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.

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.