June 30 2008

Gerhard W. Bruhn

Comments on MW Evans' smearing

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:

In (formal) products each index is not allowed to appear more than twice,
and if twice then one index in the upper position and the other one in lower position.

To Prove                         |summation|       |summation|
                                qaμ   ( qμaRaμ )   =   ( qaμ qμa )   Raμ                                 (1)

Proof   Let

                                qμaRaμ = A                                                                 (2)

Here A is a scalar quantity. It is known that

                                qμaqaμ = 4                                                                 (3)

therefore for eq. (1) to be true:

                                A qaμ = 4 Raμ                                                                 (4)

Eq. (1) is asserted by Bruhn to be R qaμ . So

                                R qaμ = 4 Raμ                                                                 (5)


                                Raμ = R/4 qaμ                                                                 (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 (Raμ) must be proportional to the matrix (qaμ), 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 (qaμ) can be assumed to be the unit matrix I. Then all non-diagonal entries of (qaμ) 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 (Raμ). 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:

                                qaλ = ∂λ ( . . . )
                                          = R qaλ                                                                 (7)

Multiply both sides of eq. (7) by qλa to find that

                                R = ¼ qλa ( . . . )                                                                 (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 (qλa) and (∇ qaλ) is missing. See this web note.

P.S. Eq. (1) can be relabelled

                                qbν ( qμa Raμ ) = ( qμa qaμ ) qbν
                                      |summation|     |summation|

                                . . .

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

                                qbν ( qμa Raμ ) = ( qμa Raμ ) qbν

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,

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

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


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