Friday, February 09, 2007

In fact the claims of Waldyr Rodrigues are complete Red Herrings bearing no relation to any of the physical ideas even in the first draft of my archive paper. For example, Waldyr falsely claimed I did not know there were 4 tetrad 1-forms and 6 spin connection 1-forms, which is silly. He simply got confused on my notation. Second most of what his paper was about was on conservation laws in GR and my paper was not about that at all. Third of all, Waldyr admits he has made similar allegations of "mathematical nonsense" on many physics archive papers. Indeed, Waldyr privately did not have nice things to say about Lubos as I recall. Fourth, Waldyr admitted in writing to Tony Smith that he was pressured by "powerful people" to attack me under threat that they would take grants away from his students in Brazil.

Now on another tack, Lubos Motl has not done one important piece of work in real theoretical physics that has any relationship to real physics i.e. observable phenomena. In contrast, I was among the first to predict the supersolid phase of helium 4 in a peer reviewed journal Physics Letters in 1969 months before Tony Leggett's paper that gets the credit.

The basic idea of my archive paper is a good one, that Einstein-Cartan tetrads are emergent from modulations of the Goldstone phases of a vacuum ODLRO field "condensate" like v =( h/m)Grad theta in superflow. That's the idea of the paper. I also predict no dark matter on shell particles as a matter of principle. Unlike Lubos Motl defrocked from his Harvard post for obvious conduct unbecoming, I make testable predictions about real phenomena.

Finally read Feynman's 1965 Nobel Lecture to see how Waldyr's criterion of "mathematical nonsense" would have applied to Feynman's Nobel Prize work. Waldyr is a mathematician not a physicist, and so is Lubos. Mathematicians have different objectives of "rigor mortis" (Feynman's term) that impede creative work in theoretical physics actual phenomena such as the dark energy and the self-stress of the classical Lorentz electron as a Bohmian hidden variable.

No comments: