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, 97 guest(s) and 1 member(s) that are online.

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

Events

Hot Links
Aetherometry

American Antigravity

Chava Energy

Closeminded Science

EarthTech

Energy Science

Energy21

Innoplaza

Integrity Research Institute

Interstellar Technologies

JLN Labs

KeelyNet

New Energy Movement

New Energy Times

The Orion Proj.

Panacea-BOCAF

QVac_Eng

RexResearch

Science Hobbyist

Tom Bearden's Page

Unlimited electric energy

USPTO

Want to Know

Other Info-Sources
NE News Sites
AER_Network
Alternative Energy News
KeelyNet_News
NextEnergyNews
PESWiki/News
NE Discussion Groups
Energetic Forum
Energy2000
Free_Energy
Greenglow
JLNLabs
KeelyNet
NuEnergy
OverUnity
Sarfatti_Physics
Sweet-VTA
Tapten
Tomorrow-energy
Vortex
Magazine Sites
Distributed Energy
Electrifying Times
ExtraOrdinary Technology
IE Magazine
New Energy Times

Interesting Links

Click Here for the DISCLOSURE PROJECT
SciTech Daily Review
NEXUS Magazine
radioioAmbient

Why is Andrea Rossi betraying the scientific method?
Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2015 @ 23:46:16 EST by vlad

Science 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:
  • Andrea Rossi

    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.

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:

  • Andrea Rossi

    Wladimir Guglinski:
    I made my point and want not to return to this discussion. It is too much audacious, from my point of view, to talk of disproofing the Relativity Theory on these bases.
    I have not time for further discussions on this issue, until I will read something I will be really interested to. In the meantime I remain adherent to the Special Relativity Theory.
    For this reason, while the JoNP’ s blog will continue to publish your comments, independently from my point of view, please do not involve me in your discussions. 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. Unless you think you do not need it, in this case just disregard this humble suggestion of mine.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.



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

  • Andrea Rossi

    Wladimir Guglinski:
    As I said, I respect your opinion and your sincere passion. It is for this passion and for the cospicuous amount of time you dedicate to your studies that our reviewer has decided to publish your paper. Said this, as you know, in Physics nothing is impossible in absolute to exist, but everything is associated to a due probability to exist somewhere, sooner or later. What our opinion differs upon is the probability we associate to the existence of Aether: for me it is, say, 0.0something%, for you it appears to be 99.99%.
    To give you some solace, I must confess to you that many times I am wrong.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Peter Forsberg

    Dear Wladimir and Andrea,

    I too believe that it will prove more fruitful eventually to view the fundamental level of space as something akin to an aether.

    Regards

    Peter

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Andrea Rossi wrote in February 7th, 2015 at 7:04 PM

    Wladimir Guglinski:
    What our opinion differs upon is the probability we associate to the existence of Aether: for me it is, say, 0.0something%, for you it appears to be 99.99%.
    —————————————————

    Dear Andrea Rossi,
    any divergence of opinions in Science is decided by conducting experiments.

    My opinion is supported by the experiment published in the journal Nature in 2011: Moving mirrors make light from nothing
    http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110603/full/news.2011.346.html

    Light cannot be generated from the Einstein’s empty space, because light cannot be generated from nothing

    And anything which is “NOT nothing” must have a structure.

    Your opinion was acceptable before 2011, when there no existed any experiment proving that the space is not empty.

    But after 2011 any claim against the existence of the Aether sounds as a dogma.
    And dogmas must be discussed in the field of the Church.

    Before 2011 your opinion had 99,99% of chance to be right.
    After 2011 your opinion has 0% of chance to be right.

    regards
    wlad

  • Andrea Rossi

    Peter Forsberg:
    Welcome back !
    Yes, that could be an interesting line of thought; to name the zero point field “aether” risks to become a semanthic issue, though. In analogy, we all agree that life on the moon does not exist, but, if eventually we name ” some sort of life” any chemical reaction, we invent a methodology that makes everything and the contrary of anything true ( or not true).
    As a matter of fact, in Nuclear Physics, in particular when you enter in the world of the nuclear models, you find a lot of artifices like this: when a model becomes shaky because eventually it does not explain some parameters, the stunch sustainers of the shaky model usually invent an adjustment factor that resolves the problem; usually happens that the new adjustment factor acts like an elephant in a Chinese porcelains boutique, extending the properties of the model democratically to every elementary particle, independently from the model.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Wladimir Guglinski:
    Einstein’s Relativity Theory explains us that space-time depends on an observer’s related speed. This excludes an aetheric medium. To admit Aether implies to waive the Relativity Theory. I am not going to explain to you the thousands papers written on this issue, because, obviously, I have not the time to return on this, but I am sure you read them already and the fact that you are still convinced that Aether exists makes useless a discussion. I have honestly to add that your opinion has been shared by important scientists too. Again: in Physics you never have to say that something is impossible, but associate a probability factor to the possibility that something is right. You are very generous with this probabilistic factor related to Aether, I am not. I am too much convinced of the correctness of the Einstein’s Relativity, that I studied very, very well. In any case, please consider that to sustain your theory you have to disproof Einstein’s Relativity. Many tried, not quite successfully. Good luck!
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Joe

