Reply to Evans' web note
A Typical Line of Fraud

Gerhard W. Bruhn, Darmstadt University of Technology

October 5th, 2008

Text colors: Evans in
black, Carroll in green, Bruhn in blue

October 5th, 2008

Subject: A Typical Line of Fraud Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 11:52:53 EDT

I don’t want to give Bruhn the attention he craves, but a typical line of fraud goes as follows.

1) We are told that the second Bianchi identity must be D ^ R = 0 because Bruhn says so.

Too much honour! Not only because I said so. But that's state of the art. See e.g. Carroll's L.N. Chap.3, Eq.(3.141)

                dRab + ωac Ù Rcb − Rac Ù ωcb = 0                                 (3.141)

And Carroll continues:

The first of these is the generalization of Rρ[σμν] = 0, while the second is the Bianchi identity Ñ[λ| Rρσ|μν] = 0 . (Sometimes both equations are called Bianchi identities.)

And you can find the same also on p.489 of Carroll's book Spacetime and Geometry (2004). However, I see that recently you dislike Carroll more and more. So, please, take the book Foundations of Classical Electrodynamics by F.W. Hehl and Y.N. Obukhov, there, at p.208 you will find both Bianchis as Eqs.(C.1.67) and (C.1.69). Or take the book The many faces of Maxwell, Dirac and Einstein Equations by W.A. Rodrigues Jr. and E. C. de Oliveira, p.123, Eqs.(4.127). But I'm afraid you'll dislike that as well.

2) We are told incorrectly that D ^ (D ^ omega) must be zero, and this is quietly slipped into a false proof.

No my dear, that's a distortion of yours! I told you about the Poincaré Lemma d Ù d Ù ω = 0 which is the key for deriving the 2nd Bianchi. If you have problems with distincting between D and d you possibly need new glasses. Then you should try to read your blog note A Short History of Cyberstalking where you wrote

... The incident which catalysed the barrister’s letter was a typical one in which Bruhn asserts that   d ^ (d ^ omega) is zero.
It is inconceivable that a professional mathematician should make so many errors such as this accidentally, so this activity is the malicious and premeditated misrepresentation of my work. ...

Here we have caught Dr Evans intentionally distorting the facts to prove ''malicious and premeditated misrepresentation of his work'' by Bruhn. The reader will also know other words for Evans' machinations.

3) An attempt is made into deceiving us about Carroll’s remarks on the true nature of the second Bianchi identity, which must involve torsion. There is only one Bianchi identity, D ^ T := R ^ q.

So again: Have a look at the literature e.g. as quoted above under 1), Carroll or Hehl & Obukhov or Rodrigues & Oliveira.

4) The dual identity is an example of the Bianchi identity.

This is nonsense. The dual identity is invalid in general as you and your colleagues have testified themselves. See my web note Evans' Duality Experiments.

5) We are told that the tetrad postulate is not valid, just because I started to use it.

What you call ''tetrad postulate'' is the compatibility condition between different frames which is used by me as well. See also W.A. Rodrigues' remarks on the ''Tetrad Postulate'' in Sect.4.7.8 of his book cited above.

6) I use the same Cartan geometry as Carroll, (and many others since 1922), but Carroll is not criticised.

It is untrue, that your developments are identical with those of Carroll. May I remind you of your objections concerning Carroll's remarks on the two Bianchi identities, or your absurd criticism of Carroll's L.N. Chap.7, or your ''invention'' of a 3-index Î-tensor in 4-D which is neither contained in Carroll's Lecture Notes nor anywhere else.

As already pointed out independently, this is unscholarly, i.e. is mere personal animosity. This kind of deception is endless, if it is refuted we are given more deception.

I don't know you personally, so there is no personal animosity. It is not my fault if you take scientific criticisms personally. What you call ''deception'' is precise description of your flaws which are also contained in your ''refutations of Bruhn'' etc.

So one good refutation such as paper 89, ...

That's your ''Response to Papers of Hehl and Hehl and Obukhov''. Though I have not to decide about the acception of that paper I had a look at it. What I found was a series of serious mathematical flaws I reported on five web notes:

(21.07.2008) On Evans' Annalen paper #89/App.01: On ''Cartan geometry''

(20.07.2008) On Evans' Annalen paper #89/App.02: On the B Cyclic theorem I

(20.07.2008) On Evans' Annalen paper #89/App.08: On Math of ECE theory

(19.07.2008) On Evans' Annalen paper #89/App.10: On the B Cyclic theorem II

(18.07.2008) Evans' Magic Math: 1 is 4 and 4 is 1

... or Steve’s forthcoming lecture notes, will do fine.

I don't know that lecture notes, and I'll say more after its publication.

The worst thing of all is that standard editors cite deception and fraud, and on top of this hurl abuse at the real scholars like Crothers. So they become obsolete.

Can you imagine that these ''standard editors'' have their own standards for accepting papers which not necessarily agree with your imaginations?