Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: MacMac on 10/06/2008 07:30:40
-
A new physics theory, the Einstein-Cartan-Evans (ECE) theory, is in rapid development, see http://www.aias.us/ (http://www.aias.us/), in particular paper 63 http://www.aias.us/documents/uft/a63rdpaper.pdf (http://www.aias.us/documents/uft/a63rdpaper.pdf). Stan Meyer discusses in his patents high frequency inputs to a resonance cavity. It appears that he has somehow achieved space-time resonance as discussed in paper 63, which would explain the source of the required disassociation energy. The ECE theory is fast rendering the old textbooks obsolete.
-
I understand the the US patent office has a simple way of dealing with "free energy" and "perpetual motion" machines.
Inventors are asked to set one up in the patent office and come back a year later. If it's still running then they are prepared to talk to the inventor.
Perhaops this site should have a similar policy.
-
I am really impressed with Bored Chemist's ability to read and understand the ECE paper 63 to the extent that he can dismiss it out of hand.
-
MacMc
I have followed that link of yours and looked briefly at the paper. It has clearly got to be either Earth Shattering or total rubbish.
My Maths isn't up to a proper assessment and I await another forum member to give it the once over.
The website does tend to Rant rather a lot and that makes me suspicious .
-
Thanks MacMac, but I must credit you with providing some of the evidence on which I based my assesment.
If you hadn't cited that total cobblers about HHO before
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=13219.msg176896#msg176755
I might have felt compelled to look more closely at this paper.
However a couple of points.
Firstly, strictly speaking I made no comment on the paper so it hardly matters whether I read it or not.
Secondly extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. One website doesn't count, particularly one that includes no experimental data.
Don't take it personally- I dismiss all "free energy" claims out of hand. I just pointed out that the patent office does too.
-
I agree with Sophiecentaur that Professor Myron Evans seems to occasionally wander off along all sorts of off physics paths, but so did Einstein and who would dare to dismiss Feynman because he, as rumoured, liked to play the bongos and write his equations on the tablecloths in brothels? Evans' inclusion of torsion and the use of Cartan geometry may well turn out to be 'Earth Shattering'. He is not proposing any new experiments but he is re-assessing known experiments in rapid succession, with for the proponents of the 'Standard Model' rather disconcerting results. Evans has been ridiculed for suggesting that Nikola Tesla might after all have been right, but Evans is not talking about Perpetuum Mobile in the 'classical' sense or 'free energy' in the sense of violating the second law of thermodynamics. He is talking about spin connection resonance (SCR) enabling extraction of energy from space-time. 'Earth Shattering' indeed!
The big problem for mere mortals like me is the high level of abstraction in the ECE theory and the difficult differential geometry. I too would be interested if other forum members with a sufficient mastering of this would like to weigh in on it. Also, I would like to ask such eminent forum members to have a go at refuting (mathematically and geometrically) Stephen Crothers' claims in his papers at .pdf]http://www.aias.us/documents/otherPapers/IJTP1962[1].pdf (http://www.aias.us/documents/otherPapers/IJTP1962[1) and .pdf]http://www.aias.us/documents/otherPapers/IJTP1960[1].pdf (http://www.aias.us/documents/otherPapers/IJTP1960[1)
-
For some reason the links to Crothers' papers do not work. Try this (marked NEW): http://aias.us/index.php?goto=showPageByTitle&pageTitle=Publications (http://aias.us/index.php?goto=showPageByTitle&pageTitle=Publications)
-
They said Galileo was mad
They said Columbus was mad.
They said my uncle harry was mad- they were right about him.
Whatever any scientists before may have done and said doesn't make any difference to the fact that these papers make great claims and have no evidence.
-
I'm afraid 'Bored Chemist' has misunderstood Crothers' papers. Crothers is simply pointing out, and is offering proofs, that there were several fundamental mathematical and geometric errors made in the foundational work of some prominent physicists at the beginning of the 20th Century. For instance, Crothers claims that David Hilbert made a mistake in his interpretation of Karl Schwarzschild's original work in 1916. However, David Hilbert had, and still has, such an enormous nimbus that his version was, and still is, taken to be correct and has ever since been referred to as the "Karl Schwarzschild Solution". Crothers' contribution is that he has shown that Karl Schwarzschild's original work was (mathematically and geometrically) flawless and David Hilbert's interpretation was not. This is all about (very difficult) mathematics and geometry and not per se about cosmology. However, if Crothers' results are confirmed, the consequences for the 'Standard Model' would be devastating. So, come on! Show were and how Crothers' mathematics and geometry is incorrect!
-
i think theories with no evidence should not be considered as the part of subject and should be kept in a different section so that the students wont get confused by reading the not yet proved things. Instead they should read such things after getting the basic concepts.
-
Are you suggesting yet another Forum, entitled 'New Theories with no Basis'?
Most of the threads in this forum would qualify for this.
If you are uneasy with the contents of this particular forum, perhaps you could avoid it. I would have sympathy with that point of view, which is why this particular forum was invented.
It is common for a Moderator to put threads here when they get too fanciful for the more down to Earth Science Forums.
It is a far more polite action than some of them deserve but were are basically nice, indulgent, chaps here. (And chapesses).
-
"there were several fundamental mathematical and geometric errors made in the foundational work of some prominent physicists at the beginning of the 20th Century. "
Funny how they seem to work so well.
Let me know what experimental evidence there is for this being important please.
BTW, if we set up a forum for theories with no basis can we be honest about it and call it "dross"?
-
BTW, if we set up a forum for theories with no basis can we be honest about it and call it "dross"?
And have a warning "Abandon hope all ye who enter here".
-
Dross? How about "errant nonsense"? Those were the words used by L. T. More when first introduced to Einstein's thinking (see below). I know well that it is distasteful to mix theoretical physics with common sense, but it still holds that common sense is not very common, and common sense suggests that science must be an iterative process. If your pet hypothesis does not match current observations, you have two choices. You can tweak your equations to fit current (any) observations, or, as common sense would suggest, you can re-interpret observations or perhaps await new observations to become available. The string theorists do a lot of beautiful tweaking, don't they? Any evidence that it describes nature, anyone?
I would recommend all the naked chaps and chapesses (gulp) a study of the work of Reg Cahill at Flinders University in Adelaide http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/processphysics.html (http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/processphysics.html). Is his re-examination of the Michelson-Morley experiment dross and errant nonsense? And what about his view on the role of the Fine-structure (Sommerfeld) Constant? Dross? Richard Feynman's view was that it is "one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics: a magic number that comes to us with no understanding by man.
Is it really possible that the work of tens of thousands of physicists over the 20th Century could be wrong? Try thousands over three centuries.
"Thomas F. Glick, ed., The Comparative Reception of Relativity (Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1987), ISBN 9027724989."
In the Preface by Stanley Goldberg, "The Assimilation of Relativity in America", he writes, quote:
"... While Lewis and Tolman were endeavoring to convince their colleagues that the theory was empirical and practical, those Americans who did comment on the theory ridiculed it as errant nonsense. L.T. More. Professor of Physics at the University of Cincinnati, teased relativists on the grounds that if they were right then the sun was melting away at an incredible rate and that when a man caught a baseball, the mass of both the ball and the man's hand should change. But he became deadly serious when he thundered that the "electronicist theories" were a throwback representing an attempt to undermine the three century struggle which science had waged to purge itself of metaphysics, that is, nonsense. ...".
Mod Edit - repeated text removed
-
I apologise! Somehow I managed to double up some of the text.
-
"If your pet hypothesis does not match current observations, you have two choices. You can tweak your equations to fit current (any) observations, or, as common sense would suggest, you can re-interpret observations or perhaps await new observations to become available."
Fair enough- what are you saying is actually wrong with our pet hypotheses; where do they not agree with observation?
It's all very well saying that great scientists have been wrong in the past- we know that. What I would like you to do is tell us what they are currently wrong about. As I said before, it seems that they get the answers very nearly right for someone using the wrong maths.
-
It is not strictly correct to say that the well established theories of the past were all totally disproved, turned on their heads and must have been rubbish. The system of Science is much more incremental than that. The new bits are revolutionary only in as far as they allow significant progress but they usually include the old stuff as a subset.
Even the Flat Earth, as an idea, is fine if you don't use satellites or go very far away from home. The Round Earth merely gives an explanation of what you see which includes more cases. It's like this all the way up.
Why do people delight in crowing about the shortcomings of Science? It is negative, pointless and usually demonstrates ignorance and pique. The well informed contributors to these pages just don't do it.
Sorry to seem smug in this regard.
-
Perhaps I was a little careless by not explaining what I meant by 'tweak'. Go see http://discovermagazine.com/2004/sep/the-masters-mistakes (http://discovermagazine.com/2004/sep/the-masters-mistakes). Interestingly; on page 2, there is an account of Karl Schwarzschild's presumed work on the Black Hole. This is a good illustration of distortion of historical facts. What the author is referring to (as is everyone else) is David Hilbert's interpretation of Schwarzschild's solution. Schwarzschild himself did not predict the Black Hole. See http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/9905030v1 (http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/9905030v1). Crothers is the first in 90 years to point this out and also to correct Hilbert's mistake. Scientific progress is a tortuous business.
-
Scientific progress is a tortuous business.
Of course. It's just like anything else that Humans do. The only advantage that we have with Science is that it is (or at least it could be) possible to test theories.
You can't test Politics or Art or Religion and everyone can believe they were right. You can at least dis-prove Scientific Theories with just one exception.
-
Hi there,
I would like to recontinue the discussion in this thread regarding the "water as fuel in cars" as it is related to the new theories of science and chemistry
i have seen your discussion regarding the HHO fuel.
I believe that it works perfectly to make the fuel car run on water just by a few alterations in the engine.
Electrolysis of water produces a Hydroxy gas that would help us to make the cars run on water,there is a HHO fuel kit that can save your money from spending on the everyday price rises in crude oil and gasoline .
I have read about this HHO fuel kit from the site mod edit - stop spamming the forum with links - people can ask you by PM if they want to follow your comments up.
I know you people might say that you might have heard about this HHO fuel kits as I have seen in your earlier posts,but please know it something better and different here
Hope you friends will leave a feedback,
-
Hello, I have read the post and I am impressed by all of the "big" words you all use to impress each other. As for HHO,Browns Gas, waterfuel, whatever you want to call it.I saw the ads and was also in the "to good to be true" crowd. However I built one of these HHO generators that produces the hydroxy gas. I installed it on a 1988 Pontiac which gets on average 24 MPG, after repeated test with the "generator" I consistently achieve 34 MPG. I have less than 100.00 invested in my gadget.I am not here to sell anything, I am just saying that if a thirty something, high school graduate from the hills of Kentucky, can build something in a day to increase his gas mileage by 30+%. Why cant you educated folk do a bit better. Quit making up excuses why it wont work and make something that will.
-
Hi,
Well, two thousand years ago everyone "KNEW" the Earth was the centre of the then perceived universe. Everyone "KNEW" the Earth was flat.
Maybe bizarre apparently stupid theories should be considered due to this fact.
Heck guys some poor souls were burned at the stake for their silly ideas.
-
Everyone "KNEW" the Earth was flat.
Wrong!
-
Wrong Maybe,
But if they came out in the open, danger or death. Religion would not tolerate them. I know about the Greeks.
-
In that case you should know that there were no religious problems in ancient Greece where the Earth not being flat was concerned. In fact, I don't think I've ever come across a non-flat Earth theory that was classed as heretic by any religion.
As I illustrated in another thread, the Earth being a sphere was well established in ancient Greece.
-
Ping pong, ping pong, ping pong.∞
-
Back to free-form poetry again?
Anyway I thought that you couldn't perceive ∞ so how could you tell when you had typed it?
Perhaps that's just your way of saying "OK I was wrong- the Greeks new the Earth wasn't flat and I was talking nonsense".
-
Give up Me never!! I stick to what I believe is true
-
There are some of us who like to learn rather than sticking to what we "believe"