Plans for UFT316

May 22, 2015

In this paper I plan to begin the development of curvature based ECE theory by firstly deriving the relations between the field and potential. The various new tensor and vector identities derived in UFT313 to UFT315 can be applied to gravitation and the weak and strong nuclear fields.

FOR POSTING: Barddoniaeth / Collected Poetry

May 21, 2015

Greatly appreciated!

FOR POSTING: Barddoniaeth / Collected Poetry

Posted on your page


Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 6:38 AM
Subject: FOR POSTING: Barddoniaeth / Collected Poetry

This is a volume of collected poetry to be published during the summer by New Generation of London. There are many new poems in Welsh and English. I waited this long to publish Collected Poems to see of there is any interest in my poetry, and there is indeed a great deal of interest as the Scientometrics show, in fact as much as in the work of the Nobel nominee R. S. Thomas by whom I am clearly influenced. I have developed a style of my own in both langauges, so new poetry of mine will develop this style to its ultimate form, for example in anti turbine poetry that I plan to write. So now I will switch back to theoretical physics for a while.

Details of Two New Books

May 21, 2015

Many thanks indeed, and for sending two complimentary copies to The National Library of Wales. As mentioned by telephone today I am interested in buying five more copies each for local libraries and my friends and colleagues.

In a message dated 21/05/2015 11:41:10 GMT Daylight Time, writes:

Hi Myron,

Information on our site:

Collected Scientometrics

Autobiography Volume 2 (1968-1986): “Hell or the Garden of Eden”

If you’re sending this information out for people to order the book, we recommend going through Amazon.

Collected Scientometrics

Autobiography Volume 2 (1968-1986): “Hell or the Garden of Eden”

All the best,

Sam Rennie

New Generation Publishing

Details of Two New Books

I hereby ask David and Sam at New Generation to advise on the pages, s9o we can advertize to maximum effect. It seems that it takes some time for the books to appear on the New Generation site. They look very well produced and economical. Anyone reading the scientometrics would be very impressed, and many thanks for all the help by Dave Burleigh, CEO of Annexa Inc in Arizona.

In a message dated 20/05/2015 16:21:13 GMT Daylight Time, writes:

There is still no info on their site. Please send links to the relevant pages


Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 10:22 PM

Subject: FOR POSTING: Details of Two New Books

These have just been published by New Generation Publishing in London and I would like to ask Dave Burleigh and Sean MacLachlan to advertize them on,, and and cross refer to links. These sites have been read about fifty million times since 2002. I have arranged for New Generation to send a copy each out of my five complimentary copies of both boks to the acquisitions librarians of the National Library of Wales, Aberystwyth, Ceredigion SY23 3BU. One copy each will be sent to the British Library in London under copyright law. I received one advance copy each yesterday and they are excellently produced in softback with my coat of arms on the covers. The details are as follows.

1) Myron Evans, “Autobiography, Volume Two” (New Generation Publishing, London, copyright Myron Evans, 2015) ISBN 978-1-78507-307-6, 310 pp softback at £8.99 stirling.

2) Myron Evans, “Collected Scientometrics” (New Generation Publishing, London, copyright Myron Evans, 2015) ISBN 978-1-78507-328-1, 383 pp softback at £8.99 stirling.

Attached is the cover proof of the second bok. I sent the cover proof of the first book some time ago, so they could be advertized with their cover proofs and links set up from our AIAS / UPITEC sites to the New Generation site. Many thanks in anticipation.

FOR POSTING: Barddoniaeth / Collected Poetry

May 21, 2015

This is a volume of collected poetry to be published during the summer by New Generation of London. There are many new poems in Welsh and English. I waited this long to publish Collected Poems to see of there is any interest in my poetry, and there is indeed a great deal of interest as the Scientometrics show, in fact as much as in the work of the Nobel nominee R. S. Thomas by whom I am clearly influenced. I have developed a style of my own in both langauges, so new poetry of mine will develop this style to its ultimate form, for example in anti turbine poetry that I plan to write. So now I will switch back to theoretical physics for a while.


The Crothers Refutations

May 21, 2015

These are well known and accepted by staff and students in world ranking universities. There is a site called “Are Stephen Crothers’ claims legitimate?” or similar and readers of this site frequently arrive at and study this AIAS site. In the past two days there has been a study visit to from the world ranking University of California Berkeley from this Crothers site. Berkeley is currently ranked number four in the world by Webometrics. The top five in the world by Webometrics are currently: Harvard, MIT, Stanford, Berkeley and my own former university, Cornell. Staff and students from all five have studied ECE on numerous occasions for the eleven year span of the scientometrics (see UFT307 now available as a softback from New Generation Publishing of London). Stephen is often subjected to disgraceful pesonal abuse for his views, from failed mediochrities. I condemn this abuse outright as a Civil List Pensioner and member of the Gentry on merit. For example there was abuse (an illegal verbal common assault) from the engineering department of the University of Southampton recently, but this has slipped to number 650 in webometrics and is no longer a world ranking university. It is a mediochrity by international standards. I tread heavily perhaps, but write the objective truth. In the seventies and eighties it used to be quite good in chemical physics and I lectured to the Luckhurst group there.

Daily Reports 18th and 19th May 2015

May 21, 2015

On 18th and 19th May there were respectively 2,146 and 2,177 files downloaded from 384 and 397 reading sessions, main spiders baidu, google, MSN, yandex and yahoo. Evans / Morris papers 312, Scientometrics 219, F3(Sp) 212, Auto1 187, Auto2 62, UFT88 131, Proofs that no torsion means no gravitation 127, Engineering Model 101, Eckardt / Lindstrom papers 92, Principles of ECE 73, Evans Equations 66, UFT311 55, Englynion 50 (second book of poetry), UFT313 50, CEFE 47, Llais 47, Autobiography Sonnets 18 (first book of poetry) to date in May 2015. Argentine National University Salta UFT145(Sp); Swiss Federal Institute Lausanne LCR resonant; SBS Engineering Germany UFT311 and general; Institute for Theoretical Physics University of Hannover First Proof that no torsion means no gravitation and UFT213; Steinbuch Centre for Computing Karlsruhe Institute of Technology Slides of refutations of Einsteinian general relativity, O level education in ECE theory; University of California Berkeley general from the Crothers refutations; University of Santiago de Compostelo Galicia Spain UFT80; University of Valencia UFT153(Sp); ZUM art and design Cordoba Spain general; Science Faculty University of Poitiers France my page, Family History; Tezpur University India UFT206; International Centre for Theoretical Physics Trieste Italy UFT64; University of Ruhuna Sri Lanka UFT61; National Polytechnic Institute of Mexico Higher School of Engineering and Architecture Ticoman UFT136(Sp); George Stevens Academy Maine (private high school) UFT75. Intense interest all sectors, updated usage file attached for May 2015.

My Opinion of String Theory

May 20, 2015

My opinion is that string theory is not Baconian physics, it is pure mathematics, and much of it is incorrect. AIAS is the main opposition part, one which still uses rigorous Baconian principles. Some string theory metrics are refuted in UFT301, CEFE.

King Jeremy’s Dilemma (written early eighties)

May 20, 2015

This is one that may or may not make it to “Collected Poetry”, I think it may well do so.

As I was getting near
To Aberystwyth pier
I spied the learned Graham
And his papers he was counting o

Too mi loo mi lo mi la
Wac fall mi FORTRAN o
There’s envy in the jar.

Well first I drew mi pencil
And then I drew mi biro – o
Said “Stand and deliver
For I am a bold computer – o.

My intellectual ramble
Now did his codes unscramble
His thoughts were as dog biscuits
To integrated circuits.

He planned to do my printer
A mischief in the winter – o
By freezing all its golf balls
In decalin solution – o

He planned to do my handler
A mischief in the summer – o
By rambling through my tape reels
With a magnet in his knap sack – o.

Too mi li too mi li mi la
Wack fal my algol o
There’s nothing in the jar.

Buying Five More Copies Each of the Books

May 20, 2015

I would like to buy five more copies each of the two books at the discount rate. So that would mean that I would have eight copies of both books to distribute to local libraries and to give to colleagues, and that the University of Wales would have one of my five complimentary copies for each book, sent to them direct from yourselves as we agreed. Can you please advise on the discount price? The advance copies of both books that I received yesterday look excellently produced.

Myron Evans,
AIAS President

Polarized Light from the Sun

May 20, 2015

Dear Prof. Rutt, You do not appear to argue scientifically with Stephen Crothers, who is an able scholar and a Fellow of AIAS. Personal remarks should have no place in Baconian science. I believe that Stephen Crothers is an able scientist well respected throughout the world of science and I believe that his Ph. D. was withheld unfairly from him, and he is not a failed Ph. D. He has out argued many dogmatists using logic and ability. Others and myself have witnessed him taking a tremendous amount of verbal abuse from dogmatists, none of them have been able to argue logically. There are many ways of teaching science, there are many ways of refereeing. I know this as the author of over a thousand papers and books. The basic thing about Baconian science is that its logic must be correct, and that theory must be tested against data. Dogmatists who are unable to argue are not scientists, irrespective of where and how they publish. We have devised a system of scientometrics at AIAS which is far more detailed and meaningful than hitherto achieved in science and these scientometrics show a great deal of international interest in Crothers’ work, and high professional respect for him. The correct spelling of Prof. Robitaille’s name is Robitaille, not Robinette. Robitaille is a full professor and a capable, respected scientist. Collegiate respect must always be the rule. In the words of Peter Abelard, “by doubting we perceive the truth”. Myron Evans, Dr. M. W. Evans, Gent., Civil List Pensioner, D.Sc., Ph. D., B.Sc. (Wales) Royal Section, “Burke’s Peerage and Gentry” (2012) Nobel and Wolf Prize Nominee, Harrison Memorial Prize and Meldola Medal of the Royal Society of Chemistry

