Archive for November, 2006

Excellent Progress by Karel Jelinek on the RFR Experiment

November 30, 2006

Subject: Excellent Progress by Karel Jelinek on the RFR Experiment
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 11:03:55 EST

This is excellent progress! I will stand by to give any help I can here, and no doubt so will the rest of the group.

Dear Prof. Evans,

we have now many work with moving our department from one part of building to other so I do not make big progress on RFR, however I obtain microwave source and I found plan for antenna construction.

I will use magnetron system from microwave oven it is very good for our purpose it work at 2.45 GHz and it has enough power. For this frequency range I chose helix antenna for circular polarisation. I have found website with plan for home made construction of this type of antenna.

Now I will construct this antenna and short wave guide for regulation of power and for connection the magnetron and the antenna by coaxial cable.

Best Regard, Karel

Answer to question by Karel Jelinek

November 30, 2006

Subject: Fwd: Answer to question by Karel Jelinek
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 11:01:44 EST

Yes that is right in the rest frame of teh photon. If the photon has no mass then it cannot have a rest frame, so the de Broglie equation h bar omega = m c squared applies in the rest frame of the photon with mass.

Dear Prof. Evans,

Thank You for your comments. Finaly I could not understeant what is the omega in this definition of A(0)

A(0) = (e mu0 / (4 pi alpha) ) omega

The omega is the angular frequenci as You pointed out. I tought that latter is angular frequenci of photon but I realise now that this is rest angular frequenci of photon which corespond to rest mass of photon and this is for every photon the same and constant.

On 11/22/06, EMyrone] at [ wrote: > In your Eq. (6), put the A(0) outside the D ^ q, i.e. (shorthand indexless > notation): > > F = A(0) D ^ q ——————– > (1) > > so D operates only on q. A fundamental definition of A(0) was given in “The > Enigmatic Photon”, volume four, eq. (3.73): > > A(0) = (e mu0 / (4 pi alpha) omega ——- > (2) > > where the quantitiy in brackets is a universal consatnt and where omega is > the angular frequency. This book is now available on the Omnia Opera of > > A(0) is discussed in several places in M. W. Evans, “Generally Covariant > Unified Field Theory” (Abramis, 2005 and 2006), for example chapters 5 and > 17 of volume one. In S.I. units cA(0) has the units of volts. In ECE theory > I intend A(0) to be the constant of proportionality between the Cartan > torsion and the electromagnetic field tensor, and also between the Cartan > tetrad and the electromagnetic potential field. I refer to this now as the > ECE Ansatz and inferred it in about March 2003. At that time I did not know > that Cartan had suggested roughly the same thing to Einstein. Lar Felker > informed me of this later in 2003 or 2004. However as described in the > Munich Workshop slides, neither Einstein nor Cartan brought this suggestion > to any kind of a satisfactory conclusion despite many years of effort by > Einstein. Part of the reason for this is that Einstein was sidelined for > much of his career by the Copenhagen School and he often complained of lack > of help by his contemporaries. Teh latter immersed themselves in the > subjective and acausal claims of Bohr and Heisenberg. These claims are now > known experimentally (e.g. Croca group adn several other groups) to be > completely false. Thus Eisntein is fully vindicated in his thinking. That is > all I am claiming for ECE. The ECE wave equation is the first successful > unification of quantum mechanics and general relativity based on the > principles of Einstein. This is now accepted by all but a few backwoodsmen.. > Feedback data allow me to make this claim with accuracy and objectivity. > > > ———- Forwarded message ———- > > >
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 17:43:35 +0100 >
Subject: One more question > Dear Prof. Evans, > > I have one more question. I do not understand meaning of A(0), > is it only constant or whole potential field which depend on scalar > curvature. > > Could you pleas look on the attached pdf file and tell me your > opinion. > > Best regards, > Karel > >

Spin connection resonance… by H.Eckardt et al.

November 30, 2006

Subject: Fwd: Annalen der Physik: Spin connection resonance… by H.Eckardt et al.
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 06:42:24 EST

Dear Professor Evans,

I note with some amusement that these remarks come from an editor of a journal, and referees thereof, which routinely publishes all sorts of nonsense about black holes and big bangs, ignorant of the easily demonstrable fact that both these notions are inconsistent with general Relativity as a matter of the most elementary differential geometry, but it escapes such editors and their referees. Consequently, I do not think that one should take the remarks of the orthodox scribblers seriously. I recall that Couchy stole the work of H. Grassman, got caught out, then sat on the investigation committee which exonerated him. Such is the nature of editors and referees for such journals, as is well known to the thinking scientific community. So I wouldn’t be bothered by Annalen der Physik if I were you.

Yours faithfully, Stephen J. Crothers.

Send instant messages to your online friends

I substantially agree with Stephen Crothers, as the Civil List scientist and among the most senior and productive of British scientists, I have been noting with considerable concern the almost complete irrelevance of some parts (not all) of the modern physics establishment to the day to day (working) physics community and wider community of scientists and others throughout the world. This is seen with great clarity using the filtered feedback stats of over 2.5 years daily. It is seen that progress is being made despite the establishment, not because of the establishment. The latter has done its level best to destroy and censor ECE theory, and has failed miserably in this dubious purpose. Now I think there will be a big backlash in which people will increasingly use their minds independently to meet the growing energy crisis. Governemnts worlwide have repeatedly visited and should be very careful about how they fund such closed elitist communities from the public purse. I have repeatedly tested journal editors and referees and they have repeatedly failed to be fair minded in any way. There are some very good exceptions however, (such as the Hungarian and Polish Academies, SInerian and Austrian Academies, and several others), and these exceptions will lead the way on.

Summary of Nov 06 Feednack to

November 30, 2006

Subject: Summary of Nov 06 Feednack to
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 06:30:51 EST

The filtered feedback stats are constant by now, very intense and high quality, because ECE theory is being studied in essentially every physics department of note throughout the world, and has undergone all kinds of tests for mathematical rigour. As described by Dr Eckardt it has been tested experimentally in about thirty different ways, all of which look for its specific ability to describe and predict effects not described by the standard model. This actual usage of ECE theory is what matters of course. In Nov. 06 there were visitors from 83 countries, led by USA, Netherlands, Germany, Russia, Poland, France, Taiwan, Japan, Romania, Brazil, Belgium, Britain, Canada, Italy, Australia and others. Spammers have been eliminated by Dave Burleigh, and the filtered statistics are the ones used to conclude the above.

Selection of Major Corporations to

November 30, 2006

Subject: 15-29Nov06: Selection of Major Corporations to
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 06:21:45 EST

As usual I send out, every two weeks, a very small selection of household name corporations that have visited, * denotes repeated visits.

Amazon, Amgen, BAE Systems, Boeing (BSS), Botevgrad, Chevron, Texaco, Honeywell, IBM (UK), Intel*, Layered Technology* (many visits), Microsoft, Mobile Gas, Motorola, Siemens, Turner.

15-29Nov06 Rest of World to, filtered feedback

November 30, 2006

Subject: 15-29Nov06 Rest of World to, filtered feedback
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 06:09:52 EST

This is filtered higher ed and similar feedback from the rest of the world to (excluding the US and Europe):

CSIRO Australia, Aussie HQ, UFG Brazil, UNESP Brazil, UNICAMP Brazil, Manitoba, Montreal, New Brunswick, Victoria, IGIDR India, JNCASR India, BARR India, IMS Japan, Osaka, Saitama, Tsukuba, Univ Tokyo, OCN Hokkaido, OCN Osaka, OCN Tokyo, Mitene Organization Japan, KAIST South Korea, UOS South Korea, TOP New Zealand, PSU Thailand, KH Taiwan, MLC Taiwan, NCTU Taiwan, NTHU Taiwan, NTTU Taiwan, TP Taiwan, TPC Taiwan, YCRC Taiwan, YLC Taiwan, Univ Zimbabwe.

15-29Nov06, Europe and Asia Minor to

November 30, 2006

Subject: 15-29Nov06, Europe and Asia Minor to
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 05:44:45 EST

In the last two weeks there has been the usual intense interest from the European higher ed sector and similar, as follows, * denotes multiple visits. There was a visit from the Govts of Poland (MG) and the British Government (GSI) during this time.

Belgian Royal Military Academy, Free Univ of Brussels, Univ of Ghent, CERN Geneva, UPL Czechia, Ecobike Germany, EMBL Heidelberg, FH Brandenburg, TU Dresden, Heidelberg, Karlsruhe, Lepizig*, Munich, Saarland, CVT Denmark, EHU Spain, UNED Spain, Helsinki, Turun, French Aerosapce Ministry, French National High Energy and Particle Laboratory, F Comte Univ France, Poitiers, UPS Toulouse, ACN Greece, Forhtnet Greece, TEE Greece, Patras, Zagreb, ZSEM Hungary, Euroweb Hungary, Orientp Hungary, Silicium KFT Hungary, Trinity College Dublin, Univ College Cork, BGU Israel, Aruba Italy, Pisa*, Turin, CNRC Netherlands, Radboud, Groningen, Free Univ Amsterdam, Bergen Norway, Olsztyn Poland, Gdansk, Govt of Poland (MG), Lublin*, Doskomp Consultants Poland, ONI Portugal, Tech Univ Lisbon, STSIP Romania, Tech Univ Brasov Romania, PSTU Russia, URC Russia, Novosibirsk, SIRIUST Russia, KTS Russia, VLR Russia, Chalmers* Sweden, Swedish Institute of Space Physics Uppsala, EUBA Slovakia, Agricultural Univ. Slovakia, NSK Slovakia, Omu Unv Turkey, Kiev*, High Energy and Particle Physics Cambridge, Chester, Durham, physics Oxford, QU Belfast, Southampton, St. Andrews, GSI British Govt., London Borough of Hillingdon, Belgrade, So Lazarevac Organization.

Filtered Feedback Stats, 15-29Nov06, USA to

November 30, 2006

Subject: Filtered Feedback Stats, 15-29Nov06, USA to
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 04:35:30 EST

As usual these are the filtered feedback stats for the past two weeks form the higher educational and realted sectors worldwide, starting with the USA higher ed, govt., military and organizational sectors, * denotes multiple visits. The interest as usual is very intense and of the highest possibel quality.

Arizona State*, Berkeley, Brandeis, Caltech, Cornell*, Dartmouth, Harvard, Hawaii, Indiana, Loyola Chicago, Maine, Colorado School of Mines, North Carolina State, Northwestern, NY Institute of Technology, Princeton, Penn State, Purdue, Rochester, Stanford, St Edward’s, Texas A and M, Univ Central Florida, UC Santa Barbara, U Mass., U Michigan* (several visits), North Carolina Chapel Hill, Nevada Las Vegas, Omaha, Virginia, Xavier, Yale, Dept of Energy, LANL, NASA Jet Propulsion, US Dept of Treasury, US Airforce AFOSR, US Army Research Laboratory, US Army Stewart Base, Bethel Temple Organization, Prince George’s County Schools Maryland.

Some Comments on the Howard Johnson Devices

November 30, 2006

Subject: Some Comments on the Howard Johnson Devices
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 04:01:17 EST

I have read the site, especially the theoretical analysis by Harrison. There is no doubt that Johnson has made motors that run off permanent magnets with no electrical input or apparent energy input. The devices work, the argument is as usual a foolish academic one, it is asserted by academics that the working devices violate the Noether Theorem, despite the fact that they work. Johnson has empirically constructed an arrangement of magnets that results in both linear and rotary motion. Harrison has attempted to explain the motion with a theoretical model based on the interaction of magnetic monopoles in a Coulomb inverse square type law, and has carried out some computer simulations of the resulting process. Johnson postulates the existence of a new type of elementary particle and postulates that the magnet runs off unpaired electron spins. The resonant Coulomb law (of the type in paper 63) should replace the argument by Harrison, his magnetic monopoles may be considered to derive from the homogeneous charge / current density j of ECE theory. Then, his computer analysis can be used as it is if ECE gives a deeper justification for it. This is one method. The existence of j means that that R ^ q – omega ^ T in a Johnson magnet is not zero. The unpaired spin and new elementary particle hypotheses of Johnson may then be replaced by ECE theory, using j instead of more complicated hypotheses. I can then set up a resonance equation based on j, and not J as in paper 63 on the ECE Coulomb Law. So to explain the Johsnon magnets there are two basic resonance equations available, one with a j driving force, the other with a J driving force. It is better to apply the ECE Coulomb law to a simple configuration of Johnson to begin with. I will go into more detail of adopting the Harrison method for the spin connection, giving a justification for his magnetic monopoles via j, and introducing the possibility of spin connection resonance of a type already applied to the Mexican Group work in paper 63. The comments of my note yesterday are valid, and these comments are designed to give justification to the Harrison method on the website by tracing a source for his assumed magnetic monpoles m and M on the site and adding the possibility of resonance to his analysis and computer simulation The Johnson devices appear to be related in principle to the Mexican Group devices, and there is much more detail available of the Johnson devices on this site – in several US patents and in calculations by Harrison. The problem with the Johnson theory itself is that the electron spins in a superconductor do not generate a net bulk force or torque on their own. Ensemble averaging theory and computer simulation can show this. Extraneous space-time and the spin connection is needed. Also, the postulate of a new elementary particle by Johnson does not agree with other data on elementary particles. So it is better to replace it with ECE theory.

Spin connection resonance… by H.Eckardt et al.

November 30, 2006

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.

Cordially Yours,

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 [ 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 [

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 – 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.

> &gt
; 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 [ > > To: > EMyrone] at [ > 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 [, * Univ. of Missouri, Dept. Phys. & Astr., Columbia, MO, USA