1-3, 1993, Pages 87-95

Two-dimensional black hole with torsion

Solodukhin, S.N.


The 2D model of gravity with zwcibeins ca and the Lorentz connection one-form ωba as independent gravitational variables is considered and it is shown that the classical equations of motion are exactly integrated in a coordinate system determined by the components of the 2D torsion. The metric can be written in a Schwarzschild-like form. The general solution describes a black hole of charged type in asymptotic de Sitter space-time. The ADM mass and the Hawking temperature of the black hole are calculated.

Nuclear Physics B

Volume 385, Issue 3, 1992, Pages 527-557

Strings on curved space-times: Black holes, torsion, and duality

Ginsparg, P., Quevedo, F.


We present a general discussion of strings propagating on noncompact coset spaces G/H in terms of gauged WZW models, emphasizing the role played by isometries in the existence of target-space duality. Fixed points of the gauged transformations induce metric singularities and, in the case of abelian subgroups H, become horizons in a dual geometry. We also give a classification of models with a single timelike coordinate together with an explicit list for dimensions D ≤ 10. We study in detail the class of models described by the cosets SL(2, ℝ)⊗ SO(1, 1)D-2/SO(1, 1). For D ≥ 2 each coset represents two different space-time geometries: (2d black hole)×ℝD-2 and (3d black string) ⊗ℝD-3 with nonvanishing torsion. They are shown to be dual in such a way that the singularity of the former geometry (which is not due to a fixed point) is mapped to a regular surface (i.e. not even a horizon) in the latter. These cosets also lead to the conformal field theory description of known and new cosmological string models.

“The general public is well aware that black holes do not exist, and that the funding of physics is being cut severely. ”

The ‘general public’ could not care less about black holes, but it would be lost without Satnav working to pin-point accuracy. As Barnard points out, GPS can achieve this only because of the truth of general relativity. 

“I am still waiting for the dogmatists to address proofs one to five on, and the commutator method. Stephen Crothers reduces Barnard’s argument to nonsense. “

Well we are still waiting for Ron to explain how his theory incorporates tidal effects and quantitatively explains the Hafele-Keating results. Sam Spade reduces only himself to nonsense. 

“All of this is taking place within the context of a blatantly incorrect torsionless theory.”

The above papers (a mere sample of the total literature) reveal Ron to be a liar (gee, who knew?)

“That has been refuted many times by ECE theory. “

ECE theory is based upon mathematical errors.

“The dogmatists immediately resort to ad hominem attacks because they are unable to argue scientifically. “

Calling all of those, who bring up valid objections to a crackpot theory, ‘trolls’, ‘stalkers’ and even ‘terrorists’ is not exactly a valid scientific argument. Untruthfully accusing them of making death-threats is blatant defamation. Pseudoscientific loony-tunes are beyond the scientific pale and richly deserve every insult that they receive.

 “If Hawking has admitted that black holes do not exist then funding for this work should cease immediately and an enquiry started into why so much money has been wasted on rubbish physics.”

Big ‘if’. Why not ask NASA why it wasted millions of dollars on trying to reproduce a non-existent ‘effect’ which physicists had correctly ascribed to an experimental artefact from the very outset. This is why pseudoscience is dangerous: the people who hold the purse-strings are not physicists and are liable to fund preferentially those who offer ‘something-for-nothing’. 

Losing Your Memory, Ron?

September 27, 2014

Peter Who?

September 27, 2014

Peter Who? Ridley’s cheap inuendo will not change geometry. No e mailing to me Mr Ridley. I looked you up on google and can find no credentials except kitchen systems for waste caddies.”

From: peter ridley …
To: ray dela …t
Sent: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 8:42
Subject: Re: Membership of Principia Scientific International

Hi Ray,

Thanks very much for doing that. I’m just wondering if those E-mails of mine with nothing but the attachment somehow arose from me trying to open the attachment with IE or Firefox.

That list of Ccs is helpful because it includes at least one of the AIAS members for whom I had no E-mail address, Robert Fell. I checked up on him and was surprised to come across this article ( on a site called Crackpotwatch. Both Kerry Pendergast (with whom I have had sokme interesting ‘phone chats) and Robert are mentioned (

I’m rather surprised at Professor Evans’s comment that ” .. I will have no further contact with Ridley and they should remove all AIAS names .. “. Maybe he thinks that I am a member of PSI and close associate of John O’Sulivan’s, which is way off the mark.

Must dash as “she who must be obeyed” is calling.

Best regards, Pete

From: Raymond W.J. Delaforce
Sent: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 5:09
Subject: FW: Membership of Principia Scientific International

Ok, Pete, here’s Prof. Evans’ reply to me.

From: E Myrone …
Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2013 1:35 AM (NB: USA time)
To: ray dela…; rob …; penn bonvivant…; gareth john evans ….; burleigh personal …; steve bannister …; graham hall …; d w lindstrom …; ver …; c r .. solarinc …; a z jadczyk …; sean …; bo lehnert …; croca …; the narmis …; alex hill …; rpmc …; avanderm …; m purcell …; c cefalas ….; f damador …; horsteck …; d blake …; robert thomas …; john pethica …; reed n …; henryk ratajczak …; t olgayarman …
Subject: Re: Membership of Principia Scientific International

OK many thanks, I will have no further contact with Ridley and they should remove all AIAS names.

AIAS President

In a message dated 08/07/2013 21:02:57 GMT Daylight Time, ray dela … writes:
Hello Prof. Evans,

Sorry for my long absence in group participation. I don’t know when I’ll be able to dedicate time again.
I just wanted to let you know that apparently Principia Scientific International (PSI) still list AIAS members on their website.
Out of courtesy (and because you prohibited Pete Ridley from contacting you directly which he honored), I am forwarding you the full exchange below.

Ray Delaforce

P.S. Congratulations on another successful annual meeting. Very nice pictures taken by Bernhard Foltz.

From: peter ridley …
Sent: Sunday, July 07, 2013 6:05 AM
To: ray dela ….
Subject: Re: Membership of Principia Scientific International

Hi Ray,

Thanks for your prompt response which confirms my own understanding etc. etc. etc. SEE BELOW


From: Raymond W.J. Delaforce …To: peter ridley …Sent: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 22:58Subject: RE: Membership of Principia Scientific International

Hello Mr. Ridley,

Our exchange was effectively forwarded to other AIAS members when Prof. Evans replied to me (see attachment – can be opened by Microsoft Internet Explorer). Again, I’m replying only to you with permission to make public my reply. However, please do not forward this e-mail as-is because that would expose Prof. Evans’ private group e-mail list (in the attachment).

Ray Delaforce

From: peter ridley …

To: ray dela …
Sent: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 9:04
Subject: Re: Membership of Principia Scientific International

Hi Ray,

Thanks for forwarding the exchanges to Prof. Evans.

Would you consider the merits of also forwarding our exchanges to your fellow-AIAS members. I sent my E-mail of 6th July (the earliest in this thread) to most of them. Several have reponded in a similar manner to what yu did excepting that they wished me to respect the P&C nature of their responses.

Maybe they will change their minds if their responses align with those of other AIAS members – particularly Professor Evans’s.

I have updated my articles “PSI and AIAS Affiliation” ( and “SpotlightON – PSI and PSI Acumen Ltd” in line with those exchanges (observing P&C) but in my opinion this is a matter of public interest. I say that because of the broad Internet coverage at an international level that PSI’s front man John O’Sullivan provides himself with. Far too many intelligent people have accepted his various and numerous misleading claims on face value without doing any form of due diligence. One of those was Professor Evans, another was Dr. Habibullo Ismailovich Abdussamatov, also still listed on the PSI web-page as a member despite him have subsequently “walked away” from PSI after I directed him to my blog articles.

Best regards, Pete


From: Raymond W.J. Delaforce …

To: E Myrone …
CC: peter ridley ….
Sent: Mon, 8 Jul 2013 21:03
Subject: RE: Membership of Principia Scientific International

Hello Prof. Evans,

Sorry for my long absence in group participation. I don’t know when I’ll be able to dedicate time again.
I just wanted to let you know that apparently Principia Scientific International (PSI) still list AIAS members on their website.
Out of courtesy (and because you prohibited Pete Ridley from contacting you directly which he honored), I am forwarding you the full exchange below.

Ray Delaforce

P.S. Congratulations on another successful annual meeting. Very nice pictures taken by Bernhard Foltz.


Other E-mails to be added here

From: peter ridley …

To: ray dela …
Sent: Sun, 7 Jul 2013 11:05
Subject: Re: Membership of Principia Scientific International

Hi Ray,
Thanks for your prompt response which confirms my own understanding following exchanges with Dr. Evans last November. Thanks for allowing me to publicise what you have said. I have no objection to you forwarding my E-mails to anyone you think should see it. Unfortunately Dr. Evans has asked me to remove his E-mail from my circulation so I leave it to you to bring him up to speed.

In my opinion the names of AIAS members were deliberately left on the PSI list of members in order to give the impression of a successful membership campaign. I believe that the reasons for that relate to what is presented in Appendix D of “SpotlightON – PSI Acumen Ltd”. (

Best regards, Pete

From: Raymond W.J. Delaforce
To: peterridley …
Sent: Sun, 7 Jul 2013 5:34
Subject: RE: Membership of Principia Scientific International

Hello Mr. Ridley,
I was not aware my name was associated with the blogging group, Principia Scientific International (PSI).

The group with which I am associated, AIAS, is headed by Prof. Myron W. Evans.
Actually, I have not participated in any AIAS discussions for over a year now. This is for personal reasons (lack of time mostly), and should not be construed as any disagreement with any AIAS members.
That being said, I’m quite behind in reading the AIAS group e-mails. In fact, your correspondence is somewhat of a coincidence as I am almost up November, 2012, the time around which AIAS ultimately declined to “join” (or otherwise enter into some type of cooperative agreement) with PSI. I could attach AIAS e-mails to this effect, but I see you yourself were in the discussion (November 7, 2012…)
Perhaps PSI was looking for an explicit ‘no’ from each member of AIAS before removing their name. If so, this would explain my listing as a member of PSI as I did not explicitly contact them to remove my name.
However, if AIAS in general declined membership, then I trust that decision and wish to have my name removed.

You have my permission to forward this to anyone you like.
(I honor your P and C by replying only to you. However, I request you forward a copy to Prof. Evans.)


Ray Delaforce

Other E-mails to be added here

From: peterridley …
To: alwyn.vandermerwe …
Also sent separately to Ray Delaforce … Dr. Doug Lindstrom … Victor Riecansky … Professor Bo Lehnert …, Prof. Jose Croca …, Professor Costas Cefalas …. Franklin Amador …, Simon Clifford …; Dr Liuda Pozhar …, 
Sent: Sat, 6 Jul 2013 11:55
Subject: Membership of Principia Scientific International

Hi Professor Vandermerwe,

Please excuse me for contacting you uninvited but you are listed in “A SELECTION OF MEMBER BIOGRAPHIES” of a blogging group calling itself Principia Scientific International (

Numerous dubious claims have been made by this group, including claims regarding membership (see , and related posts).

Numerous individuals who are claimed to be members have confirmed that either they were never members in the first place or have subsequently dissociated from the group so I wonder if you are prepared to comment on the status of your claimed membership.

I regard one-to-one exchanges as being Private and Confidential between the two individuals but if you do reply then I would appreciate you advising whether ot not you wish me to observe the PandC nature of your response.

Best regards, Pete Ridley

More to be added here


Message Received: Feb 25 2013, 11:42 AM
From: “Pete Ridley” …
To: d w lindstrom …, croca …, ray dela …, bo lehnert …, l pozhar …, c cefalas …, f damador …, simon m r clifford …
Cc: E Myrone …, …, kp …
Subject: Membership of blogging group Principia Scientific International?

The Principia Scientific International (PSI) blogging group’s list of members ( includes about 23 AIAS members, despite Professor Myron Evans saying in an E-mail of 8th Nov. (attached ” .. I informed Mr. O’Sullivan that the due diligence of PSI had resulted in AIAS deciding not to join it. Obviously, he should remove the names of AIAS colleagues from PSI .. “.

Because of misleading claims made previously about PSI membership I will be contacting each of the named individuals about whose membership of PSI I have doubts, initially the AIAS members, asking if they will confirm or deny that they are members of PSI.

Would you be prepared to advise me about your status so that I can update my article “SpotlightOn – Principia Scientific International ( This includes a section  “4.0 Over-ambitious and questionable Membership Claims”, sub-section 4.2 covering the Alpha Institute of Advanced Studies. Relevant supplementary extracts from Professor Evans’s blog have also been provided in “PSI AND AIAS – AFFILIATION OCTOBER-NOVEMBER 2012” (

If anyone would like to have a chat my number is ….. ……

Please would you pass this on to the following AIAS members for whom I do not have an E-mail address. All are named as members of Principia Scientific International. Corneliu Ciubotari, Nils Abramson, Professor Bill Coffey, Professor Jo Moscicki, Professor Sisir Roy, Michael J. Jackson, Stephen J. Crothers, Alwyn van der Merwe, Dr. Frank Lichtenberg, Alexander Labounsky, Robert Fell

Best regards, Pete Ridley


More to be added here


Message Received: Feb 24 2013, 11:08 PM
From: “Pete Ridley” …
To: “Kerry Pendergast” …
Cc: kp.phys …
Subject: FW: RE: Re: Membership of blogging group Principia Scientific International?

Hi Kerry,

Thanks for being prepared to have exchanges with me (a complete stranger) and for spending so much time with me on the ‘phone – all fascinating stuff which I’ll make the time to follow up on.

I’m sending this short E-mail really to check up on the E-mail address that I thought I heard, tp.phys … which I subsequently suspected was …..

I attach the exchanges that I have had with Victor which are similar to what I propose to have with other AIAS members.

You can find out more about my interest and involvement with the Principia Scientific International blogging group at Section 4 of which directly relates to AIAS.

Meanwhile, can you let me know what if anything I am at liberty to post there about your membership of PSI which is described at

On the scientific matter of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (CACC) that most interests me, i.e. the claim to be able to determine past atmospheric CO2 concentration from air allegedly “trapped” unchanged in ice for decades, centuries and millenia, my position is pretty well described in my comments on my thread “Another Hockey Stick Illusion?” on Cambridge University’s “Naked Scientists” science forum (

In my opinion the most revealing comment on that thread was Professor Eric Wolffe’s closing statement “I think that none of us has a definite molecular-level understanding of the physical process occurring at closeoff, and it would be great if someone can do the experiments in the lab to understand that better.” (

I would appreciate any help that you or associates can give me on the movement of gas molecules (particularly CO2 in relation to N2, O2, Ar, CH4) in nano-porous media (such as exists during the time that snow is being compressed to solid ice – i.e. firn) and subsequently through the solid ice lattice.

My hypothesis is that CO2, having a smaller kinetic diameter that the other gases, will continue diffusing down the pressure gradient towards the surface in the firn and that it may more easily move through the solid ice lattice thereafter, again towards the surface.

Of course, not being a scientists I could be totally mistaken.

Best regards, Pete


Message Received: Feb 24 2013, 09:15 AM

From: “Victor Riecansky” …
To: peter ridley …
Cc:Subject: RE: Re: Membership of blogging group Principia Scientific International?

Yes, of course, please go ahead

Victor Riecansky
Cambridge International Science Publishing
ver …

Message Received: Feb 23 2013, 06:46 PM
From: “Pete Ridley” …
To: “Victor Riecansky” …
Cc:Subject: RE: Re: Membership of blogging group Principia Scientific International?

Hi Victor,

Thanks for the speedy response which is in line with what I expected.

Am I OK to go ahead and say that you are NOT and have never been a member of John O’Sullivan’s Principia Scientific International blogging group?

Best regards, Pete

Message Received: Feb 23 2013, 03:51 PM
From: “Victor Riecansky” …
To: peter ridley …
Cc:Subject: RE: Re: Membership of blogging group Principia Scientific International?

Hi Pete
Thank you for your email. I am afraid I have no idea what this is about. We publish AIAS books and a journal, that is all.
Kind regards

Victor Riecansky
Cambridge International Science Publishing
ver …

From: Pete Ridley …
Sent: 23 February 2013 12:29
To: cisp …
Subject: FW: Re: Membership of blogging group Principia Scientific International?

Hi Victor,

I am developing an article “SpotlightOn – Principia Scientific International
( which includes a section “4.0 Over-ambitious and questionable Membership Claims”, sub-section 4.2 covering the Alpha Institute of Advanced Studies.

The PSI blogging group’s list of members ( includes you among about 20 other AIAS members, despite what Professor Myron Evans says in his E-mail of 8th Nov. (attached ” .. I informed Mr. O’Sullivan that the due diligence of PSI had resulted in AIAS deciding not to join it. Obviously, he should remove the names of AIAS colleagues from PSI .. “.

Because of misleading claims made previously about PSI membership I will be contacting each of the named individuals about whose membership of PSI I have doubts, initially the AIAS members, asking if they will confirm or deny that they are members of PSI.

Would you be prepared to advise me about your status?

I tried to ‘phone you today on your CISP number but it went to messages. If you would like to have a chat my number is ….. …….

Best regards, Pete Ridley

Message Received: Nov 12 2012, 11:09 PM
From: “Pete Ridley” …
To: timothy ball …, ““joe Olson”” …, “Oliver Manuel” …, tom harris …, philip foster …, “Andrew Skolnick” …, “Barbara Bracci-O’Sullivan” …, “Steve Mennie” …, “Viv Forbes” …, tom climatechangedispatch …, tom neveu …. alex hill …; rpmc …; a vanderm …; c cefalas …; f damador …; mksegumeto …; simon m r clifford …; horsteck …; dewi lewis …; and 34 others
Cc:Subject: FW: Re: Membership of blogging group Principia Scientific International?

Please find appended two further exchanges with Professor Evans that you may be interested in. They concern the 1st Nov. announcement of PSI’s affiliation with AIAS (
I notice that the PSI web-site still claims that several AIAS members, including Professor Evans, are PSI members despite Professor Evans’s ” .. I informed Mr. O’ Sullivan that the due diligence of PSI had resulted in AIAS deciding not to join it. Obviously, he should remove the names of AIAS colleagues from PSI .. “.

Perhaps someone should notify the PSI Web-master (Thomas Richard?).

Best regards, Pete Ridley

Message Received: Nov 11 2012, 11:27 PM
To: pete ridley ….
Cc:Subject: Copy of your inquiry of AIAS


Professor Myron Evans has posted a notice on his blog saying \”AIAS has not Joined PSI
Aftet due diligence AIAS has decided not to join PSI\” (

The web-site of the Principia Scientific International blogging group still claims many if not all of AIAS members as having become members of PSI (

Please would you advise whether or not this is an accurate reflection of the current status relating to the previously announced affiliation of AIAS and PSI.
Information on the formation of PSI can be found at the Global Political Shenanigans site ( in articles published during May & June 2012
Best regards, Pete Ridley

2012-11-11 @ 23:25 approx. E-mailed via

Message Received: Nov 08 2012, 08:00 AM
From: “Pete Ridley” …
To: E Myrone …
Cc: rob …, penn bonvivant …, ray dela …, “Axel Westrenius” …, gareth john evans …, burleigh …, novam …, kp phys …, graham hall …, d w lindstrom …, ver …, cr1460solarinc …, azjadczyk …, bo .lehnert …, croca …, thenarmis …
Subject: Re: Membership of blogging group Principia Scientific International?

Hi Professor Evens,

Thanks for another quick response to my E-mail. I have taken the liberty to copy your response to the others in the circulation. I see from your blog that you have in the past posted e-mail exchanges there and would ask that it you do so with these ones then please would you consider the merits of removing the E-mail addresses (but not necessarily the names of those in the circulation).
Not everyone likes their E-mail address made public.

Thanks also for your comment about your involvement in molecular dynamics simulation. If any of your colleagues have expertise in that area then I’d appreciate having a chat about it.

thanks again and best regards, Pete Ridley

Message Received: Nov 08 2012, 06:38 AM
From: E Myrone …
To: peter ridley …
Cc:Subject: Re: Membership of blogging group Principia Scientific International?

I informed Mr. O’ Sullivan that the due diligence of PSI had resulted in AIAS deciding not to join it. Obviously, he should remove the names of AIAS colleagues from PSI. On the subject of molecules in porous solids I am a pioneer of molecular dynamics simulation but I have not doen much work in that area myself. My work is available on _www.aias.us_ ( .

The internet throws up all kinds of strange things, so I have decided that from now on AIAS will not affiliate itself with any other institution. Individual Fellowships are awarded only after a long assessment time, and to people who are capable and contribute positively to new science.

Nov 07 2012, 08:27 PM
From: peter ridley …To: E Myrone …
Cc: rob …, pennbonvivant …, raydela …, corbis …, gareth john evans …, burleigh …, novam …, kp.phys …, graham hall …, d w lindstrom …, ver …, cr1460solarinc …, azjadczyk …, bo lehnert …, croca …, thenarmis …, alex hill …, rpmc …, a vanderm …, c cefalas …, f d amador …, mksegumeto …, simon m r clifford …, ….lpozhar …, timothy ball …, “joe Olson” …, “Oliver Manuel” …, tom harris…, philip foster…, “Andrew Skolnick” …, “Barbara Bracci-O’Sullivan” …, “Steve Mennie” …>, “Viv Forbes” …, tom climatechangedispatch …, tom neveu … and 35 others
Subject: Membership of blogging group Principia Scientific International?

…. Hi Professor Evans,

Thanks for your quick response to my “general enquiry” of 6th Nov. When I read the PSI blog article “AN EPIC WEEK OF SUCCESS FOR PSI” ( that “ .. we are now affiliated with the Alpha Institute for Advanced Studies .. ” my instant reaction was that it was likely to be just another self-aggrandising claim without substance, hence my contacting you.

The PSI article claims that “ .. No less than fourteen of our new members appear in ‘Who’s Who,’ with the most notable figure among them being Welshman Professor Myron Evans, a Nobel Science Prize nominee .. ”. I have had my doubts about the claimed membership of PSI displayed on one of its “about” pages “INDEPENDENT, FREE-THINKERS: SELECT MEMBER BIOGRAPHIES” ( I see that you and other AIAS members have now been added to it. You say that you and your associates at AIAS “ .. decided not to join PSI but act as observers .. ” however the names and biographies of individuals listed in your “Biographies of AIAS Fellows” ( have recently been added to PSI’s list of members. PSI claims as its members you, Ray Delaforce, Victor Riecansky, Dr. Doug Lindstrom, Prof. Jose Croca, Kerry Pendergast, Professor Corneliu Ciubotariu, Ray Delaforce, Professor Bo Lehnert, Nils Abramson, Professor Bill Coffey, Professor Jo Moscicki, Dr Liuda Pozhar, Professor Sisir Roy and Victor Riecansky, along with associates of yours, Michael J. Jackson and Robert Cheshire.

That seems to contradict what you said to me in your E-mail of 7th Nov. so I wonder if you’d be good enough to tell me whether or not those claims about your membership of PSI are true. None of those biographies from your “Biographies of AIAS Fellows” appeared in the copy of PSI’s “ .. SELECT MEMBER BIOGRAPHIES” that I saved only a few days ago so there is cause for puzzlement.

One explanation could be that you all did at one time indicate that you all wished to become PSI members but have since dissociated yourself from PSI. This would not be the first time a high-profile and respected Professor has done this. Dr. Claes Johnson, Professor of Applied Mathematics, School of Computer Science and Communication at the Sweden’s Royal Institute of Technology did in correspondence with Professor Judith Curry, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Tech. ( on:
– 9th Oct. 2011 “ .. As you should know, I am no longer a Slayer, if I ever was. .. ”
( and
– 15th Oct. 2011 “ .. As I have said, I am not a member of any group subject to group thinking, in particular not the slayers group .. ” (
Professor Johnson is only listed as being a “Consultant/ Friend of PSI” along with Professor Oliver Manuel who was at one time listed as a co-author of the book “Slaying the Sky Dragon” (Note 2) which now only lists the “founding members” identified in the biographies.

It is claimed that even blogging group PSI’s “Chairman” Dr. Tim Ball, one-time Professor of Geography at the University of Winnipeg ( has said “ .. I legally disassociated myself from O’Sullivan very early and though he provided commentary he never acted as legal counsel. I cannot disconnect myself from the book as it is in the public record .. ” (

Anyone puzzled about references to the “slayers”, the “slayers group” or the “book” can find out more at the Global Political Shenanigans blog (

I see that you are no stranger to defamation and stalking issues ( Items in the latter of particular interest to me were your comments of 24th and 25th January 2012 under the headings “Desist from Defamation”, “Defamatory email”. There’s a lot of interesting stuff there and I thank you for putting it into the public domain. Taking into consideration exchanges that took place during Nov./Dec. 2011 ( and semi-retired investigative journalist Andrew Skolnick may also find it worth having a look at.

In April 2010 allegations of defamation were made against Professor Judith Curry, Andrew Skolnick and me. My request for substantiation of those allegations drew nothing but insults such as “ .. Ridley, You are a proven liar and a con artist who spends his life trawling the gutter looking for dirt. You and your partner in crime Skolnick are a joke. No wonder nobody takes you seriously .. ” ( It appears that you have enjoyed similar reactions to comments of yours.

As a competent scientist ( I am sure you appreciate that when offering opinions it is always possible that available evidence has been misunderstood or misinterpreted.

This is unacceptable if it is obvious that there has been a deliberate attempt to present a flawed opinion, otherwise every opportunity should be given for a correction to be made. I have no wish to misrepresent anything or defame anyone but simply wish to understand the facts and offer reasonable opinions based thereon. If anyone considers that I have misrepresented any facts or presented unreasonable opinions in this E-mail or in the articles to which I have linked then please let me know specifically where. I shall then review the item and consider whether or not any retraction or apology is warranted. I have asked this on numerous occasions and no-one has followed up on it.

On a totally different subject, have you or your AIAS associates any expertise in the subject of movement of molecules within a porous medium in which the pore size approaches that of the individual molecules.

I have a specific interest in the movement of atmospheric gases within firn ( I appreciate that your time is limited but any help that you might give would be much appreciated.

1) Due to restrictions with my e-mail service I have had to send this E-mail to batches of recipients. All of those who received Professor Evans’s E-mail to me on 7th Nov. have been included in the circulation of this one along with other individuals to whom I make reference.

2) When the book was launched in Nov. 2010 the article “New book: Slaying the Sky Dragon” ( showed Professor Manuel’s name appearing 6th in the list of co-authors presented on the front cover.

Another promotional article shows the same cover and also names all of the authors, including Professor Manuel ( By December his name had been removed (

Professor Manuel was involved with the “Slayers”/PSI group from a very early stage (at least July 2010 –, being the first member of the group to E-mail an offer of financial support towards setting up PSI as a Community Interest Company (CIC) “ .. I would probably be willing to contribute .. ”. Professor Ball responded quickly with “ .. I am in support of this proposal and will make a contribution .. ” (those exchanges are well worth reading by anyone considering membership of PSI).
Perhaps Professor Manuel will get back to us with clarification on whether he chose to dissociate from the “Slayers”/PSI or there was some other reason.

Best regards, Pete Ridley

Message Received: Nov 07 2012, 06:35 AM
From: E Myrone …To: peter ridley …, rob …, pennbonvivant …, raydela …, corbis …, gareth john evans …, burleigh …, novam …, kp.phys …, graham hall …, d w lindstrom …, ver …, cr1460solarinc …, azjadczyk …, bo lehnert …, croca …, thenarmis …, alex hill …, rpmc …, a vanderm …, c cefalas …, f d amador …, mksegumeto …, simon m r clifford …, ….lpozhar …, and 35 others
Cc:Subject: Fwd: AIAS Inquiry from AIAS website

We did our due diligence and decided not to join PSI but act as observers.

From: peter.ridley ….
To: e myrone …
Sent: 06/11/2012 18:34:22 GMT Standard Time
Subj: AIAS Inquiry from AIAS website

…. The following is an inquiry from the AIAS contact page:
… Pete Ridley …. General enquiry … Comment

AIAS is mentioned in an article “AN EPIC WEEK OF SUCCESS FOR PSI” by John O’Sullivan, the self-proclaimed “CEO & Legal Consultant” of blogging group Principia Scientific International. John claims that ” .. We’ve seen a sudden and most welcome influx of new members and we are now affiliated with the Alpha Institute for Advanced Studies .. “.

Please would you advise if that claim of John’s is correct (his claims have often been challenged). If it is then any such relationship reflects on AIAS. I recommend that anyone contemplating getting involved with PSI does their own very careful “due diligence” investigation first. A useful starting point would be and other articles on that blog. Numerous other blogs provide more details about the various participants in that group.

Best regard, Pete Ridley
Location London, UK
Sender IP ………..

Crackpots Will Never Understand Science

September 26, 2014

“Good to hear from Dr. Gareth John Evans. This fraud angers me greatly, and they are lucky that I am not a King or a Lord Protector. They should pay back all the money they have taken from the tax payer, and similarly the turbine developers. They should also apologise to honest scholars.”

It is the fact that real science continually tests itself, and modifies its conclusions, which differentiates it from pseudoscience. Can one  imagine Ron ever admitting that his loony theory might be wrong, even in its smallest detail?  We salute those wiser heads at Aberystwyth who spotted Ron as a wrong ‘un all those years ago, and put a spoke in his wheel. Did he not have a hand in the formation of Penderghastly and Sewage? Just look at how they turned out. As a professor, he might have unleashed an entire army of loony-tunes on the world.

Looking Forward

September 25, 2014

“Kerry, Gareth and myself are all chemists trained in handling toxic material. This must be done in a fume cupboard, with rubber gloves. Gareth suggested that he needed lab space for his work so I am following that up. If they explode they can be kept in containers for safety. The lab space will be sufficient and we have inspected it once or twice before. It is an almost new unit but not being used fully for the purposes for which it was designed.”

We hope that this goes ahead. We can hardly wait to bring public attention to the fact that ‘an employee of the Queen’ and the ‘jewel in the crown’ of the RSC is actively pursuing perpetual motion. What larks we shall have. It will also be stark proof that the university was right to disband the EDCL, if this is the quality of the graduates in chemistry that it produced.  Not one of them could find employment as a chemist. Not one of them exhibits any trace of rational scientific behaviour. It is no wonder that Wales is not taken seriously. Perhaps Ron should emigrate to Raleigh: he doesn’t need a Green Card, he knows the State, and companies which are backing dubious projects will pay a lot to a tame ‘academic’ who can apparently provide scientific back-up. Oh, and nobody ever does any jail-time for pseudoscience-based scams. They often even get to keep the money; remember the old Elf-Aquitaine ‘sniffer-plane’ racket?

Electricity Bill

September 25, 2014

“From a quick lit search I found that each fusion reactor measures 20 x 20 x 1 cm., and that the 1 MW plant has 106 of these put together. So presumably each produces one kilowatt. The cost is said to be $1 per megawatt hour, compared with $100 per megawatt hour for coal. The reactor needs alternating current electricity input, and Industrial Heat of Raleigh North Carolina is looking at the cogeneration market. It is said that a plant has been sold to run an industrial system, and to generate both heat and electricity. An international report on LENR is due. So I see no problem in setting it up at Unit 11.”

Our information is that the device has to be plugged-in to a source of AC. Is that not rather unusual for an energy source. Previous scams which required an AC input were later shown to be able to deceive non-experts by playing games with the power-factor or the output waveform. We ourselves know how to arrange things such that two people, simultaneously measuring the same output, using identical meters can get different readings. Energy-fraud would be a great professional career for dishonest young physicists! Ah, but are there any? True scholarship imposes a certain personal morality. Ron seems not to have got the memo,

Works Both Ways

September 25, 2014

“The University of British Columbia (Douglas Lindstrom) is ranked 21, The University of Utah (Steve Bannister) is ranked number 55. The University of Toronto is ranked 15, ahead of Oxford at 18. Cornell is ranked at number four.”

So you are trying to imply that the University of Utah fully endorses the opinions of a teaching-assistant who believes in perpetual motion? That is laughable logic. We could argue that the university itself is the fruit of a religion which was once as despised as scientology is today: the origins of both religions can only be termed comical.  And does it not occur to you that the above dubious reasoning works against you? You have been busily pointing out that Aberystwyth and UNCC are ‘rubbish’ (low in overall ratings), but they are the only places which would put up with you for any length of time. So why should anyone believe the perpetual-motion rantings of the graduate of such a low-class educational establishment? Moreover, we maintain that your DSc was either a publicity stunt which aimed to raise the profile  of your alma mater, or was a desperate attempt to get rid of you by making your CV extra-tempting. By the way, why were you so eagerly suspected of arson and theft; did you already enjoy a louche reputation? 

Wrong Comparisons

September 24, 2014

“AIAS has been number one in the world for nearly a decade for an institute of its type, voluntary and without overheads. The Comparative Impact Table on shows this clearly, together with the well known Book of Scientometrics. There are only about half a dozen active staff members within AIAS but AIAS out impacts entire Schools, and well known ones. We use a range of advanced computer based scientometrics to measure impact.”

No, no, no: you should not compare a loony-tune organisation with real academic institutes, you should compare it with other crackpot organisations. Even there, AIAS is completely outclassed. Look at the Alexa world rankings:

AIAS: 16,984,759

Searlmagnetics: 1,603,893

Cheniere: 774,269

You must remember Searl; you have a link to one of his sites on And Cheniere is run by Dr (internet-bought) Tom Bearden. You must remember him. Former AIAS staff-member? The AIAS validated his perpetual-motion machine by way of ‘scientific’ (LOL) papers in a journal edited by the rationally challenged Van der Merwe? C’mon, Bearden, the guy whose paper on perpetual motion you were able to slip into a formerly reputable academic journal because you had unaccountably been made its editor. You must remember him  You sent, to one of his gang, an open letter endorsing the ‘work’ of cancer-cure fraudster Antoine Priore (thus committing a criminal offence).  Do you remember him now? Well, his loony-tune set-up is doing much better than yours. Better than some bona fide companies in fact. We would love to know what twisted form of scientometrics you have dreamed up in order to produce such fanciful results.

Well done with the spelling of ‘comparative’, by the way. It has been wrongly spelled on the site for years. It makes the site-owner look uneducated but, unfortunately, you can never correct it … because we have pointed it out.

In a spirit of scientometric honesty, we note here  that our blog’s ranking has slipped 5 million places (!) since we announced that we were pulling ahead of Ron. 

Dire Purchase

September 23, 2014

“I am interested in setting up a research laboratory for LENR and spacetime energy (, ) at Aberystwyth Science Park in Wales and I wonder whether you can advise us whether an experimental LENR plant can be set up there, perhaps with the help of Cherokee Industrial Partners and other sources of funding. This laboratory could be used as a research base for new energy devices which could eventually be made in a factory at Aberystwyth. I have been looking around for somewhere to buy a LENR domestic plant but they do not seem to be commercially available as yet. We have done some work on LENR in UFT226 ff. on Theoretical and experimental work could proceed at that laboratory.”

They will never be commercially available because, like the Bessler Wheel, all such gee-gaws work only when the promoter is in attendance. Instead of having scientists look at the Rossi experiment, a few conjurers should have been sent. If we were in the business of fooling the gullible, we would think laterally: for instance, we might openly include electric heating elements in the design. Innocent scientists would agree that they could not account for an anomalous heat output. But just suppose that a suitable gas could be fed-in via the insulated wiring. A platinum catalyst in its path could then produce heat … apparently for ever. Far-fetched? More far-fetched than the 19th-century conman, Keely, secretly feeding compressed air into his ‘free-energy’ machines? It is that sort of lack of imagination on the part on onlookers which is a boon to magicians and fraudsters.

We Cannot Wait …

September 23, 2014

to see the headlines when the press gets wind of this:

“It should be fairly easy to acquire funding to set up a new energy laboratory at Aberystwyth Science Park. I wonder whether Kerry Pendergast or Gareth Evans have visited the Science Park recently. What is the company that has taken over the ECAT technology and can that be approached for funding? Some fortune fifty companies using the Alex Hill devices may also be interested in funding a small laboratory to start developing the Alex Hill devices in Europe. We have been talking about this for some years now, but Kerry is now retired and lives in Aberystwyth, so he could take over the laboratory work there in close cooperation with Douglas Lindstrom and Alex Hill and others, notably Steve Bannister. Gareth Evans could so his work in the same laboratory. If Shell and Volvo are becoming interested as some sites claim, then surely these companies are funding LENR. Fortune fifty companies are using the Alex Hill devices.”

We guess that they would be along the lines of “Having Failed to Found his Own University, Local Crackpot Now Seeks Funding for Perpetual Motion Enterprise“. We wonder why a company that is so supposedly  popular with Fortune-50 companies operates out of a scruffy building (see photos in our previous posts) and has a website which is unranked by Alexa. We are delighted to learn that Penderghastly has retired and is no longer a menace to the scientific understanding of schoolchildren. It seems that education authorities are hot on weeding out paedophiles, but happily employ pseudoscientific science teachers.

Pulling Ahead

September 22, 2014

Thanks, presumably, to a phenomenal burst of interest in our blog yesterday the world site rankings are (according to alexa,com) now:

Us: 5,522,979

Ron: 6,264,482

AIAS: 16,984,343

Don’t forget, folks, high is bad.

The message is clear: AIAS has been essentially written-off as a source of valid scientific information, Ron’s blog is a source of considerable amusement and our blog is the go-to source of rational scientific comment, 

It is also clear that Ron lies continuously about the numbers of visits to, as revealed by its low ranking.

Total Failure

September 20, 2014

“This is the very popular Book of Scientometrics, which currently has about a quarter of a million entries recording the number of times visits have been made to the ECE sites from identifiable universities, institutes and similar.”

And yet you  cannot name a single individual, at those establishments, who has ‘consulted’ your work. Why not allow comments on your blog so that everyone can see all of the congratulations and praise which they send to you?  Why not tell them on the aias site, or on your blog, that it is now safe to come out of hiding. ECE is now the leading theory, is it not, so they have nothing to fear. They can now all march behind the banner with the strange et3m device; Excelsior! 

Goes Without Saying

September 20, 2014

“So the metrics of the Einstein field equation are all incorrect, this is shown in M. W. Evans, S. J. Crothers, H. Eckardt and K. Pendergast, “Criticisms of the Einstein Field Equation” (open source on, read several thousand times without any criticism).”

Strangely true. In the sense that nearly all of the references to it are by Ron. He does not criticize his own theory (although any PhD candidate who failed to do so would be told to go away and re-write his thesis). But surely a ‘Baconian’ scientist knows that ‘experiment trumps theory’. There is no point in arguing about mathematical points if all of the experimental results clearly support the accepted model. Why does Ron refuse to show how his mathematics would be incorporated into explaining tidal effects and the accurate calculation of position via the GPS. Either he cannot manage the calculations, or he knows that his theory is essentially rubbish. Even his closest followers must be asking these questions; remember when Siemens Stain had to take him to task over his silly comments about centrifugal force? 

As Clear as Mud

September 20, 2014

The Precise Meaning of “Planar Orbit”

We wonder whether Ron has been confused by those charts at the NASA Control Centre; the ones where orbits appear to have a sine-wave form. They are not really like that, Ron, it is an effect of the Mercator  projection. In fact, it is difficult to imagine how such a 3D orbit like that could exist. It is quite obvious that orbits will be planar; anything else would be contrary to Newton’s second law. Your so-called 3D orbits seem merely to be planar orbits which are rotating about one of their axes. Why would they do that without a constant external disturbing force? Even if such an orbit were initially set up by a disturbing force, it would not persist … because of gyroscopic effects. Of course,  someone who thinks that the common spinning-top is an antigravity device (Ron, Laithwaite, Aspden, other pretend-physicists) will not understand that.

Handy Guide

September 19, 2014

“Many thanks to Gareth, who has built a substantial career in his own right, being deliberately prevented from becoming a full professor.”

Substantial career? Advising a minute Welsh ‘local authority’ on scientific matters? No doubt it is a cushy post and pays more than a university lectureship, but is it really any career at all for a PhD chemist? Still, nice guide to his mentor’s career; one can see exactly where everything started to go downhill.

Lack-of-Interest Update

September 19, 2014

“There are now 270 papers on the use of torsion on ”

Cited positively only by Ron, to the tune of 99%.

“This site and its concomitant and www. have been read an estimated forty million times in the past eleven years. ”

atomicprecision: no ranking

upitec: no ranking

aias: 17,021,273

Ron’s blog: 6,271,362

Us: 7,755,953

Telesio-Galilei: no ranking

Searl solution: 1,585,596

A crackpot is certainly in the lead, but it is not Ron.

“No scientist accepts black hole theory.”

Blatant pathetic LIE

Tsk, Tsk, Sewage

September 19, 2014

“Photograph 2 attached – from right to left blue laser light changing colour to white, then crimson, then blue before re emerging as blue light on leaving a series of crystals. From above down, green laser light changing to crimson as it passes through the same crystal before re emerging as green light on leaving the crystal. These are frequency shifts right across the visible spectrum possibly confirming Santilli ‘s iso-redshift in a dramatic new way.”

We think that ‘sewage’ Evans (supplier of brackish water to real scientists) should read the scientific literature on optics rather than basing his conclusions on the “Schoolboys’ Big Book of Physics” or some such pot-boiler. But the real point here is that he mentions Santilli. Is not Santilli on Ron’s ‘black list’, together with Fucilla, the TGA and other former ‘friends’ that Ron turned on. Sewage presumably owes loyalty to his mentor, and that is why he did not jump ship, as Dunning-Davies did.

Hoist with Own Petard Again

September 19, 2014

“Many thanks, I had read this article. Its proof leads to the definition of torsion as the difference of antisymmetric connections, a definition that also emerges from the commutator of covariant derivatives. This is exactly the same as in Carroll and our work.”

Have you no sense of irony, Ron? If your silly theory is so much in the ascendant, why does Jensen not mention it, or you? In fact, he cites the same Hehl paper which we mentioned recently. We wonder what Hehl thinks of your theory. Oh, we already know, don’t we? He has published a refutation. And Carroll’s book does not agree with your mathematics, as you have pointed out many times. Are you really cut out for science, Ron? Your ‘fast-talking’ approach seems to be better-suited to selling used cars.

What Gravy Train?

September 18, 2014

“I would say that things are much worse than Boorstin could ever have imagined, it is clear that the geometry used in the Einstein theory is wrong, this basic error is covered up by attempted censorship and other dubious methods.”

If the theory were wrong, its practical applications would not work. Oh, did you not know that it has such uses? That is how real science works, Ron. First there are competing theories, then there is a ‘critical experiment’ which makes one of them the winner. The critical experiment (e.g. Michelson-Morley) is the only one that the public is told about, so laymen often think that just that one experiment has to be undermined in order to disprove a theory. In reality, the critical experiment is repeated to higher and higher accuracy. The experiment may later give rise to an experimental technique (Moessbauer or positron annihilation spectroscopy, for instance). Thereafter, every use of that technique which produces consistent results becomes a further confirmation of the theory. General relativity calculations are basic to the operation of GPS. We have yet to see, Ron, how your ‘twister theory’ can be used to make such practical calculations. Why do you not show us? Can’t do the math? After all, the basis of GPS is simple geometry. You see, Ron, a successful new theory has to be – at least – able to match all of the predictions of the old theory. Anything else would be dishonest and pseudoscientific.

“Carroll accepts ECE theory and taught at Harvard, so they know perfectly well that torsion cannot be zero. ”

No, he does not, and you have frequently dismissed those parts of his book which do not agree with your defective mathematics. You cannot simultaneously slaver over his CV, and tell him that his mathematical steps are wrong.

“So the easy answer is to derail the gravy train. ”

Surely a real scientist (rather than a money-driven crackpot) would know that scientists often play with billion-pound machines but are quite badly paid as individuals. Of course they earn more than the national average, but they earn far less than those – in other professions – who have inferior qualifications. If you wanted money, you should have gone into law, politics, medicine … or supermarket management.

Agreed Entirely

September 17, 2014

“This will not mean much to ordinary people and therein lies the problem, the wool is easily pulled off the sheep and over the eyes, I see no purpose in that at all, so I decided to go my own way and formulated ECE theory.”

Very true! That is what pseudoscientific crackpots like Ron and Sam Spade always count on. Their theoretical back-up is always welcomed by the street-level sciolists, and by unscrupulous journalists in search of a story during the silly season. But Ron goes too far, by espousing perpetual-motion and anti-gravity. Any intelligent non-scientist realizes that this completely undermines Ron’s other claims. 

Deleted Editor

September 17, 2014

““The Post Einstein Paradigm Shift” – the description of ECE by the most eminent physics editor of recent times, Prof. Alwyn van der Mere of Denver University Colorado. All 270 UFT papes are interlinked, all being variations on a theme of a unified field theory based on Cartan’s rigorously correct geometry. So ECE theory has been completely accepted and the obsolete physics completely rejected. Personal attacks via trolling have of course been ignored by the professions. Following a ruling by the Police Commissioner for Wales, Rt. Hon. Alun Michael, trolls commit assault and are criminals. The wikipedia entry on ECE is also a personal attack and has been ignored by scientists worldwide. The attached is overwhelming evidence for the acceptance of ECE theory.”

Merwe was sacked for running the reputation of a journal into the ground. In particular, he weakened the editorial and refereeing standards so much that crackpots were allowed to seep in and push their pseudoscience. The worst example occurred when the editor allowed-in an analysis of a blatant perpetual-motion machine, the Motionless Electromagnetic Generator. This was the invention of ‘Dr’ Thomas Bearden, who ran his Association of Distinguished American Scientists from his house (a sure indicator of a nutcase) and who carries a gun because he fears that ‘men-in-black’ will kill him (he is especially afraid of ice bullets) because of his ‘secret knowledge’.  So who analyzed his ridiculous invention and decided that it was viable? Step forward Ron and the bunch of clowns known as AIAS. So how come, Ron, that when the subject of perpetual motion comes up these days you mention only Rossi and Hill? Are you tacitly admitting that your paper on the MEG was worthless?  If trolling is pointing out to non-scientists, who may not understand the issues, that certain people offer back-up to age-old scams, then pro nostro vitio. Nobody worthwhile cites ECE positively and its inventor is held in such low regard that the only person who can find anything good to say about his biography is the author of that biography! How much longer will the pathetic pretence continue?

Hilarity Reigns

September 16, 2014

“In my opinion the omission of torsion renders the Einstein field equation meaningless.”

It is your opinion which is meaningless.

“By now this is well known around the world. There are now 270 papers on this topic in the UFT section of The black hole metrics were refuted in UFT120 using torsion and in M. W. Evans, S. J. Crothers, H. Eckardt and K. Pendergast, “Criticisms of the Einstein Field Equation” (details on home page of ”

All of which are cited only by Ron and a few other nut-cases.

“Crothers has comprehensively out argued ‘t Hooft and Harvard would do well to appoint Crothers as a tenured full professor.”

Only in the opinion of Crothers and other crackpots. As for being employed in any academic capacity; he tried and failed. On the other hand, he does not have the physique to be a Sam Spade either.

“It is trivial to see that a symmetric connection means a null commutator and a null curvature. The arguments are clear and irrefutable and are available on the www.aias.usblog and site. ”

Blah, blah, blah. It has been shown again and again that you cannot handle the mathematics properly.

“The ECE theory has been read an estimated forty million times in the past eleven years, and many times from Harvard.”

How do you know that it has not been read purely pour rire by, for instance, real physicists at Harvard?

Dead Horse

September 16, 2014

“The obsolete argument was based on the fact that they missed torsion completely, and when it was discovered they simply equated it with zero. If that is done R vanishes. This is dogma and not science, and the dogma is reiterated endlessly. So I decided not to correspond with these dogmatists because the work being done by ECE has been accepted completely by rational scientists”

Nobody missed torsion: it was looked at by just about everybody (including Einstein) … and found decidedly wanting. It was put to rest (if not euthanized) decades ago:

Yes, it is hidden behind a pay-wall. This is what crackpots like Ron count on: pseudoscience is generally free-to-view while real science has to be paid for.  This makes life easy for inhabitants of the lunatic fringe, and is a major defect of the internet.

Whose Absurdity?

September 15, 2014

“Assume that the connection is symmetric, then mu = nu and the commutator vanishes, QED. A null commutator produces a null torsion and null curvature, reductio ad absurdum. This is such a trivially easy argument to follow that I no longer feel it necessary to keep on stating the fact that the connection is antisymmetric – it is antisymmetric from first principles. The old school is welcome to its opinions but they are not scientific. Their argument is always the same, that the connection is symmetric and that the curvature is non-zero.”

The problem, Ron, is that there have been hundreds of papers written about the influence of torsion in the field of general relativity. Nobody apart from other loonies has come to your ludicrous conclusion. One simple way of appreciating this is that your approach leads to energy-from-nowhere and to UFO-style antigravity. As neither of those are experimentally proven facts, their non-existence guides real scientists to rule out your type of theory. The essence of Baconian science was to ‘put the question’ to Nature (in effect, torture her). You never suggest possible critical experiments (failing both Bacon and Popper). What you do is glorified curve-fitting. Show how your theory predicts the Roche Limit and the Hafele-Keating result, or shut up.

What Other Loonies Are Saying

September 14, 2014

Here is another idiot who does not understand the concept of reference frames:

This is not new; just kinda unhelpful from a physicist’s point of view.

Ron’s 3D Spirograph® Game

September 14, 2014

We know of lots of patent applications for centrifugal antigravity drives in which the inventor presents calculations of the propulsive force which would be produced. One cannot fault the mathematical steps. Some idiot with a free computer-algebra program and far too much time on his hands, could check them and find nothing amiss. The problem is that they just do not correspond to reality. This is also true of Ron’s 3D orbit calculations. What sort of orbits are they supposed to be anyway? Are they closed, are they stable? We await, certainly in vain, Ron’s 3D version of Bertrand’s Theorem. 

Gift Suggestion

September 14, 2014

Stuck for an image to put on your Moonpig creation, mug or novelty dartboard? You can have this at a reasonable price,

Of course, if you prefer a different bespectacled bearded crackpot believer in antigravity, you could have,

Dr’ Ennis was, it seems, a former scientific adviser to the Lib.Dems. He also wrote an article for UFO Magazine, in which he claimed that NASA photographs clearly revealed trees (nay forests!) on Mars. His 2001 conference collapsed in disarray after skeptics started to ask the hosting university (sic) why it was dealing with such a loony. Ennis has since moved into ‘Green politics’; rather like Ron.

PS One of us has just remembered that Ennis ran something called the Omega Institute. So that is neat: Ron and Ennis, the Alpha and Omega of loony-tunes.

Opportunity for Ron

September 14, 2014

The website,

is up for sale at a reasonable price. It sounds as though it would be the perfect purchase for someone who thinks that he is European royalty. Also, one would not want the despicable Turner-Thomas to get it. There is another reason why Ron should buy it: sentiment. It previously belonged to a Philip Gibbs, a formerly reputable academic whose career collapsed at about the same time as Ron’s. Gibbs went from publishing in Physics Letters B to publishing in the Scientific GOD Journal and other excrescences of the lunatic fringe, such as vixra (we shall come back to that). Like Ron, he is also a former director of a failed (voluntary dissolution) company (Zettavolt in Gibbs’ case). But it is the vixra papers which are interesting (vixra is the crackpot version of arxiv). Gibbs has no trouble getting published in vixra: nobody does, but the reason is rather different to the usual one (zero quality control) in Gibbs’ case. He owns vixra. Yep, the great white hope of the lunatic fringe is run from a nondescript (but valuable) house in Essex. As Ron says, one does not need fancy buildings in order to run dubious ‘academic’ entities.

t’Hooft Puzzle

September 12, 2014

Rearrange these words into a well-known saying:

boots is lick worthy Ron not  to t’Hooft’s

We Wish …

September 12, 2014

that we could show succinctly to the layman how silly Ron’s latest ‘discoveries’ are. He has become hopelessly bemused by what is really quite a simple matter: the use of coordinate transformations. Physicists, unlike others, always ask themselves ‘where they should be standing’. In the case of a simple collision experiment, for instance, should they ‘travel’ with particle A or particle B, or should they remain at the centre-of-mass of the system. It does not matter: the overall result is the same, but the calculations are often simpler in one particular case. Newton chose to stand outside the Earth, in his imaginary rigid space with fixed time (all later modified by special and general relativity). He formulated his laws for that system. But they do not apply in rotating or otherwise-different systems. In order to continue using his laws, the ‘anomalous’ behaviour of objects in such non-Newtonian systems was explained by introducing fictitious forces. The first one was the centrifugal force. By the way, Ron, you will not know this, but the concept was well known to the ancients. Do you really think that they did not know that one can rotate a bucket so that the water does not fall out? Plutarch used that trick to explain why the Moon did not fall. You really should not depend upon recycling Wikipedia articles (just look at the rubbish in its Pierre Cardin article). Then there was the Coriolis force; again the concept was well known before him. Newton and Hooke had an argument about how the Earth’s rotation would affect the fall of objects. As for that third, unnamed, force which you think that you have discovered (instead of catching-up on elementary physics), it has no generally agreed name: some have called it the ‘transverse’ force, others have called it the Euler force. There is in fact an infinite number of possible fictitious forces, but even that third one is rarely needed. As for your fatuous 3D orbit theory, the least said the better. Just check out the old ‘equant’ theory. That was capable of predicting perfectly square orbits with sharp corners. A model is not a theory. How does your theory explain tidal effects, for instance? It cannot. We would say that we are ‘letting you dig your own grave’ or ‘giving you enough rope to hang yourself’, but some deranged person might think that those were death-threats.

Congratulations, Ron

September 9, 2014

Until recently, your blog had no ranking at all at It is currently at 6,234,466, and is now beating our 7,712,802. The funny thing is: is in the doldrums, at 16,909,223. How can that be? Should such a ground-breaking organisation not have a higher rating? Perhaps you should compare the number of hits on your blog with the hits on AIAS; they should reflect the respective ranking levels. Perhaps you are not telling the truth in some regard. Oh dear, could that be construed (by someone one slide short of a slide-rule) to be a verbal assault ? Boo Hoo.  We also note that the top four sites linking to are loony (perpetual-motion, Tesla, etc.) ones. Judging by your claims, should they not be of better quality? What on Earth attracts the terminally loopy to AIAS?

Feedback Opportunity

September 7, 2014

Geometry Used by Isaac Newton

September 7, 2014

Many thanks, I was aware that Newton used geometry when I read the second edition of Principia in Latin.”

One of us, as a pre-teen, used to explore the unrestrained 3-body problem using pencil, ruler, slide-rule and lots of scrap wallpaper. Newton and Hooke used similar methods (less slide-rule) to study orbits. One can bet that Newton considered 3 dimensions; after all, he had written about the spiral motion of bodies inside a hollow Earth. He obviously ruled out 3-dimensional orbits of the type that Ron is enthused about. As Ron has posted that paper, probably without permission, we wonder what its authors make of his work. Why not send them an e-mail and ask:

Huggett is an expert on Twistor theory. Perhaps he would like to become an expert on ECE; or Twister theory, as we like to think of it.


Also sprach der Führer

September 3, 2014

“One troll site has been banned and removed from public view, setting an important legal precedent. “

Translation: an eminently reasonable petition was subjected to suppression by a self-styled hero of ‘direct democracy’. Not exactly a legal precedent, given that Hitler (for one) thought of it first.

“W. A. Rodrigues and P. W. Atkins are known to be associated with trolls so have imploded.”

Rodrigues invited you to visit him, at his expense, to discuss the matter in person. Why did you not go? Dr Atkins is wealthy (thanks to having written books that people are actually willing to pay for) and does not pull punches. Are you absolutely sure that you wish to defame him in that way?

“Two local trolls are known: Ioan Richard and Phil Owen, both completely opposed by the local Community Council. Sweeping new laws against trolls may soon be implemented along with the new anti terrorist laws now coming in to effect. Trolls are terrorists, and are loathed by society. “

Certain people like to exercise their right to free speech. By characterizing that democratic right as ‘trolling’ or terrorism, the speaker reveals him to be of a totalitarian disposition. Society can well do without such petty little Hitlers.

“Carriers may be obliged by law to remove troll sites or have them removed for them , with heavy fines and possible prison sentences. A tiny minority of the mad fringe of standard physics is known to be associated with trolls, so themselves become criminals. People like that should never hold academic positions or be publicly funded.”

It seems to us that a site that backs perpetual-motion and antigravity, and repeatedly insults successful scientists, fits the bill very well. We look forward to the forced closure of the anti-scientific site. Not that anybody would notice.


An Answer for Everything

September 3, 2014

“These data are collected on a huge file which has been kindly made in to a confidential pdf by Steve Bannister of the University of Utah.”

Why confidential? Because the data reveal that most of the referring sites are highly dubious. See our previous summaries (just search for ‘porn’).

“It replaces citations as one means of testing the impact of a theory.”

To put it another way: all of the references to the post-breakdown work are by Ron and his gang and Ron has finally realized that that is just embarrassing.

“The internationally well known Book of Scientometrics is another way of showing the huge impact of ECE theory. Since 12/12/06 there have been 1,709,042 referrals – these are URL’s reported by browsers directing them to various listed pages.”

Thanks to our efforts, your blog now has a ranking on It is better than that of … but nowhere near as good as ours. We should be the ones who are boasting of success, but the only success for us will be the removal of your civil-list status. You can keep the money, we just do not want your appearance in the same list as Faraday.

“The file shows that everything on has been studied repeatedly, in all languages: English, Welsh, Spanish, German, Russian, French and so on. The main two languages used are English and Spanish. With the recent complete collapse of standard physics of the bad (‘t Hooft) type,”

Not studied, clicked-on by people leaving some very dodgy websites indeed.

“ECE (Prof. Alwyn van der Merwe’s post Einstein paradigm shift) is the only theory still intact, and this year it has made several major discoveries. “

Merwe, like El-Naschie, was sacked by the publisher for running the reputation of a journal into the ground. What happened to your journal by the way? You wrote most of the papers, refereed all of the papers and was just about the only one to cite the papers. How can one fail, given all of those advantages? Were you sacked by the publisher for bringing his other publications into disrepute?

“The bad stuff on the other hand uses a ludicrous number of adjustables to “predict particles” that do not in fact exist, “

Adjustables? Or insufficiently known variables? There is also a difference between a model, and a theory. A theory can go in all sorts of directions. A model is made to fit just one set of data. For instance, Herbert’s x-theory is a dead-end. You have even forgotten which sort of precession you are trying to explain: is it the total precession due to all causes, or merely the anomalous precession that remains when the effect of other planets is allowed for? 

“recently CERN has admitted that many of them have “not after all been found”. This is outrageous.”

Philosophers in general are a waste of space, but Karl Popper proposed a great criterion (falsifiability)  for distinguishing science from pseudoscience. Real science can potentially be disproved by new evidence. Pseudoscience cannot. Hmm, we wonder whether your fits-all theory admits of falsifiability. Tell us, what experiment would disprove it?

“It is well known now that the Nobel Prize to Higgs was engineered politically, as was the Milner Prize to Hawking, knowing full well that their theories are totally wrong.”

Are you sure that it was not ‘big oil’? That is the usual excuse in the lunatic fringe. Given that CERN is multinational, we wonder whose political ends were best served. 

“I would advise Governments to cut back funding drastically for obvious nonsense that costs billions. “

Hey, governments do their bit for pseudoscience. The UK government gave money to a crackpot to develop an anti-gravity drive, and to Aspden and Searl’s brother to develop perpetual-motion machines. In the US, private companies gave $9M to an energy-from-nowhere perpetual-motion crank. You should ask for some: idiots who have control of other people’s money believe in a strategy known as Pascal’s wager. So fill yer boots.

“The impact of the ECE on the conventional physics scene has been good, with referrals for example from “New Scientist” and Elsevier’s “Scitopics”, which tipped ECE for a Nobel Prize.”

New Scientist is hardly much better than Fortean Times. And were you not thrown out of Scitopics?

“Google Scholar has published my entire output of over a thousand papers, including all 269 UFT papers to date, many of them in Spanish. “

Google Scholar does not weed out pseudoscience, and all of your post-breakdown work is cited by you to the tune of 99%

“My antigravity interview also resulted in a number of referrals. “

Well, we need not have bothered writing most of the above. That statement alone sinks you as far as real scientists are concerned. What happened to the company that you founded (together with Fucilla and Kellum) in order to develop anti-gravity? Oh, it failed. 

“My true autobiography is in thirty one editions of “Marquis Who’s Who”, the world’s leading reference vehicle,”

Searl, Bearden and a horde of other crackpots are to be found in Marquis. It is certainly a good guide to the lunatic fringe.

“Behavoiour [sic] like this, distortion and scientific fraud, is a security threat, and I advise Governments accordingly. It is a sinister organized attack on leading scientists.”

Yes, you had better watch your step! You are already on record as recommending that the UK government should give money to the convicted thief, saboteur and investment fraudster, John Searl.  

“Lakhtakia was  …  warned by the police at the request of his administration.”

No he wasn’t. Who would listen to complaints from a limey crackpot?

“Lakhtakia, Rodrigues, Bruhn and ‘t Hooft made a fraudulent attack on Cartan geometry in Wikipedia, and have been essentially ignored. “

How can the pointing out of universally agreed errors be fraudulent? 

“Cartan geometry has been taught in all good universities for almost a hundred years and has never been refuted by any mathematician.”

Nobody claims to have refuted it; only your misunderstanding of it.

“any attack on ECE theory is an attack on Cartan geometry itself, and so is instantly dismissed by the professions.”

If it is misused to such an extent that it predicts perpetual-motion and antigravity then it will be dismissed as, indeed, it is.

“It is obvious that this sinister campaign was aimed at destroying ECE theory and aimed at my Nobel, Wolf and Milner Prize nominations.”

What would be the point? Nobody who matters takes any notice of it. If it were not for the fact that its crackpot inventor is bringing a great symbolic accolade into disrepute, even we would not be interested. Any nonentity or loony-tune can nominate another for a prize. Guess where the nominations end up.

“It has been seen through by the huge readership.”

Stop lying about the huge readership; there is none.

“These people have either retired, been warned, “

Warned? Haha. In your dreams.

“or in the case of ‘t Hooft continue a campaign of petulant animosity and pseudoscience.”

Be more polite to your betters!

“The Cartan geometry on which ECE is based completely changes the old gravitational theory, improving Einstein’s original ideas.”

Please show numerically how it explains the Hafele-Keating results. Don’t forget that, if the calculations are wrong, Satnav users will end up in the wrong street … or wrong county.  

Orbit on This!

September 2, 2014

μr” = cr

r x μr” = r x cr = c( r x r) = 0

d/dt(r x μr’) = μ(r’ x r’) + r x μr” = 0

∴ r x μr’ =  a constant vector, L

∴ r(t) and r’(t) define a fixed plane perpendicular to L

 A planar orbit. 

Only an idiot pseudoscientist would try to argue with mathematics.