Archive for August, 2006

Science and Bureaucracy

August 31, 2006


Subject: Science and Bureaucracy
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 12:52:20 EDT

But you, Myron, have done that for ECE, testing it against the data. I strongly suspect that would not be good enough for the UK Patent Ofice. That was my point in sending that article, but I should have expressed it more clearly.

EMyrone] at [aol.com wrote:

> There is only one way of establishing a physical law - the one > established by Francis Bacon. A theory (putative physical law) must be > tested against empirical or experimental data. The data determine the > law, not the theory. I wrote to Steorn as requested by Phil Carpenter > and Douglas Mann, but I received no reply. Its theory is apparently > based on the old idea about the Lorenz gauge in special relativity. > Objectivity is a fundamental requirement of physics, so ECE theory > must be used becuae it is generally covariant and objective. Otherwise > we are dealing with the idols of the cave. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >
Subject: > well-established physical laws) > From: > Thomas Widlar >
Date: > Thu, 31 Aug 2006 10:05:14 -0500 > To: > EMyrone] at [aol.com > > To: > EMyrone] at [aol.com > CC: > rhodri.morgan] at [wales.gov.uk, annwvyn76] at [hotmail.com, > gemma.smith] at [wales.gsi.gov.uk, phil.o'connor] at [swansea.gov.uk, > roger.evans] at [swansea.gov.uk, ewehoe] at at [swansea.gov.uk, chris.holley] at [swansea.gov.uk, > garethjohnevans] at [hotmail.co.uk, fdamador] at [comcast.net, > sean] at [somewhere.ws, dave] at [annexa.net, HorstEck] at [aol.com, > rob] at [rfmicrosystems.co.uk, kp.phys] at [btinternet.com > > > How does one establish a physical law well? Does the government > determine the laws of nature? Is that our problem, we haven’t > talked to the right government official? > > http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,1861128,00.html > > Thursday August 31, 2006 > > The Guardian > > How can you patent a perpetual motion machine? > > Allegedly, by patenting different parts of it – because patent offices > do not accept claims for perpetual motion machines. Of course, nobody > has ever built one, otherwise we’d all be riding around in electric > cars powered by infinite supplies of electricity. > > The UK Patent Office notes that you cannot get a patent on “articles > or processes alleged to operate in a manner clearly contrary to > well-established physical laws” as they are “regarded as not having > industrial application”. Any machine that generates more energy than > it consumes is either a nuclear reactor or breaches the second law of > thermodynamics. > > But the Irish company Steorn, which has brought attention to itself by > claiming to have a magnet-driven machine that will generate more > energy than is put into it (and has taken out an expensive advert in > The Economist rather than publishing a scientific paper or even > building a few prototypes) says it will get around the restriction on > patenting its invention by splitting it into components and patenting > those. Then, by assembling them, it will have a patented energy > generator. > > The machine, though, isn’t a reactor. Quite apart from the question of > whether Steorn has invalidated its own attempts to get any sort of > patent by showing it off to the Guardian (These men think they’re > about to change the world, August 25), there is the knotty question of > whether it can sneak the pieces past the patent examiners’ eyes to be > assembled, with patent protection, to produce a machine that squares > the circle of producing energy for free while also being under patent. > > Confusingly, the company’s website ( http://tinyurl.com/mdt5e ) says > that the design of the “free energy” generator is “patent pending”, > but the World International Property Organisation (WIPO) publication > WO 2006/035419 indicates that the patent on a “low energy magnetic > actuator” has only been applied for, not granted by the US Patent > Office – and a search of the USPTO database confirms that. > > Meanwhile, plenty of scientists appear to be lining up to put Steorn’s > claims to the test. The company claims that more than 3,000 have > already applied to put its “free energy” device through rigorous > testing: it has set a closing date of September 8, after which 12 will > be invited to test the equipment. “The results will then be published > worldwide,” Steorn says, at which point either the doubters will be > left with a lot of egg on their face, or – on the balance of history, > almost certainly – the eager inventors at Steorn will. > > Still, assuming that the USPTO awards the patent, Steorn will at least > be able to tout a low energy magnetic actuator to anyone who wants > one. It’s not free energy – but if you’re trying to patent a perpetual > motion machine, you clearly weren’t about to give the energy away for > free anyway. > >

I see, agreed! Science and bureaucracy don’t mix, like oil and water.

A Complete List of My Book Publications to Date

August 31, 2006

alistofbooks.pdf

Complete List of ECE Publications to Date

August 31, 2006

alistofECEpublications2003topresent.pdf

well-established physical laws)

August 31, 2006


Subject: Fwd: well-established physical laws)
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 12:12:40 EDT

How does one establish a physical law well? Does the government determine the laws of nature? Is that our problem, we haven’t talked to the right government official?

http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,1861128,00.html

Thursday August 31, 2006

The Guardian

How can you patent a perpetual motion machine?

Allegedly, by patenting different parts of it – because patent offices do not accept claims for perpetual motion machines. Of course, nobody has ever built one, otherwise we’d all be riding around in electric cars powered by infinite supplies of electricity.

The UK Patent Office notes that you cannot get a patent on “articles or processes alleged to operate in a manner clearly contrary to well-established physical laws” as they are “regarded as not having industrial application”. Any machine that generates more energy than it consumes is either a nuclear reactor or breaches the second law of thermodynamics.

But the Irish company Steorn, which has brought attention to itself by claiming to have a magnet-driven machine that will generate more energy than is put into it (and has taken out an expensive advert in The Economist rather than publishing a scientific paper or even building a few prototypes) says it will get around the restriction on patenting its invention by splitting it into components and patenting those. Then, by assembling them, it will have a patented energy generator.

The machine, though, isn’t a reactor. Quite apart from the question of whether Steorn has invalidated its own attempts to get any sort of patent by showing it off to the Guardian (These men think they’re about to change the world, August 25), there is the knotty question of whether it can sneak the pieces past the patent examiners’ eyes to be assembled, with patent protection, to produce a machine that squares the circle of producing energy for free while also being under patent.

Confusingly, the company’s website ( http://tinyurl.com/mdt5e ) says that the design of the “free energy” generator is “patent pending”, but the World International Property Organisation (WIPO) publication WO 2006/035419 indicates that the patent on a “low energy magnetic actuator” has only been applied for, not granted by the US Patent Office – and a search of the USPTO database confirms that.

Meanwhile, plenty of scientists appear to be lining up to put Steorn’s claims to the test. The company claims that more than 3,000 have already applied to put its “free energy” device through rigorous testing: it has set a closing date of September 8, after which 12 will be invited to test the equipment. “The results will then be published worldwide,” Steorn says, at which point either the doubters will be left with a lot of egg on their face, or – on the balance of history, almost certainly – the eager inventors at Steorn will.

Still, assuming that the USPTO awards the patent, Steorn will at least be able to tout a low energy magnetic actuator to anyone who wants one. It’s not free energy – but if you’re trying to patent a perpetual motion machine, you clearly weren’t about to give the energy away for free anyway.

There is only one way of establishing a physical law – the one established by Francis Bacon. A theory (putative physical law) must be tested against empirical or experimental data. The data determine the law, not the theory. I wrote to Steorn as requested by Phil Carpenter and Douglas Mann, but I received no reply. Its theory is apparently based on the old idea about the Lorenz gauge in special relativity. Objectivity is a fundamental requirement of physics, so ECE theory must be used becuae it is generally covariant and objective. Otherwise we are dealing with the idols of the cave.

Some Important Points by Prof. G. J. Evans

August 31, 2006


Subject: Some Important Points by Prof. G. J. Evans
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 12:00:18 EDT

These are important points by GJE to bear in mind, there is not a single equation of physics that cannot be derived from ECE theory, see M. W. Evans, “Generally Covariant Unified Field Theory” (Abramis Academic, 2005, 2006), vols. one to three, volume four in prep. Cartan geometry is actually available in Maple and Ross Pawley has automated a lot of the theory for the computer. ECE is a classic example of “the shock of the new”, in art, this occurred in episodes such as Impressionism, in literture in the poetry of Dylan Thomas, “Eighteen Poems”, and so on.

The important point to remember in responding to these attacks is that ECE theory reduces, in appropriate limits, to all the well known laws of physics and for the first time explains, in a consistent manner, many of the inconsistencies that have plagued theoretical physics. Classic and quantum physics is unified, effects like the Sagnac Effect, as one example, are explained in a consistent manner for the first time. This is by now well documented and explained in detail on the AIAS website and in your series of books and publications Myron.

Why these individuals choose to attack a theory that is so successful is a mystery – unless, of course, they propose that we discard the facts and most of the science, now consistently explained, that has gone before.

Best, Gareth

> > >
Subject: [AIAS] Fwd: Lead Article for http://www.aias.us: Some Further Rebuttals >ofthe Wikipedia En… >
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 09:38:28 EDT > >Redirected to Diary.

> > >annwvyn76] at [hotmail.com,sean] at [somewhere.ws, dave] at [annexa.net, >HorstEck] at [aol.com,rob] at [rfmicrosystems.co.uk, kp.phys] at [btinternet.com >
Subject: Fwd: Lead Article for http://www.aias.us: Some Further Rebuttals of >theWikipedia En... >
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 07:24:09 EDT >For recent newcomers: This is the second Wikipedia rebuttal and will >eventually be collated with the main Wikipedia rebuttal on the home page of >www.aias.us. This is just for the record, it is clear already that this >corrupt >Wikipedia article is being totally ignored by the profession.

> > >annwvyn76] at [hotmail.com,gemma.smith] at [wales.gsi.gov.uk, >phil.o'connor] at [swansea.gov.uk,roger.evans] at [swansea.gov.uk, >ewehoe] at at [swansea.gov.uk, >chris.holley] at [swansea.gov.uk,garethjohnevans] at [hotmail.co.uk, >fdamador] at [comcast.net, sean] at [somewhere.ws, dave] at [annexa.net, >manndouglas] at [gmail.com, HorstEck] at [aol.com,rob] at [rfmicrosystems.co.uk, >geesquared] at [gmail.com, kp.phys] at [btinternet.com, dblake] at [no10.x.gsi.gov.uk, >martin.caton] at [politics.demon.co.uk,pangborn] at [psu.edu, physica] at [kva.se >
Subject: Lead Article for http://www.aias.us: Some Further Rebuttals of the >WikipediaEntry >
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 07:40:04 EDT >This Wikipedia article is unethical and unprofessional, and is part of a >well >known personal hate campaign. “Science Guy” is Akhlesh Lakhtakia, a known >disseminator of gutter abuse who has no scientific or even societal >credibility, >but who is allowed to use Penn State facilities. When it comes to ECE >theory, >or its predecessor O(3) electrodynamics, Lakhtakia is wholly incompetent. >He >relies on selective quotation and hearsay. Neither is admissible evidence. >All >attempts at rebutting Wikipedia on the site itself are censored by >Lakhtakia >himself with the help of his friend “mathphys”. This illustrates >Wikipedia’s >non-existent standards of justice. In addition to the main rebuttal here >are >some more comments. > >1) G. ‘t Hooft knows nothing about ECE theory and merely makes a sarcastic >comment. This is entirely in keeping with a sarcastic character, now >retired. I >would welcome any scientific comment from ‘t Hooft, so that it may be >rebutted. >2) Mainstream physics is represented by five million hits in three years >from >the best physicists worldwide (www.aias.us/new_stats/). Actual peer usage >is >by far the best measure of how a theory is received. So ECE theory is >mainstream physics. >3) The Civil List Pension is obviously a High Honour, there are only about >25 >people given this honour at present. There is a maximum of 25 recipients of >the Order of Merit. This Civil List high honour from the Queen and >Parliament >seems to make Lakhtakia green with envy and purple with rage. Green and >purple >is indicative of seasickness, not science. The honorarium is actually from >Parliament, not the Queen. >4) Sachs is also turning green and purple, being in the same boat. He has >been long retired completely from SUNY Buffalo and makes some derogatory >comments because ECE is far more successful than his own essentially >forgotten >quaternion theory. > > >Just for the record in respect of Sachs’ pathetic comments (pathos because >he >used to be a scientist): >a) The equations of ECE are derived from the same geometrical first >principles as those of Einstein and Hilbert. ECE is EH extended with the >Cartan >torsion. The wave equation comes from the fundamental tetrad postulate, and >has been >meticulously cross checked for correctness many times, not only by myself >by >others also. >b) Tetrads are well known to be fundamental fields, for example the >gravitino >is a tetrad and the Penrose theory is based on tetrads. The latter appear >in >many standard texts on general relativity (e.g. Wald and Carroll). Sachs is >incompetent in ECE theory. >c) I invert the compliment and suggest that one should not take Sachs >seriously when it comes to ECE. He is envious, retired, unfunded and >biased. >d) Crowell’s new book was actually published in my own series “Contemporary >Chemical Physics”. I was fair minded enough to let him publish it. No one >else >would. >e) Crowell has never worked with ECE theory. >f) I was fair-minded enough to let Crowell publish his article on O(3) >electrodynamics in my ACP volume 119(3), endorsed by the Royal Swedish >Academy. >These remarks do not even apply to ECE theory, they apply to O(3) >electrodynamics, >and were rebutted long ago. >g) Dvoeglazov’s remarks do not apply to ECE theory and were rebutted long >ago. >h) None of my rebuttals of the articles cited by Lakhtakia appear, and all >attempts to reinstate these rebuttals are removed by Lakhtakia himself. > > With justice like this, who needs show trials? > >Brish Civil List Scientist. > >

_________________________________________________________________ Windows Live™ Messenger has arrived. Click here to download it for free! http://imagine-msn.com/messenger/launch80/?locale=en-gb

Building up the Diary ("blog")

August 31, 2006


Subject: Building up the Diary (“blog”)
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 10:06:51 EDT

I have transferred a lot of important material in late August 06 to the blog and I recommend a close study of the blog for this August. This contains a damning condemnation of Wikipedia, given in all detail. There is an archive of over five thousand messages and notes etc. which will eventually be transferred to the blog by my personal staff, plus all attachments and original questions where appropriate. Civil List Scientist.

Complaint from Civil List Scientist

August 31, 2006

redirected to diary

Subject: Complaint from Civil List Scientist
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 08:16:11 EDT

Chief Executive, Institute of Physics,

I am the Civil List Scientist (attached credentials) appointed for distinguished contributions to Britain in science. My predecessors in physics and chemistry on the Civil List were Herschel, Dalton, Joule, Faraday, Fairfax-Sommerville, Heaviside, Denning and Airy. I am the author and / or editor of circa 716 papers in over fifty refereed journals and about fifty monographs. Recently I submitted some papers on Einstein Cartan Evans (ECE) theory to the appropriate IoP journals. I tried to select the right journal for the topic of each paper. These are on very differnt subjects, but are based on ECE theory, a generally covariant unified field theory. I am trying to systematically apply ECE to all the main areas of physics and chemistry. ECE is a hugely successful theory which has attarcted about five million hits and well over half a million individual visits to http://www.aias.us worldwide. We see from our feedback sites that the actual peer usage of ECE is intense and sustained, and has been for three years. So it is time to publish the theory as papers. The theory has already been positively refereed about forty times in “Foundations of Physics Letters”, so it is timely to publish the theory as papers, because letters on important new work should be followed by papers, as usual.

When I tried to do this (in about five papers on very different subjects), they were not sent to referees. I object to this and request that this matter be properly decided by competent referees. I suggested honest and competent referees but my suggestions were ignored. No reason was given for this treatment and no scientific comment made. This episode has had no effect on the actual peer usage of ECE theory (feedback sites of http://www.aias.us). Yesterday for example there were nearly four thousand hits for http://www.aias.us and 456 visitors – a typical day. I have monitored the actual peer usage of ECE every day for three years, and I have recorded 160 pages full of URLS’s indicating intense interest of the highest possible quality. I have posted this record on http://www.aias.us.

Unfortunately, your publication staff appeared to have glanced at the list of references and decided there and then not to send the papers to referees. This is unacceptable to the entire physics commmunity, and I have already obtained an angry e mail from the US Department of Energy in Washington which is highly critical of the way in which this stunningly successful new theory has been treated.

Surely it is best to consult working referees who actually know something about the details of ECE. This is a new theory which has made an unrpecedented imapct on modern physics. The list of publications refer to ECE theory for the obvious reason that the papers are on applications of ECE theory. I stress that this work has been positively refereed forty times in a latters journal in less than three years.

Prof. Myron W. Evans, Civil List Scientist, AIAS Director.


Attachment: aroyaldecree.ZIP

Refereeing Procedures at AIAS

August 31, 2006

redirected to diary

Subject: Refereeing Procedures at AIAS
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 13:03:47 EDT

Yes agreed, Gareth

> > >
Subject: [AIAS] Fwd: PS to GJE >
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 09:29:40 EDT > >

> > >annwvyn76] at [hotmail.com,sean] at [somewhere.ws, dave] at [annexa.net, >manndouglas] at [gmail.com,HorstEck] at [aol.com, rob] at [rfmicrosystems.co.uk, >wogeorge] at [glam.ac.uk,geesquared] at [gmail.com, >kp.phys] at [btinternet.com,rhodri.morgan] at [wales.gov.uk, >gemma.smith] at [wales.gsi.gov.uk,phil.o'connor] at [swansea.gov.uk, >roger.evans] at [swansea.gov.uk,ewehoe] at at [swansea.gov.uk,chris.holley] at [swansea.gov.uk, >dblake] at [no10.x.gsi.gov.uk,martin.caton] at [politics.demon.co.uk >
Subject: PS to GJE >
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 09:29:22 EDT >The most popular item on http://www.aias.us is the book by Lar Felker, later the >popular article by Horst Eckardtand Lar Felker. Then the Wikipedia >rebuttal. This >can be seen on http://www.aias.us/new_stats/) The most popular paper is already >paper 63, (just posted), with graphics and numerical analysis by Dr >Eckardt, then >comes paper 66 on the vector boson rep of the static electric field. 67 >papers >and four books have now been produced on ECE in just over three years. The >physics establishment has not been able to cope with this at all, i.e. is >not >able to judge ECE theory at all, but five million hits have been >accumulated on >www.ais.us alone in those same three years, half a million plus individual >visitors. This means intense peer usage. There is a similar actual peer >usage for >www.atomicprecision.com. The theory is actually being driven ahead by >chemists and electrical engineers, but with the help of a lot of honest >physicists >who study it properly as individual scientists. The problem is that physics >is >very tightly controlled (when it comes ot ECE) by an establishment that is >clearly incompetent, and by a completely corrupt anonymous peer review >system. ECE >threatens to overhelm string theory, so a lot of dirt is being frantically >thrown by Lakhtakia, a self appointed chief justice of science in our day >and >age. He runs his own supreme court on Wikipedia and is his own prosecutor. >MWE >

_________________________________________________________________ Windows Live™ Messenger has arrived. Click here to download it for free! http://imagine-msn.com/messenger/launch80/?locale=en-gb

To GJE: Also, the refereeing procedures within AIAS are thorough, the first stage is to distribute notes, which are “electronic seminars”. These notes are throughly read and gone through for any errors. The next stage is to put the notes into manuscript form, with handwritten equations. The manuscript is also combed for errors, and finally posted. The manuscripts are finally typeset into TeX by Franklin Amador. During this process, the typeset papers are proofed several times. Lastly the papers are collected into volumes. So by the time we have gone through all this, the probability of an elementary error is small. Bearing in mind that there are already about two thosuand printed pages of material on ECE, with seevral thousand intricate equations, some typo’s may remain. Even then they are usaully picked up by someone. If a “pseudo-criticism” appears, I rebut it in as much detail as necessary. There has been no genuine criticism of ECE in three years.

Some Experiments to test ECE

August 31, 2006

redirected to diary

Subject: Some Experiments to test ECE
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 03:25:13 EDT

PS to Karel Jelinek: I have suggested some experiments to test ECE theory in the multi volume monograph M. W. Evans, “Generally Covariant Unified Field Theory” published in Britain by Abramis Academic. The third volume is due to be published shortly. A Czech translation of the article by Lar Felker and Horst Eckardt would be an excellent idea! The European Centre could perhaps be funded by the European Community Government in Luxembourg and the Czech Government. Prague is well known for several hundred years as a major and enlightened cultural centre in Europe. We have received several visits from the EEC Government in Luxembourg, and from Heads of State or Parliamentary staffs of all the major European countries. Also from all senior departmental staffs in the US and from the Canadian and Australian Governments and so forth. Corporate interest in ECE worldwide has also been very intense, it is safe to say that all major corporations are interested in ECE. I particularly recommend paper 63 by Dr Horst Eckardt (Siemens Company) and myself. We suggest a circuit design there for energy from spinning space-time. Paper 63 is currently the most popular paper on http://www.aias.us. I am currently working on paper 68, in resonant counter-gravitation.

Prague Spring

August 31, 2006

redirected to diary

Subject: Prague Spring
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 04:02:27 EDT

Here is a sonnet published in Britain in my recent book “An Autobiography, Sonnets” (Arima, 2005). Shades of ECE?

Prague Spring (Aladdin Factory, Alltwen, Swansea Valley, 1968)

Beaten minutes, dancing light upon a Dark, machine clad time, the giant hammer Pounds the sun apart; a metallic burst Of photons from the blinding welding torch, And violent child has risen to be man. The stink of tric is all at hand to wipe The greasy lies from prsitine parts of life, Moulded in the press shop in the heat Of Premature Spring. These tanks are small, from them Are built commodities that crush the crowd. In its place, light and time are fugitives, Skeletal, ashen people that avert Their eyes and ears. Now as the shallow tide Of hope recedes, the morning shift begins.

(written in about 1987 in Port Ewen, New York State)


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 28 other followers