Fwd: 131(11): Short Introduction to Dave Feustel's Book

 

Subject: 131(11): Short Introduction to Dave Feustel’s Book
Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 06:05:08 EDT

This is a short introduction to Dave Feustel’s book, and is a straightforward demonstration of two major advances in physics and mathematics

1) The torsion in Riemann geometry is identically non-zero, and the connection is anti-symmetric in its lower two indices. 2) The Einstein field equation is wildly incorrect due to an incorrect claim that torsion is zero and that the connection is symmetric in its lower two indices.

This result has been demonstrated in many ways with computer algebra, with many solutions of the Einstein field equation (papers 93, 95, 100, 117, 120 and so on). Dave Feustel can now follow up with a Maple write up based on this introduction, similarly for Mathematica, IBM MOTECC, IBM ESSL, NAG and so on. The Maxima code (written at the Siemens Company by Horst Eckardt and his group) is freely available to anyone who wants to use it. The ECE field equations are based on the correct point (1) and have been greatly developed and utilized (_www.aias.us_ (http://www.aias.us) and _www.atomicprecision.com_ (http://www.atomicprecision.com) )

For this work I was awarded a TGA Gold Medal and Prize in 2008. Horst Eckardt is to be awarded a TGA Gold Medal and Prize this year for his Maxima code and much other work. Steve Crothers was awarded a TGA Gold Medal and Prize in 2008 for many independent demonstrations of the incorrectness of the standard model. The TGA Gold Medals and Prizes are already of comparable prestige to a Nobel Prize or Fields Medal. Several Academies of Science have joined TGA / AIAS. There is intense criticisms of the standard model and Nobel Prize committee in physics for awarding prizes to dogma long known to be incorrect. Dealing with fringe harassment is a matter for the police and the ethical practices committees of science professions.

British Civil List Scientist

Attachment: a131stpapernotes11.pdf

Fwd: Short Monograph Suggested by Dave Feustel

 

Subject: Short Monograph Suggested by Dave Feustel
Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 03:56:14 EDT

It is an excellent idea to translate Maxima into Maple, and also into Mathematica and other packages such as IBM MOTECC. I was in at the start of MOTECC at IBM Kingston New York in 1988 and was also the first to test out IBM RISC 6000 at Cornell with molecular dynamics computer simulation. The prize winning animation of the inverse Faraday effect by Chris Pelkie and myself is on _www.aias.us_ (http://www.aias.us) . This was made at Cornell about 1989 to 1990. Clementi experimented with some of the very first computer animations. The paper just sent around this morning (ECE paper 117) illustrates the use of Maxima, and it is important work circa 2007 by Horst Eckardt and his group of students at the Siemens Company in Munich. This is computer algebra which shows the Einstein field equation to be wildly incorrect due to its neglect of torsion. I would suggest using this type of paper and also papers 93, 95, 100, and 120 (a review paper) to write up new code for Maxima, Maple, Mathematica, ESSL, NAG and MOTECC. The high priests of the standard pseudo-establishment will then have problems with pseudo-computers, computers which are unobservable to ostriches. In other words they have not been able to show that there is anything wrong with the computer code, and never will. In addition, paper 122 and proof one on the home page of _www.aias.us_ (http://www.aias.us) shows that the pseudo-physicists of the pseudo-establishment used a pseudo-metric. So they are all pseuds. Let’s have some fun with them.

Fwd: Obsolete Standard Remarks

 

Subject: Obsolete Standard Remarks
Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 02:56:37 EDT

Myron:

I bumped into this the other day:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience

ECE is included, so I thought I’d bring it to your attention. You know, the ruthlessness and nastiness with which vested interest attempts to discredit competitor theories makes me angry. My New Scientist is full of multiverse garbage saying string theory is the only game in town. String theory is the pseudoscience, by every measure you can take.

Regards

John Duffield

In view of the overwhelming international interest in ECE theory this kind of remark is obsolete and should be ignored. Using feedback activity software we see that the ECE sites out impact Wikipedia completely. The original Wikipedia entry on myself was posted by someone unknown, and defaced by a character called Akhlesh Lakhtakia, “Science Guy” on Wikipedia. Using feedback software, we traced horrendously abusive e mail to Lakhtakia, who has disappeared from Wikipedia. This abusive e mail was sent repeatedly to the Prime Minister’s Office in London by using my e mail listing. Several other well known harassers of the stadnard fringe have used this method. The Wikipedia site on myself became the most controversial Wikipedia site in the world and was eventually removed. It attempted to censor the British Civil List because I am inconveniently on it. This fact does not square with being branded as a “pseudoscientist”. So Kerry Pendergast of Gwent wrote my true biography, and Ken Russell will make a film out of it. The obsolete standard dogmatists then proceeded to construct a site which childishly and luridly brands ECE as “pseudoscience”. We are well used to this stupid nonsense at AIAS and take no notice of it. The AIAS group has been harassed systematically for many years, along with science editors who publish good new sceince,and finally the South Wales Police took action. Many formal complaints have been forwarded to Penn State, where Lakhtakia works, and also to the relevant District Attorney in Pennsylvania. The forthcoming Yalta Conference of TGA / AIAS is to be attended by senior Academicians and Nobel Laureates, and several Academies of Science have recently joined TGA / AIAS. In my view the attempted branding of ECE as “pseudoscience” is grotesque intellectual failure, akin to being branded as a heretic in the middle ages. If colleagues around the world wish to do so, they can challenge the Wikipedia branding by posting their own views, again making the site controversial. The way that the present standard dogmatists behave is a corruption of science, which is a corruption of thought. The ECE arguments are simple, and based on the well established principles of William of Ockham and Francis Bacon. The Institute of Physics and arXiv are culpable, they use untrained secretaries to reject non-standard papers without the editors reading them. So several international professions in turn ignore the Institute of Physics and arXiv. There are now two completely independent physics systems.

British Civil List Scientist

Fwd: Fw: Typesetting Vol VI – revised chapters 24

 

Subject: Fwd: Fw: Typesetting Vol VI – revised chapters 24
Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 02:35:49 EDT

Many thanks again, excellent typesetting as usual, I can find only one typo:

1) After 25.5.1.14, J sub 3 = 0 {4pt}

I am forwarding to my co-author Horst Eckardt for any final comments from him

Attachment: Evans_Chapter24_5 May 09.pdf

Dear Myron,

I have attached the revised typeset of chapter 24.

Kind regards Richard

Fwd: Reminiscences: Similarity with Kepler's biography

 

Subject: Reminiscences: Similarity with Kepler’s biography
Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 08:48:17 EDT

The entire text of “Johannes Kepler and Planetary Motion” is available by using google keywords “Johannes Kepler epicycles hostile”, second entry. This has a marked resemblance to Kerry Pendergast’s biography. Kepler was of a noble family with its own coat of arms, but one which had fallen on bad times, so his parents were poor adn he was born in a small town. He was a Schwabian with a heavy accent. Initially at Tuebingen he enthusiastically accepted the Ptolemaic system, including the epicycle, invented by Apollonius of Pergia in the third century BC. Copernicus, although guessing that the sun was the centre of the solar system, never proved it. It is generally thought that Newton eliminated the need for epicylces, creating a theory many orders more powerful. This is certainly true, but it was the huge efforts of Kepler that led to Newton’s great synthesis. From 1601 to 1605 he discovered the first two Kepler laws, and on 8th March 1618 the third law. after many years of great effort. All kinds of obstacles were placed in Kepler’s way – his laws received no acclaim from his contemporaries, essentially no one realized the significance of Astronomica Nova. he had to work for a very unstable Emperor Rudolph, who frequently did not pay him, and Tycho Brahe would not let him see the data he needed for a very long time. Kepler hated and detested war, but lived in the midst of war. His defence of Copernicus in 1618, 1620 and 1621 was immediately banned, and some of his books were declared heretical. He refused to give up his Lutheran beliefs. So compared to that I have had no problems at all. Kepler was appointed a professor of mathematics at the age of 23 and Imperial Mathematicus in Prague. His own University of Tuebingen never gave him a post, despite the fact that he was Imperial Mathematicus to the Holy Roman Emperor. several similarities but some differences, because ECE is widely recognized by contemporaries, as is all my other work.