    Wladimir,

    1. The article mentions vacuum, but scientists have never created a true vacuum. Not even close.

    2. Newton is able to explain an apple falling from a tree. Einstein is not able to do this. Curvature of space, if we even accept such a concept, provides no mechanism for imparting an impulse to an object.

    All the best,
    Joe

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Andrea Rossi wrote in February 8th, 2015 at 8:17 AM

    Wladimir Guglinski:

    1) ———————————————————-
    Einstein’s Relativity Theory explains us that space-time depends on an observer’s related speed. This excludes an aetheric medium. To admit Aether implies to waive the Relativity . In any case, please consider that to sustain your theory you have to disproof Einstein’s Relativity. Many tried, not quite successfully. Good luck!
    ————————————————————-

    No, Andrea
    I dont need to disproof Einstein’s Relativity.
    A theory is disproved by experiments.

    This is just what prescribes the scientific method.

    According to Einstein’s theory, the space is empty. And so the space cannot have a structure
    But the experiment published by Nature in 2011 shows that the space is not empty. And therefore the space must have a structure.

    Therefore Einstein’s theory is wrong.
    It is not me who is saying it.
    The experiments are proving that Einstein’s theory is wrong.

    2) ——————————————–
    I am too much convinced of the correctness of the Einstein’s Relativity, that I studied very, very well.
    ————————————————

    Einstein developed some equations which describe the phenomena with accuracy.
    But the success of his equations does not imply that the space is empty.

    As said the own Einstein, all the experiments which confirmed a theory do not confirm definitively the theory. But only one experiment can prove a theory be wrong.

    In this sense Einstein was right.
    And the experiment published by Nature in 2011 proved that Einstein’s theory is wrong.

    Dear Andrea,
    I am loyal to the scientific method, which prescribes that theories must be either proved or disproved by experiments.

    I am no loyal to theories.

    regards
    wlad

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Andrea Rossi wrote in February 8th, 2015 at 7:55 AM

    Peter Forsberg:

    As a matter of fact, in Nuclear Physics, in particular when you enter in the world of the nuclear models, you find a lot of artifices like this: when a model becomes shaky because eventually it does not explain some parameters, the stunch sustainers of the shaky model usually invent an adjustment factor that resolves the problem; usually happens that the new adjustment factor acts like an elephant in a Chinese porcelains boutique, extending the properties of the model democratically to every elementary particle, independently from the model.
    ————————————————————

    Dears Peter and Andrea
    any nuclear model must be able to explain a fundamental premise, as I explain ahead:

    a) The nuclei are formed by protons and neutrons, and the protons have positive electric charge

    b) The nuclei have rotation

    c) Due to rotation the electric charge of the protons induces a magnetic moment

    d) Therefore even-even nuclei with Z=N cannot have magnetic moment zero, because in spite each magnetic moment of a pair proton-neutron is cancelled by an opposite magnetic moment due to a symmetric pair proton-neutron, however the rotation of the protons induce a magnetic moment

    e) But the experiments show that even-even nuclei with Z=N have magnetic moment zero

    Therefore any nuclear model must be able to explain why even-even nuclei with Z=N have null magnetic moment. This is a fundamental premise to be explained by any nuclear model.

    If by considering a nuclear model there is not way to explain such fundamental premise, the model cannot be right. It must be discarded.

    There is not any one nuclear model based on the Standard Model able to fulfill such fundamental premise.
    And therefore all the nuclear models of the Standard Nuclear Physics are wrong.

    Then of course that a wrong nuclear model always requires new adjustment factor which acts like an elephant in a Chinese porcelains boutique.

    Unfortunatelly,
    nowadays the theorists use neglecting the fundamental premises required so that to consider as satisfactory a theoretical model.
    This is the reason why today the Standard Nuclear Physics faces the worst crisis of its history.

    regards
    wlad

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Andrea Rossi wrote in February 8th, 2015 at 8:17 AM

    Wladimir Guglinski:
    Einstein’s Relativity Theory explains us that space-time depends on an observer’s related speed. This excludes an aetheric medium. To admit Aether implies to waive the Relativity Theory. I am not going to explain to you the thousands papers written on this issue, because, obviously, I have not the time to return on this, but
    ————————————————————-

    Dear Andrea,
    unfortunatelly the own Einstein would disagree to what you claim.

    In the page 135 of my book The Missed U-Turn, from Newton to Rossi’s Ecat it is witten:

    —————————————————————
    It was not Einstein who has buried the aether definitively because, starting in 1916, he reconsidered his rejection of the aether and undertook to bring it back into Theoretical Physics. This historical fact, which physicists try to hide from people, is narrated in the recent book by Walter Isaacson on the life of Einstein, where he tells that the father of relativity wrote a letter to Lorentz in 1916, in which Einstein related his latest conclusion regarding the polemic existence of the ether: “I agree to you that the general theory of relativity admits a hypothesis of the ether’s existence”.
    Here is the passage in the Isaacson book:

    So, it’s not surprised that, after some years, Einstein had started to step back from some of his anterior and most radical ideas. For instance, in the famous work of 1905 on the special relativity, he disqualified as “superfluous” the concept of aether. But after analysing the general theory of relativity, he concluded that the gravitational potentials of that theory have characterized the physical qualities of the empty space and have fitted as a way capable of transmitting disturbances. He passed to refer himself to that as a new way of conceiving an aether. “I agree to you that the geingral theory of relativity admits a hypothesis of the ether’s existence”, he wrote to Lorentz, in 1916.
    —————————————————————-

    Unfortunatelly,
    it seems Dr. Prakrash has given up to publish my book The Missed U-turn.
    I suspect that he was blackmail victim by Dr. JR.

    .

    The fact that Einstei tried to bring back the aether to Physics after 1916 is also described by Kostro:
    http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Journal%20Reprints-Relativity%20Theory/Download/3313

    Unfortunatelly,
    even Einstein did not succeed to bring back the aether to Physics again, because the concept of aether is not of interest of the powerful energy producers in the world.

    The powerful energy suppliers tremble with fear of thinking that Tesla’s dream, to supply the world with the free energy of eether, may one day become reality.

    regards
    wlad

  • Andrea Rossi

    Wladimir Guglinski:
    As I said, I deem useless this discussion. You made very well your point, I have nothing to add to what I have already said. Obviously, I will continue to publish your considerations related to your point of view.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe wrote in February 8th, 2015 at 2:03 PM

    Wladimir,

    2. Newton is able to explain an apple falling from a tree. Einstein is not able to do this. Curvature of space, if we even accept such a concept, provides no mechanism for imparting an impulse to an object.
    ——————————————————

    Joe,
    Einstein’s proposal of the gravity to be due to the curvature of the space is one of the most wrong ideas proposed along the History of Physics.
    Probably that’s why the own Einstein tried to bring back the aether to Physics after 1916.

    regards
    wlad


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".

  • Peter Forsberg

    Dear Andrea,

    I agree with you that the word aether might not be the best to use. It has a lot of connotations that are not palatable to physicists.

    Regards

    Peter

  • Andrea Rossi

    Peter Forsberg:
    The core of the issue is that I am convinced that Aether does not exist, unless somebody is able to give evidence of the fact that Einstein’s Relativity Theory is wrong at his base. I never saw anything of the kind. The critics I saw so far against the Relativity Theory are less than tennis balls thrown to a division of tanks.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Peter Forsberg

    Dear Andrea,

    The theory of relativity is no more wrong at the base than Newtonian mechanics and Newton’s law of universal gravitation. Both are models of the world that are very useful, so cannot be said to be wrong. All models have flaws. But both of these also leave unanswered questions. E.g. what exactly is an object and why does time have a direction?

    Until there is a theory that explains everything that has been exlained by earlier theories plus makes some prediction that earlier theories cannot, I agree with your metaphor of tennis balls and tanks.

    My hunch is that the basic rules of the universe is something simpler than the standard model. The standard model will then be more of an emergent phenomenon. So, I am happy that some people try to throw tennis balls on tanks.

