(quotations from MWE’s emails in *
black italics*, comments by G.W. Bruhn in

In a short note [2] I recently showed by simple insertion that a basic statement of Myron W. Evans (MWE) in [1], that

«*if there exists a symmetric metric,
then there must exist an antisymmetric metric*»,

leads to a contradiction already in the simplest case, the **R**^{3} case, which MWE had
used to exemplify his assertion:

By simply inserting MWE’s matrices (q^{kr(S)}) and (q^{ij(A)})
defined in [1; (2.4) and (2.6)] into MWE's equations (2.8) and (2.9) respectively
one obtains

ω_{1} = q^{kr(S)} dx_{k} dx_{r}
= dx_{1}^{2} + dx_{2}^{2} + dx_{3}^{2}
(2.8')

and

ω_{2} = − ˝ q^{ij(A)} dx_{i}^dx_{j}
= dx_{1}^dx_{2} + dx_{2}^dx_{3} + dx_{3}^dx_{1} .
(2.9')

MWE’s assertion at the top of p.23 in [1] was that ω_{1} = ω_{2} , i.e. detailed

(*)
dx_{1}^{2} + dx_{2}^{2} + dx_{3}^{2}
= dx_{1}^dx_{2} + dx_{2}^dx_{3} + dx_{3}^dx_{1} ,

an evidently wrong equation, which he has recently confirmed by email (see below).

MWE has blocked direct email communication with me immediately after my first criticisms. Probably he is afraid of a precise discussion of his statements - as is use everywhere else in the scientific world. However, he gave feedbacks via his AIAS email list. These feedbacks, which will be discussed below, consist of

1) **Polemics** (collected in the
Appendix),

which don’t help to find the truth and therefore will be ignored without reply.

2) **Unproven assertions and statements **,

which do not meet my objection that the simple consequence
(*) from his theory [1] is evidently erroneous:

Email We 11-03-04 11:24:

«

g

This is the inner or dot product of two tetrads, a scalar and thus a zero form (ω

g

This is an antisymmetric tensor (i.e. a differential one-form

q

where ε

The wedge product dx

That long explanation cannot invalidate the fact that MWE's theory [1]
leads to the erroneous consequence (*).

Besides:
«*Bruhn’s equations*»
are **MWE’s original equations**
taken from MWE’s article [1].

**Analysis of the last break:**

«*
The wedge product dx _{i}^dx_{j} in Bruhn's eqn.
(2.9) is similarly an antisymmetric tensor
*»

«

«

there is

hence the conclusion «

ω

Thus,

«

We have just seen, that the given impression is quite correct. Where is the «

In addition MWE declares in his

Email Thu 11-4-04 14:02

«

To add to my collection of one liners, the following is for Gerhard Bruhn:

ω

i.e. MWE confirms here again explicitly

dx

which is evidently erroneous: On the right-hand side we have a 2-form according to Carroll [3; p.21](due to ω

Email We 11-3-04 11:33:

«

PS Rigorously, an antisymmetric tensor in 3-D is a differential two-form dual to an axial vector, a differential one-form. In 4-D an antisymmetric tensor is a differential two-form dual to another two-form. These are all VERY well known points, but worth repeating in view of the attacks being made on me personally by Bruhn. Background to my comments is available in the graduate course by Carroll on www.aias.us. Significantly, Bruhn does not attack Carroll, showing clearly that his motives are personal, and unscientific. (Carroll and I say the same thing exactly, Bruhn attacks me, but not Carroll.)

MWE

I do not criticize Carroll since in Carroll’s book [3] there is no justification for MWE’s assertion ω

Email Fr 11-5-04 11:40:

«

1) In A. Einstein, "The Meaning of Relativity" (Princeton, 1921), we find:

g

… It is seen that the double contravariant covariant summation yields a scalar, the number 4. Bruhn asserts that this is vector.

One of MWE's unproven assertions: Any reference to my note [2] is missing and would not invalidate the consequence (*) of MWE's theory [1]. Besides: I cannot remember any statement of mine against this equ. (1).

«

et cyclicum

(see numerous works listed on www.aias.us). I have already given this refutation.

This is very imprecise. True is that I had criticized some of

[2] G. W. Bruhn: http://www.mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de/~bruhn/contra-E-1.jpg

[3] S.M. Carroll: http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9712019

[4] G. W. Bruhn: http://www.mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de/~bruhn/Refutation_of_EVANS_REFUTATION.htm

which don’t help to find the scientific truth and therefore will be ignored without reply:

Email 7-13-2004

«

Myron W. Evans AIAS Director

Email We 11-03-04 11:24:

«

Bruhn has chosen to deliberately misinterpret eqn. (2.9) in a trivial way in order to give a false impression that there exists a trivial error in my work. In legal terms this is defamation (false information spread to many parties) and first degree harassment (he does it repeatedly). I warn colleagues to be alert to further attempts of this kind, and to calmly report Bruhn to his Chair at the Technical University of Darmstadt with a request for appropriate disciplinary action against him (bringing the University into disrepute). Therefore I demand Dr Bruhn's apology and immediate resignation. His conduct is unprofessional.

The reader himself may decide whether my internet articles with concern to MWE’s work

http://www.mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de/~bruhn/B3-refutation.htm

http://www.mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de/~bruhn/Refutation_of_EVANS_REFUTATION.htm

http://www.mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de/~bruhn/PHYSICAL_OPTICS1.htm

http://www.mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de/~bruhn/contra-E-1.jpg

contain any comparable personal attacks against MWE.