Evans confirms his New Math Equation 1 = 4

20 Oct 2008

Text colors: Evans in **black**, his flaw in
**red**,
Carroll in
**green**, my comments in **blue**

Subject: Use of the Kronecker Delta in Cartan Geometry

Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2008 05:54:30 EDT

The definition used in Cartan geometry is given by Carroll in his chapter three:

q sup mu sub a q sup a sub nu = delta sup mu sub nu (1)

Note that a factor 4 does not appear by definition. The notation means that the right hand side of eq. (1) is 1 when mu is the same as nu, and is 0 otherwise.

OK. Carroll's original equation is with e instead of q

which means that the matrices (e^{μ}_{a}) and (e^{a}_{ν})
are mutually inverses: The matrix products yield
(e^{μ}_{a})(e^{a}_{ν}) = I = diag(1,1,1,1) and
(e^{a}_{μ}) (e^{μ}_{b}) = I = diag(1,1,1,1) as well.

Note that Eqs.(3.116) tacitly make use of the
**Einstein summation convention** that wrt double indices
(a / a and μ / μ respectively) must be summed automatically.

And now Evans continues erroneously

. . . So:

q sup nu sub a q sup a sub nu = 1 - (2)

i.e.

which is a wrong conclusion: Substituting μ with ν *additionally* implies
**Einstein summation over the double index ν**:

which is generally applied in tensor calculus.

Instead of applying the rules of tensor calculus according to the textbooks Evans complains about ''Bruhn's cynical lies'':

. . . that Bruhn very cynically contrives lies. The Bruhn
lie-site put in a factor 4 in order to cause confusion.
The fact that some standard editors are in collusion with Bruhn means that the general public must do
something to stop funding these people.
In GCUFT5 the correct mathematics will be given, as in GCUFT1 to GCUFT4.
Every single entry in the lie-site is meant to cause confusion and to misrepresent
my work or anyone who works with me. The general public is asked to pay for this lie-site.
I block Bruhn and completely refuse to be drawn into any correspondence with him.

Let us call a spade a spade.

Civil List Scientist

ECE ''theory'' is nonsense from GCUFT1 to GCUFT5.

That all is based on Evans' New Math,

i.e. on a long list of rather trivial but far reaching math errors that were reported on this site.

An application of Evans' above-mentioned fallacy was already criticized in that Commentary.

Now Evans lies himself!!! Or Carroll???

In GCUFT 5 Chap.12 we read on p.6

Evans' Chapter12 2008/10/17 18:17 page 6 #6

. . .

derived from the tetrad normalization [13]:

q^{a}_{ν}q^{ν}_{a} = 4
(12.17)

[13] is Carroll's book.