A Look
at AIAS in the Words of Myron Evans
This document presents some comments from Myron Evans about his work, and
the AIAS research group, such as to enable readers to make up their own minds
about this organisation. The first extract is from a
bizarre 'rebuttal' Evans posted to his website. After it was widely ridiculed,
for containing numerous errors, both grammatical and factual, it was quickly
withdrawn. The comment (sic) has been added to highlight just a few of the more
basic grammatical errors, never mind the nonsense physics.
A document called "W.A.R. agianst (sic) Evans
and the AIAS Group" has appeared on http://www.ime.unicamp.br/rel_pesq/2003/rp28-03.html
My formal rebutal (sic) to Rodrigues
can be found on http://www.aias.us/ and there
are no errors in my rebutal (sic) or in my original
work, or in papers co-authored by AIAS authors.
There are by now several hundred papers and books on the B(3)
field and these have been independently refereed in several different journals
by an estimated three hundred to five hundred anonymous referees. There are
also several independent confirmations of the theory, which is O(3) symmetry gauge field theory applied to electrodynamics.
A list of publications is available on:
http://www.aias.us/
In these independent confirmations I include Lawrence B. Crowell, who
checked the mathematics in my work prior to the publication of our monograph:
"Classical and
Quantum Electrodynamcis (sic) and the B(3) Field" (World Scientific, 2001)
Crowell kindly typeset the whole manuscript, and kindly checked every
equation for mathematical correctness.
In the above document Rodrigues distributes a lot
of childish abuse, but no science. There are some puerile suggestions that the
AIAS group is vicious and aggressive, fraudulent etc., etc., that we are all
liars and incompetent, and so on.
So who are we to believe, three to five hundred external referees, checks of
my mathematics by Crowell, a very good mathematican
(sic) and physicist, checks by Lehnert and Sachs for
example, independent confirmations of B(3) theory by several eminent
physicists, experimental confirmations, or the adolescent abuse of one man? The
mathematical and physical language used by Rodrigues
is comprehensible only to him and specialized pure mathematicians. In my papers
and those of the AIAS we try to reduce things to simplicity, and use the
simplest possible type of mathematics, so that everyone has a chance of
understanding. For example Rodrigues uses the term
"inertial bradyonic observer". Only ultra
specialists would understand whether that term has any real meaning.
Rodrigues admits that the existence of X waves was
inferred theoretically by Recami, Barut
and one other, and admits that he neither inferred nor discovered X waves. This
is an important admission. X waves, if they are physical, were inferred by Recami, Barut et al., and appear
to have been first demonstrated experimentally by Liu and Greenleaf in sound
waves. There is considerable doubt as to whether X waves exist in electromagnetic
fields. This is my opinion. There is also considerable doubt as to whether
these waves are really superluminal or subluminal. This is my opinion.
So the experimental evidence for Rodrigues' claims
is poor.
I will not correct Rodrigues' "mathematics"
again. I have already done so in my original rebutal
(sic). His language is so offensive that it makes normal scientific dialogue
almost impossible. So I stand by my original rebutal
(sic). I will just give a few examples of errors in Rodrigues'
document (above) and post this on the www.aias.us
website. I would request Rodrigues to stop
interfering with the internal affairs of AIAS, the
question of co-authorship is our business. I encourage all others addressed by Rodrigues to rebut him individually as I am doing now, on
websites and in formal papers, and to keep on rebuting
(sic) him indefintiely (sic).
1) On page 95 of "Quantum Field Theory", by Lewis H. Ryder,
paperback edition, printed in 1987 by Cambridge University Press, it is written
that O(2) is isomorphic with U(1). I HAVE CHECKED WITH CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS THAT THERE IS NO SECOND
EDITION, ONLY A SECOND PRINTING. So once again I ask Rodrigues
to get his facts straight.
