Archive for July, 2012

Some Scientists in Marquis Who’s Who

July 31, 2012

These include Paul Dirac and Wolfgang Pauli for example. Dirac spent his last years in Florida, where my colleague Paolo Grigolini saw him in a library once, looking rather sad and dejected. For some, it is a difficult transition from Britain to the heat and humidity of Florida. Others like to retire there. Marquis is free of the notorious personal attacks of wikipedia, which is being more and more heavily criticised, one of its founders has resigned for example. Wikipedia has an article on Marquis, so we are all in wiki after all – big deal. I would much rather be in Marquis. AIAS is obviously very distinguished, many Fellows are included in Marquis, and as Director I am pleased and proud of that. On the web one can see full professors at universities being proud of the fact that they have been selected for Marquis. The flagship edition is Marquis Who’s Who in America, which includes the President, Congress and Supreme Court. I was in that edition during my years in the U. S. There are some glaring omissions like Alwyn van der Merwe, Gareth Evans, Alex Hill and Stephen Crothers. I will go about nominating them. They both fully deserve to be there, and so do others.

About your blogpost on Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR)

July 31, 2012

Nice to hear from you, Horst Eckardt will be attending this conference and if I get more news I will certainly post it on the blog.

In a message dated 31/07/2012 19:21:52 GMT Daylight Time, writes:


That was a very interesting post. You might not be aware of it but
there’s currently a relatively large following around LENR and Andrea
Rossi’s E-Cat. I’m not an avid reader of your Blog, but I think it would
gather much much attention if it covered LENR again from time to time
(considering the possible implications to the Standard Model if proven

For example, it looks like there will be a conference in Zurich about
LENR (or maybe even specifically about Rossi’s E-Cat?). Could you or
Dr. Eckardt provide more information about it?

By the way, there were rumors circulating on the Internet about the
possible involvement of Andrea Rossi with Siemens AG. Incidentally,
Horst Eckardt, featured in the email quoted in your LENR blogpost, also
works for Siemens. This is probably not a coincidence.

Thanks for reading,

AIAS Fellows in Marquis Who’s Who in the World

July 31, 2012

This is the world’s premier reference vehicle, and the following AIAS Fellows and past and present of my research associates and like minded colleagues are included. Only one in a hundred thousand people appear here.

1) Myron Wyn Evans, Director (in 26 editions of MWW in America, World, and Science and Engineering).
2) Horst Eckardt, Deputy Director and UPITEC Director.
3) Sean MacLachlan, Fellow and UPITEC Secretary.
4) Douglas Willard Lindstrom, Fellow.
5) Kerry Richard Pendergast, Fellow.
6) Jose Ramalho Croca, Fellow.
7) Corneliu Ciubotariu, Fellow
8) Raymond W. J. Delaforce, Fellow
9) Bo Peter Lehnert, Fellow and B(3) type theory pioneer
10) Nils Hugo Abramson, Fellow.
11) William Thomas Coffey, Fellow and B(3) type theory pioneer
12) Liudmila Antonovna Pozhar, Fellow.
13) Jozef Kazimierz Moscicki, Fellow.
14) Sisir Roy, Fellow and B(3) type theory pioneer.

15) George Chao-Jang Lie, colleague at IBM Kingston.
16) Terence William Barrett, B(3) type theory pioneer.
17) Henning F. Harmuth, B(3) type theory pioneer.
18) Lawrence Paul Horwitz, B(3) type theory pioneer.
19) Donald B. Reed, B(3) type theory pioneer.
20) Malvin Howard Kalos, colleague and sometime Director Cornell Theory Center.
21) George Henry Wagniere, colleague and sometime Dean University of Zurich.
22) Konrad Singer, SERC CCP5 colleague and sometime Professor, Royal Holloway College.
23) Sir John Shipley Rowlinson, F. R.S., colleague and sometime Dr. Lee’s Profesor of Chemistry, Oxford.
24) Henryk Ratajczak, Sometime Dean Wroclaw University.
25) Ryszard Tanas, co author in “Modern Nonlinear Optics”, sometime Director of the Stanislaw Kielich Institute, Poznan University.
26) Stanislaw Wozniak, colleague and co author, University of Zurich.

To be included next year

27) Victor Riecansky, Publisher of Cambridge International Science Publishing.

VIP 27507681: Myron Wyn Evans

July 31, 2012

Many thanks indeed for this information. I will be glad to nominate colleagues.


In a message dated 31/07/2012 13:28:00 GMT Daylight Time, writes:

Good Morning

I will submit this to be processed. Per your request, please find the list of publications below:

Who’s Who in America

Who’s Who in America – 2007, 61st Edition (pub. 2006)
Who’s Who in America – 2006, 60th Edition (pub. 2005)
Who’s Who in America – 2004, 58th Edition (pub. 2003)
Who’s Who in America – 2003, 57th Edition (pub. 2002)
Who’s Who in America – 2002, 56th Edition (pub. 2001)
Who’s Who in America – 2001, 55th Edition (pub. 2000)
Who’s Who in America – 2000, 54th Edition (pub. 1999)

Who’s Who in Science and Engineering

Who’s Who in Science and Engineering – 2011-2012, 11th Edition (pub. 2010)
Who’s Who in Science and Engineering – 2008-2009, 10th Edition (pub. 2007)
Who’s Who in Science and Engineering – 2006-2007, 9th Edition (pub. 2006)
Who’s Who in Science and Engineering – 2003-2004, 7th Edition (pub. 2003)
Who’s Who in Science and Engineering – 2000-2001, 5th Edition (pub. 1999)

Who’s Who in the World

Who’s Who in the World – 2012, 29th Edition (pub. 2011)
Who’s Who in the World – 2011, 28th Edition (pub. 2010)
Who’s Who in the World – 2009, 26th Edition (pub. 2008)
Who’s Who in the World – 2008, 25th Edition (pub. 2007)
Who’s Who in the World – 2007, 24th Edition (pub. 2006)
Who’s Who in the World – 2006, 23rd Edition (pub. 2005)
Who’s Who in the World – 2005, 22nd Edition (pub. 2004)
Who’s Who in the World – 2004, 21st Edition (pub. 2003)
Who’s Who in the World – 2003, 20th Edition (pub. 2002)
Who’s Who in the World – 2002, 19th Edition (pub. 2001)
Who’s Who in the World – 2001, 18th Edition (pub. 2000)
Who’s Who in the World – 2000, 17th Edition (pub. 1999)
Who’s Who in the World – 1999, 16th Edition (pub. 1998)

To nominate a colleague please visit our website, click listees, then click nominate a colleague.

Best regards,

Dana Slocum

Content Editor

Marquis Who’s Who LLC

300 Connell Dr., Suite 2000

Berkeley Heights, NJ07922

Phone: 908-673-1149

Fax: 908-673-1179

VIP 27507681: Myron Wyn Evans

July 31, 2012

I am hono(u)red to be included once more in a Marquis publication. Here are the corrected proofs. This year (2012) I published two more books:

1) Myron Wyn Evans “O Hudd ei Ddoe”, autobiography, volume one (in association with Authors Online).
2) M .W. Evans (Ed.), “Definitive Refutations of the Einsteinian General Relativity” (Cambridge International Science Publishing, CISP,

I would be most grateful if you could advise me of the editions of Marquis Who’s Who” in which I have been included. Since about 1999 I have been included in many editions of “Who’s Who in America”, “Who’s Who in the World”, and “Who’s Who in Science and Engineering” and it will be very useful to have an accurate record. I will pleased to suggest more colleagues worthy of inclusion in Marquis, the world’s leading reference vehicle.

Cordially Yours,

Myron Evans

Prof. M. W. Evans, Armiger (Rank of Gentleman or Squire), Civil List Pensioner, B. Sc., Ph. D., D. Sc. (Wales).
British Civil List


Scans by Dr. Douglas Lindstrom

July 31, 2012

Many thanks to Dr. Douglas Lindstrom for his scans. I agree that this text’s eq. (4) has a term completely missing. I checked Ryder’s eq. (8.80) by hand and that is correct within the definitions he uses of the covariant derivatives, but Weinberg uses different definitions. Other authors use still different definitions. However Ryder’s eq. (8.85) is algebraically incorrect to such an extent that the GWS theory is refuted definitively, and with it Higgs boson theory. The correct result of Ryder’s eq. (8.85) is that the U(1) electromagnetic potential interacts only with the left handed electron, which is nonsense. The electromagnetic field interacts with both right and left handed electrons. I will write this up now in UFT225 with Dr. Horst Eckardt. I notified Dr. L. H. Ryder of this but as usual there was no reply. There are other sites mentioned later on this blog that point out twenty phenomena in particle physics that cannot be described by the Higgs mechanism. It is by now common knowledge that there is no Higgs boson. Even the general public can see this clearly and it is common knowledge that standard physics ignores all refutations. It has done so for nearly a century. So it is not physics at all, it is dogma. There are many refutations by many distinguished scientists.

cc Dr. L. H. Ryder.

In a message dated 30/07/2012 19:22:30 GMT Daylight Time.

Here is the chapter on the electroweak unification and the Higgs particle from Zee’s book. eqn 8.80 of Ryder includes a differential term that Zee ignores altogether (his equation 4) Zee doesn’t go as far as developing 8.85, although i think his equation (10) is a first stab at it.

He defines
e=g sin( theta)

which you had a question on earlier, Horst, if I remember correctly.


On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 10:20 PM, <EMyrone> wrote:

Many thanks again to Dr Horst Eckardt for this computer check! This shows that Ryder’s eq. (8.85) is incorrect algebraically, and it is a definitive refutation of GWS theory and by implication the theory of the Higgs boson. Also the claimed renormalization of GWS by ‘t Hooft cannot be meaningful. I will go ahead and write this up as UFT225 in coperation with co author Horst Eckardt, and send a copy of the paper to CERN. There is a need to construct a new electroweak theory and this is scheduled for UFT226. CERN does not have very much credibility now, especially as I can see that all the refutation papers by AIAS are being read with great interest, and by feedback it is clear that this interest is permanent – it represents the Einstein de Broglie ECE School of Thought as opposed to the so called standard physics. So I advise the British Government and US Government (beig a US dual citizen) to cut funding to CERN so that much needed research in other areas are properly funded. AIAS is by no means the only group to criticise CERN theory and scientists are not accepting the CERN claims and take no notice of propaganda as substitute for science. It is well known that Nobel Prizes in particle physics are awarded among a very small group of ultra sepcialists. Dr. ‘t Hooft is well known for censorious conduct and unprofessional remarks about colleagues. This refutation show sthat the Nobel Prize awarded to him is very doubtful, because it was for renormalization of GWS, a theory that is incorrect as shown here and in note 224(8). The GWS Nobel prize is also very doubtful, since GWS could not have predicted anything. The CERN and other particle collider data are probably good data, but need to be completely reinterpreted without a Higgs mechanism. There is certainly no Higgs boson, and scientists do not “believe”, they constuct correct theory and test it against data. Note carefully that all AIAS refutations are checked with computer algebra, so the calculations by AIAS are rigorously correct. Many othes and ourselves have found that if we go to the root of the much vaunted standard model it frequently collapses. This comes from a lazy minded acceptance of incorrect basics. An elaborate edifice has been built on sand. It is no use making derogatory remarks about the computer, and derogatory remarks about colleagues are rejected.

In a message dated 29/07/2012 21:18:44 GMT Daylight Time, writes:

I did the computer calculations. I will further check for errors tomorrow but the results look consistent.
Line %o32 is the final result for the difference of both sides of Eq.(1). This expression is definitely not equal to zero. To force it to zero I constructed a special case:

eL bar = eL
eR bar = eR (real wave functions)
X[mu] = – W3[mu] (completely arbitrary)
eL * partial[mu](eR) = – eR * partial[mu](eL) (some kind of special antisymmetry)

You found also such special cases, will study these tomorrow.

It could be argued that the wave functions on the LHS of eq.(1) should be normalized too, but this gives even more complex differences of both sides.


Am 29.07.2012 20:44, schrieb EMyrone

It is the ninth term in eq. (15). In fact the only thing that has to be checked is eq. (22), and it is clear already that that equation cannot be true. So that is the end of GWS in logic.

In a message dated 29/07/2012 17:25:15 GMT Daylight Time, horsteck writes:

What exactly is the hermitian conjugate in eq. (1)? We don’t have a matrix here where I would know what it is.

Am 29.07.2012 14:42, schrieb EMyrone

This is the definitive refutation of GWS and Higgs theory that I have been working towards in the past couple of weeks of ploughing obscure textbooks and sloppy websites with missing definitions. The true and correct GWS theory, by its own definition, leads to the electromagnetic lagrangian component (26), in which their own U(1) electromagnetic potential interacts only with the left hand electron, a clearly unphysical result, because the electromagnetic field interacts with both right and left electrons. I can see by hand that Ryder’s eq. (8.85) cannot be true, the computer algebra will confirm this result without a problem. Note carefully that all I have done is use the GWS theory’s own definitions. Even those are inconsistent from one author to another. The algebra looks revolting but it is not all that difficult. So billions have been spent to “prove” incorrect algebra, for which a Nobel Prize has been purchased and arranged at approximately the same price tag. Who’s the crackpot now? Probably the computer’s fish and chips. How much fuel did they burn in flying over Ken Higgs and his group to CERN?

cc Prime Minister’s Office
Royal Society of Chemistry
Rt. Hon Martin Caton M. P.

Complete Usage Web Pages

July 31, 2012

These web pages (which do not go on to this blog) contain complete details of the huge interest in the website, and contain the raw data from which I construct the overview file frequently posted on this blog. The overview file is posted on quarterly, and the blog, interleaved with feedback by Michael Jackson, is also posted on quarterly. All authors can find the status of their articles in one of the attached feedback files (complete usage statistics for this July). The very intense level of interest shown in these raw data files is essentially constant, and so will exist for the foreseeable future. Therefore this is not only a new school of thought in natural philosophy, but also a new system of physics education and impact assessment wholly independent of the endless refuted dogma of standard physics, rejected by entire professions and by now rejected by common knowledge. This is a great achievement by AIAS over the last decade so congratulations to all staffs. The site is considered in Britain to be an outstanding website and has been archived quarterly since about March 2010 from the National Library of Wales by the British Library in London on the British website archive, science and technology section, first site. It is also archived on the US website archives supported by Library of Congress in Washington D. C. and the U. S. National Science Foundation (NSF). So it is also considered to be an outstanding website in the United States (I am a U. S. dual citizen). It is also archived as an outstanding website on mainland Europe in the European website archives maintained in various centres such as Paris, Amsterdam and Berlin. This is all voluntary work on behalf of new science for which I have been recognized by three high honours of the British Government, in 2005, 2008 and 2011. Several AIAS staff members have also been recognized individually for this work by such things as inclusion in the world’s leading and prestigious reference vehicle, “Marquis Who’s Who”. The work has to be done voluntarily because at present standard physics is uselessly over funded at the expense of chemistry, engineering and medicine, and at the expense of the tax payer and vitally important new energy research.

cc Prime Minister’s Office,
Royal Society of Chemistry,
Martin Caton, M. P. Gower

Overall Activity Report (Full Lists):

(Accesses Through 23:41:16 30 Jul 2012)

“Criticisms of the Einstein Field Equation” (

July 31, 2012

This monograph has been read almost a hundred times since it was reposted on a few weeks ago. It is a comprehensive development of ECE physics and refutation of standard physics, with extensive use of computer algebra and tables. It is well worth recommending to libraries in book format therefore, and / or purchasing, if people can afford it in these hard economic times. The ISBN details are found on the home page of and on It is:

M. W. Evans, S. Crothers, H. Eckardt and K. Pendergast, “Criticisms of the Einstein Field Equation” (CEFE), Cambridge International Science Publishing, (CISP,, Spring 2011), at 95 pounds stirling.

It also definitively refutes big bang theory, black hole theory and many aspects of string theory, and is a publication of the Einstein / de Broglie / ECE School of Thought.

Interest in My Personal Diary ( Blog Stats)

July 31, 2012

Since 1st January 2010 the diary has attracted 103,355 readings from 126 countries, led by Britain, U.S. and Canada. All self readings and spam are excluded. Thanks to all colleagues who helped to construct the blog, notably Sean MacLachlan of Hewlett Packard, Secretary of UPITEC, the sister organization of AIAS in the U. S. (, UPITEC is a not for profit organization registered in Boise, Idaho, and AIAS is established under the Newlands Family Trust (2012). Also thanks to WordPress.

July Feedback for to date

July 31, 2012

The synoposis of the 2% higher education sector and similar is found as usual at the end of the attached file, initiated on 30th April 2004. In July to date there have been 16,174 distinct visits, 74,655 hits, 48,040 page views, 7.40 gigabytes downloaded from 99 countries, led by: USA, Italy, Ukraine, Germany, Canada, Mexico, Britain, Australia,….. As usual the complete feedback will be in tomorrow. I will distribute web pages of the huge total interest to this e mail grouping, the web pages do not go on to this blog. The higher education sector and similar comprise only 2% of the total interest. There is therefore complete acceptance of ECE physics and its methods of education and feedback, and complete rejection of the standard physics and its methods of publication and citation of dogmatic material. It is common knowledge that the standard physics has been refuted in many ways.