Talk:Myron Evans/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Edit by 209.226.130.124 from Montreal

An anon using 209.226.130.124 added this unverifiable claim regarding the alleged "device transduce electrical energy from space-time":

This work is based on that of Captain Hans Coler which which was successfully demonstated, see British Intelligence final report No.1043 and German patent Nt 680701 dated 7 September 1939. The claim of an alleged new source of power was verified by Prof M Kloss, Dr F Modersohn and Dr Frolich who could find no fraud.

I removed this as unverifiable. This anon also added a summary sentence which I rewrote to be more NPOV. CH 02:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I now think someone using 209.226.130.124 was just trying to add following comment to the above.CH 02:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that some acknowledement of documented prior work on this new phenomenum should be included. The Coler work is of great interest now. Austen-Brown 209.226.130.124

Mr Austen-Brown: first, please consider registering and please sign future comments using ~~~~. For technical reasons it appeared to me that you were trying to change my own comments to read as pro-Evans comments. I now think you probably are just a newbie, however, and I have tried to restore your comment.

You seem to think an alleged "intelligence report" (to which government?) concerning alleged research by one Captian Coler (who was he?) counts as documentation. Has this report been officially released by the government in question? Leaked to and published by a major newspaper? If so, where can we find it on-line? Private web sites don't count, since for all we know any "documents" at a private website put up by Joe Schmo could be forged. WP must be particularly careful to verify claims about

  1. secret intelligence reports
  2. controversial claims
  3. bizarre claims

and I think your statement qualifies on all three counts for extraordinary scrutiny. Please see WP:V.

You also claimed that the claim of an alleged new source of power was verified by Prof M Kloss, Dr F Modersohn and Dr Frolich who could find no fraud. I have no idea who those people are, and apparently you cannot cite a published paper by them, or even provide verification that they actually made the claims you said they did. If so, these claims are unverified.

I agree with your tacit claim that finding new sources of energy is currently of great importance, but where we differ, I guess, is whether we should abandon our critical faculties in deciding where to put scarce research resources. Mainstream scientists generally feel that bizarre and cranky claims which contradict well established principles of physics should probably be at the very bottom of the funding list. Rather, we should put our resources into research which is most likely to lead to genuine technology that works as advertised. ---CH 02:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The whole article on Myron Evans is so biased that it should be removed. ECE theory is now well recognised for its practical solutios in engineering and science. A perusal of the www.atomicenergy.com site will provide an idea of the enormous groundbreaking work that is under way. Austenbrown 22:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC) Austenbrown

Let me point out that I think we agree that new energy sources are highly desirable. Many with scientific training, including myself, support the investment of public monies in research into a variety of approaches. Where we differ, it seems, is in how to decide which possible energy sources it makes the most sense to pursue. I advocate making a more or less rational decision based upon well-established science. You advocate spending money on a fringe "theory" (I would say a crackpot theory) which violates more than one of the most fundamental and firmly established principles in physics, which I would summarize as advocating making a decision based on a wild surmise (faith, if you will) rather than sound reasoning.

You claim that ECE theory is now well recognised for its practical solutions in engineering and science. But once you leave the pro-Evans blog which you mentioned and similar wild-eyed websites, and turn to reputable physics journals, I doubt you will be able to find support for your claim. Actually, I am rather amazed that anyone could really believe what you write, since it seems so obviously counterfactual. Does anyone you know drive to work in a car powered by a spacetime vacuum energy transducer rather than some more conventional fuel? ---CH 01:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Following the recent rejigging of the website www.aias.us, the links to comments by Evans no longer work. I have corrected them. Mathsci 05:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Verification needed

Someone has forwarded to me an email, allegedly from M. W. Evans, which I briefly describe in the current version. From the style and other evidence I think it probably is authentic. I am trying to verify that Evans really did send it. Stay tuned, I guess...---CH 01:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK, some physicists have written a letter to at least one official associated with the University of Glamorgan inquiring about the claim in the email allegedly sent by Evans. However, I haven't heard any more since. ---CH 00:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Motionless Electrical Generator

192.193.221.144 (talk ยท contribs) (Citicorp Global Information Network; geolocated near Riverdale, NJ) claims that "The MEG is not a "perpetual motion machine." It was granted a U.S. patent (No. 6,362,718 B1) on March 26, 2002". This is addressed in Motionless Electrical Generator: the patent is real, but physicists agree that this patent does indeed allege to describe a perpetual motion machine.---CH 02:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Edit by 64.30.210.214

This edit seems to have been another act of vandalism. Evans' blog on the atomicprecision website seems to have been out of order for some time now, so does not seem to provide a suitable wikipedia reference, contrary to the submission of 64.30.210.214. --Mathsci 16:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

64.30.210.214 removed a reference to a paper pointing out errors in Evans' use of mathematics; these errors were confirmed by a reviewer for Mathematical Reviews. 64.30.210.214 also dismissed Bruhn without any explicit criticism of his mathematical arguments. From his writings, it appears that Bruhn has had a conventional university training in differential geometry and has fully mastered the subject. --- Mathsci 20:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Made entry more impartial and balanced.

I have made this entry more impartial and have removed the various derogatory remarks. I have also added proof of the civil list appointment and where one can obtain independent verification.

I have retained all the objections and added links to responses to those rebuttals by Evans.

I am an Evans supporter but I hope that this entry is now fairly balanced. The theory may be criticised but please do not revert to ad hominem attacks. I have also tried to make sure that the facts are verifiable, as Wikipedia's standards demand. Syrran 12:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism by Syrran

As far as I can tell, Syrran does not seem to have any scientific expertise. May I suggest that instead of pedalling half-truths (such as the claimed graduate course of Evans at the University of Glamorgan), Syrran should keep to facts that are verifiable? It is nonsense to suggest that a student is proposing two topics for a Ph.D. in physics at the University of Glamorgan, when the "university" does not even give undergraduate courses of any decription in this subject nor have any professed experts. At British Universities, Ph.D.'s are never conducted in this way. (I had 3 Ph.D. sudents at the University of Cambridge, one jointly between mathematics and theoretical physics.) If Syrran continues to vandalise this wikipedia page, I think that he/she is likely to be reported. Because on his/her own admission Syrran is not a disinterested party, I am reverting the page to its state prior to his/her interventions, with the addition of the two pdf files concerning the Civil List appointment. [In addition Syrran does not seem to understand wikipedia usage.] --Mathsci 20:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Syrran registered most of his/her changes as minor. However, in one of these minor changes he/she attempted to remove the box "disputed science". This attempt at sanitisation and hijacking of the wikipedia page by someone acting on Evans' behalf seems quite dishonest and unethical. --Mathsci 11:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is a subsequent public posting from Myron Evans on his blog :

"Wikipedia Arbitration must now be sought. This is an appallingly arrogant and grossly offensive intervention in Welsh scientific affairs by someone at Cambridge. This repeats previous repeated interferences in my work by Buckingham at Cambridge, and Buckingham was wholly incompetent in regard to my work. As British Civil List scientist I demand disciplinary action against this person for obvious misconduct, (contempt of Parliament by outright lying, by dissemination of personal insults, and interference in Welsh internal affairs), preferably instant dismissal. It is an interference in the affairs of the University of Glamorgan. This man is clearly censoring published scientific rebuttals and is 100% biased. He is associated with Lakhtakia, a known liar and harasser. If the University of Glamorgan decides to do something it is none of his business, and the University of Cambridge must keep its distance. Wales is now independent in educational matters so this is a matter for the Welsh Assembly. I demand that the Assembly report this person to his employers for malicious character assassination. The mediaeval nature of the physics world is again exposed. This man knows nothing about ECE theory and is censoring basic democracy, censoring accepted, published, refutations. These censors are 100% biased against mathematics itself - Cartan geometry, and are ignorant and offensive men. Cambridge University Press censored the first volume of "Generally Covariant Unified Field Theory". It was censored immediately by an unknown referee who did not read the manuscript and who was therefore completely dishonest. Since ECE is based directly on Cartan geomerty, ECE theory is mathematically correct. So this staff member at the University of Cambridge is just a common liar. The University of Glamorgan is independent of the University of Cambridge . All British undergraduate degrees are externally assessed to be of the same quality. In my experience the post graduate work at Oxford and Cambridge was lower in quality than that at Aberystwyth. British Civil List Scientist. "

Long live conspiracy theory! --Mathsci 09:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

And here is yet another public posting by Evans.

"To First Minister: I think that it should be strongly emphasized to this character in the University of Cambridge that he is entirely and utterly out of order. We will try to trace his identity and have him severely disciplined, preferably dismissed. I do not think that string theory should be funded in any University in Wales. The way that these censors are acting is a gross insult to Wales, they may even have tried to censor my Univeristy of Wales degree certificates and they should be pulled up in short order. The whole of the University of Cambridge cannot be judged by these characters alone, but it must be emphasized to the EPSRC and to staff in English Universities that they no longer have control over Welsh or Scottish educational matters. I advocate transfer of science funding from EPSRC to the Assembly. I urge you to personally appoint me as Chief Scientific Advisor and not to leave it to the bureaucrats. I strongly suggest the appointment of Gareth Evans and Gari Owen as members of the science advisory unit. Effectively what they are trying to do is to stop even teh most distinguished sceintists in neighbouring small countries from thinking, and this is utterly intolerable. We know that one of them is Lakhtakia, a disseminator of gutter abuse and a habitual liar. We will try to identify the other through his computer number at Wikipedia. To describe the work of the Civil List Scientist as a "cult" is a mindless personal insult, and in gross contempt of Parliament, which voted in my appointment. My work is fully accepted worldwide as genuine science, as you know from the information sent to you over the past three years. What I need is support from the Welsh Assembly and Parliament in dealing effectively with these censors an abusers. They are the pseudo-scientists and cult artists. Civil List Scientist "

--Mathsci 23:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


And yet another public posting:

"The current Wikipedia entry concerning me is laughably defamatory and counter-factual. It has no relation to the truth. It should be completely removed and completely rewritten to reflect the real interest in ECE theory worldwide. British Civil List Scientist"

And still another public message mentioning my dear cousin "Mathphys":

"There is copious evidence available that the British Civil List Scientist has scientifically refuted a campaign of systematic disinformation and harassment that has been going on for some years now. (www.aias.us and M. W. Evans, "Generally Covariant Unified Field Theory" (Abramis 2005 and 2006) volumes one and two). The Wikipedia disinformation site run by Akhlesh Lakhtakia and his friend "mathphys" has been refuted in entirety, using scientific refutations which were in fact already available for some years and are well known. Ignoring refutations is unprofessional and unscientific. These refutations have been forwarded to you and to Senior Councillors in Wales in all detail. Wikipedia's credibility has been shredded, and the company must come under Government scrutiny for the dissemination of crude disinformation. Tough new laws against harassment and disinformation over the net should be introduced. One of the self appointed trolls and censors at Wikipedia is Akhlesh Lakhtakia, (alias "ScienceGuy") who is well known to have had a personal axe to grind against the Civil List Scientist for fourteen years, and whose scientific credibility and impartiality has been shredded completely and repeatedly in my numerous responses over the past few days. He is known to have sent hate mail (attached) to my staff at AIAS so I have asked for him to be dismissed for misconduct. The other Wikipedia censor is "mathphys", who attempted to interfere in Welsh internal educational affairs before being rebutted by me as the only person from Wales on the Civil List. Neither "Scienceguy" nor "mathphys" use accepted scientific norms, indeed, any scientific refutation of their crude disinformation is censored by themselves! This Wikipedia process is therefore 100% biased against me and the site is pure personal hatred. Tracing by feedback software is a perfectly legitimate activity, there are feedback sites in every major company and on hundreds of thousands of websites worldwide. The material being disseminated by a retired individual, G. Bruhn of Germany, is widely known to be disinformation, false mathematics. This is seen from the fact that Bruhn attacks Cartan geometry, which has been taught in reputable universities for eighty years (for example it is taught by Prof. Carroll at Chicago, and was taught by him at UCSB and Harvard). No one else who uses this standard Cartan geometry is attacked, so this is an obviously personal campaign carried out by corrupt academics. I have made formal complaints against G. Bruhn to his Dean and President. W. Rodrigues of Brazil has also been conducting a personal campaign against the Civil List Scientist for some years. This is full of vicious personal inuendo, and again uses a form of abstract, incomprehensible, mathematics which is not Cartan geometry. The Welsh Assembly obliged University of Wales Aberystwyth to remove some disinformation posted about the British Civil List scientist, disinformation based again on Rodrigues. Bruhn and Rodrigues have been conducting a systematic campaign of harassment against the well accepted ECE theory, i.e. have been e mailing journal editors and employers with what amounts to hate mail. They have both retired and are not active faculty members. ECE theory has been accepted across the world of physics by genuine scientists. I have sent you all the proof of this acceptance in all detail. G. Hunter of Canada was severely reprimanded by his Chair Chester Okonsky at York University Canada for molesting my first wife. He is also retired and inactive. These are the main trouble makers and I request the Assembly and Parliament to keep an eye on their activities, using police surveillance methods if necessary. British Civil List Scientist."

