Among all of the 160 or so countries which view our blog, Denmark is always in second place (after the UK), with its page-views out-numbering the US views (third place) by nearly 2:1. Would somebody in Denmark care to enlighten us as to the cause of this great interest?
April 11, 2017
UFT88 has been read at CERN, and signals the complete acceptance of ECE and ECE2 theory. ”
On average, and by your own admission, every ‘academic’ visit is out-numbered 49:1 by in-links from porn-sites, etc. By what peculiar logic do you deduce that anybody at all is ‘accepting’, or doing anything else with, your nonsense papers?
“During the course of development of ECE theory several papers deal with particle physics, and have all become classics due to the vast worldwide readership of ECE. ”
What ‘vast worldwide’ readership? Nobody mentions your crackpot theories, not even in the teeming idiot-swamp that is the lunatic fringe.
“UFT88 is a famous paper in the world of avant garde physics, it was the first paper to consider the effect of torsion on the geometrical basis of Einsteinian general relativity, the 1902 second Bianchi identity. It was shown in UFT88, UFT99, UFT109, UFT255, UFT313 and UFT354 that the entire structure of Einsteinian general relativity collapses when its geometry is corrected. ”
Even your ‘opera omnia’, which supposedly earned you a civil-list pension, is not much cited (after eliminating self-citations and citations by parties with a vested interest), and the post-breakdown drivel is not cited at all by normal people. Nobody, not even those real physicists who take an interest in torsion, cite your ‘avant garde work’.
“The vast and permanent readership of ECE theory means that the Einstein theory is obsolete. The conventional physics system is also obsolete. ”
Again, there is no ‘vast’ nor ‘permanent’ readership … except in your own dishonest/deluded mind.
“For example half of the papers published in its obsolete and dogmatic journals are not read by anyone, including the editors. ”
How many times are you going to repeat that lie? If ever there was an ‘exploded hypothesis’, that is it!
“UFT99 has been broken out into a series of definitive proofs. It shows that if torsion is neglected by forcing it to vanish, curvature also vanishes. The Einstein theory is based on curvature so is completely refuted by UFT99. UFT88 has been read an order of ten thousand times at least in about five hundred leading universities. I am able to recognize only institutional URL’s so the actual readership is much higher. ”
As before: you have no proof that the visits are either real, or approving. Therefore every other conclusion drawn from them is ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’.
“It takes place in all the best universities in the world. CERN has also been notified of UFT225, which completely refutes electroweak theory, and it is aware of all the UFT papers. These refute Higgs boson theory in many ways, notably the use of photon mass predicted in many ways by the UFT papers, notably the B(3) field. ”
Have you ever checked the CERN library? It collects all sorts of nonsense-books, including, for example, those by Harold Aspden. Do you really think that they are ever actually read (with a straight face)?
“I am told that this has been nominated several times for a Nobel Prize.”
But you mix only with loonies and liars, so what are the odds of that being true? Being generous of spirit, we attribute your constant lying about this and other matters (the myth of unread mainstream papers, the true content of Bannister’s thesis, etc., etc.) makes us fear that you are suffering from the onset of dementia. Perhaps you could get a doctor’s letter …
April 10, 2017
Many thanks again! The non relativistic angular momentum is a constant of motion but the relativistic angular momentum is not. What does the orbit look like with a relativistic angular momentum? These results are very important because the use only the lagrangian and definition of angular momentum.”
This is becoming confusing for the handful of non-loonies who take an interest in Ron and his works: first it was pure torsion, rather than general-relativistic curvature, that was supposedly causing precession. Then it was special-relativistic orbital velocity considerations that were a factor (this is, in fact, accepted … but why did it take genius-Ron so long to catch up). Now he has re-introduced an all-pervading fluid which is even more viscous than the already-undetectable classical ‘aether’. Each of the theories is claimed to give the observed precessional anomaly exactly and directly, without having to eliminate all of the conventional causes such as other orbiting bodies. (Newton himself, followed-up by Clairaut, showed that just about any mathematical fiddling with the simple Kepler orbit will cause precession). How do each of Ron’s theories give precise results ‘without treading on each other’s toes’? Or is Ron admitting that he is making a series of failed attempts at explaining precession without Einstein?
April 9, 2017
Good to hear from you, this will be a very interesting chapter as usual! In March 2017 the first volume, “The Principles of ECE” was read open access at the rate of 9,514 times a year off combined sites, so your chapter for that volume was also read at that rate. In contrast, half of scientific papers published conventionally are not read at all. This puts the huge impact of your work in context. Attempts to censor your work, and the personal abuse to which you have been subjected, have failed completely and rebounded on the Old Guard.”
In spite of your avid reading of our blog, Ron, you seem to have overlooked some of our correspondence. As you have repeated that lie again above, here is the information provided by our reader, ‘Interested Observer’,
“Google “half of scientific papers are not read” to find that half of papers published by the old system are read only by editors, and that is being optimistic.” Ron here repeats an old but pervasive urban myth. Indeed, if you google that sentence you will find hundreds of pages apparently confirming the assertion, but the whole thing’s baloney. The origin of the story seems to be an old Smithsonian article which cites a 2007 ‘study’ as its principal source. But it’s nothing of the sort – it was an opinion piece in Physics World into which some editor inserted a half-remembered ‘fact’ from a lecture he or she had attended some years previously. “50% of articles are never read” was a mangled version of the truth, which was that “52% of articles are never *cited*”. That statement in turn came from an article published as long ago as 1980, a very limited study of citations which applied quite specific criteria (I think it was limited to a window of five years from publication) to articles published *in the humanities*. In summary, Ron parrots as truth something which is not only demonstrably wrong, but based on dodgy data and decades out of date. Much like his ‘scientific’ output, in fact.“
Can that be true, Ron, do you in fact parrot baloney?
April 8, 2017
This is a note on the equivalence of the Cartesian force laws (4) and (5) and the plane polar force laws (15) and (16). This means that numerical integration in Cartesian coordinates can be applied to several problems, as in Horst’s section 3 of UFT374 just sent over.”
It is well known that complex numbers can very conveniently model two-dimensional rotation. One keeps the Cartesian framework, and simply makes the real and imaginary components time-dependent. The centrifugal and Coriolis fictitious forces then fall out immediately, and this method also has the advantage of showing how intimately they are related. This is rarely stressed in elementary textbooks. Looking more closely, one finds that there is a myriad of possible fictitious forces. Only the first two have generally agreed names (centrifugal, Coriolis). The ‘next one up’ is variously called ‘jerk’, ‘transverse’, ‘Euler’, etc., and explains why fairground rides have to be carefully designed: even if curved and straight lengths of track are made to meet at exactly the same height and angle, there would still be a bone-jarring jolt at the join if the ride-designer were as ignorant of basic physics as is Ron. Is that relevant here? Yes, there is a jerk term in the Kepler orbit. Now that Ron knows about it, can he ‘twist torsion’ enough to model it?
April 7, 2017
Google “half of scientific papers are not read” to find that half of papers published by the old system are read only by editors, and that is being optimistic. I am among the most conventionally peer reviewed authors in the world, (because I have produced so many papers conventionally) and very rarely does the editor of huge journals read the paper. Alwyn van der Merwe is a man of integrity, and not only read but also edited all the papers of his journals himself. He always employed two or three referees. In astounding contrast to the lack of any readership of conventional papers, ECE and the new system of physics pioneered by AIAS / UPITEC has a vast and permanent readership, and has had since 2003, when the theory was proposed fifteen years ago. In contrast Gerard ‘t Hooft is an editor who set out to destroy a new theory and failed completely.”
Some decades ago, the Sunday Times published a mindless rant by a couple of journalists. One of the leading ‘archival’ journals had just published a compendium of all of the known properties of all (then) known fundamental particles. That issue of the journal was indeed huge. For some reason, these moronic journalists took issue with its size and wanted to know why it had been published, given that nobody would be interested in more than a minute part of it. It is unclear why they were so exercised by the volume; after all, it had not been financed out of public funds. One’s only thought was what on Earth they would have to say about the telephone directory. Perhaps they had not noticed that that was also very bulky, and yet contained very little that would interest a given individual. It seems that similarly moronic journalists have been at it again! Did you imagine, Ron, that every paper in every issue is avidly read by everyone? As for your output, it was largely ‘salami’ (as one of our correspondents put it) and, on top of that, most of the citations were by yourself or colleagues. Salami always passes ‘on the nod’ because one slice is so much like the preceding slice. Van der Merwe has no integrity! What sort of responsible editor lets though paper after paper, written by people who are associated with the inventor of a perpetual-motion machine? An inventor who also believes that the Japanese mafia controls the weather and that ‘men-in-black’ are out to kill him using futuristic weapons. One hopes that Merwe’s assistants were hosed-out of the Augean stables of Foundations of Physics Letters at the same time that he was. The ‘output’ of the twin sewage outfalls of aias and upitec is unpleasant, but nevertheless goes totally unnoticed in the real world. t’Hooft is a leading theoretician and Nobel prize-winner who thankfully now keeps an eye out for pseudoscience-pushers like yourself and the Public Dick. What theory did he destroy? Oh yes, yours; we had almost forgotten.
April 7, 2017
I think that this system is only one out of many such systems and a literature search would be most interesting.”
We have just realized that Ron and Siemens Stain look at orbital dynamics as if they were dealing with an orrery or with the diagrams in a book for laymen. The latter always make it look as if the planets are orbiting a Sun rigidly fixed in space, or the Moon is orbiting an Earth fixed in space. Such situations would contradict Newton’s third law. In fact, the Moon and Earth are both rotating about a point some distance below the Earth’s surface. Who knows what common point a black hole and a quasar might be orbiting. How do Ron and SS hope to get valid numerical results if they do not take account of this?
April 7, 2017
The two biggest schools of thought in physics at present are:
1) ECE (probably in the majority);
2) Standard Model
The former uses a system of physics based on open access publication on websites which are archived for conservation. The material is made directly accessible to the readership. It has a huge worldwide readership as is well known, and has refuted many aspects of the standard model. The latter is based on dogma to a large degree and uses journals which are restricted only to its own ideas. So it has gradually become obsolete. Both schools are well represented in Google Scholar.”
No, there is only real physics … plus the lunatic fringe. You are not big, even in that fringe, because you no longer publish in the crackpot ‘journals’, which now number in the hundreds. You cannot prove if or why anyone reads your tripe, and nobody but you and your gang ever refer to it. We pity the unfortunate schoolboy who comes upon your nonsense by accident and is disastrously misled by the deceptively academic facade of your fake ‘institute’. At least it is all archived, otherwise future readers of humorous books about pseudoscience will never believe that such a clown as you could ever have really existed.
April 6, 2017
These results are again full of interest and can be written up in Section 3 of UFT374. This Cartesian approach is the one with which most people are familiar. A lot of people get confused with the use of a coordinate system in which the frame itself is moving, for example the plane polar and spherical polar systems.”
You are the one who is confused: the polar and spherical coordinate systems are not inherently time-dependent. Such a feature still has to be added, and the relevant differential equations modified accordingly. In the case of the Lagrange top, two orthogonal (Cartesian) coordinate systems are used: one fixed in the laboratory frame, and one which is fixed to, and moves with, the top. The transformations between these two systems are exceedingly tedious, complicated and subtle. We doubt that you could manage them. Your intellectual equal, ‘Professor’ Viv Pope, the telephone repair-man, also had difficulties in understanding coordinate systems. So did Laithwaite. Neither of them could comprehend that an object moving at a steady rate in a straight line can have an associated angular momentum. Laithwaite even wrote an entire article which showcased his ignorance. To be fair, most school-teachers don’t ‘get it’ either and even Newton had trouble with such subtleties.
April 5, 2017
But Google Scholar is not run by scientists, Ron, and makes little effort to weed out pseudoscience. For instance, one can also find there citations of the nonsense perpetrated by your friends and intellectual equals, ‘Professor’ John Searl and ‘Dr’ Tom Bearden. In the case of Scopus, which is controlled by informed observers, one finds just one citation for upitec and none for aias.us. How did upitec get in there? Somebody must have dozed off.