    Regards

    Peter

  • Andrea Rossi

    Peter Forsberg:
    Time has a direction because the speed of light cannot be overcome. What exactly is an object is more a phylosophical issue than a physics one: remember Hegel’s distinction between the “thing in se” and the “thing per se” ? Quantum theory has defined pretty well what objects are made of, both in real and virtual terms. I agree with the rest of your comment, and I agree that every theory has its essence in the fact that can be overcome. Otherwise, it would be a religion. This is why this journal hosts very audacious theories, like Wladimir Guglinski’s one, even if we do not agree in toto with him. If you are making a rehearsal, a military exercitation, to shoot “tennis balls” toward a tank can be someway useful: to sharpen the aim, for example; but if you have to fight in a real battlefield, as we have to, that is a suicide.
    Thank you for your comment,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Peter Forsberg wrote in February 9th, 2015 at 2:00 AM

    Dear Andrea,

    I agree with you that the word aether might not be the best to use. It has a lot of connotations that are not palatable to physicists.
    ————————————————————-

    Dear Peter,
    there are two sort of aethers: the luminiferous-aether of the 19th Century, and the non-luminiferous-aether proposed in Quantum Ring Theory.

    I suggest you to read my comment posted as The origin of misunderstanding in Einstein Special Theory of Relativity herein in the JoNP.

    regards
    wlad

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    The origin of misunderstanding in Einstein Special Theory of Relativity

    In the 19th Century the physicists believed that the space is filled by a luminiferous-aether, where the light would move as wave propagation similar to water waves in the sufrace of a lake, when we throw a stone in the lake.

    When a wave moves with velocity “V” in the surface of a lake, and an observer in a boat moves with speed “v” in contrary direction to the propagation of the waves, if the observer measures the speed of the wave he obtains a value V+v. If the observer moves in the same direction of the wave propagation, he obtains a value V-v.
    So, the speed of the observer influences the speed of the wave measured having the apparatus of measurement at rest within the boat.

    Michelson and Morley had made an experiment so that to detect a difference of speed in the light velocity, due to the influence of the speed of the Earth, which moves with 30km/s.
    They made the experiment by measuring the speed of light when it moves in the contrary direction of the Earth’s motion, and when it moves in the same direction. So, if the light should be a propagation of waves in the luminiferous-aether (like the water waves move in the surface of a lake), then obviously Michelson and Morley would have to detect a diference.

    However, the experiment did NOT detect any difference.

    Enstein faced the puzzle, and decided to discard the hypothesis of the luminiferous-aether not only because of the negative result obtained by Michelson-Morley experiment. He actually discarded the luminiferous-aether because of 3 things:

    1- A water wave moving in the surface of a lake has longitudinal propagation. And the light moving in the luminiferous-aether also would have to move by longitudinal propagation.
    However from experiments we know that light has a transversal propagation

    2- For a light moving as TRANSVESE wave in the luminiferous-aether, such medium would have to have a tenacity equivalent of that of the steel.

    3- Michelson-Morley did not detect the difference in the light speed, and therefore they did not detect the luminiferous-aether.

    .

    So, what the Einstein’s Special Relativity actually had discarded is the luminiferous-aether considered in the 19th Century.
    Einstein Special Relativity does not discard a non-luminiferous aether.

    And the real aether which fulfils the space is non-luminiferous. Let us see why.

    The reasons why the aether is non-luminiferous:

    1) The photon is composed by two corpuscles, a particle and its antiparticle.

    2) The two corpuscles of the phton have a circular motion perpendicular to the propagation of the photon

    Therefore a model of photon composed by two corpuscles moving with helical trajectory in the aether has a TRANSVERSE propagation.
    So the aether actually is non-luminiferous, because in the luminiferous-aether the light would be moving with longitudinal propatation.

    With this photon composed by two corpuscles moving with helical trajectory the aether does not need to have the tenacity of the steel, as is required by the luminiferous-aether.

    And how does explain the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment?

    When a body as a planet moves, the motion causes the following changing in the non-luminiferous aether:

    a) Ahead the direction of the motion, there is a contraction of the aether

    b) At the back of the motion, there is a dilation of the aether

    So, when a photon is moving in contrary direction of the motion of the planet, the photon experiences a decrease in its velocity, because it is moving in an aether with biggest density.
    This occurs because it is constant the flux of aether crossing within the circular motion of the two corpuscles of the photon. As the density of the aether had a growth, then the speed of the photon must decreasing, in order to keep constant the flux of aether within the photon.

    And when the photon is moving in the same direction of the motion of the planet, the photon expeiencies a growth in its velocity, because it is moving in an aether with lower density.
    Now the photon needs to increase its speed, because as the density of the aether has decreased, the photon needs to move faster, in order o keep constant the flux of aether within the photon.

    Why the equations of the Special Theory of Relativity (STR) works well

    Einstein developed the equation of the STR by considering the Lorentz Equations.

    Well, but the Lorentz equations just consider that there is a dilation of the space-time when the light is moving with regard to an observer.

    Therefore, we realize that Einstein’s equations of the STR actually describe the motion of a photon composed by two corpuscules moving with helical trjectory in a non-luminiferous aether.

    The equations of the STR do not describe the motion of light in the luminiferous-aether of the 19th Century.
    Actually the equations describe the motion of light in a non-luminiferous aether.

    Such misunderstanding on the interpretation of the Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity was caused by the following sequence of facts:

    a) The theorists did not know the structure of the photon

    b) Einstein decided to discard the aether because he did not know how the light moves in the non–luminiferous aether

    As we see, the missing of the non-luminiferous aether in the Modern Physics is responsible for so many misunderstandings.

    For instance, in the field of the Nuclear Physics the nuclear theorists did not succeed to find any satisfactory model of nucleus, in spite they are trying along more than 100 years.
    The reason of the unsuccess of the Standard Nuclear Physics is because it is missing the contribution of the non-luminiferous aether into the structure of the nuclei.

    If the theorists do not bring back the non-fluminiferous aether for Physics, they will never succeed to find a theory free of paradoxes.

    regards
    wlad

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Dear Peter Forsberg,
    let us understand better the mechanism of the photon interaction in the Michelson-Morley experiment.

    They actually did not try to detect a difference of light speed. They actually tried to detect a difference of frequency between the light going against the motion of the Earth, and the light going in the same direction of the planet’s motion.

    A body is composed by atoms.
    And the atoms are involved by a field of aether.

    The interferometer used by Michelson and Morley is formed by atoms, and it moves with 30km/s.
    Ahead the motion of the interferometer, there is a microscopic contraction of the aether fields which involves the atoms situated in the frontal surface of the interferometer.
    And at the back of the motion of the interferomenter there is a microscopic dilation of the aether fields which involves the atoms situated at the back surface of the interferometer.

    Consider a photon moving with a frequence “f” in contrary direction of the motion of the interferometer.
    When the photon enters the region where there is the contraction of the aether about the atoms of the interferometer, the photon has a decrease of speed equal to 30km/s. As the interferometer has a speed 30km/s, then the frequence of the photon does not change, regarding to the interferometer.

    Now consider another photon with the same frequence “f” moving in the same direction of the inteferometer.
    When the photon enters the region where there is a dilation of the aether about the atoms of the interferometer, the photon has an increase in the speed equal to 30km/s. As the interferometer moves with 30km/s, the frequence of the photon does not change.

    That’s why Michelson-Morley experiment did not detect a difference in the photons frequence.

    Einstein had interpreted the dilation of the non-luminiferous aether as a dilation of the space-time, as he had interpreted the Lorentz transformations.

    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 V).

    However the physical interpretation of the constant speed of light, considered in the Einstein’s Special Relativity, is wrong.
    And therefore from the phylosophical view point the Einstein’s Relativity is wrong, because he had considered the space as empty.

    That’s why Einstein’s Relativity introduces so many phylosophical incoherences.

    You have to note that when Einstein developed his Special Relativity he knew nothing about atoms and the structure of the photon.

    Einstein postulated the constant speed of the light (independent of the speed of the observer), because he decided to eliminate the luminiferous-aether of the 19th Century, since to consider that luminiferous-aether there is need to consider a light moving with longitudinal waves, and such luminiferous-aether would have to have a tenacity in the magnitude of the tenacity of the steel, if one would like to claim that from the luminiferous-aether the light could move with transverse waves.

    regards
    wlad

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Andrea Rossi wrote in February 9th, 2015 at 7:49 AM

    Peter Forsberg:
    Time has a direction because the speed of light cannot be overcome.
    —————————————————————–

    Dear Peter,
    Einstein discarded the aether, and in return he had to create a new physical entity, in order to replace the lack of a real physical entity existing in the nature: the aether.

    Actually the time does NOT exist.
    What exists is the non-luminiferous aether.

    The speed of light cannot be overcome because when a body moves it has interaction with the non-lumineferous aether, and when the speed of the body approaches to the speed of light, the mass of the body tends to infinite.

    Einstein had proposed that light speed cannot be overcome by proposing a postulate.
    And postulates do not work via physical mechanisms.
    So, Einstein’s Special Relativity is something like a phantasmagoric theory, since some fundamental physical mechanisms are missing in this theory.
    His theory developed from the empty space is phantasmagoric.

    Unlike, the interaction between a body and the non-luminiferous aether works through a physical mechanism.
    A theory developed from the non-luminiferous aether works via physical mechanisms.
    The ghosts of the Einstein’s Relativity are expelled from a theory interpreted from the concept of non-luminifeous aether.

    regards
    wlad

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Why did Einstein never think about a physical model of photon?

    Einstein supposed that a corpuscular model of photon would have to be composed by one particle moving by rectilinear trajectory in the sense of Newton.

    But such model of photon is incompatible with the Maxwell equations of the light propagation.

    However, when Einstein faced the puzzle of the photoelectric effect, he arrived to the conclusion that the photon would have to have a corpuscular nature. That’s why he proposed the quanta of light.

    But as the quanta of light are incompatible with the Maxwell equations, Einstein spent about 40 years of his life looking for equations so that to conciliate the Maxwell equations with the concept of quanta of light.
    He did never succeed to find those equations.

    The puzzle concerning the controversial nature of the light was easily solved in the Modern Physics as follows:
    the physicists consider the light as a duality wave-particle. Sometimes the light is wave, and sometimes it is particle.
    Along the week days Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday the light behaves as a wave.
    And along Thursday, Friday, Saturday, the light behaves as a particle.
    At Sunday the light rests.

    One of the strong reasons why Einstein did never try to discover the structure of the photon is because he was sure that the photon cannot have a physical structure.
    He had arrived to that conclusion because the polarization of light has a statistical feature.
    But a corpuscular particle moving with Newton’s classical motion cannot have statistical feature.
    Therefore it was impossible for the photon to have a physical structure.

    Other restrictions against the concept of a corpuscular photon moving with Newton’s rectilinear motion are the following:

    1. Light composed of corpuscles would violate the principle of least action.

    2. A corpuscular photon would have to have mass, in which case its rest mass could not be zero.

    3. According to Relativity Theory the photon is massless.

    4. A corpuscular photon would violate gauge invariance.

    All those restrictions are applied to the classical model of photon moving with a Newtonian motion.

    But all those restrictions cannot be applied to a model of photon composed by a corpuscle formed by particle and antiparticle moving with helical trajectory. This is shown in the page 77 of my book The MIssed U-turn, from Newton to Rossi’s Ecat.

    So,
    we realize why Einstein had so many reasons why to give up of trying to discover a physical structure for the photon.

    And this is the reason why in Modern Physics are adopted some strange solutions, unsatisfactory under the viewpoint of phylosophical coherence, as the concept of duality wave-particle.

    The incoherences of Modern Physics are an heritage from the Newton’s classical theory. Because Einstein and the physicists of the 20thCentury tried to develop their theories by starting from the classical rectililenar motion of a particle in the sense of Newton.

    Eisntein had the audacity to reject some laws of the Newton’s Mechanics. So, he kept the Maxwell’s Equations, and changed the Galileo’s transformations.

    But Einstein did not realize that the puzzles of the photon would require to also reject the Newtonian rectilinear trajectory of a particle.

    regards
    wlad

  • Peter Forsberg

    Dear Wladimir,

    I find your theory regarding the helical trajectory through the non-luminiferous-aether interesting. I was obviously already aware about the Michelson-Morley experiment, otherwise I would not post things on this forum. But it was nice with a recap from your point of view.

    But unfortunately I am not learned enough in physics and have not studied your theory deeply enough to have an opinion regarding your theory’s validity.

    And Andrea is also right that I misused the term “aether”. What I am interested in is a theory of physics that is on a lower level than Einsteins theory of relativity and your quantum ring theory.

    If you want to have success with your theory, you must make a prediction that cannot be done with existing theory. And you must make sure that you, or someone else conducts an experiment that validates your prediction. Without this no one of importance will listen to your words.

    Science is like an oil tanker. Alternative theories or alternative interpretations of existing theories are like small waves. Even if they are right, they will not move the oil-tanker. Only by making a new prediction of SIGNIFICANCE that directly contradicts existing theory you will create a big wave that can change the course of the oil tanker.

    By significance I mean that the prediction should have major practical applications, like the atom bomb or the photo electric effect.

    Regards

    Peter

  • Alexvs

    Dear Mr. Guglinski

    I have read your posts and theories with attention. Not agreeing 100% to your theories I must conceed however that what you call non-luminiferous aether, for me simply SPACE, is a brilliant basis to understand the physical behaviour of particles and light. Space is something that exists. MUST have a structure because it has physical properties (volume, electric/ magnetic permeability).
    I like very much your interpretation of Michelson-Morley experiment and agree with you in your regard about the revision of the experiment itself.
    Could you write please your opinion upon the Stern-Gerlach experiment?
    Please, continue your interessant work.

    Greetings

    Alexvs

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Alexvs wrote in February 10th, 2015 at 3:29 AM

    Dear Mr. Guglinski

    Could you write please your opinion upon the Stern-Gerlach experiment?
    —————————————-

    Dear Alexvs
    in my book Quantum Ring Theory there is a paper entitle The Stern-Gerlach Experiment and the Helical Trajectory.

    You can find many papers in Peswiki concerning my QRT:
    http://peswiki.com/index.php/Quantum_Ring_Theory

    regards

    wlad

  • Peter Forsberg

    Dear Andrea,

    You wrote this in an earlier post:

    “As a matter of fact, in Nuclear Physics, in particular when you enter in the world of the nuclear models, you find a lot of artifices like this: when a model becomes shaky because eventually it does not explain some parameters, the stunch sustainers of the shaky model usually invent an adjustment factor that resolves the problem; usually happens that the new adjustment factor acts like an elephant in a Chinese porcelains boutique, extending the properties of the model democratically to every elementary particle, independently from the model.”

    Don’t you think that dark energy and dark matter should be counted as such fiddle factors? No one has ever managed to directly detect or create neither.

    In my opinion these are elephants with a very large energy and mass.

    Regards

    Peter

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Peter Forsberg
    February 10th, 2015 at 2:46 AM

    Dear Wladimir,

    If you want to have success with your theory, you must make a prediction that cannot be done with existing theory. And you must make sure that you, or someone else conducts an experiment that validates your prediction. Without this no one of importance will listen to your words.
    ————————————————-

    Dear Peter
    Actually the new interpretation on Eistein’s Relativity represents a very small importance in my work.

    There are some phenomena neglected by the physicists which cannot be explained via Einstein’s theory.
    For instance, there are electromgnetic propagations moving in the aether through longitudinal waves:
    Koryu Ishii T. and Giakos G. C. , (1982), Transmit Radio Messages Faster than Light, Microwaves & RF.

    I call the sound of aether those longitudinal electromagnetic waves, because they are electromagnetic propagation which move like the water waves in the surface of a lake (in the aether they have spherical propagation, while in the lake the water waves have a superficial propagation).
    There is no way to explain them by considering the Einstein’s empty space.

    But the most important part of my work is concerning:
    * the model of photon, which is able to explain all the properties of the light, as the EPR experiment, etc.
    * the new model of neutron formed by proton+electron
    * the new model of hydrogen atom, where the electron move with helical trajectory in the
    electrosphere of the proton.
    * the new nuclear model

    I am waiting the results of an experiment to be conducted in 2015 or 2016, where the radius of the proton will be measured via scattering with mesons.
    According to my nuclear model, the radius of proton in those experiments must be found between found between 0,3fm and 0,6fm, while from the Standard Model the radius of the proton must be found in the order of 0,8fm.

    I dont think the physicists will accept my theory only because the experiments get a radius between 0,3fm and 0,6fm.
    However the confirmation will represent a strong evidence for my work.

    Many predictions of my work had been confirmed by experiments between 2008 and 2014.

    The most important is the prediction according to which even-even nuclei with Z=N have non-spherical shape, shown in my book Quantum Ring Theory published in 2006.
    Along 80 years the nuclear theorists had considered that those nuclei must have spherical shape.

    The journal Nature published a plagiarimm of a prediction of mine nuclear model, in 2012, concerning the non-spherical shape of those nuclei:
    Plagiarism in the Journal Nature
    http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3402

    And the European Physical Journal published a plagiarism of my model of Aether in 2013.
    New experiment (April-2013) corroborates Aether proposed in Quantum Ring Theory
    http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3464

    regards
    wlad

    regards
    wlad

  • Peter Forsberg

    Dear Wladimir,

    Who will conduct the experiment regarding proton radius? Was the experiment designed by someone who wants to test prediction of your theory? Does the group testing the proton radius know about your theory and its prediction regarding proton radius?

