Looking in the Wrong Direction

Cartan Geometry is Unchanged

June 9, 2017

Cartan geometry is the same now as it was in 2003, so it has not been refuted by personal attacks such as those by Bruhn and Rodrigues. ”

The problem is not with Cartan’s mathematics; the problem is with your mistakes made in modifying it.

“Therefore ECE and ECE2 have not been refuted either. ”

Nobody knows about them, and your ‘success-proving’ statistics are entirely bogus. Everybody who matters has accepted the Bruhn, Rodriques and other refutations. As someone keeps saying, “one cannot argue with mathematics”.  

“Those attacks were personal attacks on myself, and not science at all. ”

You think?! You are an insult to previous recipients of the Civil List Pension and a menace to the public’s understanding of science. “You ain’t seen nuttin yet”!

“The Cartan geometry used now in ECE and ECE2 is the same exactly as that described in Carroll’s chapter three. It takes no knowledge of mathematics or science to see this. ”

But then, in his later chapters, you claim that he has gone wrong because his conclusions disagree with yours. Remind us, which of you two is the professional mathematician?

“Sean Carroll e mailed the late professor John B. Hart (one of my Civil List Pension referees) to say that ECE is a plausible theory. ”

Oooh, an e-mail! Did he actually put his reputation on the line by saying that in public? What does he say now? Would he even deign to reply to a crank?

“We have achived one of our major aims, the Osamu Ide circuit for energy from spacetime in UFT311, UFT321 and replicated in UFT364. ECE is the only theory that can explain this circuit.”

One of your major aims was to look stupid/crooked by vouching for a perpetual-motion machine? Ideotic uses classic scam techniques: he presents papers – at conferences  – which make no claims for energy-production; he there calls his results merely anomalous. He patents the circuit, but only as a routine electrical gadget. But then he claims everywhere else that the output is higher than the input. That is exactly the same pattern of behaviour followed by Norman Dean with his fatuous anti-gravity machine of the 1960s. Ideotic’s results are due to incompetent experimental technique, so are yours. A theory which ‘explains’ non-existent data is clearly wrong. Have you ever heard of a guy called Bacon?

“A SEMrush analysis shows that www.aias.us is among the most popular science sites in the world.”

Alexa, and many other website-monitoring services, strongly disagree.


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: