## Archive for March, 2012

### Letter from Dai Herbert

Thursday, March 29th, 2012

Feed: Dr. Myron Evans
Posted on: Thursday, March 29, 2012 7:56 AM
Author: metric345
Subject: Letter from Dai Herbert

 To Dai Herbert: My advice is first draw the static ellipse, with x = 1, to see if the programme works. Then input small x, and redraw the ellipse. It will be rotated slightly. If there are any further questions please feel free to adress them to Horst Eckardt, Ray Delaforce and Robert Cheshire, who have all drawn the precessing ellipse, two of them from the equation using computer packages. Also look up google entries on the precessing ellipse. Try doing the differentiation by hand first, or if that is too difficult use Maxima, Mathematica, Maple etc. The Einstein theory is very easily shown to be wrong. aletterfromdaiherbert.pdf

View article…

### Message for Dai Herbert, Sixth Form, Cantonian High School Cardiff

Thursday, March 29th, 2012

Feed: Dr. Myron Evans
Posted on: Thursday, March 29, 2012 7:42 AM
Author: metric345
Subject: Message for Dai Herbert, Sixth Form, Cantonian High School Cardiff

 Many thanks for your letter of 26th March about the simple refutation of Einsteinian general relativity. Dr Horst Eckart (horsteck), Ray Delaforce (raydela) and Robert Cheshire (rpmc_6) here could help you graph a precessing ellipse from: r = alpha / (1 + epsilon cos (x theta)) Notes 214(1) and 214(2) give all the details of how to differentiate it (see many textbooks and google items). Dr. Horst Echardt could help you with computer algebra. The whole Cantonian school should know that Einsteinian general relativity can be easily refuted. As a Herbert you are related to me. Please tell other schools in Wales and further afield in Britain and Europe about it by chain e mail. Thanks to your teacher for helping. Myron Evans

View article…

### Easy to Understand Error in EGR (UFT202)

Sunday, March 25th, 2012

Feed: Dr. Myron Evans
Posted on: Sunday, March 25, 2012 2:12 AM
Author: metric345
Subject: Easy to Understand Error in EGR (UFT202)

 This paper has been on the net for a couple of months or more and points out an easy to understand error in Einsteininan general relativity (EGR), showing that the theory is unable to producing the equation of a precessing ellipse (orbit of a planet). That should be the end of the theory. I advise school teachers and lecturers to point out the error in their classes, provided they clear it first with their administrations. It has come to my attention that two school teachers have been threatened with career destruction for straightforward criticism such as this. This is disgusting. These threats should be outlawed by new legislation and the people who make them aggressively counter criticised by decent society. Otherwise physics will be just another totalitarian failure, or at best bad politics. This error has already been studied extensively and accepted without a single objection. How can one “object” to differentiation? In UFT202 the equation of the precessing ellipse is differentiated and compared directly with Einstein’s rather obscure claims. (He doubted his own theory repeatedly as is well known to scholars.) The EGR fails completely. Instead of skunking around my website looking for correspondents to harass (stalker “Aaron Vee” and several childish aliases), it would be better to learn mathematics and go back to school: learn from the real children how to behave. This UFT202 error alone means that EGR is obsolete and should not be funded or given any public credibility whatsoever. Courses on EGR should not be funded or encouraged. To ignore this simple refutation is unethical and unprofessional. To ask for public money knowing the existence of this conclusive refutation is in my opinion criminal – a deliberate fraud: and so it goes on. The equation of the precessing ellipse (that of the observed orbit of a planet in the solar system) is r = alpha / (1 + epsilon cos (x theta)) where (r, theta) are the polar coordinates in a plane, alpha the half right latitude, epsilon the ellipticity and x the precession constant. This is the OBSERVED equation of a planetary orbit. Differentiation of this function should be easy for fourth or fifth formers at any good school. If not, something is wrong with the education system. It gives: dr / d theta = (epsilon x / alpha) r squared sin (x theta) The pupils can do this with computer algebra but it is better if they learn the rules of differentiation and do it by hand. The rule is: differentiation of the numerator times denominator minus differentiation of denominator times the numerator divided by denominator squared. The EGR produces a very well known dr / d theta that can be compared with the above result as in UFT202. The pupils do not need to know where that result comes from, anyone can look it up with google. THE EGR THEORY DOES NOT PRODUCE THE EXPERIMENTAL DATA. This is one of many refutations of EGR and many counter examples given by honest scientists for nearly a hundred years! To go on funding such a theory is completely pointless and a complete waste of public money, our money as taxpayers. Anyone who cannot differentiate should be eliminated from science, and if he is a stalker, from society. Finally claims to have “verified” EGR experimentally cannot be right. To go on claiming verification knowing the existence of these multiple refutations is in my opinion grossly unethical.

View article…

### The Commutator Method of Generating Torsion and Curvature

Thursday, March 22nd, 2012

Feed: Dr. Myron Evans
Posted on: Thursday, March 22, 2012 2:53 AM
Author: metric345
Subject: The Commutator Method of Generating Torsion and Curvature

 For interested scholars this method is described in the online notes by Sean Carroll, freely available to all. I give all the details left out by Carroll in the UFT series and my proofs are now routine study at the best universities and so forth. The UFT series on www.aias.us represents some of the most detailed scholarship available in differential geometry. Nothing is “left to the student”, who is usually terminally reluctant to accept the gift. I suspect that the instructor leaves things to the student because he can’t do the proofs himself. The mathematical definition of commutator includes the null commutator: [A, A] = 0 The only possible argument for a symmetric connection has therefore evaporated, because that argument rests on the idea that a null commutator cannot exist or is somehow meaningless. The delightful Gerard Bruhn tried that one in one of his many unwanted missives. These seemingly small but very important points of mathematics were overlooked by the EGR crowd. All but a few top cats and their dustbins have accepted my proofs. To reject them invites some satire at school. Another false argument that was used in the past is that the commutator method produces only the antisymmetric part of fundamental quantities in Riemann Christoffel geometry: connection, torsion and curvature. That was another unfortunate scarecrow put up to be howled down in the ravens and blizzards of time. These quantities have no symmetric component by definition. Their properties are exactly the same as those of the commutator. The null commutator is zero because it is the only commutator that must be symmetric. This is all perfectly clear now to entire professions, showing very clearly that the dogmatists are either ignorant or deliberately obstructing new science. They are being told by their own colleagues worldwide that they are not as clever as the concrete in which they are embedded. This is another ineluctable consequence of objectivity – feedback software representing continuous refereeing by many tens of thousands of professionals all the time.

View article…

### Definition of Commutator

Thursday, March 22nd, 2012

Feed: Dr. Myron Evans
Posted on: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 11:38 AM
Author: metric345
Subject: Definition of Commutator

 Using google keywords “commutator zero” the first site, wiki no less, shows that a commutator can be defined as [A, A] = AA – AA = 0. In general the commutator is [A, B] = AB – BA not zero in general. The Cartan identity also shows that the connection is antisymmetric. So in a few weeks I have already produced many new refutations of the Einsteinain general relativity to add to those given previously. There is no way that the EGR theory can stand against all these rigorous refutations, which go into the microscopic details. As St David (Dewi Sant) wrote: “Take care of the small things”, “Gofalwch am y pethau bychain”.

View article…

### Definition of COmmutator

Wednesday, March 21st, 2012

Feed: Dr. Myron Evans
Posted on: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 11:38 AM
Author: metric345
Subject: Definition of COmmutator

 Using google keywords “commutator zero” the first site, wiki no less, shows that a commutator can be defined as [A, A] = AA – AA = 0. In general the commutator is [A, B] = AB – BA not zero in general. The Cartan identity also shows that the connection is antisymmetric. So in a few weeks I have already produced many new refutations of the Einsteinain general relativity to add to those given previously. There is no way that the EGR theory can stand against all these rigorous refutations, which go into the microscopic details. As St David (Dewi Sant) wrote: “Take care of the small things”, “Gofalwch am y pethau bychain”.

View article…

### 213(4): Further Proof of the Tensorial Nature of the Christoffel Connection

Wednesday, March 21st, 2012

Feed: Dr. Myron Evans
Posted on: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 8:47 AM
Author: metric345
Subject: 213(4): Further Proof of the Tensorial Nature of the Christoffel Connection

 This is further proof with checks for self consistency. Cartan geometry is not at all difficult if a few rules of index placement are followed. The essential idea of the geometry is to assume that there exists a tangent space at point P to the base manifold. The tangent space is a flat or Minkowski space if it is assumed to be a four dimensional spacetime. The base manifold is the general space. Cartan’s original intent was to introduce his spinors (which he himself inferred in 1913) into Riemann Cartan geometry. Cartan inferred his identity having inferred the tangent spacetime and tetrad postulate. The latter is in fact not a postulate, it is very fundamental. What Cartan showed is that Riemann Christoffel geometry is not complete. It is very well known to mathematicians that the methods of Cartan can be greatly developed, but for physics his geometry seems to be sufficient. In any event an ECE type theory can be developed with a more abstract geometry, but that is best left to mathematical specialists. Cartan also introduced the wedge product, the exterior derivative, and the differential form, all are fundamental advances in mathematics. With Maurer he introduced the two Cartan Maurer structure equations, two more fundamental advances. His geometry can be reduced to just three equations: T = D ^ q; R = D ^ omega and D ^ T := q ^ R so it is supremely elegant and well worth studying. In UFT211 for example the Cartan identity is used to prove the antisymmetry of the Christoffel connection. The tragedy of twentieth century general relativity is that it was all based on an early form of geometry that was not only incomplete, but incorrect. It was then blown into Shavian superstition (science made superstition) by the media, the desire for fame and fortune replacing science. George Bernard Shaw himself clearly doubted Einstein’s claims and interviewed him on film. In order to derive the complete set of ECE field equations I inferred in four dimensions the Evans identity: D ^ T tilde := q ^ R tilde In four dimensions this is simply an example of the Cartan identity. The reason is that in four dimensions the Hodge dual T tilde of T is another antisymmetric tensor, and similarly the Hodge dual R tilde is another antisymmetric tensor. The commutator method of UFT137 for example isolates the connection and defines its anisymmetry very clearly, and the latest papers prove that the Christoffel connection transforms as a tensor so never has a symmetric component and never has an inhomogeneous component in its transformation law. These are all fundamental advances in mathematics. There was a severe mental block in the twentieth century in that the curvature and torsion were accepted to be antisymmetric, but the connection was incorrectly asserted to be symmetric in a display of “pathological science” (Langmuir’s term for dogmatism). Many scientists have rebutted EGR for almost a century, all have been ignored by an egotistic few. The damage to science has been immense. . a213thpaprnotes4.pdf

View article…

### New Structure Equation

Thursday, March 1st, 2012

Feed: Dr. Myron Evans
Posted on: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 2:17 AM
Author: metric345
Subject: New Structure Equation