--Mathsci 08:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


Mathsci has contacted me about the disinformation being spread by Dr Myron Evans. Does anybody on wikipedia know the cell phone number of the First Minister of Wales? --Mathphys 08:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Pseudoscientists Category

I have added Myron Evans to the List of pseudoscientists. This list replaced the (now deleted) Pseudoscientists category, and as such I have also removed the category tag from this article. If you feel that the inclusion of Myron Evans on the list should be accompanied by some sort of explanation or qualification, please feel free to add it there. I have not added any, as I am unfamiliar with this person. Do not take my addition of Myron Evans to the list as an endorsement of any particular POV on the issue. --Wclark 00:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


Rebuttal by the British Civil List Scientist

The following is Evans' attempt at what he terms a "rebuttal" of the wikipedia article.

From British Civil List Scientist

The following are factually verifiable. I will not respond to the personal insults thrown at my staff and myself and repeated on this site. Lakhtakia repeats personal insults by one other person. There is virtually no science in the entry.

1) The ECE theory has been accepted as mainstream physics. This is seen through feedback sites of www.aias.us. It has been accepted by about forty referees to date and is being published in monograph form: M. W. Evans, "Generally Covariant Unified Field Theory" (Abramis Academic, 2005, 2006 onwards). This level of acceptance is sufficient for any theory.

2) Detailed rebuttals of Bruhn have been available for two years. In the monograph numerous self checking proofs are given of ECE theory. It is based on standard Cartan geometry, widely taught in reputable universities. Lakhtakia accepts the correctness of Cartan geometry and is therefore 100% self-contradictory as well as 100% biased.

3) My professional background is severely distorted by Lakhtakia. The real facts are easily available in several editions of Marquis Who's Who, including the flagship "Marquis Who's Who in America", a high US honor for a scientist. The existence of these entries is omitted by Lakhtakia. The award to me of the Meldola Medal by the Royal Society of Chemistry of Britain is omitted. Lakhtakia was sent a photograph of the actual medal, and he censored the photograph. My appointment as Civil List Scentist, a High Honour and Appointment by the British Government, is omitted. My appointment as full professor at UNCC is omitted. The list of Fellowships I have won in open competition is omitted. The fact that I have produced over 700 papers and fifty monographs is omitted. The fact that this list has been lodged in the Niels Bohr Library of the American Institute of Physics, as a historical token of honor, is omitted. The fact that I am Sigma Pi Sigma of the AIP is omitted. There are several other major omissions of this kind. So this website is counter-factual from the start.

4) There are a number of experimental phenomena which support ECE theory, notably the inverse Faraday effect. This is not mentioned by Lakhtakia but accepted by everyone else. This is hardly impartial, as Wikipedia claims to be. Lakhtakia has been severely criticised by the Widlar Committee for his gross prejudice and the matter has gone for arbitration.

5) It is now known with considerable precision how electromagnetic energy can be obtained from spinning spacetime (www.aias.us). It becomes clear that Lakhtakia does not even read the ECE papers, unlike everyone else in the physics world. The claim of perpetual motion by Lakhtakia is incorrect. ECE theory conforms with Noether's Theorem. This has been shown many times (www.aias.us) in great detail.

6) Warren did not publish a refutation of B(3) theory. He detected small shifts in NMR lines which tend to verify B(3) theory, but he was at the wrong (visible) frequency. What is needed is radiatively induced fermion resonance (RFR) at radio or microwave frequencies. Lakhtakia refers to my rebuttals as being in an unreviewed journal. This is disinformation and counter-factual. The actual journal is "Foundations of Physics Letters", which is refereed, ans "Advances in Chemical Physics", which is refereed. The referees' reports on ECE theory are available on the record as usual. The so called "post mortem" by Hunter is trivially incorrect. He applied the Stokes Theorem to d ^ F and not D ^ F as required. I already rebutted Hunter in Advances in Chemical Physics, volume 119(3), endorsed by the Royal Swedish Academy. Mention of this unique endorsement is omitted by Lakhtakia.

