Alpha Institute for Advanced Studies

Scientist Robbed of Nobel in 1974 Finally Wins $3 Million Physics Prize — And Gives It Away

I looked up the conventional h index of Jocelyn Bell Burnell. It is very low so this Milner award is politics as usual. Fifty years after the discovery this seems to have been the result of wildly irrational political pressure based on crude historical distortion by the media. It is not based on any objective criterion. The original paper announcing the discovery of pulsars consisted of about five authors, Hewish et alii, and Bell herself did not want the Nobel Prize because Hewish was the supervisor and she was the Ph. D. student. She said that Ph. D. students should not be awarded Nobel Prizes. I do not agree with that at all, but this shows that she did not expect to win a Nobel Prize. The media built up the myth about her being cheated out of a Nobel Prize. In my opinion a Nobel Prize is vastly overblown in importance. I remember the discovery of pulsars in the sixties when I was at Pontardawe Grammar School. The objective criteria of impact are hits, page views, distinct visits, visits, gigabytes downloaded and so on, combined with h and g indices and combined with total output of an author, combined with the quality of readership of the work,and above all, Baconian correctness and the elimination of anthropomorphism. In that case the AIAS / UPTEC group blows all opposition away so a Milner prize should be awarded to the AIAS / UPITEC group or if that is not allowed by petty rules, to individual members. In my time, the seventies, a Ph. D. student would not normally be allowed to publish on his or her own, but I was allowed to publish before I earned my Ph. D., being one of the best graduate students in chemistry in Britain. Even at that time my work was regarded as being worthy of an F. R.S. and Nobel Prize. If a Nobel Prize had been awarded I would have been more than happy to share it with my Ph. D. supervisor Mansel Davies and later with my group experimentalist Gareth Evans. We were all Baptists with a healthy scepticism of the Nobel Prize system, or any royalist system. MMD described the Nobel prize system as a club like any other and was a Nobel Prize advisor in chemistry, a friend of Linus Pauling. He remained a friend after Pauling was booted out of Stanford in a McCarthyist purge. Jocelyn Bell as born in Lurgan, Nothern Ireland and failed her eleven plus so went to a Quaker school in York. In my time women students had exactly the same opportunity as men, I was the top first, the second and third in line who graduated with a first class degree were women from the South Wales valleys who did not want to stay at the EDCL. During my Ph. D. I won three prestigious post doctoral fellowships in open competition: SRC; ICI European and an NRCC Fellowship to work with the Nobel Laureate Herzberg in Canada. I should have been appointed a research associate with tenure straight from Ph. D. but the EDCL system was terminally corrupt and the EDCL was later closed. I was forced to keep competing for prestigious Fellowships until I ran up a world record of them. I was not given tenure because I had exposed corruption at Swansea (Autobiograohy VolumeTwo) My autobiography shows that the system at EDCL and at Swansea was so corrupt and vindictive and petty minded that it would not recognize merit if it were stuffed up its nostrils, and no one would put right the corruption. I found that to be terminally disgusting – to refuse to recognize home grown talent in a young student, a sow eating her piglets. The disgust and contempt comes out very strongly in my poetry. I have a contempt for anything that corrupts the Baconian ideal with anthropomorphism,any individual, any group, any politician.

I think that the AIAS / UPITEC group could be nominated for a Breakthrough Prize for many contributions making a profound impact on science, if the rules allow. If not, nominations could go in for members of the group, for Nobel prizes and Breakthrough Prizes. In order for this to happen there must be assessors who really know the work. I was nominated by Royal Swedish Academician Bo Lehnert, perhaps others, for a physics prize, probably more than once, for the discovery of B(3) at Cornell in 1991. A book by Lehnert and Roy appears in my "Contermporary Chemical Physics " series. Jean Pierre Vigier recognized that B(3) means finite photon mass, thus overturning standard physics. Since then almost a thousand papers and books have sprung from that discovery of B(3), and the first successful unified field theory based in a rigorously objective way on Cartan geometry. Lehnert was attacked by a harasser called Bruhn, who posted a letter to Lehnert interfering in the Nobel Prize process. Bruhn made attempts to distort Cartan geometry, but failed. Cartan geometry has remained unchanged so Bruhn has been ignored. Distortions of Cartan geometry subsequently appeared in a commandered Wikipedia article. Bruhn was refuted many times and disappeared in 2008.

