''. . . In paper 93 of the AIAS unified field series Stephen’s suspicions were proven to be correct and the Einstein-Hilbert field equation was found to be mathematically incorrect. . . . ''

And on his blog on 2008/08/19:

''. . . A more thorough understanding of geometry was given by Cartan and is obtainable from the action of the commutator of covariant derivatives (papers 93 onwards). I proved the ECE dual identity in great detail in these papers, and it is this dual identity that finally disposes of any doubts that Einstein’s version of relativity is incorrect because torsion cannot be arbitrarily neglected in geometry. This amounts to disposing of half the geometry, and with hindsight is bound to go badly wrong. The dual identity sharply exposes the way in which it does go wrong. The great problem is that contemporary physics has lost its basic integrity to such an extent that it will not admit that it is pure mythology. . . .''

As mentioned already several times with regard to other Evans' papers the common paper #93 by Evans e.a. lacks from the following Evans' basic flaws:

(i) Evans asserts in Appendix 1 the ''dual transform'' of his field equation

                d Ù F^a = μ_o j^a = A^o (R^a_b Ù q^b − ω^a_b Ù T^b)                                 (4)

to give

                d Ù F^{~ a} = μ_o J^a = A^o (R^{~ a}_b Ù q^b − ω^a_b Ù T^{~ b})                      (7)

This assertion is ''proven'' in some detail in Appendix A of paper #93. We shall have a closer look at that Appendix below.

(ii) The ansatz of eqs.(2) and (3) for the electromagnetic field F^a in analogy to the Bianchi identiy (1) yields four fields F⁰, F¹, F², F³ since a=0,1,2,3 while in physics only one electromagnetic field F is observed. Evans never explained how the physical 2-form F could be connected with the vector valued 2-form F^a (a=0,1,2,3). This is an inadmissible type mismatch.

(iii) Erroneous use of a non-existing Î-tensor:

. . . A solution of Eq.(10) is:

                R^a_b = − ½ κ Î^a_bc T^c,         ω^a_b = − ½ κ Î^a_bc T^c                      (13)

The eqs.(13) are 4-dimensional tensor equations. However, the tensor Î^a_bc cannot be defined in 4-dimensional tensor calculus. Hence the eqs.(13) are null and void.

Comments on Appendix 1 of paper #93,
see also Evans' Duality Experiments:

Hodge dual transformation

. . .

The Bianchi identity

                d Ù T^a + ω^a_b Ù T^b = − q^b Ù R^a_b         (wrong sign, index b missing)                             (A12)

is an identity between two-forms. So it remains true for:

                d Ù F^{~ a} = − A^(o) (R^{~ a}_b Ùq^b missing + ω^a_b Ù T^{~ b})         (two signs wrong)             (A13)

because F^~, R^~, T^~ are two-forms, antisymmetric in their last two indices (the suppressed indices μ,ν)

The wrong eqs. should read:

                d Ù T^a + ω^a_b Ù T^b = q^b Ù R^a_b = R^a_b Ù q^b ,                                             (A12')

                d Ù F^{~ a} = A^(o) (R^{~ a}_b Ù q^b − ω^a_b Ù T^{~ b}) .                                             (A13')

The above red marked errors are removable. However, not so Evans' misunderstandings of elementary differential geometry: Evans apparently believes that he could substitute the forms T^a and R^a in eq.(A12) by F^{~ a} = A^(o) T^{~ a} and by R^{~ a} instead of R^a. This argumentation is wrong:

Eq. (A12') is NOT an identity between arbitrary 2-forms T^a and R^a_b.