7) The so called "central error" by Bruhn does not exist. There is no error in Cartan geometry, as Lakhtakia himself admits. This alleged error by Bruhn is contained in www.arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0607190 and was rebutted about two years ago. As with all Bruhn's arguments, it is trivially incorrect upon scholarly inspection. Bruhn is well known to contrive these errors deliberately in numerous personal attacks on my myself, and in grotesque harssment of editors and scientists. He is retired and no longer active on the TU Darmstadt faculty. In this case the so called "error" would mean that Cartan geometry itself is somehow "erroneous". However, Lakhtakia himself has admitted (in one of his gutter abuse messages attached) that Cartan geometry is correct. So Lakhtakia and Bruhn contradict each other. They do not know what they are doing when it comes to real science. One example of Bruhn's many errors is his assertion that the tetrad is a vector with an index on it. The tetrad is well known to be a rank two mixed index tensor. I have corrected these Bruhn errors many times and the monograph gives many proofs of Cartan geometry. There is nothing wrong, either, with my use of Cartan geometry. This is verified by self checks in the monograph.

8) Lakhtakia asserts, very foolishly, that my "followers" have scant credentials. The truth is that many of my colleagues in AIAS are full professors with years of experience. My immediate correspondence includes two Nobel Laureates and Fourteen Fellows of the Royal Society, together with prominent theoretical physicists. The Royal Society was responsible for my nomination to the Prime Minister prior to my appointment to the Civil List by Queen Elizabeth II. This was voted in by Parliament. Lakhtakia censors this process from history.

9) Lakhtakia becomes incoherent towards the end of this ridiculous "entry", which is virtually all written and censored by Lakhtakia himself. For example there is something about my correspondence being "extraodinary". This does not make any sense. I have already been given a High Honour, and this was supported by the Royal Society. In response to questions from the general public, I did point out to the Royal Society that I should be a Fellow. This is actually the opinion of the general public. He then writes some incoherent words such as "beware of the AIAS server stats" or similar.

10) He becomes wildly incoherent in respect of the Civil List appointment. The definition of the Civil List Pension is given by the British Government's Department of Work and Pensions website. It is awarded by the Head of State for distinguished service to Britain and the Commonwealth in literature, the arts, the humanities and science. It is defined by an 1837 Act of Parliament and in that Act is intended to express "the gratitude of the Nation". A Civil List Pension is a High Honour, commensurate with the Order of Merit or Companion of Honour. It is also an Appointment. I was appointed by the Secretary of Appointments in 10 Downing Street on behalf of the Queen and Prime Minister, following upon a recommendation by the Royal Society. In science, this is an unroecedented honour in the twentieth century, I am curerntly the only scientist on the Civil List and the only person form Wales. My scientific predecessors on the list include Herschel, Ivory, Dalton, Faraday, Joule, Fairfax-Sommerville, Heaviside, Denning and Airy. Literary predecessors include Lord Byron, William Wordswaorth, Lord Tennyson, W. S. Graham and Vernon Watkins (the metaphysical poet, friend of Dylan Thomas, and my predecessor from Wales). This has been pointed out repeatedly to Lakhtakia, who has censored all these names from history. In his gutter abuse (attached) he insults the People of Wales several times. So he is not an impartial historian of science and cannot be taken seriously in any civilized circle of intellectuals or democratic society at large. What is really extraordinary is that a person like this, full of grotesque hatred for his fellow human beings, is employed by Pennsylvania State Univeristy. William Penn was a Quaker of Welsh descent. Thomas Jefferson was of Welsh descent.


CONCLUSION

This is a grossly inaccurate, 100% biased, and defamatory website designed solely to attack my reputation and that of my colleagues in AIAS. It should be removed by Wikipedia and replaced by one written by a truly impartial historian of science. Lakhtakia should be dismissed for obvious misconduct.

Prof. M. W. Evans, British Civil List Scientist.


However :

(1) The unedited statistics of the AIAS and atomicprecision websites contain more visits from spamming pornographic websites than anywhere else. The website, when operational, is a source of mild amusement for serious academics and others. Website statistics do not endorse the validity of a subject since they cannot reflect the reaction of the visitor.

(2) Unlike Evans, Bruhn has never been dismissed from an academic post for misconduct. His articles criticizing Evans' work are to be published in Physica Scripta.

(3) Evans has himself made publicly available a fairly complete record of his own professional misconduct at UNCC, his only potentially permanent appointment. His credentials are of interest because they show that he has received no university training in general relativity, quantum field theory or differential geometry.

(4) No experimental evidence supports ECE theory. Evans has at times attempted to use Beardon's MEG to lend credence to his work, although he subsequently dismissed Beardon's science. Strangely he did not write to journals asking for their published joint papers to be withdrawn.

(5) Nobody in mainstream physics considers Evans' work seriously. As 't Hooft has publicly written, Evans is a prime example of a crank physicist.

(6) The cited articles show that the predictions of Evans' earlier B(3) theory are wrong. These findings are not subject to multiple interpretations.

(7) Personal defamatory attacks on Bruhn's character cannot alter the fact that he has pointed out extremely elementary irretrievable errors that underlie Evans' "theory". Bruhn's work has been accepted for publication through the usual scientific channels. There is no such subject as "Cartan geometry", a term coined by Evans to replace "Differential Geometry".

(8) The AIAS does not exist as a physical institute. It is a poorly maintained website run by amateurs. The Royal Society of Chemistry, the institute which apparently received lobbying on Evans' behalf, is a completely different institute from the Royal Society.

(9) Editing of the wikipedia page is mostly anonymous. It is not a conspiracy as Evans wrongly suggests. On the other hand Syrran revealed that his wikipedia edits were directly discussed with Evans: this would normally be called conspiracy.

(10) The Civil List appointment is certainly only commensurate with Order of Merit or Companion of Honour in the mind of Myron Evans. Was Evans' royal appointment mentioned in the Times, which normally records such events? If Evans were in fact highly regarded by the British Establishment, rather than receiving a paltry annual sum with no attached status or privileges, he would be an FRS, a KBE or even just a lecturer at an ordinary british university - even a former polytechnic like the Univeristy of Glamorgan - where this sum would represent considerably less than one month's salary.

Evans does not strictly speaking have the right to use the title Professor, unless he can reveal to which academic institute it is attached.


Mathsci 09:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


Evans seems very disturbed by the current wikipedia page which he regards as a biography. The only justification for this wikipedia page is that it shows the modus operandi of a a pseudoscientist. Here is the latest anti-wikipedia outburst from Evans which clearly indicates that he has not properly read the carefully documented article and does not understand that the editing of the wikipedia page reflects his true status in the academic community, namely that he is regarded as a crank whose papers are wrong and unpublishable.

"I would like to make a strong protest and complaint about a false biography about me which is fully rebutted on www.aias.us, lead article. I am the British Civil List scientist and attach my real biography from the forthcoming 2007 edition of Marquis Who's Who in America. I cordially request Wikipedia to remove the false biography in its entirety and allow my staff to replace it with something similar to the attached. I was appointed to the British Civil List by the Head of State, Queen Elizaberth II, and this appointment was voted in by Parliament. The person "scienceguy" is A. Laktakia, who has an axe to grind against me. He is strongly suspected of sending hate mail repeatedly to several people, and many complaints against him have been forwarded to Penn State. He is 100% biased against me. I would also request that my genuine biography be made safe from changes. My genuine bio appears in many editions of Marquis Who's Who in America, the World, and Science and Engineering. Prof. Myron W. Evans, British Civil List Scientist, AIAS Director."

Mathsci 00:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Huh? This Wikipedia has to be a biography. Unfortunately it doesn't look like one that much. --Pjacobi 07:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
On the contrary it is exactly what one would expect to see on a page devoted to the life and works of a pseudoscientist who attempts to silence his critics. There is no particular reason to have a wikipedia biography for a pseudoscientist. They may use their own websites to expound their theories, but as far as possible the wikipedia page, if it exists, should accurately describe their academic career and the acceptance of their work by the academic community. Amongst the few verifiable biographical details are the documented events concerning Evans' dismissal from UNNC. Paid self-written entries in a non-standard Who's Who hardly count; Evans is proposing to substitute such a page himself. Evans' dismissal from a tenured academic post is unfortunately perhaps the most significant event in his career. -- Mathsci 08:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Any article about a person is by definition a biography. Any article about a living person is subject to WP:BLP. The biography itself will necessarily a short one. large who wrote what on which blog sections have to go. As much as I can see the rationale for not having a separate article about the ECE nonsense, for process issues it may be better to (re-)create. Please compare Anatoly Timofeevich Fomenko and New Chronology (Fomenko). Unfortunately this example also demonstrates the downsides of this approach.
We may also consider to move this article to another article, so that it no longer a biography by choice of lemma, like Bogdanov Affair.
--Pjacobi 08:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
There are indeed some similarities with the Bogdanov page. They attempted to edit their page themselves, sometimes apparently using a sock puppet (internet). The Bogdanov brothers, however, are media personalities in France who have been involved in high profile court cases and have published two best sellers. Your suggestion is interesting, but the cases are not quite comparable. Evans' efforts seem to concentrate on what happens or appears to happen on the web, whereas the Bogdanovs make money from their books and their "virtual" TV appearances. But I agree, a page like "The Theories of Myron Evans" would seem to be more appropriate than a primarily biographical page. It could contain roughly the same material as at present. -- Mathsci 17:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
BTW: Evans has managed to get some notability (say, on the Baez crackpot list), and I even got an advertisement e-mail from Amazon (automatically generated by their "Amazon customers who have bought X are also interested in books of Y" algorithm) [1]. --Pjacobi 18:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Do you mean notoriety? 't Hooft has already singled out Evans as a crank. Evans has not yet demanded his dismissal, although this might well happen during Evans' current Perelman phase. Fortunately I bought a copy of "Avant le Big Bang" [as a present for physicist colleagues] in a real shop, so Amazon has not made any impolite suggestions to me ... Mathsci 05:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Evans rejects Big Bang and Black Holes

On his blog Evans has now dismissed the science of Stephen Hawking, based on the rejected australian Ph.D. thesis of Stephen J. Crothers. Crothers has chronicled his academic failure in a web article and in recent correspondence with Evans has written :

"My work has been to simply demonstrate that, given the very premises of the orthodox relativists, it is actually impossible for black holes and big bangs to be "derived", and that these silly ideas are inconsistent with General Relativity, and so rightly belong in the dustbin of scientific history."

Crothers' articles are referenced in Mathematical Reviews but not reviewed. They were published in the online crank journal Progress in Physics, founded in 2005 and administered from an address in the Gallup branch campus of the University of New Mexico, which describes itself as a community college. There is one chief editor and 3 associate editors, one of whom is now Crothers. As in the case of the AIAS article with Bearden on the MEG, only summaries of the articles are reproduced in MR. Here is a typical example, MR2208665 (2006i:83051), which shows the idiosyncratic writing style of Crothers.

A brief history of black holes, Prog. Phys. 2 (2006), 54--57.

"Neither the layman nor the specialist, in general, has any knowledge of the historical circumstances underlying the genesis of the idea of the black hole. Essentially, almost all and sundry simply take for granted the unsubstantiated allegations of some ostentatious minority of the relativists. Unfortunately, the minority has been rather careless with the truth and is quite averse to having its claims corrected, notwithstanding the documentary evidence on the historical record. Furthermore, not a few of that vainglorious and disingenuous coterie, particularly amongst those of some notoriety, attempt to dismiss the testimony of the literature with contempt, and even deliberate falsehoods, claiming that history is of no importance. The historical record clearly demonstrates that the black hole has been conjured up by combination of confusion, superstition and ineptitude, and is sustained by widespread suppression of facts, both physical and theoretical. The following essay provides a brief but accurate account of events, verifiable by reference to the original papers, by which the scandalous manipulation of both scientific and public opinion is revealed."

Evans has invited Crothers to join AIAS, which gives some idea of the academic standard of this "organisation". --Mathsci 19:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Evans' letter to Wikipedia Complaints Staff

"I would like to make a strong protest and complaint about a false biography about me which is fully rebutted on www.aias.us, lead article. I am the British Civil List scientist and attach my real biography from the forthcoming 2007 edition of Marquis Who's Who in America. I cordially request Wikipedia to remove the false biography in its entirety and allow my staff to replace it with something similar to the attached. I was appointed to the British Civil List by the Head of State, Queen Elizaberth II, and this appointment was voted in by Parliament. The person "scienceguy" is A. Laktakia, who has an axe to grind against me. He is strongly suspected of sending hate mail repeatedly to several people, and many complaints against him have been forwarded to Penn State. He is 100% biased against me. I would also request that my genuine biography be made safe from changes. My genuine bio appears in many editions of Marquis Who's Who in America, the World, and Science and Engineering. Prof. Myron W. Evans, British Civil List Scientist, AIAS Director."

--Mathsci 16:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Objectivity in physics

Evans now claims on his blog that the academic world of physics has been completely discredited and that his "organisation" the AIAS is now the only one at the cutting edge of research. As evidence he cites the many visits to the aias website. Here is a typical monthly sample of visits to this web site from the statistics provided there. Almost all of the visits are from spamming sex-drug or pornography sites.

