Archive for February, 2016

Quid Pro Quo

February 28, 2016

Satirical Article about LIGO

February 28, 2016

I read it off the blog, and it seems to be sharp satire, I remember my sheepdog putting its nose into a hedgehog and rebounding elastically. If we can design and build a gaser, things would clarify a lot at a tiny fraction of the cost. In the meantime I advise Governments to discontinue funding hugely expensive experiments that take an enormously protracted amount of time to produce satire.”

We advise the British Government to cease funding the waste-of-space known as Myron Evans. It is not clever enough to be satire, and has now gone far beyond a joke.

Advertisements

And Yet …

February 27, 2016

Quick Keyword Analysis

February 27, 2016

The ever popular UFT25, UFT43 and UFT88 have made it on to the first pages of google using the broadest of keywords. They deal with the Gauss law of magnetism, Faraday law of induction, the Faraday disc generator, and the second Bianchi identity. They have been read an order of magnitude a million times since they were written. UFT88 for example has been read an estimated 630,000 times since August 2007. So using keywords “second Bianchi identity”, “Gauss law of magnetism” and “Faraday disc generator” with inverted commas brings all three papers up on the first page of google. Without inverted commas they come up on the second and third pages out of hundreds of thousands of results. These keywords are the broadest possible without losing relevance, they do not even mention ECE theory. This pattern is true for all the items on www.aias.us, indicating a quiet revolution in thought, or major paradigm shift, in physics (natural philosophy) and to a certain extent chemistry, engineering and mathematics. So my heartiest congratulations to the staffs of AIAS and UPITEC who have forged a place in history.”

Google Scholar reveals the true picture:

UFT25: 1 hit, 10 versions, zero citations.

UFT43: 0 hits.

UFT88: 6 hits, 45 versions, zero citations.

Jeez, this means that even Ron and the gang no longer cite their own rubbish in any forum which is deemed (even by Google) to be scientific. This is a dire performance, even by the standards of the lunatic fringe.  “Quiet revolution in thought”? “Major paradigm shift”?  All of the ‘staffs’ should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves for prolonging and embroidering the delusions of this poor deranged fellow (or should that be Fellow?).

Lying in Wait

February 25, 2016

Discussion of Some Ideas for Development of UFT341

February 25, 2016

Many thanks. I think that one of the first aims should be to try to explain the experimentally well known light deflection by gravitation in terms of gravitons and photons. In this view an oscillating mass M for example becomes a radiating source of gravitons, off which photons scatter. So photons in a light beam are deflected by the mass M. Oscillating mass radiates gravitational waves and gravitons in the same way as oscillating charge radiates electromagnetic waves and photons.”

In fact, there is a big difference between the emission of electromagnetic radiation by a moving charge, and the emission of gravitational radiation by a moving mass*. Ron and his bunch of amateurs obviously do not know this. And we are not going to correct them. It will more fun to watch them pile (as they always do) more vast confections of nonsense on top of their initial ignorance.

*Some years ago an article on gravitational radiation in that awful rag New Scientist made that error in the very first sentence! So much for ‘science writers’.

Just Noticed This …

February 24, 2016

A square-torsion modification of Einstein-Cartan theory, S. Vignolo, L. Fabbri and C. Stornaiolo. Annalen der Physik, Vol. 524, 2012, p.826

In the present paper a theory of gravity is considered in which not only curvature but also torsion is explicitly present in the Lagrangian, both with their own coupling constant. In particular, the couplings to Dirac fields and spin fluids are discussed: in the case of Dirac fields, it is discussed how the Dirac self-interactions depend on the coupling constant as a parameter that may even make these non-linearities manifest at subatomic scales, showing different applications according to the value of the parameter assigned; in the case of spin fluids, FLRW cosmological models arising from the proposed theory are discussed.

Isn’t it funny how real scientists can include torsion in their theories without coming to the conclusion that it explains perpetual-motion and antigravity. What a pity that you cannot read it Ron, but real science is hidden behind paywalls. You know the old saying Ron, “what doesn’t cost anything isn’t worth anything”. So keep up the open-access efforts

Why Ron Hates ‘t Hooft

February 24, 2016

Between 2003 and 2005, the former Journal “Foundations of Physics Letters”* (now subsumed into Foundations of Physics) has accepted and published a series of 15 papers by M.W. Evans. A partial list of these papers is given below … Together they would form a book that was intended to unleash a revolutionary paradigm switch in theoretical physics, rendering well-established results of quantum field theory and general relativity, including the Standard Model, superstring theory, and much of cosmology, obsolete. The magic word is ECE (Einstein-Cartan-Evans) theory, and the theory is claimed to have ignited frantic activities on the Internet. In fact however, these activities have remained limited to personal web pages and are absent from the standard electronic archives, while no reference to ECE theory can be spotted in any of the peer reviewed scientific journals. This issue of Foundations of Physics now publishes three papers (G.W. Bruhn, F.W. Hehl, and F.W. Hehl and Y.N. Obukhov) that critically analyse the ECE theory and its claims. M.W. Evans has declined the invitation to respond, referring to his web pages, http://atomicprecision.com. Taking into account the findings of Bruhn, Hehl and Obukhhov, the discussion on ECE theory in the journal Foundations of Physics will be concluded herewith unless very good arguments are presented to resume the matter.

G.’t Hooft, Foundations of Physics, Vol. 38, 2008

*The editor of ‘Letters’, Van der Merwe, was sacked for letting too many loony papers (in addition to Ron’s) get published. This is the same guy who declared Ron’s work to be paradigm-shifting. Science is self-correcting.

Note: the best thing that one can say about Van der Merwe is that he is no way as bad as Mohammed El Naschie. The latter was the editor of a journal which was an imprint of a very respectable publisher, but he abused his position and inserted hundreds of loony papers of his own. His most despicable act was to photoshop a well-attended beach-party, thrown for ‘t Hooft, in order to make it look as if he (El Nasty) was huddling with just 2 or 3 Nobel prize-winners. One just cannot make this stuff up! One does not need to!


.

The Downside of Openmindedness

February 22, 2016

American Physical Society/LENR and Rydberg Phases

February 22, 2016

This is a major breakthrough for LENR, which is explained by UFT226 ff and the latest developments in ECE2, where the vacuum is seen to be made up of wave particles which transfer energy and momentum to elementary particles. The extra energy needed for LENR is contained in spacetime.”

This sort of thing must be very confusing to  the layman. Well, he will think, if the AIP is willing to hear about it, then it must be valid. Not so: major scientific and engineering organisations regularly allow loony papers and concepts to be aired at the conferences which they sponsor or report. They see it as being ‘open-minded’. One institute apparently does it because it is afraid for the lives of its staff: in the 1950s, a nutter whose work it had rejected, entered its offices and shot dead a secretary (because he could not find the real ‘culprits’). A very bad example of this: Searl’s scam has often been presented – as fact – to meetings of the American Institution of Aeronautics and Astronautics. For several years, the 7 leading American engineering societies regularly got together to discuss aspects of energy production and use. A section was usually set aside for the crackpots leading, for example, to a paper being published which bore the imprint of the American Chemical Society and yet was all about the author’s idiotic alchemical theories. ‘Dr’ Bearden (former AIAS member and inventor of the MEG perpetual-motion machine which was ‘explained’ by Ron and his friends) turned up one year with the promise of demonstrating antigravity during his lecture. This failed because a vital component burned out.  The ‘component’ was an ordinary light-bulb! So, this naive policy of allowing loonies to present their nonsense in an ostensibly reputable forum makes it very difficult for science-teachers, and critics of pseudoscience, to inform the general public properly.

Pity that They Had the Other Evans as Well

February 21, 2016

Edgar Evans – A Gower Hero

February 21, 2016

Many thanks indeed! Edgar Evans was also one of my boyhood heroes. The fact that Scott reached the Pole at all was due entirely to Edgar Evans. The decision to drag the sleds manually was a mistake, and Scott’s logistics were not the best. For example the use of ponies and untried motor vehicles instead of dogs and expert dog handlers. Scott also ran into a lot of bad luck.”

Hidden behind a paywall (like most non-rubbish internet-available information), but one can get the gist,

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=8789323&fileId=S0032247411000751

 

 

 

 

Balance

February 21, 2016

Discussion of UFT340

February 21, 2016

Thanks again! The People of Wales, and any People worth anything, always throws off the habit of adversity. I plan to write a sonnet translation of Gruffudd ab yr Ynad Coch, his profound elegy to my ancestral cousin, Prince Llewelyn ap Gruffudd. It was written in about 1283, and contains the famous lines, translated into modern from thirteenth century Welsh:

“Oni welwch chi hynt y gwynt a’r glaw?
Oni welwch goed derw’n ymdaro?””

That is all well and fine, Ron, but the non-Welsh of the world are far more familiar with a different paean to the Welsh.

 

We, personally, prefer this version.

 

By the way, Ron, why is it always spelled differently in, “Welch on a bet”? 

 

… For You Shall Certainly Hang Separately

February 21, 2016

Idea of recording Essays

February 21, 2016

Anyone is welcome here any time, GJE and I were both students of Mansel Davies, along with Colin Reid. GJE has indeed been immensely helpful for forty two years (1974 to present), and is a well known scientist in his own right. I am ready to record essays here at any time if Robert Cheshire can deal with the technical side. The idea is to preserve history on the Wayback Machine (www.archive.org). I don’t think that there is any recording of Mansel Davies, I may be wrong, so that shows how things can be lost. In my view the recordings by Robert Cheshire are excellent, but Michael Jackson asked me to record in my own voice. I think that this is a good idea. As many ordinary people should be recorded as possible, because that will preserve dialects and small languages for the future.”

That is not a ‘death threat’, Ron; that is an allusion to a famous historical quotation. We are certainly all in favor of such an enterprise. The very fact that those concerned think that it is a good thing is, in itself, high comedy. Cynics might say that it is on a par with the leading Nazis spelling out their misdeeds in public … just before the trial? Hmm, perhaps No-Bubbles Jackson could use that theme and insert, into the presentation, the fact that the Nazis also believed in antigravity and perpetual-motion machines. After all, No-Bubbles already mentioned the former ‘fact’ (of Nazi flying saucers) in his interview with Rancid Rense: and you did not deny it, even though he also claimed that Einstein and Cartan had helped the Nazis. So all that he would have to add would be details of the Coler device; the Nazi perpetual-motion machine which is still very popular in the lunatic fringe. Indeed, you first mentioned it yourself on the 16th November 2007.  So, all speed with that project, but do not forget to disable comments … lest you find out what everyone really thinks of you. 

The ‘Jackal’ Technique at Work

February 20, 2016

Media Articles

February 20, 2016

I think that the media, and those who swallow it intact, should do the hard work of scholarship, they will then find that Einstein and Rosen actually predicted that gravitational waves do NOT exist. Norman Page and Doug Lindstrom pointed this out. ”

That Einstein-Rosen story has been going around since 2005. Is it not strange that such a relativity expert as Ron has to wait for the media to tell him about it? And even that information reaches him, second-hand, from gang-members. The fact is that Einstein and Rosen chose an unsuitable coordinate system for their calculations. After that embarrassment (and we are certainly not Einstein-worshippers; we think that scientific fame is pretty much a random event, over-hyped by journalists) Einstein and Rosen corrected their mistake and published elsewhere. If you want to use the Jackal-technique some more, Ron, why not go back another 10 years (to 1925) and find papers by famous scientists which insisted that atoms were a fancy. Yes, Ron, although ancient Greeks such as Democritus said that everything is made of atoms, the concept was not generally accepted until about 1927; thanks to the experiments of Perrin. In fact, why not go back to, say, 1908. We know of one leading journal of that year in which some papers were using the aether to explain observations and others were pouring scorn on everyone who had ever believed in it. Experiment and observation always trump theory, Ron. It is high time that you learned that. 

“The ECE School of Thought in physics knows that the Einstein theory is incorrect due to neglect of torsion. However, gravitational waves are predicted by ECE2 and ECE, so these waves, if they are not artifact of experimental design, are generated in exactly the same way as electromagnetic radiation. “

We have pointed out many times that torsion is often considered by real scientists. But, like the aether, it is found to be irrelevant; whether or not it exists. 

“This media propaganda is made with the obvious intent of asking for more billions and trying to buy a Nobel Prize. “

Ask the Dismal Scientist (yes, we have found a nickname for Bannister) to explain economics to you. Spending billions, to earn a million or so, is just not good husbandry of resources. 

“I think that Governments around the world should err on the safe side and discontinue funding of wildly expensive projects that are perennially controversial. The money is needed to alleviate poverty and starvation, and the development of new energy devices. “

We would point out that, in relative terms, a pittance is spent on scientific research. Far more is spent on gambling (and on the sports which would not exist without that underlying driving-force). As for the root cause of poverty, one need look no further than the Catholic Church. Did you know that the sovereign state known as the Vatican has used blatant pseudoscience (‘AIDS virus smaller than water molecule’) in order to deter condom use. Luckily for over-population, other pseudoscience (‘AIDS is not caused by a virus’) is used by despotic African dictators to avoid buying effective drugs. Do you not know your influential fictional literature, Ron? The bible says that “the poor are always with us”. So that made it OK to build Chartres Cathedral while the peasants starved. Indeed, most so-called beautiful cathedrals were built only because some oppressive ruler thought that he could buy a place in an imaginary heaven. The conmen who once sold holy relics now sell perpetual-motion machines.  

“This captive media never reports on ECE and ECE2, so it gives a distorted, one sided picture. The propaganda is refuted in real time on www.aias.us and www.upitec.org. This illustrates clearly the importance of archiving onwww.archive.org and www.webarchive.org.uk, and the importance of accurate scientometrics. “

Nobody at all mentions ECE, let alone the media, and valid scientometric measures accurately reflect this. We have tried many times to get the media to take an interest in Ron, but to no avail. It seems that even journalists can spot a really worthless pseudoscientist; who does not even have a wonderful machine to point a camera at. Perhaps you could borrow one from Hill-of-Beans, Bearden, Searl or Ide. 

“These threaten the standard model dogmatists by striking at their funding. The can no longer cover up the existence of scholars who show their work to be mostly obsolete. They also try to cover up the fact that Einstein and Rosen predicted that gravitational waves do NOT exist from the Einstein theory. “

And this is where we came in: who was it who said that, if one repeats a lie often enough, people will believe it? The thing is, Ron, science is self-correcting: pseudoscience is not. 

“We still see a statue of Einstein being rolled out on TV. Einstein would have described this tedious BBC propaganda with an undeleted expletive. “

We remember a statue of your hero, Fred Hoyle, being ‘rolled out on TV’. You remember, Ron? Hoyle said that the universe is steady-state, he predicted global-freezing, he said that Stonehenge was a computer, he said that ‘flu’ comes from outer space (an updated Medieval belief) and he published blatant lies about the Archeopteryx  fossils in order to ‘prove’ his anti-evolution ideas.  One of us strongly believes that even his most famous success (predicted resonance-route to nuclear synthesis in stars) was concocted because he had heard (on the academic grapevine) that observational evidence for this was already being prepared for publication. With all of those failed ideas, and dodgy dealing, we can well understand why he is your hero.

“He described the Physical Review in similar undiluted terms and the mind boggles at what he would have thought of Hawking. In UFT341 I will probably explain the gravitational waves, if they exist, with a very simple radiation type theory based directly on electrodynamics. I try to avoid applying ECE and ECE2 to artifact of poor experimental design. In fact, as Stephen Crothers points out, LIGOS is very controversial experimentally. Assuming that they did manage to get their act together, I can easily explain their results with ECE2 and Horst will check my calculations and add some thoughts of his own.”

All the rest may as well be silence as the Bard said.

Monitoring – 2

February 19, 2016

Our method of gauging Ron’s importance to the world, and even to his own gang, continues to tick away quietly in the background and we are totally amazed that he has not spotted it yet. Perhaps he has spotted it, but realizes that he dare not draw attention to it … because of the acute embarrassment that it would cause. That strategy would avail him nothing, as we shall eventually reveal it ourselves; probably next year, given the way that things are going so far!

Day of the Jackal Technique

February 17, 2016

Obsolete Gravity Wave Theory

February 17, 2016

Many thanks, unfortunately my carrier does not highlight the link in blue so I cannot click on it. I am forwarding therefore to the group for comment if any. We all know that the Einstein theory is obsolete and thanks for this further discussion.”

What the morons do not know (or will not tell you) is that there is no corps of 1984-style Winston Smiths who go through the scientific literature and weed out all of the old discarded opinions and exploded hypotheses. This means that any pseudoscientist can fool the layman by digging up ideas (in high-quality peer-reviewed journals!) which were widely believed in their time but are now classed as mistaken, or pure pseudoscience. It is just as effective as the birth-certificate trick used in Forsyth’s novel. This worked because the birth of a new individual was clearly recorded but (in those days)  nobody linked it to the subsequent death certificate. Children who died at a young age were clearly not around to undermine anyone who stole their identity, and the pre-computer authorities had no easy way of detecting purloined birth certificates. Science, similarly, rarely makes a point of reporting the final death of an idea, no matter how ludicrous. Mischievous cranks can therefore  ‘pick and mix’ old scientific papers to ‘prove’ almost anything.  

Ho Ho, That’s Rich!

February 16, 2016

23andMe Lab North Carolina

February 16, 2016

any thanks indeed, this is most generous and much appreciated! I will give them a few of my lines known from documents and ask if they can confirm them by DNA, to see if they can push back further. It looks as if they can now do mixed line analysis and they should be able to find whether the great Fleming and yourself have the same DNA pattern somewhere in the maze. The neanderthal analysis shows that they were not very different from us, we are called sapiens sapiens as you know, but I wonder where we are any wiser after many thousands of years. I regard genealogy as a strictly scholarly and scientific exercise. I do not much care whether my ancestors were labourers or kings.”

Do not much care whether your ancestors were labourers or kings? There is hardly any famous person in history to whom you have not claimed  a connection, including both Elizabeths, both antagonists in the English Civil War; not to mention many American presidents. It is quite obvious to everyone that your Napoleon complex results from a great inferiority complex, and that in turn masks a very fragile ego. It is clear that your only interest in genealogy is to link yourself to supposedly important people; your pretended scientific brilliance and success serve the same self-bolstering purpose. And your approach to genealogy is hardly ‘scientific’. If one wants to trace power and wealth, the spear line is indeed the way to go. But, if you stuck strictly to that line, you could claim only ancestors named Evans. There is also the big problem that the spear-line is only a ‘legal’ link; it is well known that the father named on the birth certificate is, dismayingly often, not the biological father. To be sure of tracing good inherited genes, one should follow the distaff-line alone. Really sloppy genealogists switch between spear and distaff lines, as and when they feel like it. Because of the incredibly dense network of cousins, this makes it easy to connect almost any two people; especially if they lived centuries apart. That is your method, and it is meaningless. This whole stupid affectation reminds us of the craze, back in the sixties, for past-life regression via hypnotism (one of the most famous of these conmen-hypnotists lived in Cardiff, by the way). It was amazing how many of the suckers had all been Queen Cleopatra (but never a street-level Nile whore) in a previous life. Finally, here is something which has been puzzling us for a long time: why has someone who suffers from such an obsession with ancestry made no attempt to produce any direct descendants? Why have you brought such an ‘illustrious’ line to an end? Historians will surely want to know.  

PS And oops!:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/23andme-is-terrifying-but-not-for-the-reasons-the-fda-thinks/

PPS: Oops again:

http://www.amazon.com/23andMe-Personal-Genome-Service-Information/product-reviews/B002QPR852

PPPS: and again:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-echochambers-25341787

Pure Invention

February 9, 2016

Daily Report Sunday 7/2/16

February 9, 2016

The equivalent of 183,015 printed pages was downloaded during the day (667.274 megabytes) from 3103 downloaded memory files (hits) and 591 distinct visits each averaging 4.2 memory pages and 13 minutes,”

And how do you reconcile these fanciful figures with those given by the totally independent monitoring service, Alexa? According to the latter, the average number of page-views per visit to aias.us is just one, and the time spent on the site is too short to measure. Your blog does a little better, with 2.2 page-views per visit and a time of nearly 3 minutes. Our blog-visitors look at 4 pages per visit and stay on-site for over 8 minutes (the pages/visit data certainly agree with our own observations re our blog, so Alexa clearly knows what it is doing). Here is a suggestion, Ron, why not sleep longer in the mornings instead of getting up at 5am just to concoct your completely invented ‘scientometrics’.

PS:

5,955,414

7,044,859

17,832,083

Yeah, you know what we are talking about … 

Summary

February 9, 2016

Slide Set with Technical Appendix

February 9, 2016

The technical appendix looks fine. I assume that this talk will be given to discerning investors and funding agencies. In my opinion all these new devices should be manufactured and distributed free of charge with all despatch in an organized worldwide effort.”

So, what this badly-written piece of nonsensical propaganda says in essence is:

output > input = nonsense

BUT

output = input + magical Myron dust (a la J.M.Barrie)

is viable. Great, all that has to be done now is to prove that magical Myron dust (aka energy from spacetime) actually exists. In previous eras of perpetual-motion scamming, magical Myron dust was called magnetic energy, gravity energy, aether*, zero-point energy, etc.  One obviously cannot trust confidence-tricksters to confirm the existence of their own key evidence. So perhaps Siemens Stain and Bannister (we have not yet dreamed up a suitably derogatory nickname for him) should toddle along to the National Physical Laboratory or the National Bureau of Standards, taking their presentation and the various inventions, and see what happens. Until then, they should just stfu; lest they fall foul of the laws on deceptive advertising and investment fraud.

*The Trouton-Noble experiment, now seen as just another failed alternative attempt to detect the aether was not an austere academic exercise, and was performed mainly because Trouton, a leading British scientist, thought that he could make a pile of cash by using the aether to turn the windmill-like apparatus! Nothing new under the Sun, eh?

Symbiosis in the Lunatic Fringe

February 8, 2016

Conservation of Energy and Momentum in ECE Special Relativity

February 8, 2016

The conservation of energy in this case is expressed through the hamiltonian of ECE2 special relativity, denoted H. This is a constant of motion. …  The transfer of H(vacuum) to H(matter) does not violate any law of physics. It is not “perpetual motion”. That is an absurd distortion put forward by dogmatists. No ethical scientist would put forward the idea. The transfer of H(vacuum) to H(matter) is what is meant by the vernacular “energy from the vacuum”. This should be blazingly obvious to an eleven year old pupil. I always refer to this transfer as “energy from spacetime”. The latter is Cartan geometry. Alexander Pope wrote that a little learning is a dangerous thing, and it is exceedingly dangerous to have no knowledge of physics at all. …  Any kind of rubbishy standard model idea can be hoisted on a general public that knows nothing about science at all. With all the schooling available to them now, completely free, there is no excuse to know nothing. In fact it is absurd to know nothing. It is well nigh impossible.”

The selling of pseudoscience (and fraudulent gadgets) has always followed the same pattern in the lunatic fringe: the street-level conman and the ‘respected academic’ working hand-in-hand. For instance, in the 19th century, a Scottish crook called Spence demonstrated a magnetic perpetual-motion machine which supposedly worked by intermittently placing a ‘magnetic shield’ between oscillating magnets. Of course, the very fact that this would constitute a perpetual-motion machine immediately tells the physicist that there can be no such thing as a (passive) magnetic shield. Nevertheless, David Brewster (one of the leading scientists of the day) wrote an academic paper about this machine and especially the properties of the magical magnetic shield. The editor of the (French) journal explained, in a disclaimer, that he was letting it through only because of Brewster’s reputation. Spence was eventually caught-out by a more worldly observer and Dircks (in Perpetuum Mobile) implies that Spence went on to ignominy and poverty. In fact, Spence became quite famous in Scotland and pioneered bicycle construction and prefabricated housing. But you see how the symbiosis works? Skeptical lay observers of the perpetual-motion machine are told that it has academic support at the highest level. Meanwhile, incredulous colleagues of the academic are told that copious experimental evidence exists. Neat, eh? In the 20th century, one notorious crackpot inventor was Bruce De Palma (brother of the film director). He touted the Sunburst Machine, a homopolar generator, as being ‘over-unity’. The homopolar generator/motor has long been a faithful workhorse (next to spiky induction devices) of the conman. This machine was vouched for by a Dr Robert Kincheloe, an emeritus professor of electrical engineering at Stanford. Electrical engineers tend to be flaky at the best of times but, in this case, emeritus could probably have best been spelled, s – e – n – i – l  – e. And now, in the 21st-century, we have Ron. Ron, who has attempted to twist the entire field of physics with the single aim of being able to ratify every perpetual-motion confidence trick that is currently being pulled: LENR, Ide’s fatuous device, Searl’s long-con, Bedini’s circuits, etc. Not to mention retroactive justification of the Bessler Wheel. So, full marks for keeping up this old tradition, Ron, but zero marks for academic probity. Any eleven-year old pupil can now spot this symbiotic pattern of aberrant behavior.

 

A Propos of Nothing – 2

February 7, 2016

Oh, by the way, we currently

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/crackpotwatch.wordpress.com

are now bigger than Ron’s blog

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/drmyronevans.wordpress.com

and far bigger than AIAS

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/aias.us

How do you explain that, Ron? Where does that leave your ‘scientometrics’. Plus, our own form of monitoring is still churning away quietly in the background: what a revelation that is going to be!

PS: Because links often do not make sense when viewed at a later date, we note here that the current world-ranking figures (high is bad) are (in the above order):

5,984,014

7,076,903

17,874,557

Pièce à Conviction

February 7, 2016

“drmyronevans.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/directelectricity.pdf”

This is definitely going to be sent for inclusion in that forthcoming book: it is stark proof that a so-called ‘professor’ of economics is not only terminally gullible, but is also intimately mixed up with notorious pseudoscientists and conmen. What will the University of Utah think of that? Well, taking account of the fact that the entire state owes its existence to the followers of a religious maniac, financial fraudster and loon, it will probably not be in the least fazed. On the other hand, rational observers will be absolutely appalled.

Creation Myth

February 5, 2016

339(7): Summary of Vacuum Particle Collision Processes

February 5, 2016

This is a short summary of the myriad of processes involving the newly discovered vacuum particle. It is assumed in this note that there is also a vacuum antiparticle, so the evolution of the universe is due fundamentally to the annihilation of vacuum particles and vacuum antparticles to give pairs of elementary particles and antiparticles. These evolve into stars, galaxies and planets. The reverse process involves annihilation of particles and antiparticles to give pairs of vacuum particles and antiparticles. The universe has no beginning and no end, these processes evolve infinitely.”

There is no ‘newly discovered vacuum particle’; you have merely posited such a particle. What you have to do now is to reconcile its supposed properties with every single one of the myriad pieces of observational data that are available, and show that it explains them better than do existing theories. Or are you, in traditional crackpot style, going to deny the validity of every single piece of data? 

Concentrate!

February 5, 2016

Eleven Years as Civil List Pensioner

February 5, 2016

Using the Wayback Machine (www.archive.org) in San Francisco it is seen that www.aias.us was archived just before I was appointed Civil List Pensioner by Queen Elizabeth and Prime Minister Tony Blair on February 29th 2005. At that point twenty six UFT papers had been completed, currently Horst Eckardt and I are working on UFT339. The blog had not yet been started, and there was no Omnia Opera, and no essays or broadcasts or poetry. From August to December 2005 the interest in www.aias.us rose very sharply. So if anyone wishes to write an accurate history of AIAS they have all the archives on the Wayback Machine.”

Let’s see now: a monarch who (as the Nazi regime did) supports the pseudoscience of homoeopathy, and a prime minister who started a war largely on the basis of information from Jane’s Defense Weekly (whose aviation editor wrote a gullible book about antigravity research). Yes, their judgement on scientific worth can certainly be trusted can it not? But the Royal-chartered homoeopathic hospitals are gradually disappearing, and Blair may well be deemed a war-criminal by a forthcoming inquiry report. So who knows what other decisions by this scientifically illiterate pair might be questioned? For now, what you should really concentrate on, Ron, is that date. Concentrate, now, Ron: the 29th February exists only in a leap-year. A leap-year must be even-numbered. The number, 2005, is not even. So what does that tell us, gorilla-Penny? Yes, that date never existed … just as your Civil List Pension should not exist. We have, in fact, pointed this fictitious date out before. Is that why you cannot correct it? Does every error that we point out have to stay on the books forever, so that it does not look as though you are obeying us? And don’t worry, we know someone who is making full use of the archives in order to put your ‘achievements’ in their proper context.

Not Wanted on Voyage

February 4, 2016

AIAS Publishing

February 3, 2016

Dear Dr. Topolska,

Thank you very much. At AIAS publishing we have developed an entirely new and very powerful method of open source website publishing which we monitor by computer based feedback software.”

Now, Ron, do not get carried away in your usual arrogant and conceited manner. That e-mail from Topolska was just a marketing gimmick aimed at bringing the publisher to your attention (some of us use the same trick) without getting caught in a spam-filter.  Did you really imagine that real scientists, writing a proper textbook, had found your theory of value and had built upon it? Of course not, your work is referred to only in passing … just to be thorough. Here, in fact, here are the relevant (we would say ‘offending’) passages from “Microwave and Radio-Frequency Technologies in Agriculture“:

“It has even been suggested that electromagnetic phenomena may be a space-time phenomenon, with gravitation being the result of space-time curvature (Einstein 1916) and electromagnetic behaviour being the result of space-time torsion (Evans 2005).”

