Create an account Home  ·  Topics  ·  Downloads  ·  Your Account  ·  Submit News  ·  Top 10  
Mission Statement

· Home
· Forum
· Special Sections
· Advertising
· AvantGo
· Books
· Downloads
· Events
· Feedback
· Link to us
· Private Messages
· Search
· Stories Archive
· Submit News
· Surveys
· Top 10
· Topics
· Web Links
· Your Account

Who's Online
There are currently, 297 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.

You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here

  • (August 7, 2024 - August 11, 2024) 2024 ExtraOrdinary Technology Conference

  • Hot Links

    American Antigravity

    Closeminded Science


    ECW E-Cat World


    Integrity Research Institute

    New Energy Movement

    New Energy Times



    Science Hobbyist

    T. Bearden Mirror Site


    Want to Know

    Other Info-Sources
    NE News Sites
    E-Cat World
    NexusNewsfeed ZPE
    NE Discussion Groups
    Energetic Forum
    Energy Science Forum
    Free_Energy FB Group
    The KeelyNet Blog
    OverUnity Research
    Tesla Science Foundation (FB)
    Vortex (old Interact)
    Magazine Sites
    Electrifying Times (FB)
    ExtraOrdinary Technology
    IE Magazine
    New Energy Times

    Interesting Links

    Click Here for the DISCLOSURE PROJECT
    SciTech Daily Review
    NEXUS Magazine

    The Standard Nuclear Physics is dead
    Posted on Sunday, March 01, 2015 @ 21:38:33 GMT by vlad

    Science WGUGLINSKI writes: Deleted from Andrea Rossi blog Journal of Nuclear Physics;

    The Standard Nuclear Physics is dead

    Dear Joe,

    Between 2005 and 2010, I participated in physical forums on the Internet, where I used to show that the Standard Nuclear Physics has many incoherences, and the current nuclear models are denied by many experiments. No one among those models is able to explain all the nuclear properties of the nuclei.

    The physicists used to answer me with a speech in this way:

    The aim of the science is not to find a definitive theoretical model. A model is proposed so that to explain some known phenomena. When new experimental findings defy that old model, the theorists either change the model with suit improvements so that to fit the model to the new discoveries, or they propose a new model. This is the way of the science. The goal is to evolve.

    Therefore, through this kind of view of the goal of science the nuclear physicists did succeed to justify the failure of the current nuclear models.

    But today the situation is different.

    Because it is IMPOSSIBLE to solve the puzzle of the null magnetic moment of the even-even nuclei with Z=N by considering any nuclear model developed according to the principles of the Standard Nuclear Physics, because any model established according those principles necessarily violates the law of the monopolar nature of the electric charge.

    Therefore, it makes no sense either to change the present models with improvements or to try to find a new model. Because any model based on the concepts of the Standard Nuclear Physics will fail.

    The reason we know why: it is because is impossible to find a nuclear model capable to solve the puzzle of the even-even nuclei with Z=N if the theorists keep the concept of empty space and the concept of field considered in the Quantum Field Theory.

    And the final conclusion is: any nuclear model based on the Standard Nuclear Physics is wrong.

    Unfortunatelly, dear Joe, the scientists are not interested to discover the Scientific Truth. There is no honesty, and instead to confess that some of the foundations of the Standard Nuclear Physics are incorrect, they keep silent, hoping that the silence can save their nuclear models.

    I sent emails to several authors of papers published here in the JoNP, (they proposed new nuclear models). I was asking them how they solve the puzzle of the even-even nuclei with Z=N.

    They are:

    Dr. Stoyan Sarg, Dr. Gamal A. Nasser , Dr. U.V.S.Seshavatharam , and Dr. S.Lakshminarayana (Dept.of Nuclear Physics, Andhra University)

    Dr. Seshavatharam sent a reply, asking a couple of days, but any response was never sent:
    Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 05:24:20 +0430
    Subject: Please let me have a couple of days.. sir
    From: seshavatharam.uvs
    To: wladimirguglinski

    The others did never sent any reply .

    The email ahead was sent to Dr. Walter Grainer and Dr. Joachim A. Maruhn , authors of the book Nuclear Models.

    From: wladimirguglinski
    To: greiner@fias.uni-frankfurt.de
    Subject: unsolved puzzle of Nuclear Physics
    Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 17:51:07 -0200

    Dear Prof. Dr. Walter Greiner

    A nuclear physicist told me there is an unsolved puzzle in Nuclear Physics.

    The puzzle is the following:

    1- Electric charges have monopolar nature
    2- Atomic nuclei are composed by protons and neutons, and the protons have positive charge
    3- The nuclei have rotation.
    4- Due to the rotation, the positive charge of the protons induces a magnetic field.
    5- The even-even nuclei with equal quantity of protons of neutrons have null nuclear magnetic moment
    6 – Each pair of protons with symmetric positions cancell each other their magnetic moments. The same happens with the neutrons, in order that the total magnetic moment due to the nuclear magnetic moments of protons and neutrons is zero.
    7- But due to the rotation of the nucleus, the protons induce a magnetic moment. And therefore the even-even nuclei with the same quantity of protons and neutrons cannot have magnetic moment zero.

    The nuclear physicists told me there is not any nuclear model proposed capable to solve the puzzle.
    According to what he said me, all the known nuclear models existing in Nuclear Physics violate a fundamental law of Physics: the monopolar nature of the electric charge.
    Is it true ?
    As you wrote a book explaining all the known nuclear models, do you know any nuclear model able to solve the puzzle?

    Wladimir Guglinski

    In order to be sure they have received the emails, I also sent emails to staff of the Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies (where Dr. Grainer works), and for the Executive Director of the Goethe Universita (where Dr. Maruhn works), asking them to advise the two authors.

    Nor Grainer neither Maruhn sent any reply.

    In 2002 I sent a letter to Dr. Stephen Hawking, telling him on the existence of the Don Borghi experiment, which proves the neutron be formed by proton+electron.
    Since a model of neutron formed by proton+electron requires new foundations for the Standard Nuclear Physics, of course a honest scientist would have to be very interested, mainly in the case of a theoretical researcher who is trying to decipher the enigma of the Universe structure, as Dr. Hawking. So, I asked to him his opinion of the repercussion of that experiment for the Theoretical Physics.
    His secretary sent me a reply. She said that Dr. Hawking was very debilitated, and unable to respond.

    Nevertheless, the secretary was lying. After one month Dr. Hawking gave a lecture at an university. So, he was not interested in the scientific truth. As many, his interest is to continue deluding people in lectures speaking on the scientific frauds he is proposing (as Hawking already knows that the foundations of the Standard Model must be changed, because the Don Borghi experiment requires new foundations, then obviously he is behaving like a charlatan, knowing that his theories are being built on the wrong foundations of the Standard Model).

    I would have respect to Hawking if he had the honesty to say: ”Our theories are wrong, or at least incomplete, because the space is no empty, as the experiment published in 2011 by the journal Nature had proved, and since the Don Borghi experiment also requires new foundations for the Physics, we have to abandon our current theories”.

    But it seems to be too much to expect such a honesty from a scientist like Hawking, because such honesty imply to abdicate of the fame he conquered with his wrong theories (or at least incomplete).

    The scientists delude themselves and also the people, with the argument that from their equations they developed high technology like TV, computers, GPS, etc. However the success of the equations does not mean that a theory is correct. The equations can work well in a certain level, but they can fail in a deeper level, because the equations are incomplete, since all they had been proposed by considering the empty space.

    It is a mystery why the scientific community continues rejecting the aether. Even Einstein tried to bring it back to Physics, after 1916. And in the last five years new experiments are proving that the space is not empty, and therefore such non-empty space must have a structure.

    Einstein did not banned definitively the aether in Physics, as he claimed in 1905 when he published his STR. What Einstein had banned definitively is the luminiferous aether. The success of the equations of the Special Relativity can be explained by considering a non-luminiferous aether, as I already had explained in my comment of February 9th, 2015 at 7:11 PM giving a response to Peter Forsberg, where I wrote:

    The equations developed by Einstein from the Lorentz transformations are correct, from the mathematical viewpoint, because he had considered a postulate: the speed of light is invariant regarding any observer moving with speed V (and his postulate is consequence of the contraction-dilation of the aether about the atoms of a body, when the body moves with speed V).”

    Are mysterious the reasons why the scientific community refuses to start up the development of a New Physics, in a new way, from new foundations by considering the space as non-empty, and the Standard Nuclear Physics from new fundamental principles. But one of the reasons of course it is because they do not want to abdicate of the reputation they conquered with their theories, deluding the people because the equations they have developed are successful for the development of technology.

    Seventy years ago the Physics was in crisis, and Einstein said: “There is no way to solve a crisis from the same method which generated the crisis”.
    Today the crisis is worst. And it will become worst, and worst, and worst at each year, because the physicists do not want to eliminate the origin of the crisis.

    You said, Joe, that the nuclear physicist will prefer to re-define the rotation, in order to solve the puzzle of the even-even nuclei with null magnetic moment.
    Probably you are right. Because it is easier to solve a puzzle n Physics by introducing more new nonsenses, instead of to adopt a honest decision, by confessing that Standard Model is wrong, because was developed from wrong foundations, and adopting the decision of starting up everything again, from new coherent foundations.



    Andrea Rossi wrote in March 1st, 2015 at 8:06 AM

    Wladimir Guglinski: Please moderate your language within acceptable limits. Make your points, but do not insult the work of the scientific community, and, please, take in consideration the possibility that you could be wrong. I always do this. I know my limits.

    Of course I take in consideration the possibility that I can be wrong.

    That’s why I had invited several nuclear theorists so that to come here to prove I am wrong.
    I invited:
    Dr. Stoyan Sarg, Dr. Gamal A. Nasser , Dr. U.V.S.Seshavatharam , and Dr. S.Lakshminarayana (Dept.of Nuclear Physics, Andhra University), and the authors of the book Nuclear Models, Dr, Walter Grainer and Dr. Joachim A. Maruhn.

    No one of them accepted my invitation.
    All them rejected the chance to prove that I am wrong

    So, I am waiting somebody to prove that I am wrong.



    • Andrea Rossi

      Wladimir Guglinski: I have spammed your comment whose title was: ” The standard nuclear model is dead”.
      Useless to explain why.
      Please moderate your language within acceptable limits. Make your points, but do not insult the work of the scientific community, and, please, take in consideration the possibility that you could be wrong. I always do this. I know my limits.
      Warm Regards,

    • Wladimir Guglinski
      Your comment is awaiting moderation.

      OK, dear Andrea, I will publish it in ZPEnergy


    Wladimir Guglinski



    Security Code: Security Code
    Type Security Code

    Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.

    Related Links
    · More about Science
    · News by vlad

    Most read story about Science:
    100 miles on 4 ounces of water?

    Article Rating
    Average Score: 1
    Votes: 1

    Please take a second and vote for this article:

    Very Good


     Printer Friendly Printer Friendly

    "The Standard Nuclear Physics is dead" | Login/Create an Account | 1 comment | Search Discussion
    The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.

    No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register

    by WGUGLINSKI on Tuesday, March 03, 2015 @ 06:47:00 GMT
    (User Info | Send a Message)
    Andrea Rossi deleted the following comment of mine in this blog Journal of Nuclear Physics:

    • Wladimir Guglinski
      Your comment is awaiting moderation.

      Joe wrote in March 2nd, 2015 at 9:09 PM


      I gave the example of bending light. Photons have no mass but are affected by massive objects. The scientists had to re-define SOMETHING, otherwise their system would look fraudulent. So they concluded that light still travels in a straight line but in a space bent by objects mass. And this new definition of gravity affects both massive and non-massive particles. That would be similar to a re-definition of rotation that accounts for both null and non-null nuclear magnetic moments.

      this sort of re-definition is fraudulent.

      The Physics of the 20th Century is fraudulent.

      However, in the case of the light, the scientists had re-defined SOMETHING because the behavior of light is in the basis of the Theory of Relativity, and Einstein’s theory is the pilar of the Modern Physics.
      Besides, this re-definition regarding the light does not affect other fields of the Physics, because the most other fields of Physics deals with the properties of the matter, and not with the light.

      the Nuclear Physics is not a pilar of Modern Physics.
      Nuclear Physics was developed by empirical way (the Liquid Drop model was developed so that to fit the model to experimental results).
      The Nuclear Physics is only a particular branch of Physics.

      If the scientists re-define the concept of rotation with the aim of solving the particular puzzle of even-even nuclei, they will have to change all the Physics.

      To change all the fields of the Physics with the aim to solve a puzzle in Nuclear Physics seems to me to be a herculean task.

      It is not so easy as you suppose.

      why did not they do it yet?
      After all, they know that the rotation of the nuclei introduce an unsolved puzzle because of the null magnetic moment of the even-even nuclei.

      I dont think to be comfortable to them to live together with such puzzle.
      Look the authors Greiner and Maruhn of the book Nuclear Models.
      Of course they feel themselves very unconfortable with the fact that all the nuclear models described in their book cannot solve the puzzle, and therefore all the nuclear models described in the book Nuclear Models must be considered wrong (unless the nuclear theorists show the solution for the puzzle).
      With no any doubt, they feel themselves embarassed to confess that there is no way to solve the puzzle from the foundations of the Standard Nuclear Physics.

      Even Stoyan Sarg, who proposed a new nuclear model which solves some puzzles of Nuclear Physics, cannot solve the puzzle of the even-even nuclei, since his model does not consider a gravity flux crossing the protons and neutrons, and this is the reason why he did not come here to solve the puzzle with a solution based on his model.



    All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2002-2016 by ZPEnergy. Disclaimer: No content, on or affiliated with ZPEnergy should be construed as or relied upon as investment advice. While every effort is made to ensure that the information contained on ZPEnergy is correct, the operators of ZPEnergy make no warranties as to its accuracy. In all respects visitors should seek independent verification and investment advice.
    Keywords: ZPE, ZPF, Zero Point Energy, Zero Point Fluctuations, ZPEnergy, New Energy Technology, Small Scale Implementation, Energy Storage Technology, Space-Energy, Space Energy, Natural Potential, Investors, Investing, Vacuum Energy, Electromagnetic, Over Unity, Overunity, Over-Unity, Free Energy, Free-Energy, Ether, Aether, Cold Fusion, Cold-Fusion, Fuel Cell, Quantum Mechanics, Van der Waals, Casimir, Advanced Physics, Vibrations, Advanced Energy Conversion, Rotational Magnetics, Vortex Mechanics, Rotational Electromagnetics, Earth Electromagnetics, Gyroscopes, Gyroscopic Effects

    PHP-Nuke Copyright © 2005 by Francisco Burzi. This is free software, and you may redistribute it under the GPL. PHP-Nuke comes with absolutely no warranty, for details, see the license.