Subject: Fwd: Annalen der Physik: Spin connection resonance… by H.Eckardt et al.
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 02:06:27 EST
Dear Prof. Hehl (Annalen der Physik),
I see that you are inflexible, and do not have the technical ability to judge this paper fairly. You have further shown yourself to be incapable of dealing with a rational scientific reply. You have set out, from the outset, merely to block publication. Therefore this paper will be regarded as in press by default because you have sought to censor it. You do not have any fair judgement and so your judgement is null and void. For example, you have ignored all the experimental evidence in favour of ECE theory, and have ignored the arguments by Dr Eckardt, i.e. just casually glanced at them without taking the time to read them. This is the equivalent of a judge ignoring the evidence.
1) The referee is grossly irrational because he does not allow a basic hypothesis to be made or tested experimentally. This is contrary to the basic rules of natural philosophy as formulated by Francis Bacon. Be free to make a hypothesis, then test the hypothesis by experimental data. There are no restrictions on making a hypothesis. If you do this you the “Idol of the Cave” argument of Bacon applies, i.e you are allowing anthropomorphic bias into natural philosophy by restricting freedom of thought. ECE theory is designed to remove any anthropomorphic bias.
2) If you will not referee it again – it will be in press by default, the editor and referee having exhibited gross bias. This would be equivalent to a mis – trial in the law profession. A mis trial is no trial and the defendant is not guilty.
3) The legibility of formulae is a childish irrelevance and Cartan’s suggestion to Einstein is well known, even to the general public (letters to Einstein from Cartan).
4) Reference to the Einstein Cartan theory is given in these papers through the book by Sean P. Carroll, chapter 3. This is referenced in the paper. This means that neither you nor the referee read the paper.
5) The unified nature of the theory emerges from the fact that the Cartan geometry links the torsion and curvature, and through the fact that the torsion is the electromagnetic field by hypothesis. This hypothesis has been tested experimentally in THIRTY ways. This was pointed out to you, and you refused to accept this evidence. This therefore exhibits gross bias against the authors(s) and your authority is rendered null and void before the entire profession.
6) The formula is lagrangian density = c squared T + D sub mu q sup a sub mu D sup mu q sup nu sub a.
7) Neither you nor the referee will tell me what to study. I am the judge of that and I feel that you should study ECE theory, not the other way around. This is not a question of egotism on my part, it is a statement based on the fact that everyone else is studying ECE theory.
8) I note that you have refused to take into consideration the views of leading Academicians compounding a display of gross bias.
Myron W. Evans
Chief Scientific Advisor to the National Assembly of Wales, British and Commonwealth Civil List Scientist
Dear Professor Evans,
Thank you for your answer. These are my remarks:
EMyrone] at [aol.com wrote: > Dear Prof Hehl, > > Thanks for finding a referee! Unfortunately > this is so obviously a hostile personal attack that I request the paper > to be re-refereeed, for example by members of the Hungarian Academy of > Sciences which has resoundingly accepted ECE theory recently with high > praise (szabo.judit] at [akkrt.hu).
It is my choice whom I ask for a referee report. My judgment in matters of physics is independent from whatever Academy may have said before.
> The referee is just mis-using anonymity > in order to be grossly irrational.
You gave not a single reason why the referee is “grossly irrational”. In fact, in the report, the referee gives a number of reasons why he/she is against publication.
> In any event the paper is widely read > worldwide, and accepted by the colleagues, and will be published > elsehere.
Since this paper will be published elsewhere, I will not referee it again.
The detailed rebuttal for the record is as follows. > > 1) The formulae are legible to everyone except the referee.
I don’t know the source of this information. Obviously you can speak for “everyone”.
> 2) Cartan himself suggested the basic ansatz to Einstein.
I don’t know which basic ansatz you are referring to. Equation numbers etc. would be helpful.
> 3) The nature of the references is not a legitimate scientific point of > criticism.
If you effectively talk about the Einstein-Cartan theory and you don’t give any reference to papers on this theory, this is certainly a scientific defect of your paper.
> 4) The referee does not even understand that this is a unified field > theory.
I don’t know from which statement of the referee you infer this claim.
> 5) There are no contradictions with geometrical facts because ECE theory > is Cartan geometry itself.
As the referee points out, electromagnetism cannot have a relation to torsion.
> 6) Tha basic ANSATZ is that electromagnetism is the spinning of > space-time. Natural philosophy demands that this postulate be tested > experimentally, and this has been accepted procedure for several hundred > years. The ECE theory reduces to all the major equations of physics and > has been well tested expereimntally. The ansatz is therefore legitimate.
As the referee pointed out, the ECE ansatz contradicts the viable Einstein-Cartan theory.
> 7) The lagrangian of ECE theory is available on http://www.aias.us – the > referee is not even aware of this. It is also available in M. W. Evans, > “Generally Covariant Unified Field Theory” (Abramis 2005 and 2006), > together with the Euler Lagrange equation that produces the Cartan > geometry. The Noether Theorem has also been well developed in the > context of ECE theory, in which over one hundred papers and books are > available. The referee ignores this literature completely. Also, a > lagrangian method does not supplant in any way the basic Baconian > philosophy. Any method can be used as long as it is tested experimentally.
Instead of writing a long paragraph, you could have written down one single formula with the variational principle. Where is the formula? I am not willing to search the internet for such an obvious thing nor read the myriads of your papers just for getting a formula that was not mentioned in your review paper.
> 8) The electromagnetic potential and field are linked by the first > Cartan structure equation, so the proportionality consatnt A(0) must be > the same, mathematically, for potential and field. The referee > subjectively asserts that this ansatz cannot be made. If one cannot make > an ansatz, then physics cannot proceed as a subject.
As the referee pointed out, you should have studied the literature on the Einstein-Cartan theory. Then you would have noted that physics can very well proceed without you ad hoc ansatz.
; So in summary the referee has just set out to subjectively > attack a theory that has been already accepted worldwide. The referee > has made no counter arguments, all his remarks are assertions. This > brings into question the validity of the anonymous review process. > Effectively it has already been replaced by actual peer usage, i.e. ECE > theory is already used worldwide, and that is the legitimate refereeing > process, not a crude personal attack by a biased individual.
Best regards, Friedrich Hehl
Co-Editor Annalen der Physik
> ———————————————————————— > >
Subject: > Annalen der Physik: Spin connection resonance… by H.Eckardt et al. > From: > Friedrich_Wilhelm Hehl >
Date: > Wed, 29 Nov 2006 00:37:58 +0100 > To: > EMyrone] at [aol.com > > To: > EMyrone] at [aol.com > CC: > “Hehl, Friedrich W” > > > Dear Professor Evans, > > In the meantime I got a referee report for your paper, see below. In the > light of this report, I am, unfortunately, not able to publish your paper. > > I’m sorry for having no better news for your. > > Best regards, > Friedrich Hehl > > Co-Editor Annalen der Physik >
— Friedrich W. Hehl, Inst. Theor. Physics * University of Cologne, 50923 Koeln _____//_____ Germany fon +49-221-470-4200 or -4306, fax -5159 hehl] at [thp.uni-koeln.de, http://www.thp.uni-koeln.de/gravitation * Univ. of Missouri, Dept. Phys. & Astr., Columbia, MO, USA