Scientist Robbed of Nobel in 1974 Finally Wins $3 Million Physics Prize — And Gives It Away

Scientist Robbed of Nobel in 1974 Finally Wins $3 Million Physics Prize — And Gives It Away

Systematic Search for a Decreasing Orbit

Agreed with this analysis. It is already known how to produce a shrinking orbit from UFT192 and computing the complete dynamics would be very interesting. So the relativistic equations of notes 414 so far, cross checked in three ways, would be merged with m theory, so there would be a rotating frame theory in the most general spherically symmetric spacetime. Even the classical theory of UFT413 goes beyond EGR because as you have shown, it produces retrograde precession. EFR cannot produce retrograde precession.
Systematic Search for a Decreasing Orbit

Combining m theory with the latest results and relativistic theory is a good idea. I would like to add one more general point:
If shrinking orbits are mainly found in double star systems, this would be a hint that spacetime is impacted by the motion of the partner which is considered as "fixed" in classical reduced mass theory. Normally you can either solve the equations for two moving masses (outer view) or one star fixed (reduced mass view). Both gives the same results. In case that orbit schrinking is observed, both views seem not to be equivalent anymore. When staying in the reduced mass view for simplicity, an additional spacetime distortion has to be respected. This could be a modification of the 1/r potential for example where an additional angular part occurs near to the minimal radius. This is similar as in the spiralling example of UFT 192. In extension of that paper, we have means available now to compute the full dynamics of such systems. It would be best to build the m(r,theta) function into the force or potential so that its orbital effects are results and need not to be an input as in UFT 192.
Only some thoughts for next developments.

Horst

Am 09.09.2018 um 15:44 schrieb Myron Evans:

It states on www.nobelprize.org that "A letter of invitation to submit is not required." Members of staff of associate rank or higher in a Department of Economics can nominate. As usual Wikipedia gets it wrong by stating that a letter of invitation to nominate is required. Groups can be nominated, so the entire AIAS / UPITEC group can be nominated. Individuals can also be nominated. The Peace Prize is awarded to an organization, group or individual which or who has has done the most or the best work for fraternity among nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies, and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses. The Norwegian Parliament selects the Nobel Peace Prize Committee. In the case of AIAS / UPITEC, and individuals of the group, the understanding of new sources of energy promotes fraternity among nations, because this work reduces the risk of war due to shortage of fuel. I am keeping this off the blog for obvious reasons, because the Nobel Peace Prize Committee might be harassed by people like Bruhn. I do not know what happened to him but he suddenly disappeared in 2008. He is now 78 years old and repeatedly harassed despite being told to cease and desist, a formal legal term. Apparently he suffered a psychological collapse of some kind. Lakhtakia could well be part of the hate blog. He was severely anti American and anti British and at one point was a moderator for Wikipedia, which is going downhill quite rapidly now. Lakhtakia slammed don the receiver twice when I tried to phone him from Cornell Theory Center, and told me that I was going to be buried. So he is less than entirely pleasant. Rodrigues was often abusive and reeked of malice, rolling out incomoprehesible mathematics and never addressing B(3) at all. These seem to have disappeared into oblivion. They posted a grossly defammatory article about myself on Wikipedia, and I had this removed. Bruhn wrote to Lehnert about "Evans’ distortions". We looked at Bruhn’s work very closely and soon found that it had errors (UFT89). Bruhn scared off Lehnert, but we stood up to Bruhn and kept to the obvious fact that Cartan geometry has been the same for a century. As soon as I began to use Cartan geometry, the geometry wsattacked. This was exceedingly stupid.

I think that the AIAS / UPITEC group could be nominated for a Breakthrough Prize for many contributions making a profound impact on science, if the rules allow. If not, nominations could go in for members of the group, for Nobel prizes and Breakthrough Prizes. In order for this to happen there must be assessors who really know the work. I was nominated by Royal Swedish Academician Bo Lehnert, perhaps others, for a physics prize, probably more than once, for the discovery of B(3) at Cornell in 1991. A book by Lehnert and Roy appears in my "Contermporary Chemical Physics " series. Jean Pierre Vigier recognized that B(3) means finite photon mass, thus overturning standard physics. Since then almost a thousand papers and books have sprung from that discovery of B(3), and the first successful unified field theory based in a rigorously objective way on Cartan geometry. Lehnert was attacked by a harasser called Bruhn, who posted a letter to Lehnert interfering in the Nobel Prize process. Bruhn made attempts to distort Cartan geometry, but failed. Cartan geometry has remained unchanged so Bruhn has been ignored. Distortions of Cartan geometry subsequently appeared in a commandered Wikipedia article. Bruhn was refuted many times and disappeared in 2008.

Scientist Robbed of Nobel in 1974 Finally Wins $3 Million Physics Prize — And Gives It Away

Scientist Robbed of Nobel in 1974 Finally Wins $3 Million Physics Prize — And Gives It Away

Many thanks! These nominations are most valuable and made on behalf of new science, not myself in particular. At the C. H. level (national level from all walks of life), a nomination is as good as an award, and ECE already has a record number of nominations. They are being blocked mindlessly behind the scenes by the standard modellers, who never read a word of seven hundred papers and books. I have also prepared team nominations for AIAS / UPITEC. This method is adopted because I am not allowed to apply directly, citing very able referees and honest assessors. So I essentially write the nomination and Gareth Evans adds sections of his own. Gareth is the only scientist who knows the totality of my work in depth, (1971 to present), and referees such Horst Eckardt, Douglas Lindstrom and Kerry Pendergast know the ECE work in all detail. I would like to apply for a Nobel Prize, Wolf Prize and Milner Prize, suggesting referees who really know the work and suggesting assessors who really know my work. As it stands, people who have never read a word of my work control its assessment anonymously. People like Bruhn, Lakhtakia and Rodrigues reeked with egregious malice in the words of Alwyn van der Merwe, and are known to have indulged in harassment and crude distortion, Lakhtakia is strongly suspected of sending ethnic hate mail. This nonsensical system has been outflanked completely, as the scientometrics show, because ECE is all over the world n times over. My common sense method is not allowed. I fully agree about the assessment of the Norwegian plant. In my opinion it has already been proven to work and our engineers could have a look at it for themselves. Steve Bannister has announced his intention of nominating me for a Nobel Peace Prize when he is promoted to associate professor. This is again on behalf of new science and is deeply appreciated. Nominations for a Nobel Peace Prize are accepted without invitation. The entire AIAS / UPITEC group could also be nominated for a Peace Prize n another nomination, made by an objective economist, Steve Bannister, who knows the work very thoroughly.

Be interesting to see what the new possibilities are again!

Have made a start on application for honours for you but will have to complete a report for work now before resuming. No rush as you say and it might actually be useful if AIAS staff had visited the new energy plant before submitting so that we could report on this development in the application (with everyone’s agreement of course)? Would be great if we could include some photos of the plant / preliminary outputs and an initial comparison with ECE theory? There would then be nothing left for the doubters to argue against (and surely the UK Government would want to be involved in a new future technology of this nature particularly with Brexit etc looming)? I think the visits are supposed to take place September /October?

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.

Explanation of non-shrinking orbits

This is a really excellent piece of numerical work by Horst Eckardt and shows that the rotating frame can give orbital precession and retrograde precession and many interesting results from models of frame rotation. It looks as if the relativistic m theory is needed for shrinking. In UFT192, Eq. (41), the shrinking orbit function is given. This suggests that the classical method of frame rotation gives a lot of interesting and wholly original properties but that a relativistic method is needed for orbital shrinking. The shrinking of the HT pulsar was also described in UFT106 in an early paper using a different method. The m function method was developed in papers leading up to UFT192 and could be worked in to UFT414 on which we are working now. The m function method is based on the relativistic metric for the most general spherically symmetric spacetime. So a very large number of strikingly original results have emerged from UFT413, and the shrinkage can be described relativistically in UFT414. Simple rotation of the plane polar coordinates give an amazing array of new results using the important numerical advances made by Horst over the past decade.

Explanation of non-shrinking orbits

I summarized the numerical results in a preliminary version of section 3
of UFT 413. Unfortunately there is no shrinking of orbits. The reason is
that the direction of angular motion can be reversed, leading to a
negative omega. Thus teh constant of motion is conserverd without need
for changes in radius. Obviously we have overlooked this possibility. We
will have to discuss how to proceed with this result. I think that the
numerical solution is reliable.

Horst

paper413-3.pdf

As in previous UFT papers, ECE2 covariance itself produces a spin connection, so this means that the force equation is Eq. (3) of the attached note, which must be solved simultaneously with Eq. (4), the conservation of relativistic angular momentum. The spin connection due to ECE2 covariance is Eq. (8). Using this spin connection the two simultaneous equations to be solved numerically become Eqs. (16) and (17). All this occurs in the usual static frame (r, phi). When this is transformed to (r, phi’) new effects appear, and these will be developed in the next note.

a414thpapernotes7.pdf

414(6): The relativistic orbital equations in the unrotated frame

This is the baseline calculation before proceeding to the (r, phi’) frame and the definition of the spin connection and vacuum force. The two independent equations to be solved simultaneously are equations (1) and (2), the relativistic Leibniz equation and the conservation of relativistic angular momentum. They expand out to Eqs. (44) and (45), simultaneous equations in r and phi, giving the relativistic, ECE2 covariant, orbit. From previous work in the UFT series it is known that they will give a precessing orbit. After completing the baseline computation, the equations are transformed into the frame (r, phi’) where phi’ = phi + omega sub 1 t. This process defines the spin connection and the vacuum force due to frame rotation. Eqs. (44) and (45) can be solved using the integrator program developed by co author Horst Eckardt.

a414thpapernotes6.pdf