New emails exchanging between J. Arrington and W. Guglinski ( 16 Oct 2012 ): =======================================
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 10:00:11 -0700
From: johna_6@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: plagiarism in the journal Nature
To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com Dear Wladimir, 1) As stated before, our experiment has no direct connection to the size of the nucleus and cannot possibly measure the size of the nucleus. Someone else made up the 7fm number and claimed that it had something to do with our data, but it doesn’t. If you want to discuss the experiment and what it means, you should at least take the time to get a minimal understanding of what we’ve done. I have to assume from your discussion so far that you’ve never even bothered to look at the results from either of our experiments. 2) For what it’s worth, I disagree with your interpretation of the Michelson–Morley experiment. When people talk about doing experiments to test models, the words they use mean something, and if you don’t bother to figure out what they mean, you’ll come to all sorts of incorrect conclusions. When they ask “does aether exist”, they actually mean something specific; a medium in which light propagates. When they conclude that aether doesn’t exist, they are already addressing both of the questions you bring up. Your claim that it doesn’t really show that aether doesn’t exist simply shows that you didn’t bother to understand what people were talking about before reaching your conclusions. You can’t just randomly call other things “aether” and then use that to prove that they were wrong in saying aether didn’t exist. Admittedly, people are sometimes sloppy about such details when discussing things informally. But if you’re going to claim that the entire scientific community is doing all sorts of things wrong, you should at least take the time to understand what people are saying before you condemn it. It’s clear that you have not done so with our experiments, and that you have no real interest in doing so. Similarly, based on your discussion of Freer’s work, it appears that you haven’t bothered trying to understand what they’ve done (or even what they’re trying to say) either. As such, I suspect that I won’t both responding to any future emails. John
========================================= Reply by Guglinski: =========================================
From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
To: johna_6@yahoo.com
Subject: the 7fm neutron halo in beryllium nucleus
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 21:20:35 -0300 Dear John
1) I wrongly supposed that the research developed in Argonne National Laboratory should have a connection with the neutron halo detected by the University in Mainz at the GSI Helmoholtz Center for Heavy Ion Research in Darmstadt, which is 7fm far away of the nucleus core: By studying neutron halos, scientists hope to gain further understanding of the forces within the atomic nucleus that bind atoms together, taking into account the fact that the degree of displacement of halo neutrons from the atomic nuclear core is incompatible with the concepts of classical nuclear physics. Atomic Nucleus with Halo: For the First Time, Scientists Measure the Size of a One-Neutron Halo with Lasers
https://idw-online.de/pages/de/news301916 Please excuse me for my wrong supposal
2) Concerning your words:
—————————————–
“You can’t just randomly call other things “aether” and then use that to prove that they were wrong in saying aether didn’t exist. Admittedly, people are sometimes sloppy about such details when discussing things informally. But if you’re going to claim that the entire scientific community is doing all sorts of things wrong, you should at least take the time to understand what people are saying before you condemn it.”
——————————————- I must tell you that the opinion about the aether’s existence is not of mine. That opinion was defended by the own Einstein, after 1916. So, if you dont like when someone just randomly calls other things “aether”, then you have to protest against Einstein, and not against me: Einstein obtained two different ethers, one for the special relativity, and the other for the general relativity. Let us see the two different ethers, proposed by Einstein in the period 1918-1955, according to Kostro: · The ether for the special relativity: “The related ether is rigid, flat and infinite. Its metric is pseudo-Euclidean”. · The ether for the general relativity: “This ether is no longer rigid and flat. Its metric is pseudo-Riemannian”. 1. Kostro L. , 1988, Einstein’s New Conception of the Ether, Proc. Conference “Physical Foundations of Relativity Theory”, Imperial College, London , M.C. Daffy, British Soc. for the Philosophy of Science. regards
WLAD
========================================= | 