“As mentioned in chapter 1, it has even been suggested that electromagnetic phenomena
may be a space-time phenomenon, with electromagnetic behaviour being the result
of space-time torsion (Evans 2005).”

See? Those ‘evens’ pretty much damn your theory as being a tad too outré for proper consideration. Failed again, Ron.

 

 

Circular Argument

February 3, 2016

339(6): Annihilation of Two Vacuum Particles

February 3, 2016

This is a theory of the annihilation of two vacuum particles to give a particle / antiparticle pair plus energy from the vacuum. This is an inelastic, endoergic process, i.e. energy from the vacuum is released by the annihilation. The end result is that many different types of particle antiparticle pairs appear from the vacuum, for example electron / positron. Energy / momentum is conserved, together with charge current density, overall parity symmetry, motion reversal symmetry and charge conjugation symmetry.”

Are you not becoming a little confused by your own theory, Ron? ‘Momentum is conserved’? But momentum involves mass, and your ‘vacuum particles’ (presumably ersatz Higgs bosons) are supposed to explain inertial mass in the first place.  Perhaps you should ask Higgs to explain his theory to you. We guess that it would go something like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEIn3T6nDAo

Just to clarify: Sheldon is Higgs, you are gorilla-Penny. And just like Penny, you can learn to spout concepts that you do not understand.

X-Rated

February 2, 2016

Hey Ron, just in case you are in need of ‘new’ ideas, you might like to know that the X-Files series has re-started. Episode 10-1, for instance, is full of mentions of the things that you love: electrogravitics, free energy, etc. 

Another Popular Crackpot Ploy

February 2, 2016

Mchelson Morley Experiment

February 2, 2016

This was widely discussed at Vigier One in Toronto in 1995, the result is now being questioned deeply, and not before time. The vacuum can be thought of as moving with respect to an electron at 0.068c.”

Well of course it was discussed at VJJgier; the latter attracts only crackpots, and the original MM experiment has always been a prime target (conveniently forgetting that it was repeated again-and-again to greater-and-greater accuracy, and is now a ‘student exercise’). Why are the MM experiment and Einstein so targeted by the lunatic fringe? It is very simple: crackpots want to ‘jump over the heads’ of real scientists and try to sell their ideas (and fraudulent devices) to the layman. In order to do that, they have to ‘latch on’ to the few personages and ideas which are known to said lay public in order to achieve instant ‘brand recognition’. It is a sleazy trick … all of their tricks are sleazy.

Et in Cambrensis Ego

February 2, 2016

Comments by the AIAS Co President

February 2, 2016

This looks like very promising research. All good ideas must cause shock and horror, otherwise something is wrong. In our case though our ideas are resulting in record high interest.”

And, as in Canada, so in Wales. Just as the Canadian Government harboured the pseudoscientist, Lindy, so did Welsh local government harbour the pseudoscientist, Evans-the-Sewage. What a sinecure that must have been. How easy it must have been to baffle the administration with science. Perhaps some UK resident should make a Freedom-of-Information-Act request to find out exactly how he was selected and how he spent his time at Ceredigion CC.  How were your tax-pounds spent?

So Funny

February 2, 2016

Video of the Lecture by Doug Lindstrom

February 2, 2016

Agreed, this is an important lecture which opened the recent Coeur d’Alene New Energy Conference in Kootenai County, Idaho.”

… or is it? This imbecile talks about all of the familiar loony-tune icons, such as cold-fusion and ‘over-unity’ circuits, with a perfectly straight face. For instance, he mentions the ET3M racket as if it were real! Do we have to post again that photograph of the derelict building in a Mexican slum from where Alex Hill (of Beans) supposedly sells perpetual-motion machines to Fortune-50 companies? Does Lindy also subscribe to Hill-of-Bean’s belief that hydroelectric plants extract energy from gravity? We pointed out long ago that the audience-members at this conference passed the breaks by reading books about the occult and ‘aliens at the Pentagon’. Did Lindy really get paid by the Canadian government? Is that where Canadian tax-dollars go?  We always worry about the better (i.e. sane) candidates that he beat in order to get his government job in the first place. There are worrying signs that layman recruiters believe that candidates who have ‘out of the box’ ideas are more valuable. That philosophy might work for jobs in advertising and marketing: it is disastrous when applied to scientific fields.