103,317       aias.us
 15,433       google.com
 11,299       port.ac.uk
  9,781       prohosting.com
  9,015       dynu.net
  7,144       doingnothing.com
  5,155       consillieri.com
  4,599       wmaster.info
  4,272       nalinaart.com
  3,754       inmilf.com

continuing thus:

 inmilf.com/seehersquirt.php (3,751 references)
 server.scripthost.com/guestbook (3,604 references)
 com-milfseeker.com/herfirstlesbiansex.php3 (2,224 references)
 plwife.com/blackcockswhitesluts.php (2,223 references)
 young-milf.com/vipcrew.php3 (2,222 references)
 clubseventeen.teen7live.com (2,220 references)
 genericviagra.lookscute.com (1,808 references)
 iteens.acaptain.com (1,533 references)
 teenpcs.com/squirthunter.php3 (1,530 references)
 4aslut.com/milfriders.php3 (1,529 references)
 suckmebitch.3somex.com (1,529 references)
 teenpcs.com/couplesseduceteens.php3 (1,529 references)
 google.com/search (965 references)
 tramadol.nalinaart.com (908 references)
 hydrocodone.acral.com (876 references)
 adipex.zolev.com (871 references)
 vicodin.nalinaart.com (870 references)
 hydrocodone.coolfreeprizes.com (865 references)
 adipex.acral.com (847 references)
 phentermine.coolfreeprizes.com (847 references)
 phentermine.nalinaart.com (846 references)
 phentermine-online.nalinaart.com (835 references)
 phentermine.konfident.ru (817 references)
 hydrocodone.nalinaart.com (813 references)
 phentermine.acral.com (808 references)
 aias.us (701 references)
 marketing.fox.ro (698 references)
 zoloft.drugstore-onweb.com (687 references)     
 weindexed.com (580 references)
 autoblog.worldseek.biz (524 references)
 tramadol.consillieri.com (518 references)

and then later on :

 transsexual-passion.hot-pass.net (147 references)
 sororityreview.hot-pass.net (147 references)
 xxxposedstuds.hot-pass.net (147 references)
 shelikesgirls.hot-pass.net (147 references)
 xratedlive.hot-pass.net (147 references)
 youngandfresh.hot-pass.net (147 references)
 sinful-centerfolds.hot-pass.net (147 references)
 karas-adult-playground.hot-pass.net (147 references)
 ultimate-stud.hot-pass.net (147 references)
 twinkdreams.hot-pass.net (147 references)
 ebony-cafe.hot-pass.net (147 references)
 teen-blaze.hot-pass.net (147 references)
 vipinterracial.hot-pass.net (147 references)
 sexy-teen-coeds.hot-pass.net (147 references)
 soldierofcock.hot-pass.net (147 references)
 web-mature.hot-pass.net (147 references)
 tit-summit.hot-pass.net (147 references)
 welovelatinas.hot-pass.net (147 references)
 licka-licka.hot-pass.net (147 references)
 asian-nudes.hot-pass.net (147 references)

--Mathsci 18:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

In the latest contribution to his blog, Evans declares:

"The www.aias.us website itself is of course hugely popular worldwide and has taken over from the Physical Review or J. Phys. as the vehicle that represents cutting edge physics for the vast majority of scientists. Again, we can state this with perfect objectivity from the three feedback sites, the first thee links on the homepage of www.aias.us. This is what happens with elitism in science, it is ignored by the scientists themselves because elitism is in itself unobjective and therefore unscientific. The ECE theory is Cartan geometry and perfectly objective as demanded by Francis Bacon. British Civil List Scientist."

--Mathsci 08:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

On his blog Evans has coined the term "Actual Peer Usage" (APU) as the technical method for using web usage statistics like the above to justify the general acceptance of his "theory". He further suggests that the Nobel Prize committee should rely on APU instead of consulting experts :
"I think that the Nobel Prize Process should be made a democratic one based on actual peer usage and contemporary feedback computer software, and taken out of the arbitrary personal control of academic establishments. In three years, ECE has been used by hundreds of thousands of people in up to 116 countries, far more than the original Einstein theory was used 1905-1922. So far, the academic establishment has dismally failed to recognise this and clings to bad ideas such as string theory, apparently in order to get more money from the taxpayer."
--Mathsci 08:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Proofs in differential geometry using Maple

According to one of the latest entries on Evans' blog, all proofs in differential geometry can be handled by Maple.

"Cartan geometry is available in a standard and well known computer package such as Maple, a fact which shows that the attacks on Cartan geometry are pseudo-mathematics. Cartan geometry is actually wired into the circuits, and this computer code can be used to automate calculations. This process is self checking and self consistent."

--Mathsci 21:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The Maple package for differential geometry calculations, referred to by Evans, is Atlas. The Atlas manual makes no reference to "Cartan geometry". G.Bruhn has pointed out that Atlas cannot provide an independent machine check of Evans' mathematical reasoning. --Mathsci 08:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)