WGUGLINSKI writes: Deleted from Andrea Rossi blog Journal of Nuclear Physics;
The Standard Nuclear Physics is dead
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
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
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.
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
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.
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?
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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.