June 30 2008

''Refutation of Bruhn's Cyberstalking of 29th June 2008'' [4]

(my comments in **blue**)

Hereby Evans intrepidly attempts to ''prove'' an equation that is based on a dubious and inadmissible notation which I had criticized several times [1], [2], [3]:

A *rule of thumb* for the Einstein convention is:

and if twice then one index in the upper position and the other one in lower position.

__To Prove___{|summation|}
_{|summation|}

q^{a}_{μ} ( q^{μ}_{a}R^{a}_{μ} ) =
( q^{a}_{μ} q^{μ}_{a} ) R^{a}_{μ}
(1)

** Proof** Let

q^{μ}_{a}R^{a}_{μ} = A
(2)

Here A is a scalar quantity. It is known that

q^{μ}_{a}q^{a}_{μ} = 4
(3)

therefore for eq. (1) to be true:

A q^{a}_{μ} = 4 R^{a}_{μ}
(4)

Eq. (1) is asserted by Bruhn to be R q^{a}_{μ} . So

R q

or

R^{a}_{μ} = ^{R}/_{4} q^{a}_{μ}
(6)

Q. E. D.

Q. E. D. ?
Excuse me, that I must again pour some water into your wonderful wine, Myron:
Only one question: With the lines above you have shown that eq. (1) is valid
if and only if eq. (6) is true. **But where is the proof that eq. (6) is true???**
Your ''Proof'' is a typical Evans-sophism. There is an evident GAP in that ''proof''.

We are going now to decide whether eq. (1) can be valid. You have already shown the equivalence
of the eqs. (1) and (6). And eq. (6) shows that the matrix (R^{a}_{μ}) must be
proportional to the matrix (q^{a}_{μ}), entry by entry with the *same* proportionality factor
R/4.

However, at a fixed point of spacetime, the matrices involved are independent. Especially, the matrix
(q^{a}_{μ})
can be assumed to be the unit matrix I. Then all *non-diagonal* entries of (q^{a}_{μ})
vanish, and due to the proportionality-eq.(6) the non-diagonal elements of the R-matrix must vanish likewise.
However this is a contradiction to the independency of the matrix (R^{a}_{μ}).
**Therefore eq. (6) cannot be valid, and eq.(1) is invalid as well.**

Note carefully that eq. (1) is __nowhere used__ in
the proof of the ECE Lemma. . . .

''__nowhere used__'' is not true: See e.g. the calculation from eq. (21) to eq. (22) on the
p.6/7 of the paper
NEW CONCEPTS FROM THE EVANS UNIFIED FIELD
THEORY. PART ONE

The latter is:

**∇** q^{a}_{λ} = ∂^{λ} ( . . . )

= R q^{a}_{λ}
(7)

Multiply both sides of eq. (7) by q^{λ}_{a} to find that

R = ¼ q^{λ}_{a} ( . . . )
(8)

So the Bruhn method is ... of deception − he sets up a false claim and tries to ... over the false claim.

The previous proof has a GAP as well: In eq. (7) the *proportionality* of the matrices
(q^{λ}_{a}) and (∇ q^{a}_{λ})
is *missing*. See this web note.

__P.S.__ Eq. (1) can be relabelled

q^{b}_{ν} ( q^{μ}_{a}
R^{a}_{μ} ) =
( q^{μ}_{a} **q**^{a}_{μ} ) q^{b}_{ν}

^{|summation|}
^{|summation|}

. . .

No comment, due to an unknown typo. Probably it should read

q^{b}_{ν} ( q^{μ}_{a}
R^{a}_{μ} ) =
( q^{μ}_{a} R^{a}_{μ} ) q^{b}_{ν}

which is a (correct) identity but does by no means solve your problems, Myron. Sorry.

At last a remark on using your first name, Myron: Remember! You yourself introduced that nice usage in an email to me on April 07, 2006 when you sent me the following kind invitation:

From: EMyrone@aol.com [mailto:EMyrone@aol.com]

Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 9:38 AM

To: bruhn@mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de;

Subject: Re: Schneeberger: Ether

Well **Gerhard** you always say that any calculation is wrong. So if you say Schneeberger is wrong you are simply behaving
in the same old way. This is very boring. You have no credibility and so I request you not to send me any further absurd
e mail, or any e mail. ... **If you go on like this you will certainly get a haircut in the Tower.** ...

[1] G.W. Bruhn, *Deliberate misunderstanding to deceive his readers*,

http://www2.mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de/~bruhn/EvansDeception.html

[2] G.W. Bruhn, *A Lecture on New Math given by Dr Horst Eckardt and Dr Myron W. Evans*,

http://www2.mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de/~bruhn/E&E-NewMath.html

[3] G.W. Bruhn, Comments on Evans' *Notes 2: The ECE Lemma*,

http://www2.mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de/~bruhn/ECE-Lemma011007.html

[4] M.W. Evans, *NEW CONCEPTS FROM THE EVANS UNIFIED FIELD
THEORY. PART ONE*,

http://www.aias.us/documents/uft/a12thpaper.pdf

[5] M.W. Evans, *Refutation of Bruhn's Cyberstalking of 29th June 2008*

http://www.atomicprecision.com/blog/wp-filez/arefutationofbruhn29Jun08.pdf