Agreed with the UPITEC President Horst Eckardt. This scandal was the Watergate of modern physics, an all time low. The worst offender is Wikipedia, which used disinformation and trolling to try to wreck a new theory, and to try to wreck careers. I would describe that as a deleted expletive. Nixon is summed up history as: “What did he know and when did he stop knowing it?” The standard modellers of that era must have known that Bruhn was a fraud, otherwise they were incompetent. The mathematics are not really all that difficult for a trained physicist. The mathematics are difficult for others, but even someone with no mathematical training at all can see that a self checking proof is correct. For example the proof of the Cartan identity that I have given in complete detail. Bruhn’s behaviour was long drawn out academic misconduct, and he broke laws on harassment and stalking. At one point he wrote to Bo Lehnert of the Royal Swedish Academy, because the establishment for whom Bruhn was a minor prophet, feared a Nobel Prize. TU Darmstadt is ranked 305 in Webometrics and is a good university. It was founded in 1877 by the Grand Duke of Hessen. I remember phoning Brian Josephson of Cardiff, a Nobel Laureate who works in Cambridge. I was congratulated on my “gong” as the rather eccentric physicists called the Civil List Pension, but was then asked “What about Bruhn?” and told that he would not introduce me to any Cambridge faculty. I replied “….but Brian, I didn’t ask to be introduced, and what about Nixon or Jo McCarthy of Wisconsin or Jo Stalin of the Gulag Archipelago? Is there any difference?”
many thanks for these comments. Bruhn has ridiculed himself by his unqualified trials of falsification of theories. It was not only ECE theory where he tried this, but this chapter has been closed long ago and it was not a glorious chapter for the university of Darmstadt/Germany.
It is indeed not possible to argue against computer algebra. Some old-school physicists seem to work only by paper and pencil up to date, and they have hopelessly fallen behind. Our productivity at AIAS is unexcelled and we are taking up new ideas rapidly. We do not stick to one stage of theory for 30 years as some professors at universities seem to do. Each status reached is questioned as soon as new an possibly better ideas come up.
Am 23.03.2017 um 23:09 schrieb Alex Hill:
When I started to read the criticisms of people like Bruhn and his colleagues, many years ago, I felt it was going to be a kind of censorship which would be very difficult to beat or disprove, since it used sophisticated mathematical arguments which most of the AIAS website readers of the time would find difficult to follow, and therefore either accept as valid or false. The additional fact that platforms such as Wikipedia referred and quoted such critics gave them an additional advantage, because it sounded as if the missing support from the establishment had arrived, i.e. the last nail missing on the ECE coffin.
Then, out of the blue, Horst´s papers and sections on UFT papers started to unmistakenly show, everybody, that mathematical packages such as Maxima, Mathematica and others would not reject and bounce back ECE maths when it was tested, and a more objective examiner than such packages would be difficult to find. I feel the trolls /critics also understood this, much to their dismay, and therefore their production of papers against the mathematical support of ECE theory quickly dried up, permanently.
At present, with all the computer verification and simulation carried out by Horst, combined with your theoretical developments, I believe there are few theoretical physics papers produced elsewhere, worldwide, which carry such a rich merger of theory with mathematical proofing and simulation as those produced by AIAS.
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2017 6:45 AM
Subject: The Readership of ECE Theory
The ECE unified field theory has a vast readership of the highest quality (attached), and the open access system on www.aias.us and www.upitec.org means that we bring the results of original research directly to the readership without the intervention of editors of the obsolete physics. The latter might still try to block publication, although they no longer have any influence on the new physics. They cannot stop the march of ideas. The attached two volumes to date record only about 2% of the vast total readership, it is the sector I name “universities, institutes and similar”. A student of the history of science can already discern that ECE is permanent, because the interest is constant and intense. There have been no objections from standard physicists of integrity to ECE theory. The basic geometry of ECE is exactly the same as that used by everyone else, the Cartan gemetry described by Carroll in “Spacetime and Geometry: an Introduction to General Relativity”, a book which is also available open access. The geometry used by Carroll has been greatly developed and all his proofs have been given in detail from 2003 to present. ECE and ECE2 are developed with computer algebra, so there cannot be any logical criticism of the theory unless one criticises Cartan geometry itself. As far as I know no one of integrity has ever criticised Cartan geometry, no one has ever criticisied Carroll chapter three. One cannot criticise the correctness of computer algebra. This means that the only things left to criticise are the hypotheses that transform the geometry into physics. That is exceedingly difficult, because the ECE and ECE2 theories produce all the main equations of physics. In many cases ECE and ECE2 succeed when the standard model fails. Finally ECE and ECE2 must be tested against experimental data across the whole of the physical sciences and engineering. To date they have always succeeded, because they are based on geometry.