======================================
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 13:48:30 -0500
From: prc@aps.org
To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
Subject: Your_manuscript CB10370 Guglinski

Benjamin F. Gibson
Editor
Physical Review C
Email: prc@ridge.aps.org
http://prc.aps.org/ [prc.aps.org]

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

My reply to the editor of Physical Review C :

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

From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
To: prc@aps.org
CC: johna_6; m.freer; josehelayel;noerters; j.dunning-davies
Subject: RE: Your_manuscript CB10370 Guglinski
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 20:46:46 -0300

Dear Dr. Benjamin Gibson
Editor, Physical Review C

In your report you state that my “work come across a conjecture”.

You are wrong. My work had been a conjecture in 2006, when my book Quantum Ring Theory had been published. But today my work is not conjecture, because what you call “conjectures” have been confirmed by experiments, published after the publication of my book in 2006. Therefore, today what you consider as “conjecture” is actually some correct theoretical prediction, confirmed by the experiments, as follows:

1- The light nuclei with Z=N=pair have non spherical shape, as predicted in my work, and confirmed by experiments, although along more than 80 years those works which “satisfy the high standards that one expects of current research in nuclear physics” had predicted wrongly that light nuclei with Z=N=pair have spherical shape.

2- The aggregation of nucleons within the light nuclei is not promoted by the strong nuclear force, as correctly predicted in my work, and now confirmed by the experiment published in 2009, although along more than 80 years those works which “satisfy the high standards that one expects of current research in nuclear physics” had predicted wrongly that light nuclei are linked thanks to interactions by the strong nuclear force.

Therefore you are wrong when you consider that my “work comes across a conjecture”.

But suppose you should be right (but you are not), and suppose the correct predictions of my work should be conjectures, as you claim. However the light nuclei exhibit some nuclear properties which are IMPOSSIBLE to be conciliated with the classical principles of the Nuclear Physics that rule the working of any current nuclear model considered by you as a “solid piece of rigorous scientific work”. For instance:

1- The excited 6C12 has null magnetic moment =0 and nuclear spin i=2. Well, it’s IMPOSSIBLE to conciliate those two nuclear properties by considering any conjecture supported by any current nuclear models proposed as a solid piece of rigorous scientific work.

2- The isotope 4Be7 has null electric quadrupole moment, but it A=7 (odd), it has non null magnetic moment = -1,399, and it has nuclear spin i=3/2. Again, it’s IMPOSSIBLE to conciliate those nuclear properties by considering the classical principles of the Standard Nuclear Physics. If you know any conjecture suported by a nuclear model proposed as a solid piece of rigorous scientific work, please tell me, because I would delighted hear that.

3- The isotpes 6C9, 6C13, 6C15, and 6C17 have null electric quadrupole moment, but they have A=odd, they have non null magnetic moment, and they have non null nuclear spin. Again, it’s IMPOSSIBLE to conciliate those nuclear properties by considering ANY CONJECTURE supported by a solid piece of rigorous scientific work, capable to explain how those four carbon isotopes can have null electric quandrupole moment, since they cannot have a spherical distribution of charge, and they have not =0 and i=0.

Therefore, Dr.Gibson, what you consider as a “solid piece of rigorous scientific work” is actually a fallacy, because it’s IMPOSSIBLE to propose ANY CONJECTURE supported by the principles of the Standard Nuclear Physics with the aim to explain many properties of the light nuclei.

If you dont know ANY CONJECTURE capable to explain the anomalies of the light nuclei, you have not the right of rejecting any conjecture proposed in a work developed from a coherent method of reasoning, mainly in the case of the conjecture to be confirmed by experiments, as occurs with some of the conjectures of my work.

Eisntein also had proposed many conjectures in his papers of 1905 and 1916. He did not propose them because he loved to propose conjectures. He proposed conjectures because he had NO CHOICE, since his conjectues had been the unique possible solution capable to solve the paradox raised up by the Michelson-Morley experiment. If should be possible to solve the paradox by considering a conjecture based on the Newtonian principles prevailing at that time, then of course Einstein would not had proposed his conjectures.

Today Einstein’s conjectures are not conjectures, because they have been confirmed by experiments along years. But if Einstein had written his two papers today, they both would be rejected by any editor of any reputable journal of Physics, with allegation that his “work comes across a conjecture rather than as a solid piece of rigorous scientific method”. And then his theory would never be tested by experiments, and his conjectures would never become correct predictions.
Therefore, Einstein’s conjectures have been tested because his papers had been published.

We live today a similar situation. We have no choice, we cannot avoid new conjectures, because there is NO WAY to propose conjectures so that to explain the nuclear propeties of the light nuclei, by keeping the classical principles of the Standard Nuclear Physics.

My nuclear model is the unique work in which IT IS POSSIBLE to allow conjectures so that to explain the nuclear properties of the light nuclei, because my new nuclear model does not work through the principles of the Standard Nuclear Physics. And some of the conjectures had been confirmed by experiments.

Your decision, rejecting the publication of my work, represents a lamentable attempt of trying to stop the advancement of science.

Regards
WLADIMIR GUGLINSKI

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

A letter to God published in the Andrea Rossi blog:  

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

Dear God

Please change the nuclear structure of the nuclei and the principles You had used for their working, because your creation do not fit to the high standards that one expects of current research in nuclear physics.

You have adopted some conjectures not accepted in nuclear physics.

In my oppinion your nuclear model is very stupid, and it cannot work, because some principles you have adopted disagree what we know from the classical standard nuclear physics.

If you dont trust my advise, please write a paper and submit it to any reputable journal as Nature, European Physical Journal, Physical Review, and You will realize that your paper will be rejected.
The editors will tell you that your work comes across as a conjecture rather than as a solid piece of rigorous scientific work.
Dont be so stupid. Deny your work. Please follow their advise. Change your work.

I also dont understand why you had created those light nuclei which exhibit strange behavior defying the classical nuclear physics. Stop to create such aberrations. We dont need them. Our classical nucler physics works very well, and there is no place for those stupid light nuclei.

Yours sincerelly,
Wladimir Guglinski

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

Comment by Andrea Ross:

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

Andrea Rossi

Dear Wladimir Guglinski:
I forwarded your comment to Santa Claus for fast delivery.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

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

Reply to Andrea Rossi:

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

Wladimir Guglinski

Dear Andrea

I am not sure it’s a good idea.
The nuclear physicists forgot to tell to God that cold fusion is impossible. And as God do not know it’s impossible, that’s why the e-cat is working.

If God decides to change His nuclear model, so that to work as predicted by the Standard Nuclear Physics, your e-cat will stop to work.

So, lets leave God to continue thinking that cold fusion is possible

regards
WLAD

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