Comments on Evans' blog note
Malicious Misrepresentation on the Bruhn site

Gerhard W. Bruhn, Darmstadt University of Technology

Sept 09, 2008

Quotations from Evans' blog in

Subject: Malicious Misrepresentation on the Bruhn site
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 09:53:25 EDT

This has been going on systematically since 2005. Bruhn has made several more venomous postings this month. His posting on 2 03 05 received about 13 hits a month on average, compared with ECE’s 60,000 plus average hits a month. This was one of Bruhn’s high spots.

Concerning the number of hits per month as evidence for the truth or importance of a web site there exist some well-known sayings I need not repeat here. The question is if one accepts a web site when reading or downloading any article from the site. For my person, at least, this is the opposite. -
What is counting, Dr. Evans, is the quality of scientific arguments, not the number of hits.

TU Darmstadt hosts this malicious website, bringing the reputation of the university into severe professional disrepute. The website is saturated with cheap sarcasm and deliberate misrepresentation of Cartan’s mathematics.

M.W. Evans is NOT E.Cartan: So if someone criticizes Dr. Evans he does not criticize Cartan - just in the contrary!!! There is a great difference between Cartan’s mathematics and Evans' ''mathematics'' as was pointed out by numerous examples from Evans' papers several times. I'll repeat some examples below.

He has been warned by a leading barrister that he is outside the law, and so this is further evidence that may be used against him. If anyone has any difficulty in refuting Bruhn’s distortions, please contact me. We recently caught him trying to say that D ^ D ^ omega is zero. This was hidden in a deliberately distorted “proof” meant to distort standard Cartan geometry Three of us at AIAS looked at this and independently refuted him within about five minutes.

The reader should have a look at Evans blog site where he will find the truth: Evans had there doubted the validity of the well known equation d ^ d ^ omega = 0 which is folklore as part of the Poincaré Lemma:

... The incident which catalysed the barrister’s letter was a typical one in which Bruhn asserts that d ^ (d ^ omega) is zero. ...

Here is a hardcopy from that blogsite to prevent any later ''corrections'' by Evans.

Since one cannot assume that Evans repeatedly and accidently mixed the letters d and D it turns out here that Evans is lying here quite intentional to deceive his readers.

This episode illustrates gross corruption, accompanied by deep vindictive malice. G. ‘t Hooft quietly removed some similar malice from one of his websites, on which he looks at himself in a mirror made of bronze. Bruhn is still trying to prove that a frame of reference is not Lorentz covariant, endlessly repeating himself, an empty and corrupt propagandist without any followers. The paper to Hehl remains on the table, it has been accepted internationally for about two years - I urge non recognition of Hehl and ‘t Hooft as impartial editors. These distortions are well known by now to be systematic scientific fraud, and they have been refuted many times. Bruhn attempts to ignore or distort the refutations. This is gross academic misconduct and wholly unprofessional.

Concerning the ''paper to Hehl'' (meant is Evans' paper #89) I had listed several reasons why this paper could not be considered as a scientific contribution to an open question of discussion: The paper lacks from several severe flaws beyond repair:

The Commentary on Appendix 1 deals with a critical review of Evans' views of Cartan's differential geometry.

In the Commentary on Appendix 2 and Commentary on Appendix 10 Evans' ''derivations'' of the Lorentz in- (or co-)variance of his B cyclic theorem are once more refuted by pointing to his absurd argumentations especially when erroneously referring to S. Carroll's Lecture notes on GRT.

In Commentary on Appendix 8 Evans' ''Mathematical advances made by ECE theory'' are critical reviewed by pointing to irrepable flaws of that ''advances''.

Finally a short comment on Evans' rules of New Math is given by the note 1 is 4 and 4 is 1, a rule which Evans formerly attributed to H. Poincaré.

This listing shows that Evans' paper #89 has no chance of becoming accepted by any reputable journal.

Neither ‘t Hooft nor Hehl have any credibility as impartial editors - the verdict of the vast majority of the profession for some years now. The latest postings by Bruhn this month are essentially repetitions of previous distortions.

I am astounded that Evans does not mention my recent discovery of a serious contradiction in his B(3) ''theory'' that was documented years ago (1996) in Evans' book ''The Enigmatic Photon'' (Vol.3) which shows the inconsistence of the whole B(3) hypothesis.

For example he is still trying to say that i x j = k is not Lorentz covariant. As shown in Carroll, for example, the unit vector TRANSFORMS in such a way as to keep the complete vector field invariant. According to Bruhn it would not transform - there would be no Lorentz transform at all. My B cyclic theorem, to which he has taken a personal , is the frame of reference itself.

Obviously, Evans has no understanding of what is said by S.M. Carroll on the Lorentz transform. One glance on the figure at p. 7 of Carroll's Lecture notes should be sufficient. See also the above remarks on Evans' paper #89, Appendices 2 and 10.

The tone of his website, aimed at mockery of the British Civil List scientist, means that the standard system of physics is unable and unwilling to recognise merit when every one has done so. As a result, the profession ignores Bruhn , so we get 64,000 to 13. I urge TU Darmsadt to take disciplinary action.

British Civil List Scientist

Further recent blog notes by Evans with the same concern will be answered soon.