 |
There are currently, 166 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.
You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here
| |
| |
Why is Andrea Rossi betraying the scientific method?
Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2015 @ 23:46:16 UTC by vlad
|
|
WGUGLINSKI writes: The Rossi's blog Journal of Nuclear Physics published in the end of January-2015 my paper Aether Structure for unification between gravity and electromagnetism.
In the page of Comments Andrea posted the following:
Therefore, Andrea Rossi had started a discussion.
However,
he was not able to keep the discussion, and then at the end of the
debate he deleted an answer of mine, which I had posted in response to
the following invitation he made to me:
I posted the comment ahead, deleted by Andrea Rossi:
======================================================
• Wladimir Guglinski
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
February 11th, 2015 at 2:15 PM
Andrea Rossi wrote in February 11th, 2015 at 11:42 AM
Wladimir Guglinski:
Let
me anyway invite you to study “Nuclear Models” of Greiner – Maruhn (
Springer, Berlin 1996, available on Amazon) in particular pp 75- 206, to
get some useful foundamentals regarding photons.
———————————————————–
Dear Andrea Rossi,
I
will read the Greiner’s book with great pleasure, if you tell me what
is the page of the book where he shows the nuclear model able to explain
this fundamental premisse in Nuclear Physics: why the even-even nuclei with Z=N have null magnetic moment ?
As you known, it’s a fundamental puzzle to be solved by the Standard Nuclear Physics.
As you know too, any nuclear model unable to explain that fundamental premise of Nuclear Physics is unacceptable, because
any nuclear model unable to solve that puzzle violates a fundamental
law of Physics: the monopolar nature of the electric charges.
If
the book does not exhibit any nuclear model able to explain it, then of
course no one among the models exhibited in the book is correct, and
therefore all of them are unacceptable.
And obviously it is a waste of time to study nuclear models which beforehand we already know to be wrong.
I will be waiting you tell me the page of the book.
I will be eagerly waiting your response.
NOTE:
if you dont remember the page, of course Greiner can tell you, and so I
suggest you to ask him what is the page of the book, sending him an
email.
regards
wlad
======================================================
As
after posting my answer I was afraid he could delete it, I made a
print, in order to prove that he realy deleted it. The print of my
answer can be seen in this link:
http://peswiki.com/images/8/87/Andrea%2C_tell_to_greiner.png
First
of all, it is of interest to note that any honest scientific
discussion cannot occur in any place where one of the debaters (who
considers himself as moderator) deletes the arguments of his opposer,
only because such "moderator" does not want the readers see the response
posted by one of his opposers.
Along the debate the readers were
noting that Andrea Rossi was very unconfortable, because as he was
unable to justify the phylosophical incoherences of the Einstein Special
Relativity.
But what is worst:
Andrea Rossi betrays the scientific method,
because he considers the Einstein's Special Relativity more important
than the experiments which disprove the theory, as the experiment
published by Nature in 2011, Moving mirrors make light from nothing
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110603/full/news.2011.346.html
Ahead is shown the debate, from the beggining, which can seen in this link:
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=874&cpage=2#comments
NOTE: in this post of mine, I wrote: "Einstein’s proposal of the gravity to be due to the curvature of the
space is one of the most stupid ideas proposed along the History of
Physics".
But Andrea Rossi replaced the word "stupid" by "wrong".
|
| |
|
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.
| |
Average Score: 1
Votes: 1
| |
|
|
No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register |
|
SECOND COMMENT DELETED BY ANDREA ROSSI (Score: 1)
by WGUGLINSKI on Friday, February 13, 2015 @ 03:28:45 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) | | http://peswiki.com/index.php/COMMENTS_DELETED_BY_ANDREA_ROSSI_IN_HIS_BLOG |
THIRD COMMENT DELETED BY ANDREA ROSSI (Score: 1)
by WGUGLINSKI on Friday, February 13, 2015 @ 14:48:46 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) | | http://peswiki.com/index.php/COMMENTS_DELETED_BY_ANDREA_ROSSI_IN_HIS_BLOG |
]
FOURTH COMMENT DELETED BY ANDREA ROSSI (Score: 1)
by WGUGLINSKI on Sunday, February 15, 2015 @ 11:44:08 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) | http://peswiki.com/index.php/COMMENTS_DELETED_BY_ANDREA_ROSSI_IN_HIS_BLOG
|
]
FIFTH COMMENT DELETED BY ANDREA ROSSI (Score: 1)
by WGUGLINSKI on Wednesday, February 18, 2015 @ 19:18:00 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) | As Andrea Rossi had accused Guglinski to be doing bullying against the two Professors Greiner and Maruhn, he replied to Andrea:
"According to the definition of bullying, the victim never has chance to defend himself from the attacks"
Then what Guglinski was doing was not bullying, since the two Professors
had the chance to defend themselves, by telling what is the page of
their book where the puzzle is solved.
But Andrea Rossi deleted Guglinski's reply.
So, according to Andrea Rossi we have to accept any scientific fraud, when a scientist proposes something which is not according to the facts. If we ask to that scientist to prove what he proposes, we are commiting byllying,
according to Andrea Rossi. We have not the right to try to defend the
prevalence of the Scientific Truth. If we do it, we are doing bullying
against the scientist who is trying to bambozzle everybody with a
scientific fraud.
And he accused Guglinski to be ridiculous, doing bullying against the two Professors.
After that, the reader Bernie posted the following comment:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bernie Koppenhofer
February 15th, 2015 at 11:36 AM
Dr. Rossi: It is long overdue for you to put some limits on Mr. Guglinski’s comments. Thank you.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guglinski posted the comment which print is showed ahead, but Andrea deleted it. By this way Andrea Rossi was succeeding to show to the readers of this blog that Guglinski is a canaille.
http://peswiki.com/index.php/COMMENTS_DELETED_BY_ANDREA_ROSSI_IN_HIS_BLOG
|
]
If you want to be taken seriously, Wlad, do this (Score: 1)
by Kadamose on Thursday, February 19, 2015 @ 01:36:50 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) | You need to back up your theory with a working experiment. Forget the mathematics and all the other stuff that goes along with it, because it has no relation to reality whatsoever. Build a device that can prove your theory; otherwise, you are just wasting your time. I would also point out that you are hanging out with the wrong crowd (i.e. Rossi and gang), but I'll save that discussion for another time.
If you were really smart about this whole fiasco, you would try to test your theory by reverse engineering the e-cat. It is only through experimentation that you will discover if your theory is correct or not.
Set up a kickstarter campaign and try to get the funds for an apparatus and try to apply your theory. If it doesn't work, your theory is wrong, and it's back to the drawing board. It really is that simple. 'If you build it, they will come'.
|
]
|
|
Why I publish Guglinski (Score: 1)
by vlad on Sunday, February 15, 2015 @ 00:02:47 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com | I got the following letter (and a few more similar in nature) to which I decided to reply publicly this time: "Dear Vlad,
I see with some amazement that Rossi has rejected Wlad Guglinski's theory and Wlad accuses him of treason toward the scientific method and similar niceties. This happened after Rossi' blog became difficult to read due to Guglinski's word-rich contributions and discussions. I wonder if it is of any use for ZPEnergy to publish Guglinski many complaints? Nobody - and this includes Rossi - can be forced to accept a theory that is intellectual oppression. What do you think?"
[Vlad/ZPEnergy]: I agree Wlad can be “very prolific” but I do not hold that against him. Certainly I’m not in the business to protect the readers out there who, if they are ignorant enough not to read Wlad’s very informed and interesting comments, are also too lazy to skip over them, and want them removed, for reading convenience!?
First of all, in my book, this would be censoring for no valid reason, and I do not do that. Secondly, I have a lot of respect for Guglinski as a scientist, and (of course, as a mere engineer) I also happen to strongly agree with his (and others like him) theory that space is not empty, but full with a non-luminiforous Aether, extremely energy dense, which we call now quantum vacuum energy or Zero-Point Energy. As you know, this is the whole reason for the existence of my site ZPEnergy.com, and that's why I supported Wladimir Guglinski since 2004 when he first posted on my site the open letter to the U.S. Energy secretary ( http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=857 [www.zpenergy.com])
People in the New Energy Sciences (tapping the energy of the energetic vacuum and LENR+ especially) should better pay attention to the new modern but rebel theories like Wlad’s QRT, Correa’s Mass-Free Energy/Aetherometry (and quite a few other). I intend to continue to facilitate exposure to all of them on my site.
There seems to be a number of experiments out there (Wlad lists them) that clearly contradict Einstein’s postulate on empty space (actually Einstein himself wanted to re-introduce the concept of the Aether back into Theoretical Physics in 1916; he mentioned in a letter to Lorentz: “I agree to you that the general theory of relativity admits a hypothesis of the ether’s existence”. - see Wlad’s comment). By ignoring those experiments, Rossi is indeed ignoring the scientific method ... don't remember who said it: "The great tragedy of science: A beautiful theory destroyed by an ugly fact."
I do not care if Rossi is accepting or not Wlad’s theory (if his E-Cat works, he or somebody else will find the right theory sooner or later), and I don’t think Wlad can “force” anybody into his way of thinking; he can just intellectually argue/defend his point of view. But if Rossi chooses to censor Wlad’s postings from his JoNF site, I feel ZPEnergy can restore justice and let him say what he has to say, so people now and later can judge him on that. The format here is easier for people who are smart and curious enough to read Wlad’s arguments in this debate, by clicking on his post … all the others can just skip it (as you know, I love democracy and freedom of choice, as I didn't have them for most of my younger years). [Wlad, for your own sake, try to be brief, if you want people - including me - to be able to go through all that you write! ...and if I can't go through all of it, I cannot post it ... remember that!]