British Civil List Scientist

Fwd: David Feustel's Suggested Short Monograph

 

Subject: Fwd: David Feustel’s Suggested Short Monograph
Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 08:30:07 EDT

Myron,

While I agree that there is a real need for many textbooks on ECE, I would find a document that focused soley on the curvature-torsion connection extremely helpful. I have got Horst’s code partially translated (it runs, just doesn’t get all the way through without some indexing errors), and I am now working on getting the Maxima functions converted to equivalent Maple functions. There is a possibility that there is no direct equivalent in Maple to the Maxima ev() function and a work-around might have to be used. The Maxima documentation is really good. Maple documentation is also good, but it’s taking me a while to find my way around in it.

Dave

On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 03:38:28AM -0400, EMyrone] at [aol.com wrote: > I suggest pulling together papers such as 15, 50, 88, 93, 95, 99 – 104, > 109, 112, 117, 120, 122, 129 and 130, and using the background notes to these > papers posted on _www.aias.us_ (http://www.aias.us) . This material also > illustrates what Alex Hill means by giving all the details. In fact all the > relevant details of Carroll’s chapters 1 to 3 are given in this material > amd sveral tiems over in cross checking proofs elsewhere on _www.aias.us_ > (http://www.aias.us) . Thre are nearly a thousand detailed background notes > available, and Horst Eckardt and I have cross checked nearly every one. It is > a matter of indexing and pulling themes together in different textbooks. > Funds will be needed for this work as pointed out by Alex. High quality > typesetting costs are substantial, but the totality of funds needed for this > centrally important publication work is still far smaller than funds needed > for a film, as Alex Hill point out. I have also given full details of how to > go from differential form notation (the least familiar to engineers and > chemists), to tensor notation (which few chemists and engineers, even today, > can grasp) and to the much better known Heaviside Gibbs vector notation. > All notations are equivalent. Also, computer code is increasingly available > for those who just wish to implement the mathematics without learning it. As > anyone who has used a computer knows, to code up you must really > understand everything. So books are needed to systematize the monograph and > material. Lar Felker’s book attracted an astounding amount of interst in preprint > format on _www.aias.us_ (http://www.aias.us) , because it isolated the > concepts in a readable way. It all depends on what the reader wishes to learn. > > Similarly one can pick out various papers to produce textbooks with > different themes, as suggested yesterday. To do this authors of the very highest > quality must be hired. The task is far beyond a graduate student, who would > in any case be saturated by standard dogma by the age of 18. It needs a > very exceptional mind to grasp the whole of ECE theory in a person of that > age. There is a tremendous sea change going on in natural philosophy, with all > the concomitant and very unfortunate negativity of human nature. However, > one cannot stop the march of ideas, why should one try? > > > > > > > >

This could be written as Maple / Maxima documentation, and added to their manuals, proving to anyone who has a computer that the Einstein equation is obsolete. As mentioned, it is a matter of finding able authors, since my time is taken up entirely with GCUFT and new directions.

Fwd: Next Note on Paper 131

 

Subject: Next Note on Paper 131
Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 06:33:28 EDT

This will illustrate the new potential antisymmetry relations with plane waves, showing on the U(1) level of electrodynamics that whenever there is a vector potential plane wave accompanying the electric field plane wave, there must also be a scalar wave. On the ECE level a spin connection vector is always accompanied by a spin connection scalar. These new ideas of antisymmetry can also be applied to the ECE engineering model. The new commutator generated antisymmetry relations are:

partial sub mu A sub nu = – partial sub nu A sub mu

On the U(1) level for the electric field for example:

E = – del phi – partial A / partial t

with

del phi = partial A / partial t

This makes the fundamental discovery that an electric field is both the gradient of a scalar potential and the time derivative of a vector potential. This fundamental property has been overlooked ever since Heaviside’s time, yet is a straightforward result of using the antisymmetric commutator. Similarly, the commutator produces the antisymmetric connection of Riemann geometry, another major discovery of ECE theory. This result has been overlooked since tensors were inferred, in about 1900, but again is straightforward in retrospect. Looking forward, research is anything but straightforward. The theory of the Aharonov Bohm effects is also affected by this new discovery. The standard theory is based on a non Baconian unobservable, a non-simply connected vacuum, and makes erroneous use of the Stokes Theorem, as was shown in GCUFT1. The ECE theory of the AB effects explains them straightforwardly with the connection of spacetime in four dimensions (see AB papers of the UFT series).

Fwd: 131(10): Hodge Invariance is Fundamental to Physics

 

Subject: 131(10): Hodge Invariance is Fundamental to Physics
Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 05:09:07 EDT

Since the natural sciences are now unified in one theory (ECE by international agreement and intense six year international interest in the websites of ECE) if follows that all the field equations of physics must be Hodge invariant in four dimensions. Field theories with more than four dimensions are not needed so are rejected by Ockham’s Razor, and field theories with unobservables are not Baconian and so are rejected as unphysical. The fundamental field equations are simple, and can be expressed most generally as Eq. (15), in which the a index allows spinors to be used, and SU(n) representation spaces (fermionic, weak and strong fields). The field equations of dynamics and electrodynamics can be written as the Hodge invariant structure (14). The Einstein field equation does not obey this structure and is obsolete by de facto international agreement. It has been replaced by structures such as the ECE engineering model that are based directly on Eq. (14).

Attachment: a131stpapernotes10.pdf

Fwd: David Feustel's Suggested Short Monograph

 

Subject: David Feustel’s Suggested Short Monograph
Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 03:38:28 EDT

I suggest pulling together papers such as 15, 50, 88, 93, 95, 99 – 104, 109, 112, 117, 120, 122, 129 and 130, and using the background notes to these papers posted on _www.aias.us_ (http://www.aias.us) . This material also illustrates what Alex Hill means by giving all the details. In fact all the relevant details of Carroll’s chapters 1 to 3 are given in this material amd sveral tiems over in cross checking proofs elsewhere on _www.aias.us_ (http://www.aias.us) . Thre are nearly a thousand detailed background notes available, and Horst Eckardt and I have cross checked nearly every one. It is a matter of indexing and pulling themes together in different textbooks. Funds will be needed for this work as pointed out by Alex. High quality typesetting costs are substantial, but the totality of funds needed for this centrally important publication work is still far smaller than funds needed for a film, as Alex Hill point out. I have also given full details of how to go from differential form notation (the least familiar to engineers and chemists), to tensor notation (which few chemists and engineers, even today, can grasp) and to the much better known Heaviside Gibbs vector notation. All notations are equivalent. Also, computer code is increasingly available for those who just wish to implement the mathematics without learning it. As anyone who has used a computer knows, to code up you must really understand everything. So books are needed to systematize the monograph and material. Lar Felker’s book attracted an astounding amount of interst in preprint format on _www.aias.us_ (http://www.aias.us) , because it isolated the concepts in a readable way. It all depends on what the reader wishes to learn.

Similarly one can pick out various papers to produce textbooks with different themes, as suggested yesterday. To do this authors of the very highest quality must be hired. The task is far beyond a graduate student, who would in any case be saturated by standard dogma by the age of 18. It needs a very exceptional mind to grasp the whole of ECE theory in a person of that age. There is a tremendous sea change going on in natural philosophy, with all the concomitant and very unfortunate negativity of human nature. However, one cannot stop the march of ideas, why should one try?

Fwd: The Advances in Mathematics

 

Subject: The Advances in Mathematics
Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 13:52:41 EDT

These are the fundamental advances which lead to the obsolescence of the twentieth century gravitational physics. They include: 1) The Cartan Evans dual identity; 2) the inference of the antisymmetric connection; 3) the inference of the ECE Lemma. To leading scholars such as Crothers it has been known for a long time that the methods of solving the Einstein equation are deeply flawed, but advances (1) to (3) show the equation itself to be not only incorrect, but wildly so. So a textbook along these lines is needed. A short textbook along the lines suggested by Dave Feustel is an excellent suggestion. Obviously this is going to be something like Stravinsky’s “Sacre du Printemps” in terms of shock of the new.