Archive for May, 2015

Comments on notes 316(4,5)

Thanks again!

1) Agreed about the typo. The negative sign is used because:

e sub a = (1, -1, -1, -1)

in the Cartesian basis and

B sup a = (B(0), B sub X, B sub Y, B sub Z)

Assuming that the vector B is spacelike, Eq. (12) gives in the Cartesian notation:

B bold = B sub X i bold + B sub Y j bold + B sub Z k bold

The results in the complex circular basis are given in the note. Agreed about Eq. (27), I fixed this typo later on.

5) Agreed. Eq. (9) is the elegant vector format of the Cartan identity derived in UFT254 and UFT255, and it transforms directly into Eq. (12), which is always true. Removal of indices gives the simple vector equation (16), and a new constraint in ECE theory. The latter can be either torsion or curvature based and this is a major new development in ECE theory.

The next stage in Notes for UFT316 is to develop the space part of the JCE identity to give new vector equations, then remove indices, in note 316(6). Then after checking UFT316 can be written up.

In a message dated 30/05/2015 17:51:33 GMT Daylight Time, writes:

In note 4, Eq. (3), there is a typo, T should be replaced by R.
Why did you use the negative sign in definition (12)?
In (27) the denominator W(0) should only occur in tthe Term A*B.

note 5: If I see it right, eqs. 16,17 are always true, irrespective of
the existence of any magnetic monopoles. If A is not perpendicular to W,
the cross product must be divergence free.

Horst

Advertisements

Comments on notes 316(1,2,3)

Many thanks for going through these notes, and also to Doug.

1) Agreed, Eq. (5) is the covariant unit vector e sub mu in the Cartesian basis, an Eq. (6) in the complex circular basis.
2) Agreed, the relation of W to A is developed in note 316(6). As defined they both have the same units of tesla metres. Eqs. (22) and (24) are some of the first results of the curvature based ECE theory. Eq. (22) looks like MH but this is due to cancellation by removal of the tangent indices. The c indices in the last two terms of Eq. (23) and (24) run from (0) to (3), but they can be removed leading to a Maxwell Heaviside result for the electric field also. The c indices are removed by multiplying by e sub c e sup c = – 2. So we are all three agreed. The result is that the curvature based ECE theory reduces to a generally covariant MH theory in a space with torsion and curvature both non zero. This seems to be an important result.
3) In deriving Eq. (26) I used Eq. (24) with

A sup (1) sub 1 = – A sup (1) sub X,
epsilon sup 1 = 1 = epsilon sub X
A sup (1) sub 2 = – A sup (1) sub Y,
epsilon sup 2 = 1 = epsilon sub Y

The minus signs in Eqs. (24) and (25) are definitions. Yes I used Eq. (26) for the unit vector instead of for A sup (1).

In a message dated 30/05/2015 15:07:08 GMT Daylight Time, writes:

I went through the first three notes.
Thanks, Doug, for doing so too, I have not read the email comments to
these yet.

note (1): Eqs. 5 and 6 obviously are compact notations, a diagonal
matrix of the matrix of unit vectors. The curvature 2-form reminds to
the Ricci tensor but is used completely differently here and has a
different symmetry.

note (2): The magnetic flux potential seems to be an alternative
potential definition. How is it related to the vector potential A? Eq.
22 suggests that it is the potential leading directly to the
Maxwell-Heaviside form.
Do the c indices in eqs. 23/24 run from 1 to 3? Then the two last terms
should cancel out due to the covariant/contravariant sign change. Then
these equations take the Maxwell form too. This would mean that W and
omega_0 potential are the direct counterparts of the Mawell-Heaviside
form and include curvature/torsion directly. Reduction to Maxwell as
derived earlier by Doug.

note (3): According to eqs. 24,25, sign changes are to be introduced
into eqs. (21,22) to obtain (26,27). I understand that

epsilon sup 1 = epsilon sub X

(for greek index 1). Then there is only one sign change in 26/27 but
there is none written.

Another point: You have used a term A sub (1) in eq. 40. This is nowhere
defined, only a vector A sup (1) in (35). Did you use the covariant
version of (24) to define A sub (1) ?

Horst

UFT88 read at Maths., National Tsing Hua University Taiwan

This month, May 2015, the renowned UFT88 by M. W. Evans and H. Eckardt has been read a record 240 times around the world, an annual rate of 3,194 times. It has recently been developed in UFT313 – UFT315, just posted and already being read 1,749 times a year. These already classic papers correct the 1902 second Bianchi identity for torsion. Einsteinian general relativity was based directly on the incorrect 1902 second Bianchi identity almost exactly a hundred years ago in the summer of 1915 at a Goettingen University conference. These papers, 88, 112 and 313 – 315, are technically very difficult, like a late Beethoven piano sonata such as Opus 111, but the interest in them shows without further doubt that the Einsteinain era has been wholly rejected at about the same time as the dogmatists are celebrating the centennial of the Nov. 1915 field equation, boring us all with propaganda. In fact this equation was immediately rejected or criticized by leading thinkers of the time such as Schwarzschild, Bauer, Schroedinger, Levi Civita and many others down the century. Now we know why. UFT88, 112, 255, and 313 – 315 show that torsion must be considered in the second Bianchi identity, which becomes the Jacobi Cartan Evans (JCE) identity of UFT313, developed in UFT314 and UFT315 just posted. Horst, Doug and I are now working on UFT316. The definitive proofs that null torsion leads to the disappearance of gravitation are being read currently at a rate of 3,021 times a year, again a record high. That hardly gives cause for dogmatic celebration, quite the opposite. The dogmatism sounds like a fizzle, a dud firework. National Tsing Hua University was founded in Beijing in 1911 and re founded in Tsingchu in 1956. It is ranked 205 by webometrics and 226 – 250 by THES, so is a world ranking university. It has 12,400 students. It has many cooperative programmes with Tsing Hua University in Beijing. Staff and students from Tsing Hua have studied ECE theory many times over eleven years.

Daily Reports 28th and 29th May 2015

There were respectively 2,088 and 1,692 files downloaded from 354 and 328 study sessions. Main spiders baidu, google, MSN, yandex and yahoo. Evans / Morris papers 500, Scientometrics 363, Auto1 292, Auto2 100, F3(Sp) 289, UFT88 245, Definitive proofs that null torsion means no gravitation 240, Engineering Model 152, Eckart Lindstrom papers 143, Evans Equations 142 (numerous Spanish), Principles of ECE 138, UFT311 80, UFT313 67, UFT314 40, UFT315 32, CEFE 65, Englynion 63 (second book of poetry), Llais 60, Autobiography Sonnets 27 to date in May 2015. Niels Bohr Institute Copenhagen UFT33; University of Alabama Huntsville levitron; University of Cantabria Spain Simulation parameters part two; University of Poitiers general; United States Los Alamos National Laboratory UFT50,54, 55, 63, 101, equation flowcharts, rebuttal of Hehl (UFT89); Graduate Institute of Xalapa Mexico F8(Sp); University of Oslo Norway “Criticisms of the Einstein Field Equation”; Students National Chiao Tung University Taiwan UFT42; Mathematics National Tsing Hua University Taiwan UFT88; University College of Wales Aberystwyth general. Intense interest all sectors, updated usage file attached for May 2015.

Unauthorized

This server could not verify that you are authorized to access the document requested. Either you supplied the wrong credentials (e.g., bad password), or your browser doesn’t understand how to supply the credentials required.

Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.

The Physics Nobel Prize Committee

The past membership is in the public domain on wikipedia, Bo Lehnert has been a member of the physics class of the Royal Swedish Academy for many years, but I cannot find him listed as a past member of the physics Nobel Prize committee. More than likely, Bo Lehnert was the one who mentioned the nominations for B(3) to Amoroso during the course of a Vigier Symposium. So the physics class of the RSA was aware of the nominations. The Nobel prize physics committee has to be made up of members of the Royal Swedish Academy, and these would be the physics class of about fifty academicians. Bengt Nagel was a member of the physics committee from 1986 to 1997, the time frame when Amoroso worked with Lehnert in the Vigier conferences. He was professor of mathematical physics at the Royal Institute of Technology, the same institute as Bo Lehnert who refereed my Civil List Pension. I think that there has to be a vote of the physics class before nominations are sent to the committee. The present Nobel Prize committee is Lundstrom, Brink, Johansson, Janson and l’Huiller. So there are only five committee members, and only one of these at most would be competent to understand anything at all of ECE theory and B(3). Nominations could possibly have been made by Vigier, Lehnert, Sternglass, Horwitz, Kielich, John B. Hart, van der Merwe, Cost de Beauregard or many others, possibly including Mansel Davies, who was a chemistry Nobel Prize nominator. He nominated Clementi for a Nobel Prize in chemistry. Bruhn is known to have tried to adversely influence Lehnert, but obviously failed because of the scientometrics. So Bruhn breached the rules of the Nobel prize process using obviously fraudulent mathematics. He cynically tried to deceive people by attacking Cartan geometry. He disappeared in 2008. The scholars of AIAS are by far the best placed to understand ECE theory. I have always known that the physics and chemistry establishment was and is like this. The Government is not so easy to deceive and influence.

The bureaucratic science-machine broke science…

Good to hear from Axel Westrenius in Australia, and best wishes to Mrs. Westrenius for a complete recovery. I have always loathed bureaucracy, as in my sonnet “Rain”, written in 1986 (Barddoniaeth / Collected Poetry to be published shortly by New Generation in London), and in Autobiography Volume Two just published by New Generation. This is what I mean by “having to have gone through a career”. R. S. Thomas was much the same, and he was scythingly and mercilessly critical of the establishment and society. In his natural state he was and warm hearted, deeply sympathetic with the human condition, and got along with his Welsh speaking parishioners very well as Vicar of Aberdaron and Rector of Manafon before that. Of course I agree with all that this article has to say, I would go much further and assert that the entire standard model of physics is flawed, a ship with rotten timbers. This article basically accuses the ministry of thought in science of covering up gross errors. This is exactly what they did with UFT225, all to no avail. All of that has been destroyed by AIAS publishing. Some much worse things have happened as we all know, the most depraved and disgusting episode being the e mail assaults on Cartan geometry. These were certainly an attempt to stop me getting a Nobel Prize. I was very close to getting one according to Amorso. The scientometrics show that those attempts have failed in the most spectacular manner possible and I have called for a Government Inquiry as a Civil List Pensioner and Member of the Gentry.

To: EMyrone@aol.com
Sent: 30/05/2015 07:44:56 GMT Daylight Time
Subj: The bureaucratic science-machine broke science…

The bureaucratic science-machine broke science, and people are starting to ask how to fix it

Science is broken. The genius, the creative art of scientific discovery, has been squeezed into a square box, sieved through grant applications, citation indexes, and journal rankings, then whatever was left gets crushed through the press. We tried to capture the spirit of discovery in a bureaucratic formula, but have strangled it instead.

There are no shortcuts to the truth, or to status, and no easy way to figure out which projects should be funded. Every time a decision is crowd sourced — via committee, panel, or “consensus” — the responsibility for thinking gets divided and avoided.

The modern bureaucratic process of science is now not even trying to search for the truth. It’s hunting instead for an impact factor, for attention, for headlines, and inevitably, for funding.

It is good to see people starting to discuss it — including the Lancet Editor, Richard Horton, who wrote in April that he could not name names, but it needed to be said:

“A lot of what is published is incorrect.” I’m not allowed to say who made this remark because we were asked
to observe Chatham House rules. Those who worked for government agencies pleaded that their comments especially remain unquoted…

…[it
is] one of the most sensitive issues in science today: the idea that
something has gone fundamentally wrong with one of our greatest human creations.

The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.
Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts
of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has
taken a turn towards darkness. As one participant put it, “poor methods get results”.

Richard Horton is talking mostly about biomedicine, but the problem is endemic:

Part of the problem is that no-one is incentivised to be right. Instead, scientists are incentivised to be productive and innovative.

More red tape won’t set science free

I don’t think his suggestions are the answer, and even Horton seems to agree with that. A Hippocratic Oath for science, will help, but not much. Similarly, writing regulations to insist on a certain percentage of replicability in grant applications is only tinkering at the edges. As is emphasizing collaboration rather than competition, or insisting on “preregistration of protocols”. Likewise, rewarding “better pre and post publication peer review”, or improving research “training and mentorship”. None of that will make discovering the truth the main game again.

Lets start the list of what we need

What we need (for starters) is better training in logic and reason, and it needs to start in primary school. All kids need to know what an ad hominem argument is, and to spot the weak argument from authority. I shouldn’t need to explain what those are to a science graduate, a science communicator, a science journalist, or a science minister. A professor who can’t reason, shouldn’t be a professor. Actually I shouldn’t need to explain these fallacies even to a 12 year old, because it should be rote learned by 10.

Then we need to fix the incentives. We need to find a way to reward creative genius which breaks assumptions, rather than the sort that just fits in the box. We need to let genius flourish again, instead of bureaucracy.

To fix science we also need to fix science journalism, and science communication. Because these ought be another layer of protection. Good journalists and interviewers shouldn’t let scientists get away with dumb answers. Good science communicators serve the public, not the bureaucratic science-machine. Instead our supposedly best science magazines just report smear by association: see New Scientist: The Age of Name-Calling.

Vox published a longer article on this two weeks ago. Matt Briggs wonders if the Lancet editor was underestimating the problem.

Posts on logic and reason.

http://joannenova.com.au/2015/05/lancet-editor-perhaps-half-of-all-science-is-wrong/#more-42732
H/t Steve (2 weeks ago), Catallaxy, David, Jim, Willie.

=

Preparing “Principles of ECE Theory”

Many thanks once more, as long as there is steady progress there is no particular hurry. It is already a very successful book open source and your additional sections (with Douglas Lindstrom and Stephen Crothers) will greatly add to its impact.

In a message dated 30/05/2015 08:55:43 GMT Daylight Time, writes:

I will ask the colleagues who promised to contribute to the tpyesetting about their time frames.
Will add also some selected parts to the chapters with graphics/tables when typesetting is done.

Horst

Am 30.05.2015 um 07:36 schrieb EMyrone:

This is UFT281 to UFT288 and is again an open source “best reader”. It is currently being read 1,784 times a year. It should be finished and typeset, and a few copies published and prepared in softback. It is obvious that the colleagues worldwide can easily read my handwriting and that of Alex Hill in the translations, and in many ways handwritten equations and symbols are preferred to typesetting to ensure scientific accuracy. In the past, authors were forced to prepare typeset manuscripts so that publishers could maximize their own profits. That era is now long gone. The big publishers cannot do anywhere near as well as AIAS publishing. However, a lot of people feel that the “Principles of ECE” should be typeset. We must do this ourselves to ensure maximum accuracy. So in my opionion we must construct a timetable for regular work on the book in order to finish it. The planned textbooks on ECE can be combined with this monograph for maximum efficiency. We are making significant progress in reducing the theory to vector format. Engineers should be able to use this vector theory and indeed it has been used in UFT311. The latter is an important paper and is already a “best reader”.