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