Archive for September, 2015

The Moron State

September 29, 2015

Low Energy Nuclear Reactions and Energy from Spacetime Now Mainstream

September 29, 2015

This is excellent news, especially as LENR started in the University of Utah. I think that Government and corporate funding should be poured into the development of devices such as this. They are historically equivalent to the development of steam power, followed by electric power, and your Thesis on the second industrial revolution is an excellent summary. I much enjoyed the walk to Hendy coal tip and I hope you have framed your piece of steam coal as a memento of the first industrial revolution.”

One cannot expect a great deal from a state which was founded by the followers of a lying confidence trickster and religious maniac. And one also cannot expect much of business sources. After all, they were just as gung ho about Madoff’s Ponzi scheme when it started. More pertinently, we can remember when the Financial Times covered the perpetual-motion scheme of Kenneth Shoulders. He and his fellow crackpots (strangely calling themselves the Jupiter Toy Company) conned a wealthy chicken farmer into investing in their ‘electron cluster’ scheme. Guess how that ended. It is always the case that the crank may get a little money, the promoter gets a lot more, and only the investors lose out. Ron’s friend, John (help me rebuild my cancer-curing levitating perpetual-motion machine) Searl, has been living off this type of investment scam for decades. 

Advertisements

Still Pushing an Open Door

September 29, 2015

Graphical Results for Orbital Precession in Special Relativity

September 29, 2015

These are excellent results and graphics, proving conclusively that special relativity can produce orbital precession. So orbital precession is not a conclusive test of Einsteinian general relativity, because it can be produced by special relativity. It is also known that Einstein’s mathematics are riddled with errors which are well known and can no longer be just ignored.”

But Ron, why are you still trying to ‘prove’, in such a convoluted way, something which is well known and is a student-level exercise? You may not read or believe the ‘dogma’, but any intelligent layman will see that ‘dogma’ got there first, got it right and did it much more simply. Your attempts to ‘baffle with pseudoscience’ are bound to rebound on you. For instance, you constantly refer to the precession of the perihelion of Mercury as if it has one cause and one explanation. What general relativity did was to explain the discrepancy that remained after every other cause had been accounted for. And what does it mean to deride Einstein’s ‘mathematical errors’? You are simply playing on the lay belief that ‘key’ experiments are performed just once and then the whole of physics immediately changes course. But, in fact, the Michelson-Morley experiment – for example – has been repeated many times; each time with greater accuracy. Every ‘critical experiment’ is repeated again and again. ‘Popular’ sources say that the MM experiment drove Einstein to develop relativity. In fact, he said that the greater driving force had been the subtleties of electromagnetic induction. It is those same subtleties which make cranks think that the homopolar motor/generator does not obey Newton’s third law and is therefore a route to perpetual motion and antigravity: you know, cranks like Siemens Stain. Physicists even like to say that, “electromagnetism is relativity at walking pace”; something which electrical engineers stubbornly fail to take on board. Finally, what about the many generations of physicists and mathematicians which have checked Einstein’s calculations, and have not found them wanting. Why indeed do cranks constantly attack Einstein, but not the equally significant figures of Dirac, Planck, etc.? It is because Einstein is the only physicist of whom the general public has heard, and so crackpots do it for instant fame … but they achieve only infamy … don’t you? The only other well-known physicist is Hawking, so you attack him too. The underhand methods of the lunatic fringe are always so transparently obvious.   

Learning from the Master

September 28, 2015

We note that Ide and Tugboat are pulling the same tricks that Ron does. Ide extols the virtues, of those organizing the conference, as if that reflects directly on his fringe (in every sense) presentation. We often imagine that, if Ron stubbed his toe on Nelson’s column, he would recite the history of the (other) great man and somehow contrive to bask in a common glory.  Meanwhile, Tugboat has ‘evansed’ (see our recent neologism) and has unilaterally named something after himself (see also Criterion #25 of the Baez Crackpot Index)  

Same Old, Same Old, Old Hat

September 28, 2015

Discussion Part Three of Note 328(4)

September 28, 2015

This looks like a very interesting plan. It would confirm your numerical results indicating that special relativity gives precession of a planar orbit, a very important finding in astronomy and cosmology. I plan one more Note 328(5) then will write up UFT328.”

It is a trivial fact, and already well known. You should read our blog Ron.

Pure Desperation

September 27, 2015

Osamu Ide at MANA-RSC symposium: Materials for Energy Generation and Storage

September 27, 2015

Many thanks, this is an important presentation of energy from spacetime to the Royal Society of Chemistry Meeting in Tsukuba University on 15 – 16 October. UFT311 by Kurt Arenhold and Horst Eckardt is very well studied already and gives full details of the Osamu Ide circuit and its precise description with ECE theory.”

All of this nonsense stems from the fact that, way back in 1995, Ide managed to get a paper into the Journal of Applied Physics. It described the behavior of a run-of-the-mill ‘LCR’ circuit; the only novelty being a movable ferromagnetic core in the L (inductance) part of the circuit. The core was attracted by the magnetic field generated by the current resulting from the discharge of the C (capacitance) part of the circuit. The paper reported an unusual increase in the re-charge (sic) voltage. There was no claim that output was greater than input; such a claim would have got the paper rejected on-the-spot. Nevertheless, the ambiguity of the wording might lead some suitably predisposed readers to think that it was a perpetual motion machine. It was a very mundane piece of work, and has been cited only 7 times in 20 years; 3 times by Ide (twice while at loony conferences and once in a patent application). All of the other citations were by the usual suspects (Siemens Stain and Amador). You see how desperate these clowns are, and how they seize on every paltry shred of so-called ‘evidence’? 

Beware the Ides

September 26, 2015

Slide presentation by Douglas Lindstrom

September 26, 2015

Agreed with Oamu Ide, a clear and helpful presentation.”

No Ron, it was dire and dishonest. How long does it take to check a PowerPoint presentation for typographical errors? Perhaps Lindy just cannot see them … just as you cannot. The only honest bit was the ‘pathological science’ descriptor, even if ECE somehow got missed out. Did you ever imagine, all those years ago, that a youngest-ever DSc would be reduced to mixing with the likes of Ide? On the other hand, why does a sane person possess a letter which says that he is not mad?

Schools Out

September 26, 2015

Black hole non-evidence

September 26, 2015

This kind of black hole stuff is an obsessive and narcissistic psychosis brought about by pathological science in the obsolete standard model, whose funding is rapidly disappearing. The avant garde ECE school of thought dismisses these claims as being mathematically incorrect (proofs that no torsion means no gravitation and many other refutations both by the ECE and Crothers schools of thought).”

So just you and Sam Spade then, plus a few loony followers. We recently drew attention to a proper scientific paper which had a huge number of authors. Every one of them, if they knew about you, would say the same things that we do. Just imagine all of those so-called trolls queuing up to lambaste you. 

Not Exactly Interstellar

September 26, 2015

FOR POSTING: “The Universe of Myron Evans”

September 26, 2015

Many thanks to Doug Lindstrom! This film was made partly in the Patti Theatre at Craig y Nos Castle, the narrator is Robert Cheshire, who has also recorded my entire original film script in the Essay Section.”

Oh how we had missed Tugboat’s Fyfe Robertson impression, and the images of him (literally) tramping across the countryside; not to mention his hilarious mispronunciation of the name of a famous scientist and the popular (but incorrect) summary of scientific history. But where are they now? Dunging-Davies defected to the enemy (i.e. the fake professor who financed the film) and we would not give 2p for 21st Century Filmworks. Well, in fact we might because that is the current declared value of the company according to Companies House. And to think that the film supposedly cost half-a-million dollars to make! Ron’s demeanor is somewhat  odd in the film: his back literally against the wall, he delivers his great message in a curiously lackluster manner, quite different to the bluster of his written work. It is almost as if he was expecting to get slapped in the face at any moment … even though no real scientists were present  

Un Coup au Coeur

September 25, 2015

FOR POSTING: Lecture Slides by Douglas Lindstrom Opening the Idaho Conference

September 25, 2015

It is a pleasure to post this excellent lecture by AIAS Director Douglas Lindstrom, retired from the Canadian Government and one of the most respected and able of the avant garde scientists of the twenty first century. Douglas Lindstrom’s biography appears in several editions of “Marquis Who’s Who in the World”. He starts by an explanation of what is meant by Langmuir’s phrase “pathological science” , which is non Baconian and / or illogical thinking, or which contains mathematical errors. The bad parts of standard physics are already regarded as pathological by the avant garde physicists. I strongly recommend a reading of this slide set. It opened the Couer d’Alene New Energy Conference in 2015, before about three hundred participants, and is very clearly written. Douglas Lindstrom and Horst Eckardt have contributed greatly to ECE theory and have a complete grasp of the theory.”

And how long did it take him to cut and paste together that comedy-turn from … just about every ‘popular science’ publication that one has ever read? The first thought that occurs is this: is ‘Dr’ Lindy illiterate, or is English not his first language. “who’s” instead of “whose”? And “its” does not require an apostrophe (p2). How interesting it is, but not really surprising, that Lindy turns out to be a creationist (p6). It is not surprising because, like disreputable characters in many other walks of life, cranks invariably suffer from a multitude of sociological (sic) diseases. No real scientist would mention Tesla or Edison in that context (p7). The latter were mere carpet-baggers; parasites who took credit for the work of others. Someone who was really ‘on top of his game’ would have mentioned (p11)  that Clifford algebra further reduces Maxwell to a single equation.  Again (p21), the homopolar generator/motor is completely understood by physicists; only electrical engineers have difficulty with it because – ironically enough – the explanation requires the use of special relativity … even though high speeds are not involved. Does not know, or cannot spell, (p23) the name of the media’s favorite scientist. Aharonov-Bohm effect (p24) baffles only non-physicists. Also, the AB effect (like ZPE) has analogies in non-electromagnetic situations and is therefore irrelevant in the given context. Again, the Sagnac effect (p25) baffles only non-physicists but is treated with considerable awe in the lunatic fringe. All cutting-edge experiments (p26) eventually become routine student demonstrations, so that is a weak point. Poor punctuation, and typos (p27). Yep, basic mathematics … which Ron cannot handle (p29). Note: have the ECE math pages checked by an expert; there is a guy in Germany (not Siemens Stain!) whom we can heartily recommend.  Only cranks believe resonance to be a source of energy. Amusingly enough, non-linearities in one term of the Euler equation explain why scales appear to ‘weigh light’ when a vibrating object is put on them. It has been known since the mid-19th century that hydrogen, absorbed into platinum-group or transition-group elements, produces an ‘anomalous’ heat output. Pons and Fleischmann ‘did not do their homework’. The comment encapsulates what conjurors call the ‘bunch-of-sticks’ principle (p58): that is, ‘produce the same effect using different techniques’ in order to baffle the audience. Organisations possessing ‘more money than sense’ (p59) now routinely back pseudoscience, in accord with the so-called Pascal’s Wager principle (read the book, Voodoo Science). We happen to know that a section-chief at Airbus has applied for a patent on a propulsion device which is contrary to Newton’s third law! Rossi (p60) is guilty of previous scams and has made dozens of court appearances. Lithium aluminium hydride (p65) is a well-known hydrogen-storage material, Duh! Oh look, the famous neutrons (p69) which fatally undermined the Pons-Fleischmann results. Yes, the Australians used to own the largest homopolar generator (p79) in the world. The pieces are now scattered over a campus as ‘works of art’. It did not fare well; probably because the Australians forgot that it was also a gyroscope … and failed to align it properly with the Earth’s rotational axis, thus putting stress on the bearings.  De Palma (p80) was the brother of the film director, was a well-known loony and lied about being a physicist at MIT. The machine was indeed ‘approved’ by a professor. But he was an electrical engineer; a notoriously flaky breed. Puthoff (former scientologist) of course was also one of the ‘scientists’ who ‘confirmed’ Uri Geller’s ‘powers’.  So altogether (p91) nothing new; just the same age-old scams and misconceptions. Questions (p92)? Yes, how on Earth do you people still have the cheek to put ‘Dr’ ahead of your names?  

