Alpha Institute for Advanced Studies (AIAS)


-quick links-

ECE Principles
ECE Principles II

-external links-


AIAS Coat of Arms

Home » General statements » Refutation of Bruhn, Hehl and Jadczyk (arXiv 2007)

Refutation of Bruhn, Hehl and Jadczyk (arXiv 2007)


This paper was once more prepared and posted on arXiv entirely without my knowledge, and is easily refuted as follows:

  1. The comments in Sections 2.2 and 2.3 have been refuted already in the widely read paper 89. The meaning of the index a was explained as far back as 1992 (M. W Evans, Physica B, 182, 227 and 237 (1992)). The very essence of ECE theory is to recognize that the electromagnetic field is a vector valued two-form in which a is well defined as a polarization index (see for example the "Omnia Opera" on

  2. The comments about Eq. (30) are again deliberately meant to deceive. As in paper 88 for example the definition of the restricted (torsionless) form of the Bianchi identity is:

    D ^ R = 0

    and this is obviously equivalent to the tensor definition. This is another clear example of deliberate deception at work.

  3. In Section 2.5 another attempt is made to deliberately confuse. The current as a three-form sum is equivalent through Hodge duality to the current as a one form. Any good textbook will show this, and volumes one to three show it in all detail with many self checks and cross checks which these pseudo scientists ignore.

  4. The comments after Eq. (37) are again deliberately false and meant to confuse or obfuscate. The raising and lowering of indices by the metric in general relativity is independent of whether or not the spacetime is flat or curved, e.g. the textbook by Carroll, or are we to be told that that is "all wrong" too?

  5. The negative sign of a spin connection is a legitimate choice, cross checked for example in the appendices of paper 63 .

  6. The resonance calculations in paper 63 are correct, they are made with a novel, simple and legitimate Euler transform method, a change of variable as in simple integration. This change of variable is made self-consistently by Dr Eckardt and myself, and the real and physical part of the resulting complex equation used to show resonances as in the widely read and accepted paper 63 .

    These pseudo-scientists just assert personally that these novel resonance solutions somehow "do not exist", and again are attempting to mislead and obfuscate by trying to give this false impression. I have shown that many such resonance solutions exist. The problem with their Mathematica program is that it does not refer to paper 63 at all, it gives a solution to a different problem set up to knock a straw man over. In other words they define a different problem and proceed to knock it over, then falsely claim an "error" which they themselves set up. This is grossly unethical and has been going on for years. It is an old and familiar trick which has been rejected for years by now by the entire profession as seen in the intense interest in papers 63 and 89 on

This vicious campaign of bile is a serious corruption of science, together with the felonies of aggravated harassment and common assault. It is clear that these people will assault anything that I write, a display of personal animosity having nothing to do with science. I call for a professional disciplinary procedures against these people and for appropriate policing of the web. This is unprofessional conduct irrespective of any scientific argument.

British Civil List Scientist

1 August 2007


� Copyright 2000 - 2020 AIAS
|Contact Us|AIAS License|About us|