Many thanks

OK many thanks, they are all visible now. These rebuttals were written a very long time ago, and contain thorough answers well accepted by our supporters in the international community for more than a decade – the ECE School of Thought, probably as large as the standard model. The references by Wikipedia are of course well known to me, and they are very thoroughly rebutted in UFT89 and UFT90. They are also well known to Horst Eckardt and Douglas Lindstrom. I am not sure why Michael Jackson is concerned, or about what. He could try posting all of these rebuttals on wikipedia, my list of achievements, and a shirt synopsis of the remarks I e mailed today. Wikipedia would automatically remove them, so it has no scholarly credibility. So why bother with it? Our own combined sites and often out impact wikipedia on a given topic. The answers of Horst Eckardt, Douglas Lindstrom and myself are that ECE and ECE2 are thoroughly checked in many ways, work perfectly in UFT311 and are based directly on Cartan geometry. It is always a mistake to suddenly go on the defensive for apparently no reason, like some of the early Union commanders who drove Lincoln crazy, so it would be better if all our rebuttals of the standard model were posted on wikipedia, and we always go on the offensive like the brilliant General Robert E. Lee. I am not a fan of war, and the American Civil War should have been averted, like any war. It was a terrible and needless waste of life. Offensives have to be very carefully planned, because the defence or defense is superior. Unfortunately Major General Pickett bore the brunt of a terrible mistake by General Lee. Again, wikipedia would remove any rebuttals of the standard model. This is not scholarship at all, it is not even legal. It is crude, insulting defamation of scholarship. It is also a mistake to give wikipedia any kind of credibility by response, credibility which it has always craved. If I understand it correctly, an unknown engineer looked up wikipedia. An engineer is not a scholar of Cartan geometry. The millions of readers of ECE and ECE2 are in a majority against one unknown engineer. One thing is very clear, AIAS Fellows must try to learn Cartan geometry, even if only in outline. Otherwise things will always come back to Horst, Doug and myself. So if we are agreed I move that this matter be closed.

In a message dated 23/12/2016 16:02:04 GMT Standard Time, writes:

The documents were stored in a different location with a note indicating we moved them on purpose. I moved the files and they are now available. It might be worth looking a wikipedia to see if these answer the concerns Michael addressed.


On 12/23/2016 2:10 AM, EMyrone wrote:

The scientometrics and clear logic of the rebuttals in UFT89 and UFT90, which have been read thousands of times without objection, answer the defamation on wikipedia. Our combined sites and are as powerful as Wikipedia, so why worry about that rag? Most of our papers are on the first page of Google, so ECE and ECE2 are well accepted. ECE has been accepted as mainstream physics long ago. I do not know why these files are corrupt, I remember rebutting Bruhn in many ways, so do many here. I was under the impression that you knew about these rebuttals and kept the notes I distributed. Wikipedia is of no longer of importance to any of us at AIAS. The next time someone says “it is wrong”, I advise referring the receiver and transmitter of hearsay to Cartan geometry. ECE and ECE2 are based directly on Cartan geometry. So to “rebut” ECE and ECE2, Cartan geometry has to be rebutted. If Horst or Doug still have my rebuttal notes in their archives they could perhaps send them on to you. They were collated and refined for UFT89 and UFT90. So these are the rebuttals you seek. Wikipedia has no credibility because it does not allow answers, for example if you tried to post UFT89 and UFT90 they would remove them. I suggest answering any remaining malicious hearsay with the source papers. ECE and ECE2 are based on:

T = D ^ q
R = D ^ omega
D ^ T = R ^ q

which is entirely standard geometry. Dr Horst Eckardt and Dr. Douglas Lindstrom can also comment if they wish. Concerning interviews I suggest that Doug Lindstrom or Horst Eckardt or Gareth Evans or Steve Crothers or Steve Bannister can do them. This is best because they have learned the theory. Without any knowledge of Cartan geometry or mathematics, anyone can see that ECE and ECE2 are rigorously correct because they ARE Cartan geometry. So you may wish to answer like that. I talked to Brian Josephson shortly after I received my Civil List Pension, he congratulated me but suddenly said “What about Bruhn?” I quickly found that Josephson had no knowledge of Cartan geometry or of Riemannian geometry. So I repleid: “What about the Devil?” and Brian disappeared in a huff. Our scholarship at AIAS is superior, we have shown that n times, where n is the number of needles on the back of a porcupine. So UFT89 and UFT90 are highly refined rebuttals which have not been answered. Your engineer would not be able to answer UFT89 and UFT90. So we reach the point where hearsay can be ignored. Many thanks for all your work!

In a message dated 23/12/2016 06:02:31 GMT Standard Time, writes:

Dr Evans,

Seven of the nine “Rebuttal” pdf papers are corrupt on your Publications page. They all have 655 bytes, and are unreadable. The two good papers are “Objection to False Claims…”, and “Refutation to Jadczyk”.

The only way ECE Theory will be widely accepted, is by refuting the wikipedia claim, that you made fatal errors in the foundational assumptions of ECE Theory.

The best way to refute the claims is to post the links to your Rebuttal pdfs on the wikipedia page. But, how can this happen, when the files are corrupt?

What would be MUCH better, would be for other people to write their own rebuttals, and post them on That would be a link which the trolls on wikipedia would have a hard time deleting.

Please find out how the pdfs got corrupted, as your website has probably been hacked, with other hidden damage. These rebuttal files are the best target for hackers, as they are the most critical for building the credibility of ECE Theory.

On a personal note, I spoke to a top level scientist at a major aerospace company, a few years ago, and asked him to look into ECE Theory. A few months later, I asked him about ECE Theory, and he said “well, I looked it up on wikipedia, and they said he was wrong.” Then, there was a long silence, as I didn’t have a response to that. That scientist’s response was exactly what is happening out there in the wide world, and why ECE theory is NOT catching on.

You give americans too much credit. They won’t read your papers, or listen to your essays, if wikipedia says you are wrong. Americans are stupid, lazy, cowardly, corrupt, and dogmatic. They trust wikipedia, and if a single sentence says you are wrong, that is enough for them. Meanwhile the planet will be dead in less than 20 years, but they will keep their precious wikipedia to the very end.

Please put out the word, that we need some rebuttal pdfs on, as a way to overcome the wikipedia roadblock.


Michael Jackson

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: