Meeting of the Mindless

Some Points of Discussion with Steve Bannister and Kerry Pendergast

July 15, 2017

The following was agreed upon in six or seven hours of informal discussion.

1) In general the Institute is succeeding on all fronts, pure and applied science and engineering and distance teaching, and we are pioneers of a new School of Thought in the natural sciences and engineering.”

All that is needed now is for somebody to notice.
“2) Steve knows of a package used in economics which can solve about sixty partial differential equations in sixty unknowns. This was discussed at the Idaho conference with Doug Lindstrom. This can be adapted to solve seven equations in seven unknowns in physics.”

Is it free? We all know that you use Maxima instead of Mathematica simply because the former is free.
“3) The use of skype and other advanced communications equipment would allow lectures to be given to an audience scattered in different localities, and introduce sound and vision.”

But Skype is two-way. We can just imagine what ‘sounds and visions’ you would attract.

“4) There is a need for an ECE textbook with problems for students. At present there are several advanced monographs. I believe that Horst is working on such a textbook along with Doug.”

There is absolutely no need for such a textbook; students are already sufficiently confused by all of the other pseudoscientists out there. 
“5) There is a need to arrange skype lectures and seminars to people such as NASA, Steve and Kerry were interested in the retrograde precession from ECE2. There is a need to interest a producer and director in a film or TV programme or series.”

That could work: there are a lot of incompetent engineers at NASA, and they have already thrown money at loonies such as Podkletnov. Did Penderghastly also not notice that you had misread that article which mentioned retrograde precession? Yet again, we recommend the Welsh actor/director, Keith Allen, for that task. He knows just how to deal with the subject-matter. 

“6) I gave a summary of main points of progress in ECE2, and explained how the tangent indices are removed.”

But did you do it properly?

“7) It was agreed that illegal harassing and hate blogs should be ignored completely by the entire scientific profession. I pointed out that such criminal conduct in any civilized meeting (scientific meeting, Congress or any Parliament worldwide) would have the Session Chair or Speaker down on top of them immediately.”

Is that relevant? You are not part of the scientific profession. It is the purveyors of perpetual-motion and antigravity machines who would feel the weight of a conference chairman. Of course, it would have to be a real conference: not one of the crackpot conferences which mesh with the crackpot journals and their crackpot peer-reviewers.

“8) I mentioned my opinion that it is no longer rational to ignore or reject ES or LENR, and that an all out effort should be made to get them mass produced. I mentioned that the luddites such as Crawshay would have smashed up Trevithick’s steam engine. Some discussion took place while we were seated around the first steam locomotive in the world, the Trevithick locomotive.”

You clearly subscribe to a peculiar view of rationality. Poor Dismal, he is going to tell all his friends that he saw the first steam locomotive. How cruel of you not to tell him that it is only a replica. 

“9) I mentioned that I started ECE theory in late 2002 by reading Carroll’s chapter three. Since then many proofs have been given that were left out by Carroll. One of these led to UFT88, now a classic paper by any standards. Sean Carroll sent an e mail to the late John B. Hart mentioning that ECE is a plausible classical theory. It is also a plausible quantum theory and unified field theory.”

He left them out because they would have been wrong.  Why don’t you ask Carroll what he thinks of ECE right now? He won’t answer you will he? 

“10) There was some discussion as to whether there is anything more fundamental than geometry. I mentioned a more abstract geometry and Steve mentioned that the present theory is adequate by Ockham’s Razor.”

Correct use of that razor would erase you all! When is Dismal going to risk his job by stating openly that he thinks that energy can be plucked out of nowhere. When is he going to endorse publicly some of your favourite scam-artists? 

“11) It was agreed that the work we have done has written itself into history, and the theory takes on a life of its own because infinite permutations and combinations of ideas are possible.”

It will all disappear when you do. You are nothing more than an excrescence of the internet.

“12) I mentioned that the Heisenberg indeterminacy has been thoroughly refuted, along with many other aspects of standard physics.”

That was the only joke in your stand-up routine?
“13) I offered to give lectures or talks without notes via skype, to any audience, schools or universities anywhere in the world. We are already doing that routinely by website.”

OK, two jokes.
“14) I mentioned that there is always work to do, one thing that comes to mind is to look at LENR theory and develop it. I think that Doug and Russ may be doing this now. The theory is variations on a theme of geometry, paralleling the Goldberg variations by Bach and the Diabelli variations by Beethoven. Another thing is a look at the Hulse Taylor pulsar.”

One cannot develop that which does not exist.
“15) It was agreed that I am isolated here and this is by no means the best place for science. This is due to the various attempts to destroy my work using misrepresentation.”

You would be isolated wherever you are, but please don’t let that stop you from leaving. The only way to misrepresent your work is to call it valid!

“16) There were many other points of discussion, I emphasized the great importance of scientometrics. They are the “radar” I use every day. Without them I would not know of the astonishing worldwide interest in the theory.”

Your radar is broken.

“So this group of avant garde intellectuals has written itself into history.”

Agreed; it has written itself into the history of pseudoscience.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your 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: