IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 4th May 2012, 06:42 AM   #321
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
 
aggle-rithm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 15,334
Originally Posted by pedrone View Post
However, Arrington's experiments are showing that such fundamental hypothesis ( considered by Reality Check ) is wrong, because the structure of 4Be8 detected in his experiment proves that the strong force is not able to aggregate the nuclei.
Then, congratulations! You don't exist, and neither does any element heavier hydrogen.
__________________
To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion.

Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens.
aggle-rithm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th May 2012, 07:32 AM   #322
PiedPiper
Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 148
Originally Posted by pedrone View Post

But since every parameter seems to under control, perhaps we have to consider that the Sun's magnetic field changes when there are magnetic storms on the surface of the star.
Oh, my god.

I can just envision the look on my thesis adviser if I used that argument to explain why an experiment failed to work right.

I get the connection. Sun affects the earth, that in turn could affect the experiment. But as an experimenter / theorist myself, I have to warn myself every day to be careful. I think the great majority of experiments that I run, I have (at some subliminal level) a notion of how an experiment *will* turn out. Or at least, how I'm hoping it will turn out. But if the data doesn't match my expectations / hopes / dreams / theory, something has to be blamed.

What's more likely: that my expectations / hopes / dreams / theory was (were) wrong, or that Venus wasn't in the correct House? (Insert alternative *far*-left field reason here).

The quote says that "every other parameter seems to be under control". What about the parameter of whether the expected result is even possible?

I know (as a scientist) that there are new things out there which we haven't even begun to explore, that there are chemical and physical processes which we don't yet fully understand, and I would (and do) argue fervently for anyone with an interest in science to pursue a lifelong career in the subject.

I would also caution them to be very careful when deciding to go looking for alternate explanations when the data doesn't match their expectations. Maybe it's the expectations that have to be changed.
PiedPiper is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th May 2012, 09:02 AM   #323
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
That's true. But they don't get changed. The parameters get changed instead.
Farsight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th May 2012, 10:46 AM   #324
PiedPiper
Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 148
That's an endless cycle though, isn't it?

What I mean to say, is that if my experiment doesn't work, I can *always* say that "well, it was because I didn't consider such-and-such". I repeat the experiment with the new changes, and I still get a negative result. Again I say, "well, it was because I didn't consider new-such-and-such". I repeat the experiment with the new changes, and I still get a negative result.

Don't get me wrong: this process does happen occasionally, and sometimes after a few cycles it leads to success. Maybe the product I'm trying to synthesize was unusually heat-sensitive (something I didn't / couldn't predict a priori), and so I put in a cooling bath and the next time I run the reaction, I succeed. However, from all my years of doing synthesis, this cycle never goes on for long. Eventually, all of the negative results start to point strongly towards the process never succeeding. I then consider that carefully, and decide whether or not my original expectations / theory was even correct in the first place. If I decide they weren't, I abandon the project.

There seems to be a pattern with many ideas that people hold onto them for thousands of cycles, each time adding a new parameter that they hadn't considered. However, they never seem to add the possibility that maybe what they're chasing after simply isn't possible.

Yes, there are plenty of examples of people who pursued projects for years, trying thousands of iterations before finally succeeding. There are also plenty of examples of people who pursued projects / ideas for years, overcoming each negative experience by adding a new "what if I add this to consideration", and never succeed. Not because they didn't try hard enough, or weren't smart enough - but because their premise was wrong from the very beginning.

I don't know which side most controversial theories on this forum fall, as my expertise is in organic chemistry, which isn't a popular topic here. So I'm not going to speak outside my expertise. But as a general statement, I would say that it's sad and a waste that many talented researchers and theorists pursue ideas for years, adding new layers to overcome previous difficulties, and whom never succeed - because the idea never had any merit in the first place. It's a tragedy for science. Yes, experimental conditions must sometime be refined. However, at some point, the pile of null results has to be given consideration.
PiedPiper is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th May 2012, 06:28 PM   #325
fuelair
Banned
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,581
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Wladimir Guglinski is a tiny minded crank as shown in the listed posts:
On that first item, by the by, does he get it wrong 3 ways or just get it wrong the same way thrice? And, does he play with himself while doing it?
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th May 2012, 06:15 AM   #326
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
PiedPiper: your comment noted. That laborious exhaustive approach sounds good to me, and biochemistry has shown good progress in recent decades. I was rather thinking of some aspects of theoretical physics.
Farsight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th May 2012, 03:58 PM   #327
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,500
Originally Posted by fuelair View Post
On that first item, by the by, does he get it wrong 3 ways or just get it wrong the same way thrice? And, does he play with himself while doing it?
Starts with the wrong measured value, makes a calculation that does not match the wrong measured value and then adjusts his calculation to match the wrong measured value!
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post

Guglinski though calculated the measured electric quadrapole moment of deuteron and got it wrong three times
  1. He used the wrong measured value for the electric quadrapole moment of deuteron.
    It is Q=0.285783(30) fm2 (see this paper).
    It is not Q= 0.27 fm2.
  2. He used a proton radius of 0.275F that that gave a value that did not match his wrong measure.
  3. He changed the proton radius to 0.26F (to not match any experimental data!) in order to match the wrong measure.
As soon as he made the basic mistake of not looking up the correct value of the electric quadrapole moment, he was always going to be wrong.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th May 2012, 04:34 PM   #328
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,500
Exclamation Evidence that shows that Guglinski is a crank XII

Originally Posted by pedrone View Post
The range of strong force is 2fm.
Therefore that structure detected by Arrington experiment debunks Nuclear Physics, because such structure cannot have aggregation with a distance of 7fm, since the strong force cannot actuate with such distance.
The range of the strong force is 1-3 fm.
Therefore that structure detected by the Arrington experiment does not debunk Nuclear Physic, because such structure is within the nucleus.

