Noel Lloyd, Vice Chancellor, University of Aberystwyth,

Annwyl Athro Lloyd, Dear Prof. Lloyd,

I am pleased to inform you that my armorial ensigns were granted on 7th July and they carry elements of the arms of my Alma Mater, the University of Aberystwyth, the two Tudor dragons rouge rampant in the crest. The Windsor Herald informed today that the Letters Patent are ready, and I thereby attain the rank of Gentleman in recognition of distinguished contributions to Britain in science. Currently I am the only member of the Civil List from Wales and hope to establish a new institute in Aberystwyth. Currently the AIAS, of which I am President, is out-impacting the average physics department worldwide by a factor of at least a hundred (see blog survey today on _www.aias.us_ (http://www.aias.us) ). Appointment to the Civil List is a High Honour and made by the Prime Minister’s Offfice following upon an Act of Parliament adn upon recommendation of the Royal Society. I am part of the Cambrian / Norman Havard family, descended from the eleventh century Sir Walter Havard, Knight of Bernard de Neufmarche, first cousin of William of Normandy. I am also a fluent Welsh speaker, and so my motto is a line of my own cynghanedd: “Poer y llwch o’r pair llachar”. So if all goes well I will shortly reestablish contacts with Aberystwyth, where I spent a distinguished early career before being obliged, much against my will, to move from there by unfortunate circumstance.

Yn gywir iawn Very truly yours,

Glyn Eithrym, (Prof. Myron W. Evans),

British Civil List Scientist, AIAS President, Chairman and Director TGA, Director of Steriwave Plc., ECE Technologies Ltd., Sometime University of Wales Fellow and Pilcher Senior Fellow.

This is a survey carried out quickly today of twenty five research university departments. It is seen that _www.aias.us_ (http://www.aias.us) is out-impacting the average by a factor of a hundred or more, i.e. by one hundred TIMES. This is the same picture as the survey carried out two years ago with a smaller sample. The feedback data of the _www.aias.us_ (http://www.aias.us) , prepared by David Burleigh of Annexa, is also much more detailed and comprehensive, these sites just contain a hit counter. We can se that every single papers of ECE theory (117 of them to date) is read every month, and every single one of the educational articles, plus a large percentage of the omnia opera articles. We can conclude the attempted censorship of ECE theory is an ugly farce, and that an overwhelming vote of confidence in ECE has been made by working scientists worldwide.

British Civil List Scientist

Attachment: animpactsurveySept5th2008.pdf

I can see that I will be able to make a survey of about fifty different university physics, chemistry departments or similar in the past decade. The average is of order ten power four hits in ten years, even for leading research universities. In a decade, at present rates, _www.aias.us_ (http://www.aias.us) and _www.atomicprecision.com_ (http://www.atomicprecision.com) would generate together nearly ten million hits, several hundred times the average. This is conclusive evidence by any measure of the astonishing impact of our work. To obtain these data google as follows:

“number of visitors since” + physics

or chemistry etc. What they have on these sites is a hit counter, so I name them “hits”, i.e. files downloaded. Bear in mind that these are often complete University departments, sometimes with many more staff than at AIAS. So in view of this brief survey, carried out in a few minutes, the wikipedia claim of no interest in ECE is ridiculous. The truth is the very opposite.

Attachment: acompletestats02to08.pdf

It looks as if more and more University departments are releasing this type of data, which are much more telling than the usual claims to academic excellence etc, which every university makes. I will make a comprehensive survey and draft up the results. These put _www.aias.us_ (http://www.aias.us) as the world leader in physics by a wide margin, whichever way you look at it.

1) Western Kentucky University Physics and Astronomy, 201,943 hits in eight years. 2) Swedish Institute of Space Physics, 107,432 hits in eight years. 3) Medical Physics Online, 175,026 hits in ten years. 4) TU Dresden Radiation Physics, 11,816 hits since March 2005. 5) Caltech Physics Links, 1,779 hits in seven years. 6) Budapest University Chemical Physics, 12,386 hits since 2007.

These are all making a far lower impact than _www.aias.us_ (http://www.aias.us) (attached, to be updated for June to August of 2008).

1) Cornell Ergonomics Web, 845,029 hits in eleven years, 97 to 08. In eleven years at the present rate _www.aias.us_ (http://www.aias.us) would generate many times this number. 2) Czech Academy of Sciences Institute of Plasma Physics, 133,740 hits in eleven years. 3) A popular site such as baseball physics, 90,349 hits since March 13th 2007 (Dr Daniel Russell, Applied Physics, Kettering University, Michigan, USA). In that span _www.aias.us_ (http://www.aias.us) generated well over a million hits.

So this is excellent news for _www.aias.us_ (http://www.aias.us) . If the University of Wales science sites gave us this type of information it would be clear that none come anywhere near _www.aias.us_ (http://www.aias.us) in actual impact.

1) Harvard Public Library, about 2,600 hits a month, compared with about 60,000 a month for _www.aias.us_ (http://www.aias.us) . 2) Physics Department of Southwestern College in Winfield in Kansas, 22,063 hits in eight years from Dec 1st 2000 to 6th April 2008. This compares with about five or six million hits for _www.aias.us_ (http://www.aias.us) . 3) Colgate University physics and astronomy about 73,011 hits in eight years.

When I last recorded number (3) about two years ago the counter was 69,712, meaning an increase of 3299 hits in two years. So by any measure _www.aias.us_ (http://www.aias.us) is out-impacting almost all physics departments in the world. I have not been able to find any data like these for physics departments in the University of Wales, but I have looked at some publications rates, which are on run of the mill topics and low to very low in number compared with _www.aias.us_ (http://www.aias.us) , the same situation as from 1978 to 1983. The _www.aias.us_ (http://www.aias.us) feedback gives much more information than a hit counter, so we know precisely the level of interest in ECE theory. It is far greater than the average.

Hello Folks,

This version has been uploaded and is available.

Dave —– Original Message —–

Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 3:00 AM
Subject: FOR URGENT POSTING: 117th Paper Version 3

I see that this paper has already generated a very large number of hits in only a few days, so I request Horst or Gianni to post this third version to make sure that everyone sees the correct version. At present I think that the second version is posted. The third version contains a lot more detail in an appendix. In the final version tables and graphs on the failure of the Einstein equation will also be included.

Thank you very much!

The situation here is described in the historical source documents on _www.aias.us_ (http://www.aias.us) . I have applied fo rpositions there many times, and was always rejected in flimsy pretext, or none at all. It is clear that the University must recognize the award of armorial ensigns, and should offer a token honorary fellowship at the least, since I am the only person on the Civil List from Wales, and also a fluent Welsh speaker. The ensigns actually carry part of the University ensigns. This matter should be brought up in the University Court by a colleague and Court member like Kerry Pendergast. Members of the Guild of Graduates on this list should also bring up the matter in the University Court in Cardiff. My exclusion is due purely to prejudice, there has not been an objective assessment of my work by the University since its award to me of the D. Sc. degree in 1978. I will search for data on the University of Aberystwyth to see if any of its remaining science departments carry a hit counter, to give some idea of the level of impact in comparison with AIAS.

This is found by clicking “General Statements” on the home page, then “Comparison Table of Impact”. This vividly shows the amazing impact of ECE theory. This table is restricted to hits (files downloaded) but there are many other objective measures of impact posted on the site. The wikipedia moderators claim zero impact because they would like to wish that this were true. With judgement like this, who needs ostriches? Every month, every ECE paper, and every educational article on this site is read. The establishment will claim that such an impact is somehow “not valid”. They will claim that only citations are valid, without of course mentioning that these papers are censored in order to make sure they cannot be cited. Even this tactic has been outflanked, ECE is also cited normally, ECE and its precusor theories have been published in about 25 different, refereed, journals, using the standard refereeing system . I think that the feedback system is much more accurate, it is in real time, giving much more detail. It is a susatined, high quality, impact, and the table shows that it is far higher than the average.

Many thanks, I have worked with the tachyon or superluminal people for quite a long time now, and published a review article by Roberto Mignani et al in Advances in Chemical Physics, vol. 119(3) (Wiley 2001). Also I have published with Mr Tachyon himself, Erasmo Recami, so I have been open minded about the theories. Your own contribution is interesting. At present I am working on the hypothesis of constant c. I agree entirely with you that the esatblishment is in a state of collapse.

***************************************************************************************** To view the terms under which this email is distributed, please go to http://www.hull.ac.uk/legal/email_disclaimer.html *****************************************************************************************

Myron, There is no real appeals process with the so-called prestigious scientific journals - which makes it all the more surprising that Albrecht and Magueijo succeeded in persuading Physical Review to publish their paper on speeds faster than that of light - and, incidentally, managed to prevent any publication of the fact that Kenneth Thornhill had predicted the same roughly twenty years previously and that fact, together with some predictions following (they also appeared in the Albrecht and Magueijo paper) had been publicised by me at a conference held at Imperial College. Some sort of ‘old boy’ network is definitely in place and dangerously undermining true science. I might add that, in one sense, I don’t mind if you or Stephen is correct, the principle involved is so so important here that, in my view, that almost over-rides the personal side. Don’t take this remark the wrong way; personally I agree with the views expressed by you and Stephen but I’m simply wishing to stress the immense importance to world science, and possibly to the world itself, of the basic principle involved here and which is being constantly and consistently violated. As for the ‘Einstein is Right’ headlines, they’re silly and pointless. I wonder what Einstein would have thought of some of them? Best wishes, Jeremy.

—–Original Message—–

Sent: Fri 05/09/2008 10:49

Subject: Those “Einstein was Right” Headlines

These should now be discarded by thinking scientists. Good scholarship has shown conclusively that the geometry used by Einstein is incorrect. Alley in his recent address to the Czech Assembly and in his Wheeler Fest address at Princeton in 2006 pinpointed two early criticisms of the Einstein field equation made independently in 1918 by Bauer and Schroedinger. Today for example I came across some strident google headlines claiming that Gravity Probe B proves that “Einstein was right”. The facts are that Gravity probe B merely confirmed the well known light bending type effect (previously seen for example by Cassini) and failed to see the so called “Lense Thirring” effect. It has now been abandoned afte rbeing graded F by NASA. Yet these headlines still abound. We did attempt to submit the historical paper 93 to a standard physics journal, but were told that it was sic “A loony paper”. On the basis of this three word abuse, the editor rejected the paper and quite obviously did not read it. The appeals process of Physica was found to be non-existent. The editor eventually became very abusive, and broke off contact. No scientific appraisal of paper 93 took place by the establishment adn teh paper is accordingly still on teh table at Phsyica B because we will not accept illegal personal abuse. This kind of conduct has also been recorded by Steve Crothers. So it has become clear that the standard establishment has no scientific integrity left. The response of the working scientists worldwide has been to study all ECE papers in great detail. They are currently censored by the Institute of Physics for example. The light bending effect cannot be due to the Eisnetin field equation, it is well known by now that it is due to the orbital theorem of paper 111, shown in paper 108 to reproduce all orbits. So if the supposedly respectable scientific establishment behaves like this, it should come as no surprise that politicians do not know what they are doing or what they are funding - because they take advice from a heavily prejudiced and obsolete science establishment.