Archive for April, 2017

Relevance?

April 27, 2017

The Periphery of Existence – the Academic Paper Mill

April 27, 2017

Google “half of scientific papers are not read” to find that thee are 1.8 million academic papers published every year in 28,000 journals. This was a study at Bloomington, Indiana cited by an article in www.smithsonian.com. in 2014. About 90% of all published papers are never cited. The article asks: how does it feel to spend so much time on the periphery of human interest? In complete contrast, all our work at AIAS / UPITEC is read all the time, and at all the best places in the world. This is because of our famous open access system on www.aias.us and www.upitec.org. The result is by far the highest impact in the world by a small research group (an average of 1.57 million hits a year for 15 years) and an intellectual revolution in physics, a revolution is always central to interest. This impact is generated from a coal miner’s house in Mawr, and not from a colonial university. It is generated with first class, hard working, international colleagues.”

Even if the first statement were true, and we pointed out weeks ago that it is based on dubious sources, how does it help you? Your work is not cited by anyone but yourself and your gang.  The only evidence of success that you can offer are those peculiar figures whose meaning and import are entirely unclear. Put a hit-counter on aias.us or STFU; nobody believes you. A survey of your website and blog over the past few years reveals a gradual exodus of ‘staff’, and there has been a noticeable falling-off of comments by Tugboat, Penderghastly and other dross. It seems that there remains only yourself and Siemens Stain, encouraged by the occasional paean  from Sewage.  Can you not see how pitiful this all is? 

Not At All Clear!

April 27, 2017

FOR POSTING: Updated Comparative Impact Table

April 27, 2017

This table shows clearly that AIAS / UPITEC (www.aias.us and www.upitec.org) is the institute that makes by far the greatest research impact in the world at an average of 1.57 million hits a year for fifteen years. It is very similar to the impact made by Dylan Thomas in his time. This phenomenal impact is well known throughout the world and has been measured with great accuracy in several ways. The comparable impact of groups and departments in the University of Wales is unknown because they do not have websites that display hit counters.”

So you are comparing your figures, compiled using an entirely different (and probably meaningless) method, with the figures given by hit-counters. Now, if you knew anything about science, Ron, you would know that that is completely unacceptable: two samples must be compared using exactly the same analytical method. So add a hit-counter to AIAS and Upitec and let everyone draw their own conclusions. But hey, everybody who is in his right mind has already come to the same conclusion concerning you and your works: worthless. 

So Where Is It?

April 25, 2017

Impact of AIAS / UPITEC Compared with Other Groups

April 25, 2017

AIAS / UPITEC has averaged 1.57 million hits a year for fifteen years (2002 to present). There is a comparative impact table on the home page of www.aias.us which shows that we out impact entire Institutes much bigger in staff numbers. The fair measure of comparison is to measure AIAS / UPITEC against individual research groups of comparable size. For example:

1) Newcastle upon Tyne Fibrosis Research Group, 85,504 hits since 2014. This is well funded and a leading medical group in Britain.
2) Ameer Laboratory, Northwestern University, U. S. A., 31,751 hits since 2005. Northwestern is in the world’s top twenty universities.
3) EQPAM Research Group in Europe, 14,297 hits since 2013.
4) Mathematics Group at the University of Seville in Spain, 3,158 hits since January 2009.
5) Kim group at M. I. T., 15,153 hits since 2015. M. I. T. is often the world’s number one by some measures.
These are found using Google keywords “hit counter research group”. It is a matter of googling for websites that display a hit counter and a time interval and I will collect as many data like this as is possible. It is clear that AIAS / UPITEC has a far higher impact than any research group in the world of comparable size. So many congratulations to all staff! The productivity of AIAS / UPITEC is far higher than any comparable research group in the world.”

That was a rather ‘foot in mouth’ moment wasn’t it, Ron? Everyone will now be asking where the hit-counter is for aias.us. Better add one quickly, in order to level the playing-field vis-a-vis those other sites … and to avoid the suspicion that you are a lying **** of ****.   

Where is that Single Experiment?

April 25, 2017

FOR POSTING ON HOME PAGE: Eight Three Refutations of Einsteinian GR

April 25, 2017

I would be most grateful if this table of eight three refutations of Einsteinian general relativity could be posted on the home pages of www.aias.us and www.upitec.org, with the following introduction.

” I used the well known quote from Albert Einstein: “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” In these eight three refutation papers and books, Albert Einstein is proven wrong in more ways than he could have imagined, having no computer algebra or data outside the solar system. He was proven wrong experimentally about fifty years ago, with the discovery of the velocity curve of the whirlpool galaxy. He is proven wrong again by S2 star systems. Elie Cartan wrote to him about the newly discovered spacetime torsion (early twenties), but it took until ECE theory in 2003 for the importance of torsion to be fully realized.””

Ron, Ron, Ron; we were expecting a handy cross-section of the hundreds of nonsense-papers which appear regularly in the ever-growing list of crackpot-journals and which claim refutation of EGR. Being anti-Einstein is, of course, a sine qua non for the career-pseudoscientist. All we got instead is drivel written by the embarrassing clown and shame-of-Wales, Myron Evans.  You really do not get how science functions, do you Ron? To be fair, that is a problem with many non-physicists. There are many paradoxes in physics, especially with regard to electromagnetism (e.g. the homopolar generator). Electrical engineers are particularly bad at resolving them. So bad, in fact, that such engineers readily deny the conservation laws and turn into perpetual-motion and antigravity enthusiasts (no names, no SS).  Physicists instead retain the conservation laws and thereby develop a deeper understanding of the phenomenon; even if that entails proposing some initially strange nay outrageous concepts (e.g. angular electromagnetic momentum of a simple RLC circuit). So, in the case of galaxy rotation, no physicist is going to throw out relativity; it works so well in other contexts that any true refutation would have to work in all of those contexts as well. Thus the flat part of the galaxy rotation graph is not a disproof of GR; it indicates only that gravity has to be tweaked, just as Newtonian dynamics had to be tweaked in order to explain well-known anomalies. Two popular tweaks are MOND and R^n (see previous posts). Another tweak is the positing of Dark Matter. This unfortunately seems to have become the most popular theory among the muggles; probably because it sounds like something out of Star Trek, and because journalists find it easier to explain that than to explain simple empirical mathematical laws.  We sincerely wish that more people knew about you, Ron, your name could then become a shorthand term for ‘a national disgrace in the field of science and the undeserving recipient of a Royal honour’. To be called an ‘Evans’ (a pejorative term already hinted-at in the Baez index) could then become as welcome as being called a ‘Quisling’.

Antidote

April 24, 2017

Readers who are interested enough to want to know what is really going on in the field that Ron is currently misrepresenting should read:

Will-4

Clifford Will is the leading expert on experimental proofs of Relativity.

Teeny-Weeny Problem

April 23, 2017

376(1): General Theory of Orbital Precession in Fluid Gravitation

April 23, 2017

This note introduces the richly structured field equations of ECE2. In general, precession is governed by simultaneous solution of Eqs. (18), (19), (21), (22) and (29) to give the orbit. In the limit defined by Eqs. (33) and (34), simultaneous solution of Eqs. (30), (31) and (33) may be enough to give precession by adjusting the parameters a sub X and a sub Y, defined by Eqs. (27) and (28) in terms of Cartesian components of the tetrad and spin connection vectors. These are of course missing from special relativity (flat Minkowski spacetime with no curvature or torsion) and its Newtonian limit, but exist in ECE2 relativity (spacetime with finite curvature and torsion). In my opinion the discovery of retrograde precession in S2 is very important because it signals the end of EGR. Leading astronomers dealing with S2 have abandoned EGR (see paper posted on this blog from the Bogoliubov laboratory and co workers). This type of general ECE2 theory can be applied to any problem considered by Einstein. This task has been initiated in UFT313 to UFT375 to date. The computer may be able to solve all four field equations (8) to (11) simultaneously for gravitation and also electrodynamics, using Cartesian coordinates, or any coordinates.”

We thought that it would be fun to let you have a lot of rope over Easter, in the hope that you would hang yourself (metaphorically of course). You have not disappointed us, Ron. You have proved yet again, as if further proof were required, that you do not know wtf you are talking about. Either that, or you are an extremely deceptive person. The thing is, Ron, nobody has discovered GR-denying retrograde precession. Don’t you think such a discovery might have triggered a Nobel prize for the discoverer and got the latter mentioned in the muggle-news (news for non-physicists). The fact is that you a) cannot understand what you read in an academic paper or b) lie about it in order further your own ends. Let us see what your ‘evidence’ (the Borka paper) actually says:

[page 61]. Also, our results show that the R^n gravity potential induces the precession of S2 star orbit in opposite direction with respect to General Relativity. It has a similar effect like extended mass distribution which produces a retrograde shift, that results in rosette shaped orbits.

[page 62]. Rubilar and Eckart [11] showed that the orbital precession can occur due to relativistic effects, resulting in a prograde shift, and due to a possible extended mass distribution, producing a retrograde shift.

All of the other papers on the subject say essentially the same thing. Can you not read and understand slightly technical English? People are indeed watching S2 closely because the possible detection of the rosette-shaped orbits which would indeed signify retrograde precession. You seem to have overlooked the big implied ‘IF’ here. Even if retrograde precession (of a Kepler orbit) occurred, everyone agrees that it would be made up of a small prograde component in accord with General Relativity … plus an outweighing retrograde component due to an extended mass distribution.  So, Ron, nobody has ‘quietly abandoned’ EGR, as you claim. So what would you prefer us to believe: that you cannot understand the relevant papers … or that you lie blatantly in order to promote your own crackpot agenda? By the way, folks, the reason for considering R^n gravity is that it is one of the two most popular ways (together with MOdified Newtonian Dynamics [MOND]) of a) removing the need to postulate dark matter and b) explaining the rotational velocities in galaxies. Note the irony here: Ron claims that dark matter does not exist, and yet has introduced his own mystical fluid, which can be viewed as being either a pre-relativity aether or a form of post-relativity dark (unseen) matter.  This incorrigible clown is really ‘all over the place’ is he not? 

 

Clearing Up Typos

April 22, 2017

FOR POSTING: Final Version of the CV

April 22, 2017

This cleans up a minor typo, the Civil List Pension was awarded in 2005.”

Just for the record, Ron, we are pointing out here that the leader of the Labour Party is Jeremy Corbyn (not Corbin) and that the radio-source at the centre of the Milky Way is Sagittarius (not Saggitarius). We are pointing this out so as to condemn you to misspell them for the rest of your life. We pointed out long ago that there is a misspelling on the home page of aias.us, and have frequently noted that it is Monty Python (rather than your Monte Python). As the latter two errors have never been corrected, even though they make you look unschooled and out-of-touch respectively, we can conclude only that you are scared that the few onlookers will think that you are bowing to our superiority. We shall let you get away with the essential word, ‘the’, as you do manage to spell it properly sometimes.

A Random Walk Through Marquis

April 14, 2017

Featured in ” Marquis Who’s Who”

April 14, 2017

I will be featured in the world’s leading reference vehicle, “Marquis Who’s Who” with advantages with extended and accurate electronic biography. I am in the top 5% of entries in “Marquis Who’s Who”, founded in Chicago in 1899. Many of the AIAS / UPITEC staff are also in Marquis and by now have a huge following worldwide, being famous scientists in their own right of the avant garde school of thought in natural philosophy, ECE unified field theory. We are like the impressionists or post impressionists, cubists, expressionists and abstract expressionists in art history. They all caused riots in Paris or Pont Aven (Pont Afon) in Brittany, or Arles in Provence. The entries in Marquis are listed in the attached. The EDCL group at Aberystwyth was showered with awards an honours, and will never be remotely rivalled. I am the first Welsh speaker ever to be appointed a Civil List Pensioner. The new Marquis will be electronic, web based and editable. It will rapidly rival Wikipedia and be far more accurate, not subject to distortion or bias. The President, Congress and Supreme Court are in “Marquis’ Who’s Who in America”.”

We of course have complete access to Marquis, which is a constant source of light entertainment given the pathetic posturing of the sad-sacks who want to be in it (some important people are put in there whether or not they want to be). In fact, it reminds us very much of Mensa in that regard. First up there is John Searl (there is a link to him on aias.us). His entry claims  – as we have pointed out many times before – that  he was awarded a BA degree by the Russell Cotes Nautical School in 1946. Small quibbles: the RCNS was just a branch of the Dr Barnardo orphanage (Searl has complained elsewhere of being sexually abused there) and, born in 1932, he must have begun his studies at the age of 11. A genius indeed! He also claims to have graduated from the Open University in 1980, and again in 1987.  Then there is his famous Professorship in ‘Math. Strukturen der Schôpfung und Energie’ (1989). He possesses a supportive document which we have never managed to get a good look at, which seems to pertain to a catering or ski school. It is hard to tell as it appears to be written in Maltese. He also mentions a student stint at Shenley Hospital (Herts.) … where he narrowly escaped prosecution for forging prescriptions. He boasts of military service in the RAF … where he deserted his post. He likes to pose in academic garb, draped over some sort of pilot’s uniform. All-in-all he is just the sort of person with whom Ron should be associated. Next up is the late Harold Aspden, sometime head-of-patenting (Europe) for IBM and later employed by Southampton University (one of the two foci of the cold-fusion fiasco). He liked to tell cranks how to get their perpetual-motion and antigravity machines past Patent-Office staff. Marquis just has to have Russell Targ and Harold Puthoff on its books. They were the ‘physicists’ who ‘proved’ that Uri Geller’s ‘powers’ were genuine, and it is said that this led to the CIA wasting millions on ‘remote-viewing’ and ‘goat-staring’. Ironically, remote-viewing fan Targ is now legally blind and his daughter, who had been in control of the USA’s ‘alternative health’ billion-dollar budget, died of cancer.  Here’s a funny one: Boris Volfson, member of the Telesio-Galilei gang, managed to obtain a granted patent on an antigravity machine. Who would have thought that an ‘executive at a sanitation products company’ had such a profound knowledge of quantum mechanics. Closer to home, we have Penderghastly. There is some inconsistency in his entry: it says that he earned a degree from Staffordshire University in 1977, and did post-graduate work at Aberystwyth University in 1983 … so why does he apparently have only a ‘certificate’ from the RSC to show for it? We could go on, and on, and on; there are so many funny stories in the joke-book known as Marquis Who’s Who. 

Beyond Our Ron

April 13, 2017

Huge Discrepancy between Cornell and Stanford in Periastron Velocity

April 13, 2017

This comes to light when using the velocity formula:

v squared = MG (2 / r – 1/ a)

at the periastron, where r = 2.6885 ten power 8 metres (www.large.stanford.edu). This site gives the semi major axis a as 7.0225 ten power 8 metres. Using the reduced mass for M (the effective mass at the centre of gravity, M is about 1.4 ten power 30 kilograms. Using G = 6.6741 ten power minus 11 m cubed per kilogram per seconds squared gives the orbital velocity v at the periastron to be 23.71 ten power five metres per second. The Cornell site is found by googling “Hulse Taylor binary pulsar” third site from astronomy at Cornell, my former University. The Cornell site gives 3 x ten power five metres per second. I am very glad that these discrepancies have at last been discovered because they destroy the credibility of the dogmatists completely. They show that ECE2 is badly needed. There are at least two cases where Einstein fails completely, the Hulse Taylor binary pulsar and the whirlpool galaxy.”

You know, Ron, someone (like yourself) who had to query recently whether they meant Earth-hours or local hours is perhaps not best placed to question his betters. You are trying to apply your fatuous theory to a very extreme system, and think that you can get away with a schoolboy-level appreciation of the concepts involved. Everything has to be re-examined under such conditions. So you have grasped that there must be a special-relativistic correction to the orbit. Ooh, well done. But Ron, one cannot treat these bodies as points, as is usual in school textbooks. What about torques due to the extended nature of the bodies? What about tidal effects (a topic which is never addressed in your amateurish adumbrations)*?   And how can you discuss mass without taking account of the fact that the huge gravitational field here itself possesses mass? And what about the effect of gravitational radiation from the system? By the way, general-relativistic prediction of gravitational radiation for Hulse-Taylor is accurate to 0.5%. Face it, Ron, you are not mentally equipped to ask cogent questions … let alone answer them.

*Although, upon reflection, tidal effects are probably not significant in such a system.

A Present for Ron

April 12, 2017

Here you are, Ron, a handy and FREE guide to how to use the Lagrangian correctly. We take your thanks ‘as read’.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6552/aa5b25