(Editor's note: Within a matters of hours a scan
of the front page of the second edition in question was posted to the internet,
and a book review on the internet was also quickly located. This obvious error
by Myron is one of several reasons why this 'rebuttal' was so quickly withdrawn
from the AIAS website.)
2) Rodrigues admits that the vacuum Maxwell
equations must take the form of a U(1) gauge field
theory. So he admits by implication that this linear theory cannot describe the
inverse Faraday effect and the B(3) field. I know how
a U(1) gauge field theory is defined, it is a gauge
field theory with a scalar internal space. I do not confuse this space with
physical rotations in a plane, I point out that RYDER (sic) uses rotations in a
plane to illustrate the meaning of a U(1) group.
However, the vast majority of physicists associate the Maxwell equations in the
vacuum, and therefore U(1) gauge field theory, with
PHYSICAL transverse plane waves, and do not admit that longitudinal physical
solutions exist in the vacuum. The development of O(3)
electrodynamics refutes this suggestion.
3) Rodrigues now admits that U(1)
gauge field theory is abelian, and that, after all, electrodynamcis is a gauge field teory
(sic). That is progress. He still gets his grammar wrong though,
"Maxwell Equation" should be "The Maxwell Equations". (sic) My first language is Welsh, not English.
4) Rodrigues now admits that O(3)
gauge field theory does not, after all, reduce to U(1) gauge field theory.
Good, progress.
5) Rodrigues now admits that subluminal and
superluminal solutions may not physical, so what are they then? I am confused
as to what he is trying to claim.
6) He still tries to claim that Whittaker's theory is Hertz's theory. This
is irelevant (sic) to all my work.
7) I quote Ryder when discussing O(3) and SU(2), so
Rodrigues should direct his diatribe at Ryder. I know
very well what O(3) is, it is the group of rotations
in three dimensions. I have a good book, Ryder's textbook, and I have written
one or two myself.
8) I have already corrected Rodrigues when it
comes to measuring B(3), and how it is measured. I
repeat my original rebutal.
9) Now we are told that my correct quoting of Ryder is in fact incorrect
because Ryder is incorrect, and apparently everyone except Rodrigues.
10) Rodrigues then writes that I am the biggest
crackpot of them all. This is not a mathematical refutation of B(3) theory.
11) Rodrigues regurgitates hearsay about
Silverman. My orignal (sic) rebutal
(sic) stands.
12) Now we find that Rodrigues only knew of one
reply from Hunter, but mysteriously, not about otherr
(sic) replies to him. I can only repeat that Hunter has been severely
reprimanded by his Chair and has retired. So has Rodrigues.
13) Rodrigues writes a few comments about fraud,
but what fraud, what lies, what legal arguments? RODRIGUES (sic) is the one who
is making an honest scientist look bad. Scientific logic and evidence is ALWYS
(sic) used in my work. The first papers on B(3) were
based on experimental evidence, the inverse Farday
effect (Physica B, 182, 227, 237 (1992)). It is Rodrigues who is adapting the methods of the Inquisition.
14) Rodrigues does at least admit one error, on
the ontology of the electromagnetic potential.
15) Rodrigues once more claims that it is
unethical to quote his papers. Let me be frank. His papers are irrelevant to
science.
16) Rodrigues now claims that after all he did not
write equations of higher symmetry electrodynamics, then
what did he write, cynghanedd in strict metre?
17) Rodrigues has clearly insinuated in print and
in public that Vigier, Recami,
Barrett and othes are incompetent. He has written
this several times. In fact Rodrigues threw Recami out of his office at UNICAMP. So who is being
vicious?
18) Rodrigues fails to answer my defence of Barrett, and no doubt Barrett will be defending
himself.
19) Rodrigues fails to criticise
B(3) theory of the Sagnac effect, he merely quotes a
paper of his own in Found Phys. Barrett has already shown clearly that Maxwell Havisde theory cannot explain the Sagnac
effect.
20) Rodrigues once again deliberately ignores the
fact that the O(3) equations of the Coulomb law are
CORRECTLY written in vol. 119(2) of Advances in Chemical Physics. Look in the
mirror, who is the lawyer?
He now concludes that we are guilty, and that everyone at AIAS, and all the
hundreds of referees, are all incompetent liars. These
are the methods of a barrack room lawyer or a member of the Inquisition, but
not of a scientist or even a reasonable layman. He then repeats tired old
gossip about Hector Munera, who was in fact sent a pdf copy of all papers concerning him well in advance of
publication. In further gossip we are told that Crowell thinks that all AIAS
work is nonsense. In fact Crowell checked all my mathematics as described
above. Rodrigues writes about Hercules and the Augean
stables, but in Anglo Saxon, he who spits into the wind gets his own back.
Anglo-Saxon isn't even my first language. A series of assertions are given, but
no proof or explanation. These are the methods of a bad attorney not a
scientist. One example will suffice. The Faraday two form
is defined by Ryder on page 77. The area two form that
is given in my paper mutilated by Rodrigues on page
14 of his rant is a two form that is defined in precisely the same way as the
Faraday two form. Rodrigues cannot even quote my
formula correctly on his page 14.
Why should scientists have to waste their time answering diatribe after rdiatribe (sic) from this man? The answer is that we are
the protectors of objective truth, and science is knowledge. The truth is that
I have recently suggested a new type of grand unified field theory which has
been independently refereed and accepted for publication. There are no errors
in this work, like all my work it is carefully prepared and checked, by myself
and also by others. On page 15 of the above document Rodrigues
again misquotes one of my equations, his eqn. (1),
and again aserts (sic) that it is incorrect. The
truth is that it was carefully deduced and based on the tetrad postulate.
The correctness of my analysis is proven very simply as follows.
a) Write the contracted Einstein field equation as:
R = -kT
b) Multiply both sides by the tetrad:
R q sup q sub mu = -kT q sup q sub mu
and my new unified field theory WHICH HAS
BEN (sic) REFEREED (sic) follows from this. Ther (sic)
are noerrors (sic), I knwo
(sic) exactly what I am dong (sic), and if I'm a nut so is Albert.
(Editor's note: Here, as per usual, we see Myron's grasp of grammar and
spelling collapse, as he nears a point of emotional nervousness).
As a final example of Rodrigues complete inability
to understand the fundamentals of physics (sic), he again miswrites my wave
equation as his equation (7), he writes T for kT. He
fails completely to understand that my new equation is one of covaraint (sic) electrodynamcis in
curved space-tieme (sic), not of Maxwell Heaviside electrodynamics in flat space-time.
Rodrigues indiscrimately
(sic) and brutally villifies (sic) honest scientists,
and then tries to censor their work. This is reminiscent of the Inquisition,
but has nothing to do with science. It is dark ignorance, an assault on decency
and civilized society (sic).
Whither science?
Myron W. Evans,
AIAS Director.
Myron Evans bulk mailed an email on Wed 02 Jul 2003, and below is reproduced
extracts from it. In it he makes a variety of bizarre claims, and also wrongly
attributes comments, inadvertently committing a form of libel in the process.
Most of the allegations of mental illness, have come
from Myron himself. The fact he feels the need to repeatedly raise the issue,
even when others have not mentioned it themselves, speaks volumes about his own
extreme sensitivity in this matter. It is also notable, that as in the
rebuttal, whenever he rebuts the allegation he has mental illness or his
physics is in error, the grammar and spelling errors appear to multiply.
1) You assert in writing and in public that I was mentally ill at UNCC and
that I threatened and assaulted a faculty member. This is demonstrably untrue.
Therefore you are defaming me de facto, and there is no defence
to your libel.
2) You assert in writing and in public that UNCC got rid of me because I was
mentally ill and did not give lectures or attend faculty meetings. This is untrue, it may be proven that my research grades were
"excellent" and my teaching grades "very good". My service
grades were "average". The reasons for my dismissal are obscure, and
as I stated I believe that they wer (sic) due to my
inference at Cornell of the B(3) field, now a widely
discussed theory, as accepted as any theory in physics. There is no defence to your libel
3) You assert in writing and in public that my divorce was due to mental
illness. This is untrue, I love Laura very very (sic)
dearly, and she became so upset by attacks by defamation and intimidation as to
contract post traumatic stress disorder and to disappear. This causes me
immense pain. The divorce was due to the sick sadism of others. There is no defence to your libel.
4) You assert in writing and in public that I have not been employed since
UNCC, this is untrue, I was appointed AIAS Director in 1998, and was appointed
visiting professor at York University and the Indian Institute in 1995,
directly after my dismissal at UNCC. Look it up in Marquis Who's Who. You
defame me and there is no defence to your libel. I
will shortly become AIAS Board Chairman. In the years AFTER UNCC I have been in
receipt of numerous awards and recognitions (sic), and as a US citizen, appear in Marquis Who's Who in America and in
several other leading reference vehicles.
6) You assert in writing and in public that I am mentally ill. I suffer from
depression, but all reasoning faculties are intact. I am not psychotic,
paranoid, manic, schizophrenic, aspergic or anything
except terribly sad at the loss of a wonderful wife and family. I have a
DISABILITY (major severe depression) for which I receive a tiny living allowabce (sic) form Britain, but a disabled person is not
dismissed for being disabled, and one does not attack a disabled person if one
has any moral fibre or shred of decency. There is no defence to your libel, expert
testimony may be obtained as to the fact that I am not mentally ill. I attended
therapy for depression, caused by defamationadn (sic)
intimidation. The diagnosis was depression. I did not attend a Clinic until late
1998, and only for therapy. I left UNCC in 1995. Half the population suffers
from depression and most go for therapy at some point in their lives. People
who ARE (sic) mentlly (sic) ill are treated in contermporay society with understanding and decency, and
attempts made to cure them, and not to defame them or dismiss them from
livelihood.
AIAS consists of a number of old Welsh contacts from the days when Myron had
a career, combined with a lifetime's accumulated associates. This is
illustrated in the internal AIAS mailing list shown below. Not suprisingly Tom Bearden is on the list at
soliton@bellsouth.net, and also of note, JLN Labs is on the list,
indicating JLN's affiliation to Tom Bearden may be
closer than has been publicly indicated. Certainly, members of this group
appear to co-ordinate pro Bearden publicity, giving the impression Tom
Bearden's nonsense science has much greater support and popularity than is in
fact the case. Please note several names have been removed from the list given
below, on the basis they stated they no longer wished to be affiliated with the
nonsense science of AIAS, as it had the potential to be extremely damaging to
their career prospects.
