That Will Be A First!

Check Before Submitting for Publication

September 27, 2016

I would just like to check that this is the final version with back page material added. It will be submitted at the end of the month as a joint venture publication with the leading British venture publisher, “New Generation” of London.”

Well, you never have done, so far, with the book. And now the cover-blurb is defective as well. You really do despise your audience, don’t you? You think that you can foist any nonsense on them.

Advertisements

2 Responses to “That Will Be A First!”

  1. Interested Observer Says:

    On the day when three proper scientists won the physics Nobel, Ron is once again protesting too much about how he doesn’t care that he hasn’t won it:

    “I lectured to the Ernst group on optical NMR, and was told by Ernst that my work on optical NMR at IBM Kingston and the Cornell Theory Center deserved a Nobel Prize. I have heard this many times over many years, but I am an unconventional and original thinker, like Einstein, so the caution of the Royal Swedish Academy prevents it from going against the dogmatic masses.”

    The reason he hasn’t won it, of course, is that his work on optical NMR turned out to be nonsense. First it was refuted by theoreticians, who proved that – contrary to Ron’s claims – the B(3) field was inconsistent with Maxwell’s equations (see, for instance, Comay in Physica B, 1996) – and then several experiments showed that predictions made by his theory were incorrect. Two chemists at Princeton concluded their report in a major journal thus:

    ‘our proton and carbon data show no evidence for the B(3) field proposed by Evans, at powers which should have made the effect obvious according to his published calculations, or for any other polarization or chiral-dependent mechanism.’

    It would be a strange world indeed if a Nobel were awarded for a theory shown to be mathematically incorrect, and disproved by experiment – the very opposite of his treasured Baconian science.

    The twofold irony, of course, is that a) papers refuting B(3) are virtually the only non-crackpot citations any of this work has had; b) Ron can’t even look this stuff up online, because it’s all behind a paywall.

    • crackpotwatch Says:

      We are puzzled of course as to why the RSC backed him for a civil-list pension in the first place; his ‘bona fide’ work was unremarkable, and rarely cited by others. The whole affair is an awful anomaly.

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: