Archive for April, 2017

Second Coming?

April 30, 2017

Remember this affair?

Well, Wicked Wang is rampant again,

but Sir Arthur Edwin Turner VC is obviously not related to Arthur Turner-Thomas … nor to Sir Arthur Edwyn Turner-Thomas GC, VC, etc., etc., Ron’s favorite genealogist; even if they have all lived at the same address. But at least one of them should tread carefully: our information is that there is (surprisingly) nothing actionable concerning giving oneself knighthoods and military honors provided that it is not done in the furtherance of a crime. So plain Arthur of Tenby was safe in that regard at least.



Signs of Success

April 29, 2017

Principles of ECE Annual Rate

April 29, 2017

This well known monograph is being consulted at the rate of 3,806 copies a year off and open access in English and Spanish, so for an advanced level monograph it is a great success, having been consulted well over ten thousand times since it was published in preprint format in 2014. It is available in book format from E Publi in Berlin (high quality hardback) and New Generation in London (softback). The ECE2 papers and books are being consulted at a rate of 48,396 times a year off and Note carefully that half of the scientific papers published by the obsolete journal method are never read by anyone! About 1.8 million papers are published every year, so almost a million papers a year are never read. In complete contrast AIAS / UPITEC has recorded about 1.6 million hits for fifteen years, about a thousand times more than any university research group of any size. One cannot stop the march of ideas.”

So where are the signs of success? It is never cited because of course (according to you) everybody is frightened to do so. It seems that they are also too frit to review it favorably either. We would love to hear from any idiots who have actually bought copies of this drivel-fest, as they must be the sort of people who may urgently require psychiatric help, but do not realize it. Stop repeating such blatant lies over and over again; they make you a national disgrace and suggest that you are someone who is unworthy to hold a research degree.  One does not need to resist armies or ideas … if they are already marching away from rationality with such enthusiasm.



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 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 and 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 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 ( and 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 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 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 and, 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’.


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:


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, 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 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 ( 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’.

Why Denmark?

April 11, 2017

Among all of the 160 or so countries which view our blog, Denmark is always in second place (after the UK), with its page-views out-numbering the US views (third place) by nearly 2:1. Would somebody in Denmark care to enlighten us as to the cause of this great interest? 

That Same Old Moronic Drone

April 11, 2017

UFT88 Read at CERN

April 11, 2017

UFT88 has been read at CERN, and signals the complete acceptance of ECE and ECE2 theory. ”

On average, and by your own admission, every ‘academic’ visit is out-numbered 49:1 by in-links from porn-sites, etc. By what peculiar logic do you deduce that anybody at all is ‘accepting’, or doing anything else with, your nonsense papers? 

“During the course of development of ECE theory several papers deal with particle physics, and have all become classics due to the vast worldwide readership of ECE. ”

What ‘vast worldwide’ readership? Nobody mentions your crackpot theories, not even in the teeming idiot-swamp that is the lunatic fringe. 

“UFT88 is a famous paper in the world of avant garde physics, it was the first paper to consider the effect of torsion on the geometrical basis of Einsteinian general relativity, the 1902 second Bianchi identity. It was shown in UFT88, UFT99, UFT109, UFT255, UFT313 and UFT354 that the entire structure of Einsteinian general relativity collapses when its geometry is corrected. ”

Even your ‘opera omnia’, which supposedly earned you a civil-list pension, is not much cited (after eliminating self-citations and citations by parties with a vested interest), and the post-breakdown drivel is not cited at all by normal people. Nobody, not even those real physicists who take an interest in torsion, cite your ‘avant garde work’.

“The vast and permanent readership of ECE theory means that the Einstein theory is obsolete. The conventional physics system is also obsolete. ”

Again, there is no ‘vast’ nor ‘permanent’ readership … except in your own dishonest/deluded mind.

“For example half of the papers published in its obsolete and dogmatic journals are not read by anyone, including the editors. ”

How many times are you going to repeat that lie? If ever there was an ‘exploded hypothesis’, that is it! 

“UFT99 has been broken out into a series of definitive proofs. It shows that if torsion is neglected by forcing it to vanish, curvature also vanishes. The Einstein theory is based on curvature so is completely refuted by UFT99. UFT88 has been read an order of ten thousand times at least in about five hundred leading universities. I am able to recognize only institutional URL’s so the actual readership is much higher. ”

As before: you have no proof that the visits are either real, or approving. Therefore every other conclusion drawn from them is ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’. 

“It takes place in all the best universities in the world. CERN has also been notified of UFT225, which completely refutes electroweak theory, and it is aware of all the UFT papers. These refute Higgs boson theory in many ways, notably the use of photon mass predicted in many ways by the UFT papers, notably the B(3) field. ”

Have you ever checked the CERN library? It collects all sorts of nonsense-books, including, for example, those by Harold Aspden. Do you really think that they are ever actually read (with a straight face)?

“I am told that this has been nominated several times for a Nobel Prize.”

But you mix only with loonies and liars, so what are the odds of that being true? Being generous of spirit, we attribute your constant lying about this and other matters (the myth of unread mainstream papers, the true content of Bannister’s thesis, etc., etc.) makes us fear that you are suffering from the onset of dementia. Perhaps you could get a doctor’s letter … 

A Surfeit of Theories

April 10, 2017

Non Relativistic and Relativistic Angular Momenta

April 10, 2017

Many thanks again! The non relativistic angular momentum is a constant of motion but the relativistic angular momentum is not. What does the orbit look like with a relativistic angular momentum? These results are very important because the use only the lagrangian and definition of angular momentum.”

This is becoming confusing for the handful of non-loonies who take an interest in Ron and his works: first it was pure torsion, rather than general-relativistic curvature,  that was supposedly causing precession. Then it was special-relativistic orbital velocity considerations that were a factor (this is, in fact, accepted … but why did it take genius-Ron so long to catch up). Now he has re-introduced an all-pervading fluid which is even more viscous than the already-undetectable classical ‘aether’. Each of the theories is claimed to give the observed precessional anomaly exactly and directly, without having to eliminate all of the conventional causes such as other orbiting bodies. (Newton himself, followed-up by Clairaut, showed that just about any mathematical fiddling with the simple Kepler orbit will cause precession). How do each of Ron’s theories give precise results ‘without treading on each other’s toes’? Or is Ron admitting that he is making a series of failed attempts at explaining precession without Einstein?


April 9, 2017

Contribution by Stephen Crothers

April 9, 2017

Good to hear from you, this will be a very interesting chapter as usual! In March 2017 the first volume, “The Principles of ECE” was read open access at the rate of 9,514 times a year off combined sites, so your chapter for that volume was also read at that rate. In contrast, half of scientific papers published conventionally are not read at all. This puts the huge impact of your work in context. Attempts to censor your work, and the personal abuse to which you have been subjected, have failed completely and rebounded on the Old Guard.”

In spite of your avid reading of our blog, Ron, you seem to have overlooked some of our correspondence. As you have repeated that lie again above, here is the information provided by our reader, ‘Interested Observer’,

Google “half of scientific papers are not read” to find that half of papers published by the old system are read only by editors, and that is being optimistic.” Ron here repeats an old but pervasive urban myth. Indeed, if you google that sentence you will find hundreds of pages apparently confirming the assertion, but the whole thing’s baloney. The origin of the story seems to be an old Smithsonian article which cites a 2007 ‘study’ as its principal source. But it’s nothing of the sort – it was an opinion piece in Physics World into which some editor inserted a half-remembered ‘fact’ from a lecture he or she had attended some years previously. “50% of articles are never read” was a mangled version of the truth, which was that “52% of articles are never *cited*”. That statement in turn came from an article published as long ago as 1980, a very limited study of citations which applied quite specific criteria (I think it was limited to a window of five years from publication) to articles published *in the humanities*. In summary, Ron parrots as truth something which is not only demonstrably wrong, but based on dodgy data and decades out of date. Much like his ‘scientific’ output, in fact.

Can that be true, Ron, do you in fact parrot baloney?

Too Complex for Ron

April 8, 2017

375(1): Equivalence of Cartesian and Plane Polar Force Laws

April 8, 2017

This is a note on the equivalence of the Cartesian force laws (4) and (5) and the plane polar force laws (15) and (16). This means that numerical integration in Cartesian coordinates can be applied to several problems, as in Horst’s section 3 of UFT374 just sent over.”

It is well known that complex numbers can very conveniently model two-dimensional rotation. One keeps the Cartesian framework, and simply makes the real and imaginary components time-dependent. The centrifugal and Coriolis fictitious forces then fall out immediately, and this method also has the advantage of showing how intimately they are related. This is rarely stressed in elementary textbooks.  Looking more closely, one finds that there is a myriad of possible fictitious forces. Only the first two have generally agreed names (centrifugal, Coriolis). The ‘next one up’ is variously called ‘jerk’, ‘transverse’, ‘Euler’, etc., and explains why fairground rides have to be carefully designed: even if curved and straight lengths of track are made to meet at exactly the same height and angle, there would still be a bone-jarring jolt at the join if the ride-designer were as ignorant of basic physics as is Ron. Is that relevant here? Yes, there is a jerk term in the Kepler orbit. Now that Ron knows about it, can he ‘twist torsion’ enough to model it?

Journalistic Minds

April 7, 2017

Half of Conventional Scientific Papers are Not Read

April 7, 2017

Google “half of scientific papers are not read” to find that half of papers published by the old system are read only by editors, and that is being optimistic. I am among the most conventionally peer reviewed authors in the world, (because I have produced so many papers conventionally) and very rarely does the editor of huge journals read the paper. Alwyn van der Merwe is a man of integrity, and not only read but also edited all the papers of his journals himself. He always employed two or three referees. In astounding contrast to the lack of any readership of conventional papers, ECE and the new system of physics pioneered by AIAS / UPITEC has a vast and permanent readership, and has had since 2003, when the theory was proposed fifteen years ago. In contrast Gerard ‘t Hooft is an editor who set out to destroy a new theory and failed completely.”

Some decades ago, the Sunday Times published a mindless rant by a couple of journalists. One of the leading ‘archival’ journals had just published a compendium of all of the known properties of all (then) known fundamental particles. That issue of the journal was indeed huge. For some reason, these moronic journalists took issue with its size and wanted to know why it had been published, given that nobody would be interested in more than a minute part of it. It is unclear why they were so exercised by the volume; after all, it had not been financed out of public funds. One’s only thought was what on Earth they would have to say about the telephone directory. Perhaps they had not noticed that that was also very bulky, and yet contained very little that would interest a given individual. It seems that similarly moronic journalists have been at it again! Did you imagine, Ron, that every paper in every issue is avidly read by everyone? As for your output, it was largely ‘salami’ (as one of our correspondents put it) and, on top of that, most of the citations were by yourself or colleagues. Salami always passes ‘on the nod’ because one slice is so much like the preceding slice.  Van der Merwe has no integrity! What sort of responsible editor lets though paper after paper, written  by people who are associated with the inventor of a perpetual-motion machine? An inventor who also believes that the Japanese mafia controls the weather and that ‘men-in-black’ are out to kill him using futuristic weapons.  One hopes that Merwe’s assistants were hosed-out of the Augean stables of Foundations of Physics Letters at the same time that he was.  The ‘output’ of the twin sewage outfalls of aias and upitec is unpleasant, but nevertheless goes totally unnoticed in the real world. t’Hooft is a leading theoretician and Nobel prize-winner who thankfully now keeps an eye out for pseudoscience-pushers like yourself and the Public Dick. What theory did he destroy? Oh yes, yours; we had almost forgotten. 

How Quaint

April 7, 2017

Orbital Parameters

April 7, 2017

I think that this system is only one out of many such systems and a literature search would be most interesting.”

We have just realized that Ron and Siemens Stain look at orbital dynamics as if they were dealing with an orrery or with the diagrams in a book for laymen. The latter always make it look as if the planets are orbiting a Sun rigidly fixed in space, or the Moon is orbiting an Earth fixed in space. Such situations would contradict Newton’s third law. In fact, the Moon and Earth are both rotating about a point some distance below the Earth’s surface. Who knows what common point a black hole and a quasar might be orbiting. How do Ron and SS hope to get valid numerical results if they do not take account of this?

A Laugh a Minute!

April 7, 2017

Two Schools of Thought in Physics

April 7, 2017

The two biggest schools of thought in physics at present are:

1) ECE (probably in the majority);
2) Standard Model

The former uses a system of physics based on open access publication on websites which are archived for conservation. The material is made directly accessible to the readership. It has a huge worldwide readership as is well known, and has refuted many aspects of the standard model. The latter is based on dogma to a large degree and uses journals which are restricted only to its own ideas. So it has gradually become obsolete. Both schools are well represented in Google Scholar.”

No, there is only real physics … plus the lunatic fringe. You are not big, even in that fringe, because you no longer publish in the crackpot ‘journals’, which now number in the hundreds. You cannot prove if or why anyone reads your tripe, and nobody but you and your gang ever refer to it. We pity the unfortunate schoolboy who comes upon your nonsense by accident and is disastrously misled by the deceptively academic facade of your fake ‘institute’.  At least it is all archived, otherwise future readers of humorous books about pseudoscience will never believe that such a clown as you could ever have really existed.  


Wrong Yet Again

April 6, 2017

Precession from a direct approach to mass point dynamics in a fluid

April 6, 2017

These results are again full of interest and can be written up in Section 3 of UFT374. This Cartesian approach is the one with which most people are familiar. A lot of people get confused with the use of a coordinate system in which the frame itself is moving, for example the plane polar and spherical polar systems.”

You are the one who is confused: the polar and spherical coordinate systems are not inherently time-dependent. Such a feature still has to be added, and the relevant differential equations modified accordingly. In the case of the Lagrange top, two orthogonal (Cartesian) coordinate systems are used:  one fixed in the laboratory frame, and one which is fixed to, and moves with, the top. The transformations between these two systems are exceedingly tedious, complicated and subtle.  We doubt that you could manage them.  Your intellectual equal, ‘Professor’ Viv Pope, the telephone repair-man, also had difficulties in understanding coordinate systems. So did Laithwaite. Neither of them could comprehend that an object moving at a steady rate in a straight line can have an associated angular momentum.  Laithwaite even wrote an entire article which showcased his ignorance. To be fair, most school-teachers don’t ‘get it’ either and even Newton had trouble with such subtleties.

What a Cite!

April 5, 2017

Entries of Combined Sites in Google Scholar

April 5, 2017

There are currently 781 entries of and in Google Scholar, 550 for and 231 in”

But Google Scholar is not run by scientists, Ron, and makes little effort to weed out pseudoscience. For instance, one can also find there citations of the nonsense perpetrated by your friends and intellectual equals, ‘Professor’ John Searl and ‘Dr’ Tom Bearden. In the case of Scopus, which is controlled by informed observers, one finds just one citation for upitec and none for How did upitec get in there? Somebody must have dozed off.


April 4, 2017

The h index of G. W. Bruhn

April 4, 2017

This appears to be three, i.e. three papers cited three or more times. How is it possible for an emeritus professor to have an h index of three in fifty years on the staff? They have all been refuted, notably in UFT89. They are as follows:

1) G. W. Bruhn, “No Energy to be Extracted from the Vacuum”, Phys. Scripta 2006, cited by nine, two of whom are Hehl and Rodrigues, the rest is in Chinese.
2) G. W. Bruhn, “On the Lorentz Invariance of M. W. Evans’ O(3) Symmetry Law” cited by 5,”

It is simple, Ron. Only you suffer from the delusion that the h-index is the prime factor determining who gets a professorship. University syndics are much more interested in organisational and leadership skills. It is generally accepted that most original research is done by post-graduates, readers and lecturers, and that professors soon get bogged down in arguing about budgets, etc., leaving little time for new work. It is also important for a professor to be able to get on with people and not to be a complete pain.  Professor or not, it is also important not to inflict olfactory warfare on the student body and, when some student complains about the smell, it is important not to try to persecute him. It must also be pointed out that chemists in particular are notorious for publishing hundreds of very  short papers. To the layman this makes their CV look good ,  even though the papers are often just tweaks of the same old idea or routine applications of the same method to different chemicals. It is no coincidence that the print version of Chemical Abstracts was the largest publication in the world. Mathematicians instead tend to write fewer, but near book-length, papers. Look at Alan Turing: with just a few lengthy papers, he revolutionized several fields. As for those Bruhn papers being little-cited, you have rather shot yourself in the  foot there: they are little-cited because they are refuting your papers  … and those are of no account in the first place.   

“and one other paper, which has again been refuted years ago. The Wikipedia entry made this nonsense the basis of its distortion of ECE theory. ”

The Wiki entry on ECE is still going strong, and is added to on an almost weekly basis. 

“Bruhn disappeared on medical advice in 2008 after years of harassment of my group and myself. ”

Who was it who got Fucilla’s lawyer to send a threatening letter to Bruhn? That would be you … and THAT is harassment! It is a pretty weak scientific argument that cannot stand on its own two feet. 

“By now there are patented circuits taking energy from spacetime (UFT311, UFT321, replicated in UFT364). ”

They may be patented, but they do not ‘take energy from spacetime’. That is a crackpot idea, and the patents in fact make no such claim. 

“There should be an enquiry into this Wikipedia scandal. ”

There should be an enquiry into why someone who considers himself to be an employee of Her Majesty is associated with all sorts of energy scams, and has even used the address of Her Treasury while supporting pseudoscience-based confidence tricks. Did they retain the death penalty for treason? We cannot recall.

“After a long battle I got Wikipedia to remove its grossly pejorative and defamatory article on my career. ”

And now you are mentioned only in connection with E-Crap-E theory. What a fitting tribute.

“It began with the ethnically prejudiced words “Welsh chemist”.

That was naughty: the wording should have been “Welsh pseudoscientist”.

“Lakhtakia sent several ethnically prejudiced e mails before being caught by our feedback software. ”

Good for him!

“He was severely reprimanded and reported to the police by University Park administration. ”

No he wasn’t: why would an American university take the side of a Welsh pseudoscientist?

“He also impersonated arXiv staff at Cornell. He was not sacked for academic misconduct as he should have been.”

Again, well done. It should be an academic duty to expose members of the lunatic fringe. And here are some h results just in. According to Scopus, Elsevier’s more up-market version of Scolar, Ron’s h-index for the period, 1973 to 2017, is given by:


 But, if one ignores his self-citations (and these often account for over 90% of the total), one gets:


And, if one restricts attention to the period, 2007-2017 (supposedly his  decennium mirabilis), one finds:


Look at that: lower than Bruhn’s!

Ron’s New Trick/Lie

April 4, 2017

My Conventional h Index

April 4, 2017

This has increased sharply from 39 to 42 in one year: see “Google Scholar”. Compared with our advanced scientometrics, the h index is exceedingly rough and ready. I give my h index just to compare with the usual method of measuring impact. So the top 42 most cited articles were each cited 42 or more times. The total number of citations for these 42 articles is 6,266. So the average is 149.19 for the top forty two articles articles and books.”

It seems that only the citations account-holder can access these details on Scholar, so nobody else can check these data. Ron’s claim is dubious, as we can access Scopus (behind a paywall) and the data there show that his h-index has fallen steadily post-breakdown. It is currently in single figures. We shall try to cut and paste the Scopus graph later. We have done it before:


April 3, 2017

374(5): The General Planar Orbit of Fluid Gravitation

April 3, 2017

This is found from the gravitational Navier Stokes equation (4), which is a particular case of the general Navier Stokes equation (8). The velocity field is given by Eq. (21) as derived in UFT363. The orbit is worked out entirely in terms of the radial component R sub r of the position element of fluid spacetime, its r derivative and second derivative, and its time derivative. Additional equations are available from fluid dynamics: notably the continuity equation and conservation of angular momentum. These can be developed in future notes, in the meantime model functions can be used. It is already known from Horst’s numerical analysis of yesterday and this morning that a fluid spacetime or aether gives a precessing orbit, a major discovery in my opinion. In this model a planet or object of mass m around an object of mass M moves in a fluid spacetime or aether. The structure of the theory is that of Cartan geometry.”

Always willing to help, it occurred to one of us that it would be possible to detect that fluid spacetime by observing some  difference in the speed of light in beams directed in orthogonal directions. As he was chewing some M&Ms at the time, he suggests calling it the M-M Experiment. He cannot wait to see how it turns out!


April 3, 2017

Transfer of Original papers to Powys Archives

April 3, 2017

I have offered them to the National Library of Wales but it seems that they have a policy of no longer accepting original papers unless they are digitized. However, the NLW does have a collection of all my books, the only library in the world to have a complete collection, and was threatened with closure some time go.”

That is understandable, but closing an entire library simply in order to get rid of your nonsense seems a trifle extreme.

“Obviously that philistine attitude would be a major disaster for Wales. I do not fully understand the NLW policy about manuscripts, but it seems that they are running out of space. Ystradgynlais Library suggested that I offer them to Powys Archives because they have no space.”

And how long would they stay on the shelves? Are not these the same items that you were recently trying to sell on Ebay … for a minimum of £5,000,000?


How Many More Alcoholics?

April 2, 2017

The Artistic Development of Vincent van Gogh

April 2, 2017

There is an interesting programme in youtube called “Vincent van Gogh Documentary”. This is an artist that I greatly admire, and once again there was a sudden paradigm shift in the space of three or four years from a powerful but technically ungifted artist, producing drawings and dark, rough looking paintings, to the same kind of startling originality as Dylan Thomas, using vivid colours and his own famous style. ECE and ECE2 should be looked at in the same way as poetry or art. It is an original style of science, now well known throughout the world. When it first appeared it caused a riot, so did Manet, Cezanne, van Gogh, Rodin, Picasso, Braque, Munch, Stravinsky, and anyone who is worth anything. The Philistines had a fit all over it.”

Another drunkard, obsessed with a whore and ‘treated’ by a quack. He even painted pictures of drug-addicts (that strange glass in one of his daubs was shaped so as to hold a sugar cube and soften the taste of absinthe). Don’t worry, we are fully in agreement with the idea that pseudoscientists are exactly the same as so-called avant garde artists. They all produce drivel which does not reflect reality and has constantly to be ‘interpreted’ and defended by the perpetrator or his hangers-on. They eventually come to public notice for some extraneous, and usually sleazy reason (suicide, murder …), whereupon opportunists seize the moment. Money and notoriety then  take over in their usual autocatalytic manner.   Ask 1000 random people what they know of Gogh, and the vast  majority will just say ‘expensive’. We admire illustrators. They are always far more technically skilful, produce work of photographic accuracy but can ‘slum it’ and imitate amateurs like Gogh if paid. One might even say that illustrators are analogous to scientists.


April 2, 2017

Rexroth on Dylan Thomas’ “Eighteen Poems”

April 2, 2017

This was published in December 1934, a month after his twentieth birthday. Rexroth described it has having smitten the Philistines a great blow, or similar. I was always deeply impressed by the instinctive originality of Dylan Thomas, and by the fact that between the ages of about sixteen and nineteen he forged his own paradigm shift from bad stuff turned out by a schoolboy to startling and lasting originality. No one can honestly deny the impact and originality of ECE and ECE2 theory, based as it is on very simple equations that cannot be refuted in an honest way. It has smitten the Philistines and dogmatists a great blow. They reel like drunken trolls.”

Is that the Rexroth who was the son of a drunkard and was accused of running a brothel? Is that the cowardly Rexroth who dodged military service, wrote obscene poetry and impersonated a Japanese woman in order to get noticed? Did Dylan’s poetry change at that time because that was when he became old enough to sneak into public houses? One can quite see why the dirty-minded son of a drunk would admire a foul-mouthed alcoholic like Thomas. Artists and pseudoscientists are very much the same; they prop each other up  … like Eliot’s hollow men. Oooh look, a literary reference. We must be fully-rounded renaissance people.

April 1st Prank

April 1, 2017

374(4): Time Dependent x and Onset of Turbulence

April 1, 2017

This note derives the equations (7) to (9) for a time dependent x factor, with x defined in terms of the position field R sub r of UFT363. These equations can be solved for the orbit in terms of x and x dot. In the first instance these can be used as input parameters. It is already known from computation (UFT363) that a constant x gives a precessing orbit, a major discovery. In order to try to solve for x and x dot the assumption can be made of an inviscid, incompressible fluid spacetime governed by Eq. (14). This gives the additional equation (15) which can be solved simultaneously with Eqs. (7) to (9). The conservation of the angular momentum of fluid spacetime gives the vorticity equation (19) in terms of the Reynolds number R of fluid spacetime. At a particular Reynolds number the spacetime become turbulent, and the turbulence will affect the precessing orbit.”

Great spoof post, Ron; right up there with the unforgettable ‘spaghetti grows on trees’ joke,

But April 1st is really the only day when you can do that. If you post such things on other days, everyone will think that you are an imbecile.