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, 49 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.

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

  • (July 7, 2017 - July 9, 2017) Energy Science & Technology Conference
  • (July 28, 2017 - July 29, 2017) COFE-9

  • Hot Links

    American Antigravity

    Chava Energy

    Closeminded Science


    Energy Science



    Integrity Research Institute

    Interstellar Technologies

    JLN Labs


    New Energy Movement

    New Energy Times

    The Orion Proj.




    Science Hobbyist

    Tom Bearden's Page

    Unlimited electric energy


    Want to Know

    Other Info-Sources
    NE News Sites
    Alternative Energy News
    NE Discussion Groups
    Energetic Forum
    Magazine Sites
    Distributed Energy
    Electrifying Times
    ExtraOrdinary Technology
    IE Magazine
    New Energy Times

    Interesting Links

    Click Here for the DISCLOSURE PROJECT
    SciTech Daily Review
    NEXUS Magazine

    The Evolution of Physics- From Newton to Rossi's eCat
    Posted on Sunday, March 08, 2015 @ 22:46:19 EDT by vlad

    Science WGUGLINSKI writes: To the readers of the ZPEnergy.com: Two books of mine are published as ebook in Amazon.com:

    The The Evolution of Physics: From Newton to Rossi’s eCat” :


    The Missed U-Turn – The duel Heisenberg vs Schrödinger” :






    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: 0
    Votes: 0

    Please take a second and vote for this article:

    Very Good


     Printer Friendly Printer Friendly

    "The Evolution of Physics- From Newton to Rossi's eCat" | 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

    Book Description for two books by W. Guglinski (Score: 1)
    by vlad on Thursday, April 02, 2015 @ 23:41:21 EDT
    (User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com
    Submitted by WGuglinski: Book Description for THE MISSED U-TURN:

    This book was accepted for publication by the Cambridge International Science Publishing, in the end of 2010. The three pages of the Agreement, signed by the publisher Victor Riekansky, are shown in the pages 3, 4 and 5 of the book.

    But the Nobel Prize in Physics Dr. Brian Josephson began to blackmail against Riecansky, threatening to boycott the publisher, and Victor gave up of publishing my book.

    The reason why Dr. Brian is boycotting my books is because he is working in the Mind-Matter Unification Project, which is based on the duality wave-particle as proposed by de Broglie.
    However my books exhibit strong evidences that the duality wave-particle is not a property of the matter, as de Broglie wrongly supposed, but it is actually a consequence of the helical trajectory of the elementary particles, giving them the wave feature.
    So, in the case de Broglie is wrong, of course Josephson's theory on mind-matter unification is also wrong.

    I suspect that Dr. Josephson has called by telephone the administrators of Amazon, and he told them do not allow any review of mine be posted, because I have tried several times to post a review as reply to his review for my book THE EVOLUTION OF PHYSICS, but Amazon always sends me an email saying the following:
    "Your review of The Evolution of Physics could not be posted to Amazon.com‏"


    What Dr. Josephson said in his review is a nonsense, because what he is doing is actually introducing a new paradox in Nuclear Physics.
    Let us see why.

    1- The discussion with Brian was about the following subject: if the even-even nuclei in the ground state rotate, or not.

    2- According to Nuclear Physics the spherical nuclei do NOT rotate

    3- The paper "How atomic nuclei cluster" published by Nature in 2012 had shown that even-even nuclei with Z=N have non-spherical shape.
    In order to justify why they have zero elec. quad. moment, the nuclear theorist Martin Freer said:
    "The nucleus is intrinsically deformed as shown, but has spin 0. Consequently, there is no preferred orientation in the laboratory frame and thus the experimental quadrupole is an average over all orientations and hence is zero. Experimentally is is possible to show that the deformation of the ground state is non zero by breaking the symmetry and rotating the nucleus."
    according to Martin Freer the even-even nuclei with Z=N have rotation, otherwise would be impossible to explain their zero elec. quadrupole moment.

    4-When I told to Brian by email what Martin Freer said, Brian had replied:
    "This may seem counter-intuitive, but in QM it is perfectly possible for a system to have a structure, and so be non-spherical system in that sense, but also have a spherically symmetrical wave function. I won't go into the details as you don't seem to have much of a background in QM."

    5- Well, then of course the contrary is also true:
    "In QM it is perfectly possible for a system to have a structure, and so be spherical system in that sense, but also have a non-spherically asymmetrical wave function."

    6- Therefore, according to QM a spherical nucleus rotates, because it also has a non-spherically wave function.
    And thereby according to QM the Nuclear Physics is wrong, because according to QM a spherical nucleus can rotate, while according to Nuclear Physics a spherical nucleus cannot rotate.

    So we realize that Brian is trying to save Nuclear Physics with a Bad Physics.

    Book Description for THE EVOLUTION OF PHYSICS:

    Ahead is my last reply by email to the Nobel Prize in Physics Dr. Brian Josephson, after a long discussion we had regarding the first version of the book description for this book:

    Dear Dr. Josephson,
    Schrodinger’s equation is unacceptable... by considering the atom model of QM. Let us see why.
    Schrodinger’s eq, was developed from the equation for a free electron. Therefore it cannot be applied for an electron in the atom (an electron into a potential).

    Eisberg & Resnick justify to use the equation of a free electron in the case of the atom, in their book Quantum Physics. First they get the Schrodinger eq,, which is numbered as (5-22) in their book.
    And they say (I am translating from Portuguese):

    “It must be emphasized that we arrive to (5-22) by considering an special case: the case of a free particle where P(x,y) =Vo , a constant. In this point it seems reasonable to argue that we have to hope that the wave equation of the quantum mechanics should have the same shape of (5-22) for the general case in which the potential energy V(x,t) actually varies as function of x and t (i.e., the force is not null); but we cannot prove that this is true. However, we can postulate that it is true. We do it, and so we take (5-22) as the wave equation of the quantum mechanics whose solutions Q(x,t) give us the wave functions that must be associated to the motion of a particle with mass m under the influence of forces which are described by the potential energy function V (x,t). The validity of the postulate must be judged from the comparison of its implications with the experiments, and we are going to do several of those comparisons later.”

    First of all, Dr, Brian,
    to claim that "it seems reasonable” is not true. Not at all reasonable.
    And what is worst: the physicists cannot give any reasonable explanation why Schrodinger eq, can be applied to the atom.
    If we ask to a physicist to explain us why the Schrodinger eq, can be applied to the atom he can only say:
    “Unfortunately I don’t know. It's a mystery. We know that the equation works, since the experiments prove it works. But we don’t know why, we don’t know what is the cause responsible for the successes of the Schrodinger equation”.

    This is not acceptable.
    To claim that an equation is acceptable because it fits to the experiments, but do not know why it fits, actually makes no sense.
    Therefore, Schrodinger eq, is unacceptable to be used in the atom model of QM.
    his equation is PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE by considering an atom where the electron moves in a non-Euclidian space, and doing it with helical trajectory.
    This is shown in my book THE MISSED U-TURN, where it is written:
    Interestingly, Schrödinger developed his equation by considering a free electron, not subject to any force. This makes no sense because in his development the electron is within the proton's potential and, therefore, attracted by the proton. Such a paradox in Schrödinger's development is now understood thanks to the new hydrogen model proposed in Quantum Ring Theory because now we know that within the hydrogen atom the electron behaves as if free since it is subject to two forces
    Therefore, because the resultant force on the electron is null, it moves with constant speed in the radial direction and so the electron moves as if free, as considered by Schrödinger. Its behavior is that of a free electron moving with constant speed despite it is actually moving radially within the proton's electrosphere. Finally the paradox is understood thanks to the new hydrogen model proposed in QRT.

    As you see, Dr. Brian,
    the atom model of QM is incompatible with the Schrodinger equation. And so, by considering the atom model of QM, his equation is unacceptable.
    Only a new model in which the electron moves with helical trajectory in a non-Euclidian space can be conciliated with the Schrodinger equation, as shown in my book


    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.