Polarized Light from the Sun Dear Scientists, Below is the best Mr. Rutt could muster in response to my detailed reply to him. Note that he once again fails to adduce a single scientific argument, and that the level of his hypocrisy exceeds the bounds of the Big Bang expanding universe phantasmagoria! No wonder physics is a dead science. It could be nothing else in the hands of the likes of he. Stephen J. Crothers Dear Dr Crothers. If indeed you have a doctorate from a recognised University, you are indeed entitled to that form of address; I have no information to that effect. All have seen is a reference to failing to complete a PhD; the Telesio site has a CV current to about 2009 which makes no mention of it. You on the other hand are well aware of the appropriate form, and persistently used ‘old man’ etc in an offensive manner. However, having done a little research, this discussion is clearly utterly pointless. You and Dr Robinette will continue to believe what you believe, quite irrespective of what anyone else says, or what evidence they produce. The rest of us will go on using Kirchoff’s law to design things, make things, and will continue to observe, day to day, in the Lab its effects. I really wonder if you have ever actually used, designed, made, a black body source, or observed high temperature apparatus where the effects are obvious by eye in a low emissivity cavity; I suspect not. We will also continue to consider carefully when people point out a possible error if they might be right, and not to produce knee-jerk lengthy, largely irrelevant diatribes. And when we conclude we were indeed right, we will consider whether it could be explained better, and reply succinctly and politely. Good science requires a degree of humility which is conspicuously absent in your communications. We will also continue to publish in refereed Journals, not vanity, unrefereed ‘Journals’. You might just as well just post it on your own web site. We will also attend conferences where there is genuine debate and refereed submissions; not some self congratulatory incestuous meeting where everyone agrees they are mutually right and the rest of the world is automatically wrong. Please do not bother to reply, because I will not receive further emails from you. You will, doubtless, see that as a victory. No, I just have better things to do with my time. Prof Harvey Rutt FREng Faculty of Physical and Applied Sciences University of Southampton Southampton SO17 1BJ Sent from my iPad > On 19 May 2015, at 18:23, Stephen J. Crothers wrote: > > Dear Mr. Rutt, > > Thanks for your email. > > (1) I begin with your closing remark: > > “Personally I will stick to polite & appropriate forms of address.” > > However, you have clearly failed to practice what you preach, which of > itself calls into question the veracity of your communication. You > addressed me as ‘Mr. Crocker’, but you must surely know that I am not > ‘Mr. Crocker’. You refer to one ‘Dr. Robinette’, but Dr. Robinette is > not related to this discussion. The only scientist by the name of > Robinette I have been able to identify after receiving your email is > Dan Robinette: > > > As far as I can tell he has not written anything on the invalidity of > Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Emission and the limitations of Planck’s > equation for thermal spectra. I have always been referring to > Professor Pierre-Marie Robitaille of Ohio State University, the > inventor of the 8 Tesla MRI scanner, spectroscopist, and physical > chemist, the man whose 8 Tesla MRI scanner still holds the world > record for image quality (resolution, contrast, and reproducibility), > despite the theoreticians asserting that none of it could ever be > done. Which scientist are you actually referring to? We must first be > talking about the work of the very same scientist to be able to > discuss his work. It’s plain that you have deliberately played around > with the names of myself and Professor Robitaille in order to insult, > perhaps under a pretence of absent-mindedness. > > Also, do you mean to imply something more by your remark? I have > always addressed you in accordance with British standards. As far as I > know the terms, ‘Mr.’, ‘old sport’, and ‘old man’, are commonly in use > in the UK. Or have I been misled by the British encounters I have had, > in person, and on the big and small screens? > > (2) You said: > > “Whether Planck’s book has dimensional error I have no idea; I’d be > surprised, indeed interested but it’s irrelevant; precisely where does > the dimensional error occur?” > > I therefore take it that you are not in fact familiar with the > contents of Planck’s book. I had mistakenly assumed that you, a > proclaimed expert on thermal emission, were surely familiar with > Planck’s book, ‘The Theory of Heat Radiation’. It’s also obvious that > you still did not consult the paper I cited in my previous email, > because the “egregious error of being dimensionally inhomogeneous” > committed by Planck is discussed in the paper I cited. I therefore > refer you to Section 4.2 of that paper, from which you can > subsequently go to Planck’s book for verification, as the relevant > sections of Planck’s book are cited in the said paper. > > Contrary to your assertion, Planck’s dimensional error is not > irrelevant. After all, you thought it relevant when you criticised > Professor Robitaille for an “egregious error of being dimensionally > inhomogeneous”, yet now you claim that Planck’s very same “egregious > error of being dimensionally inhomogeneous” is irrelevant, in which > case the same ‘irrelevance’ should apply to Robitaille, or your > initial relevance should also apply to Planck. In science and argument > logical consistency is actually a requirement, old sport. Furthermore, > Planck is the one who theoretically obtained Planck’s equation for > thermal spectra, and it is Planck upon whom physics relies for the > theoretical ‘proof’ of Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Emission, not > Kirchhoff, since the latter was unable to produce a valid theoretical > proof of his claim that radiation within an arbitrary cavity at > thermal equilibrium is always black, entirely independent of the > nature of the materials. Planck’s ‘proof’ of Kirchhoff’s Law of > Thermal Emission is no less invalid than Kirchhoff’s, and so it is > invalid, as explained in the paper I previously cited, but which you > chose to ignore. > > (3) You said: > > “However Planck making an error does not justify a later error.” > > There is no later error. Planck’s error has been corrected, and the > correction is contained in the paper I previously cited, but which you > chose to ignore. Consequently you are not in a position to assert that > the correction of Planck’s error is erroneous. First you must know > about Planck’s error, then you must know the correction of Planck’s > error, before you can comment on the correction of Planck’s error. You > have revealed that you know neither. ESP or telepathy are not > permitted in science. > > (4) You said: > > “I have not engaged in a discussion on the ‘standard model’ etc etc; I > stick to material I understand fully and have experience of.” > > Nonetheless, you had seen fit to remark, > > “Suffice it to say that whilst, particularly in cosmological matters > and high energy physics, there are large areas of debate, it works.” > > And I had already provided you with a paper which thoroughly > demonstrates that Big Bang creationism is fallacious, and hence does > not work at all. You obviously chose not to consult that paper either, > and instead still abide the Standard Cosmological Model by your > current pleading, despite the facts. > > (5) You said: > > “Re the papers on Kirchoff’s laws: > > They repeatedly use non-equilibrium gedanken experiments to ‘disprove’ > Planck’s theorem; it only applies to *equilibrium* situations.” > > What ‘theorem’ are you referring to? There is no theorem involved. > There are two things under consideration: (a) Kirchhoff’s Law of > Thermal Emission, and (b) Planck’s equation for thermal spectra. > > You have not cited a specific argument from the writings of Robitaille > to support your contention, and explained why you think it erroneous. > As it stands your assertion is too vague to address. It is clear to me > from reading Robitaille that he is fully aware that Planck’s equation > for thermal spectra and that Kirchhoff’s alleged ‘Law’ , apply only to > equilibrium conditions. I am also well aware that Planck’s equation > and Kirchhoff’s alleged ‘Law’, apply only at thermal equilibrium. This > is also clearly expounded in the paper I previously cited, but which > you chose to ignore. > > (6) You said (apparently about some of Robitaille’s papers, none of > which you have cited, bearing in mind (1) above): > > “They repeatedly involve R=1 e=0 surfaces; such a surface, which by > definition do not interact with the radiation field & so cannot reach > equilibrium with it.” > > Both Kirchhoff and Planck repeatedly invoked perfect reflectors (R = > 1, e = 0) as their writings attest (for example, Planck’s ‘The Theory > of Heat Radiation’), and so it is legitimate for Robitaille, and me > too, to also invoke them, bearing in mind that it is both Kirchhoff > and Planck who are under scrutiny. Kirchhoff asserted that a cavity > made from a perfect reflector must contain black radiation. Planck > claimed that a perfect reflecting cavity can contain any radiation at > all (in direct violation of Kirchhoff’s Law), and that this radiation > can be made black with the introduction of a very small carbon > particle, which he called a catalyst, for moving the arbitrary > radiation to black radiation. > > “… in a vacuum bounded by totally reflecting walls any state of > radiation may persist.” Planck, M., The theory of heat radiation, P. > Blackiston’s Son & Co., Philadelphia, PA., 1914. > > “It is therefore possible to change a perfectly arbitrary radiation, > which exists at the start in the evacuated cavity with perfectly > reflecting walls under consideration, into black radiation by the > introduction of a minute particle of carbon.” Planck, M., The theory > of heat radiation, P. Blackiston’s Son & Co., Philadelphia, PA., 1914. > > Planck also contended, contrary to Kirchhoff’s Law, that a cavity made > from perfectly reflecting material, can contain no radiation > whatsoever (e.g. Sections 69 and 70 of Planck’s book). Both Robitaille > and me are well aware that perfect reflectors cannot emit a single > photon and so cannot produce an emission radiation field, and cannot > reach thermal equilibrium with any emitter by means of only thermal > radiation. This is precisely one of our arguments. > > Contrary to your assertion, it is not true that theoretical perfect > reflectors do not interact with a thermal radiation field, because > they reflect all radiation that falls upon them (reflection is an > interaction). Theoretical diathermanous materials do not interact with > radiation because they are entirely transparent to radiation, either > of a particular frequency or band of frequencies, as the case may be. > Both Planck and Kirchhoff invoked theoretical diathermanous materials > in their arguments (e.g. Sections 12, 49, 50 of Planck’s book). > > All this has been covered in Robitaille’s papers and in the paper I > previously cited, but which you chose to ignore. > > (7) You said: > > “The papers do not properly distinguish the isothermal & adiabatic > cases of these gedanken experiments. In an adiabatic experiment we > would have to define the wall thermal mass; cavity temperature falls; > if isothermal, there will be a (small) inflow of energy to maintain > the energy density.” > > Once again you have not cited a specific argument and explained why > you think it is wrong. As it stands your comment is too vague to > address without guessing. I refrain from guessing, since, by guessing, > unicorns are also available, given the parlous state of theoretical > physics and astronomy nowadays, which routinely invokes entities no > less likely than unicorns. > > (8) You said: > > “The papers fail to mention the HUGE literature (including textbooks, > starting with the old Wolfe & Zissis, Infrared Handbook) on practical > ‘black bodies’ & the way in which real black bodies *approximate* a > Planck black body. Indeed much of the confusion lies in not > appreciating that the law only applies to a totally enclosed, > equilibrium body; anything else is an approximation to it.” > > Yes indeed, Planck’s equation requires enclosure and thermal > equilibrium, and so does Kirchhoff’s ‘Law’. As a case in point, the > co-called CMB is not an emission from an enclosure, and the conditions > for thermal equilibrium for generation of the ‘CMB’ are fanciful (not > real). It was at the time of ‘decoupling’ that the alleged CMB was set > free, and at that ‘time’ the Big Bang universe which created itself > from nothing was, according to the cosmologists, composed of gases and > plasma, and other exotic matter such as quark-gluon plasma (but no > liquids or solids). However gases and plasma can emit only in narrow > bands, not in continuous spectra, and so they are incapable of > generating a blackbody emission. The so-called ‘CMB’ had no means to > generate it, other than wishful thinking. The cosmologists are indeed > confused, not only as to what can be a source of blackbody radiation, > but also, as you say, “in not appreciating that the law only applies > to a totally enclosed, equilibrium body”. > > (9) You said: > > “There is straightforward *visual* evidence of Planck’s law by simply > observing a high temperature furnace or evaporation source – they have > low emissivity interiors, & the aperture always looks brighter. This > is not ‘proof’ but directly counter to the claims about cavities with > low emissivity interiors. > > I have personally observed it hundreds of times. Similar effects are > seen in high temperature furnaces with low visible region emissivity > insulation.” > > First, if Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Emission is true, then Kurlbaum > and Rubens would have had no need of their ad hoc ‘method of residual > rays’ to obtain what Planck wanted. > > Second, appearances can be very deceiving, as explained below in (10). > > (10) You said: > > “If Planck’s law were wrong, the implications would be *enormous*; not > only scientifically, but for a very large ‘infrared industry’ turning > over billions a year. I rather thing someone would have noticed by > now; that is not ‘proof’; it is evidence.” > > Both Robitaille and me are well aware of the implications of the > invalidity of Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Emission, and the limitations > on Planck’s equation for thermal spectra. It’s a very important issue. > There is a distinction between limitation and wrong. Planck’s equation > is valid, but only for a truly black material, such as soot, within an > enclosure at thermal equilibrium (Planck’s ubiquitous carbon particle > ensured this). Under such conditions Planck’s equation renders the > actual temperature of the blackbody emitter. However, under other > steady-state conditions, Planck’s equation can still apply except that > the temperature extracted from it is only an apparent temperature of > the source of emission, not the actual temperature of the source. This > is precisely the case for the alleged ‘Cosmic Microwave Background > Radiation’. It’s not cosmic at all, and its reported 2.725 K blackbody > temperature is only an apparent temperature, not the true temperature, > of its source. The actual source is the oceans, not the Cosmos, and > the oceans are not at 2.725 K. Similarly, in Magnetic Resonance > Imaging (MRI is a thermal process), by application of the current > Standard theory for thermal emission, extraction of the temperature of > the human head comes out at about 1 K. However, alive or dead, human > heads are not at 1 K. Since there is no problem in the MRI scanners > (they produce excellent images for diagnostics), the problem is in the > Standard theory of thermal emission. But further consideration of > these matters lead to topics in which you admit you are not expert and > upon which you have decided you will not comment on any further. In > any event, all this has already been discussed in detail by > Robitaille, and also somewhat my me, in our respective papers, > including the paper I cited previously, but which you chose to ignore. > > Contrary to your claim, failure to notice something is neither proof > nor evidence; it is oversight. That a great many have not noticed does > not make their oversight any less an oversight, rather a grand > oversight. Cosmologists assert that they have found black holes all > over the Cosmos, in their millions, when in actual fact they have > found none, and have no valid theoretical basis for them in the first > place – another grand oversight, once again induced by wishful > thinking. > > (11) You said: > > “The papers repeatedly (they are very repetitious) claim that the fact > that real, practical black bodies are made using high emissivity > surfaces somehow disproves Planck’s law. Aside from the fact that you > cannot disprove a scientific law in such a manner, the explanation is > trivial; it leads to the lowest size, cost, power consumption for a > given aperture & emissivity requirement. There is a large literature > on optimising the design.” > > That different materials require different cavity dimensions in order > to allegedly facilitate blackbody radiation within the cavity is a > direct violation of Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Emission, since > dimensions, according to Kirchhoff, have no bearing, except that the > cavities be sufficiently larger than the radiation frequencies > involved so that diffraction is of no consequence. > > “When a space is surrounded by bodies of the same temperature, and no > rays can penetrate through these bodies, every pencil in the interior > of the space is so constituted, with respect to its quality and > intensity, as if it proceeded from a perfectly black body of the same > temperature, and is therefore independent of the nature and form of > the bodies, and only determined by the temperature.” Kirchhoff, G., > Uber das Verhaltnis dem Emissionsvermogen und dem Absorptionsvermogen. > Der Korper fur Warme und Licht. Poggendorfs Annalen der Physik und > Chemie, 1860, v. 109, 275-301. > > According to Kirchhoff the radiation in any opaque cavity at thermal > equilibrium is always black, as if it was made from lampblack, and > this radiation is described by a ‘universal function’ that depends > only upon the temperature of the emitter and the frequency of the > radiation emitted. > > “In the interior of an opaque glowing hollow body of given temperature > there is, consequently, always the same brightness whatever its nature > may be in other respects.” Kirchhoff, G., Uber das Verhaltnis dem > Emissionsvermogen und dem Absorptionsvermogen. Der Korper fur Warme > und Licht. Poggendorfs Annalen der Physik und Chemie, 1860, v. 109, > 275-301. > > Upon this assumption Planck derived his equation for thermal spectra. > Planck’s theoretical proof of the assumption (Kirchhoff’s Law) is > demonstrably false, and so it remains an assumption, and not only an > assumption, a false assumption. That low emissivity materials do not > emit sufficient numbers of photons to generate a blackbody spectrum is > the real reason why highly reflective materials are not used to make > blackbody cavities, not because they would be too big and costly. > > (12) You said: > > “So, perhaps you would care to tell me which of the above points is > wrong; Dr Robinette could not, he withdrew from the discussion – > having accepted that the equation was wrong. > >” > > I have addressed each of your points in the foregoing and so will not > reiterate here. The equation you refer to has already been corrected, > as you are actually in fact aware, and it has been discussed in detail > in the paper I previously cited, but which you chose to ignore. I > refer you once again to that paper. The correction of the equation, in > which Planck also erred with his “egregious error of being > dimensionally inhomogeneous”, leads to proof that Planck’s theoretical > ‘proof’ of Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Emission is invalid, and that > Kirchhoff’s Law does not follow, but is, indeed, false; shown in the > paper I previously cited but which you chose to ignore. > > (13) You said: > > “1 would be interested to know what mathematics you think I fail to > understand in this paper; it does not contain one single equation.” > > Show me where I said or implied that there is mathematics that I think > you fail to understand in any of the papers I cited, let alone that on > polarised light from the Sun by Robitaille and Rabounski (which does > not contain one single equation). I never said that, did I. You > conjured that up Mr. Rutt. Such conjuring is a common deceitful > method. Here is what transpired. In your first email to me you said > this: > > “I note a total absence of quantitative comparison to data, and not > one single equation.” > > I replied to you with this: > > “Although mathematics is not required by the Authors to advance their > scientific arguments (physical and chemical processes are sufficient > for their purpose), since you indicate an obsessive need for > mathematics in refutation of the Standard Models here is something you > could try to digest: > > Crothers, S. J., > General Relativity: In Acknowledgement Of Professor Gerardus ‘t Hooft, > Nobel Laureate, >” > > I made it clear in my previous post that the issue of mathematics I > mentioned pertains to the paper ‘General Relativity: In > Acknowledgement of Professor Gerardus ‘t Hooft, Nobel Laureate’, not > to the paper by Robitaille and Rabounski on polarised light from the > Sun, or any other paper by Robitaille, Rabounski, or myself. I > therefore refer you once again to the relevant paper, which you also > chose to ignore. However, I note that the above is a topic, by your > own admission, in which you are not expert, and you have now decided > you will comment on no further. Nonetheless, you are still welcome to > study it and to send me your arguments in defence of the Big Bang > creation of the Universe from nothing, its black holes, wormholes, > CMB, and other assorted phantasmagoria, and to correct any error in > calculation you might think I have made therein, as that was the > invitation previously extended to you. > > Yours faithfully, > Stephen J. Crothers >


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 32 other followers