Illuminati at Work?

September 25, 2015

The Universe of Myron Evans

September 25, 2015

Yes it appears that it has been scrubbed, but the unedited script of it that I wrote has been made into broadcasts narrated by Robert Cheshire, who was also the narrator of the film made partially at the Patti Theatre of Craig y Nos Castle. It was originally posted from Austria, and someone may have a copy of it an repost it. I think that it can be bought from the filmmakers.”

Oh dear, who will be the first to cry ‘conspiracy’? What dark forces are trying to keep Ron’s great discoveries from the general public? Nothing to do with us: shallow thinkers might want to suppress Ron’s drivel, but that would only create a martyr. We want Ron to crash and burn very publicly. We want future science students to be warned about the dangers and attractions of pseudoscience. We want this to become a constant reproach, “exercise scientific caution and modesty, don’t be such a Myron Evans”. Favorable comments on Ron should become a sure-fire indicator that the speaker is naive, crooked and/or stupid, just as favorable comments about Tesla already serve the same purpose among physicists.  

Ron v The Rest of the World

September 23, 2015

Some naïve souls may imagine that it is just a matter of Ron confronting Einstein, Hawking, Higgs and a few others. Want to see what the actual opposition looks like? Download:

http://journals.aps.org/prl/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.191803

and turn to the list of authors at the end. Every member (unless they have also included the people who polish the magnets) of this ‘handful’ is far more qualified than Ron, can run rings around him mathematically and undoubtedly possesses a superior skill-set. 

Oops!

September 23, 2015

Discussion of Note 328(1)

September 23, 2015

It would be very interesting to develop UFT324 and UFT325 in any way you think is best. In Note 328(2) I derived an expression for the precession using a simple theory of special relativity and the result confirm your numerical calculations. I think that these are very important results.”

But Ron, all that is not new – and you would know that if you were a physicist. Take a look at this,

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1012.5438v1.pdf
and that is not the only example, but it is at least free-to-view. Of course, a cynic would suggest that you knew about this already and were merely trying to fool laymen with your ‘genius’. You also conveniently skip over the fact that the calculation, even if properly performed, leaves one some 36″ shy of explaining the measured precession of Mercury. Hey, that is probably why someone thought up General Relativity; have you heard of it? 

Bath Time

September 21, 2015

The Eighteenth Century Enlightenment

September 20, 2015

This is very well described by Kenneth Lord Clark in “Civilization”, the episode entitled “The Smile of Reason” (HD on youtube). …

Napoleon left behind a devastated Europe and a lot of faded glory. Apres moi la deluge and all that and he usually soaked invaded countries in revolutionary blood,

Wellington sums that one up, sick of all war: “Nothing is more melancholy than a battle won, save a battle lost.” I can think of better ways of reforming society, but perhaps Napoleon was inevitable, the exact opposite of joie de vivre.”

If you had spent any time in France, Ron, you would know that déluge is a masculine noun and therefore takes ‘le’ as the definite article. Also, Wellington actually wrote, “Believe me, nothing except a battle lost can be half so melancholy as a battle won”. It is interesting that you try to baffle everyone with fake learning in the same way that you try to baffle everyone with fake (aka pseudo) science. By the way, Marat was an anti-Newton pox-doctor crank whose denunciation led directly to the execution of Lavoisier (you might remember him, Ron, the ‘chemist that the Republic had no need for’?). One of the charges leveled by the pseudoscientist Marat was that Lavoisier had ‘stopped the circulation of air through Paris’. Marat was a real slime-ball and wrote anonymous letters, praising his own papers, to the scientific journals of the time (“nous ne sommes pas éloigné de croire que c’est Marat lui-meme qui les a écrites”). That is very close to the behavior of someone whom we know, is it not. Well, you seem to have lost all round there, Ron. Time for an early bath?

Reduced Class Size

September 20, 2015

Agreed with Stephen Crothers

September 20, 2015

The Crothers School of Thought has refuted Einsteinian GR in many ways which add to the refutations of the AIAS / UPITEC School. Stephen Crothers is a meticulous scholar and in his latest criticism of Post, summarizes the lamentable lack of knowledge of the dogmatists, in this case their failure to recognize that the Einstein pseudotensor is not a valid construct. The omission of torsion renders any geometry meaningless, so the entire Einstein era is meaningless dogma. ECE and ECE2 improve the original Einstein theory by removing its errors.”

And how big is that school? We bet that they could hold a ‘salon’ in one of those old red Brit call boxes. He is not a meticulous scholar; he cannot even understand the Swarzschild metric (don’t forget to buy that simplified explanation in the current issue of the European Journal of Physics). We have pointed out many times that torsion is frequently investigated by real scientists … and is always found wanting. To ‘crother’ was already a pejorative term in Australian slang. To ‘evans’ may well become an equally pejorative term among real scientists. Definition: to Evans [verb, transitive] to append ones name undeservedly to a scientific theory or to a list of famous scientists. Cf Rule 25, Baez crackpot index. 

Drinking in the Last-Chance Salon

September 20, 2015

The Smile of Reason

September 20, 2015

Kerry Pendergast, Gareth Evans and I were due to confer last March at the NLW, so I am thinking of a Paris Salon type meeting with them, Robert Cheshire and any others at the National Library of Wales. The thirteen episodes of “Civilization” are on youtube in HD. The episode on the eighteenth century enlightenment includes Voltaire, Rousseau, Mozart and Haydn in music, and the eighteenth century artists.”

The salons also welcomed Anton Mesmer, the quack who had them all sitting around dipping metal rods into magic water, and Benjamin Franklin, who once told them that he had a device – the size of a match – which could destroy the Palace of Westminster using some sort of death ray (recalling Ron’s current friend-of-a-friend, the Great Whore of Pseudoscience). The problem of pseudoscience is clearly not new, and supposedly great scientists have always been involved in ideas from the lunatic fringe: Crookes and D.D.Home, Lodge and any number of psychics, etc. Ron is just one of many … and is not even a good scientist.

Through the Keyhole

September 19, 2015

FOR POSTING : New Poetry First Update

September 19, 2015

This is a pdf version where I have added a new sonnet. The book will be arranged in sonnet followed by prose cameo, sonnet and so on.”

Who (in his right mind) on Earth would choose to live in a place like that? Are you trying to undermine (as an ex non-miner) the efforts of the Welsh Tourist Board? Do you know that there is more, to writing good poetry and prose, than merely cobbling together symbolism-laden nouns and (too many) emotive adjectives? Composition: 7/10. Keep this up lad and you will do well in your GCSE English exam. 

Myron Evans BSc DSc … MIA?

September 19, 2015

Internet Outage

September 19, 2015

For readers of this blog in up to one hundred and eighty two countries, there has been a major Talk Talk outage here, apparently at the Swansea exchange, so I am unable to send out daily reports. After four days of being cut off almost completely by landline and broadband, the fault has still not been repaired.”

Well, that is a relief. It would have been nigh impossible to have you expunged posthumously from the list of Civil List Pension scientists.  We feared that you might have been crushed by a tumbling tower of genealogical research, assaulted by thieves looking for your £5,000,000 trove of manuscripts … or had perhaps simply imploded due to your own over-weaning gravitas. 

We Look Forward …

September 19, 2015

Plans for UFT328

September 19, 2015

I plan to develop new methods of showing that special relativity produces precession. This major discovery was made in UFT324 and UFT325 by Horst Eckardt and myself using a numerical method based on a scatter plot, and UFT327 was the first attempt to prove the precession analytically, using the Dirac approximation. UFT327 makes the remarkable discovery that the orbital equation produced from the infinitesimal line element of special relativity can be interpreted relativistically or classically, because it contains the ratio p / L = p0 / L0, where p = gamma p0 is the relativistic momentum and L = gamma L0 is the relativistic angular momentum.”

We look forward to this. Ron’s support of perpetual motion and antigravity immediately outs him as a screwball, but some innocent souls might still believe that his other ideas are sound. It will therefore be excruciatingly embarrassing if he presents – as his discovery – something which is well-known, obvious, and regularly presented at undergraduate physics level. Of course, a chemist would not know this. Ron seems to possess, as a personal scientific library, only the old textbooks from his student days. He should at least buy updated editions of the old ones. We shall have to put together all of the elementary proofs on the subject of special relativistic effects on Keplerian orbits and list them here. By the way, ‘his’ idea that the gravitomagnetic effect is the same as the Coriolis effect has also been discussed at elementary level. But we do not want to get into that because, although published in bona fide sources,  it assumes a Machian view of the universe, and that is very out-of-favour these days. 

Plagiarist!

September 15, 2015

Discussion of Note 327(7)

September 15, 2015

Yes it is very strange. It is an adaptation into standard notation of the Richard Fitzpatrick calculation found by googling “Farside apsidal” and the first site that comes up on nearly circular orbits. My intention was to wrap up the Einstein era so we can move on to the Minkowski calculation to follow up our discovery that special relativity gives precession.”

That is not ‘your’ discovery. It is a trivial prediction of special relativity and is given to physics students as an exercise. Do we really have to provide links to prove it, or can you google them for yourself? But google seems to be particularly bad at finding things that you do not want to know, does it not? 

Fat Chance Reiterated

September 13, 2015

Nomination and Selection of Physics Laureates

September 13, 2015

Many thanks for this information in the public domain. It is quite a complicated process. I am told that I have been nominated several times for a Nobel Prize and my nominations for the Wolf Prize, Milner award and so on are in the public domain and in “Marquis Who’s Who”.”

But you mix only with other yes-man cranks, so of course you will be told that. A routine ploy in the lunatic fringe is to claim to have been nominated for a Nobel Prize. This is a ‘safe lie’ precisely because the process is so secret. It is several decades before the details are revealed. Tesla-fans (aka loonies) used to claim that he missed out on a Nobel because the committee could not decide between him and that other old fraud, Edison. We now know that – unsurprisingly – neither of them was in the running … ever. As for the ‘foremost reference work’, Marquis also says that the thief and conman John Searl was awarded a BA at the age of 14, by an orphanage. Why do you want the prize anyway? That would make you part of the ‘establishment’, and the whole point of being a crank is to be ‘agin everything’. It is the same peculiar logic which drives cranks like Bearden to buy doctorates, even though they claim to be against the very culture which awards such doctorates.  

“There is no reason to disbelieve this enthusiasm. The Nobel Prize nominations are confidential, but are often made known. I have been told many times throughout my career that I deserve one or more Nobel Prizes, so this is very nice of friends and colleagues and let us keep our fingers crossed. There is no doubt that my life work makes and will continue to make a vast impact, and that the early personal attacks have had no effect.”

To reiterate the point, there is every reason to dispel such enthusiasm. We are slowly analyzing your entire ‘opera’ (never was the word so apt) and all of the signs so far are that it hardly differs from your post-breakdown ‘work’: that is, there is a very low rate of citation – at all – by truly independent writers, and an unusual degree of self-citation. The final graph will be a useful piece of evidence when calling for the removal of the Civil List pension: you can keep the money, it is the insult to previous recipients that we decry. Rather than yearning for other undeserved accolades, prepare to weep for the one that you lose.

Heartily Recommended

September 12, 2015

We recently suggested that Ron is cribbing his ‘discoveries’ from recent papers at the more elementary end of academic physics publishing. On the other hand, they are all hidden behind pay-walls and so non-academics (like Crothers and Ron) may be unable to access them for free. But here is something, from the current issue of European Journal of Physics, which might tempt Sam Spade and Ron to fork-out £25. Just to whet their appetites, here is the abstract:

“A promising way to introduce general relativity (GR) in the classroom is to study the physical implications of certain given metrics, such as the Schwarzschild one. This involves lower mathematical expenditure than an approach focusing on differential geometry in its full glory and permits to emphasize physical aspects before attacking the field equations. Even so, in terms of motivation, lacking justification of the metric employed may pose an obstacle. The paper discusses how to establish the weak-field limit of the Schwarzschild metric with a minimum of relatively simple physical assumptions, avoiding the field equations but admitting the determination of a single parameter from experiment. An attractive experimental candidate is the measurement of the perihelion precession of Mercury, because the result was already known before the completion of GR. It is shown how to determine the temporal and radial coefficients of the Schwarzschild metric to sufficiently high accuracy to obtain quantitative predictions for all the remaining classical tests of GR.”

There you are, Ron and Spade, read that elementary exposition and it may may straighten out all of the silly ideas which you two nutters have fallen into believing. Hey, why not get Siemens Stain to check the mathematics? No need to thank us; helping the pseudoscience-afflicted is ‘what we do’. 

That’s Interesting

September 12, 2015

UFT88 Read at the University of Bath

September 12, 2015″

This is interesting because we happen to know that there are people at Bath who take a skeptical interest in pseudoscience and in the dumbing-down of scientific knowledge and education. Perhaps they are studying you for the right reason.

“UFT88 is the classic paper which refutes the second Bianchi identity on which the Einstein field equation is based directly by incorporating torsion.”

Torsion is unneeded and unwanted and can lead to unphysical predictions, such as energy-from-nowhere and antigravity. It has come to be associated with cranks, and – in that context – led directly to the attempted despoilation of a UK beauty-spot.  

“It has been developed into UFT313 which develops the Jacobi Cartan Evans (JCE) identity, followed by the ECE2 papers UFT314-UFT320 and UFT322- UFT326, currently being read 9,527 times a year internationally off www.aias.us alone. For all three siteswww.aias.us, www.atomicprecision.com and www.upitec.orgthey are being read 15,243 times year (an increase of an estimated 60%). They were all produced in 2015. ”

… and are never cited by anybody but you and fellow cranks.

“So there can be no doubt that the Einstein theory is completely obsolete. ”

Er, it means that ECE is completely ignored by real scientists. 

“The readership includes all the best universities and institutes in the world. ”

The latter also have computer users who quickly switch from embarrassing sites and go to your ‘papers’ at random: see our ‘Boss Button’ theory.

