June 29 2008

## Deliberate misunderstanding to deceive his readers

Subject: FOR POSTING : anote6 Correction of 19.06.2007
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 06:06:44 EDT

Here Bruhn is his usual deceptive self. It is apparently asserted that

R = q sup mu sub a R sup a sub mu
i.e.                 R = qμa Raμ

occurs in the proof of the ECE Lemma. This is note the case. We are then told that

q sup a sub mu R = q sub a sub mu (q sup mu sub a R sup a sub mu)
i.e.                 qaμ R = qaμ (qμa Raμ)

is “inadmissible”. On the contrary, summation over repeated indices is carried out inside the bracket on the rigth hand side, making it a scalar. My use of such summation is rigorously proven in the appendices of chapter 17 of volume one, which friend Bruhn predictably ignores. Gerhard Bruhn is indeed an old donkey, as he describes himself to Bo Lehnert. ...

That's not the point, my dear! But this writing is already dangerous as you'll get caught in your own trap soon:

What I really criticized is your next step: To arrive at your aim you move the brackets,

qaμ R = qaμ (qμa Raμ) = (qaμ qμa) Raμ = 4 Raμ

and this moving of brackets is inadmissible!!! Really! The reader will recognize this when writing out the occurring summations without using the Einstein convention.

To draw a rule of thumb for the Einstein convention from this:

#### In (formal) products each index is not allowed to appear more than twice, and if twice then one index in the upper position and the other one in lower position.

That's a ''nice'' but nevertheless wrong conclusion. Better, to use other indices ν and b inside the brackets. However, then the ''trick'' wouldn't work.

### Where did you, Dr(!) Evans, and your coworker Dr(!) Eckardt learn such nonsense?

The point is that Dr Evans has used that wrong conclusion several times at crucial points of his ''theory'' as I have pointed out in the past much more than twice.