Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Unemployable to Unemployed

May 21, 2018

⇒⇒⇒”P60 of a Civil List Pensioner

May 21, 2018

A Civil List Pension is a Pension from the Civil List voted in by Parliament to the Head of State and others on recommendation of the Prime Minister who is also First Lord of the Treasury. ”

The head of state was not a scientist and could not properly judge the matter. The prime minister at the time was Tony Blair, now widely reviled as an alleged war criminal. Part of the ‘dodgy dossier’ which ‘informed’ his attack on Iraq was an article in Jane’s Defence Weekly (JDW). Jane was a cranky illustrator whose smudgy drawings infested many old magazines. One of JDW’s aviation ‘experts’ wrote a ridiculous book about supposedly suppressed antigravity aircraft. What price the views of JDW on WMD?  

“The P60 is issued by the Treasury. My formal employer is Queen Elizabeth II. There are currently fifty five or so Civil List Pensioners. ”

Pensioners are – by definition – those who have ceased to work, or are not expected/able to work. If HM is a true employer, what are your terms of employment and what specific tasks have you been given?

“The Royal Society of Chemistry nominated me, and the international referees were Prof Emeritus Alwyn van der Merwe, Prof. Bo Lehnert, Aademician of the Royal Swedish Academy, and the late John B Hart. ”

The RSC also gave a prestigious award to Elena Ceaușescu in return for some UK government deal over a ship-load of potatoes. Yes folks, the RSC (like the Roy. Soc. Lond.) is easily bought! She of course had no real qualifications and her PhD was about as genuine as is Thomas Bearden’s (Ron’s sometime co-author and former AIAS member). She inserted her ‘ghost-written’ papers (and badly-tinted full-page photograph) into every issue of the Revue Roumaine de Chimie which, for some peculiar reason, was written largely in French in those days – did she even know French? Oh, how real chemists laughed when she was executed on Christmas Day. Great present!  Van der Merde was of course sacked from his editorship of Foundations of Physics Letters for allowing too many pseudoscientific papers (mainly those by Ron and gang on the subject of Bearden’s perpetual-motion machine) to be published. Lehnert  has published 13 papers in the loony ‘journal’, Progress in Physics, so he is another ‘academic’ whose scientific opinion is absolutely worthless. 

“Bo Lehnert informed the Chair of some Vigier Conferences, Richard Amoroso, that I had been nominated several times for a Nobel Prize.”

And you believed those insufferable clowns?

“There is no reason to disbelieve this. ”

There is every reason to disbelieve it!

“The Civil List Pension is the higher honour of the two.”

Utter tripe. 



HaHa, Ron Stymied by His Notorious Dyslexia

May 21, 2018

Automatic reply: Request for Ruling from the Ombudsman about Talk Talk

May 21, 2018

Many thanks, the typo was fixed and Talk Talk acknowledged receipt of the complaint. I posted the receipt on the blog. Many thanks also for setting up a superb computer system. It is now working perfectly, there are no further booting problems. All three computers are working very well.”

On fruther commnet nedeed!

Sewage’s Freudian-Slip Imagery

May 21, 2018

Note 408(1): The Dirac H Atom as a Thomas Precession

May 21, 2018

Many thanks to Co President Gareth Evans for these kind remarks. Much appreciated. The energy levels of the Sommerfeld and Dirac H atoms are the same, but the Dirac atom gives the spin orbit fine structure by using the SU(2) basis. The energy levels of the Schroedinger and Bohr atoms are the same, but the Schroedinger atom gives the orbitals and much more information than the Bohr atom. The effect of the vacuum on the Dirac atom is the Lamb shift, so this can also be thought of on terms of the Thomas half. The energy levels of the Schroedinger H atom are the Thomas half multiplied by the Einstein rest energy m c squared. This analysis can be extended to all atoms and molecules, and in ECE2 it is developed into a generally covariant unified field theory in a space with finite torsion and curvature. The Thomas half is developed in this space.

This is an astonishing result again. Like a spider’s Web, the strands of physics are pulled together. This is the mind of a master scientist weaving a uniquely original web and leaving many lifetimes of study for scientists to follow.”

Strangely enough sycophant-in-chief Sewage gets it just right, presumably against his conscious will. Has the spider-web image ever before been used in a ‘good way’? Everybody expects the use of ‘web’ and ‘spider’ to presage the inevitable use of ‘evil’ and mastermind’ … and possibly ‘lurking’. Ron is certainly evil: if any young wannabee physicists come upon his ludicrous work, albeit an unlikely occurrence, they will be intellectually crippled for life.  ‘Mastermind’ is, on the other hand, certainly a misnomer given that Ron is still stuck in the era of physics bounded by the scope of his old student course-books: a nutter in his shell who thinks that he is the king of infinite space. Ooh look, a literary reference: we must be Ron-calibre renaissance-men. Sewage’s imagery contains a supplementary Freudian slip in that a spider’s web is not ‘woven’: what are traditionally woven are ’tissues of lies’. Well done again, Sewage’s subconscious! We could quibble about ‘pulling strands together’. After all, a spider does not assemble already-existing lengths of web. The only things which are ‘pulled together’ are possibly the flimsier anchoring points of the web. 

Historical note: Freud has the highest h-index of all time, but is the worst possible example of a ‘scientist’: his theories were all announced by fiat, he never conducted anything even approaching a scientific experiment. He was a drug addict, with the drugs helpfully supplied by a wayward member of the Merck chemical company. He and his drug-addled companion then developed a numerological ‘theory-of-everything’ which was based on two prime numbers. Nevertheless, slips made in his name are useful.

Gun, Foot, Take Aim

May 17, 2018

UFT Papers on a New Record High

May 17, 2018

Today’s rate for the UFT papers and books is 118,747 times a year, and if this is kept up to the end of May it will shatter the record set last month of 114,026 consultations a year. In January 2017 the rate was 28,800 times a year. So there is a very sharp increase in interest in the UFT papers and books (UFT313 – UFT406 to date). This shows the value of the accurate scientometrics. No reasonable person can now deny that the ECE theory is the new physics. Of course there are dogmatists who will never accept change. Gareth calls them the flat world dwellers. They have just fallen off the edge of the world.”

With regard to the ‘new physics’, it does not seem to occur to Ron – after all he is just about as deep a thinker as Trump is – that he is casting doubt on his own pre-breakdown work which was supposedly worth a Civil List pension. Most of that work involved fitting models to experimental data. The thing is: those models were based upon the ‘old’ physics and used conventional atomic theory and rotational dynamics. But now Ron says that that theory was wrong … so that must mean that all of his old work must have been incorrect, and any agreement with experiment merely fortuitous. This is especially true of his application of rotational dynamics to molecular resonance … given that he now claims that rotating objects harbor previously unknown levitational forces.    

In ‘Words of One Syllable’

May 16, 2018

Fw: black hole escape velocity?

May 16, 2018

Myron Evans <myronevans123>

Fully agreed with the co President of AIAS, Dr Gareth John Evans. The Nobel Prize in physics is supposed to be awarded for the best work in the immediately preceding year, but now it is frequently awarded for work that is fifty years old and already obsolete. The theory behind black holes is completely obsolete.

Agreed, this is just compounding nonsense with more nonsense. There is still a flat earth movement but who seriously wants to study what they say? The same applies to a lot of modern “physics” – that is actually mathematics and ideas devoid of scientific control (the application of Baconian principles). Theories musr conform with what can be observed and substantiated otherwise they cannot become scientific fact. Even scientific fact moves on, as we see through ECE theory, but theories that cannot be proven have no future.”

In one of his many (20) loony contributions to the crackpot journal, Progress in Physics, the Public Dick openly admits that he is aware of Michell’s 18th-century prediction of a black hole. The Michell calculation is transparently simple: he assumes light to be particulate and shows that, provided that the velocity is not infinite, there must be a sun  mass which is so great that elementary projectile theory predicts that light cannot achieve escape velocity. But the Public Dick’s ‘bag’ is never really physics and instead the sort of hair-splitting double-talk and semantic tricks which are bread-and-butter to … ugh … ‘philosophers’. So his objection to Michell seems to be that the light goes up and comes back down again and that somebody within that ‘height range’ will therefore see light and thus the body is not a black hole. Like any philosopher he thereby cunningly pretends to miss the point by subtly making the very surface of the star the same as the maximum range of the photon in order to have a true black hole (by his contorted definition). He pulls essentially the same semantic trick with regard to the Swartzschild solution.   


In a Complete Spin

May 16, 2018

407(6) : Thomas Precession in the Bohr and Sommerfeld Atoms

May 16, 2018

This note shows how the Thomas / ECE2 precession enters into all aspects of the Bohr and Sommerfeld atoms of the old quantum theory. It is also present in the Schroedinger atom of Note 407(1) and the Dirac atom. The Dirac equation has been developed into the ECE fermion equation. Now I will proceed to writing up UFT407.”

So let’s see: Thomas originally posited ‘his’* precession in order to make the concept of electron-spin quantitative. Now you claim that it explains everything. So how do you now account for electron spin?  

*Thomas did not in fact discover the precession which is named after him. It was first spotted (as a ‘parallel translation of vectors’ phenomenon) in 1909 by Poincaré while he was studying Lobachewskian geometry, and was first explained in relativistic terms by Borel in 1913 ( Comptes Rendus, volume 156 page 215). 

Same Ol’, Same Ol’, Same Ol’ …

May 16, 2018

Thomas / ECE2 Precession and the Sommerfeld Atom

May 16, 2018

After completing an extensive literature search on the Sommerfeld atom the next note will explain how the Thomas / ECE2 precession appears in the atom. For a useful site google “Sommerfeld H atom energy levels” and third site that comes up. The Thomas / ECE2 precession is the angular precession of the semi major axes of the elliptical orbitals per orbital angle. This gives the famous rosette structure that Sommerfeld sketched in a letter to Einstein. The Lorentz / ECE2 factor is (1 – (alpha / n) squared) power minus half, and the Thomas half enters as described in a previous note , and is the same as for the Schroedinger H atom: v / c = alpha / n. The energy levels of the Sommerfeld atom are the same as those of the Dirac atom, and Sommerfeld introduced the azimuthal quantum number. ”

And how exactly can you perform a proper literature search when all of the ‘good stuff’ online is hidden behind pay-walls and you cannot even venture as far as Swansea University  in order to read the hard-copy journals? A proper search might show you that atomic theory has moved on quite a bit and that old Bohr-style models are now used only for teaching and for ‘hand-waving’ ‘water-cooler’ discussions. 

“He was nominated eighty four times for a Nobel Prize, many of his students and post docs (e.g. Debye, Pauli and Heisenberg) were Nobel Laureates, but Sommerfeld was never awarded a Nobel Prize. Obviously one should not read too much into a Nobel Prize, it has become a completely arbitrary, politicised, procedure. ”

We find only 72 nominations for Sommerfeld. Have you never noticed that the prize is biased towards inventors and experimentalists? Even good theoreticians do not stand much chance.  The inventor of the AGA stove received a prize, albeit for another relatively mundane invention. Einstein was lucky to get any prize at all: Gullstrand vigorously opposed rewarding mere theory.

“My case shows that very clearly. I was nominated several time for B(3), ”

LIE; you mean that other loonies told you that they had nominated you. The Nobel Prize committee has a ‘special drawer’ for such nominations.

“but people like the fraudster Bruhn were able to attack the Royal Swedish Academy. Bruhn also attacked the Welsh Assembly and mocked the British Head of State, Queen Elizabeth II. ”

Do you have evidence of that, or is it just your worthless opinion? That is getting very close to defamation. You are lucky that you are not worth suing. On the other hand, anybody who gave you a pension without a second thought is certainly worth mocking. You are lucky that you were not prosecuted for trying to set up an illegal university or for sedition over your suggestion that Wales should secede from HM’s United Kingdom. 

“The fraudsters were overwhelmed by a huge tide of support for the work of my colleagues and myself in developing B(3) into ECE and ECE2, and the old system of physics was overturned. ”

And nobody noticed either event!

“It can no longer cynically censor ideas which interest millions of the colleagues worldwide. After Elsevier tipped me for a Nobel Prize in its Sci Topics feature it was also attacked by the same fraudsters who set up the Wikipedia site. ”

The Sci Topics site was potentially useful, but the outcry over its giving you a platform caused Elsevier to drop the whole thing. Thus does ‘the system’ prevent your cancerous rot from spreading. 

“Now that it is known that the Schroedinger atom is a Thomas / ECE2 precession, it will be shown in the next note that the Bohr and Sommerfeld atoms are also Thomas / ECE2 precessions. ”

How do ‘we’ know that? Your theory is becoming more and more ridiculous.  

“Alfred Nobel did not intend his name to be dragged in the mud in this way. ”

Mentioning you and Nobel in the same breath or sentence should become the very definition of dragging through mud. We keep thinking of those very old deodorant ads.; not because of the obvious reason, but because of the tagline intimating that ‘best friends’ should inform the victim about the problem. Have you no best friends (e.g. not members of your gang) who can tell you just what a fool you are? 


Shorter than a Taliban Joke-Book

May 15, 2018

Long Essays

May 15, 2018

This is an excellent idea, and it would also be a good idea if the staff members could write papers like this giving their own views and perspectives. Horst Eckardt is currently writing a textbook which is certain to be another classic. ”

‘Another classic’? Where are the previous ones? In fact, where are the staff other than office-boy Siemens Stain? All of the reputable people who appeared on your list some years ago have gradually disappeared and you are left with the rubbish. One never hears from even Penderghastly or Tugboat any more. Even the Public Dick only appears to be on your side because you are both sometimes attacking the same thing. Have you not noticed that he is an ‘electric universe’ crank, just like Dunging-Davies? 

“Every staff member who can do so is invited to prepare articles and lectures on what they think are the most important advances made in seven hundred UFT papers and books since 2003.”

That would not be too onerous; all that they have to do is pick up a used bus-ticket … and draw a big fat zero on it. Job done.

“This is roughly the entire output of Linus Pauling for example, achieved over sixty or seventy years. ”

Oooh, bad example! He was another chemist who went peculiar in later life. Everybody knows about his silly views on vitamin C. Far fewer people know about his increasingly fevered attacks on the discovery of five-fold crystal symmetry (then deemed impossible by all of the existing textbooks). Pauling immediately ascribed the experimental results to twinning (i.e. one twin). As time went on, and his attacks were countered, Pauling became increasing undignified and finally claimed that over 4000 twins could give the same diffraction pattern as five-fold symmetry. The person who withstood Pauling’s vituperation recently received a Nobel for the discovery. Pauling of course had two such prizes, one for chemistry and one for Peace. The latter was due largely to his calming behaviour during the student riots of 1968. How would those students have felt if they had known that he had recently applied for a patent on a military weapon (a sort of hollow-point projectile for canon).     

“Similarly the colleagues could write articles and broadcast lectures on what are the most important advances made in my career of almost two thousand items. That would take up their entire retirement (in humour). If they think that I have achieved nothing at all, it would be a very short article.
Intense Blog Interest in UFT406 and notes for UFT407”

So, as you yourself admit: if they do not produce anything, that will mean that everybody is of our opinion.

Wrong Target

May 15, 2018

black hole escape velocity?

May 15, 2018

Since EGR has been refuted in so many ways, some of them ridiculously simple, this stuff is unscientific and should not be funded publicly. It is a school dinner composed of cabbage, prunes and custard, catalyzing regurgitation to pass exams. Thanks again to Stephen Crothers, whose work is highly recommended reading, for example his chapters in the classic “Principles of ECE” volumes one and two (blue box on the home page of

Black hole escape velocity?

Crothers, S.J., Black Hole Escape Velocity,

How come that great scholar, the Public Dick, is unaware that black holes (dark stars) were predicted by John Michell in the 18th[sic] century. Or is it that he does know, but also knows that he has no hope of refuting Michell. As a ‘philosopher’, it is also odd that the Public Dick is unaware of the Correspondence Principle. This says that a more advanced theory must not contradict a simpler theory when applied to the same conditions which supported the simpler theory. For example, special and general relativistic predictions never contradict Newtonian predictions under ‘everyday’ conditions. Therefore the Public Dick is wrong from the get-go. No, the Public Dick prefers to trot out his misunderstandings of the subtleties of general relativity as if they were proofs. This fools the lunatic fringe … which loves ‘common sense’ arguments. But common sense fails when applied to most of physics. Did you know, Ron, that certain objects initially fall upwards when one releases them? And they are not even spinning LOL.

Unjust Deserts

May 14, 2018

Wikipedia entry on Jean Pierre Vigier

May 14, 2018

This is a grudging little entry that does no justice to Vigier, but reduces Wikipedia to a farce, because the first reference is to a booktha I wrote in “The Enigmatic Photon” series. Vigier was a kind of honorary (and very encouraging) co author but I wrote them.”

An undeserving worm basking in reflected glory? But Vigier was never very popular: a sniper during the war (neither side likes snipers) and on the wrong (Bohm) side in the interpretation of quantum mechanics. His political activities were so unpopular that he was the subject of several assassination attempts.

“Wikipedia passes off the book as Vigier’s book. It is clear that Wikipedia’s ugly little distortion of my work and biography has failed miserably and that it is itself in trouble. I for one would not be sad to see it taken off the internet, in many ways it is a vindictive rag. ”

We don’t like it either … mainly because it is too soft on cranks like you. They should not be mentioned at all.

“In all probability Bo Lehnert, King of Sweden Gold Medallist and Royal Swedish Academician, revealed to Richard Amoroso, chair of some Vigier Conferences, that I had been nominated for a Nobel Prize several times. Amoroso openly told me about them. ”

And you believed that bunch of cranks? Lehnert has had 14 papers published in the crackpot journal, Progress in Physics. and Amoroso is a ‘professor’ at the flaky Noetic Institute (attempts to visit its websites, such as, usually makes Norton ring alarm bells). 

“The wiki thing and its associated and vicious attacks on Alwyn van der Merwe, were part of an attempt to stop me winning the prize. ”

Yeah, that would do it: pointing out that Van der Merde had been sacked from his post as editor of Foundations of Physics Letters, largely for publishing your papers about ‘Dr’ Bearden’s perpetual-motion machine, must have reduced your chances from zero to non-existent.  

“These nominations are fully vindicated by overwhelming worldwide interest in the work of my colleagues and myself. That is worth a thousand Nobel prizes. ”

But there is no interest, worldwide or otherwise; there is just the fake data which you cobble together yourself every day.

“The Royal Swedish academy is itself in trouble (on the internet) so the interest of millions is worth much more than a Nobel Prize, which ranks below a Civil List Pension.”

The Civil List Pension has little monetary value, but it does mean that one joins an exclusive list of scientific ‘greats’. That is why you should not be on that list. You must not remain on that list. 

“The former is by now a rather obscure academic honour, the latter a high state honour from a Head of State, akin to Order of Merit, which is modelled on the the Pour le Merite (the Blue Max).”

Everybody has heard of the Nobel Prize, few people have heard of the pension. The latter is nowhere near as prestigious as the OM. To join the latter order, one has to be a world-class musician, playwright, mathematician, physicist, engineer or surgeon … or simply to have made a lot of money by selling vacuum-cleaners. Donating lots of money can also get one an FRS without writing a single scientific paper. Hey, Ron, instead of leaving your millions in a will, why not use them to buy a gong for yourself? Er, you do realize don’t you Ron, that the Blue Max is a German award, not a French one? Did you miss the film, and the video game?

Publication Advice

May 13, 2018

407(4): Development of the New Theory of Atoms

May 13, 2018

The major new insight is given by Eq. (1), which is developed into a relativistic theory. This gives several new insights on the non relativistic and relativistic levels. For example the energy levels of the Schroedinger H atom are the negative of the expectation values of the electronic kinetic energy in each orbital. The energy levels of the Sommerfeld atom are the Thomas precession per radian multiplied by the rest energy, m c squared. The force equation and spin connection are derived, and the expectation value of the Lorentz factor defined. The ordinary non relativistic kinetic energy is the Thomas half multiplied by the rest energy. So elements of relativistic theory combine to give a familiar non relativistic result. The Thomas half is obtained by spinning the ECE2 line element.”

You know, Ron, you do not have to rot away in your backwater; pretending that your theories are widely accepted and have inspired the establishment of ECe ‘schools of thought’ in other locations. There are hundreds of impressive-looking journals which would welcome your output with open arms.


Journals for Ron

Of course, they would also want to welcome your money with open claws. But think of the benefits: your work would appear in a journal which you did not have to found yourself, and the production-values would be good enough to fool 99.9999% of the population … and especially journalists. But there would be other drawbacks, apart from the cost: the other authors are often real professors who are employed by genuine universities (although the terms ‘real’ and ‘genuine’ seem to have their own peculiar meanings in the third world). They often have real workshops and laboratories where they openly experiment with mechanical perpetual-motion machines … so you could be regarded perhaps as a bit of an upstart amateur. Moreover, you are a fan of the Bessler Wheel while at least two Indian research groups favour the work of Chas Campbell,



This is a different sort of nonsense-machine. Unfortunately for Campbell, it is not even original: it is essentially the same idea as that foisted on the US over 100 years ago by Garabed Giragossian. His machine fooled lower-level engineers and high-level senators and came within ‘inches’ of being officially backed by the US government. The scam survived all the way up to the supreme court, where some spoilsport physicist suggested that too many people* did not understand the difference between energy and power.  Your gang does not understand the difference either, does it Ron? Hill-of-beans says in black-and-white on his et3m scam website that the Watt is a unit of energy.  Siemens Stain, in his papers on the Ideotic  scam device, uses the terms ‘energy’ and ‘power’ interchangeably. So start submitting your work to those crackpot-friendly journals, Ron: your third-rate mind and third-rate theories would go down well in the third world!

*journalists regularly make the mistake with regard to lightning … or is it a mistake. Contrary to the claims of their own publicity-machine, journalists just cannot be trusted … especially with regard to technical matters.

To Know Him is to Loath Him

May 11, 2018

Cordial Relations between the Two Schools of Thought

May 11, 2018

There are cordial relations between the two schools of thought, ECE and standard. There has been so much interest in ECE2 for so many years from the standard school that the two types of physics co exist. It seems to me that the AIAS / UPITEC colleagues are getting the respect and recognition that they deserve, and that collegial relations have been firmly established. The personal attacks and distortions such as those in wikipedia were the work of an unscientific and unpleasant fringe.”

The truth is that pseudoscience is an ever-growing menace, with the proliferation of low-quality crackpot-friendly journals and with loony propaganda being rampant on the internet. The problem is – so far – most acute in the third world where a long publication list can literally equate to food, and standards are consequently tumbling. We have shown several times that Indian professors[sic] of engineering openly discuss the design of mechanical perpetual-motion machines which are little different to the fraudulent Bessler Wheel (which, Ron suggests, extracted energy from spacetime). There are signs that the rot could easily spread to the first world; with at least one UK professor (of electrical engineering … of course) openly admiring, and subscribing to, the loony ‘there is no gravity’ theory of the despicable ‘professor’ Viv Pope. His admirer is involved with ‘explaining science to the public’. Unlike Pope, Ron is unfortunately still with us and – again unlike Pope – can boast of no independent academics who openly support him. Pope had at least two. Most scientists know nothing of Ron’s post-breakdown work, and those who do know … merely despise him. Even the utterly moronic John Searl can serve the useful purpose of a ‘stalking-horse’ to flush out the loony engineers who mention him at otherwise-reputable conferences. Ron is mentioned, and not even often, only at loony-tune conferences.  He is an embarrassment to the UK, and has no justifiable right to a Civil List pension.  

Ron’s Black Hole

May 11, 2018

This is the metaphorical black hole which lies at the centre of his faulty theories: the complete omission of tidal effects from all of his calculations. That is the problem when one twists mathematics in order to ‘get the result that one thought of in the first place’; nothing else then fits. The lack of an explanation for tidal effects also undermines the claims of ‘electric universe’ cranks such as the Public Dick and Dunging-Davies. Meanwhile, the implication of tidal forces arises quite naturally from Newtonian gravitational theory. Even astrologers are aware of tidal effects … even if they do always get the explanation completely wrong. ‘Intelligent laymen’ are particularly well aware of the tidal effect of real black holes, if only because ‘science writers’ fill their heads with lurid depictions of astronauts being torn apart by them. But that effect is not unique to black holes: every gravitating body has a Roche limit (where the tearing starts). That is why the comet which hit Jupiter some decades ago broke up long before it hit the surface.   

Dimensions Analyzed

May 11, 2018

Note 407(1): Thomas Precession in Planetary Orbits and the H Atom Orbitals

May 9, 2018

Many thanks to Dr Horst Eckardt for pointing out that Note 407(1) is a remarkable result that shows that the “non relativistic” solutions of the Schroedinger equation are inherently relativistic and that the gamma factor is obtained a priori from rotation of the ECE2 covariant line element. He also points out that the standard model uses the idea of the Lorentz boost as being purely linear. As shown in Note 407(2), the “Thomas half” comes out of the commutator of boost matrices. This is also a new development because usually, the commutator of boost generators of the Lorentz group is used to give rotation generators. ”

Simple dimensional analysis, which cuts through all of the relativistic waffle, shows that the Lense-Thirring effect upon orbital precession can be only of the order of J/a^3; where J is the total angular momentum of the Sun and a is the semi-major axis of the planet’s  orbit. This means that the magnitude of the Lense-Thirring effect upon perihelion precession is minute … even in the case of Mercury. 


Milestone? More Like a Millstone!

May 9, 2018

UFT406 – a Milestone Paper

May 9, 2018

The patterns of readings of all the work on, and in particular the UFT papers, begin to clarify after a few days at the start of the month. The webalizer file posted every morning gives the complete feedback, and the daily report the filtered feedback. The latter takes about four hours to prepare every early morning. ”

It is nice to know that deception is such hard work. One day, we shall perform a concerted multi-continent downloading of one of your rubbish articles and see whether you have the cheek to call it a ‘conference’, as usual. More importantly, we shall carefully compare our own logs of the quantity of information downloaded with the figures that you manufacture. Read the webalizer ‘small print’; it seems to treat every backslash character as a separate document request. Have you noticed that? So just be suspicious of every future download. Or have we already carried out the experiment … and are just waiting to embarrass you with the results? And as one of our correspondents pointed out: if you are inventing data entirely unaided, watch out for Benford’s Law.

“So I am like a Parisian baker, getting the pattiserie ready. When I lived in Paris as a post grad., the morning air was filled with baguettes and croissants (autobiography volume two), and hyper strong coffee in small cups. ”

That must have been somewhat messy, or did you duck a lot? Perhaps you clumsily omitted ‘the aroma of’ from your sentence. Or was that you being … gasp … artistic? It is so easy to confuse sloppiness with artistry, viz. avant garde art … or avant garde anything. Connard!  

“I could see the Arc du Triomphe from the flat (loaned by my supervisor Claude Brot). UFT406 is already the leading paper for May 2018 followed closely by the replication paper UFT364 and the gyroscope paper UFT396, and a very long line of UFT papers in English and Castilian.”

Ha Ha; the ‘gyroscope’ (spinning-top) paper. Another nail in your academic coffin!

“It was another great surprise to me when I realized that the dogmatists had made a terrible blunder, altogether missing two terms of their own equations, the geodetic precession and the Lense Thirring precession of planets, as described in UFT406 in terms so simple that there is no need to know any mathematics. ”

It was no surprise to find that you had made a(nother) terrible blunder. It is clear that you are systematically confusing the precession of planets with the precession of their orbits.  Why not visit Swansea University and have someone check your mathematics; they would doubtless roll out the red carpet for such a distinguished and honored guest. Mourant de rire.

“So UFT406 refutes them using their own equations. Physics is being sieved by ECE and is in complete turmoil and has been for some years. You would never know it from the media, which is very careful to omit mention of anything interesting. ”

We would love it if you were ‘interesting to the media’; that might hasten the removal of your Civil List Pension but, more importantly, your expunging from the list of Civil List pensioners. How horrible it would be to have you equated with Faraday etc. by ignorant ‘science writers’ of the future. 

“Well, who needs the media? The Invisible College can safely read ECE theory without getting their lives smashed up as at UNCC. That was not exactly the School of Athens by Raphael, it was a brutal purge which rebounded. I suspect that those huge fees are paid by students and their parents in order to regurgitate to pass exams. They reject everything they are taught, and can read and for free.”

Invisible college … or non-existent college? If only you had discovered soap before discovering B(3) etc.


things might have been very different. One starts to wonder whether those Parisians could actually smell the croissants and coffee. How did it supposedly rebound? It clearly removed a ne’er-do-well from the academic world. Everyone knows that first degrees are essentially worthless, especially nowadays.

That is what higher degrees are for. But some students are so stupid that even two higher degrees do not correct their misconceptions.



May 8, 2018

List of Trusts and Foundations in Wales

May 8, 2018

I am looking for a suitable Charitable Trust or Foundation in Wales to which to bequest part or all of my Estate, and to find one that will carry out the terms of my Will. I have found a few interesting ones by googling “List of Trusts or Foundations in Wales”. For example The Pilgrim Trust which is interested in the brilliant nonconformist tradition in Wales, sadly neglected by grotesque misgovernment; The Coalfields Regeneration Trust; the Welsh Arts Council and so on. The Trustees must be highly competent and diligent and be able to accumulate capital and disperse it wisely to the causes listed in my Will. They would work with the Executors of my Will. My current Will will be superceded and rewritten if and when I find a suitable Trust, but the executors would be lifetime appointments. The charitable trust would also own and carefully conserve my house and contents and appoint a competent caretaker who would be a writer in residence. They would be prohibited strictly from selling the house. Such actions heavily damage the Welsh language. Hopefully, all this will be as much as thirty years in the future but I am beginning to research the best way to make the bequest. ”

Einstein notoriously got his wife to sign a pre-nuptial agreement to the effect that she would have no claim on the monetary part of the Nobel Prize when/if (we cannot recall the exact wording) he won it. Did you have Mrs Ron sign a similar agreement? You had better have had, otherwise all of your investment plans will crumble. Hailing from a macho totalitarian state, she may not know that a British wife has strong grounds to contest any will; particularly if it deprives her of shelter and other comforts. As an American, Ron, you must know that in many US states a wife would automatically have a 50% claim on all of your assets. Even in the UK, will legislation is ‘wife-friendly’.   So perhaps you should toddle around to your solicitor and make sure that you really can do what you think that you can do.  

Pot Pourri

May 7, 2018

Is Your Uni Really Necessary?

May 7, 2018

This is our unofficial motto at AIAS / UPITEC, a half humorous variation on a script by Dylan Thomas “Is Your Journey Really Necessary?” when he was working for the BBC. He initially entitled it “Is Your Ernie Really Necessary?”. We have developed a hugely successful system of teaching at a distance, and it can be seen that ECE schools of thought exist inside every major university, including the world’s top twenty by Webometrics, Times, QS and Shanghai.”

Liar. You do not know who looks at your rubbish site, or why. You cannot contact them because you do not know who they are. They do not reveal themselves by citing your pseudoscience. Most tellingly, they never contact you. What sort of ‘school of thought’ completely ignores its own guru? Perhaps they take a Zen approach to ECe and you. Do you know the answer to the Zen koan, “what should I do if I meet the Buddha on the road?” The correct answer is, “Kill him”. Deep eh? Is that why you do not go out as much these days?

“Dogmatic censorship has been outflanked and cornered , so that imaginative scientists are allowed to study and think without restraint and given an outlet for their work. The illegally cut up remnants of the University of Wales are certainly not necessary as we have shown. We work voluntarily and charge no fees. ”

We?? It is all you, isn’t it, with the donkey-work being done by dogsbody Siemens Stain. And what idiot would pay you for anything? One presumes that the occasional moron buys one of the printed books by mistake; not knowing that he can read it online for free. What happened, by the way, to your own journal? You wrote most of the papers, refereed it, edited it … and cited the papers yourself, as usual. Did you have a falling-out with Riecansky? Do tell.

“All that is needed is one small federal University of Wales which is entirely fluent in Welsh. Those who are illegally hostile to the language can go to universities outside Wales. ”

Perhaps they would get a better education there. Here are some revolting Welsh students from the 1960s,

My beautiful picture

but, looking at the sign, could they even have passed an English-language test? This photograph was taken in Aberystwyth, by the way. Where were you? You were in town at the time. Or did you do your protesting from home, as you did in the case of the local turbine protests?

“The new generation of fervent Welsh speaking students, products of the Welsh medium schools, must look at the sixties system, when there were no huge fees. The fees that existed were paid by local government, and the students given small grants. ”

But that would mean increasing the standards again, and the revenue would fall. The current system was introduced as a money-making scheme and the logic was inexorable: not enough ‘clever’ candidates? Simple: lower the entry qualifications. Not enough universities to cater for the resultant glut of sub-standard students? Simple: turn all of the polytechnics into universities literally ‘overnight’. And a side-effect of this has been an explosion in the number of ‘professors’. Why, Ron, it all looks just like the American system now. You know, one with ‘professors’ who are not worthy of that time-honored title. And yet, amongst all of that academic devaluation, you could still not get a UK job!   

“This is described in Autobiography Volume Two, which has become a classic of its kind: “Hell or the Garden of Eden”. My grant was £262 pounds a year, but my parents were not loaded by huge fees designed purely to give imported, anonymous, mediocrities huge salaries. ”

The only interesting parts of your autobiography are the recollections concerning the previous CCP ‘loony-in-residence’, Grindell Matthews. That is one crackpot box that you seem not to have ticked: the death-ray. Perhaps you always felt overshadowed by your former co-author, ‘Dr’ Bearden. Death-rays are very much his ‘thing’ aren’t they?  Hey, perhaps you could twist ECe to explain how the Japanese mafia control the weather using particle-beams (according to former AIAS stalwart, Bearden).

“The students should protest, sixties style, and press for the scrapping of the fees and for sweeping reforms.”

Did you not see the above photo? Students who cannot spell are sitting-ducks as far as cynical newspapermen are concerned.

“The salaries of academics could be cut by a factor of ten and they would still be very well off. They do not do much work compared with AIAS / UPITEC. ”

You can discuss all that with the Dismal Scientist’s Australian economist friend from Kingston Polytechnic. He thinks that he is being paid far too little. If he wants the freedom and time to think, you should explain to him the ‘benefits of living on benefits’. 

“All academics in Wales should be fluent in Welsh, and the highly destructive and cynical colonization and flooding of Wales should be severely condemned internationally as a gross violation of human rights. Some of the worst violations in the world at present, the wholesale destruction of a language and culture. ”

Tell it not in Raqqa … unless you want to get lynched. On the other hand, forcing a people to speak a language that is useless for anything other than teaching it, writing poetry in it or insulting tourists without their knowing, could well be construed as abuse. 

“Half of the tiny number of papers produced by academics (about one paper a year each on average) are not read by anyone, our papers are read by millions,and by the best minds. ”

Only a chemist would think that quantity was all that mattered. Chemists are notorious for publishing lots of very short papers. That probably explains why Chemical Abstracts holds the record for the largest ever publication. Some academic fields are noted for ‘book-length’ papers. Alan Turing published very few papers, but those few were long … and revolutionized various fields.  

“Dylan Thomas never went to university, but direct to the South Wales Evening Post. Unfortunately he was very hostile to the Welsh language. This very strange psychology is explained by the fact that people who have lost the language expect everyone else to lose it too. R. S Thomas on the other hand was a fervent supporter of the language. Even a man as supposedly talented as Dylan Thomas can be a terrible bigot and dogmatist. ”

So Dylan took against Welsh because he was no good at it. Is that why you hate real physics … because you are no good at it?

“Laws must be introduced so that people cannot march into Wales, take advantage of its poor economy, buy it all up because it looks pretty, use our chapels as boxing rings, and expect the ignorant and servile natives to bow and scrape to cheap Imperialism.”

We have all read ‘How Green was my Valley’: chapels were where unmarried mothers were publicly shamed to the point of suicide and where a boxer was sent round to beat up any teacher who did not like Welsh-speaking kids.  ‘Culture’ is such a flexible catch-all term, isn’t it?


Downhill Slalom?

May 6, 2018

UFT406 Starting its Run

May 6, 2018

UFT406 is starting to be read, it is a very simple and powerful refutation of Einsteinian general relativity that shows that the geodetic and Lense Thirring precessions of the standard model itself are always present in the orbits of planets and so the claimed precise agreement of the Einstein precession with data is a completely incorrect claim – totally wrong. The Einstein precession is due to the fact that the force law is not inverse square, so the orbit is not closed. UFT407 will set out to explain the existence of the Thomas precession of planets and will show that is always present in planetary motion as well as in spin orbit interaction in spectra, and in pendulum motion, and many other situations.”

… with the accent on ‘downhill’. Why do you insist on keeping up this pathetic pretence, Ron? You know very well that it will never be referenced by anybody apart from you and your gang. Even the rest of the lunatic fringe ignores you. But we do look forward to laughing at any pendulum rubbish; we have collectively forgotten more about the subtleties of pendulum motion than you will ever know,

Ron again Wrong. Wrong again Ron?

May 6, 2018

Note 407(1): Thomas Precession in Planetary Orbits and the H Atom Orbitals

May 6, 2018

This note shows that the well known energy levels of the H atom are due to Thomas precession as given by Eq. (38). This is a very remarkable result not known hitherto.

We beg to differ. Did not Thomas himself write a letter to Nature magazine (10th April 1926, p514) congratulating Uhlenbeck and Goudsmit* for their success in explaining spectral structure (Zeeman effect, etc.) by introducing the concept of electron spin … but only succeeding qualitatively. Did he not point out in his letter that taking account of precession (ooh, could that be Thomas precession?) would make the agreement quantitative as well? And it was a factor-of-two correction, Ron, just as in the case of the EGR Mercury calculations. Will you now start, on that basis, to claim that ALL of the discrepancy in the Mercury case is due to Thomas precession? Dare we infer instead, Ron, that you are a deceitful ignorant clown who tries to take the credit for everything; safe in the knowledge that few experts bother to check your claims, and that the lunatic fringe never criticizes its own members. 

*By the way, Goudsmit was very aware of people like you. Just look at his editorial advice (1960) to the readers of Physical Review Letters:

“While we welcome the intensified interest of the layman in physics research we recognize that formerly crackpots often made the front page with their spectacular stories, and this still happens occasionally. We are sure that our authors do not wish to be confused with these pseudoscientists in the minds of the public.”  

Exam Question for Ron

May 5, 2018

Inference of the Thomas Precession

May 5, 2018

This was made by Llewellyn Thomas in 1925 during a visit to the Bohr Institute. He surprised everyone by the discovery, because it is a second order relativistic effect that results in the Thomas factor of two, a large and observable effect. Dirac incorporated it into his equation. Thomas later went to Columbia University and became the first IBM Fellow at Thomas J. Watson. My boss Clementi at IBM was an IBM Fellow. There is a Thomas precession of planets. This does not depend on the Einstein field equation and again has been ignored by the fogmatists (foggy dogmatists). It is very easy to calculate, and again is a large effect.”

Thomas precession will cause movement of an orbiting spinning-top. But exactly what force causes that movement? It cannot ‘just happen’; that would contradict Newton’s Third Law. Do not feel too ashamed that you do not know. There are millions of ‘teachers’ who recite that ‘a spinning ballerina will spin faster when she pulls her arms in’ but very few can identify exactly what force causes that acceleration. 

A Surfeit of Steves

May 5, 2018

Planning a summer trip, with a twist

May 5, 2018

Many thanks to Kerry Pendergast!
Myron Evans <myronevans123>

Dear Steve,

I could pick you up in Abergavenny again and you could base yourself there as you did last year. Swansea is only an hour away and I can transport you to and from Swansea.

Craig y Nos is less than an hour away and the caves are only a mile down the road.

Brecon is 45 mins away with its canal basin, regimental museum and cathedral.


On Saturday, 28 April 2018, Steve Bannister <steve.bannister> wrote:”

What on Earth are we going to do if yet another Steve joins Ron’s loony bandwagon? Dismal Scientist #2 seems a bit weak as a sobriquet. Of course, crackpot economists are far more dangerous than crackpot chemists: economists ruin everybody’s life with their simplistic ideas (rather than just the public understanding of science) and when they employed physicists to model systems more intelligently some years ago, their natural greed (they are all about money, after all) still led to disaster … which they then blamed on the physicists. When QEII visited the London School of Economics just after the last crash, she almost stamped her little foot and asked, through figuratively gritted teeth, what it was that they did there. But Steve Keen is not employed anywhere as exalted as the LSE: he is to be found at Kingston University (better known as Kingston Polytechnic*). We do not know of any perpetual-motionists who are employed there … BUT one of its visiting professors was involved at a high level with the ridiculous Project Greenglow, brainchild (LOL) of BAe Systems. Among the lines of enquiry that he deemed to be worth following was the conman John Searl’s levitatimg cancer-curing perpetual-motion machine. You remember Searl, don’t you Ron, there is a permanent link to one of his investor-conning sites on the site. He also thought it worthwhile to mention, in an academic paper [sic], the prophetic dream of some madwoman who claimed to have been married to an American president (possibly after his demise … we cannot recall)**. Professor Keen is a Keynsian economist.  Presumably he does not emulate Keynes too closely. Keynes was in the habit of having homosexual relations in London parks (then a serious criminal offence) before going round to advise government ministers. One of his brilliant schemes for stimulating the economy was to fill milk bottles with cash and bury them in disused coal mines. The government was then to pay the unemployed to dig them up again. The government did not fall for that. Now Ron, Keen is keen on difficult equations. One of them is, D = I + δd,  or ‘effective demand equals income plus change in debt’. Deep, eh? Critics say that it has no experimental basis. What do you think? As for ‘being all about the money’, you will love this Ron: Keen has been trying to crowd-fund a better salary for himself. He thinks that he should be getting at least £2000 per week! How unlike your own Monk-like existence Ron … and you are sorting out the entire universe!  Hey, why not get all of your followers to crowd-fund you? 

* When American readers see ‘polytechnic’, they should think ‘agricultural and mechanical’ … or even ‘community college’ in the worst cases.  

**Oh, and he was also responsible for designing the bomb-bay doors for dropping the UK’s first atomic weapon. Isn’t it comforting to know what such sensible engineers were involved. Isn’t it?

School’s Out for Ever

May 4, 2018

Tests of Special Relativity

May 4, 2018

Tests of Time Dilation
Dear Dr. Santini,
The best way to look up the latest advances is always to use Google, with your own judgement of course. In this case googling “tests of time dilation” brings up many sites. For example there was one experiment at the Paris Observatory, inside of which there is an ECE school of thought.

So how come Pacome Delva has never heard of you? Why has no publication of the Paris Observatory ever mentioned you or ECe? What you mean is that someone there looked at for a laugh, or by mistake. That is not a ‘school of thought’ is it?

“They tested Lorentz covariance to high precision by using two optical fibres, one from Paris to London, and one from Paris to Braunschweig. Length contraction is more difficult to test but there are tests.”

This was an update of the old Hafele-Keating experiment. Interesting fact: Hafele went peculiar in later life and became a follower of the Russian loony, Kozyrev. It was the latter’s moronic theories concerning spinning-tops which inspired the Hayasaka-Takeuchi gyroscope-weighing experiments. Ooh look, Ron, antigravity again.

“I was amused to see a claim that violation of Lorentz covariance would unify gravitation and electromagnetism. We did this fifteen years ago, in what are now classic papers. It can be done quite easily without violation of the Lorentz covariance. If there is a violation of Lorentz covariance it would be simply a matter of amending ECE.”

ECe is certainly very flexible: first it was all about the neglect of torsion, now it is all about vacuum fluctuations. Well, it does not matter what it is about does it Ron? It is really all about twisting the mathematics to fit the data. In an honest person’s hands that is just curve-fitting. In the hands of a pseudoscientist it is plain fraud.

“In great contrast, general relativity looks like a sieve. It has more holes than metal, and the holes are getting bigger. so the is only one rusty wire left. At Vigier one in 1995 we discussed variations on special relativity. Paul Marmet was present. He lost his funding for his views despite being a member of the Order of Canada.”

Just goes to show, doesn’t it Ron, that the non-scientists who are in power cannot spot a crank. Of course, everyone at Vigier One was a crank. Vigier was a particularly nasty piece of work. But one should not really hold his war-time occupation (sniper) against him (people were trying to shoot him, a few decades on). Everyone has a past: one particularly ‘saintly’ physicist had attempted to murder another famous physicist in his youth. One of the most well-known 20th-century philosophers had been an assassin for a totalitarian regime. 

“In ECE the origin of the Lorentz transform is Cartan geometry. I am open minded about the transform. The conference condemned my treatment at UNCC for proposing B(3). So I am never going to do a UNCC on free thinkers.”

Really? Crackpots defended another crackpot?  We recall that Viv Pope also condemned your treatment. Didn’t it bother you that you were being defended by a crank who gave himself the title of ‘professor’?

Ron Undermined by his Own Staff

May 3, 2018

FOR POSTING IN THE BLUE BOX: “Criticisms of the Einstein Field Equation”

May 3, 2018

Yes, changing the blue box layout is fine, it is a matter of finding the original articles and books in the most efficient way. The blue box is certainly a very important item.

To: Myron Evans <myronevans123>

I want to change how the blue box works. These should be links to a page that offers the visitor an explanation of what is offered. Some are self explanatory such as Evan’s CV or Collected Poetry. Others are mysterious such as UFT88. I imagine visitors click on it out of curiosity. A copy of THE BIANCHI IDENTITY OF DIFFERENTIAL GEOMETRY is unexpected at best. CEFE is one of the mysterious titles with no easy way to make the real title fit in the blue box. I propose to link it to the actual location where the book is within the website not directly to a pdf. Your thoughts?”

Ho Ho, even your underling demotes the ‘popularity’ of your ludicrous ‘famous’ paper to mere curiosity.  Of course, everybody else spotted that ages ago.

Yawn #3

May 2, 2018

FOR POSTING IN THE BLUE BOX: “Criticisms of the Einstein Field Equation”

May 2, 2018

Many thanks to Horst Eckardt, who contributed important tabular material to this book, “Criticisms of the Einstein Field Equation”. It was published in 2010 and has become a classic. In April 2018 we set multiple new record highs, and posting CEFE in the blue box will greatly increase its readership. It also has important chapters by Stephen Crothers and Kerry Pendergast. The book is

M. W. Evans, S. J. Crothers, H. Eckardt and K. Pendergast, “Criticisms of the Einstein Field Equation” (Cambridge International 2010, copyright M. W. Evans)”

Cited 232 times according to Google Scholar. Every citation, barring one or two, is due to Ron! The only recent independent citation was by some poor deluded person at the Sudan University  of  Science and Technology, who polluted his thesis with a large portion of Ron-tripe. Strangely enough, Sewage rather than Ron is directly mentioned in the body of the text. That was always the problem with the name; forcing Welsh villagers to talk of Evans the butcher, Evans the post, Evans the cobbler, Evans the even-more-cobblers, etc. In other news, the publishing company CISP closed down almost a year ago, after being threatened with striking-off every other preceding year. The publisher, Riecansky, is currently boasting about receiving generous royalties from Elsevier (why?) and has been spotted driving a 2012 C-Class Mercedes.  Some people did not seem to be too happy with Riecansky’s methods,

But he dealt largely with cranks, so who cares.


Trouble in the Ranks?

April 28, 2018

Table of precessions

April 28, 2018

Many thanks, the first column is correct, the second column should be about half of the values in the first column (see Eq. (25) of Note 406(3)), i.e. the geodetic precession is 3 pi MG / (c squared a), so the second column is right also. I agree that there is a factor 1/2 missing in the Lense Thirring formula so the values in the third column should be halved. So the LT contribution is negligible and the standard model gives a theoretical result which is much larger than the claimed experimental result. In other words the standard model itself must always give the sum of an Einstein precession and a geodetic precession, and a small LT precession. In the literature of the last century the geodetic and Lense Thirring precessions of planets hav been ignored when testing the theory against the experimental data. Of course  I agree that the standard model has been completely refuted, it is used here to show that even within its own terms of reference it is completely wrong, because the standard model neglects the geodetic and LT precessions of planets and considers only the Einstein precession of planets when making a comparison with the experimental data. The experimental claim is also very dubious as you know because the effects of other planets are calculated with a Newtonian method. Strictly speaking the gravitomagnetic method was used to calculate LT, the standard method would give about the same, negligible, result for planets.”

We get the distinct impression that, if SS were not a prominent crank in his own right and in his own country, he would have long ago revolted against you. But crackpots never criticize each other, because they know that that would cause a collapse of the entire pseudoscientific community. But again and again SS spots some inconsistency and you rush to patch it over with some new tweak; rather like a cult-leader trying to control his gulls by announcing new revelations or like a catholic priest trying to explain his arrest in terms of the trinity.  Surely the main impact of the geodetic and Lense-Thirring  effects is to affect the precession of an orbiting body, and any impact upon the precession of the orbit is due to their impact upon the Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector. The correction should therefore be of the order of c^-3; i.e., very small.   

Please Sir, Attend to these Errors

April 28, 2018

Very Positive International Reception to ECE Theory

April 28, 2018

In view of the collapse of standard physics the colleagues are invited to continue to consult our sites and as they do at present, and develop their study of the new physics into organized courses and seminars. I have checked that is archived on the Wayback Machine up to March 26th. In view of their central importance to science the three sites should be carefully archived in as many ways as possible. We have always maintained cordial relations with the enlightened colleagues of all schools of thought. The record high interest in ECE being recorded at present means that standard physics has become almost entirely obsolete. We are very careful to try to avoid any errors, however minor but if any error is detected by a reader we can attend to it.

Well, for a start, it has not been ‘archived up to March 26th’; that would imply a continuous process. In fact, ‘snapshots’ were saved on February 28th, and on the 1st, 19th and 23rd [sic] of March. That is not ‘archiving’, that is just piecemeal sampling. On the et3m site, it says that energy can be extracted from gravity and that the Watt is a unit of energy. The former is impossible (pace Bondi’s unfeasible method) and the latter is just plain ignorance. Don’t those ‘bright schoolboys’ whom you used to mention read your nonsense anymore? And where exactly is this ‘positive international reception’? You know, when one hears a mob from a distance, one cannot be sure whether it intends to chair or to lynch. Perhaps your hearing is simply defective.

More Lightweights

April 27, 2018

Records Being Shattered

April 27, 2018

Where is this happening exactly? Oh, only in your ‘scientometrics’, which you concoct yourself. So we ask yet again: where are the citations in the conventional literature? Where are the citations even in the loony literature? Where are the favorable reviews of your work (pace Penderghastly’s 5-star efforts)? Why does nobody watch your YouTube videos for more than a few seconds? Why do outraged Ron-fans not reverse the strongly anti-Ron voting patterns of our polls? Why … it is almost as if there is no success at all and you are making it up.   

“Many thanks to Gareth Evans! The Gareth Evans / Trevor Morris papers are also attracting great interest, which I currently estimate every day in the daily report at the rate of 33 readings a day. This may have increased a lot by now. This series also makes fundamental advances and refutations and they have become classic papers. “

Did not sewage obtain his doctorate for work on optical investigations of chemical compounds? Would one not have to understand the physics of light propagation in order to be able to do that properly? So how come he has several times professed that he does not understand how ‘light speeds up’ again after travelling through a transparent medium. Perhaps he was not asked that at the viva because  nobody imagined that anybody could still be so ignorant at that stage. On the subject of vivas, has Mr Morris earned his degree in janitoring yet … or is the dyslexia holding him back.

“GJE was a member what became described by the BBC as the Hall of Fame group. Strictly speaking I was inducted into the Hall of Fame as a famous graduate of UCW, but I always refer to this as the Hall of Fame group of the EDCL at UCW Aberystwyth. This group won a world record of twenty prestigious post doctoral fellowships, GJE winning three: an Advanced Fellowship (1982), a University of Wales Fellowship (1980) and a Sloan Foundation Fellowship (1980). He also won the Mathews Prize for his year (1972) for best freshman results. I won the Mathews Prize in 1969. “

Do you have a current link to the BBC HOF site? The old links are broken: it is almost as if the BBC wants to forget about it. Funny sort of fame anyway.

“Fifty years later the merit of that group has developed into AIAS, of which GJE is Co President, and UPITEC, based in Boise, Idaho, USA. The huge number of Fellowships shows that the entire world of chemical physics recognized our merit, but the ineffective and self seeking administration of the EDCL did not (Autobiography Volume Two). This is a gross violation of human rights and Amnesty International took interest in the case.”

To put it another way, the demerits of the group led one person to have to found his own cottage institute because nobody else would touch him, and led another person to take lucrative (sinecure with pension) but irrelevant employment in local government. The obvious deduction is that EDCL could spot “wrong-‘uns” right from the start. 

Ron Ticks Another Loony Box

April 27, 2018

406(5) Light Deflection due to Gravitation and Vacuum Fluctuations

April 27, 2018

Superluminal Travel Possible
These are very interesting graphs which can go into Section 3 of UFT406. They follow directly from the definition of the relativistic velocity using no other assumption. The observable velocity is v, and the Newtonian v sub N is the observable velocity in the case gamma goes to one. In other cases v sub N is formal as you infer. So the famous “twice Newton” result is a direct consequence of the definition of the relativistic momentum, p = gamma m v. Our work in UFT150 to UFT155 showed that the Einstein method is obscure, I think that he came dangerously close to fiddling, being fond of the violin.”

There are a number of characteristic obsessions which always help to identify the career-crackpot. Ron is gradually working his way through them all: perpetual motion (LENR, Ideotic, Searl, Bessler, etc.), antigravity (Laithwaite, Kellum, Jackson, Searl, etc.), quack cancer-cures (Priore, Angelus, Searl), Shakespeare not author of own plays. And now, ‘faster than light’ travel. Of course, we think that it would be marvelous if that led to the development of a time machine. You could then go back, Ron, and pointedly ask your father why he quietly sold the family home while you were conveniently away at university. Who knows, a particularly heated dispute might provide useful experimental data on the old ‘grandfather paradox’ and ‘cosmic censor’ questions. Have you not already developed an ECe explanation for FTL? You could call the associated particle a ‘Tacky One’ … in line with your other explanations, and sort of in line with current mainstream nomenclature.   

Ron Entirely Toxic!

April 26, 2018

Heard of ‘bait and switch’? Well this is ‘bait and poison’. If one should want a photograph of Ron, one can find one here,



(e.g. freshly-undated Norton, and strong firewall)

You will be bombarded with pornography, at best, or be subjected to very determined attempts to infect your computer with malware. How on Earth did Ron become the poster-boy (literally) for internet criminals? 

Oil(y) on Thin Ice

April 26, 2018

As we have pointed out many times it does not seem very reassuring to have an admirer of Ron, who subscribes to the latter’s belief in cold fusion (LENR) and levitating spinning-wheels, involved in the management of a nuclear reactor. The latter itself has in fact been under a cloud, especially in neighboring Poland, ever since it was built,

Wouldn’t it be terrible if someone were to tip off the Polish government, Slovakian newspapers and Greenpeace that public safety may be in the hands of an anti-physics follower of Ron.  

Status Very Quo

April 25, 2018

Stats are Down

April 25, 2018

Stats are down for a while.”

Never mind, just make them up … as usual.

Hoist by His Own Petard Yet Again

April 25, 2018

Derivation of Planetary Geodetic Precession

April 24, 2018

This note gives another straightforward refutation of Einsteinian general relativity, showing that the precession predicted by EGR must be the sum of the Einsteinian, geodetic and Lense Thirring precessions. This sum is more than fifty percent larger than the experimental claims for Mercury, Venus and Earth. The experimental claims are also very dubious in the solar system as argued by Miles Mathis and ourselves, and by many others for more than a century. The precessional method can only be applied in a clean system of one m orbiting one M, and the results interpreted in terms of vacuum fluctuations. The true theoretical result of the standard model itself should be Eq. (25), and this can be tabulated for all the planets using Maxima. I think that rational members of the ECE school in leading universities around the world will forget about EGR and develop other avenues of thought. The dogmatists will ignore the refutations and ask for more money from the taxpayer and more student fees. There is another way of considering the geodetic precession, and this will be developed next using ECE2 gravitomagnetism, developing UFT344 and UFT345.”

As we pointed out before, Ron, if the frame-dragging and geodetic effects were really relevant to orbital precession, then they could have been measured indirectly in that way and the decades-long GP-B experiment would have been unnecessary. But worse than that, you have just undermined your own conclusions. Why? Do you recall, some time ago, that you were proud that you had ‘discovered’ a new source of precession? Of course, it was already well known to experts. It arises because of the differing velocities of an orbiting body in different parts of the orbit. This, due to SPECIAL RELATIVITY, then causes the orbit to precess. This precession rate is about one sixth of that due to spacetime curvature. The thing is, Ron, you have apparently forgotten ‘your discovery’ and have completely failed to incorporate it into your recent precession calculations. Why is that? 

High on Hype

April 22, 2018

New Records

April 22, 2018

We are approaching a new record high for readings of ECE2 items. The rate of reading “Principles of ECE, volumes one and two”, is also on a new record high, today’s rate is 11,802 times a year off combined sites, and These refer to English and Spanish language versions. Therefore the book is already a classic after only a couple of years, and is available from the bookshop of the sites and all good bookshops worldwide. UFT88 is also on a new record high and is the famous refutation of EGR. The physics establishment, or long parliament, was the middle man, and with the new methods pioneered by AIAS / UPITEC, has been dissolved by the march of ideas and is no longer needed.”

Oooh, we shall have to see who is using it in their research. Oh, nobody. We shall have to content ourselves with reading the glowing reviews. Oh dear:


Household Tip

April 22, 2018

Our local spies are not keeping us sufficiently well informed concerning your everyday activities, so we have to ask: have you fixed your roof yet? We would not want your millions of pound’s worth of manuscripts to get wet.  

Ron’s Roof

More Puzzles

April 22, 2018

Note 406(2) : Final Version of Note 406(1)

April 22, 2018

This note extends the calculations of Note 406(1) and produces Table 1, which shows that the perihelion precessions of Venus and Earth are not described precisely by EGR. This is in fact well known, but covered up. In the standard literature they refer to this as an “anomaly”, a polite word for a disaster. I give some planetary data in Table 2, and give the theoretical EGR precessions of all the planets in Table 3. In this table the total observed precessions are given, following It is seen that the part attributed to EGR is a small fraction of the total. For a planet such as Neptune the part attributed to EGR is six orders of magnitude smaller than the total. In other words, the only observable data give a precession that is a million times larger than what is being sought. In Mercury it is over a hundred times larger as is in fact well known. This inconvenience is removed by a Newtonian theory, essentially still the same method as used in the nineteenth century, but made more precise with computers. So in describing the overwhelming majority of the precession, EGR is not used at all. So the standard physics cannot have much confidence in EGR after all. MIles Mathis in his book tears the procedure to shreds. By now, no one has any confidence in standard physics, and everyone avidly reads ECE2 in the safety of their homes, or secretly in the offices of all major universities of note. In the obsolete physics the overwhelming majority of the precession is extracted with Newtonian physics. This is a farcical way of testing a theory whose geometry is completely wrong. In addition the geodetic precession of the planets is not even considered. Despite the double dippy data reduction about $70 million dollars was spent on Gravity Probe B, which entirely neglected the EGR contribution, reporting only the geodetic and Lense Thirring contributions in a very mysterious way. They seemed to have assumed that EGR or Newtonian gravitation in the limit of EGR have no effect on their gyroscopes. In the old theory the EGR contribution is essentially the obsolete Schwarzschild line element and the geodetic contribution is the rotated Schwarzschild line element. The Thomas precession is the rotated Minkowski line element in the old theory. In ECE2 all these ancient mariners are discarded, the whole lot, and replaced by a theory based on vacuum fluctuations. I have not been able to find the experimental claims for EGR for Mars to Pluto, because I have no easy access to a library. However they may exist in the astronomy data and the ephemeris libraries, or they may never have been worked out. A reader with access to a library could maybe find them, but even if found, are meaningless. In UFT344 an entirely new explanation of the geodetic precession was given using ECE2 gravitomagnetic theory, and in UFT119 the gravitomagnetic theory was used to explain the equinoctial precession in a much simpler way that than the standard model.. So in the next note I will apply UFT345, then proceed to the equinoctial precession. More or less all the seven hundred ECE papers and books are classics, so we have an intellectual right to dissolve Parliament as did Cromwell in 1653. Cromwell used force, we use Baconian logic. We will not imprison the Levellers, but encourage them to learn, I advise people to enjoy reading the theory. If they see something wrong please do not hesitate to send an e mail. Our checking procedures are rigorous but something may have slipped through.”

Why do you keep on arguing with observational data, Ron? They are what they are. If they are explained by properly applied General Relativistic theory then that is that. If your crackpot theory does not give the correct figure then you should obey Bacon and re-think your assumptions. 

It is those sorts of outburst which make everyone doubt your sanity; could you please post that doctor’s letter again. Interesting new misspelling of the Mathis forename by the way, but you still seem to be using the wrong figure for π; he won’t like that.

You live about 10 miles from Swansea University (you could drive there in 30 minutes. Bus would take an hour longer and an athlete like yourself could walk it in 3 hours). It appears to have a well-stocked library, and it will even let ordinary members of the public (like you) in if they ask nicely. So what is the problem? Is it the agoraphobia? Or eyesight again too dodgy for driving? Have you perhaps been banned from the campus for insulting university staff. Are you perhaps afraid that the better-informed physics students will spot you and manhandle you?  On second thoughts … you are quite right; you have no business being anywhere near a scientific institution. 



Oily’s Other Friends

April 22, 2018

Our author-friend (don’t nag about the book … there is a never-ending stream of juicy new data and new loony-tunes to incorporate) points out that Oily has some other interesting friends and followers besides Ron,

Pinheiro and Brito are well known in the ‘academic’  propellantless-propulsion (aka antigravity) field. Allen is a mathematician and religious maniac who takes the biblical myth a little too far and assumes that god literally ‘had it off’ with Mary himself rather than leaving the job to some pimp of an archangel*. He prefaces all of his books with:

This book is respectively dedicated to the Holy Spirit of God, Source of all Wisdom and Knowledge and the Spirit of Truth, together with His Most Chaste Spouse, the Blessed Virgin Mary, without Whom this book could have neither been conceived nor written.

But it gets worse, Allen has co-authored a book with former AIAS stalwart (and now President of Telesio-Galilei – purveyors of crap gold medals) Dunging-Davies**. The main point of the book is to ‘explain’ Laithwaite’s spinning-top ‘levitation’ by claiming that relativistic effects can occur in everyday mechanical*** situations.  

On a personal note, is it not rather worrying that Oily is hairless? Is that a fashion-statement … or is his handling of nuclear materials as sloppy as his knowledge of physics?

*Theological note: so who had it off with cousin Elizabeth?

** Dunging-Davies award of a prize by Telesio-Galilei was not only noted as being a great honor, by his university’s yearbook, the astounding news also found its way into the Times Educational Supplement.

***Real physicists agree that special relativity has to be considered in everyday situations. It is otherwise impossible to explain various electromagnetic paradoxes without invoking ‘energy from nowhere’; hence the large proportion of loony electrical engineers. Contrary to what most encyclopedias and textbooks claim, it was not the Michelson-Morley experiment which stimulated Einstein to formulate special relativity but rather the everyday phenomenon of electromagnetic induction (it has a puzzle at its heart that 99.999% of people do not even notice!)

The Smelly and Oily Show

April 22, 2018

406(1): Precessions of Mercury and Earth : Complete Refutation of EGR

April 22, 2018

Thank you! I will continue the analysis today for the other planets, and co Horst will check as usual using Maxima. I think that you are referring to the equinoctial precession, which is developed in UFT119. In this case they used Newtonian dynamics, and they are probably correct within their assumptions, but UFT119 gives an entirely new viewpoint.

406(1): Precessions of Mercury and Earth : Complete Refutation of EGR
To: Myron Evans <myronevans123>

Great professor Evans!

The light is finally coming! Shame on the bunch of dogmatists that parroted a wrong physics for more than 100 years!

Question: you say that each precession is due to vacuum fluctuations. Is it also valid for the Earth axis precession?

IF yes: how is it possible that the classical celestial mechanics attributed such 26000 years precession to the luni-solar attraction on the equator bulge? Is it possible that Lagrange/Laplace/Tisserand/Moulton did such a quantitative macroscopic mistake?”

No, Oily, of course they were not wrong; your moronic friend Ron (does a normal person need to obtain a medical certificate to prove that he is ‘currently’ sane) cannot understand the physics of 300 years ago … and neither can you apparently. How much further are you going to follow him down his loony rabbit-hole? Don’t forget that atoms also precess; are you going to believe him when he tells everybody that all (N)MRI scans ever made (and acted upon) were wrong because of ‘dogma’. What are you going to do when he starts to invade your own domain (presumably) of nuclear stability? On that topic, would you not be in some sort of trouble if the European Atomic Energy Authority learned that you have a problem with accepted physics? And, leaving that body aside – as it would probably hush things up – what do you think would happen if journalists in your area were to learn that you are under the influence of  a foreign crackpot, and also do not believe in the physics upon which your plant is based? Máte radi nezamestnanosť?

Mad, Bad … and Dangerously Smelly to Know

April 21, 2018

406(1): Precessions of Mercury and Earth : Complete Refutation of EGR

April 21, 2018

This note gives the ECE2 explanation of precession in Eq. (2). Any observable precession is due to vacuum fluctuations, a simple and powerful new result that replaces the standard model’s elaborate and obsolete gravitational theory. For Mercury it is shown that the usual EGR analysis, repeated uncritically by dogmatists, is completely wrong. This is because it omits the geodetic and Lense Thirring precessions. The former is partly made up of the Thomas precession. When the calculation is carried out correctly, the theoretical result, the sum of the Einstein, geodetic and LT precessions of Mercury, is more than twice the experimental result. This is not “precise agreement” as claimed endlessly by the dogmatists. The ECE2 explanation of the claimed experimental result is given in Eq. (52) – the post Einstein paradigm shift. The results for Mercury are given in the Table on page 8 of the Note. The geodetic precession is larger than the Einstein precession, but in the dogmatic reiteration of the standard model, the geodetic precession of Mercury is ignored. Finally I did a spot check on the claim that the Einstein theory produces the observed precession of the Earth, but as shown in Eq. (56), it fails by a wide margin. Any reader with a calculator can check Eq. (54). So there can be no confidence in the EGR theory, and judging by the scientometrics, ECE has taken the high ground and the theory is the intellectual leader in contemporary physics. This is a magnificent achievement by the AIAS / UPITEC Institutes and congratulations to all! A vote of no confidence is moved in “the government of physics”: “you have sat here o’er long for all the good you have done, in the name of God, go!” (my ancestral cousin Oliver Cromwell in 1653).”

You poor (mo)Ron: if one gets the w(ron)g prediction by including the frame-dragging and geodetic effects, that simply proves that they should not be included in the first place. You have in fact done nothing but confirm EGR! Why would anyone (in his right mind) want to include the frame-dragging and geodetic effects anyway? They are proper to the orbiting body itself, unlike the curvature of space around the Sun, which affects the orbit of the body. Given the great difficulty of detecting the frame-dragging and geodetic effects at all, via the decades of work expended on GP-B, would it not have been simpler to detect their influence on the perihelion advance? No, because there is no detectable influence. Another overwhelming failure for the pathetic clowns of AIAS and Upitec!


That Odorous* Man Again

April 19, 2018

*Registered trade-mark, Anonymous: Oops

Plans for UFT406

April 19, 2018

Plans for UFT406

These plans are to develop the criticisms in UFT405 to orbits in general in order to show that the precessional method cannot be used to claim that the Einstein theory is precise. This has become an absurd claim because the theory collapses completely in a whirlpool galaxy and has been refuted many times to great international acclaim. ”

What international acclaim: of you and the Public Dick by the Public Dick and you? LOL. Why, by the way, do you call the whirlpool galaxy a problem for EGR? Surely it is a failure of Newtonian gravitation first and foremost. Can the component stars even be said to be ‘orbiting’, rather than being just part of a rotating mass? Two immiscible liquids of equal density, on a turntable, were often used to model galaxy formation in Victorian times. Newtonian gravitation would have to fail in either case would it not; otherwise the rotational rates of the most distant parts of the galaxy would require a (special) relativistic treatment. Do you ever think about anything?

“The total precession is all that can be observed, as is in fact well known. In the solar system the total precession is dominated almost completely by planetary influence. The tiny part attributed to relativity is wrongly attributed entirely to the Einstein theory, ”

Yes, that was spotted long ago … and the effect is cumulative so, although small per Mercurial year, it soon becomes a major challenge to Newtonian gravitational theory.  The well-known assumption of a curvature of spacetime around the Sun explains the discrepancy very nicely. Experiment always trumps theory, so the fact that EGR explains the discrepancy is itself also proof that torsion is irrelevant. By the way, the world’s leading expert on torsion in gravitation is Friedrich Hehl, and he says that it is not needed. Who are you to argue about such matters? A person who thinks that spinning-tops levitate, haha.  One British scientist, Lodge, was unhappy with the Eddington ‘Sun-grazing’ data and put his life at risk by working for months with his head near to huge flywheels which were close to bursting. Do you know why, Ron? He thought that frame-dragging by the rotating Sun might have offered an alternative explanation for the starlight deflection. It did not.  

“whereas there are contributions from the Thomas precession, de Sitter precession and Lense Thirring precession which are never considered. If the orbit is nearly circular, the velocity v of the Thomas precession is the orbital velocity of the planet. UFT405 described the de Sitter and Lense Thirring precessions in terms of effective Thomas velocities. The Einstein precession is about the same order of magnitude as the de Sitter precession. ”

Like a klutz who thinks that gyroscopes are magic, you seem to be getting your precessions confused. The above precession is that of the perihelion of a planet’s orbit. The other precessions are proper to the planet itself. In fact, the Thomas precession has – strictly speaking – nothing at all to do with gravitation; it is just a counter-intuitive aspect of ‘boosts’ in special relativity. The geodetic de Sitter and (larger) Schiff precessions arise when one body merely orbits another. The Lense-Thirring (frame-dragging) precession is due specifically to the rotation of the central body. That is why the geodetic and frame-dragging precessions are so easy to separate by using a polar orbit (do we HAVE to explain why). So you are totally confused between the precession of an orbit and the precession of the orbiting body itself. This all recalls your moronic hero, Tesla. Do you remember your participation (and that of Hill of Beans) in the idiotic ‘All about Tesla’ film? Well, Tesla once used three [sic] magazine articles to ‘prove’ that the Moon does not rotate. One ‘proof’ imagined a giant ‘spoke’ joining Earth and Moon. Oh, that looks soooo convincing to the ‘arm-chair philosopher’.  Hmmm, do you think that it rotates, Ron, or do you believe Tesla’s spoke argument? The confusion of worthless crackpots like Tesla can in fact be traced to elementary textbooks. Do you remember all of those physics problems concerning balls-on-strings, cyclists or horses travelling in a circle? Did you never notice the huge logical omission from every single problem (especially with regard to the detailed energy balance)? That is what separates experts from amateurs … and leads to worthless theorizing on the latter’s part.  

“So the standard model’s claim to magical agreement with EGR is completely wrong, it is based on assuming that the Thomas, de Sitter and Lense Thirring precessions are all zero. This is complete nonsense. There is also another major blunder in that the planetary effects are calculated using a Newtonian method as pointed out by Myles Mathis. ”

See above, where your blundering errors are exposed. Nice to see that you are still scared to spell Miles correctly lest anyone should think that you saw our past corrections. But you do not seem to be using the correct value of  π which, as MM has ‘proved’, is 4.

“They should have been calculated using a relativistic method. I will give more details of how the old physics actually calculated the de Sitter and LT precessions. They were of course calculated from the Einstein field equation, which within a proportionality factor is the incorrect second Bianchi identity of 1902, one which omits torsion. UFT88 and UFT313 show that when torsion is included, the second Bianchi identity and the Einstein equation are changed completely. UFT99 shows that if torsion is omitted, curvature vanishes, reductio ad absurdum. In the first note I will list the Thomas precessions of the planets. This is a simple calculation, delta phi ~ pi (v / c) squared.”

We refer you to the replies which we gave earlier.

That ‘Disturbed Man’* Again

April 19, 2018

*Copyright Siemens Stain:  Oops

“Principles of ECE Volumes One and Two” Heavily Studied

April 19, 2018

As can be seen from the daily reports these items are being heavily studied after posting in the blue box. PECE2 (UFT366) is the most read ECE2 item to date in April, followed by UFT399 on infinite energy from spacetime and UFT396 on the gyroscope. All the ECE2 papers and books are being read in English and Spanish, (UFT313 to UFT405 to date). The famous UFT88 is on a new record high this month,after being posted in the blue box, and its final form, UFT313, is attracting increased readership. ”

According to you. Have you no evidence that others can check?

The now obsolete establishment of physics tried to censor all 405 papers and books of ECE theory, and all 300 Spanish translations, and has been rejected by the avant garde, as always happens in any intellectual movement or paradigm shift. After a while, the avant garde becomes the solid majority. The chapters by Stephen Crothers in PECE and PECE2 are also being heavily studied, again indicating a sharp reaction against the old establishment’s savage treatment of Crothers. It is important therefore to post important items in the blue box, because the readership is sharply increased, by as much as ten times. I suggest posting the following in the blue box:”

What would be the point of censoring that which will not be read, believed or acted upon anyway?