Alpha Institute for Advanced Studies

The www.aias.us website has been rebuilt after a server crash by Annexa CEO Dave Burleigh, but there is a CMS fault at present meaning that the site is not visible yet worldwide. In the meantime the feedback for the first part of August is attached at the end of the book of feedback as usual, because today is the last day of August 2013. The feedback sites are being rebuilt so I will include as much of the feedback as possible for the second half of August from the daily reports if the usual feedback cannot be restored. Probably, Dave will be able to restore the entire feedback. I advise that www.atomicprecision.com also has some of the WordPress blog and the UFT papers up to UFT243. The blog also has all the UFT papers and notes on www.drmyronevans.wordpress.com. Dave does a great job and this is the first time a server crash has occurred in eleven years, and that was of course out of his control. The attached feedback book is absolutely unique to science and is in the British Library via the National Library of Wales.

overview1.docx

Many thanks to Axel Westrenius. There should be much stricter control over cult science, and I think that this control will assert itself automatically as the next Great Depression starts to bite. As long as they are not funded publicly they can do what they like, but the amount of money they waste is intolerable. In Europe we are beginning to see groups organize effective legal actions against wind turbines in the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg, on the basis of the Aarhus Convention of the United Nations – lack of democratic accountability. So such class actions can be brought against CERN on the same basis, that very small groups of people fed themselves vast amounts of money. They used to do this on Wall Street, a clique of wealthy investors would buy and drive up a stock, then dump it making huge profits. This led to the Great Depression, fuelled by margin investment and so on. The key problem is that the dogmatists feed themselves money without any effective ministerial control, they fuel the media frenzy by inventing garbage ideas. An extra level of control is needed to stop this profligate waste of money and use it for the good of humankind. The Nobel Prize Committee should not award a Prize for the Higgs boson, it has been refuted in papers such as UFT225 and in many other ways. If a Nobel Prize is awarded for crass rubbish, it will severely damage science and permanently alienate the great majority of scientists. This has already happened in the case of the Milner Prize. Three million dollars were awarded to Hawking for total rubbish, big bang, dismissed by figures such as Einstein and Hoyle as a joke. The fact that Hawking accepted this prize means that he is no longer regarded by many as a scientist. Hawking always refused to debate me by having a secretary say that he was infinitely busy by automated e mail. His secretary is probably a Dalek. Exterminate, exterminate all geometry.

In a message dated 30/08/2013 04:42:26 GMT Daylight Time, writes:

Dear Myron,

Last night, we, the Hoi Polloi, were served up this very generous dose of academic smugness. We were of course expected to feel satisfied that our tax dollars are very well spent. A pittance for CERN and the LHC.

The mind boggles at the thought of an infinite number of universes and an infinite number of Larry Krausses.

I thought you might like the entertainment.

Kind regards,
Axel

http://www.abc.net.au/iview/#/view/41929

The site is down temporarily due to a server crash, and it is being reconstructed. The British Library archives last archived the site on 7th June, and it can be accessed on www.webarchive.co.uk, Science and Technology Section page 2, Alpha Institute for Advanced Studies, click on the 7th June thumbnail. That goes up to UFT242. The wordpress blog is unaffected and is visible through www.drmyronevans.wordpress.com. Dave Burleigh’s work at Annexa is almost 100% reliable and has been archived in the National Archives both sides of the Atlantic. This is the first time that there has been a server crash in eleven years (2002 to present) and we will steadily but surely rebuild the site and feedback sites. These were full backed up by Dave Burleigh in June, and they can be reconstructed for July and to date in August. In the meantime the British Library archives are fully intact, and I advise switching to those until the original www.aias.us is fully restored. All the UFT papers and indeed all material has also been archived daily on the wordpress blog, so readers can also use that.

We can resend anything that you need, including any UFT paper or notes. The last British Library backup was 7th June in the Science and Technology Section (www.webarchive.org.uk , Science and Technology, page two, click on latest thumbnail). That went up to UFT242, and so we can resend UFT243 to UFT246 and notes. It is probably possible if necessary to download the archived website from the British Website archive. The wordpress blog is of course intact, and as you know I have archived all the feedback. Let me know if there is anything you want me to resend. I will check on how far the essays got on the British Library archive, which is working fine. The work you ae doin gis of key importance and it has all been archived in the National Library of Wales and British Library, probably also in the US archives in Washington DC.

Sent: 29/08/2013 14:14:21 GMT Daylight Time
Subj: Re: Daily Report 29/8/13

Myron & Horst,

I have setup a new account with a company that provides the type of server software we require for the website. In order to return aias.us to operation as soon as possible a backup needs to be uploaded to the new server. I have a backup from June which will take about 14 hours to upload with my connection. If you or Horst have a backup let me know and I will setup an ftp account to upload it with.

