This will deal with fluid gravitation and will be made up of UFT358 to UFT363. There is already a huge amount of interest in the UFT papers making up the book: “ECE2: The Second Paradigm Shift”.

Many thanks and very interesting. An elegant derivation of Eq. (3) of Note 365(2). The only comment I have is that the derivation is based on the assumption in Eq. (33) of UFT363 that partial R (t, r, theta) / partial theta = 0. This was made to reduce complexity and to give Eq. (3) of Note 365(3), in which:

partial R(t, r, theta) / partial r = f(r, t)

within the approximation in Eq. (33) UFT363.

To: Emyrone@aol.com
Sent: 24/12/2016 11:33:12 GMT Standard Time
Subj: Notes 365(1-3)

I tried a direct solution of eq.(44) of note 365(1). Using the substitution

u = 1/r

I obtained directly eq.(3) of note 365(3) when inserting suitable
integration constants, see section 2 of the protocol.
A direct solution with variable r gives a similar result but with phase
factors, see eq. o8 (section 1). Trying a theta-dependent function
Omega(theta) gives no analytical solution (section 3).

I am not sure if Omega can be assumed not to depend on theta. According
to eq.(33) of the first note, bold R depends on theta, therefore

partial R / partial r

maintains this dependence. If Omega is not constant, then

f(theta) = 1 / sqrt(1+Omega)

reflects this dependence even by the indirect dependence
Omega(r(theta)), see eqs. 12-14 in note 2.

I will try an example for f(theta) based on the numerical results of
paper 328.

Horst

365(1).pdf

The equivalent of 185,277 printed pages was downloaded during the day (675.520 megabytes) from 3,404 downloaded memory files (hits) and 433 distinct visits, each averaging 6.3 memory pages and 8 minutes, printed pages to hits ratio of 54.43, main spiders google, MSN and yahoo. Collected ECE2 1387, Top ten 869, Evans / Morris 792(est) Barddoniaeth / Poetry 555, Collected scientometrics 486, Principles of ECE 260, Eckardt / Lindstrom 187, F3(Sp) 169, Autobiography volumes one and two 161, Collected Proofs 144, Evans Equations 101, UFT88 96, UFT364 92, PECE 88, UFT311 62, Engineering Model 61(est), CEFE 52, Llais 49, UFT321 34, Self charging inverter 31, PLENR 20, Prolific authors 17(est), Three world records by MWE 15, ECE2 14, Idaho 10, UFT313 35, UFT314 29, UFT315 27, UFT316 26, UFT317 27, UFT318 23, UFT319 36, UFT320 23, UFT322 26 UFT323 25, UFT324 30, UFT325 26, UFT326 32, UFT327 26, UFT328 35, UFT329 27, UFT330 27, UFT331 36, UFT332 27, UFT333 25, UFT334 24, UFT335 27, UFT336 32, UFT337 20, UFT338 22, UFT339 18, UFT340 23, UFT341 23, UFT342 20, UFT343 25, UFT344 22, UFT345 23, UFT346 30, UFT347 35, UFT348 26, UFT349 25, UFT351 29, UFT352 24, UFT353 17, UFT354 34, UFT355 30, UFT356 28, UFT357 29, UFT358 30, UFT359 26, UFT360 19, UFT361 18, UFT362 36, UFT363 11, UFT364 92 to date in December 2016. Deusu search engine home. Intense interest all sectors, updated usage file attached for Deceember 2016.

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 401 Unauthorized error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.

The last year an a half have seen the publication of fifty papers on ECE2 papers, and 2016 has seen the publication in hardback and softback of “Principles of ECE”, currently being read 6,426 times a year off combined sites, an outstandingly successful monograph by any standards. The radically new and powerful theories of fluid electrodynamics and fluid gravitation were published. The fifty ECE2 papes are bing read about 33,000 times a year. Early in 2016 www.aias.us was made visible on the Wayback Machine, (www.archive.org), by Dave Burleigh, so a great amount of work is safely archived. It was announced on 12th September by Aled Betts of the National Library of Wales that combined sites www.aias.us and www.upitec.org have been archived using OSWM (Open Source Wayback Machine) and will be featured in the UK Web Archive as outstanding sites, accessible from the reading rooms of all the Copyright Libraries: The British Library in London, Bodleian Linrary Oxford, Library of Cambridge University, and teh NAtional Libraries of Scotland and Wales. They will also be feastured in Ireland from the LIbrary of Trinity College Dublin. The wll known circuit of AIAS Fellow Osamu Ide (explained exactly by ECE theory in UFT311) has been replicated exactly in UFT364, causing immediate international interest. I can see this as usual from the scientometrics. The Co President Gareth Evans has received many invitations to attend high level strategic meetings and conferences as a result of this major breakthrough in new energy technology by AIAS / UPITEC. Douglas Lindstrom has published a review of low energy nuclear reactors. Horst Eckardt, UPITEC President, and Bernhard Foltz, flew to Tokyo and replicated the Osamu Ide device exactly with completely independent apparatus. This means that such circuits can be mass produced in future after patenting. Osamu Ide has sent written testimony to a House of Lords Committee on this development, and I hope that the London, Cardiff and Edinburgh Governments will fund and rapidly develop the breakthrough, otherwise they will lose out again as so often happens. The AIAS / UPITEC team has been nominated for six gold medals and six silver medals of the Institute of Physics, and from now on will be regularly nominated for relevant medals and awards. All my indicators show that ECE has arrived centre stage.

The equivalent of 73,834 printed pages was downloaded from 1,911 downloaded memory files (hits) and 406 distinct visits each averaging 3.9 memory pages and 9 minutes, printed pages to hits ratio of 38.64, main spiders google, MSN and yahoo. Collected ECE2 1299, Top ten 850, Evans Morris 759(est), Collected scientometrics 480, Barddoniaeth 266(est), Principles of ECE 246, F3(Sp) 166, Eckardt / Lindstrom 165(est), Autobiography volumes one and two 157, Collected Proofs 138, UFT88 96, UFT364 91, Evans Equations 91(est), PECE 88, Engineering Model 61(est), UFT311 60, CEFE 50, Llais 44, UFT321 31, Self Charging Inverter 30, PLENR 19, List of prolific authors 17, Three world records 15, ECE2 13, Idaho 10, UFT313 31, UFT314 27, UFT315 24, UFT316 24, UFT317 24, UFT318 23, UFT319 31, UFT320 22, UFT322 22, UFT323 23, UFT324 29, UFT325 25, UFT326 29, UFT327 24, UFT328 34, UFT329 26, UFT330 26, UFT331 34, UFT332 23, UFT333 23, UFT334 23, UFT335 24, UFT336 29, UFT337 19, UFT338 20, UFT339 16, UFT340 22, UFT341 22, UFT342 19, UFT343 23, UFT344 20, UFT345 22, UFT346 28, UFT347 34, UFT348 25, UFT349 24, UFT351 26, UFT352 23, UFT353 16, UFT354 35, UFT355 28, UFT356 26, UFT357 27, UFT358 28, UFT359 25, UFT360 19, UFT361 17, 34, UFT363 10, UFT364 91 to date in December 2016. City of Winnipeg UFT section; Kogaguin University Japan UFT177. Intense interest all sectors updated usage file attached for December 2016.

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 401 Unauthorized error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.

The equivalent of 73,713 printed pages was downloaded during the day (268.757 megabytes) from 2,347 downloaded memory files and 464 distinct visits each averaging 4.4 memory pages and 6 minutes, printed pages to hits ratio of 31.51, main spiders google, MSN and yahoo. Collected ECE2 1254, Top ten 830, Evans Morris 726, Collected scientometrics 406, Barddoniaeth 266, Principles of ECE 240, Eckardt / Lindstrom 165, F3(Sp) 164, Autobiography volumes one and two 154, Collected Proofs 138, UFT88 94, Evans Equations 91, UFT364 90, PECE 86, UFT311 59, CEFE 50, Llais 44, Self charging inverter 30, UFT321 30, PLENR 18, Prolific authors 16, Three world records 15, ECE2 13, Idaho 9, UFT313 27, UFT314 26, UFT315 23, UFT316 24, UFT317 24, UFT318 21, UFT319 30, UFT320 20, UFT322 22, UFT323 22, UFT324 29, UFT325 22, UFT326 27, UFT327 23, UFT328 32, UFT329 25, UFT330 26, UFT331 34, UFT332 23, UFT333 22, UFT334 23, UFT335 24, UFT336 28, UFT337 19, UFT338 20, UFT339 16, UFT340 20, UFT341 22, UFT342 19, UFT343 22, UFT344 20, UFT345 22, UFT346 28, UFT347 32, UFT348 24, UFT349 23, UFT351 24, UFT352 22, UFT353 15, UFT354 34, UFT355 27, UFT356 24, UFT357 24, UFT358 27, UFT359 25, UFT360 18, UFT361 17, UFT362 33, UFT363 10, UFT364 90 to date in December 2016. Deusu search engine Historical Comments; Wayback Machine (www.archive.org) spidering; Calyx Institute general; Unite the Union Family History. Intense interest all sectors,updated usage file attached for December 2016.

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 401 Unauthorized error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.

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 www.aias.us and www.upitec.org 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, burleigh.personal@gmail.com 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.

Dave

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 www.aias.us and www.upitec.org 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 arxiv.org. 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 arxiv.org, as a way to overcome the wikipedia roadblock.

Regards,

Michael Jackson

This note checks the concepts of Note 365(2) and shows that the inverse square law in the presence of a fluid vacuum produces the general precessing ellipse (3). It would be very interesting to graph this as a function of partial R / partial r, which is by definition not a function of theta. It can also be compared with the results of UFT328, in which it was shown that the general precessing ellipse emerges from the simultaneous solution of the ECE2 lagrangian and hamiltonian. The Einstien theory does not produce the correct precessing ellipse, in fact it gives a wild result in general (previous UFT papers).

a365thpapernotes3.pdf

Is it possible to repair the files mentioned by Michael Jackson? I get the message “our site has changed”. In the meantime two of the refutations can be repaired as follows:

1) “A Response to Papers by Hehl and Obukhov” developed into UFT89, so UFT89 can be placed there as well as in the UFT section.
2) “Refutation of Jadczyk …..” developed into UFT90, which can be placed there as well as the UFT section.

I may have the other refutations in my notes folders here and if I find them will send them across. I clearly remember discussing the refutations with Horst Eckardt, who also rebutted Bruhn. The latter is generally seen as a fraudster, and Horst and I caught him out several times. Horst told me that he used to follow people around to lectures. He has published almost nothing, so hsi h index is far too low for him to be appointed to any job.. I have no idea how such a man can be appointed as full professor. Apparently he collapsed in 2007 and 2008 from nervous exhaustion. I recall that his paper in Physica Scripta was concerned with Lorentz covariance. This is rebutted in a few words through the fact that ECE is a generally covariant unified field theory and is automatically Lorentz covariant. I remember that there were two pdf files rebutting this paper by Bruhn. ‘t Hooft has been completely ignored, in that all the papers he tried to censor are now classics. Furthermore, UFT311 has verified ECE exactly. If Michael is still worried then he could try to post something such as this on wikipedia, but the latter has no credibility among scholars because it censors work it does not like. That is very well known. Rodrigues produces incomprehensible abstraction, and he has also quietened down. Of course I have read the junk on wikipedia, in Rodrigues’s case there was a vicious diatribe, but very liitle on Cartan geometry. Lakhtakia knows nothing at all about Cartan geometry. Hehl did not answer UFT89 and I have not heard anything from him in about a decade. One cannot get away any longer with off the cuff dismissals of ECE and ECE2. Unless people have not been reading anything at all, they will know about UFT311, all the UFT papers, and books. So Michael may try to post the above remarks on wikipedia. There was a big fight beteeen wikipedia and myself which I finally won. They removed some vicious defamation. After that I forgot about wikipedia and got on with some work.

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 www.aias.us and www.upitec.org 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 arxiv.org. 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 arxiv.org, as a way to overcome the wikipedia roadblock.

Regards,

Michael Jackson