PLAGIARISM: law suit against Nature, European Physical Journal, Argonne Nat Lab
Date: Saturday, January 11, 2014 @ 10:00:13 EST
Topic: Science


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 in law.

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 Amazon.com:
======================================================
Not even a theory March 2, 2009
By Daniel Lopes
This book is a great example of pseudoscience.
======================================================


======================================================
It is not a scientific book March 2, 2009
By C. A. Bonin
In other words, this is not a scientific book
======================================================
http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Ring-Theory-Wladimir-Guglinski/dp/0972134948

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 comments:
======================================================
JR
December 15th, 2013 at 12:33 AM
Wladimir,
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 work.
======================================================

======================================================
JR
December 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 physics.
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 components.
====================================================

So, we have the following situation:

1- The experiments had detected that light even-even nuclei with Z=N have non-spherical shape.

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.

3- That’s why the journal Nature had published the paper How atomic nuclei cluster, where we see in the Figure 1 the non-spherical shape of the nucleus 10Ne20:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v487/n7407/full/nature11246.html

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 frustration.
Because:

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 work.

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.

Regards
wlad






This article comes from ZPEnergy.com
http://www.zpenergy.com

The URL for this story is:
http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3518