Talk:Einstein–Cartan–Evans theory/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Repudiating Hawking

Concerning ECE theory and how, in the view of MWE, it undermines Hawking's achievements: "I tried many times to correspond with Hawking, but he never replied [...] ECE explains why Hawking radiation was never found, it cannot exist, neither can black holes. [Hawking] is unable to counter argue. In my opinion he has no argument." Doubtful, but it is certain that Hawking has no time to spare on ECE theory.137.205.101.185 (talk) 09:48, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Climate-Change Denier

Being such a contrarian in other regards, e.g. anti-Einstein, it is no surprise to find that Evans does not believe in global warming. His approach to this is, moreover, entirely self-serving and involves spreading considerable disinformation. He is particularly outraged by wind-turbines, because they are encroaching on his own personal space. He seeks to prove that they are inefficient however by putting forward a quite ridiculous piece of reasoning. Wind-turbines have a so-called 'cut-in speed', below which they will not start turning of their own accord. Knowing this, he applies his own peculiar logic, "The effective wind speed in the Betws area now is 7 mph, a mean wind speed of 16 mph minus 9 mph needed to start the turbines, so very little power is produced even when a windy front comes in from the Atlantic." [blog entry, 12th June 2017]. The claim that the wind speed is only 7mph, when it is actually breezing through the blades at 16mph is as ludicrous as it is dishonest. He also reports data gleaned from the gridwatch website, but is very careful to choose readings that make wind and solar look bad. What are his solutions to renewable energy supply? He is obsessed with the high tides in the nearby Bristol channel, where a tidal barrage would indeed produce a lot of energy. But the ecological damage would be severe: flooding the Somerset Levels and displacing not only bird populations but also human inhabitants. For some reason, he thinks that tidal lagoons would also be best placed in the Bristol Channel when, in fact, they do not depend on a high tidal rise: having a large surface area is much more important. Displaying a quite comical ignorance of the subject, he has even come up with this suggestion: "The Netherlands are well suited for water turbines because of their already built dykes in which tens of thousands of water turbines could be placed." (blog entry, 16th April 2017). The land behind the dykes is below sea level, and reclaiming that land from the North Sea was one of the greatest engineering feats of the 20th century. Evans is suggesting the undoing of that just for the sake of a one-off burst of energy. But above all, Evans favourite energy idea is 'free energy'. That is, perpetual motion. One source which he cites is low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR). This is the new name for cold-fusion; a concept which was debunked decades ago. A second, and even sillier, idea is supposedly to extract energy from simple electrical oscillators. The latter often fool amateur experimenters into thinking that the output is higher than the input. Evans claims that such circuits are 'extracting energy from spacetime'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:6013:700:910C:5E93:D90C:9F73 (talk) 05:23, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Wouldn't a lot of Dutch people drown in this one-off surge of tidal energy production? Neither a humanitarian nor a physicist, is Myron W. Evans.137.205.101.185 (talk) 09:53, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

MWE lifetime achievement Who's Who

Click here to find out more!137.205.100.47 (talk) 11:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Academic Invitations

Evans allows readers to believe that the invitations to scientific conferences which he receives in his e-mail box are sent because of his supposed eminence. In fact, every academic automatically receives such invitations: they are nothing more than 'up-market' spam. Some years ago, Evans boasted that he (and his biographer Pendergast) had been invited to join the American Chemical Society (ACS). He thought that this was a great honour. The fact was that the invitations were part of an advertising campaign in which existing members would get a Periodic Table blanket if they could persuade two new members to pay ACS fees. Evans is not even a member of the Royal Chemical Society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.195.202 (talk) 22:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Sad, but of a piece with his regularly shelling out 1000 quid of taxpayers' money to purchase mahogany plaques that declare him to be a genius.137.205.101.70 (talk) 12:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Comparisons with Other Research Groups

According to Evans, "AIAS / UPITEC has averaged 1.57 million hits a year for fifteen years (2002 to present). There is a comparative impact table on the home page of www.aias.us which shows that we out impact entire Institutes much bigger in staff numbers. The fair measure of comparison is to measure AIAS / UPITEC against individual research groups of comparable size. (25th April 2017)". It is however NOT a 'fair measure' because Evans is comparing his own unverifiable figures with the publicly visible data shown by the hit-counters on the other sites. Why does Evans refuse to add a hit-counter to his own sites? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.195.202 (talk) 22:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Or better still, a special counter for the number of visitors that were on Crackpotwatch immediately prior to landing on his blog. That would really confront him with his position in the Great Chain of Being...137.205.101.70 (talk) 12:29, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Crackpotwatch has recently given its own figures on that score (6th July). It looks as though the number of surfers going straight from Crackpotwatch to Evans's blog will top 1500 by the end of the year. The figure for last year was 873. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.149.77.204 (talk) 18:14, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

PECE2 is coming!

An updated version of the theory is in the works, so the material on the main page may need some reworking. What follows is Eckardt and Evans in conclave: "My own sections are still missing. Did you hear anything from Steve Crothers?" -"Minor errors: Eq. (4.6) capital Z dot on right hand side. I have a a telephone number for Steve Crothers which I will forward in confidence. I think that he is working on his part now." [C just posted a piece on viXra to argue that there is something wrong with the interval invariant in general relativity.] -"I do not find a Z in eq.(4.6). Did you mean a different equation? Others may have needed half a life to obtain results we got in two months." -"Agreed, a different equation. Which equation refers to (4.6) in this context? [this from the one who spotted the mistake]. You have honed the art of computer algebra to perfection. You cannot play a quartet without many musicians." [Does 4 count as "many"?] 137.205.101.185 (talk) 15:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Sometime later Eckardt uses his skills of computer algebra to solve a scalar linear first-order ordinary differential equation. These are not exactly the most savage beasts of the mathematical world, but apparently this is worthy of discussion between E & E. And why should two well-meaning amateurs not be taking baby steps in their mathematical education? Why not indeed! But what they should not be doing is telling Royal Societies and Blairites (Education! Education! Education! Hah!) that they are the creme de la creme of relativistic field theory.137.205.101.185 (talk) 10:28, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

It is now available! The Crothers contribution is missing, but the rest seems to be there: PECE2 book 137.205.101.22 (talk) 14:20, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Crothers: "ECE Theory is completely irrelevant to my work on Relativity" so one wonders why Evans and Eckardt are chasing after their "colleague". Even so, Crothers's work on relativity is entirely relevant to ECE theory - he should disavow the latter if he really subscribed to the former. 137.205.100.173 (talk) 06:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Multiple Nobel Prizes?

" I worked at the University of Zurich and at ETH from 1990 to 1991 with Georges Wagniere and coordinated with ETH on the IBM 3090-6S supercomputer at ETH. I lectured to the Ernst group on optical NMR, and was told by Ernst that my work on optical NMR at IBM Kingston and the Cornell Theory Center deserved a Nobel Prize. I have heard this many times over many years, but I am an unconventional and original thinker, like Einstein, so the caution of the Royal Swedish Academy prevents it from going against the dogmatic masses. Shortly after returning to Cornell in the fall of 1991 I inferred the B(3) field, working at home like Einstein, and heard that Ernst had been awarded a Nobel Prize for Fourier transform NMR. I was tipped off by Warren at Princeton that this was going to happen. For some mysterious reason, Wes Anderson was not given a Nobel Prize, although Ernst and Anderson shared the Wolf Prize. So these prizes are arbitrary, as is well known to professionals. My friend and co author Jean Pierre Vigier was invited to work with Einstein at the Institute in Princeton but was refused a visa in the McCarthyist era. Vigier accepted B(3) immediately and if he was a nominator would have nominated me for a Nobel Prize. So would my Ph. D. Mansel Davies and many others. This is a simple matter of fact [...] Neither dark matter nor strange matter exists (the theories are riddled with errors), so the recent Nobel Prize for strange matter is meaningless. The Higgs boson is also meaningless, so is big bang, black holes and so on."

These are Evans' own words. Make of them what you will.88.111.238.94 (talk) 10:54, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Or actually, make of them what you will but be careful of stating your opinion, since as of October 22 2016, Evans threatens to sue anyone who would question his mental health. He says he has recently had his mental health checked out, and is now certifiably not insane. Which makes the above much worse...137.205.100.252 (talk) 09:54, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Jan 14 2017 MWE blog: "If Jean-Pierre_Vigier was ever a Nobel Prize nominator, he would certainly have nominated me because he realized immediately that B(3) and the inverse Faraday effect mean finite photon mass."88.111.238.94 (talk) 16:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Feb 1 2017 MWE blog "Under the malicious communications act of 1988 in England and Wales it is a criminal offence to post a message that is grossly offensive, contains threats such as death threats, and which contains false allegations such as allegations of mental illness that have been proven by medial [sic] opinion to be false." Feb 7 "The existence of death threats means that every member of ["crackpotwatch"] is an accessory to death threats. The blog is wildly defamatory and pejorative, and saturated with malicious misrepresentation, hate crime, and threats." 137.205.101.77 (talk) 17:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
What's with these death threats, by the way? Both Crothers and Evans have repeatedly claimed to receive loads of them, but there never seems to be any evidence. Do they regard them as some sort of badge of honour, or an implicit admission of the revolutionary potential of their work?137.205.101.77 (talk) 16:04, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, here we have it: "(1)“We look forward to the day when shooting crackpots at will is excused.” (2) “a .45 would have been very comforting… A word of advice, Alex: no point in having an impressive fence at the front if the fence at the back is weak. You really should replace that bent fence-post; an old mattress and, ole, any peon could have it away with your bug or pickup”" These seem rather to be, respectively, an off the cuff remark, and a jocular rant about a rough neighbourhood. Alex is apparently a purveyor of free energy/perpetuum mobile/anti-gravity devices.137.205.101.77 (talk) 07:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
MWE: "I am very interested in the ability of [some software package] to solve simultaneous differential equations." It is truly, truly bizarre for a person who claims to have bettered Einstein and deserve multiple Nobels to blithely express admiring interest in a very basic tool (and, as far as numerical evaluation of Hamiltonian dynamical systems goes, not even the most suitable one; but I cavil). Basically, this is like proclaiming yourself to be the world's best ever concert pianist and then being bowled over when your mate plays chopsticks.137.205.101.77 (talk) 09:56, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

On the issue of mental health, MWE is not above pocketing a disability allowance because of permanent brain damage. In his own words: "The Government supplied me with a permanent grade three disability allowance for MSD, because it considers that it can never be completely cured because of permanent damage to the hippocampus. I am advised medically not to travel too far. [...] The disability allowance is about £900 pounds a year, £250 pounds a year fuel allowance, and a £10 Christmas bonus."137.205.101.59 (talk) 08:38, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

As of August 2017, Evans no longer appears to be interested in Nobel Prizes: "Prizes such as the Nobel Prize and Wolf Prize have been made obsolete by ECE theory because they are dogmatically reserved for the standard model." He goes on to give various examples of recent Nobel Prizes in Physics which in his opinion have been awarded for achievements that have been rendered null and void by the ECE theory.137.205.101.22 (talk) 14:17, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Evans: "These advances [i.e. the ECE theory] should bring a Nobel Prize but the British Governemnt [sic] has already recognized ECE theory in a manner equivalent to a Nobel Prize [presumably: the Civil List Pension]. Who woudl [sic] try to deny that Dalton, Joule, Faraday and Heaviside were not great chemical physicists? In all modesty but I am forced to blow my own trumpet." Blow away, Myron, toot to your heart's delight!137.205.100.173 (talk) 15:11, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Talk by Horst Eckardt

Talk on ECE137.205.100.173 (talk) 13:20, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

MWE recipient of Albert Nelson Marquis Lifetime Achievement Award

MWE frequently discusses his consideration in Marquis's Who's Who. "I was awarded the Plaque of the Albert Nelson Marquis Lifetime Achievement Award without paying a penny, and I was not asked to. I mention this because there are the usual sour and envious comments from Wikipedia about Marquis." Well, they do make their money selling these tacky trinkets, but perhaps MWE did receive a one-off freebie, after all he's been a loyal (and paying!) customer: "I would like to consider purchasing some more large sized mahogany plaques. Currently I have 1) Flagship edition, America, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 2) World 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005. 3) Science and Engineering, 2000-2001, 2002-2003, 2003-2004." So he does generally pay for these things. Happy with his purchases: "These are nice wall plaques from “Who’s Who”. I have about twenty of them here, entitled to about twenty more." But unhappy with the price: "The cost is too great at about $150. They would also charge $80 for shipping." Fortunately, Maquis offers several programs to suit every purse. One might go all-out on the "Full Legacy Program: Press Release with Distribution, Marquis Online Registry Access with Username/Password, Expanded Biography & Large 70th edition Plaque: $989" Yes, that's a cool grand. Who would pay that kind of money? Myron Evans would: "Many thanks, I will be able to raise the finances for the complete program ($989) in about ten days so please go ahead and bill me at your convenience. This looks like an excellent idea all round. I have many mahogany plaques from Marquis and they all look elegant and well crafted." Coincidentally, this is about the same amount of money the tax payer shells out yearly to support MWE in his brain damage. 137.205.101.185 (talk) 16:59, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

And let us not forget "To be precise I get £2,400 a year Civil List Pension" from a person who claims "[T]he black hole theory is based on Einsteinian general relativity, which has been refuted in eighty three ways in the UFT series to the satisfaction of millions of top class scientists over fifteen years, and independently and brilliantly, by the eminent scholar Stephen Crothers in many more ways. The ephemeral and invisible politburo of physics uses its captive media to distribute meaningless dogma and it should no longer be funded by taxpayers." Well, who could disagree, meaningless dogma should certainly not be funded by taxpayers, not even to the tune of a modest pension worth 2,400 a year.137.205.101.185 (talk) 11:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
The "eminent" sexagenarian scholar Crothers has in recent papers (vixra) repudiated the fundamental principles of relativity. Since ECE is relativity plus torsion, this should put him at odds with Evans. However, consistency is certainly not the hobgoblin of the deranged mind.137.205.101.185 (talk) 09:55, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
The pension is obviously an honorary stipend and not intended to serve as the main channel of the recipient's income. Nevertheless, Evans frequently compares the sum of £2,400 a year to the salaries of academics he deems less deserving, for instance in the following: "[Former Aberystwyth Vice Chancellor] April McMahon received a great deal of money from the tax payer, but several petitions were signed for her resignation. [...] I tried to find out how she was appointed, but the College refused to give any information to the freedom of information Commissioner. [...] McMahon’s h index is 22, just enough for a full professor. Mine is 42 [actually 27, according to Scopus] [...] McMahon received a pay rise of £13,000 in her first year, and a pay off of £102,489 amid many calls and petitions for resignation. [...] My Civil List Pension is £2,400 a year and I am a triple world record holder. A Vice Chancellor’s salary is £200,000 a year and achievements on behalf of Wales are sometimes difficult to find with an electron microscope." Even a broken clock is right twice a day, and it does seem difficult to find arguments in defense of McMahon. She landed on her feet though and now has a plum job at one of the most corrupt universities in the UK. 137.205.101.55 (talk) 07:02, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

ECE theory central to Evans's largely undetected activities as Chief Scientific Adviser to the Welsh Assembly

MWE had this to say on his role as Chief Scientific Adviser to the Welsh Assembly: "The main aim is to use new science to create jobs in a manner that is friendly to the beautiful environment here in Wales. In order to do this, fundamental science must be encouraged. At present the work of AIAS is the most successful sceince [sic] in Wales, we can see these from the intense worldwide interest in out [sic] work. This is an example of fundamental and applied science working together: in new energy, counter gravitation and fermion spectroscopies without magnets. These are all areas that can be developed inside Wales through the Welsh Development Agency’s laboratories. The way in which physics is administered has been changed by the work of AIAS, which speedily makes its papers available to the experts worldwide. Their response is overwhelmingly positive, as can be seen from the three feedback sites on the http://www.aias.us homepage. These show the nature and quality of interest in great detail. It is overwhelmingly European. Therefore our work is assessed by what is termed “actual peer usage” – the Einstein Cartan Evans (ECE) field theory is already being studied and used worldwide. This is an example of what science in Wales can do. At present there is an over-emphasis in physics departments within Wales on string theory. The latter has been made obsolete by ECE theory and should no longer be funded. So my advice to the Assembly is to fund work on new forms of energy, work of the type that is being pursued at AIAS for example, and also in other parts of Wales by other scientists, and also to fund work of practical importance that has emerged from ECE theory, notably the development of [radiatively induced fermion resonance] as discussed on http://www.aias.us."

The Welsh government has no recollection of Evans's involvement, though: "The website of the Welsh Government and its predecessor bodies does not mention Dr. Myron Evans as Chief Scientific Adviser (CSA) as he has never held or been appointed to such a role or any other position with the National Assembly for Wales, the Welsh Assembly Government or Welsh Government, either paid or unpaid. Professor John Harries, from Imperial College, London was the first formal Chief Scientific Adviser for Wales, appointed in 2010. He was succeeded during 2013 by Professor Julie Williams, of Cardiff University, who completed her appointment last month. Professor Christopher Pollock, former Head of the Institute for Grassland and Environment Research, Aberystwyth (IGER) and of Aberystwyth University was given the CSA for Wales title by the then First Minister from 2008-9, while he worked to scope the need for and role of a Chief Scientific Adviser for Wales. He was not formally undertaking the role. If there has been an assertion by any party that Dr. Evans undertakes, or has undertaken, such a CSA role in Wales, from a Welsh Government perspective I can confirm he has not." 137.205.101.55 (talk) 16:31, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

ECE theory and gravitational waves

The 2017 Nobel Prize for Physics was awarded for the detection of gravitational waves. MWE appears to acknowledge that these exist, but claims that they are fully explained by "non-relativistic Newtonian theory" --- MWE (October 5, 2017): "Some Vulgar and Convincing Argument about Gravitatiomnal [sic] Radiation. Gravitational radiation from the Einstein field equation is based on the Hulse Taylor binary pulsar, whose decrease in orbit is attributed to radiation claimed to come from a particular type of nonlinear solution. However, [a paper by MWE] has shown that in a torsionless theory, curvature also disappears, and that alone is enough to refute both Einstein and the Nobel Prize. [...] [Another paper by MWE] shows that torsion completely changes the basics of the Einstein theory and makes a vulgarity out of it. Today it has been shown that gravitational radiation is produced by the non relativistic Newtonian theory. There is a huge scar on the Einstein theory in the shape of the velocity curve of a whirlpool galaxy. So claims to precision are pointless, and the Nobel Prize has been given in error." "Gravitational radiation also exists in ECE2, its characteristics are completely different to EGR radiation." 137.205.101.55 (talk) 07:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

S. J. Crothers, an associate of MWE and co-author of the two-volume "Principles of ECE" states: "LIGO did not detect Einstein gravitational waves or black holes. Black holes and Einstein's gravitational waves do not exist; they are not even consistent with General Relativity. The LIGO instability has been interpreted as gravitational waves produced by two merging black holes by a combination of theoretical fallacies, wishful thinking, and conformational bias. Black holes are products entire of violations of the rules of pure mathematics." Crothers seems to regard his arguments as independent of the validity of ECE theory: "ECE Theory is completely irrelevant to my work on Relativity." 137.205.101.55 (talk) 07:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

MWE clarifies on October 7, 2017: "Have Gravitational Waves been Detected? I refer the readership to the severe criticisms by Stephen Crothers and several others, criticisms of the experimental design and questions about whether the claim is repeatable. It is certainly not reproducible because there is no other laboratory which can test it. So the claim is non Baconian and therefore unscientific. " "Baconian" is MWE talk for proper science, an apparent reference to Francis Bacon (the 1st Viscount St Alban, not the artist). So in sum: he rejects the detections, but if these waves exist, they are fully explained by non-relativistic Newtonian theory. 88.111.224.129 (talk) 15:38, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
MWE (October 13, 2017):"This Year’s Nobel Prize is Completely Obsolete [...] The Nobel Prize had to be given irrespective of physics, because funding depends on it. The same was true of the Nobel prize for the Higgs boson." 137.205.101.55 (talk) 11:50, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Reinstate Myron Evans page

Why is anything concerning this crackpot still on Wiki? It is this naievely open-minded attitude which undermines respect for Wiki as an information-source. Would a traditional encyclopedia waste paper and ink in this way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.33.93 (talk) 14:47, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Myron Evans objects to the term "crackpot". He states (blog, Jan 7 2017) "This has been found to be grossly defamatory by an internet specialist solicitor, Davies Cohen. I call for a Parliamentary and Congressional investigation into this article [...]. Its publication is a criminal offence under the laws against trolling, carrying up to two years in prison. It is also a tort, defamation, in that I am publicly described as a “crackpot”. " Blog Jan 11 2017: "If defamed colleagues in the U. S. wish to sue wikipedia for punitive damages [...] I am a U. S. dual citizen. " Of interest therefore is a similar case brought in the USA against Underwood_Dudley, in which legal scholar Richard_Posner ruled as follows: "A crank is a person inexplicably obsessed by an obviously unsound idea — a person with a bee in his bonnet. To call a person a crank is to say that because of some quirk of temperament he is wasting his time pursuing a line of thought that is plainly without merit or promise. ... To call a person a crank is basically just a colorful and insulting way of expressing disagreement with his master idea, and it therefore belongs to the language of controversy rather than to the language of defamation." Two points appear to be worth noticing: first, the laudably precise language of the definition, which would appear to support the application of the label crank/crackpot (which I take to be interchangeable) to MWE and second the legal argument, which tells us where we stand in the American situation and perhaps furnishes an indication of how a British judge might rule.137.205.101.122 (talk) 15:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Another thought on defamation: the interested observer might want to go to the AIAS site and dip into the autobiography of MWE choosing a page at will. Interesting, huh? What is good for the goose...137.205.101.77 (talk) 17:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


Either the Evans page should be reinstated, or all other pages devoted to pseudoscientists (e.g. Stefan Marinov) should be deleted. Why should one particular anti-Einstein crackpot be left alone simply because (one assumes) he is quick to threaten litigation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.198.46 (talk) 20:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

For reference:
I wanted to make a section covering the biography of Myron in a brief way. Unfortunately, I can't find post-2008 independent third-party sources. I could only find:
I can't find coverage for:
--Enric Naval (talk) 12:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Is there any evidence that he is an "Armiger"? Or is this one of these things anyone can proclaim themselves to be? Evans certainly is not shy about this himself: "As Armiger I have made yet another urgent request to Swansea County Council [...] to spend millions of pounds on [...] Mawr, in which I am the only resident Armiger. [...] As Armiger I fought [...] wind turbines [...] put up by the other non resident Armiger. [...] Myron Evans, Armiger" He explains: "an Armiger with the rank of Gentleman, earned on merit, in our times that is co equal with Knight or Baron." But let it not be thought that he is big-headed: "I almost never stand on ceremony." 137.205.100.157 (talk) 10:38, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Evans claims that he is in "Burke's" but their website it not easy to navigate. Evans also claims that to question his gentlemanhood is somehow a criminal offence: "The award of arms is to persons deemed to be eminent. I am an Uchelwr in the ancient British system, being descended from the Princes [...] so I am automatically a member of the Gentry. William Bortrick included me in “Burke’s Peerage and Gentry” on descent [...] An Armiger is a person who has been awarded a coat of arms by the College of Arms after due process, a petition to the Earl Marshall, Duke of Norfolk, and assessment of merit, in my case a Civil List Pension [...]. To refuse to recognize the award of arms is still a civil offence under the law of arms." However, Evans does not produce copies of convincing supporting documentation.137.205.101.122 (talk) 08:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Presumably that's from his website here. Doug Weller talk 13:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Correct, these statements are all taken from his blog. In his view the status of gentleman and award of arms are co-extensive, but as far as I know this has no basis in British law. The genealogical documents on his blog are handwritten, by Evans himself (since he's never mastered LaTeX, all his equations in his papers are handwritten, and so we can recognize his hand in the genealogical "proofs" he supplies). The document "A Royal Decree" on the AIAS website is a poorly spelled royal declaration, allegedly signed by ERII, but it refers to an addendum for the actual names of the recipients of the pension, and this is not there. In other words, Evans's name does not appear on the document he posts on the AIAS website.137.205.101.122 (talk) 09:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Statement by MWE, 18 Jan 2017: "The award of the Civil List Pension was mainly due to a long and eloquent statement of support by Prof. Emeritus Alwyn van de [sic] Merwe, of the University of Denver, the famous avant garde editor of physics. The letters by Prof. Dr. Bo Lehnert of KTH, a Royal Swedish Academician able to nominate for a Nobel Prize, and the late Prof. John B. Hart of Xavier University Ohio were also a great help. The nominators were the Royal Society of Chemistry and probably also the Royal Society. A nomination for a Civil List Pensioner must come from a Royal Society of some kind. The papers were sent in error initially from the President of the RSC to Rt. Hon. Gordon Brown, M.P., the then Chancellor, who forwarded them to the First Lord of the Treasury, the Prime Minister, Rt. Hon. Tony Blair M.P. who recommended me to the Head of State, Elizabeth II, for appointment on February 29th., 2005*. The Queen probably read the papers and made the final decision, her prerogative on ministerial advice."137.205.101.122 (talk) 09:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • *A date which never existed!
"My Civil List Pension is £2,400 pounds a year."137.205.101.59 (talk) 08:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
"It is a bit difficult to live on £2,400 a year [...] I will ask cousin Elizabeth [he means ERII] for a small pay increase from £2,400 to £240,000 a year, plus a private castle." 88.111.224.129 (talk) 08:55, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Van der Merwe was removed from his post, as editor of Foundations of Physics Letters, because he permitted the publication of papers on the subject of perpetual motion; specifically the 'Motionless Electromagnetic Generator'. The papers were written by Evans and his group, and the inventor (a notorious crackpot) of the device in question was also once a member of Evans' group. This whole affair looks like a case of collusion between pseudoscientific academics, and of incompetence at one or more royal societies. When the affair reached the hands of 'physics-challenged' public officials, it took on a life of its own. An increasing number of academics agree that it is a serious administrative error that should be rectified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.199.228 (talk) 19:03, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Myron W. Evans - coprophagia?

Or possibly emetophagia. MWE blog October 21, 2017: "I lived on second hand chips and peas." 88.111.224.129 (talk) 15:58, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Reception

It should be noted that the POV expressed under the heading of "Reception" is at odds with that of Evans and his cohorts, who write things such as "You are exceptional Myron. Only once in many generations does someone like you come along. The rest are just the pick of a similar bunch, sometimes with the right contacts or just ibeing in the right place at the right time. The comparisons you make below show how fortune some are and how desperately unlucky others are. It should not happen in a system based on merit but manyl of these people would have given up their privelege to have had a slice of your genius. You were touched by the hand of “god” as they say and some of us have been fortunate to know you. For me that has been life changing and reward in itself. The science you have produced is always original and exciting. I still get a buzz forty years on witnessing your remarkable abilities. You rank with the all time great minds of science and will be remembered as such. That is what matters when all else is buried in the past."88.111.224.129 (talk) 10:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

The following is representative of claims regularly made by Myron Evans: "There was the usual intense worldwide interest, which has been steady at a very high level since about 2005, indicating complete international acceptance of the ECE and ECE2 paradigm shifts. There were visits from fourteen of the world’s top twenty universities [...] There is a clear pattern over about twelve years of study visits by staff and students from the world’s top twenty [...] So there is a vast total readership as is well known. This means that the standard physics is thoroughly obsolete." In other words, he is counting downloads. Now, a researcher at, say, JPL, may be saying "finally, a valid method to calculate orbits" or she may be saying "is this guy for real?" either reaction prompts a download --- so these do not necessarily signify approval or acceptance. Apparently Evans' reasoning is something like the following: the guys on the ground, doing the actual work, recognize and experience the superiority of my theory on a daily basis. They are forbidden by their bosses (the reigning elite) to mention this out loud or cite my work in the official literature, which is controlled by that selfsame elite. So they are quietly adopting my superior ECE theory, and the only visible sign of this is the frequency of downloads. One may take issue with the manner in which Evans is counting, but no matter: the downloads but no citations facts of the matter are consistent with, but no proof of, a paradigm shifting under our very feet. The problem for Evans is one of time scale. After all, the better theory should manifest itself at some point in the form of superior technology, and the young ones will become the reigning elite at some point in time (in keeping with the classic paradigm shift scenario). A 20 to 30 year time span, counting from where the theory first hit the scene would appear to be reasonable; so time is running out for the vindication Evans seems to crave so badly.137.205.100.69 (talk) 13:17, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

The blog seems to suggest that ECE and ECE2 theory justify/describe/clear the way for devices that extract energy from the ...vacuum? ...spacetime fluid continuum? One has to be careful when even the choice of words is contentious. But there is definitely talk of over-unity devices and of countergravity devices. The status of working prototypes is debatable; are Evans and his AIAS fellows heating their dwellings for free? Are they commuting by free-floating gyroscope cars?137.205.101.122 (talk) 10:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Evans, February 2017: "ECE theory is based directly on Cartan gemetry [sic], which is why it has been overwhelmingly accepted internationally by all the best universities, institutes and similar in the world. Wikipedia on ECE is a failed troll site set up by a few people like Bruhn whose only aim in life was destruction – a low point in the history of science [...] They attacked Cartan geometry because I used it in an imaginative way. Nothing as stupid as this has ever happened in science." 137.205.101.77 (talk) 08:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Evans, June 2017: "Our papers have been refereed and checked hundreds of thousands of times by a vast and permanent readership coming from the best universities, institutes, corporations, military facilities and similar in the world." Mere downloading does not equate to refereeing, nor does it equate to checking, or endorsement, for that matter. Refereeing is a process that involves a report, often with suggested emendations, plus advice on the suitability for publication on a given platform. Evans knows this full well, since he used to publish via this conventional route when his mental problems were still confined to excessive orneriness. Evans is yet to produce a single referee's report regarding any of his web-page based "UTF" papers. Peers have of course amply refuted and rejected Evans' theories via counter-papers, which is legitimate but a distinct mechanism from the peer-review which he is falsely claiming to have undergone here. Incidentally, Evans does not even require referees' reports on the UTF series since he is effectively his own editor-in-chief. Similarly, the only recorded checking of Evans' work by non-members of his organisation can be found in the counter-papers and a smattering of websites maintained by "smh" academics. There is no indication that these downloaders (whose numbers Evans is probably vastly overstating) do any checking or verification. I have spoken to a few of them, and the appraisal ranges from "clumsy misguided amateurism" to "seriously deluded." "Checking" Evans' work would be tantamount to giving him an entire maths education from the ground up, and we have neither time nor inclination, especially in view of the fact that his attitude to anything other than adulation is downright Trumpian.137.205.101.70 (talk) 12:21, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Evans denounces the poor reception (i.e. ear-deafening silence) by a "small clique of obsolete dogmatists that strives to hang on to power, prizes, and highly-paid jobs paid for by debt-laden students, parents, and the tax payer", thus: "There is no sense in trying to ignore a computer, especially one used in a highly skilled way by Horst. There is no sense in trying to ignore nearly four hundred papers and books." --- but there is every sense in it when Horst is a deranged amateur, and the papers and books were written by same. 137.205.101.55 (talk) 14:37, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Impact of ECE theory

As noted above, Evans's blog has on many occasions claimed downloads from the AIAS website as evidence of widespread acceptance. In addition, Evans harps on the h-index, both of himself and his detractors. Evans stated that his h-index is 42 (blog, April 4 2017). Scopus gives Evans's career h-index as 27, or 15 if self citation is ignored. Over the past 10 years, the period relevant to ECE theory, it is 1.137.205.101.126 (talk) 09:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

A representative claim by Evans regarding impact: "...our x factor ranges from 7,041 to 48,805 for July 2017. This cans all universities and other institutes of advanced study out of sight, reflecting our hard work and productivity, and the quality of our work, sustained since 2002. The second to us is M. I. T." I could not work out what he means by x factor. However, it is entirely fair to wonder why an institute that leaves MIT in the dust spends so much time out of the media spotlight, out of high impact journals (and their editorial commentary), and just generally out of sight. Evans darkly hints at dogmatist conspiracies. 137.205.100.173 (talk) 08:01, 8 August 2017 (UTC). It is just a reversal of the old saying, giving: "out of their minds ... out of sight".

Evans: "I spend about four hours every day from about 4.00 a.m. to about 8.00 a.m building up the scientometrics." Four hours every day spent on recording internet noise! 137.205.101.55 (talk) 12:59, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Maxwell-Einstein University - ostensibly founded to promote ECE theory?

