The ‘Jackal’ Technique at Work

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.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: