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

Modules
· Home
· Forum
· LATEST COMMENTS
· Special Sections
· SUPPORT ZPEnergy
· 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, 170 guest(s) and 1 member(s) that are online.

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

Events
  • (June 9, 2021 - June 11, 2021) ICCF-23 online

  • Hot Links
    Aetherometry

    American Antigravity

    AESOP Institute

    Closeminded Science

    EarthTech

    Innoplaza

    Integrity Research Institute

    New Energy Movement

    New Energy Times

    The Orion Proj.

    Panacea-BOCAF

    QVac_Eng

    RexResearch

    Science Hobbyist

    Tom Bearden's Page

    USPTO

    Want to Know

    Other Info-Sources
    NE News Sites
    AER_Network
    Alternative Energy News
    E-Cat World
    NexusNewsfeed ZPE
    FringeEnergy News
    NE Discussion Groups
    Energetic Forum
    Energy21 YT Channel
    EMediaPress
    Energy Science Forum
    Free_Energy FB Group
    The KeelyNet Blog
    OverUnity
    Sarfatti_Physics
    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
    Find Jobs

    Latest from W. Guglinski theoretical research
    Posted on Friday, August 03, 2018 @ 15:09:14 MST by vlad

    Science WGUGLINSKI writes: New nuclear property perhaps related to the origin of dark matter:

    Dear Prof. Andrea Pocar
    University of Massachusetts

    A new nuclear property (unknown by nuclear theorists) can be connected to dark matter.  The new nuclear property is clearly evidenced in the lithium isotope 3Li6 (see "note" at the page 10 of the paper "Calculation of magnetic moments for light nuclei with number of protons between Z=3 and Z=30"), where it is written:

    Note: Perhaps this influence of the n(o)-flux in the inertia of the nuclei has relation with dark matter, whose origin intrigues the mind of the theorists nowadays.


    It seems the n(o)-flux, existing in atomic nuclei, is formed by gravitons

    The paper is ended with the following comment:

    22. Intriguing new experimental findings regarding entanglement

    The influence of the n(o)-flux in the inertial behavior of the 3Li6, seen in this paper, is very intriguing, and (as already mentioned in the note of the page 10) perhaps it has relation with the quantum entanglement. There are two speculations which perhaps deserve to be considered.

    1. The n(o)-flux seems to be the unique reasonable explanation for the quantum entanglement, because it seems to be improbable it can be a phantasmagoric phenomenon, inasmuch it seems there is no any way to find a physical cause responsible for the entanglement, by considering the current foundations of quantum theory. But besides the observation of its occurrence between photons and between atoms, recently in superconducting electric circuits entanglement of massive objects can also be generated and detected  [6]. And it seems do not exist any candidate more reasonable on causing the entanglement between massive objects than the n(o)-flux, because all they are composed by atomic nuclei, where the n(o)-flux is generated.
    2. So, as entanglement is generated by massive objects, as new experiments are detecting, then perhaps the influence of the n(o)-flux in the inertia of the nuclei has relation with phenomena which theorists try to explain with the hypothesis of dark matter, whose origin intrigues the mind of the theorists nowadays. As the creation of a microscopic n(o)-flux is induced by rotation of quarks (or singletons, in the case of photons, as will be shown in the paper “On the origin of the mass of the elementary particles”, to be published later), maybe giant n(o)-graviton-fluxes can be induced by the rotation of a galaxy around a giant galaxy. And if galaxies have interaction through a gravitational quantum entanglement via n(o)-flux, then Newton’s gravitational theory cannot be applied for the case of interactions between some very massive objects, as the satellite galaxies of the Milky. In resume, if very, very massive galaxies are able to generate a giant n(o)-flux, then the hypothesis of dark matter can be dismissed for explaining the puzzle.
    3. The laws of the electromagnetism were discovered with the experiments made by Faraday. Those laws are consequence of interactions in the microworld, between magnetons and electricitons, which are some among other elementary particles which compose the aether [1,2]. The laws that rule the interaction between magnetons, electricitons, and gravitons, in the behavior of galaxies, were not yet discovered. But their discovery cannot be found if we do not discover, first of all, what are the fundamental laws which rule the interactions of elementary particles of the aether into the structure of quarks and inside the atomic nuclei.


    Regards
    W Guglinski


     
    Login
    Nickname

    Password

    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: 3
    Votes: 2


    Please take a second and vote for this article:

    Excellent
    Very Good
    Good
    Regular
    Bad


    Options

     Printer Friendly Printer Friendly


    "Latest from W. Guglinski theoretical research" | Login/Create an Account | 15 comments | Search Discussion
    The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.

    No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register

    Re: Latest from W. Guglinski theoretical research (Score: 1)
    by vlad on Friday, August 03, 2018 @ 16:28:26 MST
    (User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com
    I'm asking Wlad Guglinski to post here future announcements/developments on his theoretical research on the existence of the Aether and the "vacuum energy" in general. These will be clearly available immediately when people check the "Latest Comments" menu item (in the left "Modules" panel).

    This is not just because of the many nasty e-mails I get for publishing Guglinski, but also because his posts require a level of physics that very few of us here posses, to be able to have a decent and informed dialog with him on the merits of his theories. But yes, I have to agree, they are less suitable for the main page, as per our own site's "bylaws".

    Again, for those who did not read my reason for doing it, please read my post: "Why I publish Guglinski" (from a few years ago). Thx to all for your understanding (or not; no-like posts are easy 2 skip ;-). Vlad.



    Guglinski-Nassif theory: the THEORY OF EVERYTHING ? (Score: 1)
    by vlad on Monday, August 06, 2018 @ 11:58:14 MST
    (User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com
    Submitted by WGuglinski: Guglinski-Nassif theory:  the THEORY OF EVERYTHING?

    In 1993 Guglinski had undertaken a deep investigation in the field of Nuclear Physics. And he has arrived to the conclusion that any current nuclear model, (where a nucleon moves - having interaction with other ones - by only Coulomb forces, strong nuclear forces, and spin-interactions) is not able to reproduce the nuclear magnetic moment of some nuclei.

    So he understood that there was need to consider a model where the nucleons are captured by a sort of strings formed by magnetons. Obviously there was need to consider a source for the production of the strings, and then he had concluded that all nuclei have a central nucleon 2He4, responsible for the production of the strings. Later he has realized that even-even nuclei with Z=N, formed by nucleons captured by those strings (composed by a flux of magnetons) could not have null magnetic moment, and therefore there was need to suppose that those strings were formed by a flux of other elementary particles of the aether, instead of magnetons. And so the magnetons were replaced by gravitons.

    Several hexagonal floors are formed around the central 2He4, with each of the 6 corners occupied by a deuteron. Due to Coulomb repulsions, the six deuterons oscillate, in order that the structure of oxygen-16 is not a flat hexagon. Actually it assumes an ellipsoidal shape. All the light even-even nuclei with Z=N have ellipsoidal shape. Silicon-28 is formed by two complete parallel hexagonal floors. The new nuclear model was baptized as “Hexagonal Floors Model”. With the growth of the quantity of hexagonal floors, even-even nuclei approach the spherical shape, as for instance the 92U.

    According to the Standard Nuclear Physics, the even-even nuclei with Z=N cannot have ellipsoidal shape (a dogma in which nuclear physicits believed along 80 years). And therefore the nuclear ‎model with hexagonal floors could not be considered seriously by nuclear theorists, because they knew not only that the principles of the SNP requires a spherical shape for those nuclei, but also because they knew those nuclei ‎have null electric quadrupole moment, and therefore it was mandatory they have spherical shape. Besides, as in ‎that new nuclear model there is a central 2He4, and the nucleons are captured by a string formed by a flux of ‎gravitons (instead of be bound by strong nuclear force, as considered in all current nuclear models), the nuclear ‎theorists had more strong reasons why do not consider seriously a “strange” model formed by hexagonal floors.

    ‎Obviously the author was aware that a paper, proposing the exotic new nuclear model, would never be accepted for ‎publication in any reputable peer journal of physics. That’s why in 2004 he has decided to meet his several papers ‎in a book form, and to look for a publisher. In the end of 2005 an editor has accepted to publish it, and the book ‎was published in August 2006, with the title Quantum Ring Theory (QRT).

    This is how was born the new nuclear Hexagonal Floors model, as explained in the paper “On how proton radius shrinkage can be connected with Lorentz factor violation”: https://fundamentaljournals.org/ijfps/article/view/ijfps.2018.330114/149

    In 2012 the dogma (in which the nuclear theorists believed along 80 years) was brought down by an experiment published in the journal Nature: the experiment confirmed that silicon-28 (as also the light even-even nuclei with Z=N) has not spherical shape. They have ellipsoidal shape, as predicted correctly in Guglinski’s book published in 2006.

    As many new experiments coming to light after 2009 were evidencing that the current foundations of the Standard Nuclear Physics are wrong, in 2016 Guglinski decided to undertake a new challenge: to write new papers, so that to prove that the new foundations proposed in this Quantum Ring Theory are correct.

    The first paper was entitled “Re-evaluation of Fermi’s theory of beta dacay”, in which Claudio Nassif contributed with some comments, because his Symmetric Special Relativity (SSR) and Guglinski’s theory are complementary. Both theories have as fundamental background the existence of a non-luminiferous aether, and whereas Guglinski’ research is in the field of atomic and nuclear physics, Nassif’s theory is an evolution of Einstein’s theory (as Einstein's relativity was an evolution of Newton's classical theory).

    The paper was submitted to the Pramana Journal of Physics in the beginning of 2016, with Nassif as co-author. When the paper was rejected by the editor of Pramana, it was submitted to other journals, as the International Journal of Modern Physics, Canadian Journal of Physics, Physical Review Letters, European Physical Journal, and others. All them declined.

    In this first paper is proposed a new experiment, and if be performed in the Jefferson Lab, the result can comprove the new model of neutron proposed by Guglinski, as seen in the Abstract:

    "Another published paper of the author proposes that proton and neutron radii have contraction inside the atomic nuclei, generating a discrepancy of 8s between the neutron lifetime measured in beam and bottle experiments. According to the present theory, the neutron radius in beam experiments dilates from 0.26fm up to 0.87fm during the initial 8s, after which begins the process of decay. The present paper proposes a new neutron model with quark structure d(u-e-u), with an electron sandwiched between two up quarks. It reproduces very well all neutron properties, as for instance the radial charge distribution, impossible to be reproduced considering the current quark model ddu. So, the radial charge distribution of neutrons (obtained from beam experiments, if measured in the first initial 8 seconds of their lifetime) has to exhibit a curve a little different of that measured in 2007 in the Jefferson Lab. Here is proposed to JLab to repeat the experiment under such new condition."

    Since 2008 Nassif’s papers have being published in the most reputable journals, as seen in the References of the paper “Re-evaluation of Fermi’s theory of beta dacay”, published in 2018 by International Journal of Fundamental Physical Sciences:

    https://fundamentaljournals.org/ijfps/article/view/ijfps.2018.330112/143

    Because his SSR is being published in several reputable mainstream journals of physics, and his theory defies the current theories (where it is missing the contribution of the aether for the production of physical phenomena), Nassif is victim of persecution of his colleges in the university where he teaches theoretical physics. And he was afraid that, being co-author of a paper published by an alternative journal as IJFPS, the persecution of his colleges would be worst. That’s why he asked to Guglinski to remove him as co-author.

    In 2016 Guglinski has also faced other challenge. He started up a new research to prove that, from his new nuclear model, it is possible to get success in an enterprise in which have succumbed all the current nuclear models (developed under the foundations of the Standard Nuclear Physics): to calculate with good accuracy the magnetic moments for all the light atomic nuclei.

    The success of such enterprise is shown in three papers:

    1- “Calculation of magnetic moments for light nuclei with number of protons between Z=3 and Z=30”:

    https://www.scifedpublishers.com/open-access/calculation-of-magnetic-moments-of-light-nuclei-with-number-of-protonsbetween-z3-and-z30.pdf

    2- "Testing the equations of the new nuclear model of Hexagonal Floors"

    This paper will be published by SciFed in August.

    Beyond the successful calculation of magnetic moments for several light atomic nuclei, the paper also shows that from the new foundations proposed by Guglinski it is possible to explain an enigma which invalidates all the current nuclear models: the reason why even-even nuclei with Z=N, excited with spin 2, have null magnetic moment (impossible to explain by considering the foundations of the Standard Nuclear Physics).

    3- "Mathematical confirmation for the nuclear properties K(O)= K(Ca)= ½.K(Si)= ½.K(Fe)"

    Also will be published in August.

    The paper shows that each hexagonal floor works as a magnet (and this is one among the reasons why many nuclear properties cannot be explained by the current nuclear models). Oxygen and calcium isotopes have one magnet (in calcium isotopes two hexagonal floors cancel each other their magnets). Therefore, due to the charge of protons, the rotation of oxygen and calcium isotopes induce the same magnetic induction-factor: K(O)= K(Ca). Unlike, silicon and iron isotopes have two magnets. That’s why the rotation of silicon and iron isotopes induce the same magnetic induction-factor, K(Si)= K(Fe), and they are twice of the induction-factor for oxygen and calcium isotopes: K(Si)= K(Fe)= 2.K(O)= 2.K(Ca) The calculation of magnetic moments gives values very close to the experimental data.




    Did Ether come back to Physics? (Score: 1)
    by vlad on Thursday, August 16, 2018 @ 14:23:09 MST
    (User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com

    Submitted by WGUGLINSKI: In his book “Einstein and the ether”, Kostro relates that Einstein brought a new relativistic ether to Physics in 1916.

    https://www.amazon.com/Einstein-Ether-Ludwik-Kostro/dp/0968368948

    .

    In his Symmetric Special Relativity (SSR), Claudio Nassif brings back a non-luminiferous relativistic ether.

    https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/10.1142/S021827181001652X

    .

    Along the last ten years several experiments are showing that the space is not empty:

    "This work and a number of other recent works demonstrate that the vacuum is not empty but full of virtual photons," says theoretical physicist Steven Girvin at Yale University, who did not take part in the Aalto study:

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/something-from-nothing-vacuum-can-yield-flashes-of-light/

    .

    As the ether was banned from Physics by Einstein in 1905, the physicists avoid to refer to the quantum vaccum by calling it “ether”. But no matter what is the best word to refer to the non-empty space, the fact is that the non-empty quantum vacuum meets the characteristics of the ether.

    Particles of the ether have been called by several names, as singletons, phonons, gravitons, magnetons, electricitons, etc., depending on the nature of the phenomenon to which they are related.

    In their paper “The quantum vacuum as the origin of the speed of light” published by the European Physical Journal in 2013, the authors propose that “the vacuum permeability and permittivity may originate from the magnetization and the polarization of continuously appearing and disappearing fermion pairs.”

    https://arxiv.org/abs/1302.6165

    So, they are proposing that quantum vacuum is filled by fermion pairs, or, in another words, the ether is composed by fermion pairs.

    And in the paper “On how Bohr model of hydrogen atom is connected ‎to ‎nuclear physics” is proposed a structure for the electric fields of the proton and electron, formed by electricitons, magnetons, and gravitons.

    https://fundamentaljournals.org/ijfps/article/view/ijfps.2018.330113/144

    From this physical structure for the electric fields of elementary particles, it is possible to explain why the Coulomb repulsion does not tend to infinite in very short distances, and so it explains the stability of quarks into the proton, without the need of considering the asymptotic freedom.

    .

    Now, in a paper published by Nature Electronics in August 15 2018, the authors explain how skyrmions (whirls produced by magnetic moments of particles of the ether), may give an answer for an unsolved puzzle:

    More fundamentally, the work may provide hints for solving a bigger mystery on cosmological scales, namely, why there is more matter than antimatter in the observable universe. Because of the asymmetry in the motion of skyrmion and antiskyrmions, the simulations show that there is always an excess of skyrmions after pair creation, so the imbalance between "matter" and "antimatter" in these ferromagnetic films is a natural consequence of their dynamics at high energies. "In the nanoscale magnetic universe, at least, matter can arise naturally from a single antiparticle seed", says Dr. Bertrand Dupť, researcher in the Interdisciplinary Spintronics Research Group at Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (JGU) and senior author of the study.

    https://phys.org/news/2018-08-magnetic-antiparticles-horizons-technologies.html

    Such asymmetry in the motion of skyrmions and antiskyrmions seems to corroborate what is proposed in the page 62 of the paper “On how proton radius shrinkage can be connected with ‎Lorentz factor violation”, published in June-2018, where it is written:

    Concerning the question on why does not exist antimatter in the universe, the answer must be found in some asymmetry of the aether structure. For instance, the following asymmetry:

    1-There is a permeability particle “P” which promotes the interaction between gravitons g(+) and electricitons e(+).

    2-There is a permeability particle “p” which promotes the interaction between gravitons g(+) and electricitons e(-).

    3-As the singletons S(+) of the positron are crossed by a n(o)-flux of gravitons g(+), then when occurred the Big Bang the positrons were not created, because the interaction between gravitons g(+) with particles P was suitable of producing only protons, and the interaction between gravitons g(-) and particles p was suitable of producing only electrons.

    4-Therefore, antiprotons were not produced, because their quarks are crossed by a n(o)-flux of gravitons g(-), and their interaction with the particle p is not suitable to produce antiprotons, while the positrons were not produced because their singletons are crossed by a n(o)-flux of gravitons g(+), and their interaction with the particle P is not suitable to produce positrons.

    https://fundamentaljournals.org/ijfps/article/view/ijfps.2018.330114/149

    .

    The proposal of the existence of positive and negative gravitons g(+) and g(-), in the previous article, seems to be related to the proposal of phonons in the paper “Researchers suggest phonons may have mass and perhaps negative gravity”, published also in August 15-2018:

    https://phys.org/news/2018-08-phonons-mass-negative-gravity.html

    They finish their work saying:

    We show that, in fact, sound waves do carry mass—-in particular, gravitational mass. This implies that a sound wave not only is affected by gravity but also generates a tiny gravitational field.

    .

    CONCLUSION:

    it's inevitable that the accumulation of so much evidence obliges us to ask the question: Did ether come back to Physics?




    Demonstration of the New Coulombís Law F= KQq/d^X, X<2, for Distances d between (Score: 1)
    by vlad on Thursday, December 13, 2018 @ 17:24:51 MST
    (User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com
    From WGUGLINSKI: Abstract

    Experiments are showing that Quantum Mechanics fails in nanoscales [1]. The reason can lie in the fact that there is not in Modern Physics any physical model of electric field of the elementary particles, whose line forces are composed by elementary particles of the quantum vacuum. The structure of this physical model is proposed in [2], where it was introduced the fundamental equation of the new Coulomb law F=KQq/d^X, with X<2 when d<1000fm.