“We know this from the well known scientometrics of www.aias.us. ”

They are not ‘well-known’. They are instead notorious for being concocted deliberately in order to deceive the unwary. By the way, your scientometrics book did not get a very good Amazon review, did it? Perhaps you should have Penderghastly review it. We promise not to give the game away.

“The University of Bath is ranked 381 in the world by Webometrics and 301-350 in the world by Times Higher Education. It has 15,964 students and originates in the Merchant Venturers College attended by Paul Dirac and Peter Higgs.”

Other former students of Merchant Venturers included Harry ‘death ray’ Grindell Matthews, another isolated crank with a ruined (but previously successful) professional life, who went to live (and die) in Craigcefnparc, and W.D.Verscholye, the anti-gravity crank whose incompetent ‘work’ pre-dated the moronic Biefeld-Brown ‘effect’. Matthews and Dirac both have blue plaques in the Bristol area. Higgs will eventually get one near his home. You will have to paint your own; a faked cap to faked success. See, Ron, ‘name-dropping’ is a highly double-edged sword.  Stop cutting yourself!

Want to See Something Funny?

September 11, 2015

Go to:

http://emediapress.com/blog/

and scroll just over half way down the page. There one finds a panel discussion video from that recent loony conference. It is chaired by Jeanne Manning, a Canadian sociologist (ughh) who then went even more morally and intellectually down-market and became a journalist (double ughh). She has long been a spokesperson for the lunatic fringe (although even she once opined that John Searl sounded rather ‘uncouth’). The discussion is hilarious; a bunch of saddoes (mainly electrical engineers, of course) who think that they know more than everybody else when – in fact – they know considerably less. For instance, elsewhere on that blog page (which belongs to former health-food store-manager, Aaron Murakami) one finds a trick for stealing energy from one’s environment. This trick works, and was described in Scientific American decades ago. But if everybody did it, the power-drain would become perceptible … and troublesome to everyone. Another ancient trick, but dressed up as magical, is the hydraulic ram. Do they really think that it involves ‘free energy’? Thickoes! But it seems that many of them once found employment in reputable companies. Amazing, and troubling.

Cribbing, Ron?

September 11, 2015

PS : Singularities Already Plotted in UFT150

September 11, 2015

The singularities referred to in the last note were found in UFT150 when numerical integration were used. That became a classic paper and a classic essay. The singularities will also appear analytically in all probability.”

We are becoming increasingly puzzled over what you think is novel about your ‘discoveries’. ‘Everybody’ knows that special relativity can lead to the precession of an orbit, and ‘everybody’ knows that Newtonian orbits exhibit a so-called ‘jerk’ discontinuity. Indeed, these topics have been presented at ‘student-level’ in recently published journals. Could it be that you are deliberately misrepresenting these trivia as personal breakthroughs? Could it be that the frequently expressed claim that you do not read ‘dogma-based’ journals is merely a ploy so that you can act surprised if/when found out? Laithwaite used to pull the same trick and he certainly tried to act surprised when, after lecturing on ‘his’ linear induction motor, some spoilsport once flung open a cupboard door to reveal …. Wheatstone’s century-old prototype! And while we are on the subject of misrepresentation, why do you repeatedly claim that EGR fails to explain the rotation-rates of galaxies? Who uses EGR to do that? Astronomers use Newtonian mechanics for that. In fact, there is a groundswell of opinion among mathematicians to the effect that the approximations used by astronomers are incorrect and are the only thing leading to discrepancies between classical Newtonian theory and observation. In other words, ‘dark matter’ may well be a mathematical artefact.  

Ooooh, Yes Please

September 11, 2015

Summary by the AIAS Co President Gareth Evans

September 11, 2015

It would be an idea to organize pre recorded radio interviews by Jeff Rense in California by various people inside AIAS and UPITEC, notably Gareth Evans, Horst Eckardt, Stephen Crothers and Douglas Lindstrom and any others interested.”

We cannot wait for another embarrassing interview from a very dubious source. Has it not occurred to you, Ron, that Rancid’s enthusiasm for your ‘theory’ stems directly from the fact that he is a rabid anti-semite? It is a long time since Nature published an anti-Einstein rant, but there are still lots of loonies out there who view relativity as being ‘Jewish science’. In this context, SS (Siemens Stain) will be welcomed with open arms, but do not forget to remind him that – as a German – any pro-Nazi sentiments (even indirectly expressed) will render him liable to prosecution. Does ‘others interested’ include Michael No-Bubbles Jackson? Or did his previous disclosures about ‘Einstein being installed in the Bern patent office in order to undermine Tesla’ and about ‘Einstein sending Cartan’s ideas to Germany so that the Nazis could later build anti-gravity warplanes’ worry even you? You did not refute these claims when you later ‘appeared’ on the same program, so you must agree with them (and you have not refuted our view so – according to your precepts – non-reply must mean acceptance). Have you no conception of how bad all of this will look in the forthcoming exposure of your activities? Nobody cares about relativity, at ‘street level’, but everybody likes to deride silly governmental decisions, and awarding you a Civil List pension must be just about the silliest. 

Reading Between Non-Existent Lines?

September 10, 2015

No Objections to the Definitive Proofs

September 10, 2015

I am very glad to see that Stephen Crothers’ criticisms of general relativity have been accepted unanimously by school teachers in Australia. The same pattern is repeated all over the world in respect of the definitive proofs onwww.aias.us that no torsion means no curvature. If there is no curvature there is no Einsteinian gravitation, QED. Black holes and all that are based on a theory without torsion, and this is complete nonsense as the proofs show. I suggest a general strike among school teachers, a refusal to teach black hole theory and Big Bang theory. The CERN electroweak theory was destroyed in UFT225, that is well known. It is futile to try to cover up these refutations, or to try to suppress anything. That is bound to fail. I am not sure which university tried to suppress Doug Lindstrom’s lecture, apparently the university lifted its ban. The lecture announcement is now on this blog and I recommend all blog and site readers to buy the lecture video.”

From where do you draw the conclusion of ‘universal acceptance’, Ron? He is simply pulling, as you do, the old conman trick of interpreting non-reply as being the same as acceptance. Unlike ourselves, very few people can be bothered to reply to the claims or communications of obviously deranged persons. You cranks also employ a very loose interpretation of the term, ‘refutation’. Any loony can claim that the Earth is flat, and ignore all contrary evidence, but that is not a refutation; it is merely a claimed refutation that hopes to exploit the ignorance or stupidity of the audience. The ‘flat Earth’ scenario is not going to persuade famous scientists to perform canal experiments (as it still did in the 19th century!) but similarly silly (to physicists) claims can still cause NASA to waste millions on pointless experimentation (cf Eugene Podkletnov).  Almost by definition, a refutation is not a refutation unless it becomes as universally adopted as was the concept which it disproved.  A refutation by a silly little Australian galah is not a refutation. A refutation by a totally isolated and forgotten Welsh ‘carrot’ (not even a member of the RSC, Ron?) is not a refutation. As for the ‘university that banned Lindy’, we suspect that to be a fabrication ‘for effect’. Unless we receive a confirmatory statement directly from the university, we shall assume our refutation to be accepted (do you see what we are doing there?).  

Thanks for the Info

September 10, 2015

FOR CROSS LINKING: Important Lecture by Douglas Lindstrom

September 10, 2015

This is found on:

http://www.emediapress.com/go.php?offer=&pid=77

and is recommended to all readers of this blog and the AIAS sites. It opened the Coeur d’Alene Conference on new energy in Idaho. Douglas Lindstrom’s biography appears in “Marquis Who’s Who in the World”, he is an AIAS Director and retired from the Canadian Government. He is a three times graduate of the University of British Columbia and one of the most able and level headed assessors of devices. Only a few will pass the Lindstrom patent office type assessment. With Horst Eckardt he has made many fundamental contributions to ECE theory, and these are read thousands of times each year as the scientometrics show, notably UFT292 to UFT299. Currently he is working on a new book about ECE theory.”

How very honest of Lindy to admit that ECE, Cold Fusion and LENR are pathological sciences (aka pseudoscience). We know someone who will welcome the detailed Lindy CV. In the lunatic fringe, the recitation of academic qualifications, university appointments and government employment is supposed to increase respect for a loony concept.  In the real world, observers instead wonder what is wrong with the education system, if cranks can obtain scientific diplomas without actually absorbing any of the caution and insight which supposedly go with them. They also worry about how many people and organisations have been misled by the crackpot. It may even be a ‘two cultures’ problem: engineers (especially electrical ones) in general still seem to be baffled by devices (such as the spinning-top [remember Laithwaite?] and the homopolar motor/generator) which physicists consider to be trivial. Ron is correct about pure physics disappearing from (Western) universities. The reason appears to be monetary: the ‘lead time’ is too long for economists to see the connection between pure physics and the market-place and so physics becomes absorbed by electrical engineering (because there is money in consumer gadgets) and by ‘sports science’ (because there is money in football). This descent into ad hoc short-termism leaves nobody left who is aware of the full range of physical phenomena. This, by the way, was the situation which existed just before Sputnik was launched. Within months, enrollment in physics courses in a terrified USA went up like the proverbial rocket (and the only answer offered by the lunatic fringe was the fatuous ‘Dean Drive’). Let us hope that China does something similar (e.g. successful Hot Fusion) and frightens the West into a proper respect for physics. On the subject of Cold Fusion and LENR, the proponents just did not do their homework. Lazy store-men in nuclear facilities do not bother to check labels, they simply feel the bars of metal. If it is warm, it is plutonium. If the Master of the Royal Mint, Thomas Graham, had known of radio-activity in 1850 he might well have attributed the warmth of hydrogen-exposed platinum bars to ‘LENR’. One of us has written a monograph on the behaviour of hydrogen in metals, and the subject is fascinating. Even without the electrolysis used by Pons and Fleischmann, hydrogen-exposed platinum (and nickel, and many other transition elements) will exhibit spontaneous heating. Graham himself noted that platinum wire could burn like a fuse (yes, it is simply an oxidation phenomenon).  So, if P&F had bothered to consult a metallurgist, that particular pseudoscience would have been strangled at birth. It is also quite hilarious that Ron should liken Lindy to a Patent Office: does he not know how many applications for perpetual-motion machines are neatly printed-up and published by patent offices? There are some 1500 applications on ‘buoyancy motors’ alone (a concept which was banned by the French government in the 18th century). Very few such patents are actually granted; but the number should be zero. As for Lindy being in Marquis, that is becoming almost as good a ‘nut-detector’ as membership of the Natural Philosophy Alliance.  After all, Ron is in Marquis, Searl is in Marquis, Bearden is in Marquis … etc., etc., etc.

Glass Houses

September 7, 2015

Accountability of Scientists

September 7, 2015

I regard the matter of black holes as closed, they have been thoroughly refuted in many ways by many people. I continue to support Stephen Crothers’ exposure of corruption in science.”

The very first ‘scientist’ who should be held to account is the unspeakable clown who is currently in receipt of an undeserved Civil List Pension. Black holes have not been refuted by any scientist who is worthy of the name. Incidentally, there is only one reason why crackpots are always attacking black holes, relativity and Einstein: it is because they are forever ‘playing to the gallery of laymen’, in order to make themselves look important, and there is clearly no point in questioning concepts or people of whom the gullible public has never heard. Who is strongly anti non-locality? Who is strongly anti-Kapitsa? See? If is not part of ‘popular culture’, it is of no interest to cranks. The only corruption is in the sloppy school-teaching and over-fondness for ‘philosophy’ which encourages pseudoscientific attitudes. Only a corrupt secondary-school system (parrot the ‘facts’ from the error-strewn textbook and get the GCSE) would have employed an anti-Einstein ‘science teacher’ like Penderghastly.

Take This Down as Evidence, Sarge

September 7, 2015

Quantum Mechanics

September 7, 2015

In this case my point of view”

Your point-of-view is of no interest, as it is based upon old textbooks which you happen to have on your shelves, upon half-forgotten lectures which you attended as a student and upon the distortions which are rife in the lunatic fringe. What else can be expected when you cut yourself off from the world of real science?

“… has been ably summarized by Laurence Felker in his book “The Evans Equations of Unified Field Theory”, chapter three (UFT302 and Spanish Section). ”

‘Ably summarized’, by an air-conditioning engineer? Is that some sort of joke? 

“This point of view is based on geometry, and rejects the Heisenberg indeterminacy. It is the point of view of the Einstein / de Broglie / Vigier School of Thought.”

In other words … wrong.

“John Bell was a friend of my co author Jean Pierre Vigier, probably one of the foremost of theoretical physicists of the twentieth century. Vigier was invited by Einstein to work with him at Princeton. John Bell is famous for the Bell Inequalities, and Vigier write his obituary.”

Whatever Vigier’s previous accomplishments, he was clearly suffering from dementia by the time that he mixed with the likes of you. Who, in their right mind, would attend conferences on perpetual-motion, and rub shoulders – on an equal basis – with conmen like John Searl (you know, the guy whose henchman used to own aias.us and whom you suggested should be backed by the UK government).

“I set to clarify and simplify the interpretation of quantum mechanics, basing it on geometry adn unified quantum mechanics and genreal relativity in the Einstein Cartan Evans unified field theory. ”

Well you clearly failed; nobody who matters takes any notice of your ‘work’.

“Lar Felker is also Irish in one line of descent ans his book is a runaway success, especially chapter three translated into Spanish. ”

‘Runaway success’? Is that some sort of Irish joke? As of today, the English version of the Felker book has been cited 239 times. Every single citation is due to yourself or members of your lunatic-fringe cabal. Does he not have a website? If he did, he could claim that every random visit to it was a ‘consultation’ re his book. Perhaps he has too much self-respect: only a real cad would use such an underhand ploy.

“Debate between two schools of thought is a good thing, but when it degenerates into gutter abuse the other side has lost in a big way.”

There is no ‘debate’ between you and real science because you know very well that you would not survive ‘5 minutes’ in a proper academic milieu. You mix only with other members of the lunatic fringe, play ‘the great scientist’ to innocent lay friends and are a wen on the face of British science. If it is ‘gutter abuse’ to point out these easily-checked facts, then so be it. Here is an idea: why not contact the persons and organisations who supposedly thought that you were worthy of a Civil-List Pension and ask them a) who is right and b) whether they still think that they made a wise choice. Meanwhile, remain silent on the subject of abuse … and particularly on the matter of ‘death-threats’. Until and unless you provide documentary evidence, we shall consider your comments to be damning evidence in any future defamation proceedings.  

One in the Eye?

September 6, 2015

Seminar at CERN on LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reactors)

September 4, 2015

Very good to hear from AIAS Fellow Steve Bannister and congratulations on his appointment as assistant professor and doctorate at the University of Utah, Department of Economics. Well deserved!”

But does that not reflect very badly on you, Ron? After all, you had that famous DSc and yet they would not make you a professor. But here is Bannister, ‘PhD for 5 minutes’ and already an assistant professor. Of course, the title means much less in the US than it does in the UK: that is why even you were made a professor over there. Things are probably even sloppier in Utah; after all, the entire state was founded by a sect who followed a religious maniac, liar (goes without saying) and conman. Bannister’s baffling success is also a slap in the face for the other Steve (Sam Spade). Both of them decided to obtain doctorates in middle age: Spade was a private detective before he deluded himself into thinking that he could be a physicist. The other Steve is a former ‘army brat’ and former ‘jar-head’ who decided to become an expert in the ‘dismal science’. Let us not forget that its practitioners never see the next crash coming, and presumably thought that sub-prime mortgages were a bright idea.