It is doubtful that anything can be saved from the old server. It failed to restart and I assume the data is lost. The good news is the I have everything up to June 28 and can add the rest of the content for July and August. It will take some time to install the customized software for the stats process, but we will eventually be back where we were.

I apologize for the break in service and am working to get everybody back online today.

Dave

The much vaunted particle theory of the obsolete physics is as narrowly based as the Einstein theory, so is just as easily brought crashing down and replaced by something stronger. It is not my intention to destroy physics, but to strengthen physics. The weak point of the standard particle physics is its crass neglect of the basics of wave particle dualism. These have been developed into the duality relations of the ECE theory from the well known de Broglie equation E = m c squared = h bar omega, where E is the rest energy of any particle, including the photon with mass. Common sense means that this is in general E = gamma m c squared = h bar omega, the first duality equation. The second duality equation is p = gamma m v = h bar kappa for the relativistic momentum. UFT158 to UFT170 and UFT245 ff used these relations to refute standard particle theory completely and very easily. UFT255 destroyed the GWS electroweak theory by focusing on it sown careless scholarship. We are now in the process of developing an entirely new particle physics, a phoenix from the ashes.

Fully agreed with Stephen Crothers. In UFT120 for example all the black hole solutions of the incorrect Einstein field equation were shown to be incorrect because of neglect of torsion. UFT120 is in Google Scholar and has been read tens of thousands of times without objection from real scientists. It is clear that those who advocate black holes and big bang and so on have been rejected as dogmatists. They blast out tedious pseudoscience using a captive media. These arguments by Stephen Crothers are impeccable, and he has presented them clearly. The dogmatists have been reduced to gutter abuse. I am posting all of Stephen’s arguments on my blog, so that they reach 163 countries worldwide. A lot of Stephen Crothers’ work is on www.aias.us and has been read avidly for years without objection. People who fall into crude gutter abuse should be ignored. If they did that at a scientific meeting they would be expelled or the police called to have them expelled. After a while it becomes clear that they have been defeated by Stephen Crothers and others in debate, and the debate is recorded in the National Archives of Wales and all Britain.

In a message dated 28/08/2013 17:08:55 GMT Daylight

Dear Ed McCullough,

I am well aware of the methods of dishonest argument you have now
mentioned, but they are not relevant to what I have been presenting. I
commit none of the mortal sins you insinuate. Contrary to your
implication, my arguments are not dishonest. They are simple and
direct so that any educated person can understand them. It is not my
fault that astrophysical scientists have committed grave errors from
which they have conjured up phantasmagorical theoretical entities that
bear no relation to reality and upon which their status and
reputations have been founded and developed. I have not introduced
diversions. Diversions have come from yourself and Brin. Your
instruction that I limit my comments to the diversions you have
introduced is unacceptable and unscientific. Neither you nor your
colleagues have addressed the facts I adduced in my very first email
to this forum.

As to your diversions on dark companions and jets, I am not obligated
to provide an alternative theory simply because I adduce proofs that
the prevailing theoretical dogma is patently false owing to major
inconsistencies and fatal mathematical errors. I venture no
hypotheses. However, I provided you with the simple facts from which
the inevitable conclusion is that these dark companions and jets you
speak of are not due to the presence of black holes. To account for
dark companions and jets you and your colleagues will have to find
some other explanation. This does not make discussion merely
‘academic’ at all, contrary to your assertion, because you and your
colleagues misinterpret observations by means of theories which are
inherently contradictory, and which violate the very physical and
mathematical foundations of the theory itself. Revealing errors is
legitimate science.

Science has actually become a dogma. That is the main problem. Let’s
return once again to the salient facts you and your colleagues now
choose to ignore (since all were ignorant of them before I adduced
them).

1) All alleged black hole solutions pertain to a universe that is
spatially infinite, is eternal, contains only one mass, is not
expanding, and is asymptotically flat or is asymptotically curved
(i.e. is asymptotic to some other spacetime such as anti–de Sitter
spacetime). But the alleged big bang cosmology pertains to a universe
that is spatially finite (one case) or spatially infinite (two
different cases), is of finite age, contains radiation and many masses
including multiple black holes (some of which are primordial), is
expanding, and is not asymptotically anything. Thus the black hole and
the big bang contradict one another – they are mutually exclusive.

I have not made anything up. I have not been ‘dishonest’. These are
the claims of the astrophysical scientists. I could cite them until
the proverbial cows come home. I just make their contradictions
clearly apparent, in very simple language. Mathematics is not required
and so can’t be used anymore to obfuscate.

I therefore reiterate; upon what set of Einstein field equations and
upon what solution thereto do you and your colleagues rely for
multiple black holes in an expanding big bang universe (and which one
of the 3 options thereof do you contend?), that is of finite age, and
is not asymptotically anything?

2) Einstein’s field equations are nonlinear. Consequently the
Principle of Superposition is invalid in General Relativity. One
cannot therefore superpose any alleged black hole universe upon any
alleged big bang universe or upon any other alleged black hole
universe. Similarly one cannot superpose any alleged big bang universe
upon any alleged black hole universe or upon any other alleged big
bang universe. One cannot superpose any matter and radiation onto any
black hole universe or big bang universe in order to get stars and
galaxies and accretion discs and jets and planets and multiple black
holes, etc. To do so violates the mathematical structure of General
Relativity. However, superposition is precisely how the astrophysical
scientists have generated their big bang universe with its multiple
black holes and stars and galaxies etc. Let X be an alleged black hole
solution to Einstein’s field equations and let Y be an alleged big
bang solution to Einstein’s field equations. Then the linear
combination (i.e. superposition) X + Y is not a solution to Einstein’s
field equations, because General Relativity is nonlinear. Indeed, X
and Y relate to completely different sets of Einstein’s field
equations and so they bear no relation to one another whatsoever.

Upon what set of Einstein field equations and upon what solution
thereto do you and your colleagues rely for dark companions in binary
systems in an expanding big bang universe?

3) There are no known solutions to Einstein’s field equations for two
or more masses and there is no existence theorem by which it can even
be asserted that his field equations contain latent solutions for two
or more masses.

Upon what set of Einstein field equations and upon what solution
thereto do you and your colleagues rely for a black hole binary system
in an expanding big bang universe?

4) General Relativity violates the usual conservation of energy and
momentum and is therefore in conflict with experiment on the deepest
of levels. Do you really just rely upon Einstein’s arguments for
conservation of energy and momentum in his theory?

5) According to Misner, Thorne and Wheeler (Gravitation, 1970),

“One crucial assumption underlies the standard hot big-bang model:
that the universe ‘began’ in a state of rapid expansion from a very
nearly homogeneous, isotropic condition of infinite (or near infinite)
density and pressure.”

How close to infinite must one get to be “near infinite”?

You cited and provided a copy of the book ‘Gravitohydromagnetics’ by
Punsly (2000). In this book he deals with the alleged rotating (i.e.
Kerr or Kerr-Newman) black hole. First, he has merely assumed the
existence of such an entity from the outset. Assumption does not make
it appear in the Universe. Second, he does not know that the usual
conservation of energy and momentum is invalid in General Relativity,
and that this includes the usual conservation of angular momentum.
Third, he permits the presence of multiple black holes and other
matter falling into them and the formation of material jets and
accretion discs (all consisting of matter); in violation of facts
(1), (2), (3) and (4) above.

In the Preface alone Punsly says:

“The strong large-scale magnetic field limit is essential for the
external Universe to be significantly coupled to the black hole.”

Throughout the book he talks of multiple black holes, black holes at
the centres of galaxies, black hole central engines, and multiple
black hole related radio sources.

At the start of Section 1.2 Punsly says:

“A black hole has never been seen by definition. Yet, it is commonly
accepted that astrophysical black holes exist. Black holes are ‘seen’
only indirectly through their interactions with nearby matter. Because
the gravitational field of a black hole is the most intense of any
compact object, one expects unique signatures of their effects on the
surrounding environment.”

Upon what set of Einstein field equations and upon what solution
thereto does Punsly rely for the coupling of all these black holes to
the external Universe and the surrounding environment and all the
matter in the surrounding environment allegedly interacting with all
these black holes? He has no such set of field equations let alone a
solution thereto. Nobody has such a solution or set of field
equations. All Punsly does is superpose all this matter, all these
radio sources, all these galaxies, and all these black holes, upon one
another and upon some big bang universe. The entire book is based upon
a fallacious foundation. This is how the astrophysical scientists have
manufactured their universe. They violate the physical and
mathematical principles of the very theory they use (General
Relativity) and draw false analogies with Newton’s theory (The
Principle of Superposition is valid in Newton’s theory).

Yours faithfully,
Stephen J. Crothers

This notes describes the obsolete view that electron positron annihilation (EP) is generated from Compton scattering theory by cross over symmetry as in equations (5) and (6), so the obsolete view uses the same Eqs. (7) and (8) for both processes. It is shown that this results in the contradiction (19) and that the correct theory is Eq. (20), a theory of the type developed n previous notes for UFT247. The relativistic kinetic energy T of the electron appears on the right hand side of Eq. (20) and T is transmuted into many different processes, which are actually observed as energy peaks in particle colliders. UFT225 shows that there can be no confidence in the way in which these peaks are interpreted in the obsolete particle physics, so there is overwhelming justification for a completely new theory of particle physics which takes into account the duality equations of ECE theory, developed from de Broglie’s wave particle dualism.

a247thpapernotes7.pdf

There were 2057 hits from 364 distinct visits, 37.8% spiders from google and MSN. Auto1 170, Auto2 46, CEFE 34, Englynion 17 so far in August 2013. McGill University Canada UFT41; Spencer Stuart Executive Search Chicago Obsolete Concepts of the Standard Model and general; Alachua County Public Schools Gainesville Florida UFT43; Minnesota Supercomputing Institute UFT214; Universite Pierre et Marie Curie Paris general; Lisbon Technical University UFT81, Intense interest all sectors.

This process was mentioned by Cecil Monk in a third year course during my undergraduate degree in about 1970 and was studied by people like Bethe in the early twentieth century. My notes for this undergraduate course is now in the archives of my autobiography volume 2. It was taught in a fairly simple minded way. Looking at Google keywords “electron positron annihilation kinetic energy” I find the process described in a CERN course in a shockingly careless and simple minded way, with grammatical and other errors. The theory of annihilation given in that CERN course is just the same as the original Compton theory, so both have been out dated completely by the UFT papers. The two processes are related by what is known as cross over symmetry. If

A + B = C + D

in a particle interaction, then:

A + C bar = B bar + D

where the bar denotes antiparticle. I will write this out in a subsequent note for UFT247. In the electron positron collision there must be conservation of total energy, total linear and total angular momentum and total charge. At high energies the process is claimed in standard particle physics to produce W(plus) and W(minus) pairs and the Z boson, but these theory has been clinically deconstructed in the attached. The international collider thing is meant to try to observe the non existent Higgs boson with electron positron annihilation. This opens the way for an entirely new theory of the hyper expensive happenings at CERN. The EP annihilation process has been studied for thirty five years, producing vast amounts of data. However, the basics are again very shaky. We have come to expect this by now. We are told on careless sites such as wikipedia that when a positron and electron collide, both become instantaneously at rest with instantaneously zero total momentum, so in the simplest case two gamma rays (photons) are given off each with the rest energy of the electron and positron. Dr. Monk did not explain why this can be so, so as an undergraduate I memorized and regurgitated. Thinking about it, this cannot be so, because the created photons are supposed to be moving in opposite directions, and the rest energy has been picked up from electron and positron moving in opposite directions and colliding. Only part of the energy of the moving electron is claimed to have been given to that photon, the rest energy. There must be an excess energy E, which is exacly what is deduced in notes so far for UFT247. It is not even clear that the gamma rays are observed to have this claimed rest energy , or whether this is just a claim. As usual the stadnard physics literature is obscurantism personified and is almost unreadable. No wonder I threw up as an undergraduate. The conservation of energy equation given at the CERN course is simple minded, it is:

E + m c squared = E(gamma) + (E gamma)

but now we know that this equal mass equation collapses if we take into account the de Broglie / Einstein equations. CERN has never done this. The equation above does not describe a moving electron and positron, one particle is at rest. So it is time to rewrite particle theory entirely. Scattering processes in standard particle theory are always described as elastic, in which case the theory collapses completely under certain well defined circumstances discovered for the first time in UFT158 – UFT170, and UFT245 onwards. CERN has totally failed to react to the attached refutation, which is a devastating criticism of crass carelessness in standard physics. The latter does not allow its captive readership to think, even on the most elementary level.

a225thpaper.pdf

UFT225-final.pdf

Excellent progress.

In a message dated 27/08/2013 17:23:18 GMT Daylight Time, dwlindstrom@gmail.com writes:

Thanks Horst:
Good suggestion. For the first generation model I think I will use a uniform charge distribution for Ni over its nuclear radius, and treat the hydrogen as point sources. This will test the modelling process (likely FEA). As a second step, if warranted, we can put in a more complex representation.

Doug

On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Horst Eckardt <horsteck> wrote:

Doug, do you need the value of electronic charge density at the atomic core of Ni and H? Such data should be available from atomic structure calculations. I also have an old program that could compute this. I guess that the H atom in the solid is significantly negatively ionized so this value has to be increased.

Horst

Am 26.08.2013 18:23, schrieb Doug Lindstrom:

A put in a few hours searching, and found nothing we didn’t know about already. I think my next step is to model the Coulomb field for the Ni-H structure, as in Rossi’s device, so that is available for a quantum model. The quantum model should give the probability of transmutation, and the new scattering theory may give a idea of the energy available for heating the solid material. Perhaps the two can be merged, with the scattering theory giving before and after states, and the quantum model and connection between the two.

Doug

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 7:21 AM, Horst Eckardt <horsteck> wrote:

A quick googling showed that many alloys containing Ni and H have been studied. It seems to be more difficult to find a results for a pure NiH structure, although this is a standard material for batteries (or NiMeH with any metal Me). you should look for LAPW calculations and NiH.
Horst