    Rutherford’s experiment detected that at the point with d= 30fm is the shorter distance where alpha particles, emitted by Po212, seems to interact with U238 through the old Coulomb law, and he interpreted it as a confirmation that Coulomb law continues valid in the range of femtometers. In [3] it is shown that the interaction between U238 and He4 is actually 42,3% lower than the expected from Coulomb’s law. But the velocity V=3.10^7m/s of the He4 promotes a growth in the interaction, and this is the reason why it seems that U238 and He4 have interaction by following the Coulomb’s law, as Rutherford supposed. In this present paper it is calculated the interaction between U238 and He4 in the Rutherford experiment, by a new procedure completely different of that calculated in [3], and the result gives a force 44,9% lower than the expected from Coulomb’s law. The two results, with 42,3% and 44,9%, suggest that the
    interaction between U238 and He4 in the Rutherford’s experiment really follows the New Coulomb’s lawF=KQq/d^X.

    https://www.scifedpublishers.com/open-access/demonstration-of-the-new-coulombs-law-f-kqqdx-x2-for-distancesd-between-10-15m-and-10-12m.pdf



    Lorentzís Factor Violation by Neutrinos Moving with the Speed of Light (Score: 1)
    by vlad on Thursday, February 07, 2019 @ 13:11:18 MST
    (User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com
    Submitted by W Guglinski:Abstract

    Newton proposed the first theory on the dynamics of moving bodies. Later, facing the paradox of the light behavior discovered by Michelson-Morley experiment, Einstein felt himself constrained to conclude that Newton’s theory was a particular case of a most general theory, and he proposed the electrodynamics of moving bodies, based on the Lorentz’s factor. Nowadays there is a new paradox and we are facing a similar situation of that faced by Einstein, because the discovery that neutrino has mass constrains us to suppose that Einstein’s theory is a particular case of a most general theory on the electrodynamics of moving bodies, and in this new theory Einstein’s old concept of mass must be replaced. Such new theory is presented in “On the electrodynamics of moving particles in a quasi-flat spacetime with Lorentz violation and its cosmological implications” [1], where there emerges a vacuum energy density of gravito-electromagnetic origin (non-linear effects on the electrodynamics due to gravity), leading to an anti-gravity at cosmological scales in agreement with observations.

    https://www.vibgyorpublishers.org/content/ijanp/ijanp-3-010.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2fyHPzw9uA4lJpHr2Q23BPjaLqnQmqZWAvTJOt3krr0ipaMgqdXx3Em-k



    Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray (Score: 1)
    by vlad on Thursday, February 07, 2019 @ 13:13:19 MST
    (User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com
    Submitted by W. Guglinski: To: University of Cambridge, Department of Physics

    Cc: Victor Riecansky, Editor, Cambridge International Science Publishing


    In October 2011, while physicists announced to the world that the discoveries to be made by the LHC would confirm their theories about the structure of the universe, the Cambridge International Science Publishing signed a contract for the publication of the book “THE MISSED U-TURN, The Duel Heisenberg vs. Schrödinger", by W. Guglinski.

    https://www.amazon.com.br/Missed-U-Turn-Heisenberg-Schr%C3%B6dinger-English-ebook/dp/B00UBGN93I/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1548842468&sr=8-5&keywords=guglinski


    The title of the book indicated that, in truth, physicists had taken a WRONG WAY, for having gone down a street that would lead them nowhere. But they did not return to look for the right street, to lead them to the place they were looking for, because there was no U-turn plate in the middle of the wrong street, which should indicate them that they had to return, since that street was the wrong way , and would not lead them to the right destination.
    And for lack of that return plate, they were still on the wrong track.


    In 2012 the LHC detected the Higgs boson, reinforcing the certainty of physicists that they took the RIGHT PATH in their quest to unravel the laws that govern the functioning of the universe.


    Also in 2012 physicists at Cambridge University learned that the Cambridge Int. Science Pub. Magazine would soon publish the book "The Missed U-Turn" and threatened editor Victor Riecansky to boycott the publisher if the book were published .

    Despite having signed the publication contract, the publisher decided not to publish the book.


    But even though the Higgs boson was detected in 2012 at the LHC, particle physicist Sabine Rossenfelder saw the U-Turn plate on the wrong path physicists were tracking. She realized they had to go back. And to warn physicists that they were on the wrong track, in 2018 she published the book "Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray".

    https://www.amazon.com/Lost-Math-Beauty-Physics-Astray/dp/0465094252


    The situation at this time is as follows:


    1. Having physicists taken the wrong way, can we rely on their certainty that the Higgs boson actually performs the function they assign to it, from conferring mass to the elementary particles?


    2. In January-2019 the article "Lorentz Factor Violation by Neutrinos Moving with the Speed of Light" was published, where it is shown that if the Higgs boson performs the function attributed to it by physicists, then in this case the Theory of Relativity by Einstein is wrong. There is, therefore, a conflict between Einstein's theory and the Higgs theory.

    https://www.vibgyorpublishers.org/content/ijanp/ijanp-3-010.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1cW_4WOZAh8f91mY5Y3AW-FAmhhewDtn9TdpThjuTBc_355wcV60pVLBU


    3. Having until now been confirmed that physicists are LOST IN MATHEMATICS, which led them to a WRONG WAY, and there being the aggravating factor of the Higgs theory that Einstein's theory is wrong, we wonder if the physicists did not realized yet that, in wrong track they took, there is yet another U-Turn plate, and that this second additional return plate requires them to reject the Higgs theory.


    Most physicists have not realized yet.

    Probably even Sabine did not realize that there is this second U-Turn plate on the wrong path they adopted.

    But it's only a matter of time, until they discover this second plate, and come back.


    Regards
    W Guglinski



    Intention of plagiarism by the Editor-in-Chief of European Physical Journal A (Score: 1)
    by vlad on Thursday, February 07, 2019 @ 13:15:27 MST
    (User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com
    Submitted by W. Guglinski: European Physical Journal A 
    To:wladski@yahoo.com
    Subject: European Physical Journal A - Decision on Manuscript ID EPJA-104814
    Cc:epja.bologna@sif.it
    Feb 1 at 2:37 PM
    01-Feb-2019

    Dear Professor Guglinski:

    Thank you for submitting your paper mentioned above to EPJ A  "Hadrons and Nuclei".
    However, the subject of this paper is outside the aims and scopes of EPJ A.
    Therefore, I cannot accept it for publication in EPJ A.


    Sincerely yours
    Professor Maria Borge
    Editor in Chief
    European Physical Journal A



    =============================================

    Wladimir Guglinski 
    To:mgb@cern.ch
    Feb 3 at 7:59 PM


    Dear Prof. Maria Borge

    My paper shows that a wrong mathematical procedure is being applied by nuclear theorists in papers published after 2012.

    As you say that my paper does not fit to the aims and scopes of EPJ A, then I conclude that the editors of EPJ A agree there is no problem if nowadays some wrong papers continue being published, and therefore there is no problem to deceive the audience of the EPJ A, since they will be reading papers where the authors apply a wrong mathematics procedure.

    Among the aims and scopes of EPJ A, one of them is to deceive the readers?

    Is that what do you mean to say?

    In the case my paper be not published in any mainstream journal, then I will publish it in Physics Essays, quoting all the journals whose editors rejected to publish the paper, and showing all the Reports written by the editors, where they say that they are not worried about fooling the readers of the journal.

    I suppose the audience of the all mainstream journals worlwide will be very glad to take knowledge that they are being tricked when they read the most reputable journals of physics, among them the European Physical Journal A.


    Regards
    W Guglinski



    =============================================

    Wladimir Guglinski 
    To:mgb@cern.ch,epja.bologna@sif.it
    Cc:editor@physicsessays.com


    To: Professor Maria Borge
    Editor in Chief
    European Physical Journal A

    Dear Prof. Maria Borge

    Here is attached in PDF the manuscript of  "Intention of plagiarism by the Editor-in-Chief of the European Physical Journal A",   to be published in upcoming weeks by Physics Essays.

    The Abstract  and Conclusions of the paper are ahead.

    Regards
    W Guglinski

    Abstract

    Magnetic moments of some excited Z=N even-even nuclei are not quoted in 2001 Stone’s nuclear table, as for instance 12Mg24, Ex 1369, 2+, 1,44 ps. Their missing in nuclear table can imply that they have null magnetic moments, in spite of such hypothesis is impossible according to current nuclear physics. In October-2018 the author submitted, to European Physical Journal A, the paper “Proposal of an experiment able to eliminate the controversy: are right, or wrong the foundations of the Standard Nuclear Theory?”, with the aim to eliminate the controversy. The Editor-in-Chief Maria Borge rejected the paper, citing the article PRL114 (2015)062501, where the authors propose a procedure so that to get the experimental magnetic moment for the excited 12Mg24, Ex 1369, 2+, 1,97 ps, and their calculation gives non null value. The author of the present paper analyzed their article, and he discovered that a wrong mathematical procedure was applied in the calculation. That’s why he wrote a second paper, entitled “Mandatory Check for  Misunderstandings on Measurements for Magnetic Moments of Excited Even-even Atomic  Nuclei”, showing the error in the procedure, and submitted it to EPJ A in Oct 2018. But Maria Borge rejected the second paper too, saying that “the subject of this paper is outside the aims and scopes of EPJ A”. Nevertheless, the discovery of an error in the procedure creates an intolerable situation in nuclear physics, because if the nuclear theorists do not take knowledge of that error, many of them will continue applying the wrong procedure in new forthcoming papers. Of course Maria Borge is aware that such situation cannot persist in nuclear physics. But as she rejected the author’s second paper, then obviously she decided by herself to alert the nuclear theorists, by writing and publishing a paper, where she reveals the error of procedure, as if it were discovered by her.


    3. Conclusions

    There are four reasons why is unacceptable the words used by Maria Borge, at her rejection of the second author’s paper. They are:

    1-    The argument is no scientific, because she did not point out any error in the second author’s paper. And obviously a scientific paper cannot be rejected by an arbitrary argument.

    2-    The second author’s paper shows that a wrong mathematical procedure is used by nuclear physicists. As Maria Borge claims that “the subject of this paper is outside the aims and scopes of EPJ A”, this imply that the aims and scopes of EJP A is not to supply correct information to the readers, inasmuch the editors do not worry to fool the readers, hiding important information from them.

    3-    Her decision is unethical, because is fooling the readers of EPJ A.

    4-    After the discovery by the author of the present paper, that there is an error of procedure used by nuclear theorists, for the calculations involving magnetic moments of the Z=N even-even nuclei, an intolerable situation arose in the field of nuclear physics, because the nuclear theorists cannot continue ignorant about such a discovery. If they continue without knowledge of the error, they will continue writing new papers with the wrong procedure, and the editors of journals will continue publishing them. Then, it is mandatory to publish a paper, in order the nuclear theorists to take knowledge of the error in the procedure.  And obviously such a paper must be written by the author of the discovery. Nobody has the right to write such a paper, and submit it for publication. If the Editor-in-Chief Maria Borge intends to write it, and to publish it, she is committing scientific plagiarism. She has not the merit of the discovery, mainly because she cited the article PRL114 (2015)062501 as a reliable calculation reference, without knowing all the calculations in that article are invalidated by the wrong mathematical procedure used by the authors.



    =============================================

    Wilfried Nörtershäuser 
    To:Wladimir Guglinski
    Feb 5 at 5:32 AM

    I SEE IT AS THIS AND I DO NOT WANT TO RECEIVE A SINGLE OTHER EMAIL OF YOUR CONSPIRACY THEORIES WHICH ARE PHYSICS-NONSENSE !


    Prof. Dr. Wilfried Nörtershäuser Experimental Atomic and Nuclear Physics of Radioactive Nuclides
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    Technische Universität Darmstadt Institut für Kernphysik Tel: +49(0)6151-16-23575 Schlossgartenstr. 9 Fax: +49(0)6151-16-23305 64289 Darmstadt Email wnoertershaeuser@ikp.tu-darmstadt.de
    GERMANY


    =============================================

    Wladimir Guglinski 
    To:Wilfried Nörtershäuser
    Cc:mgb@cern.ch,epja.bologna@sif.it,editor@physicsessays.com
    Bcc:michael.duffy9@btopenworld.com,levy.joseph@orange.fr,j.g.gilson@qmul.ac.uk,anpetrov@rol.ru,gtg@Virginia.edu
    Feb 5 at 6:53 AM


    Dear Dr. Nortershauser

    Conspiracy is the present attempt of the editors of the worldwide mainstream journals, trying to hide from people that I found a mathematical error in the procedure for calculations involving the magnetic moments for the Z=N even-even nuclei.

    If you agree that the audience of the mainstream journals have not the right to take knowldege that exist an error in the procedure, which is used by theorists like you, then yourself is a member of the conspiracy, because you also are trying to fool the readers of the mainstream journals, as for instance the European Physical Journal A.

    Besides, from your words, by myself I conclude that your intention is to continue applying the wrong mathematical procedure in your calculations when you write a paper, and you will publish them with errors in some mainstream journal.

    So, I am very sorry of your decision.
    But if you prefer to publish papers with mathematical errors, that is a decision of yours.
    The only thing I can do is to wish you good luck with your decision of fooling the readers, and yourself.

    Regards
    W Guglinski



    What can we expect for Physics in 2019? (Score: 1)
    by vlad on Friday, February 22, 2019 @ 14:25:43 MST
    (User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com
    Submitted by WGUGLINSKI: What can we expect for Physics in 2019?



    Why Tokamak Does Not Work (Score: 1)
    by vlad on Tuesday, March 05, 2019 @ 14:58:43 MST
    (User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com
    by W. Guglinski: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-tokamak-does-work-wlad-wladimir-guglinski/?published=t&fbclid=IwAR3rTuVPHFhUtkLMuErkzv1LX1i0060_MRzRn_XmiW9JKt1-d0rhh-oU7gE



    Is Coulomb's Law violated by a particle moving in quantum tunneling? (Score: 1)
    by vlad on Wednesday, March 06, 2019 @ 16:05:41 MST
    (User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com
    New link from WGuglinski: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/coulombs-law-violated-particle-moving-quantum-wlad-wladimir-guglinski/



    Lost in Math: How Nuclear Theorists Lead Physics Astray (Score: 1)
    by vlad on Wednesday, April 10, 2019 @ 09:17:26 MST
    (User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com
    WGUGLINSKI writes: Along the last 15 years some pillars of Nuclear Physics are being demolished by new experimental findings, and this is a clear evidence that the Nuclear Theory was conceived from the adoption of wrong fundamental premises.

    As consequence of the fact that wrong foundations were adopted in Nuclear Physics, the theory is full of unacceptable paradoxes, and along the years the theorists bypassed them by using two strategies:

    1- By using a dirty mathematics, as occurred in the Gamow’s quantum tunneling theory, for the explanation of the emission of alpha particle by U238. The nuclear theorists claim that “the kinetic energy is negative in the forbidden region, so the velocity is formally an imaginary number”, in spite of they do not know to explain what a hell can be a velocity described by an imaginary number.

    2- By proposing nonsenses, as occurs in the theory published by Physical Review Letters yesterday (April 8 2019), where the authors propose that “time-reversal violation may explain abundance of matter over antimatter”, in the paper entitled “Electric dipole moments of atoms, molecules, nuclei, and particles”. DOI: 10.1103/RevModPhys.91.015001.


    The origin of the nonsense published yesterday by Physical Review Letters arises from an experimental finding published in 2013 (responsible for the origin of the paradox) when researchers of the University of Liverpool discovered that Ra224 is pear shaped, which is impossible, by considering the foundations of the current Nuclear Physics, because atomic nuclei with equal number of protons and neutrons have to have spherical shape. Prof. Peter Butler, who led the research, arrived to the conclusion that atomic nuclei have a preferential Z-axis, around which protons and neutrons have their distribution. However, such solution is unacceptable, because such sort of preferential Z-axis is IMPOSSIBLE to exist, by considering the foundations of the current Nuclear Physics. In order to admit the existence of a preferential Z-axis from the foundations of Nuclear Theory, there is need to introduce some new conjectures, as for instance suppose the existence of a fifth force beyond the strong nuclear force, or to suppose nonsenses, as reversions in time, proposed in the paper published by Physical Review Letters.

    The existence of a preferential Z-axis in atomic nuclei was predicted in the book Quantum Ring Theory, published in 2006. In the page 133 of the book it is written:

    The distribution about the z-axis is a nuclear property up to now unknown in Nuclear Physics”.

    So, the paradox of the Ra224 pear shape is solved by considered that atomic nuclei have a preferential Z-axis, and it is not necessary to resort to the idiotic hypothesis that pear shape of Ra224 is caused by a reversion in the time.

    This episode involving the pear shape of Ra224 evidences how the nuclear theorists are lost in mathematics. But the definitive proof will be exhibited in the paper “Wrong math procedure used in nuclear physics for calculation of magnetic moments of excited Z=N even-even nuclei”, to be published in the upcoming issue of Physics Essays. The Abstract is shown ahead.

    Abstract
    "Data extracted from Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, published by Raman et al in 2001, are used for the calculation of magnetic moments of atomic nuclei. But in Oct 2018 the author discovered that, when the nuclear theorists use Raman’s table, a wrong math procedure is being applied, for the case of calculation of the magnetic moments for the exotic excited even Z=N nuclei. It is mandatory for the nuclear theorists to verify what can be the repercussions of such error in nuclear physics, because along the last 15 years some pillars of the theory are being demolished by new experimental findings (among them, the pillar known as “strong nuclear force”). In a new paper of the author, to be published in upcoming months, entitled “The controversy on the inverse-square law for Coulomb’s interactions”, are exhibited several experimental evidences that unquestionably testify against the existence of the strong nuclear force. If nuclear theorists finally recognize that the current foundations of nuclear theory must be replaced by new ones, the recognition by them will bring repercussions not only in the field nuclear physics, but also will require some changes in particle physics, as for instance to discard the asymptotic freedom, because repulsions between protons inside atomic nuclei will be ruled by a New Coulomb’s Law."

    The wrong mathematical procedure, proven in the paper to be published by Physics Essays, is used in a paper published by Physical Review Letters, in 2015.


    The paper “The controversy on the inverse-square law for Coulomb’s interactions”, mentioned in the Abstract of the paper to be published by Physics Essays, is under review by a reputable journal of Physics, and will be published in upcoming months. The Abstract is exhibited ahead.


    Abstract
    "Abdus Salam and his co-workers proposed the concept of strong gravity in the 1960s, as an alternative to the young QCD, so that to solve the puzzles concerning to confinement and asymptotic freedom, not requiring, as occurs in QCD, to abandon the behavior of a force acting from the inverse-square law. At that time asymptotic freedom in QED was observed by some theorists, and by Gerard’t Hooft in 1972, whose physical significance however was realized only one year later by David Gross, Frank Wilczek and David Politzer. They “rehabilitated” the Quantum Field Theory, because prior to their discovery it was under suspicion, since Coulomb interactions become infinitely strong at very short distances. But this approach has not so far led to a Grand Unified Theory. Then we are forced to think whether the “rehabilitation” is possible by other alternative, rather than by asymptotic freedom, because there are so many unacceptable puzzles in nuclear physics, that they oblige us to conclude that some of the fundamental principles of the nuclear theory are wrong. Therefore, if some principles of the nuclear theory are wrong, it is possible that the “rehabilitation” must be sought in the atomic nucleus, as proposed herein."



    Re: Latest from W. Guglinski theoretical research (Score: 1)
    by vlad on Wednesday, July 03, 2019 @ 13:03:56 MST
    (User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com
    Wrong math procedure used in nuclear physics for the calculation of magnetic moments of excited Z=N even–even nuclei by Wladimir Guglinski 

    Abstract: Data extracted from the Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables [S. Raman et al., At. Data Nucl. Data Tables 78, 1 (2001)] are used for the calculation of magnetic moments of atomi nuclei. However, in October 2018, the author discovered that when nuclear theorists use Raman’s table, an incorrect math procedure is applied when calculating the magnetic moments for exotic excited even Z = N nuclei. Obviously, it is mandatory for nuclear theorists to ascertain the repercussions of such an error in nuclear physics.


    https://physicsessays.org/browse-journal-2/product/1734-6-wladimir-guglinski-wrong-math-procedure-used-in-nuclear-physics-for-the-calculation-of-magnetic-moments-of-excited-z5n-even-even-nuclei.html



    Can a Nobel Prize in Physics betraying the Math? (by WGUGLINSKI) (Score: 1)
    by vlad on Thursday, July 16, 2020 @ 10:25:32 MST
    (User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com
    Ahead are the titles and Abstract of a series composed by three papers:


    1- Relation between QED, Coulomb’s Law, and fine-structure constant

    ABSTRACT

    Coulomb's is an experimental law that quantifies the amount of force between two stationary, electrically charged particles. There is a consensus in the scientific community that it has been tested, and observations have upheld the law on a scale from 0,1 fm to 10^8 m[1]. This is no true, because in scales of few femtometers there is no way to measure the force between two stationary electrically charged particles, because there are not stationary charged particles in the scale of few femtometers. The first one who tried to test the Coulomb’s law in the scale of few femtometers was Rutherford, but in his experiments he measured the repulsion between an alpha particle moving with speed 3x10^7 m/s, in its interacting with the nucleus of uranium-238. Coulomb’s law was essential to the development of the theory of electromagnetism, maybe even its starting point,[2] because it was now possible to discuss quantity of electric charge in a meaningful way[3]. This is correct. However, there is need to be aware that it was essential to the development of the theory of electromagnetism in the scales larger than 10^-11 m. For scales around few femtometers there is need to verify if the intensity of the Coulomb’s interaction between two particles is influenced by their relative speeds. Such question is analyzed here.


    2- Calculation of proton’s charge from the electric charges of fermions of the quantum vacuum

    ABSTRACT

    In [1] is calculated that the fermions of the quantum vacuum, which compose the electric field of the proton, have electric charge e° = 5,06532.10^-45 C. Here, from this value of e°, together with the fundamental constants K°, c, h , and a= 1/137, is calculated the electric charge of the proton, achieving the value e= 1,6026.10^-19 C, very close to the experimental e= 1,60218.10^-19 C.


    3- Alpha mystery unraveled through the fermions of the quantum vacuum of the electron’s electric field

    ABSTRACT

    Mathematics is a tool for confirmation, or rejection, of theories of physics. So, if Editors and Referees of a journal of physics reject a new theory, strongly supported by math, because they cannot accept that their old theories can be threatened by new discoveries achieved by new math procedures, then not only the math is being rejected, but the own scientific method is threatened. The successful theoretical calculation of the proton’s electric charge in [1] opened a way for the calculation of the electron’s radius, a task undertaken here. Also, it’s shown herein the role played by the fine-structure constant in physics, never unraveled before. But if Editors and Referees of journals of physics succeed in their effort to boycott the math, the scientific true will never prevail.



    The paper number 2, “Calculation of proton’s charge from the electric charges of fermions of the quantum vacuum”, was submitted to the International Journal of Theoretical Physics two days ago, in 11 July 2020.

    The submission to IJTP can be seen in the figure which illustrates the topic in Linkedin:

    https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/can-nobel-prize-physics-betraying-math-wlad-wladimir-guglinski/?published=t

    As seen in the Abstract, in the paper is calculated, from the electric charge of the fermions of the quantum vacuum (calculated in the first paper of the series) the electric charge of the proton, achieving the value e= 1,6026.10^-19 C, very close to the experimental e= 1,60218.10^-19 C.


    The journal requires to the author to suggest three referees.

    He suggested three Nobel Prizes in Physics:

    David Gross

    Frank Wilczek

    Brian Josephson


    So, a question arises:

    I) Will the three Nobel Prizes be loyal to the Math, and will decide to approve the paper for publication?

    II) Or will they decide to betray the Math?


    And if they will decide to betraying the Math, which they, by themselves, consider the pillar of the Theoretical Physics, another question arises:


    What can be the future of Theoretical Physics, if even a Nobel Prize has no loyalty to the Math?




    Springer-Nature's reputation threatened by scientific scandal (WGuglinski) (Score: 1)
    by vlad on Saturday, July 25, 2020 @ 15:29:35 MST
    (User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com
    To: Renate Bayaz
    Director Communications
    Springer Nature
    Tel.: +49 6221 487 8531
    renate.bayaz@springernature.com


    Dear Renate Bayaz

    At 21 April 2020 I have submitted to Foundations of Physics (FOOP), a paper entitled “On the philosophy underlying the mathematics in physics”.

    In this paper are exhibited proofs, unquestionable and irrefutable, because they are supported by rigorous math calculations, that some fundamental principles of physics are wrong.
    In order to have an idea about the accuracy achieved in the paper, the electric charge of the proton is calculated, reaching to the value e= 1,6026x10^-19 C, whereas the experimental value is e= 1,60218x10^-19 C.

    From the current foundations of physics there is no way to calculate the electric charge of the proton. And never nobody tried to calculate it theoretically, because it’s impossible to do it.

    The successful calculation of the proton’s electric charge was possible because in my paper is proposed a model of electric field, whose principles are different of those adopted in the current theories.
    So,
    1.    since from this new model of electric field is possible to calculate the proton’s charge, with a precision extremely accurate,
    2.    the calculation lead us to the conclusion that some fundamental principles are missing in the foundations of physics.


    At 6 July my paper was rejected, with the reasons exposed in the Report ahead.


    REPORT

    Dear Dr. Guglinski,

    We have received the reports from our advisors on your manuscript FOOP-D-20-00239 "On the philosophy underlying the mathematics in physics".
    With regret, I must inform you that, based on the advice received, the Editors have decided that your manuscript cannot be accepted for publication in Foundations of Physics.

    Below, please find the comments for your perusal.

    I would like to thank you very much for forwarding your manuscript to us for consideration.
    With kind regards,
    Patricia Palacios
    Associate Editor
    Foundations of Physics

    COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR:

    Reviewer #1: The author introduces a biographical episode (submission and rejection of three papers on physics), and concludes from this episode that there is an underlying "philosophy" that brings theoretical physicists to reject some "non-standard" mathematical procedures despite their correctness.

    The topic of the paper sounds promising and interesting. However, the way the author develops this topic is unsatisfying. The title of the paper promises a philosophical analysis, but I could not find any philosophical analysis in the paper. Even worse, the author seems to use the term "philosophy" as a synonym for "prejudice": theoretical physicists have a "prejudice" towards non-standard mathematical procedures that might jeopardize some of their established conclusions. This prejudice is what the author calls "the philosophy underlying the mathematics in physics". Moreover, the author makes no effort whatsoever to clarify some conceptually challenging terms or expressions. Let me name few of these expressions:
    - what is a "scientific argument" (p. 2)?
    - In which sense "mathematics does not lie. She reve(a)ls us the tru(th)" (p. 4)?
    - What does the author mean by "Universal Mathematics" (p. 5)?
    - What does the author mean by "strictly scientific method", and what does the author mean when s/he says that theorists "had to be submissive" to it (p. 20)?

    Let me repeat again that i find the topic of the paper extremely interesting. However, without a serious philosophical analysis to back up the conclusion, I do not see any real contribution to the debate. For this reason, I do not recommend this paper for publication.


    Reviewer #2: I recommend rejecting this paper since it is neither a paper in philosophy of science nor foundations of physics. The author reproduces parts of three rejected "scientific" papers, reports of referees and editors, and his replies to these reports. At best, if the argumentation were clear, this paper would suit a sociology of science journal. Alas, I failed to see a single clear argument in this paper.

    END OF REPORT


    First of all, it is very strange that, despite the Reviewer #1 found “the topic of the paper extremely interesting”, he did not give to me the chance to improve the paper, by introducing suitable changes so that to explain the points raised by the reviewer. After all, as in his opinion, ”the topic of the paper is extremely interesting”, of course the topic would be extremely interesting for the readers of FOOP. Thereby, why do not give to readers the pleasure of reading an article that they would find extremely interesting? Why do not give the author a second chance?

    The Reviewer #2 rejected the paper with a personal opinion, since he said that “it is neither a paper in philosophy of science nor foundations of physic”.
    But such a subject, regarding what is pertinent, or not, to the foundations of physics, is controversial, since in the opinion of the Reviewer #1, beyond to cover matters pertinent to the foundations of physics, the topic is yet extremely interesting.

    That’s why I decided to change the title of the paper, and to submit it again to FOOP. The new version of the paper was submitted as follows:

    1.    It was submitted in 7 July, with new title: “The philosophy of mathematical physics”.
    2.    Together with the manuscript, I sent a COVER LETTER to Roseline Periyanayagam, Managing Editor of FOOP, asking her to send the paper again to the Reviewer #1.
    3.    I have explained, in the Cover Letter, that the points raised by the Reviewer #1 were in red colors, so that to make easier his analysis of the improvements introduced by me.



    The new version of the paper was rejected in 15 July, but the new version was not sent to the Reviewer #1. Instead of, the own Editorial Board of FOOP decided to reject it, with the following Report:


    REPORT

    On Wednesday, July 15, 2020, 7:08:02 AM GMT-3, Foundations of Physics (FOOP) wrote:

    Dear Dr. Guglinski,
    We have received the reports from our advisors on your manuscript FOOP-D-20-00401 "The philosophy of mathematical physics".

    With regret, I must inform you that, based on the advice received, the Editors have decided that your manuscript cannot be accepted for publication in Foundations of Physics.

    Below, please find the comments for your perusal.

    I would like to thank you very much for forwarding your manuscript to us for consideration.

    With kind regards,
    Fedde Benedictus
    Managing Editor
    Foundations of Physics


    COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR:



    __




    **Our flexible approach during the COVID-19 pandemic**
    If you need more time at any stage of the peer-review process, please do let us know. While our systems will continue to remind you of the original timelines, we aim to be as flexible as possible during the current pandemic.

    END OF REPORT


    First of all, it is very interesting to note that, in his Report, the Managing Editor Fedde Benedictus, wrote:
    Below, please find the comments for your perusal.”

    However, there is not any comment in the Report, as it’s seen in it. And the reason why no one among the members of the Editorial Board did not write a comment, is very clear:  no one among them was able to justify the rejection of the paper, because:

    1-    The paper is supported by unquestionable math calculations. And math calculations can be refuted only when errors can be found. And as they did not find any error, no one of them could justify the rejection.

    2-    As said by the Reviewer #1, “the topic of the paper extremely interesting”. Therefore, no one member of the Editorial Board could justify, with a reasonable argument, why a paper, whose topic is extremely interesting, is rejected by the Editorial Board of FOOP. After all, as the topic was found extremely interesting for the Reviewer #1, then the readers of FOOP also would find it extremely interesting. And do a question arises:  why the member of the Editorial Board of FOOP decided to private, the readers of the SPRINGER’s publications, of getting knowledge about an extremely interesting topic, on the foundations of physics?



    Dear Renate,
    the answer for this question:

    why the member of the Editorial Board of FOOP decided to private,
    the readers of the SPRINGER’s publications,
    of getting knowledge about an extremely interesting topic,
    on the foundations of physics?

    involves interests of the members of the Editorial Board, mainly the Editor-in-Chief, Carlo Rovelli. But I have to tell you that their interests may be at odds with the interests of Springer, because:

    1-    my paper is supported by math calculations (in which the members of the Editorial Board of FOOP did not succeed to find errors), then soon or later the scientific community will reach to the conclusion that the conclusions of the paper are correct: that something is wrong in the current foundations of physics. This is unavoidable, because math results cannot be rejected forever. Soon or later the physicist will accept them.

    2-    Carlo Rovelli (as other Editors-in-Chief of other journals published by Springer) is author of several books, published by several publishing houses, where he explains for laymen the current foundations of physics. He is famous, and some readers consider him a genius.

    3-    So, it is not interesting for Carlo Rovelli that a new paper, where it is proven unquestionably that some foundations of physics are wrong, get to the knowledge of his readers. Because they will realize that Carlo Rovelli is explaining to them foundations that can be wrong. And he can  lose not only the admiration of his readers, because they will get doubts about the accuracy of his explanations, but he also will lose money, because the readers can stop to read his books.

    4-    So, Carlo Rovelli does not worry about the interest of Springer, which is to publish papers and books in which the scientific method is rigorously applied, and respected. He is interested in maintaining his fame, and making money from his books.



    If I do not succeed to publish my paper in any journal published by Springer, I will publish it in another journal, as for instance Physics Essays, which is a serious peer-review journal of physics. And the truth, about the foundations of physics, will come to the light, and soon or later, that what is proven in my paper, will be finally recognized by the community of physicist.
    So, when the truth comes to light, and the people worldwide will get knowledge that a paper (in which was proven an error in the foundations of physics) was rejected by a scientific journal published by Springer, nobody can predict the damage to the reputation of this prestigious publishing house. And Bernhard Springer will roll over in his tomb.

    The situation is very serious, dear Renate.  And you, together with the team that is devoted to the effort to preserve Springer's prestige, should think seriously about the matter, and take the appropriate steps to avoid a future scandal, which could tarnish the Springer's seriousness in publishing scientific books and articles.

    Regards
    W Guglinski



     

    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.