Fwd: Record Academic Interest in ECE Theory

 



Subject: Record Academic Interest in ECE Theory
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 05:52:20 EST

The interest in ECE in February shows that it is mainstream physics and seriously challenging the standard model. This is a healthy development in thought because the standard model has degenerated into a plethora of untestable hyper-complexity and nonsense mathematics. ECE is based directly on the 1925 Cartan geometry so is easily defended against weird attacks based on incomprehensible mathematics that no one understands. The rule is that any abstract mathematics must reduce to the long accepted mathematics such as those of Cartan and Riemann. There has been no objection to my definitive refutation 1 of the standard model. This uses Riemann geometry to show that the connection must be anti-symmetric due to the torsion. This alone is enough to end the Einsteinian era of the twentieth century in gravitational physics. That was a great theory, but now we should move on to a torsion based theory such as ECE theory, and others. This is the clear verdict of the overwhelming majority as the feedback shows very clearly. In the second definitive refutation I will prove the first Cartan structure equation, which introduces the spin connection into generally covariant unified field theory. In the third I will prove the tetrad postulate, and in the fourth I will prove the Cartan Bianchi identity and Cartan Evans dual identity which shows that if torsion is neglected, basic geometry is violated. These proofs use entirely standard Cartan geometry and teh results check themselves, being rigorous identities. The feedback shows that no one is taking seriously the attempted misrepresentation of Cartan geometry that appears in the “comments” at the foot of the ECE Sci Topics page. Its contents have now been transferred to http://www.aias.us , just click on “Myron Evans” and they appear there. No one is taking the Elsevier Sci Topics “debate” seriously because it stops me from replying, in direct and blatant violation of its own rule 2. Others are replying on my behalf.


%d bloggers like this: