So Where Is It?

The Readership of ECE Theory

March 23, 2017

The ECE unified field theory has a vast readership of the highest quality (attached), and the open access system on www.aias.us and www.upitec.org means that we bring the results of original research directly to the readership without the intervention of editors of the obsolete physics. ”

You yourself admit that the ‘quality’ readings make up only 2% of the total (see below). So why are porn sites and other non-scientific ‘readers’ doing exactly the same thing as the ‘scientific’ ones? Is not the Occam’s Razor interpretation that all of the ‘readings’ are completely random … and therefore meaningless?  

“The latter might still try to block publication, although they no longer have any influence on the new physics. They cannot stop the march of ideas. ”

To put it another way, you can no longer get your nonsense into any sort of journal … not even the crackpot ones. Even Mills, the perpetual-motion crank, can still get papers published in respectable journals (provided that he says nothing stupid); ‘Science’ is far too forgiving in that regard. 

“The attached two volumes to date record only about 2% of the vast total readership, it is the sector I name “universities, institutes and similar”. A student of the history of science can already discern that ECE is permanent, because the interest is constant and intense. ”

‘Constant and intense’? Sounds like plain noise … ‘electronic noise’ in this case.

“There have been no objections from standard physicists of integrity to ECE theory. ”

Duh! Given that your crackpot theory is no longer mentioned at all in scientific circles, where would the objections appear?

“The basic geometry of ECE is exactly the same as that used by everyone else, the Cartan gemetry described by Carroll in “Spacetime and Geometry: an Introduction to General Relativity”, a book which is also available open access. ”

Yes, but then you extend the geometry, get it wrong (because you are not a mathematician), and tell Carroll that some chapters of his book are incorrect … because they disagree with your pseudo-math. 

“The geometry used by Carroll has been greatly developed and all his proofs have been given in detail from 2003 to present. ECE and ECE2 are developed with computer algebra, so there cannot be any logical criticism of the theory unless one criticises Cartan geometry itself. As far as I know no one of integrity has ever criticised Cartan geometry, no one has ever criticisied Carroll chapter three. One cannot criticise the correctness of computer algebra.”

One can clearly criticize incorrect extensions of Cartan geometry. And of course one can question computer algebra. Such programs check only that algebraic operations have been correctly performed. They will do that even if the underlying theoretical model is completely bonkers. Why do you keep lying about this?

“This means that the only things left to criticise are the hypotheses that transform the geometry into physics. That is exceedingly difficult, because the ECE and ECE2 theories produce all the main equations of physics.”

That is because they have been contrived to do that. That was always the pattern of your bona fide academic behavior: ‘glorified curve-fitting’. It is always easy to dream up a theory which will fit part of the observed data better than does the accepted model. That is why we harp on your neglect of tidal phenomena. A genuine theory would furnish that information ‘even without asking’.  We wager that you just cannot twist ECE2 that far.

“In many cases ECE and ECE2 succeed when the standard model fails. Finally ECE and ECE2 must be tested against experimental data across the whole of the physical sciences and engineering. To date they have always succeeded, because they are based on geometry.”

Oh yes, they ‘succeed’ in explaining perpetual motion (Ideotic) and antigravity (Laithwaite)! You ‘test’ them only against the data which were used to concoct them in the first place. That is known as ‘double-counting’ and is one of the most serious offences against proper scientific investigation. Another is to fail to question ones own research.  Committing either of them is sure to get ones doctoral thesis rejected. They must have been very sloppy at Aberystwyth … or did you go downhill later?

 

Advertisements

One Response to “So Where Is It?”

  1. Harry Hab Says:

    He’s never been really clear about the difference between ECE and ECE2, has he? They are “variations on a theme” which is to say, two slightly different shades of —

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: