Archive for the ‘Daily Postings’ Category

Chantry

May 8, 2009

 



Subject: Chantyr
Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 11:20:16 EDT

Yes Chantry and the National Physical Laboratory successfuly nominated me for the early medals and were appalled at the EDCL incidents. The BCC today also thought that at long last I should be reinsated at Aberystwyth. I will make an extended programme for them. After having practiced mathematics and science for fifty five years, I will not tolerate pseudoscience or engage in communication with pseudoscientists. I have an overwehling mandate from several professions and have a clear, ineluctable, duty to them.

Fwd: [AIAS] Fwd: Restricting my Communication

May 8, 2009

 



Subject: Fwd: [AIAS] Fwd: Restricting my Communication
Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 11:09:18 EDT

I think that restricting communication is necessary in view of the amount of pseudoscience, I am not concerned at all about the attitudes of the old physics protagonists. Thanks for this comment by Rowlinson, to whom I regularly send e mail along with former Oxford colleagues.


Attachment: Rowlinson.bmp

I think we all understand your frustration Myron. The fact is, developing a unified field theory required a detailed and broad understanding of the various fields of science. You have not only developed a new theory, and a complete mastery of the mathematics that underlies it, but you have also developed a deep insight and overview of the physical processes that, within current understanding, seem to control natural behaviour. This has taken almost a lifetime of hard and meticulous study. Unfortunately, a lot, if not most, of mainstream physicists have not developed this same level of understanding and do not have the same in depth insight across the various fields of physics. They have usually become specialists in very narrow fields – a consequence of an educational system that channels students into specialised, but restrictive, areas of interest quite early on in their training. It is going to take the establishment a long time to catch up Myron – that is now very evident. All you can do is to carry on putting the basics in place across all the fields of physics (and assist in developing new devices to confirm the new predictions). As you say, we seem to have not only lost the ability to understand good theory but we have also become poorer at undertaking good and meaningful experiments. In fact, we have to wonder about some of the experimental claims in recent times (driven, as they have been, by flawed models and need to support them). New particles, cold fusion, black holes etc – a set of Hubble telescope pictures circulated by Stephen recently (tongue in cheek though it was) said it all! One thing that irritates me is that these outsiders seem to think that in AIAS we follow your line without question whatever the issues. This is nonsense, we hold different views on some very big questions. However, we agree on sound logic and what has been proven to be correct (by multiple cross checks, computer algebra, and sometimes common sense etc). Why do these people not question and reject the whole notion of negative energy, anti-particles, negative time etc – this never was part of our real world. Any way, just carry on with the good work Myron. Attached is the letter from John Rowlinson – will send others across one at a time, for your records, if this transmission is successful.

Best, Gareth

Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 05:18:15 -0400

Subject: [AIAS] Fwd: Restricting my Communication

–Forwarded Message Attachment–

Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 05:18:00 -0400
Subject: Restricting my Communication

I have decided to restrict my communication mainly to the AIAS / TGA working group and not to communicate with pseudoscientists, or with people who randomnly assert things without knowledge of mathematics. That is just a waste of everyone’s time. This includes standard theoretical physicists who still adhere to what is obviously an obsolete theory. I will still actively communicate with chemists and engineers and still act as a referee for mainline chemistry journals. I was originally a chemist and was forced into physics by the blank injustice of the EDCL years at Aberystwyth, an injustice which has become much worse by failure to put it right. I have taken the time to evaluate the various claims of latter day dogmatists and few stand up to scrutiny. In view of the essentially unanimous international acclaim for ECE theory, and in view of the mediaeval censoriousness of dogmatists I see no purpose in communicating with them, not that they ever do things directly. Also there is no purpose in communicating with people who fail to reproduce well known, undergraduate level, experiments, or do not show that their experiments are repeatable and reproducible. That can waste an awful lot of time, and it is a danger to apply a theory to incorrect data. The working group has been developed over years of hard work.

Civil List Scientist

_________________________________________________________________ View your Twitter and Flickr updates from one place ? Learn more! http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/137984870/direct/01/=

Fwd: Motion in the Court of Aberystwyth University

May 8, 2009

 



Subject: Motion in the Court of Aberystwyth University
Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 05:29:06 EDT

I should think that in view of the acclaim being given to ECE theory worldwide, a motion in the Court to right the stark injustice of the EDCL years could be proposed. For example I could contribute as an honorary professor working as I am now. At present the random injustice of the EDCL era means that there is a glass ceiling, one can get the chop for nothing and be denied all opportunity for a lifetime.

cc Welsh Assembly

Fwd: Restricting my Communication

May 8, 2009

 



Subject: Restricting my Communication
Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 05:18:00 EDT

I have decided to restrict my communication mainly to the AIAS / TGA working group and not to communicate with pseudoscientists, or with people who randomnly assert things without knowledge of mathematics. That is just a waste of everyone’s time. This includes standard theoretical physicists who still adhere to what is obviously an obsolete theory. I will still actively communicate with chemists and engineers and still act as a referee for mainline chemistry journals. I was originally a chemist and was forced into physics by the blank injustice of the EDCL years at Aberystwyth, an injustice which has become much worse by failure to put it right. I have taken the time to evaluate the various claims of latter day dogmatists and few stand up to scrutiny. In view of the essentially unanimous international acclaim for ECE theory, and in view of the mediaeval censoriousness of dogmatists I see no purpose in communicating with them, not that they ever do things directly. Also there is no purpose in communicating with people who fail to reproduce well known, undergraduate level, experiments, or do not show that their experiments are repeatable and reproducible. That can waste an awful lot of time, and it is a danger to apply a theory to incorrect data. The working group has been developed over years of hard work.

Civil List Scientist

Fwd: Another Non-Standard UFT and Representing Physics with Quaternions

May 8, 2009

 



Subject: Fwd: Another Non-Standard UFT and Representing Physics with Quaternions
Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 05:04:00 EDT


Attachment: Einstein%27s vis.pdf

Dear Prof. Evans,

I came across an interesting website by a fellow (Doug Sweetser) proposing his own UFT – what he labels ‘GEM’ (short for Unifying Gravity and EM by Analogy to EM):

http://quaternions.com/ (He also has another site: http://visualphysics.org/)

One interesting aspect is that he uses quaternions (as the name of the site indicates) to represent the physics.

He provides a variety of downloadable PDF files (two examples are attached) and has links to some of his YouTube videos. He is also critical of the following:

— Black Holes

— Dark Matter

— Higgs particles

— String Theory

On the other hand, he does the same thing as Standard Modelers by assuming Torsion Free (& metric compatible) connection.

However.(and this what I’m not adept enough mathematically to discern) it appears that his metric can be influenced by electric charge, so I’m not sure if this is the same as getting torsion in through the ‘back door’. The way he puts it in one PDF on his site that I read is that curvature is coupled ONLY to mass, but spacetime curvature is influenced by a change in potential of EITHER electric charge or ‘mass charge’ (attractive only).

I was wondering if you or Prof. Eckardt could determine what are the merits/flaws of this UFT?

In any case, would ECE Theory benefit by representing it in terms of quaternions?

As an Engineer, the quaternion aspect appealed to me because a 4-D version of complex numbers/vectors seems to be a lot simpler than tensors.

Sincerely,

Raymond Delaforce


Attachment: Einstein%27s vis-1.pdf

Thanks, yes I have been familiar with this theory for some years. Of course I agree about the rejection fo of standard pseudoscience such as black holes. However, there are several immediate problems that include the following.

1) The theory is not generally covariant, i.e. it does not include B(3). 2) It still uses the incorrect symmetric connection. 3) It does not use the advances of Cartan geometry. 4) It still uses an incorrect U(1) sector symmetry for electromagnetism, and still describes the Heavisde equations as the Maxwell equations.

So I rejected it long ago on these grounds.

Fwd: 131(13) : Calculation of the Connection from the Dual Identity

May 8, 2009

 



Subject: 131(13) : Calculation of the Connection from the Dual Identity
Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 04:49:14 EDT

This is a first approximation calculation of the connection of Riemann geometry from the dual identity, and I think that this is the first correct calculation of a connection in 150 years. In this rough approximation, the result is a differential equation, eq. (20), which can easily be solved by computer for an initial and boundary condition. Throughout the twentieth century the wrong connection symmetry was used. It was finally realized in paper 122 that the connection must always be antisymmetric. Note carefully that this calculation does not use the metric. In the obsolete standard method the metric was used to define the Christoffel connection, but that is an entirely erroneous procedure as is well known now internationally. The field equations of dynamics and electrodynamics in ECE are given in vector format in the engineering model, and have numerous interesting new solutions as Doug Lindstrom is showing by computer. This is just a hand calculation in a rough approximation.


Attachment: a131stpapernotes13.pdf

Fwd: Notice For Home Page

May 7, 2009

 



Subject: Notice For Home Page
Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 02:31:10 EDT

I would be most grateful if this notice could be posted on the home page.

“I would be interested to hear from a research group that has expertise in non-linear electromagnetic techniques in order to try a simple radiatively induced fermion resonance (RFR) experiment. RFR theory has been worked out extensively, and is reviewed in volume 119 of “Advances in Chemical Physics”, a special topical issue called “Non Linear Optics (Second Edition)” with about thirty five review articles. The experiment is a simple one, it is the resonance equivalent of the well known inverse Faraday effect first observed at Harvard by the Bloembergen group almost fifty years ago and observed routinely by now. The IFE is therefore well known to be reproducible and repeatable and in ECE theory indicates the existence of the B(3) field. It is now known that the latter was independently inferred by several groups in the late eighties and nineties. The IFE and RFR show that in theory, ESR, NMR and MRI can be developed without permanent magnets and at much higher resolution than currently available. The Kennedy group at the NRL in Washington has made great progress with a hybrid type of RFR, and a type of RFR was observed by Barrett in the early eighties using inverse Raman scattering. What is needed is a simple experiment in which a circularly polarized radio frequency beam interacts with an electron beam. RFR is a much easier experiment than IFE”

Fwd: Note about Scientific and Welsh Affairs

May 7, 2009

 



Subject: Note about Scientific and Welsh Affairs
Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 14:38:01 EDT

My scientific notes are obviously meant for an international readership and the Welsh affairs notes for my Welsh readership. I divide my time between science and literature, and have a duty to both.

Fwd: Many Successful Observations of B(3)

May 7, 2009

 



Subject: Many Successful Observations of B(3)
Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 12:51:34 EDT

There have been many successful inverse Faraday effect experiments are all successful observations of B(3). So if a group fails to observe the inverse Faraday effect, it is obviously due to poor design. The first observation of B(3) was made at Harvard by van der Ziel et al. in the mid sixties. It would be much easier to do an RFR experiment, the IFE experiment is a difficult one. To see may successful IFE experiments google “inverse Faraday effect”.

Fwd: Mai / May

May 7, 2009

 



Subject: Mai / May
Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 10:47:53 EDT

This is an englyn to Mai (May) just finished:

Gwyrdd a mwyn yw grudd y Mai, – y goeden Deg dan nen a dyfai, Y marw drom mae ar drai, Llwyn o gwsg yn llon gwisgai.

This is a celebration of nature in another way. It cannot be translated without losing all the art, but it describes May as the green, easy month, winter’s deathly grip is ebbing, the land awakes and dresses merrily. This is therefore The Right of Spring, a celebration of enlightenment. That is what natural philosophy should be also, the opposite of dark matter. I think I have a grip on cynghanedd now, otherwise if there is a flaw, the punishment is severe, to listen to a lecture on string theory.

Civil List Scientist


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 26 other followers