And if MEU was meant to foster widespread use and understanding of ECE theory, should it not receive some attention on the main page? Plans were quite advanced: "The professor of astronomy is Kerry Pendergast, and it is planned that he be situated in the Science Park at Aberystwyth with south facing telescopes. He will also have access to the world’s major telescopes from there. I plan myself to occasionally visit Aberystwyth." I don't know what became of it - perhaps it was the split infinitives.137.205.100.47 (talk) 15:04, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

It was 'strangled at birth' by the Welsh Assembly as the concept was entirely contrary to UK laws pertaining to the awarding of academic degrees. In any case, Evans had fallen out with 'Professor' Fucilla, who was to have funded the enterprise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.88.43 (talk) 16:18, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

This must be Fucilla of the "Telesio-Galilei Academy of Science." He awarded MWE a medal in 2008, and the German sidekick got a medal in 2009. Here he is, explaining ECE theory. I gather Fucilla also funded this hilarious documentary film about MWE. It was on youtube or dailymotion for a while but now I cannot find it any longer.137.205.100.47 (talk) 15:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC). You can bet that Crackpotwatch has a copy.

The name of the stillborn university is shrouded in mystery. On 25 Feb 2008 is was "Myron Evans University": "1) I am delighted that Prof. Gari Owen has joined the faculty of the Myron Evans University as professor of chemical physics. I am able to receive e mail from him but there seems to be an obscure bug that prevents him receiving e mail from me, but he is following events on the _www.aias.us_ (http://www.aias.us) blog and he is easily reached by telephone. 2) All initial faculty and staff have been appointed. It was essentially a matter of transferring the best and most active AIAS staff, some of whom have been with AIAS since inception a decade ago. 3) The University will now be advertised worldwide, and after contractual arrangements have been finalized, staff will begin recruiting prospective Ph. D. students and post doctorals [sic]. It is clear that we will soon have sufficient student applications, which can be sent to individual faculty for assessemnt [sic]." However, on 3 Sep 2009 it had changed to Maxwell Einstein: "The Maxwell Einstein University (MEU) has applied for and is awaiting accreditation, and until accreditation is received cannot formally accept applications from prospective students, but will note the interest of each applicant on file."— Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.100.45 (talk) 14:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

This gentleman was to have been the Vice-Rector: Diego Rapoport; delightfully enough, there appears to be a Smarandache connection! Among crackpots, the principle of Six Degrees of Smarandache seems to hold true as an empirical matter.137.205.100.45 (talk) 14:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

In 2017 Evans appeared to be keen to lead an already established university: "I am available for invitation to the post of a University Chancellor or Vice Chancellor in Wales as a fluent Welsh speaker and Wales’ foremost scientist at present (attached CV). This salary would be in the region of £500,000 pounds a year, the norm for the world’s most productive physicist." Any takers?137.205.101.55 (talk) 07:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

He changed his focus to become chancellor of The University of Wales. "So as Chancellor I would like to see AIAS / UPITEC become the science faculty of the University of Wales, run by a fluent first language Welsh speaker with a network of eminent international scientists." AIAS / UPITEC is the circle of friends (and their web sites) that has been built around ECE theory. It would seem then that The University of Wales would be a platform for Evans' alternative fringe theory, much like Myron-Evans University was to have been earlier.88.111.224.129 (talk) 15:56, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
MWE is not impressed with Bangor Vice Chancellor John Hughes: "I can find only twelve papers by John Hughes [...] giving an h index of twelve [...] an Ulsterman with no knowledge of Welsh [...] heavily criticised in the media for lavish expenses [...] how and why such a low performing monoglot was appointed [...] these parasitic, imported “Vice Chancellors” [...] I will ask [...] for a pay rise [...] to £240,000 a year [...] I should be getting about £5.0 million a year." The latter figure is up 10 times from the demands he made earlier this month. 137.205.101.55 (talk) 16:18, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

ECE TECHNOLOGIES LTD

ECE TECHNOLOGIES was meant to use ECE theory to develop "energy from space-time" technologies. Evans stated that "its Venture Partner [was] ET3M." As per October 2017, the latter's energy-generating circuits are only available in Mexico. "Now, in 2017, our technology to extract energy from spacetime is the only source of energy available 24 hours per day which does not generate emissions or effluents, does not depend upon the Sun or the wind, and is completely silent." ET3M claims that their free-energy circuits are based on ECE theory here. The filing history of ECE-Tech rather speaks for itself.137.205.101.55 (talk) 10:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

"There is no reasonable doubt that the vacuum (or aether or spacetime) contains a source of inexhaustible, safe and clean energy. This source can be used in patented and replicated circuits such as those of UFT311, UFT364, UFT382, and UFT383." Doesn't the last vestige of the benefit of the doubt that Evans might be accorded rather evaporate with such claims?137.205.238.19 (talk) 10:30, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Levitating gyroscope in ECE theory; claims for counter-gravitation arising from "spacetime fluid dynamics"

MWE blog January 21, 2017: "The complete solution is given in Eqs. (33) to (35) in terms of Euler angles. The first two equations are given by Marion and Thornton Section (10.10) but the third equation is completely new, and is based on UFT270. The dynamics can be graphed and animated in terms of the three Euler angles. The point of the gyro is the origin both of (X, Y, Z) and (1, 2, 3) and it never elevates simply because of F = mg. It can be elevated however by an applied force or by the ECE2 fluid force."137.205.101.77 (talk) 10:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

The so-called ECE2 theory enjoys no independent verification, and therefore cannot be used as an explanation for phenomena; especially when 'gyroscopic levitation' is well-known to be an old wives' tale. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.199.228 (talk) 18:48, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Of course, but the self-appointed wiki police removes entries if you state such things. Better to use direct quotes from MWE to let him incriminate himself. As here: he states that a force arises from the "ECE2 fluid" that allows a gyroscope to levitate. I feel it is important that potential marks of any scam AIAS might be preparing can find the relevant info here, and see plain as day that they are dealing with a con man.137.205.101.77 (talk) 08:37, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
It's strange, because in the end the AIAS team did not, as far as I can tell, derive the counter-gravitational ECE2 fluid force from their space-time equations. Eckardt in "paper 368 The analytical mechanics of the gyroscope in ECE2 theory" writes "Assuming that the gravitational force is counteracted by a force of motion as in Laithwaite's experiment, we replace the mass m in the potential energy term (17) by a difference of effective masses." Thus a new parameter m1 with the dimensions of a mass is introduced and this is subtracted from the actual mass m. This is all very well but it does not do what it says on the tin, which was to derive the effect/force/diminution of g or of m etc. from the Evans-extended Einstein-Cartan theory. You would have thought Evans would point this out to Eckardt, but instead he praises the work and the novelty of solving a system of ODEs simultaneously (it is not novel, and even so it would appear that Eckardt is still to hear about symplectic integrators). Evans goes on to state (on his blog): "A balancing upward force modelled by m = m1 allows the gyro to float, so if held above the lab bench it would feel weightless. This is the observation by Laithwaite, who was perfectly right. This effect can be used for heavy engineering, for example to reduce drag in railway systems." But this does not tell the railway engineers how to ensure that this term m1 makes itself felt. In other words, we are never told what needs to be done to or with spacetime to elicit the m1=m effect, and thus even if ECE2 theory were truly a novel and correct extension of general relativity, the essential work of showing how that theory explains/justifies/describes the effect has simply not been done. What has been done is the introduction, by fiat, of the parameter m1. It's astonishingly blatant circular reasoning: let the gyroscope float; then it floats. 137.205.101.77 (talk) 08:24, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

On Feb 13 2017, the thinking of MWE on levitating gyroscopes has evolved to some semblance of normality albeit not as resounding as might be desired: "The conclusion of the gyroscope calculations is that conventional gyroscope theory can explain the apparent loss of weight, and there is no violation of conservation of energy and momentum." Feb 15 2017: "Laithwaite was inexperienced in gyroscope theory [...] but his experimental results were fine" This appears to admit that there is no real loss of weight; but there is still no acknowledgement that Laithwaite's claims rested essentially on a sleight of hand, and that in truth there is not even an apparent loss of weight. Furthermore, MWE laudably admits that conventional physics suffices, and ECE/ECE2 does not need to be invoked. Still, what happened to the "ECE2 fluid force"? Is this now tacitly admitted not to exist? Is it a mysterious ghost force, that sometimes attaches itself to bodies in space, and at other times refuses to do so? Also, in connection with the "energy from spacetime" claims of the AIAS group, the remark on no violation of conservation is somewhat alarming; is the intimation that any such violation would be where ECE theory would be called upon to step into the breach?137.205.101.77 (talk) 16:10, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Clear evidence that the AIAS/ECE group believes in these phenomena and the role of their theory in explaining/exploiting them: Eckardt (27/11/2017): "We have shown a prototype of a gyro which produces a lifting force under enforced precession [...] lifting of a “falling” gyro comes out from the classical Lagrange calculation [...] no linear momentum is conserved by a driven gyro [...] I will write up the theoretical results in a paper and today started with catching up with [UFT] paper 393."137.205.100.161 (talk) 09:32, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Eckardt (28/11/2017): "The latest work on gyros is the same Lagrangian theory as we used in the UFT papers. [...] For the lifting gyro the nutation angle is kept constant by construction so that the force in Z direction is transferred to the apparatus. This is the reason for lifting. There are indeed two “phases” of motion depending on conditions. If the gyro rotates too slowly, precession stops and it falls down in free fall."137.205.100.161 (talk) 13:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

MWE replies (same day): "Excellent work, I think that this solves the Laithwaite problem very clearly and is significant progress."137.205.100.161 (talk) 13:13, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

MZ theory

In late 2017, Evans introduced the MZ theory. This stands for "Macroscopic Zitterbewegung" being a "new vacuum interaction theory of all physics" which grew out of MWE's work on "shivering dipoles" and it all fits within the ECE2 framework, as per the following description by MWE, as he presents his "...MZ field equations of electrostatics and magnetostatics and also the complete MZ equations of electrodynamics. Similar equations exist for gravitation and fluid dynamics, following the rules of ECE2 triple unification of these subject areas." The scope of MZ theory can be gauged from the hitherto established physics it is set to replace (MWE): "Higgs boson theory collapses completely [...] refutes the Heisenberg indeterminacy completely. Einsteinian general relativity has been refuted [...] Some parts of the old physics are still good, notably astronomy and the better experimental parts" MWE's theory on the vacuum (which to him is a near-synonym of aether or space-time) is likely to be connected to his involvement with so-called "free" or "zero-point" etc energy devices, particularly in the light of his claim that "There is no reasonable doubt that the vacuum (or aether or spacetime) contains a source of inexhaustible, safe and clean energy." MWE concludes: "So vacuum fluctuations affect the whole of physics."137.205.100.161 (talk) 08:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

More detailed claims, all by MWE, regarding the significance of MZ theory for chemistry: "chemical shift theory in ESR and NMR, which is explained with the magnetic dipole potential of the nucleus, and the magnetic dipole field of the nucleus. These shiver in the presence of the vacuum, aether or spacetime, so the chemical shifts are affected by the vacuum in a different way for each atom of a molecule. These vacuum effects can be detected by NMR and ESR, the H atom Lamb shift is one famous example of the effect of the vacuum. The Lamb shift is quite a large effect. So the Coulomb law between electron and proton in the H atom is considerably affected by the vacuum. Therefore the macroscopic Coulomb law will also be affected"
Engineering: "maximize the transfer of electric power from the vacuum to a circuit" --- in other words, MZ is directly connected to claims of the free energy variety.
Physics: "application in relativity theory is the ability to calculate the vacuum map – the spin connection four vector."137.205.100.161 (talk) 18:01, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Knighthood for the founder of ECE theory?

Evans: "[ECE theory] has made a devastating impact on the dogma of the standard model, which is why I am not offered a knighthood and so on. I would refuse a knighthood if offered one, but would accept O. M. or C. H" Arise, Sir Ron!137.205.100.80 (talk) 08:41, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

ECE - nawr yn y Gymraeg

Evans: "I now hold the world record for the most prolific author in physics and chemistry, having produced over two thousand papers, reviews, books, essays, and so forth. I strongly recommend translating this output into Welsh." Nobody is stopping you, Myron! "That would create work for many translators if funded by some organization." What organization would undertake such a task? 137.205.100.8 (talk) 09:19, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

ECE: relativity without d'Alembertian?

MWE: "the derivative of a scalar with respect to a vector is defined as the well known vector gradient [which] can be extended to n dimensions, notably four dimensions" 88.111.224.129 (talk) 12:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Einsteinian General Relativity abandoned in favour of ECE2

Evans: "EGR has been quietly abandoned by standard modellers in S2 star systems. It was an influential theory but has now been replaced by ECE2. This is completely clear from the scientometrcis [sic] ... vacuum fluctuations is [sic] the source of General Relativity itself. Truly magnificent." 137.205.100.180 (talk) 10:22, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Evans: "ECE and ECE2 theories are able to bring together quantum mechanics and relativity, while showing that this was not done before by standard physics because of their use of a mistaken einsteinian relativity"137.205.101.81 (talk) 07:20, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Nobel Prize Nomination 2017, 2018

MWE makes his case for being awarded the prize (January 25, 2017): "1) Having been born into a poor coal mining family only five years after the most devastating war in history, I have always worked towards peace in Europe. This culminated in the formation of the European Molecular Liquids Group in 1980 at the National Physical Laboratory. The British Government recognized this achievement on my armorial badge on www.aias.us, awarded by the College of Arms in 2008. The recognition is in heraldic form, two goutes on a Norman helm affronty. The goutes represent drops of liquid. The badge represents the Norman part of my ancestry, the arms the ancient British part of my ancestry, notably the golden lion rampant of Scotland and the Tudor House of Dynevor (Dun Efwyr). 2) I have worked towards the understanding of energy from spacetime, together with the rest of the AIAS / UPITEC team, and low energy nuclear reactors (LENR). The team has recently been nominated for six gold medals of the Institute of Physics. It has developed a circuit which takes energy from ubiquitous spacetime, and if developed industrially on a large scale, this is a solution to the energy needs of humankind. Without such a solution there is grave danger of famine and geopolitical instability, and war with nuclear weapons. I have always opposed nuclear weapons, being a Welsh speaking Baptist by upbringing. Dr Steve Bannister of the University of Utah describes the consequences of new forms of energy in his Ph. D. Thesis on www.aias.us – the second industrial revolution." This would seem to suggest that there is solid state and academical support for his claims to be able to extract energy from spacetime. The French word for droplet is "goutte" by the way, with two Ts, even in heraldry.137.205.101.77 (talk) 10:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Evans omits the detail that the 'nominations for six gold medals' were made by 'the team' itself. Also, the Bannister thesis describes only the past effect of new sources of energy and does not, as Evans implies, have anything to say about 'new energy', 'free energy' or 'energy from spacetime'(which are all now common synonyms for 'perpetual motion'). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.199.228 (talk) 18:51, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

It would be quite a feat for spacetime to manage to be anything other than ubiquitous. But perhaps in ECE2 theory anything is possible.137.205.101.77 (talk) 11:06, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Says MWE: "[T]rolling against forms of new energy is a form of genocide, because without new energy, life on earth will vanish." Well, that argument only holds water if the new energy is real. (And what would a person actually disposing of unlimited supplies of energy care for a troll or two?) If the new energy is a perpetuum mobile scam, then the troll is a responsible citizen and the scam artist is the criminal. That much MWE will allow us to say without threatening litigation, right?137.205.101.77 (talk) 17:05, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
"The gang" also tried to pull the same stunt with the Wolf Prize, debating (in plain view) how to deceive the committee into believing that the members of the Evans cabal are independent agents.137.205.100.45 (talk) 14:02, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

In the event, the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (Ican). There is no evidence that Evans's self-nomination had been taken into serious consideration. It may be noted that only individuals of some substantial standing are generally invited to nominate candidates. 137.205.101.55 (talk) 12:19, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Things are looking up for the Nobel Prize and ECE theory in 2018! "AIAS / UPITEC staff and hundreds of thousands of others could work towards full and complete recognition of ECE by nominating for the big prizes and working towards reform of the way in which physics is administered. This [...] theory and its ideas must be nominated because they are so hugely influential. ECE has been spontaneously recognized worldwide as the new physics, and has refuted almost all of the old physics." The problem is that, despite the collapse of mainstream physics, nominations are hardly forthcoming: "Prizes, jobs, and so on are given for the old physics and are tightly controlled. For example nominators for a Nobel Prize in physics are invited. So they would almost all be standard modellers. Nominators of the Nobel prize in physics for myself broke through this system. The enlightened nominators were attacked but a sustained counter attack has routed the attackers. So the way is clear for more nominations." Note: Evans does not mention names here, but those au fait with the dramatis personae will know that the "nominators for Evans" have been dismissed and / or retired in shame, and the "counter-attackers" continue to enjoy international standing and respect.137.205.101.7 (talk) 07:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

"I am not fixated by [sic] the overblown Nobel Prize, the Civil List Pension is in fact a higher honour, the second most exclusive club in Britain. However, ECE should be awarded a Nobel Prize because of its well proven, hyperbole defying, impact and because it has been tested against experimental data." 2A01:CB0C:56A:9700:34AA:85DB:FD0C:66B1 (talk) 07:26, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

MWE does not like "Crackpotwatch," claims no one ever goes there

MWE has been telling us how Crackpotwatch does not bother him at all: "The FT harassment site is getting no interest from anyone today again. So it is the most boring bile ever written, having produced eighteen years of pure international repulsion, there is no attraction. Fawlty’s long drawn out bid for stardom is summed up by O. Wilde: “There is one thing worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about”. Rip, in desperation, has decided to offer free arsenic sandwiches and cyanide tea to any visitor at all, in the manner of “Under Millk [sic] Wood” by D. Thomas. Chemists are working on a process to turn the tons of bile reserve produced over eighteen years of solitude, into pungent fertilizer. None of Fawlty’s cronies are being talked about, they sink ever more into a cess pit as deep as a coal mine. Down there, there is the Devil and eternal darkness." The bit about traffic is incorrect. I visit Crackpotwatch daily and am in no way affiliated with them.137.205.100.47 (talk) 13:17, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Evans now has even more reason to dislike Crackpotwatch: it has recently begun (18th April 2018) to publish embarrassing documents from his past, including the very letter which started the 'battle of the smell' and eventually led to his departure from UNCC. Another document reveals that his 'assistant', Horst Eckardt of Siemens AG, formerly considered Evans to be 'disturbed'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.243.127 (talk) 11:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

"Always ignore your enemies, nothing annoys them so much." is MWE's watchword in this matter, which does not quite explain why he complains about Crackpotwatch several times each day. It reminds me a bit of the leader of the free world "By the way, I am not under investigation - not that I care."137.205.100.47 (talk) 07:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
They clearly have a good handle on his psychology/psychopathy, given that they have now given him an 'open goal' by giving anyone the opportunity to vote that they are a hate-blog. They know that he will not fall-in with anything that they have suggested (such as correcting his spelling). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.195.99 (talk) 17:16, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Explains Evans: "I am a multiple world record holder, so that attracts the biling nutters of the modern world – the John Lennon syndrome. I have no idea why anyone would want to attack scholarship, but these are psychopaths, electronic terrorists." 137.205.101.81 (talk) 12:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Evans is currently trying to get Crackpotwatch shut down on the grounds of plagiarism. That is a curious stratagem, given that site's obvious abhorrence of his every written word.

Evans refers to Crackpotwatch as "fruitcake" as in: "Fruitcake has recently admitted, to the relief of sane mathematicians, that Cartan geometry is after all correct. However, ECE, which is Cartan geometry, is at the same time incorrect, even though it is correct. With logic like that who needs a full moon?" Well, the major premise is false. ECE is not the same as Cartan geometry, and the former is rubbish whereas the latter is not. Easy.90.34.19.111 (talk) 06:16, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

A recent comment under a Crackpotwatch post (Definitive Proof of the Rejection of UFT88, 09/15/18) says that Evans collapsed in the street during a recent heatwave. The description of his physical state suggests strongly that Evans may be suffering from Diogenes Syndrome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.156.175 (talk) 05:35, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Burnell receives Milner

Evans is aggrieved (September 18, 2018):

"There are hundreds if not thousands of scientists more worthy of a Milner Prize than S. J. B. Burnell, the latest recipient, whose h index is only about 18, only forty or fifty publications at most in a lifetime of 75 years. [...] the Milner Prize has been awarded for political reasons [...] My output of work is the highest in the world of chemistry and physics [...] I have always found the Institute of Physics to be mindlessly dogmatic and intolerant of really new ideas."

Evans suggests a remedy:

"... in assessing candidates for any big prize, their work should be put before the assessors, but not their names or any form of identity, and all aspects of impact considered over as many years as possible."

Not a bad idea, but in fact it is often not difficult to determine who wrote a paper, even when their name is not on it. Evans boasts:

"At AIAS / UPITEC we have received a very large number of nominations. These are listed in my CV."

However, almost all of these are self-nominations, as can be seen from Evans' blog, on which he regularly discusses with his cohorts how to put forward self-nominations whilst making them appear independent. 2A01:CB0C:56A:9700:29B4:726F:3ECF:23C9 (talk) 06:53, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Founder of ECE theory: net worth millions

"I wish to continue the development of the hugely successful science and education of the past sixteen years and also to develop my popular literature and some philanthropic work to implement the terms of my Will, held by Messrs Trevor Thomas Scott and Jenkins of Clydach, Swansea. I telephoned the James Pant y Fedwen Foundation today, in Aberystwyth, and the board will look at the Will. If implemented properly by a Charitable Trust it would raise tens to hundreds of millions for the causes listed in the Will. I have also looked at the Brecon and Swansea Diocesan Trust and a few others. As a descendant of Prince Bleddyn ap Maenarch of Brycheiniog, it might be appropriate to be interred inside or in the grounds of Brecon Cathedral, perhaps in the Havard Chapel, but I am an agnostic, so they might not allow it. My first choice is Elim Craig Cefn parc, but the chapel might be sold and I must join the chapel first or buy a plot so that it cannot be sold. I am in perfect health but these things must be thought through."137.205.101.81 (talk) 07:29, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

The end might be nigh. According to a local observer: "When [Dr Evans] collapsed of Heat Stroke some weeks ago, on a very hot day in July 2018, at Golwg y Mynydd road near his two up two down cottage University for Cranks and pseudos, it was not gravity that left him prostrate, it was the burden of numerous layers of foul reeking clothes. Once again he has started to forget to use bodily soap and clothes washing powder."

"Once again" inasmuch as unbearable B.O. was an overwhelming (ol)factor in his ill-fated career in US academia. 2A01:CB0C:56A:9700:2088:734:D35C:39D1 (talk) 18:06, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Evans claims ECE theory is responsible for internet crackpottery?

"If the work of my co authors and myself were actually assessed seriously and honestly, it would take years of study. Amazingly, it IS all being read. Anyone unversed in its intricacies would soon throw up or emerge a white haired raving maniac. There are plenty of those on the internet." 2A01:CB0C:56A:9700:4061:7613:8527:D8BF (talk) 10:44, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Wild-haired? 2A01:CB0C:56A:9700:4061:7613:8527:D8BF (talk) 10:44, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Evans on UNCC

"I scrambled around for a job that would give me the elementary dignity of pay, and by devilish bad luck, was interviewed at the physics department of the University of North Carolina Charlotte [...] I was listed among three of one hundred and twenty two candidates selected for interview and that the other two interviewed candidates took one look at the place and ran. We should have done the same. Instead I was promoted full professor with tenure [...] The people of North Carolina were friendly enough, but the physics department looked like an anachronism [...] When I received my letter of appointment as tenured full professor I was not in any way interested in it [...] A full professorship was an illusion, and we all knew that. It was the result of an overambitious Dean called Lyons attempting to expand too quickly. UNCC is as obscure as ever, way down the university rankings [...] With infinite reluctance we prepared to move to UNCC [...] The illusory status of full professor was not worth the sadness it caused us."

There seems to be a gem of wisdom at the end. 2A01:CB0C:56A:9700:F1B3:C6DB:C35B:545C (talk) 08:08, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

"When I was appointed, UNCC staff had not read my CV, and none of my papers. It was thought that the glitter of Cornell would bring in money and student numbers."

Correct, but for the tone of indignation. Was Evans naive or deluded? It's a fine line...

"The tiny bureaucrats loot the tax payer and sleep all day on golden cushions."

Again one has to admit Evans has a point, although wrangling academics is not the cushiest job in the world.

"It looked as if this Dean had dictatorial powers. He could close a department at will [...] it was a dictatorship in which committees could be rigged."

The only thing wrong with this observation is that Evans seems to regard this state of affairs as an aberration.

"I was not to be allowed to become a research professor in optics as advertized, no apparatus was to be granted to me by UNCC, and my advertized research group did not exist."

Alas, it is standard practice to entice people to chairs with promises that later turn out to be funded only if the candidate is capable of bringing in the money (they are offered a cigar from their own box, so to speak). It is also fairly routine for disappointed professors to leave within a year or two when they discover they have been had. Evans is only wrong here in pretending something exceptional befell him.

"I mistakenly took some samples of the books into a committee meeting to show to my colleagues, but the books were just ignored completely."

Again, par for the course. Colleagues may have recognised the works for crackpottery and dismissed it as such, but lazy petty jealousy is as likely an explanation.

"Obviously UNCC was just not functioning. Physics had no common room, and no library, no place to display books by staff members, nowhere to read them."

Evans is most specifically put out by the fact that there was no display stand for the volumes he had written or edited. It is a common delusion among academics that the entire infrastructure of a university was put in place to bolster their ego. Blinkers of the size Evans puts on here are rare, though.

2A01:CB0C:56A:9700:E49F:164D:D113:7139 (talk) 06:06, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Response to 't Hooft

As noted on the main page, MWE declined 't Hooft's invitation to take part in a debate on the merits and demerits of his theory. What he did do is slander 't Hooft, thus: "QCD specialists like ‘t Hooft, who indulge in the pastime of journal wrecking, are in reality third class druids, without a licence." (blog March 20, 2017) and thus: "Gerard ‘t Hooft made a fool of himself" (blog March 24, 2017). Witness further claims that "‘t Hooft organized the wiki troll site on ECE [...] Anyone can dream up a theory like [...] renormalization in QCD" (blog August 1, 2015); "‘t Hooft’s personal animosity has been condemned internationally." (blog September 17, 2014); "he is simply irrelevant to progress in physics [...] the stuff ‘t Hooft turns out is not worth reading" (blog July 19, 2014); "I do not think that ‘t Hooft has much technical ability. He is prone to personal animosity which in other areas of life would be described as a common assault. He has no real or actual authority, and Nobel Prize procedures are in need of complete reform. I could argue that ‘t Hooft is in contempt of Crown and Parliament" (blog September 11, 2014); "Gerard ‘t Hooft quietly removed some of his more damaging allegations but it is well known that he made them. He destroyed the journal “Foundations of Physics Letters” and produced an extraordinary editorial in which he attempted to “unaccept” fifteen early ECE papers refereed about forty times, all positively and all already published by Alwyn van der Merwe. G. ‘t Hooft destroyed all the latter’s eminent work." (blog August 26, 2013). 137.205.101.77 (talk) 07:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

"obscure dogmatist ‘t Hooft has no knowledge of the technicalities of ECE. One needs to be a virtuoso to really understand it, for example Horst Eckardt, Doug Lindstrom, other and myself of the AIAS / UPITEC institutes." (MWE, January 2019) 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:C509:DBF1:CBFD:CD (talk) 14:20, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
It is against this background of routine defamation that we must judge MWE's own gripes: "a draft application for a Court Order which is planned to be served in a San Francisco Court on WordPress. It requests the removal of a hate blog, www.crackpotwatch. wordpress.com which has been harassing me for six years, using death threats and violent language which uses ethnic prejudice against the Welsh People and language, a hate crime. This is for your information and I request that you ask the police to shut down this blog and to warn Ioan Richard of 23 Mountain Road, Craig Cefn Parc, Swansea SA6 5RA, who has openly identified himself as being associated with serious felonies such as death threats and hate crime against the Welsh language." Again with the death threats and the hate crimes against the Welsh language. Identifying IR in this manner and slandering him may or may not be illegal, but it sure is immoral.88.111.238.175 (talk) 13:00, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

ECE theory is being published via Open Access

MWE: "UFT88 is one of the papers that introduced the post Einsteinian paradigm shift. It was published by Horst Eckardt and myself in 2007 using our new method of open source [sic] publication and refereeing. If a paper is a good one it is read avidly throughout the world, and by the best in the world, for years, in fact indefinitely into the foreseeable future. The number of readings is much greater than I can record, because most consultations take place from private computers. I can record only public URLs. This is what is meant by open source refereeing." The method is publication on a web site, which is certainly open and certainly a valid channel of publication. But the novelty cannot reside in this alone, for many people post PDFs on the web. No, the true novelty lies with the method of refereeing. When an UFTxx paper is posted on AIAS, it has thus far been read only by the authors and perhaps a few close associates. This is not what is commonly understood to constitute a peer review process. What MWE seems to have in mind here is that subsequent consultations are tantamount to a comparable evaluation process. There are two problems with this. One: download numbers to date are a very low-bandwidth vehicle for feedback, as opposed to say a referee's report. Second: a download is not necessarily a positive appraisal. Indeed, prior to clicking for download, the soon-to-be recipient will in many cases not have seen the work yet, and there are other reasons why a person may download a document from a private website. For instance, incredulousness: "Is this guy for real?" Or, Schadenfreude: "A new installment of the autobiography! We will finally get a detailed account of B.O.-gate!" Or perhaps: a professional interest in the psychopathology of well-meaning amateurs beyond the fringes of science. The AIAS institute may not welcome the notion that their cybervisitors entertain such motivations, but their claims of having revolutionized the refereeing system demand that they rule out such extraneous reasons for consultations.137.205.101.77 (talk) 12:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

MWE: "It has become clear recently, by meticulous study of scientomerics [sic] and the usage file, that staff and students at the world’s best univeristies [sic] have studied my work regularly for forty years." It should be pointed out, and it is entirely fair to say, that nobody at any of these universities used or cited ECE theory at any time during these past four decades.137.205.101.77 (talk) 12:53, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Speaking of Open Access, there are thousands of no questions asked online predatory journals who will publish your paper for a fee. These journals live in symbiosis with academics in developing countries who do not produce work of internationally publishable quality in the conventional sense of the word, and who resort to these predatory platforms to assemble their case for promotion. (O, what a tangled web we weave...) Anyhoo - said the anyowl - MWE could splash out on one of those. As it is, his open access is just his website. 88.111.239.43 (talk) 08:37, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Says Evans: "...enlightenment scientists use websites, and use very accurate scientometrics to see how their work is being read. “The Book of Scientometrics” (UFT307) and its volume two, clearly show that ECE, the new physics, is being consulted repeatedly over time at essentially all the best universities in the world, without a single objection. They could all easily e mail me at any time." Not so easily: email Evans displaying so much as mild curiosity as to what he is about, and he will promptly (a) banish you from his inbox forever, and (b) write a stiff letter to your boss demanding a reprimand, demotion, etc.90.34.19.111 (talk) 06:12, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Evans: "In the course of these developments the ECE theory has been check [sic] more often than any theory in history, its mathematics are [sic] always worked out with computer algebra." Of course it is easy to make fun of typos, but there is a serious point: "The establishment and publishing methods of standard physics have been rejected in favour of a fast moving and accurate method of publication." The point is this: Evans is not much of a proofreader and thus the accuracy of his Open Access model is doubtful. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:D5DE:BDA0:ED31:51A9 (talk) 14:25, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

On the validity of any future criticism of ECE theory

MWE: "The highly skillful and diligent use of computer algebra by co author Horst Eckardt means that any valid criticism of ECE must also use computer algebra to counter our computer algebra. This has never occurred, so the conspirators against ECE were not scientists, they were motivated by nonscientific reasons and dogma and the precursors of today’s disgusting hate groups. The ECE theory is based on a Cartan geometry that has been unchanged for a hundred years. Any valid criticism of ECE must disprove Cartan geometry [...] Cartan geometry is used in chapter three of Carroll’s online book: “Spacetime and Geometry: an Introduction to General Relativity”. This is essential reading and the book is free online. In the UFT series, Carroll’s proofs are greatly developed and given in all detail. Any valid criticism of ECE must counter both Carroll and myself, and also counter our use of computer algebra."

If only the use of computer algebra at some point in the development of a theory would automatically make that theory consistent with both accepted first principles and the available data! Whereas a decent computer algebra package will transform strings of symbols according to well-defined rules, the overriding principle remains GIGO. Similarly, "based on Cartan" does not mean "will inherit the validity of Cartan" - one might deface a Michelangelo with random graffiti and then claim that the aesthetic value of the damage cannot be impugned without impugning Michelangelo in the bargain. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:1405:EC27:93E:D7EC (talk) 09:38, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Einstein–Cartan–Evans_theory/Archive_1&oldid=899908457"