Archive for November, 2012
Thursday, November 29th, 2012
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…
Posted in Uncategorized  Comments Closed
Thursday, November 29th, 2012
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…
Posted in Uncategorized  Comments Closed
Thursday, November 29th, 2012
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…
Posted in Uncategorized  Comments Closed
Saturday, November 24th, 2012
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 pressessionlike 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…
Posted in Uncategorized  Comments Closed
Saturday, November 24th, 2012
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…
Posted in Uncategorized  Comments Closed
Saturday, November 24th, 2012
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…
Posted in Uncategorized  Comments Closed
Saturday, November 24th, 2012
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.
note2317c.pdf

View article…
Posted in Uncategorized  Comments Closed
Saturday, November 24th, 2012
Feed: Dr. Myron Evans
Posted on: Friday, November 23, 2012 11:30 PM
Author: metric345
Subject: Daily Report 23/11/12
There were 2210 hits from 594 distinct visits during the day, 28.6% spiders from baidu, google and MSN. CEFE50, CEFEL31, FPL21, LMEP13. Campinas State University Brazil UFT166(Sp); Government of British Columbia Canada UFT43; University of Quebec Trois Rivieres general; Bosch Company 2D paper; Otto von Guericke University Magdeburg “Criticisms of the Einstein Field Equation”; San Diego Supercomputer Center Leaflet of “Criticisms of the Einstein Field Equation”; French Atomic and Alternative Energy Commission UFT174; University of CergyPontoise 2D paper; University of Poitiers UFT231; Alaska Regional Headquarters U. S. Weather Service UFT231; University College Dublin UFT42; Malaviya National Institute of Technology India UFT161; San Luis Potosi Autonomous University Mexico UFT166(Sp); Physics Stockholm University UFT91; Mathematics and Physics Luton University Fundamental Errors in the Einstein Field Equation; Physics Queen Mary, University of London UFT88, UFT102; Concord International Sixth Form College Shrewsbury Michael Jackson “Human Soul”; Essex Schools Chelmsford Michael Jackson “Human Soul”. Intense interest all sectors, updated usage file attached.

View article…
Posted in Uncategorized  Comments Closed
Saturday, November 24th, 2012
Feed: Dr. Myron Evans
Posted on: Friday, November 23, 2012 4:42 AM
Author: metric345
Subject: 232(5): Points at which EGR is a Precessing Ellipse
This note shows that the Einstein theory can only be a true precessing ellipse (3) at two points, both of which are well inside the earth’s orbit taken as an example. So the theory is absurd. It is shown that an Einstein type perturbation can only give a true precessing ellipse when there are an infinite number of terms in powers of u = 1 / r added to the right hand side of the Newtonian equation. So the only thing that can be deduced from perihelion precession is x. For the earth:
1 – x = 3.548 ten power – 8
The entire idea of testing a deviation form Newton by perihelion precession in planets of the solar system is absurd therefore. The precession is so small that x is for all practical purposes unity. Numerical integration of eqs. such as (33) of this note can be done, it will probably produce something that looks like a precessing ellipse for small perturbations, but simple algebra shows that the curve can never be a true precessing ellipse (3). In general the solution of equations such as (33) will be unstable, containing singularities and negative r solutions, and critically dependent on the choice of initial condition. In great contrast, the true precessing ellipse ((3) is a well behaved function for all x and theta giving the petal and fractal conical sections discovered recently by AIAS.
a232ndpapernotes5.pdf

View article…
Posted in Uncategorized  Comments Closed
Saturday, November 24th, 2012
Feed: Dr. Myron Evans
Posted on: Thursday, November 22, 2012 11:27 PM
Author: metric345
Subject: Daily Report 22/11/12
There were 2341 hits from 660 distinct visits, 32.7% spiders from baidu, google, MSN, choopa and yandex. CEFE48; CEFEL29; FPL21; LMEP13. Institute of Physics Brazilian Department of Science and Aerospace Technology UFT147(Sp); Okanagan Regional Library British Columbia Canada UFT13; McGill University Canada UFT10; Czech Technical University Prague F5(Sp); University of Karlsruhe a catastrophe for cosmology and equations flowcharts; Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) UFT85; San Diego Supercomputer Center general; Spanish National Health Service UFT157(Sp); Library University of Barcelona UFT142 (Sp); University of Granada UFT18; University of Poitiers general; ESRI Cartography Hungary general; University of Indonesia UFT41; Electrical Engineering Milan Polytechnic UFT146; Rikkyo University Japan Cosmo7; Electrical Engineering Technical University Eindhoven Johnson Magnets; Students Uppsala University Sweden UFT81; Physics National Taiwan University Misconceptions concerning electromagnetism; University of Bath levitron; Chemistry Strathclyde University UFT2; Concord International Sixth Form College Shrewsbury Michael Jackson “Human Soul”. Intense interest all sectors, attached updated usage file November 2012.

View article…
Posted in Uncategorized  Comments Closed