soliton@bellsouth.net, garethje@ceredigion.gov.uk,
ala5@cornell.edu, Welshphysics@aol.com, chronos@ptd.net, apeiron@vif.com,
craddock@west.net, ellisowilliams@hotmail.com, adamp@tompkins-co.org,
PhyllisJ2@aol.com, lpozhar@yahoo.com, cecil.monk@btopenworld.com,
ocbonvivant@yahoo.com, bol@fusion.kth.se,
david.hamilton@ee.doe.gov, Barrett506@aol.com, nilsa@matpr.kth.se,
corelius@phys.tuiasi.ro, wcoffey@tcd.ie,
mignani@amaldi.fis.uniroma3.it, sfkapusc@cyf-kr.edu.pl, soliton@optonline.net,
ufmoscic@cyf-kr.edu.pl, Robert.Chambers@baesystems.com, croca@fc.ul.pt,
patrick.cornille@libertysurf.fr, sisir@isical.ac.in,
dshillad@mail1.vcu.edu, aszames@noos.fr, mckeeverjw@ornl.gov,
carpenterpa@ornl.gov, dave.goodwin@hq.doe.gov, afr1@fis.ucm.es,
ufmoscic@theta.uoks.uj.edu.pl, d.roscoe@sheffield.ac.uk, petanas@mt.net.mk,
fbwood@erols.com, M742503402@cs.com, dfeustel@mindspring.com,
guibal@ccr.jussieu.fr, cdtickle@msn.com, Volker204@cs.com, rwgray@biophan.com,
david@essex.ac.uk, noiddw@ornl.gov, sumpterbg@ornl.gov,
rajpalkl@physicsphotons.org, jhart@cinci.rr.com, AKCROW@qinetiq.com,
jsolomon@mail.com, professorroach@yahoo.com, blduell@ccamer2000.com,
cbm@aber.ac.uk, helgafuller@yahoo.com, nihonrikagaku01@h9.dion.ne.jp,
ray@kurzweiltech.com, kimberly.yavorsky@netl.doe.gov, stein.johansen@svt.ntnu.no,
john.dovel@dot.state.fl.us, erik.trell@ihs.liu.se,
jav123@arrakis.es, JNaudin509@aol.com, kpi@aber.ac.uk, sdh@aber.ac.uk,
lek@aber.ac.uk, gxv@aber.ac.uk, lzt@aber.ac.uk, phc@aber.ac.uk,
a.evans@aber.ac.uk, got@aber.ac.uk, sep@aber.ac.uk, loa@aber.ac.uk,
azb@aber.ac.uk, jjw@aber.ac.uk, ruw@aber.ac.uk, kew@aber.ac.uk, ard@aber.ac.uk,
dmb@aber.ac.uk, rsd@aber.ac.uk, rsj@aber.ac.uk, g.w.roberts@bangor.ac.uk,
s.j.abas@bangor.ac.uk, c.allton@swansea.ac.uk, d.c.dunbar@swansea.ac.uk,
w.perkins@swansea.ac.uk, g.m.shore@swansea.ac.uk, d.i.olive@swansea.ac.uk,
GoughW@cf.ac.uk, EvansWD@cardiff.ac.uk, SchmidtKM@cardiff.ac.uk,
BalinskyA@cardiff.ac.uk, ldolan@physics.unc.edu, evans@physics.unc.edu,
d.bailin@sussex.ac.uk, pilaftsi@a35.ph man.ac.uk, drtj@liverpool.ac.uk,
C.Froggatt@physics.gla.ac.uk, michael.kramer@cern.ch, w.j.stirling@durham.ac.uk
Postscript
As a result of the sequence of
events illustrated in this file, AIAS appear to have instituted a system
whereby documents are now checked before being uploaded to the AIAS website.
But it is fascinating to see the 'raw prose' produced by Myron Evans, which is
why this webpage exists, such that people are properly informed, enabling them
to make better judgements about the AIAS organisation, and the quality of its so called 'research.'
LINKS
Tom Bearden's MEG device A rational review of meg
claims and Randi's info and very good skeptical information on Bearden
free energy
scams T
back to Eric's
main Dennis Lee page what about Joe Newman? Also,
Amin,
Mills (who may be
legit?) Tilley, Perendev,
and Bedini's
Motor , Bearden Lutec, Tewari
Greer's offer VMSK Moray, Bedini, betavolt, Adams, Mallove, Jack Carey , GWE,
Searl
Discussion of
Bearden's 20 year old theory promising free energy
A closer look at some of
Bearden's theory http://www.tinaja.com/pseudo01.html
- a look at psuedoscience on the web
my $10000 prize for
proof of free energy of
Carl Tilley's
free energy scam EXPOSED
· The Museum of
Unworkable Devices a great overview of them
· INE Free Energy
Devices Database - - another great list of FE claims
his skeptic pages and crack pot pages
Milt's discussion of Free
Energy and Ceti