Some Important Points by Prof. G. J. Evans


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 [yahoo.co.uk,john.hague] 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

One Response to “Some Important Points by Prof. G. J. Evans”

  1. computer network repair Says:

    This is absolutely so cool 🙂 Thankyou for putting this online

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: