Archive for November, 2012

Accurate Manual Calculation of my h and g index. h = 33 g = 68

Feed: Dr. Myron Evans
Posted on: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 12:55 AM
Author: metric345
Subject: Accurate Manual Calculation of my h and g index. h = 33 g = 68

The final result is h = 33, g = 68. This is enough for considerable funding. I added up the citations for my top eighty publications, the total is 4910. For my total of a thousand publications or so it would be about 6,000 in round figures, at a very conservative estimate. The cut for the top 1% of physicists is 2073 citations, which places me in the top 0.1% or so in round figures. A full professorship is awarded for an h index of about 18. In comparison, a survey of h and g indices was carried out recently by M. Schreiber, “An Empirical Investigation of the the g Index for 26 Physicists compared with the h index…..” for 26 physicists at Chemnitz Technical University. This article is available on the net in full. The results were on average h = 14.9 and g = 24.0. These ranged from assistant to full professor. My h index and g index are much higher than most Fellows of the Royal Society. The g index is much more representative in my case because of an immensely long tail of well above average cited publications. The h cut occurs at publication number 33 out of a thousand publications. The g cut occurs at publication number 68 out of a thousand. The use of h and g is completely standard for all scientists. All ECE papers and most of my other papers and books are on google scholar. This is all very pleasing, but pales in comparison with the massive impact of ECE as measured by my unique database. The latter is far more significant than the h and g indices. On an intellectual level one cannot reduce forty years of work to numbers. The work is measured by the huge international interest in it. So these figures may help the reader to understand why I was appointed to the Civil List in 2005, with further national honours in 2008 (my coat of arms).

View article…

Advertisements

Daily Report 27/11/12

Feed: Dr. Myron Evans
Posted on: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 10:59 PM
Author: metric345
Subject: Daily Report 27/11/12

There were 4064 hits from 917 distinct visits during the day, 1.486 gigbytes downloaded, 44.2% spiders from baidu, google, MSN, yandex and choopa. CEFE85, CEFEL57, FPL25, LMEP15. Innovation in Surface Spectroscopy and Microscopy Analysis Systems (SPECS) Germany extensive download of site; Maricopa Community College Phoenix Arizona Proof 4; Michigan State University UFT4; San Diego Supercomputer Center UFT94, UFT159; University of Agriculture Faisalabad Pakistan (on edu) UFT166; University of Florida levitron; University of Michigan UFT25; United States Naval Academy UFT85; University of Seville Spain F3(Sp); University of Valladolid F1(Sp); University of Nantes Brittany UFT177(Sp); University of Poitiers UFT198, F3(Sp); Hungarian National Development Agency UFT165; Turin Polytechnic UFT104, UFT112; Physics Chuo University Japan GF Basics; University of Aveiro Portugal UFT18; Physics National Taiwan University UFT126; Oxford Brookes University UFT162; University of Nottingham UFT116. Very intense interest all sectors, updated usage file attached for November.

View article…

Minimum Estimates of my h and g factors

Feed: Dr. Myron Evans
Posted on: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 1:11 PM
Author: metric345
Subject: Minimum Estimates of my h and g factors

These are at least h = 30 and g = 57, but in calculating these, I have not yet taken account of the 27 volumes of my World Scientific Series, “Contemporary Chemical Physics”, which have generated a total of 1892 citations. I made a manual calculation of the citations produced by my top 72 publications, this was 3466. So for a thousand publications that will go up to say about 4200 citations at a very conservative estimate. At a conservative estimate I have been cited therefore about six thousand times for my various roles as author, editor and series editor. All ECE papers to date are on google scholar, including the very latest LENR papers. Taking into account the World Scientific series my h index will go up to about 35 or 36, I will calculate the exact result tomorrow, and the g index up to about 65 or 70 at least. The top 1% of physicists are said to have 2073 citations. So that puts me in the top 0.1% or so. This is the simple minded way the system works, a life’s work of a serious scholar over forty years cannot be reduced to a number, especially with papers and books as strikingly original in thought as mine, covering such a wide area of chemistry and physics. All of this pales in comparison with the tremendous impact of ECE as revealed by my unique feedback data bank. I have the h and g that would normally lead to Fellowship of the Royal Society, big prizes and similar. However I am already a Civil List Pensioner nominated by the Royal Society, so for me an F. R. S. would be a pure formality. The ECE theory in particular is so sweepingly original that some people were bound to be freaked out into psychedelic fractionated dimension hyperspace. It looks as if that phase is over except for a few LSD addicts.

View article…

Refutation with different exponents in the EGR equation

Feed: Dr. Myron Evans
Posted on: Saturday, November 24, 2012 11:20 AM
Author: metric345
Subject: Refutation with different exponents in the EGR equation

Many thanks again. This is another very important result, it means that the Einstein theory is only one out of an infinite number of possibilities, each giving the illusion of a precessing ellipse. As Einstein himself wrote, nature is very subtle, or words to that effect. This result means that the miscalled Schwarzschild metric is a fluke, as well as a contrivance. It always comes back to the fact that there is only one true precessing ellipse or conical section:

u = 1 / r = (1 + epsilon cos (x theta)) / alpha

Common sense means that no other function will give this function.

In a message dated 24/11/2012 16:11:34 GMT Standard Time, writes:

I tried out terms from first to fourth order, with positive and negative delta constant, and additionally exponents -1, -2. In all cases the ellipse is distorted in a way that pressession-like orbits appear. This seems to be a general behaviour of a perturbation of the equation as expected.

Horst

Am 24.11.2012 15:26, schrieb EMyrone

These are eqs. (9) and (10). Eq. (10) comes from trying to force EGR to give the true precessing elliptical result (9). Some accurate data for the planet earth are used to show that x is so small in the solar system that perihelion precession is next to useless as a method of testing theory. The true precessing ellipse or conical section (1) comes directly from multiplying an angle theta with a precession parameter x, while EGR gives a pathological or badly behaved function (10) which as note 232(5) showed, can never be a true precessing ellipse. This note makes the point clear by giving two functions of theta against r, eqns. (9) and (10), which can be plotted and directly compared with some of the advanced plotting software now available. This paper gives about eleven more refutations of EGR, whose basic error was to neglect torsion. This was compounded by many other errors over a century. Experimental data on perihelion precession and light deflection may or may not be accurate, but have to be reinterpreted. The easiest way is the common sense way, to build up tables of x of various experiments. I will proceed to write up UFT232 now with co author Dr. Horst Eckardt. There are also severe doubts about the experiments used to test EGR. Prof. Paul Marmet was one of those who revealed the experimental flaws in great detail. He received the Order of Canada. Also it has been well known for a century that light deflection experiments are plagued with problems, and that perihelion precession has many contributory factors. The dogmatists just do not have a rational answer to any of these criticisms.

View article…

Definitive Refutation of EGR with curves of theta against r

Feed: Dr. Myron Evans
Posted on: Saturday, November 24, 2012 11:07 AM
Author: metric345
Subject: Definitive Refutation of EGR with curves of theta against r

This is a very clear result and very well put together again by Horst Eckardt. We should put this in the paper. It is one of the clearest refutations to date. The feedback shows that all these refutations are being followed with great interest. Also “Criticisms of the Einstein Field Equation” is being read about sixty times a month. The Einstein theory cannot be forced into a precessing ellipse, and one of the most famous claims of EGR is refuted. This is common sense really, there is only one true precessing ellipse, or conical section, and no other function is the same as the true function.

In a message dated 24/11/2012 16:01:25 GMT Standard Time, writes:

The comparison of graphs of theta(r) for a precessing ellipse and EGR are quite instructive.
For x=1, delta=0 both curves coincide as expected (not graphed).

In the first graph the curves for x=1 (ellipse) and delta=0.01 (EGR) are compared. One sees that at the upper and lower bounds both curves are very similar, but delta evokes a divergence as described in the note.

In the second graph , x=0.9 and delta=0.1, the effect of delta (the quadratic u term) leads to a completely different curve. Both coincide at one point only.

Horst

Am 24.11.2012 15:26, schrieb EMyrone

These are eqs. (9) and (10). Eq. (10) comes from trying to force EGR to give the true precessing elliptical result (9). Some accurate data for the planet earth are used to show that x is so small in the solar system that perihelion precession is next to useless as a method of testing theory. The true precessing ellipse or conical section (1) comes directly from multiplying an angle theta with a precession parameter x, while EGR gives a pathological or badly behaved function (10) which as note 232(5) showed, can never be a true precessing ellipse. This note makes the point clear by giving two functions of theta against r, eqns. (9) and (10), which can be plotted and directly compared with some of the advanced plotting software now available. This paper gives about eleven more refutations of EGR, whose basic error was to neglect torsion. This was compounded by many other errors over a century. Experimental data on perihelion precession and light deflection may or may not be accurate, but have to be reinterpreted. The easiest way is the common sense way, to build up tables of x of various experiments. I will proceed to write up UFT232 now with co author Dr. Horst Eckardt. There are also severe doubts about the experiments used to test EGR. Prof. Paul Marmet was one of those who revealed the experimental flaws in great detail. He received the Order of Canada. Also it has been well known for a century that light deflection experiments are plagued with problems, and that perihelion precession has many contributory factors. The dogmatists just do not have a rational answer to any of these criticisms.

232(6).pdf

View article…

232(6): Refutation of EGR with curves of theta against r

Feed: Dr. Myron Evans
Posted on: Saturday, November 24, 2012 7:27 AM
Author: metric345
Subject: 232(6): Refutation of EGR with curves of theta against r

These are eqs. (9) and (10). Eq. (10) comes from trying to force EGR to give the true precessing elliptical result (9). Some accurate data for the planet earth are used to show that x is so small in the solar system that perihelion precession is next to useless as a method of testing theory. The true precessing ellipse or conical section (1) comes directly from multiplying an angle theta with a precession parameter x, while EGR gives a pathological or badly behaved function (10) which as note 232(5) showed, can never be a true precessing ellipse. This note makes the point clear by giving two functions of theta against r, eqns. (9) and (10), which can be plotted and directly compared with some of the advanced plotting software now available. This paper gives about eleven more refutations of EGR, whose basic error was to neglect torsion. This was compounded by many other errors over a century. Experimental data on perihelion precession and light deflection may or may not be accurate, but have to be reinterpreted. The easiest way is the common sense way, to build up tables of x of various experiments. I will proceed to write up UFT232 now with co author Dr. Horst Eckardt. There are also severe doubts about the experiments used to test EGR. Prof. Paul Marmet was one of those who revealed the experimental flaws in great detail. He received the Order of Canada. Also it has been well known for a century that light deflection experiments are plagued with problems, and that perihelion precession has many contributory factors. The dogmatists just do not have a rational answer to any of these criticisms.

a232ndpapernotes6.pdf

View article…

Erratum Eq. (74) of UFT231, Remove the Factor of Two

Feed: Dr. Myron Evans
Posted on: Saturday, November 24, 2012 1:13 AM
Author: metric345
Subject: Erratum Eq. (74) of UFT231, Remove the Factor of Two

Many thanks for this computer algebra check of UFT231 eq. (74) by Douglas Lindstrom. the factor of two should be removed, and this can be done in proof. Otherwise the computer algebra verifies the hand calculations in all detail. This illustrates the fact that both Horst Eckardt and Douglas Lindstrom can check my hand calculations, using Maxima and Mathematica respectively. This gives 100% confidence in algebraic correctness. According to the principles of Francis Bacon, the algebraically and mathematically correct ECE theory must be tested against experimental data. In this case the theory claims no more than to be able to explain the source of energy seen experimentally in the next posting, a Celani cell replication.

note231-7c.pdf

View article…