My final note on
Evans' ''New Science'':

Insisting on the Antisymmetry of the Gamma Connection

Gerhard W. Bruhn, Darmstadt University of Technology

Nov 18 ff., 2008

We read on Evans' blog the following sequence of self-explaining nonsense. Such a ''scientist'' needs no scientific opponent further on, he will do the job himself.

See also: Evans stubborn: Confirms his former flaw

Subject: Detailed Proof of Note 122(10)
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2008 12:42:02 EST

I will write this out in full so anyone with a training in linear algebra can understand that the connection must be anti-symmetric. I think that the ECE scientists should concentrate wholly on ECE, the older Einstein based cosmologies being so obviously wrong. Horst’s animation sent to the blog today is the first one to be made from an ECE equation.

Subject: 122(13) : Proof of the Antisymmetry of the Gamma Connection
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 07:07:41 EST

This note will expand some more on note 122(10), which is an imporatnt one worthy of a paper on its own. The straightforward proof is given of the fact that the commutator of covariant derivatives acting on any tensor in any spacetime in any dimensions always produces an anti-symmetric connection. The use of an ad hoc symmetric connection in the Einsteinian era was incorrect. The animations being produced for TV by the obsolete Einsteinian scientists are mathematically incorrect. we uncovered this in papers 93 ff., and this proof adds to the already very severe international criticism of standard model physics The computer can be made to produce an awful lot of total nonsense if the starting equations are not right. Animations are very ueful to see if the equations are working, but of course the equations must be based on the right geometry. The computer is only a calculating machine, and must always be controlled by the scientist. This is obvious but worth mentioning.

Subject: 122(13): Proof of the Antisymmetry of the Gamma Connection
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 08:20:03 EST

This is a straightforward proof of the antisymmetry of the connection in geometry. Any connection that is symmetric in its lower two indices is zero by symmetry. The assumption of a symmetric connection and zero torsion in the standard physics is therefore irretrievably incorrect, and the physical sciences and engineering must be based on torsion with the correct antisymmetric connection. ECE is this geometrically correct theory.

Subject: Some Comments on Notes 122(10) and 122(13)
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 08:44:11 EST

These show clearly and simply that the Einsteinian era used the wrong symmetry of connection, so is another example of what is sometimes referred to as pathological science, or sheep science. In this case the idea of symmetric connection was used incorrectly and uncritically for about 107 years. It is futile to try to guess why this should have been so, and it is always better to concentrate on the future and on positive new science and engineering. It is always possible to teach the new science along with the old, which is what usually happens. I do not think that anyone will lose face over this error, these things just happen because people get too close to an often used idea. being a chemist I as able to look at things from afar and anew. There is nothing difficult in notes 122(10) and 12(13), they are just linear algebra with summation over repeated indices. The idea of basing physics on geometry goes back to the ancient Greeks, and is a good idea, because geometry is objective. So Einstein’s reputation is unaffected. The right attitude is: OK, let’s move on. I intend to ignore any personal mud slinging that may occur and advise others to do the same. It is clear from feedback that there is intense interest in ECE and normal collegiality has been resumed in effect.

Subject: Consequences of Notes 122(10) and 122(13)
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 12:02:26 EST

There are numerous sequential errors because for the now obsolete relativity theory because using the wrong connection symmetry is a “first liner”, an amazing howler. The first thing is that the obsolete relation between the connection and metric is incorrect because it assumes a symmetric connection. Then things rapidly go clockwork orange, the connections calculated in this way are erroneous, and in consequence the Riemann tensor elements are also erroneous. Finally the Ricci tensor and Ricci scalar are erroneous. Worst of all, the Einstein field equation itself is erroneous because it is based on assuming a particular symmetry of the Riemann tensor. This assumption works its way through to the obsolete first and second Bianchi identities. These so called identities (in fact they are now known to be incorrect assumptions) also assume a symmetric connection. Additionally, we already know that the obsolete geometry violates the Cartan Evans dual identity. Additionally, the methods of arriving at singularities are also erroneous (Dunning-Davies and Crothers). Additionally there are numerous other criticisms going back to Bauer and Schroedinger in 1918. So Rees and Hawking have a lot of covering up to do. In fact it is better that they remain silent at this point. The error also means that many films, TV programmes, books and so on are irretrievably erroneous. For a much more honest viewpoint see “The Universe of Myron Evans” and please ignore the inevitable personal jibes that the film might attract from the sublimely ignorant, “good morning crackpot, isn’t it a nice crackpot day”, and so on. Educated people already think that the film (now ready) it is a very good production, directed by Francesco Fucilla.

Subject: Torsion
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 03:06:43 EST

Many thanks, the fundamental problem with the Einstein field equation is that it works with a symmetric connection. As shown in notes 122(10) and 122(13), both the curvature and torsion tensors are generated from the commutator operator acting on any tensor. The connection in both the curvature and torsion tensors must therefore be antisymmetric and cannot be symmetric. This error means that all solutions of the Einstein field equation are erroneous and for example violate the Cartan Evans dual identity. The ECE field equations on the other hand do not continue to repeat this error. Einstein used a 1900 paper by Ricci and Levi-Civita which assumed a symmetric connection. In papers 93 ff on _www.aias.us_ ( we have shown using computer algebra that such an assumption leads to a violation of fundamental geometry. Spin certainly needs torsion. The ECE field equations of dynamics and electrodynamics are based on orbital and spin torsion. We have developed this into the ECE engineering model on _www.aias.us_ ( . In general there is a revolution of thought going on in which the Einsteinian view is seen to be obsolete and erroneous. The Hehl point of view is much narrower than the ECE point of view, the latter places torsion in a position of central importance. Notes 122(10) and 122(13) show that cosmology must be torsion based. The central mathematical fact that has emerged clearly in the past few days is that the commutator of covariant derivatives acting on any tensor produces curvature and torsion tensors in which the connection must be antisymmetric. In the ECE papers, every claim to succcess of Einsteinian theory has been systematically refuted, including of course black hole and big bang theory. It has been shown that the so called Hawking Bekenstein metric violates the dual identity and is therefore mathematically incorrect.

Dear Myron, Sorry to be so long in answering. I have been studying Crothers’ paper, but not finished. I will have to write to him with some questions. If I understand what is going on, there is a question of torsion. Of course, a connection form with torsion is just equal to a connection form without torsion plus a tensor. Einstein worked with the metric connection, but perhaps he was missing this extra tensor. What would be the source of this tensor? F. Hehl has emphasized that you cannot treat spin without torsion, but his model uses explcitly the Dirac equation, and not everyone agrees with him. Perhaps there is some connection between your thinking and Hehl’s. Best wishes, Larry

On Mon, 6 Oct 2008, EMyrone] at [ wrote:

Dear Larry,
Recently the dual identity of Cartan geometry has shown that the Einstein field equation is geometrically incorrect (see papers 93, 95, 117 on _www.aias.us_ ( ). This is now the world leading site in theoretical physics. The equation is obsolete and has been replaced by the ECE engineering model. Can you bring this to the attention of the scientific community - especially that which governs the Nobel Prize? I think that Horst and I should be nominated for this discovery, and also judging from the intense interest in ECE theory. Sorry to have to blow my own trumpet, but the standard faction’s grip on the Nobel Prize should be loosened by nominating in chemistry rather than physics. The Civil List Pension is already of more real merit, but the Nobel Prize or Wolf Prize is the general public’s idea of merit. As far as CERN is concerned ECE has made the theory behind it obsolete. We should give a lot of support to President Dunning-Davies’s criticism of black hole theory, also that of TGA Gold Medallist Stephen Crothers. We are proceeding in this direction in paper 120 (see blog of _www.aias.us_ ( ). All metrics of the Einstein field equation are incorrect and physically meaningless. Obviously the physics faction is not going to like this.

Subject: Paper on the Antisymmetry of the Connection
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 04:02:40 EST

I think I will quickly write up this paper as number 122 because of the unprecedented international interest in ECE theory in the past two weeks. There is an increasing awareness that the Einsteinian era and all its obsolete paraphenalia produces meaningless physics. The antisymmetry of the connection means that physics and the natural sciences must be based on torsion if we are to accept the philosophy of relativity. The power of the theory is vividly demonstrated by the fact that it produces such intense interest, and that it has produced 121 source papers (Spring 2003 to present) and about forty educational articles and books. It is always a pleasure to see the feedback sites, which show that ideas transcend national boundaries and ultimately replace obsolete dogma by the Baconian natural philosophy (philosophia naturalis).

Subject: Origin of the Connection
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2008 07:04:17 EST

It seems that the origin of the symmetric connection is attributed to Tulio Levi-Civita, bu tI have no access to the necessary history of science archives here. Tensors were introduced by: G. Ricci - Curbastro and T. Levi -Civita in “Methodes de Calcul Diferential Absolu et leurs Applications” published in 1900. This was used by Einstein who corresponded with Levi-Civita. The ideas of Riemann geometry were introduced by Riemann in “Uber die Hypothesen der Geometrie zu Grunde liegen” on 10th June 1854 at Goettingen in a habilitation lecture. This was a lecture which only Gauss was able to understand and was not fully appreciated for sixty years. In 1858, Betti, Casorati and Brioschi visited Gottingen to discuss this lecture with Riemann, who sadly died shortly thereafter of TB. So the symmetric connection was almost certainly not introduced by Riemann nor was it introduced by Christoffel. This is despite the fact that it is variously known as the Riemann, Chistoffel and Levi-Civita connection. After paper 122 it is now known that the connection must be anti-symmetric, both in teh curvature and torsion tensors. Otherwise the commutator method is meaningless, a reduction to absurdity (reductio ad absurdum). In the literature, the Levi-Civita connection is always (but incorrectly) described as “torsion free”. After paper 122 it is now known that zero torsion means zero curvature. The torsion is always non-zero and is central to the natural and life sciences. A whole century of work with the symmetric connection has to be abandoned and reworked with ECE theory. So this opens up many exciting possibilities.

Subject: Some More Research
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2008 07:41:57 EST

Having researched a large number of websites and books over some years to try to find why a symmetric connection came to be uncritically accepted I can conclude the following. Christoffel introduced the idea of a connection (the Christoffel symbol) but it is unclear whether Christoffel asserted this to be symmetric. Riemann is considered in middle Europe to be the greatest nineteenth century mathematician after Gauss, but Riemann did not introduce the connection. Christoffel first defined the curvature tensor, not Riemann. Neither used the idea of commutator, neither realized the existence of torsion. Ricci and Levi-Civita introduced the term “covariant derivative” and developed the coordinate free tensor analysis in 1900. This was used by Einstein uncritically, meaning that Einstein used a symmetric connection and incorrectly ignored the torsion. The latter was defined in the early twenties by Cartan and Maurer in their first structure equation, but despite corresponding with Cartan, Einstein did not adopt the torsion. This was left to 2003, when ECE theory was intorduced. If one looks at a Wolfram site for example, the torsion is not mentioned, and the curvature tensor is defined as the only tensor that can be defined by the metric. What is not mentioned by Wolfram is that this can only be done if the connection is symmetric, and that is an incorrect procedure after paper 122. If one looks at Carroll chapter three it correctly introduces torsion, using the method of paper 122 in fact, but then incorrectly sets torsion to zero. This is the key error. Concepts such as big bang, black holes etc are sequentially erroneous, as is the Einstein field equation and as are the so called first and second Bianchi identities of the standard model. All these errors are repaired in ECE theory. The ECE equations allow cosmologies to be developed without the use of a symmetric connection and this is a great advance in knowledge. It is well accepted that there have been no scholarly criticisms of ECE theory to date. In my opinion the only possible valid criticism of such a watertight theory as ECE is the usual Baconian test of any theory - against experimental data.