In 12 July 1989 my son Douglas died, and his death had shaken my soul, leaving me with a distressful need of getting a deep understanding on the Universe where we live.
So, I had started to think on how would had to be the structure of the Universe, because some prevailing theories did not seem to me satisfactory.
My father was a doctor, he was materialist, not believing in the existence of the soul, and I had inherited his vision of the cosmos. But something was wrong with his skeptic convictions: he was dogmatic. For instance, he used to tell us a paranormal experience occurred to him when he was young. However he used to reject his own experience, because of the fear of to be mocked by his colleagues in the hospital. That betrayal to the own experience was very strange, and unacceptable to me, and that was the door from where the doubt started to shake my materialist viewpoint. However, if the soul exists, the space could not be empty, as proposed by Einstein. Therefore, the first fundamental point to be investigated was the possibility of Einstein to be wrong.

From my deep reflections, between 1990 and 1991 I wrote a book, where I had proposed some changes in the basis of what we know about the Universe.
The title of my book was “How Nostradamus Had Forecasted the Future… and Eisntein… was wrong ?”. The original manuscript is now filed in the file of the National Library, in Rio de Janeiro-Brazil.

The main new proposals of my book had been the following:

1- In the field of the Biology, I felt that Darwin’s theory was not able to explain some jumps in the degrees of the species evolution. So I had supposed the existence of two aetheres: one mechanical aether, as considered in Theoretical Physics, and other intelligent aether, responsible for some intelligent steps in the evolution of life. The Intelligent Aether would have a Memory, in which some “experiences” made by the Nature would be kept. Such sort of memory would be responsible for the Instinct of the animals.

2- In the field of Physics, I had proposed to bring back the aether, by giving a new interpretation for the Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. Another changing proposed in my theory was concerning the model of neutron proposed by Yukawa, because his proposal was absurd: his model of a meson doing jumping between two protons was similar to a play by two men playing tennis. And when two men play tennis they follow the law of ethics, and not the laws of Physics. His model was a violation of Newton’s second law.
My knowledge on the solutions adopted for the working of the Universe had convinced me that it was impossible do not have a Creator. But of course my idea of the Creator was that same of the Einstein-Spinoza God.
At that time I had the deep conviction that God would not build the Universe from a structure having a lot of particles. I was agree to that old statement according to which the Nature produces the phenomena by the most simple way, and therefore when God had created the Universe He had used only two particles as the fundamental bricks: the proton and the electron. And so the neutron would have to be formed by proton+electron. My model of neutron was similar to that proposed by Yuwaka: an electron jumping between two protons, but with a fundamental difference: the participation of the aether, and by this way the Newton’ law was not violated. Later I had adopted the model in which the electron moves about the proton.

3- Also in the field of Physics, I had proposed that the aether contributes for the equilibrium of the electron in the electrosphere of the atoms. Then I made a model of the levels similar to that existing in chemistry, where there was a little difference in the most inner levels s and p, and therefore contradicting the prevailing model of Atomic Physics.
NOTE: in 1993 I had started to write my scientific papers, which in the future would compose my book Quantum Ring Theory. In 2003 Eugene Mallove, editor of Infinite Energy Magazine, had considered to distribute my book in a form of Xerox copy, but I kept a secret hope that perhaps he could change his mind, and to decide to publish my book. He had suggested to me to give a name to my book, and then I had chosen the title Quantum Ring Theory. But in May 2004 he died by a murderer, and also died my hope of publishing my book by the Infinte Energy Press, and then I had started to look for a new publisher, and one among others I had sent my manuscript to Bauu Institute Press. In November 2004 David Villeneuve had published a paper in Nature showing some photos of the electrosphere of some atoms, and the photos had confirmed the distribution proposed by me in 1991. So, the old model of Quantum Mechanics had to be improved by some changes, and the prediction of my model proposed in 1991 was correct. That confirmation induced the editor Peter Jones of Bauu Press to publish my book, finally published in August 2006.

As everybody know, Fleischmann and Pons had published their discovery on cold fusion in 1989, the year of the birth of my theory. However at that time I had never heard anything on cold fusion. The first time I had taken knowledge on the existence of cold fusion research had been 10 years later, in 1999, as I explain ahead.

Between the end of 1991 and the beginning of 1992 I tried to publish my first book. But all my attempts had no success, no editor had interest to publish a work discrediting the prevailing dogmas of the 20th Century. That’s why I decided to undertake a scientific research, so that to prove that my ideas were correct, because while the structure of the Universe supposed by me was agree to the logic, unlike what I knew about the prevailing theories had convinced me that the logic was missing in many of them.
However I was not sure about the coherence of my ideas, and in the middle of 1992 I had decided to submit my book to the scrutiny of some theoretical physicist. My brother Aleksander had a colleague named Dr. Eudes Santos who taught Chemistry in the Federal University of Juiz de Fora – UFJF. His mother lived in Cataguases City, where I lived at that time. And when Dr. Santos come to Cataguases in a weekend, I had a talk with he. He promissed to deliver my book to Dr. Lauro de Almeida Mendes, a theoretical physicist of the Dept of Physics in that university.
Two months later Dr. Lauro sent me back the manuscript of my book, with the a short bill with words somewhat like:
————————————————————–
“This may represent the new paradigm of Physics”.
————————————————————–
His words proved to me that I was not crazy, and my ideas were coherent. But in a phone talk to Dr. Lauro, he told me that he was not able to give me a definitive verdict about my work. And he suggested to me to send my book to the appreciation of Dr. José Abdala Helayel, a particle physicist of the Brazilian Center for Physics Research – CBPF.

Dr. Helayel did not reject my work. Instead of, in the beginning of 1993 he sent me a letter asking me explanation on some points he did not understand. That was the starting point for the development of my scientific theory, because at that moment I decided to undertake a scientific research, so that to prove that my theory was correct. Later I had discovered that Dr. Helayel had not the intuition necessary to understand my ideas. He was more mathematician than physicist (as occurs with the particle physicists in general). But the most important in that episode was the fact that he lit the flame for my enterprise.

I decided to undertake my theoretical research because I had trust in what the scientists use to state: that experiments are the final verdict about any theoretical controversy. So, I believed that, if I could prove my theory supporting it on experimental evidences, then the physicists shall accept my ideas.

Now the two interesting consecutive coincidence: if my book had been delivered to any other physicist in Brazil, he would not even to send me any response. He would simply ignore my work. And then I would give up of developing my theory, convinced that my work had not any credibility.
And what is very intriguing: Dr. Santos sent my book to Dr. Lauro, the unique theoretical physicist in Brazil capable to find coherence in my work. And Dr. Lauro sent my book to Dr. Helayel, the unique theoretical physicist in Brazil with the impartiality of do not reject my work. Any other physicist in the CBPF (or any university in Brazil) would reject my work, or simply would not give me any reply.

Helayel told me that he had been strongly criticized by all the physicists of the Brazilian Center for Physical Research, because of giving attention to my work. He told me that he had been pupil of the Nobel Laureate Abdus Salam, who stated that any person has the right of sharing a theory, and so Helayel did not mind of the critiques of his colleagues. That’s why I had concluded that Helayel was an impartial scientist, loyal to the scientific method, and had taken seriously my theory.

In the end of 1993 I met Claudio Nassif. He was a student of Theoretical Physics in the UFJF of Juiz de Fora, a city 100 kilometers far away of Cataguases where I lived. Nassif had new ideas for the development of a new version of the Einstein’s relativity, and he was victim of mockery by the physicists and students in the university, who called him crazy, crack pot, etc. He was very depressed because of that when I knew him, and my talks with he changed his mood. I told him my idea of a space filled by an aether, and he incorporated the idea in his work. In some weekends when he traveled to Cataguases we used to talk along hours about the fundamental questions in Physics. With the help of our discussions he finally discovered the fundamental point of his Symmetric Special Relativity, SSR: while Einstein had proposed that matter had a superior end of speed (the speed of light), Nassif is proposing that matter has an inferior speed regarding the aether. This is the fundamental symmetry of his SSR.
Nassif lent me some books of Quantum Mechanics, and along our discussions along the years we helped one each other. So, I would say that each one of us was indispensable for the achievement of the work of the other.
This is other very interesting coincidence. Because the world is very extensive, and two men with two revolutionary theories were living in two cities very close, separated by only 100 kilometers.

