Aspden-Hearld: Science Contrarian review

Reviewer role: Science Contrarian (PhD-standard, evidence over consensus; Mallove is a standards model, not a persona). Inputs: facts.json, claims.md, and my own reading of both source documents.

Source gap (repeated from Step 1, with what I added). Physics Unified (212 pp.) is a scan with no text layer. I rendered all 212 pages (150 dpi, grayscale), OCR'd them as a navigation aid, read Chapter 1 (pp. 7-14, eqs 1-18), the vacuum-structure opening (pp. 47-53), the vacuum-particle and H-particle chapters (pp. 110-120, eqs 155-170) and the "2.7 K cosmic background" section (pp. 175-178). I checked equations 157, 159, 160, 163, 167 and 168 against page images [read: page image pp. 112, 115]. I did NOT read the quantum chapters (Planck, Schroedinger, g-factor), the deuteron/proton/pion chapters, or the geomagnetism and solar-system chapters closely, so I give no verdict on those parts beyond saying so. All experimental support in the plasma essay is by citation; I could not obtain Kobel 1930, Graneau 1983/85, Roth 1978, Sethian et al. 1978, the Correa patents or Aspden's own papers. Statements about what those papers found are Aspden's characterisation [read: essay], not verified.

Web budget used: 6 calls. Sources: NIST CODATA 2022 alpha https://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?alph ; NIST CODATA 2022 mp/me https://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?mpsme ; FIRAS CMB https://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/cobe/about_firas.html ; Graneau/Ampere debate https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0375960185905912 ; Borexino CNO https://arxiv.org/pdf/2006.15115 ; Correa PAGD https://www.aetherometry.com/Labofex_Plasma_Physics/Archive/CorreaPublicRefs.html . Everything tagged [memory] below was not web-checked unless it says so.

All arithmetic below was recomputed by me in the project venv (sympy/numpy/math).

---

Corrections to Step 1

1. Essay date. The essay is signed "H. Aspden, 30 October 2005" [read]. The 6/11/2019 date is only the web printout. Step 1 left the writing date unstated.
2. Maxwell is described inconsistently by Aspden himself. Essay: Maxwell "opted for +1" for the extra term to avoid a net linear force; Aspden's minus sign is preferred "to avoid the twisting problem" [read: essay]. Book: Maxwell chose Ampere's version (his parameter Q), and "ignored one of his own proposed laws" with Q = -1/r, which Aspden favours because it gives an inverse-square law [read: book pp. 12-13]. In Chapter 1 the law is instead derived from energy conservation and symmetry (pp. 7-11). So there are three different justifications for the same term. Step 1 treated them as one.
3. G is not an independent calculation (affects claim 4). The graviton mass g = 5063 is itself obtained "empirically" by fitting a table of hypothetical graviton/muon/kaon/sigma decays to 1960s-70s hadron masses [read: book pp. 113-114; contents list says "empirical derivation of 2.587 Gev graviton mass"], and the book says this is "the value which gives us the constant of gravitation G". G then follows from eq 163 plus an extra "0.0004" correction factor [read: p. 115]. Step 1 and claims.md present G as calculated from vacuum geometry with no free parameters.
4. "No free parameters other than integers such as 1843" (claim 5) is too generous. Inputs also include the numbers 108*pi and 8 and the 1/6 exponent (eq 156-157), the proton-model radius parameter k = 3/2 (eq 166-170), the identification of the unit cell with a muon pair, and g. See claim 5.
5. Eq 163 form, now page-image verified. G = (e/m_e)^2 (4 pi)^2 (1/(108 pi))^6 (1/g)^8, where e/m_e = 5.273e17 esu/g. Step 1 wrote it as a "1/(108*pi) factor" with exponents unconfirmed. Dimensions check: (esu/g)^2 = cm^3 g^-1 s^-2 = cgs units of G. Eq 159-160: E_0 = (3/4pi)(108 pi)^3 (1/1843) E with E = (1/1843)^(1/3) m_e c^2 gives 412.6658 m_e c^2, reproducing the book's 412.665816. Eq 167 reads Q/P = (3/2)^(1/2) - 1; with that, P/m_e c^2 = 412.6658/0.224745 = 1836.1523, reproducing eq 168. So the book's arithmetic is internally correct.
6. The 10^-18 vs 10^-13 discrepancy Step 1 flagged (cosmic background section): the physics needs m/k = 0.0408 m_e / k = 2.69e-13 (my recomputation); eq 231 uses 2.7e-13 and gives 2.55 K from my numbers (book: 2.6 K). The "10^-18" in the prose is an OCR error or typo. It does not affect the result.
7. Eq 15 and "(v/c)^2". Ch. 1 sets the coefficient a = 1 "merely by the choice of units" [read: p. 10], so c does not appear in eq 14-15 as printed. Step 1's statement that the parallel-motion attraction is "(v/c)^2 times the Coulomb repulsion" is not something I found in Ch. 1; I did not locate where it enters. Treat as unverified.
8. Step 1 is otherwise accurate on: the essay's content and citations; alpha = 108 pi (8/1843)^(1/6) = 137.0359148; graviton 5062.6 m_e = 2.587 GeV; the book's own admission that the 2.60 GeV resonance was not confirmed [read: p. 119, citing Apostolakis 1977 and van Apeldoorn 1978].

---

Central claims (as in claims.md)

Claim 1. Modified electrodynamics: F = (qQ/r^3){(V.r)v - (M/m)(v.r)V - (v.V)r}

a. Mathematics. I followed the derivation (book pp. 7-11). Three hidden assumptions carry it: - The force between two charges is a bilinear form in v and V only (no velocity-squared or acceleration terms, so no Weber-type or retardation terms). - A symmetry argument says a force from orthogonal velocities must vanish when one velocity reverses (Fig. 6) [read]. This is asserted, not derived from anything independent. - A "no net work" argument then forces a = b (pp. 9-10). It works only if the interaction must be "mutual balanced" for each charge pair, yet pp. 13-14 then drops balance for individual pairs ("we need not be bound to the balance of action and reaction for each such component"). The derivation uses balance in Ch. 1 and abandons it in Ch. 1 two pages later. Check of Newton's 3rd law: swapping the roles of q and Q in eq 14 (q<->Q, v<->V, m<->M, r -> -r) and adding gives a net internal force K[(V.r)v(1 + m/M) - (v.r)V(1 + M/m)], which is not zero. So the law violates action-reaction for isolated pairs, as Aspden accepts; momentum is supposed to be supplied by the aether [read]. Eq 14 contains the Lorentz terms exactly (first and third terms are V x (v x r)) plus one extra term. Dimensionally consistent. Internally the derivation is not rigorous but not self-contradicting, except for the balance point above. Equal masses, parallel velocities: first two terms cancel, leaving -(v.V) r qQ/r^3, an isotropic inverse-square attraction [read]. Note ordinary magnetism between parallel moving like charges gives -v^2 r_perp-type force that is anisotropic (zero along the direction of motion); Aspden's isotropy is a feature he adds.

b. Consistency with experiment. The Lorentz force on isolated moving charges is tested in cyclotrons, mass spectrometers, storage rings and electron-electron scattering (Moller), and the electron g-2 test of QED is at the 1e-12 level [memory: high on the general statement; medium on Moller specifically]. A law that differs from Lorentz by a term of size M/m times the magnetic term for electron-ion pairs, and the same size for electron-electron pairs (M/m = 1), would show up there. I did not find Aspden addressing these tests in the pages I read. Closed-circuit experiments, on which the term is invisible, are agreed to be consistent [read: Maxwell quote, book p. 12].

c. Tests. The only "tests" he cites are indirect: Kobel's cold-cathode "cathode reaction forces" (1930), Graneau's wire-rupture and exploding-arc experiments (1983, 1985), Roth's bumpy torus, Sethian et al. None tests the force law between two isolated charges. Graneau's experiments are genuine and published (Phys. Lett. A, Appl. Phys. Lett.), but the interpretation as Ampere longitudinal forces is contested; alternative explanations (self-induced EMF/ohmic imbalance, thermal and magnetic-pressure effects) exist [web: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0375960185905912 and search summary]. No neutral, controlled test of Aspden's specific mass-ratio term is on record that I could find. Not replicated as a law.

d. What would change. Lorentz force and Maxwell theory would hold only for closed circuits; Newton's 3rd law and momentum conservation would require a medium carrying momentum; Lorentz invariance would be lost (the law needs a preferred frame); QED's electron-electron interaction would need to be rederived.

Verdict (split). - Closed-circuit experiments cannot fix the isolated-charge term (Maxwell's point): Established (historical fact, [read: book p. 12]). - Aspden's specific minus-sign, mass-ratio law as the law of isolated charges: Never properly tested in its own terms (no controlled test of the term), but in conflict with the accelerator/beam record [memory: medium], so lean Tested, not supported. I cannot cite a specific experiment that was designed to test it, so I will not call it "tested" without that source. Say plainly: this rests partly on [memory].

Strongest honest case. Aspden is right that closed-circuit data leave a gap (Maxwell said so), that the Ampere-versus-Lorentz question for longitudinal forces in metals is not entirely closed in the literature, and that the Graneau fragmentation is real. A momentum-carrying medium is not logically absurd; it is how Maxwell's own field momentum works. Against. His derivation is not unique (the Weber/Grassmann/Ampere family all fit closed circuits), and the symmetry steps are asserted.

---

Claim 2. Plasma energy partition; corona; "sun not fusion powered"

a. Mathematics. The essay contains no derivation: "an interesting, though quite complicated mathematical task ... which I trust some enthusiastic mathematician might undertake" [read]. His four-case argument is qualitative, and I tested it. For a slow ion (v' small) and a fast electron, the extra force on the ion is proportional to (v.r)/r^3 times v'. If the ion is nearly stationary, r changes only because of the electron's motion, so (v.r)/r^3 = d(1/r)/dt (up to sign). Integrated along a whole flyby, the impulse is proportional to [1/r] at the end minus [1/r] at the start, which is zero when the electron starts and ends far away. His cases 1 and 2 (approaching gains, receding loses) therefore cancel to first order in v'/v. A net gain needs second-order effects, correlated flows (e.g. the return current he mentions for the cold cathode), or the aether. This is my own calculation [read: his four cases, essay p. 2]; it applies to the leading order only, and I have not done the full statistical calculation he asks for. Also, for isotropic thermal distributions the average of (v.r) over directions is zero.

b. Consistency with experiment. (i) The premise that the corona's electrons sit at the photospheric 6,000 K is wrong: coronal ionisation stages (Fe X-XIV) are set by electron collisions, so the electrons are hot (about 1 MK) [memory: high]. Essay: the ratio "of the order of 160" ion-to-electron energy assumes the electrons are at 6,000 K [read]. That contradicts the very spectral evidence he cites for the million degrees. (ii) Ion-hot, non-equipartitioned plasmas are real and have conventional explanations (collisionless heating, waves, reconnection, beam-plasma instabilities) [memory: medium; not web-checked]. (iii) "Sun is not fusion powered": solar neutrinos from the pp chain and the CNO cycle are detected, with fluxes consistent with the solar luminosity [web: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2006.15115]. Aspden says neutrinos "are not a measure of temperature" [read]. True but irrelevant: they identify the reactions, not the temperature.

c. Tests. Roth (1978), Sethian et al. (1978) did report ion heating or electron-ion transfer faster than classical [read: Aspden's quotation of Sethian's abstract; papers not read]. Sethian et al. themselves guessed the mass ratio "without particular justification" [read: essay]; I have not found evidence anyone tested Aspden's term against these. They were not dismissed as bad data: they were published in PRL and IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. Aspden's own papers (1969 J. Franklin Inst.; 1977 and 1986 IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci.; 1985 Phys. Lett. A) were also published in peer-reviewed venues [read: essay citations], so "suppressed" does not fit; "uncited" (his complaint) is the accurate word. The anomalies were never tested against his mechanism, so that part is "never properly tested" rather than "dismissed after a test".

d. What would change. Plasma kinetic theory would need a new interparticle force; solar models would need a non-nuclear source; neutrino physics results would need an alternative origin.

Verdict (split). - Ion-electron temperature non-equality in some plasmas: Established as phenomenon, with conventional explanations [memory: medium]. - Aspden's mechanism as the explanation: Never properly tested; his own four-case argument fails my first-order cancellation check (so the argument as stated is Refuted by calculation at leading order, the full statistical case is open). - Corona explained by it: Internally inconsistent (needs the electrons at 6,000 K; the corona's own diagnostics show hot electrons). - Sun not fusion powered: Tested, not supported (neutrino detection [web]).

Strongest honest case. Non-equipartition and anomalous ion heating in lab plasmas are real and the coronal heating problem was long open; he is right that the temperature concept is a statement about distribution, not a thermometer reading. Against. He overstates (a "blatant" absurdity that mainstream plasma physics already addresses), misreads what coronal spectra measure, and asserts "I am sure" the sun is not fusion-powered against direct evidence.

---

Claim 3. Aether as energy source; preferred frame; Correa device

a. Mathematics. The balance of momentum and energy is assigned to the aether without equations in the essay. In the book the structure is a lattice of "lattice particles" (E-frame/C-frame, book pp. 47-53). The key move: the "E-frame" (local electromagnetic frame) is stipulated to adopt the laboratory's motion near matter, so that light speed is isotropic in the lab [read: book pp. 48-49]. That makes the lab's null results (Michelson-Morley) true by definition and leaves no lab test of the drift. Compare: Michelson-Gale-Pearson is presented as "exactly the result predicted on fixed aether theory", while Michelson-Morley is explained by dragging. Selective use of the aether picture is flexible enough to fit both; Aspden notes the surprise himself [read: p. 53].

b. Consistency with experiment. The CMB dipole (he quotes 390 +/- 60 km/s, Smoot-Gorenstein-Muller 1977 [read]) is real [memory: high]. Mainstream reads it as Earth's motion relative to the CMB rest frame, a matter-defined frame, with no violation of relativity; local experiments cannot detect the motion. Aspden's "aether drift detected" is therefore a re-reading, not a new datum. Rotation effects (Sagnac, Michelson-Gale-Pearson) are standard predictions of special/general relativity in a rotating frame [memory: high]. Modern resonant-cavity and Kennedy-Thorndike-type tests of Lorentz invariance have found no preferred-frame effects [memory: medium; not web-checked].

c. Tests. Correa's plasma discharge device: Correa claims excess energy (e.g. "483%" overall efficiency) in their own publications [web: https://www.aetherometry.com/Labofex_Plasma_Physics/Archive/CorreaPublicRefs.html and search summary]. I found no independent replication or neutral controlled test in one search (budget limit): absence of a located test is not evidence either way. Having Aspden's 1969 paper cited in a patent shows only that he was cited, not that the device was validated. The patents are 5,416,391, 5,449,989, 5,502,354 [read: essay]; not read.

d. What would change. A preferred electromagnetic frame; a source of free energy (violating energy conservation unless the aether is a finite or interacting reservoir that could be measured); revision of special relativity's postulates.

Verdict (split). - Preferred-frame lattice aether, as formulated (local frame that drags with matter): Not testable as stated locally (fits any null result by construction); the CMB dipole is real but is not evidence for it. - Correa device draws energy from the aether: Never properly tested by a neutral party as far as I could find; no independent test is on record in my search; not shown to have been dismissed after a controlled test.

Strongest honest case. The CMB frame is a physically distinguished frame, which Dirac and Sciama also noted [read: book p. 47]; the lab claim of anomalous excess power is cheap to test with calorimetry. Against. Self-reported over-unity from a pulsed discharge with large reactive power is notoriously prone to measurement error (power factor, spiky waveforms) [memory: medium].

---

Claim 4. Gravity from electrodynamics; 2.587 GeV graviton; G

a. Mathematics. Arithmetic checks: with g = 5063, eq 163 gives G = 6.6655e-8; with the 0.0004 correction 6.6681e-8; with g = 5062.75 (his 1966 value) 6.6708e-8 cgs [my calc]. Dimensions are consistent. G scales as g^-8, so g must be known to 1 part in 10^5 to get G to 1e-4. The g that gives exactly 6.6743e-8 would be 5062.16, which is 0.12 in 5063. Since g was fitted to a hadron table (see Corrections 3), the "agreement" is not an independent test. Scale check on the electrodynamic mechanism: in Gaussian units, G m_e^2 / e^2 = 2.4e-43. If the gravitational attraction is a velocity-squared effect of order (v/c)^2 times Coulomb, the lattice charges would need v/c ~ 5e-22. The book contains no way to measure such a velocity. Eq 14 gives an attraction between like charges moving parallel, but ordinary charges in matter move in all directions, so the isotropic attraction must come from correlated lattice motions he assumes.

b. Consistency with experiment. General relativity's tests (perihelion precession, light deflection, gravitational waves travelling at c) are not discussed in the pages I read (Chapter 2 claims to derive "Einstein's law", not read). No 2.587 GeV graviton has been found [memory: medium]; the book itself says a 2.60 GeV resonance was reported (Apostolakis 1977) and not confirmed by independent searches (van Apeldoorn 1978) [read: p. 119]. A massive graviton at 2.6 GeV with gravity of infinite range is not the same as exchange of that particle; Aspden's gravitons are vacuum constituents, not messengers, so the usual "Yukawa range" objection does not directly apply [my reading, medium]. Psi-particle matches: with g = 2.587 GeV, P = g 2^(1/3), Q set by eq 167, I get 3.0948 GeV (J/psi is 3.0969 [memory: high]) and 3.6830 (psi(2S) 3.6861). These are 0.07% and 0.08% off, from a model with several adjustable choices (k = 3/2, cube-root-of-2 states, which pair). The J/psi was discovered in 1974, before the book; these are retrodictions. The 2.260 GeV state (g (2/3)^(1/3) = 2.25995 GeV) was matched to an August 1976 Fermilab announcement, cited from a popular book (N. Calder, BBC) [read: p. 119]; I found no confirmation that this particle survived [memory: medium: not in the modern particle tables].

c. Tests. Direct searches for the 2.6 GeV resonance failed per the book. Nobody has tested the claim that gravity is Aspden-type electrodynamics.

d. What would change. General relativity would not be fundamental; gravity would be an electromagnetic residue; a 2.587 GeV vacuum constituent would exist; G would be derivable from e/m_e.

Verdict (split). - Electrodynamic origin of gravity (the mechanism): Not testable as stated (no independent prediction; the required velocities are unmeasurable). - G "calculated": Internally consistent arithmetic but not a prediction (g fitted, extra 0.0004 factor); versus today's G = 6.674e-8 [memory: medium] it is about 0.05% low even after the correction, which is far outside present uncertainty [memory: medium, not web-checked]; call it Tested, not supported only if that modern figure is confirmed. - 2.587 GeV graviton: Tested, not supported (the book's own account of failed independent searches).

Strongest honest case. The psi-threshold table is a striking pattern from a one-line formula (eq 166) and he stated the graviton value in print in 1966 (before the psi); he was candid about the failure to confirm 2.60 GeV. Against. Pattern matches at 0.1% with this many free choices are expected; the 1966 graviton mass was fit to hadron masses of that era, and the quoted match values use the measured psi thresholds as targets.

---

Claim 5. Derived constants (alpha, mp/me, g-factor, Planck's law, Schroedinger)

a. Mathematics. Recomputed: 108 pi (8/1843)^(1/6) = 137.0359148 (book: 137.035915, correct). Neighbouring odd integers give 137.0611 (1841) and 137.0111 (1845); the spacing is about 0.025, so only an integer within about +/-0.0001 of the target (about 1% of a spacing) counts as a hit; the free structural choices (108 pi, 8, exponent 1/6) make the "uniquely determined" claim [read: p. 112] a numerological fit. The same 1843 gives E_0 = 412.6658 and P/m_e = 1836.15232 (verified above); two numbers from one integer is more interesting than one number, but k = 3/2 and the muon-pair identification are further choices. E_0 = 412.67 m_e versus two muon masses 2 x 206.77 = 413.54 m_e: 0.2% off; Aspden calls it "very close" [read: p. 112] but it is not exact. I did not verify the Planck, Schroedinger or g-factor derivations (not read).

b. Consistency with experiment. CODATA 2022: alpha = 7.2973525643(11)e-3, relative uncertainty 1.6e-10 [web: NIST]. alpha^-1 = 137.035999177; the book's value is low by 8.4e-5 (0.615 ppm), about 3,800 standard uncertainties. Proton-electron mass ratio 1836.152673426(32) [web: NIST]; the book's 1836.15232 is low by 3.5e-4, 1.9e-7 relative, about 11,000 sigma. At the time (book printed c.1980 [memory: low]) the comparison was fairer: the book quotes mp/me = 1836.15152(70) so the derived value is 1.1 sigma away [read: p. 116]; and for alpha, Taylor-Cohen 1975 gives 137.03592 (0.8 ppm) [read: footnote p. 112]. But the same footnote notes the "more recent" Williams-Olsen 137.035963(15), which is 3.2 sigma from Aspden's value (my calc: (137.035963 - 137.035915)/0.000015 = 3.2). The author saw an experimental value disagreeing and did not adjust. Since then, measurement has moved away from the formula.

c. Tested. By precision measurement, repeatedly, by many groups; the formula has not survived. Nobody needed to "refute" it; the numbers changed.

d. What would change. Alpha and the mass ratio would be calculable from geometry; QED would be an approximation of a lattice theory. QED already reproduces g-2 to ~1e-12 with measured alpha [memory: high]; a lattice derivation would have to reproduce this.

Verdict. Numerical values (alpha, mp/me): Tested, not supported [web: NIST CODATA 2022]. Derivations of Planck, Schroedinger, g-factor: no verdict; not read, and reproducing a known formula from a model is not a test of the model. "No free parameters" claim: Internally inconsistent with the several fitted choices listed above.

Strongest honest case. In 1980 the match was inside experimental error for two quantities from one integer, a result worth noticing, and he published predictions in a checkable form (a virtue). Against. 1843, 108 pi, the 1/6 power and k are all chosen; the fine-structure constant has attracted a long record of near-miss numerology; with 40+ years of data the match is dead.

---

Claim 6. Cosmic background as local lattice temperature; domains, geomagnetism

a. Mathematics. T = T_0 + H^2/(8 pi k N) - phi m/k (eq 230). Near Earth T_0 is set to zero and phi is the Sun's plus Earth's potential [read: p. 177]. My recomputation: phi = G(M_sun/AU + M_earth/R_earth) = 9.49e12 cgs; m/k = 2.69e-13; T = 2.55 K (book rounds to 2.6 K). Sign: the text says the potential "is really negative", so the term raises T. Arithmetic fine. The extra 0.1 K is attributed to "one electron per 600 or so lattice particles", an after-the-fact fix [read: p. 178]. The accuracy claim "quite good agreement" is 5% off; the observed value is known to 0.1% or better.

b. Consistency with experiment. The same formula applied to potentials Aspden leaves out gives different answers: the Milky Way's potential, of order (220 km/s)^2 = 4.8e14 cgs [memory: high on the speed], would give about 130 K. Why only the Sun and Earth count is not explained. Within the solar system, the formula predicts T falls with distance from the Sun: 2.39 K at 1 AU from the Sun alone, 1.57 K at Mars, 0.46 K at Jupiter, 0.08 K at 30 AU (my calc), and a 2.52-2.60 K swing between perihelion and aphelion for Earth. A strict reading says CMB measurements should show an annual change of about 0.08 K; the FIRAS result is 2.725 +/- 0.002 K with spectral deviations under 1 part in 10^5 [web: https://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/cobe/about_firas.html]. I did not check the annual variation directly; I do not know if the data would have shown it, so I flag it as a clean test, not a result. The near-perfect blackbody shape and the 1e-5 anisotropy pattern are not addressed by the lattice-temperature idea in the pages I read.

c. Tests. FIRAS measures T = 2.725 K; Aspden's 2.6 K (or 2.55 K by my arithmetic) differs by 0.1-0.17 K, about 50-100 times the FIRAS uncertainty [web for FIRAS value; my arithmetic]. In 1980 the measurement was 2.7 K to about 0.1 K, so the claim was within error then. No test of the specific local-potential dependence is on record that I know of.

d. What would change. The Big Bang interpretation of the CMB, the abundance and anisotropy cosmology based on it, the reading of the dipole.

Verdict (split). - Numerical agreement with the CMB temperature: Tested, not supported as stated (0.1 K off, which is now measurable; fix is ad hoc). - Local-lattice-temperature origin: Never properly tested (the solar-system gradient test is available but I have not seen it done; flagged as a calculation anyone can check against existing COBE/WMAP/Planck data). - Geomagnetism, field reversals, solar-system angular momentum from vacuum domains: not assessed (not read).

Strongest honest case. Aspden's explicit temperature formula makes a definite, checkable prediction (T falls with distance from the Sun), rare in aether writing; the dipole was widely labelled "aether drift detected" in 1977-78 [read: Nature headline quoted p. 47]. Against. The blackbody spectrum, the anisotropy spectrum and the choice of potential are unexplained.

---

How the claims were treated by critics and by the author

• The record I can see shows the plasma papers published in mainstream journals and then ignored; the complaint is neglect, with no documented funding block, retraction or data omission [read: essay]. His polemic against academia ("poorly charted jungles", funding) is a grievance, not evidence [read].
• Applying the same rigour to him: (i) he asks a mathematician to do the statistical calculation that his own case requires and then cites experiments as supporting evidence without it; (ii) he asserts with certainty ("I am sure it is not") a claim contradicted by neutrino data; (iii) he takes the 6,000 K photosphere as the electron temperature of the corona; (iv) numerical agreements come with ad hoc corrections (0.0004; "one electron per 600") and an unsupported "uniquely determined" integer.
• The one item with real contrarian value is claim 3's testable corollary and claim 6's solar-system gradient: both could be checked quickly with existing data or a calorimeter.

Summary table