All these scientists that are trying to re-introduce the notion of the “sea of energy” (energetic quantum vacuum) and challenge scientists to find ways to harness it, remind me of the Nobel Laureate Barry Marshall, the one who came up in 1982 with the theory that peptic ulcers and stomach cancers are caused by H. Pylori bacteria. He and his partner Robin Warren were ridiculed for years by the establishment scientists and doctors who could not (want not) see the evidence and kept hanging on the old dogma that stress, spicy foods and too much acid are the cause for these deadly diseases (and many lives could have been saved!). Unfortunately, Wlad cannot perform (like Marshall did) a self-induced infection experiment with Aether to prove once and for all its existence, and for being the main culprit for explaining all the OU experiments in cold fusion or the few proven OU electromagnetic devices able to rectify/resonate with the energetic vibrations of the virtual particles popping in and out of existence in the quantum vacuum, the fabric of the space-time continum in this universe. As always, time will tell the truth, and I hope it won't be too late for me to enjoy it! [Vlad/ZPEergy.com]
|
Re: Why I publish Guglinski (Score: 1)
by WGUGLINSKI on Sunday, February 15, 2015 @ 09:02:24 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) | Dear Vlad,
I write herein in the ZPenergy not only for the readers of the present days. I write also for the readers of the future.
When in the future the aether will be finally accepted by the scientific community, the science historians will be looking for the historical events that marked the rejection of the ether in Physics, and one of their sources for searching for historical records will be the pages of the ZPenergy.
regards
wlad
|
]
Vlad, Andrea Rossi deleted your comment from his blog (Score: 1)
by WGUGLINSKI on Sunday, February 15, 2015 @ 09:05:34 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) | Dear Vlad
I posted this comment of yours (published herein in the ZPenergy) , in the Rossi's blog, but Andrea Rossi deleted it.
regards
wlad
|
]
|
|
Re: Why is Andrea Rossi betraying the scientific method? (Score: 1)
by Kadamose on Monday, February 16, 2015 @ 15:05:19 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) | I just wanted to put in this quote from the great Tesla, since we are on the subject:
Galveston Daily News (March 13, 1932) [anengineersaspect.blogspot.com.au]:
"As
I revolve in my mind the thoughts in answer to your question I find the
most wonderful thing is the utter aberration of the scientific mind
during the last twenty-five years. In that time the relativity theory,
the electron theory, the quantum theory, the theory of radioactivity and
others have been worked out and developed to an amazing degree. And yet
probably not less than 90 per cent of what is thought today to be
demonstrable scientific truth is nothing but unrealizable dreams.
"What
is 'thought' in relativity, for example, is not science, but some kind
of metaphysics based on abstract mathematical principles and conceptions
which will be forever incomprehensible to beings like ourselves whose
whole knowledge is derived from a three-dimensional world."
The
idea of the atom being formed of electrons and protons which go whirling
round each other like a miniature sun and planets is an invention of
the imagination, he said, and has no relation to the real nature of
matter.
"Perhaps no other has given rise to so many erroneous
ideas and chimerical hopes. Everybody speaks of electrons as something
entirely definite and real. Still, the fact is that nobody has isolated
it and nobody has measured its charge. Nor does anybody know what it
really is.
"In order to explain the observed phenomena, atomic
structures have been imagined, none of which can possibly exist. But the
worst illusion to which modern thought has led is the idea of
'indeterminacy.' To make this clear, I may remark that heretofore we
have in positive science assumed that every effect is the result of a
preceding cause.
"As far as I am concerned, I can say that after
years of concentrated thought and investigation there is no truth in
nature of which I would be more fully convinced. But the new theories of
'indeterminacy' state this is not true, then an effect cannot be
predicted in advance.
"If two planets collide at certain time and
certain place, this is to the student of positive science an inevitable
result of preceding interactions between the bodies; and if our
knowledge would be adequate, we would be able to foretell the event
accurately.
"But in the spirit of the new theories this would
simply be an accident. 'Indeterminacy' introduces into the world of
inert matter a principle which might virtually be compared with the
universal illusion of free will.
"Of course, there is no such
thing. In years of experimenting I have found that every thought I
conceive, every act I perform, is the result of external impressions on
my senses.
|
|
|
|
|
Wladimir Guglinski:
You are very welcome.
Obviously, as I already wrote on this blog, I do not agree with your Aether theory and the theory we are elaborating regarding the so called Rossi Effect is totally different. My solid opinion is that “Aether” does not exist. Nevertheless, I respect your work and the sincere enthusiasm you put in it.
Warm Regards,
A.R.