So, while in 1993 I had started up to develop my theory and met my friend Claudio Nassif, Andrea Rossi had started up to work with his revolutionary technology using Ni powder. Probably Nassif had been for me what Sergio Focardi had been for Rossi. I am an engineer, and Nassif is a physicist, while Rossi is also an engineer, and Focardi had been a physicist.
Also in 1993, the American Institute of Physics had published the Borghi’s paper, describing the experiment which proves that the neutron is composed by proton+electron. But I would take knowledge of his experiment only in 2002, when Santilli sent me his book on Hadronic Mechanics, and I decided to suit in law two universities of Brazil, in order to oblige them to repeat the experiment in their laboratories.

Posted in the blog of Andrea Rossi:

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

Andrea Rossi wrote in September 15th, 2013 at 9:45 AM
——————————————————–
I started working with Ni powders in 1993, when I decided that it was completely useless to go ahead along the path of electrolysis suggested by F&P ( which I studied very throughly) .
——————————————————–

COMMENT:

Interesting coincidence.

I had discovered my new nuclear model in 1993.

Page 110 of my book Quantum Ring Theory:

I discovered the basic structure of my new nuclear model on 19th of November-93 , during a barbecue party. I was invited by my brother Alexander , for the commemoration of his 23 years of Biochemistry graduation in 1970. During many weeks ago, I was trying to discover the structure of the nucleus, without success. However, during that barbecue suddenly I had an idea, taking my new model of neutron as a point of departure. Let us see the sequences of my discoveries, as follows.

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

Along the years I was writing papers, and sending them to journals of Physics. At that time I did not use the internet, and all my correspondences had been sent via air mail.

In 1998 an editor suggested me to send my papers to Frontier Perspecitives, and so I had submitted a paper to that magazine. The editor Nancy Kolenda gently sent me the last issue, where Mike Carrell had an article speaking about the work of Randell Mills. In the beginning of 1999 I sent a letter to Mike telling him about my new hydrogen model of atom (which I was sure to be able to be fit to Mills experiments), and in June-99 Mike sent an issue of the Infinite Energy where it was published his article about the Newman’s motor.
Coincidently (look the coincidence again) in that issue of IE there was also an article by Elio Conte and Maria Piearlice, describing an experiment which result suggests that the neutron is formed by proton+electron, as proposed in my new model of neutron.

Then I sent an email to Dr. Helayel, telling him that my new nuclear model had been corroborated by an experiment published in Infinite Energy Magazine. But Heliayel did not reply my email.
In 2002, when I had knowledge on the Borghi experiment published in 1993 by the American Institute of Physics, again I sent an email to Helayel, and again he did not give me any response. Then I sent him an email calling him a betrayer of the scientific method, and finally I understood why Helayel had defended my right of sharing my theory among the physicists: he did not defended my right because he was impartial, but actually because he was sure that my theory was wrong, and therefore my work could not cause any damage to the prevailing current theories (including the Supersymmetry taught by him in CBPF).

I had never told the origin of my scientific work, because I was sure that the snakes would claim that my theory was not scientific, that my work had an esoteric origin, and my model of neutron had been conceived from my belief of what should had to be the thinking of God when He had created the Universe.

But now there is no problem to reveal the origin of my work, because I don’t mind of what the snakes may claim. Because between 2008 and 2013 many of my proposals have been confirmed by recent experiments. In 2012 the journal Nature had published a plagiarism of a proposal of mine published in my book Quantum Ring Theory. In 2013 another plagiarism had been published by Nature. Also in 2013 a plagiarism had been published by the European Physics Journal, where the authors proposed a theory that the space is filled by particles and antiparticles (published in my book in 2006), and they had proposed their theory because an experiment published in 2011 had showed that light can be created by the space (and therefore the space cannot be empty, and actually must have a structure, so that to be able to produce light).

And of course that other plagiarisms will be published in several journals of Physics, because as my models have the structure like that real structure existing in the nature, then the experiments will step by step revealing that my models are correct, and so the journals will publish papers where the authors propose models like the mines.

There are many other coincidences that happened along the years of the development of my theory (and also coincidences of dates that happened before its development). But I had put here only some of the most interesting.

It seems to be right that assumption according to which if you have an idea, and your idea makes sense and is the image of the True , the Universe conspires so that to spread your idea worldwide, no matter how strong can be effort of your opponents trying to destroy you and discredit your work.