WGUGLINSKI writes: Dear Andrea Rossi
I decided to suit in Law the journals Nature and European Physical Journal
by plagiarism of my QRT, because I had warned the two editors of the
plagiarism commited by their journals, and I had asked to them to quote my
theory in the papers, and they did not attend my request. So they are
colluding with plagiarism, and that’s why I decided to suit the two journals
I also decided to suit in law the Argonne National Laboratory, and I
explain the reason ahead.
Along several years I had discussion with
physicists in many foruns of physics, and they used to call me crackpot,
charlatan, and they claimed that my theory is pseudoscientific, as you may
realize by looking at some reviews in the site
even a theory March 2, 2009
By Daniel Lopes
This book is a great example of
is not a scientific book March 2, 2009
However now, after the two plagiarisms by the Nature and the EPJ they use
to be silent (after all, a serious journal would never do a plagiarism of a
theory without scientific merit).
Unfortunatelly Mr. JR (here in this blog) tried to suggest that I am an
idiot, as we realize from his latest two
15th, 2013 at 12:33 AM
Actually, Martin Freer and I gave the same argument, you just
didn’t understand it. And it’s not exactly an argument, it’s part of the
definition of the quadrupole moment, which is taken as the measure of the
deviation from spherical symmetry. That is why I was explaining that
the nucleus is spherical, in the standard meaning of the phrase, even
though it has structures as shown in Freer’s
14th, 2013 at 6:50 PM
I think that most nuclear physicists would disagree with the idea that
there is no physical picture of what’s going on in low energy nuclear
Whether or not a nobel prize winner said something is not the way
one establishes truth, it focuses on the people and not the physics questions.
Also, these nuclei are spherically symmetric, in the conventional meaning of
that phrase, because they are spin zero and one typically talks about
non-spherical structures relative to the spin axis. The type of non-spherical
structure you’re talking about has a specific and different meaning, but the
nucleus is still spherically symmetric in the traditional sense. So
‘non-spherical’ means to different things when you say that conventional theory
requires spherical symmetry and when you say that the clustering structure
shown in the paper you cite yields non-spherical
So, we have the following situation:
1- The experiments had detected that light even-even nuclei with Z=N have
2- By considering the principles of the Standard Nuclear Physics, the
nuclear theorists used along 60 years to consider that light even-even nuclei
with Z=N must have spherical shape.
4- However, Mr. JR continues insisting that light even-even nuclei with Z=N
have spherical shape, as we see in his comment of December 15th.
As I already said in this blog, I suspect that Mr. JR is a fake name of Dr.
John Arrington, a researcher of the Argonne National Laboratory.
So, dear Andrea Rossi,
I would like you help me, in order to
identify the IP of the computer used by Mr. JR, in order to discover if it
realy comes from the Argonne National Laboratory.
I would say that I very much regret this decision. However
I hope you and the readers of the JoNP may understand my
1- Along 20 years I was hearing the physicists calling me charlatan,
crackpot, and claiming that my theory is pseudoscientific.
2- Now, when finally the experiments are corroborating my QRT , and two the
most important journals of Physics had published plagiarisms of my theory in
2012 and 2013, I would like the physicists would recognize the merit of my
3- However, instead of to accept scientific facts detected by
experiments, unlike Mr. JR actually continues trying to suggest to
everybody that I am a charlatan, and he uses a dishonest way of
argumentation, by rejecting the results of the experiments which
detected the non-spherical shape of the even-even nuclei with Z=N, and
suggesting to be idiots the autors of the paper How atomic nuclei
cluster and also the editor of the journal Nature, suggesting that
they did not understand the results of the experiments (also suggesting that
I did not understand), because he insists to claim that those light
nuclei have actually spherical shape.
So, I hope you and the readers may undersand my reasons and why I decided
to suit in Law the Argonne National Laboratory.