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

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


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

SciTech Daily Review
NEXUS Magazine

New experiments challenge fundamental understanding of electromagnetism
Posted on Wednesday, November 28, 2012 @ 21:20:16 GMT by vlad

Science (Phys.org)—A cornerstone of physics may require a rethink if findings at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) are confirmed. Recent experiments suggest that the most rigorous predictions based on the fundamental theory of electromagnetism—one of the four fundamental forces in the universe, and harnessed in all electronic devices—may not accurately account for the behavior of atoms in exotic, highly charged states.


"What the NIST experiment found is interesting enough that it merits attention," says Jonathan Sapirstein, a professor of physics at the University of Notre Dame. "Independent calculations should be done to confirm the theory, and other experiments should also confirm the findings. However, if no errors are found in the theory and the NIST experiment is correct, some physics outside of QED must be present."

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2012-11-fundamental-electromagnetism.html#jCp



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: 5
Votes: 1

Please take a second and vote for this article:

Very Good


 Printer Friendly Printer Friendly

"New experiments challenge fundamental understanding of electromagnetism" | Login/Create an Account | 3 comments | Search Discussion
The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.

No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register

Stability of nuclei deciphered by the new nuclear model (Score: 1)
by vlad on Thursday, November 29, 2012 @ 20:44:22 GMT
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com
Submitted by WLADIMIR GUGLINSKI: First email sent to Dr. John Arrington ( Argonne National Laboratory), in 23th November 2012:

Dear John Arrington

I am doing theoretical calculations on nuclear magnetic moments for the light isotopes, by using my new nuclear model.

I will put the results in four papers, and I will publish them in Peswiki.

The first paper is ready. It exhibits the calculations for the istopes of lithium and boron.

The theoretical values I have obtained are agree to experimental data of nuclear tables.

In the first paper it is shown how Pauli’s Exclusion Principle works in the structures of the light nuclei, and why some isotopes are stable and other are not, thanks to Pauli’s Principle.

The first paper is published in this Peswiki link: http://peswiki.com/index.php/PowerPedia:_Stability_of_Light_Nuclei_%E2%80%93_PART_TWO

I suggest you to read it, and carefully to ponder on two possibilities very important for the advancement of Science:

1- First possibility – Suppose that the nuclear structure existing in the nature is different of the structure proposed in my new nuclear model, and the existing structure does not work with the principles proposed in my theory.
Well, in this case it is possible that nuclear theorists can arrive, one day in the future, to a successful theory capable to explain all the nuclear properties (in the case they are going in the right way with their current attempt).

2- Second possibility – Supppose that the nuclear structure existing in the nature is the same structure proposed in my new nuclear model, and the existing structure works by the principles proposed in my theory (and several experimental data are corroborating such hypothesis, as I already had showed in my book, and now I am showing in the present paper now published in Peswiki).

Then in this case it’s IMPOSSIBLE for the nuclear theorists to get success in their current enterprise, because they are not developing the Nuclear Physics by considering the nuclear structure existing in the nature. They will continue forever their development of the current Nuclear Theory, and they will NEVER find a theory capable to describe satisfactorily the behavior of the nuclei and the nuclear properties.

In the case the second possibility is correct, who is the looser?
It’s my opinion that the looser is the science.
Don’t you think so ?


PS: The results of magnetic moments calculated:

Experiments = +3,256
Theoretical= +3,223

Experiments= +3,439
Theoretical= +4,023

Experiments= 3,668
Theoretical= 3,637

Experiments= 1,800
Theoretical= 1,976

Experiments= +1,800
Theoretical= +1,765

Experiments= +2,6886
Theoretical= +2,588

Experiments= 1,003
Theoretical= 1,009

Experiments= +3,1778
Theoretical= +3,000

Experiments= 1,185
Theoretical= 1,103

Experiments= 2,659
Theoretical= 2,877

Experiments= 2,55
Theoretical= 2,877


Second  email sent to Dr. John Arrington ( Argonne National Laboratory), in 28th November 2012:

From: wladimirguglinski
To: johna_
CC: m.freernoerters
Subject: stability of light nuclei PART THREE = beryllium isotopes
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 12:04:37 -0200

Dear John Arrington
cc: Martin Freer
Wilfried Nörtershäuser

The paper on the stabilty of light isotopes PART THREE is ready, and it is available in this Peswiki link:


In the paper there are:

1)   Calculations on the magnetic moments of beryllium isotopes

2)   It is shown how the nucleons take place within the structures of light isotopes, so that to get an equlibrium according to:

a) Least Action Principle

b) Pauli Exclusion Principle

c) spin-interaction between the neutrons and the deuterons.

3)   The mechanism of neutron halo formation



Experiment-Nov/2012 corroborates a fundamental principle of Quantum Ring Theory (Score: 1)
by vlad on Saturday, December 01, 2012 @ 11:58:32 GMT
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com

WGUGLINSKI writes: The new experiments challange QED-Quantum Electro Dynamics:

The reason why the new experiments defy QED is because the theory was developed by keeping the fundamental principles of Quantum Mechanics, where it is considered that the space within the electrosphere of the atoms is Euclidian.

In the experiments published now in Nov/2012, 20 of titanium’s 22 electrons are removed, it becomes a highly charged ion that looks in many ways like a helium atom that has been shrunk to a tenth its original size.

Unlike, according to Quantum Ring Theory, the space in the electrosphere of atoms is non-Euclidian.
Look at the Figures 1 and 2 in the Peswiki’s article:


And the Figure 3 of the page 51 of the book Quantum Ring Theory:

The density of the non-Euclidian space within the electrosphere grows with the quantity of protons and neutrons in the nucleus about which the electron orbits. The density is higher near to the nucleus, and it falls down with the growth of the distance from the nucleus.
The innermost electrons move in a space with higher density.
The outer electrons move in a space with a lower density.

So, the two first innermost electrons in the titanium atom are moving in a space with higher density than the other 20 electrons removed.
Therefore, according to Quantum Ring Theory those two innermost electrons in the titanium atom must emit heavier photons than it is predicted in QED, because QED do not consider the growth of the space in the electrosphere.
There is need to introduce in QED a correction due to the non-Euclidian space within the electrosphere of the atoms.

QED and QRT are two rival theories, because both were proposed for being the successor of Quantum Mechanics, and the aim of the both theories is to eliminate some inconsistencies of QM.

The difference between QED and QRT is the following:

- QED was developed by keeping all the fundamental principles of QM

- QRT was developed by considering that some fundamental principles of QM are wrong, and must be replaced.

One of the fundamental principles that must be replaced in QM, according to QRT, is the Euclidian space within the electrosphere of atoms considered in QM, replacing it by a non-Euclidian space.

In the paper Fundamental Requirements for the proposal of a New Hydrogen Atom ( which begins in the page 38 of the book QRT ) it is shown that the missing of a non-Euclidian space in Quantum Mechanics is one among the principal reasons why the theory is developed from wrong fundamental principles.

Re: New experiments challenge fundamental understanding of electromagnetism (Score: 1)
by Koen on Sunday, December 02, 2012 @ 02:25:44 GMT
(User Info | Send a Message) http://no.nl/tesla
Surprise, surprise,  this is one of the many cracks in the Quantum Electro Dynamics faith (not just classical electromagnetism theory).

By far the biggest problem of Classical Electrodynamics theory (a.k.a. Maxwell's theory), is the fact that the electrodynamic force (a.k.a.  Lorentz's force)  does not satisfy Newton's third law of colinear action-reaction forces.  The magnetic forces between two wires that carry electric current  do not satisfy Newton's third law, in case these wires are not parallel to each other.

This problem was known to many famous scientist, like Pointcaré, Maxwell, Weber, Gauss, Ampère, Von Helmholz, etc ...
This BIGGEST PROBLEM and CHALLENGE of the entire science of physics has NEVER BEEN SOLVED in a rigorous scientific manner, only fake and lame excuses have been published thus far, like in in Jackson's bible of electrodynamics theory:  "electric currents can only form closed circuits" (wrong!). 

I discovered that solving this problem leads directly to Tesla's suppressed " free" energy technology based on longitudinal electric waves.

Now, back to NIST,  what kind of phenomenon (a new physical field, maybe?) is responsible for the higher energy levels not predicted by QED?  Could this be a scalar field, beside electric and magnetic fields?
And didn't Randy Mills show ultraviolet photons from basic hydrogen atoms, already years ago, which is not predicted by QED or any other "standard theory of physics" either, and which is still not accepted by "official science"?

Yea, we can leave the science of physics to our zionist brothers and sisters, like Jonathan Sapirstein (see physorg article), who clearly wants to have the last word about this, of course. In the zionist hands, physics has become just one big act of hypocrisy, starting with zionist like Albert Einstein, who suppressed Dayton Miller's important work that goes against "modern relativity theory",  and whos carreer was based on plagiarism on a big scale.
Hmm, gate keeper Sapirstein will probably see the "mistakes" in this experiment, sooner or later ....


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.