    Regards

    Peter

  • Dear Andrea Rossi,
    I am just curious. In connection with your answer to Peter Forsberg about Einstein’s Relativity Theory, let say Special Relativity Theory, I would like to ask you – which experimental data have convinced you that SRT is correct ?
    Best wishes,
    Valeriy Tarasov

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    There is no honesty in the scientific community

    Peter Forsberg wrote in February 10th, 2015 at 2:46 AM

    Dear Wladimir,

    Science is like an oil tanker. Alternative theories or alternative interpretations of existing theories are like small waves. Even if they are right, they will not move the oil-tanker.
    ——————————————————–

    Dear Peter,
    There is no honesty among the academic physicists.
    They betray the scientific method.

    Non-transverse (longitudinal) propagation requires a medium.

    For instance, the longitudinal waves in the surface of a lake requires a medium: the water
    The sound cannot propagate in the vacuum. The longitudinal waves of the sound requires a medium: the air.

    Non-transverse electromagnetic propagation cannot travel in the Einstein’s empty space. Longitudinal electromagnetic waves requires a medium.

    In resume: waves require a medium. They cannot travel in the empty space.

    We can give any name to such a medium: quantum vacuum, aether, substance, etc., but no matter what name we call it, it cannot be empty, and obviously it must have a structure.

    In Modern Physics there is explanation on how the light (transverse electromagnetic propagation) can travel in the Einstein’s empty space because as the light is considered a duality wave-particle, then the light can move in the empty space (without medium) in its shape of particle mode.

    Here in this tutorial is written:
    All electromagnetic waves are transverse
    http://www.antonine-education.co.uk/Pages/Physics_2/Waves/WAV_02/Waves_2.htm

    The discovery of the existence of non-transverse electromagnetic waves requires the rejection of the Einstein’s empty space, because non-transverse waves cannot move without a medium.

    The discovery of non-transverse electromagnetic propagations obliged the theorists to find a theory for that sort of waves:
    Electromagnetic Waves in the Vacuum with Torsion and Spins
    http://www22.pair.com/csdc/pdf/helical6.pdf
    In the Abstract the authors say:
    These waves are not transverse

    However,
    the description of the longitudinal electromagnetic waves by equations do not solve the puzzle:
    how they can travel in the Einstein’s empty space ???

    After all, a wave cannot travel without a medium.

    Andrea Rossi said:
    “Einstein’s Relativity Theory explains us that space-time depends on an observer’s related speed. This excludes an aetheric medium . To admit Aether implies to waive the Relativity Theory.”

    Then I would like to hear from Andrea Rossi how he explains the existence of non-transverse electromagnetic waves moving in the Einstein’s empty space.

    regards
    wlad

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Peter Forsberg wrote in February 10th, 2015 at 2:36 PM

    Dear Wladimir,

    Who will conduct the experiment regarding proton radius? Was the experiment designed by someone who wants to test prediction of your theory? Does the group testing the proton radius know about your theory and its prediction regarding proton radius?
    ————————————————–

    No, Peter, they do not know.
    The experiment will be conducted because some years ago a new experiment made with Lamb shift in muonic hydrogen detected a proton radius shorter than that required by the Standard Model. The older experiment was made via scattering proton-electron.
    https://indico.mitp.uni-mainz.de/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=14

    Now they are bilding an accelerator, in order to make an experiment via scattering proton-muon.

    According to my theory, the proton has a variable radius, because the 3 quarks of the proton form a ring crossed by a gravity flux.
    When the gravity flux becomes stronger due to the interaction of the proton with other nucleons, the radius of the ring has shrinkage.

    A free proton has radius in order of 0,8fm.
    When it interacts with other nucleons, the proton’s radius has a shrinkage.
    Within the nuclei the proton’s radius is 0,27fm, calculated in my paper Anomalous Mass of the Neutron
    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Anomalous%20mass%20of%20the%20neutron.pdf

    regards
    wlad


 
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: 1
Votes: 1


Please take a second and vote for this article:

Excellent
Very Good
Good
Regular
Bad


Options

 Printer Friendly Printer Friendly


"Why is Andrea Rossi betraying the scientific method?" | Login/Create an Account | 9 comments | Search Discussion
The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.

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 EST
(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 EST
(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 EST
(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 EST
(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 EST
(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 EST
(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 EST
(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 EST
(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 EST
(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.




 

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.