Talk:Einstein–Cartan–Evans theory

Black holes

MWE blog: "In ECE2 there are no black holes because the theory on which they are based is totally wrong due to neglect of torsion [...] The astronomy sites use the same formula one. So ECE2 takes over as the leading theory of gravitation [...] I always go on the fact that the black hole metric is invalidated completely by taking torsion into account, so are all metrics from the Einstein field equation [...] I cannot see how a theory whose geometry is totally wrong can work at all. Maybe Stephen Crothers has some comments on strong gravitation and under what conditions it begins to make itself felt. Of course Steve rejects black holes as a fantasy, and so does the entire ECE2 school of physics [...] Stephen Crothers has refuted EGR in n ways, n getting close to infinity." This seems to be saying two things: that black holes do not exist (pace ECE2), and that ECE2 has become the leading theory of gravitation, since "astronomy sites" use the same "formula one" --- it is not quite clear what MWE means by that; perhaps a matter of him observing internet traffic from astronomers and interpreting this as evidence that they have accepted the ECE2 theory?137.205.101.185 (talk) 09:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Evans: "I have also witnessed Steve being subjected to [...] the usual disinformation and defamation by wikipedia. The latter has committed a criminal offence under the malicious communications act by using the language of the gutter." Well, Crothers-related material on this talk page consists mostly of direct quotes of Evans. There is no gutter language presently on display, and I cannot recall there ever having been such language on this page. Perhaps Evans has been confused by the link to rational wiki above; but even that is the language of satire, not the gutter. 137.205.100.173 (talk) 14:15, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Steve is of course a friend of Smarandache (as is evident from this paper, even if nothing else is evident from it!), in accordance with the Six Degrees of Smarandache principle that governs crackpot friendships.88.111.224.129 (talk) 10:33, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

In 2018, ECE "m" theory produces its own holes, which are not quite black, apparently: "In the new theory there is no longer a Schwarzschild metric and there is no singularity in general. The m space is the most general spherically symmetric spacetime defined by a function m(r1). Steve Crothers has devised an even more general expression for spherically symmetric spacetime. We have used the Crothers metric in a previous UFT paper. So in general there is no need to consider an m function that gives a singularity. In fact such a function cannot exist, because singularities are unphysical. So the examples that you give below begin to show that in the vicinity of a very massive object of finite mass, there is no reason for the existence of a black hole. In fact a black hole cannot exist because it is a singularity [...] there is a coordinate boundary of the Lagrange coordinate r at the horizon. However there is no singularity of the coordinate. However an anomalous behaviour could appear for the oberserver coordinate r_1, which can pass through the horizon. This is similar to alleged black holes where matter can pass the event horizon which is mainly a coordinate singularity [mainly but not entirely? -ed]. However the standard modelers do not make a difference between the r parameter and a real radius coordinate. r is a curvature parameter as Stephen Crothers has pointed out."

't Hooft explains Crothers's mistake: "In our modern notation, a radial coordinate r is used to describe the Schwarzschild solution, the prototype of a black hole. "That’s not a radial distance!", [Crothers] shouts. "To get the radial distance you have to integrate the square root of the radial component g_rr of the metric!!" Now that happens to be right, but a non-issue; in practice we use r just because it is a more convenient coordinate, and every astrophysicist knows that an accurate calculation of the radial distance, if needed, would be obtained by doing exactly that integral. "r is defined by the inverse of the Gaussian curvature", C continues, but this happens to be true only for the spherically symmetric case. For the Kerr and Kerr-Newman metric, this is no longer true. Moreover, the Gaussian curvature is not locally measurable so a bad definition indeed for a radial coordinate. And why should one need such a definition? We have invariance under coordinate transformations. If so desired, we can use any coordinate we like. The Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates are an example. The Finkelstein coordinates another. Look at the many different ways one can map the surface of the Earth on a flat surface. Is one mapping more fundamental than another?" 2A01:CB0C:56A:9700:9541:BD85:3CC7:979B (talk) 06:25, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

MWE insists: "Big bang and black hole theory are based on zero torsion, and are mathematical nonsense." On the April 10, 2019, the first picture of a BH was published: BBC coverage 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:2041:2D3B:B3BD:4FBB (talk) 17:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Seeing is believing: as of April 2019 MWE thinks that there are such things, only they should be called dark stars (an early alternate name for the same kind of object). It will be seen that MWE's dark stars have an event horizon:

"The m theory, special relativity and Newtonian theories all show that once an object of mass m is captured by a dark star it cannot escape. It is also shown that the Einstein field equation’s Schwarzschild metric gives zero escape velocity which is total nonsense. [...] Since light can never escape a dark star, a dark star cannot be photographed [...] The most advanced theory of gravitation at present is m theory, so it can be tested with astronomical data in the vicinity of a dark star [...] it is now known how a dark star captures an object, initially at superluminal velocities which fall to zero when the object merges with the dark star. All of this comes out of the orbit equations of m theory. By definition, the hamiltonian and angular momentum are conserved. The m theory keeps on giving completely original and wholly unexpected results [...] The superluminal aspect is also very interesting. The m theory goes far beyond Newton, which for M approaching infinity gives alpha goes to 0, r goes to zero, phi dot (angular velocity of the orbit) goes to infinity for all epsilon. and orbital time goes to zero. So according to Newton and Michell these are the properties of an object captured by M goes to infinity. One can forget “black holes”, they are diametrically opposite in philosophy to m theory and to ECE and ECE2 because they contain no torsion. All of ECE is based on torsion and curvature [...] The m theory is based on the most general spherically symmetric space and produces wholly unexpected and original results, without restricting the m function to 1 – r0 / r (Einstein result). The rosetta orbits are indicative of a large precession, and finally m fuses with M. Of particular interest is the analysis of the event horizon in m theory. The Newtonian theory gives no indication at all of the wealth of information contained in m theory. All astronomical data gathered in a futile attempt to find black holes can now be used to apply m theory to dark stars. We are now in a position where we are way out in front of the field and can produce new information of great profundity on almost any topic in astronomy and cosmology." 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:1039:C10:92ED:1C19 (talk) 12:07, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Supporters of the ECE theory

As per a blog post by MWE: "Horst Eckardt, whose work has transformed the early years of ECE theory (2003 to 2005) [...] Douglas Lindstrom, Gareth Evans, and Stephen Crothers for coauthorship, nominations and discussions [...] Steve Bannister and Kerry Pendergast for [...] making the economists aware of the theory. Dave Burleigh [...] Alex Hill [...] Franklin Amador for preparing GCUFT, and Sean MacLachlan for running www.upitec.org. Michael Jackson, Robert Cheshire and Simon Clifford [...] Alwyn van der Merwe and Bo Lehnert are thanked for supporting the Civil List Pension" MWE is apparently forgetting Mr Rajpal in New Delhi, an ardent supporter, and Ulrich E. Bruchholz, a co-author of Principles of ECE Theory. 137.205.101.55 (talk) 07:50, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

For several years, Evans and friends were harried by a group of anonymous and well-informed academics known as Crackpotwatch. Their almost daily blogs can still be read at crackpotwatch.wordpress.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.144.154 (talk) 11:26, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

"Penrose has never criticized ECE, which has also been accepted by Sean Carroll and Alwyn van der Merwe, two great physicists of the late twentieth century." 2A01:CB0C:56A:9700:34AA:85DB:FD0C:66B1 (talk) 07:24, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Horst Eckardt is on record denouncing MWE as a mentally unstable loose cannon.

Crothers is on record asserting distancing himself entirely from ECE theory.2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:C0BA:B829:8FD2:F353 (talk) 12:39, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Crackpotwatch

During the last decade or so of its existence, the daily blog which was maintained by Myron Evans was relentlessly commented upon by an anonymous group calling itself Crackpotwatch (crackpotwatch.wordpress.com). Every error and piece of disinformation which appeared in the Evans blog was mercilessly exposed by the well-informed group. The main motivation of Crackpotwatch was the group's outrage that Evans had been awarded a Civil List Pension by Queen Elizabeth II. The financial award was trivial, but it meant that - to the general public - Evans would forever enjoy the same status as scientists such as Faraday, Hamilton, Herschel, Heaviside, etc. The group therefore strove to have the honour removed. The group still exists but, with the death of Evans, it seems to have lost enthusiasm and comments only sporadically on other crackpots. 92.14.41.137 (talk) 16:50, 8 June 2023 (UTC)