The long accepted comment reply system in physics as an academic discipline is that a comment must be submitted to an editor and the editor must forward the comment for a reply to the relevant author. This system no longer exists in the case of ECE theory versus standard physics. Starting in the nineties, papers attacking B(3) were often published without this author’s knowledge. These are well known now to be nonsense papers, and we are reliably informed that B(3) has been nominated several times for a Nobel Prize. Nonsense papers attacking ECE and B(3) still appear in bad journals and still appear out of the blue without this author even knowing of the submission. In this unethical climate the reply is posted on this site in formal reply format with scholarly references. The latest such incident is replied to in paper 138 just posted. This again involved G. ‘t Hooft, who is well known to be biased against this author. He is the purported editor of “Foundations of Physics”, but this followed the arbitrary removal of the founding editor van der Merwe. No reason has ever been given by the publisher for the removal of such an eminent editor, but it is assumed that the reason for the removal is that van der Merwe allowed reply to criticisms of B(3). Fifteen ECE papers were published in “Foundations of Physics Letters”, a process which involved at least thirty positive referees’ reports, all on record and in archive. In a nonsensical editorial, ‘t Hoft arbitrarily asserted that these papers would be “un published”. In scholarly terms this is ludicrous, and shows gross bias. It is no coincidence that the latest episode, replied to in paper 138 on this site, again involved a nonsense paper allowed into print by ‘t Hooft. The paper reported a failure to observe the well known inverse Faraday effect (IFE), and ludicrously attributed this failure to the non-existence of B(3). The latter is observed by definition whenever a competent observation of the IFE is made. The IFE was inferred about sixty years ago, and has been observed routinely for about forty five years, beginning with van der Ziel et al. at Harvard in 1964. By definition, the B(3) field is observed every time the IFE is observed, and to publish a paper reporting the failure to observe a routine effect is an admission of gross incompetence and gross lack of scientific judgment. This whole process, from beginning to end, was obviously based on personal animosity.
British Civil List Scientist