August 5, 2008
Evans on his blog on 2008/08/04:
Evans on his blog on 2008/08/04:
Quite right: The complex Euler transforms (9.14) and (9.37) ''generate'' oscillatory
solutions of the transformed homogeneous differential equations while the original
homogeneous differential equations have no oscillatory solutions. Therefore the use of the complex transformations
eqs. (9.14) and (9.37) is inadmissible for questions of resonance.
(07.02.2008)
On Resonance Energy and Conservation of Energy
(01.02.2008)
Article in Acta Physica Polonica B
(16.08.2007)
On Evans' Resonance Paper #92
(04.08.2007)
On Evans' paper #90 (among other things)
(31.07.2007)
Comments on Evans' SCR Paper
(01.07.2006)
No Coulomb Resonance
(22.06.2006)
On Evans' Resonance Paper #61
Mirespresentation of Paper 63 by Bruhn. Hehl et al.
It has come to my attention that malicious misrepresentation of paper 63 adn ECE theory is still going on
behind the scenes. The misrepresentation consists of falsely asserting that the resonance solutions are
those of eq. (9.35) of the paper, written up in GCUFT4. The resonance solutions are those of eq. (9.38)
of the paper, as has been clear to the international readership of _www.aias.us_ (http://www.aias.us) for
about two years. In order to obtain resonance solutions, a complex Euler transform, eq. (9.37), has to be used.
The initial misrepresentation by Bruhn et al. has been refuted in detail papers 89 onwards to paper 92,
but these refutations are of course not mentioned by the cyberstalkers, who approach anyone they can
find on my working group. So I have further reduced the visibility of the working group.
This incident adds further incriminating evidence, and the matter will be referred to the police by our barrister,
who has already warned Bruhn. The South Wales police have asked me for further details.
Our objections on ECE Resonance papers
HOME