You cannot even understand the news article you cite .
There are two results mentioned there: The Arrington experiment:
pedrone debunks Quantum Ring Theory yet again
QRT predicts the "existence of a central 2He4 within the structure of all nuclei".
The Argonne National Laboratory experiment shows that
  • carbon does not have a central 2He4
  • the clumps of nucleons in beryllium aere not central.
The article starts with the illustration with the "halo" of nucleons that extends to 7 fm outside of the standard nucleus illustration. That was created by Dirk Tiedemann of Manz UNiversity.

Your comparison once again debunks QRT as anyone with functioning eyes and a brain can see.
Guglinski's cartoon of beryllium shows a line of imaginary things with positive and negative charges. That is stupid from basic physics (there are no negative nucleons, rotating charges give off radiation). But in this context it is equally stupid because it predicts a uniform distribution of those imaginary things.

The experimental results known since the 1980's (see the article)
Quote:
In the 1980s it was discovered that some nuclei of light elements - such as helium, lithium, beryllium - have outer edges defined: they have halos, particles that stick out beyond the edges of the core, creating a cloud surrounding the core.
are that beryllium has a "halo" where some particles can exist, i.e. a non-uniform distribution of real nucleons.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th May 2012, 05:06 PM   #329
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,500
Originally Posted by pedrone View Post
The beryllium distance of 7fm proves that Nuclear Physics cannot be correct.

The range of strong force is 2fm.
This proves that you are ignorant of a basic difference between classical mechanics and quantum mechanics. In QM the range of a force is not the effective limit of the force. First year physics undergraduate are usually shown this in the second solution of the Schrödinger equation that they explore - a particle in a finite potential well. The well width is the classical limit (your 2 fm). There is s finite possibility of finding the particle outside of the well.

The science is that halo nuclei give the effective limit of the strong force as 10 fm:
Quote:
The effective absolute limit of the range of the strong force is represented by halo nuclei such as lithium-11 or boron-14, in which dineutrons, or other collections of neutrons, orbit at distances of about ten fermis (roughly similar to the 8 fermi radius of the nucleus of uranium-238). These nuclei are not maximally dense. Halo nuclei form at the extreme edges of the chart of the nuclides—the neutron drip line and proton drip line—and are all unstable with short half-lives, measured in milliseconds; for example, lithium-11 has a half-life of less than 8.6 milliseconds.
Another point of ignorance that you have is that the article illustration is about "4Be8":
Atomic Nucleus with Halo: For the First Time, Scientists Measure the Size of a One-Neutron Halo with Lasers
This is beryllium-11, an unstable isotope of Be.

Guglinski's cartoon of beryllium looks like 8Be which is also unstable.

Yet another bit of ignorance !
If you had bothered to do the research and found Atomic Nucleus with Halo: For the First Time, Scientists Measure the Size of a One-Neutron Halo with Lasers then you would have read
Quote:
The strong interaction that holds atoms together can only extend to a distance of between 2 to 3 femtometers. The riddle as to how the halo neutron can exist at such a great distance from the core nucleus can only be resolved by means of the principles of quantum mechanics: In this model, the neutron must be characterized in terms of a so-called wave function. Because of the low binding energy, the wave function only falls off very slowly with increasing distance from the core. Thus, it is highly likely that the neutron can expand into classically forbidden distances, thereby inducing the expansive 'heiligenschein'.

Last edited by Reality Check; 9th May 2012 at 05:10 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th May 2012, 05:17 PM   #330
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,500
Originally Posted by pedrone View Post
a cranck book which predicted the correct structure of nuclei, as Arrington experiment shows now.
A crank book which predicted the wrong structure of nuclei, as Arrington experiment shows now.
Evidence that shows that Guglinski is a crank XI !
Evidence that shows that Guglinski is a crank XII ! (but this is more that you cannot do basic research or even understand that Guglinski's cartoon is about unstable 8Be - only 9Be is stable).
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th May 2012, 05:24 PM   #331
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,500
Originally Posted by pedrone View Post

All these arguments exhibited by Reality Check are based on a fundamental hypothesis:
All these arguments exhibited by Reality Check are based on a fundamental hypothesis:
that Guglinski has a knowldege of basic physics
The fact that Guglinski cannot even get the electric quadrapole moment of deuteron correct (.285783(30) fm2 ,see this paper) shows that he lacks this knowldege.

However, Arrington's experiments are showing that such fundamental physiucs ( considered by Reality Check ) is right , because the structure of 4Be8 detected in his experiment proves that the strong force is able to aggregate the nucleus. It exists ! It has been aggregated !

Now Arrington's experiment is showing that Guglinski is a crack: Evidence that shows that Guglinski is a crank XI
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th May 2012, 05:38 PM   #332
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,500
Question pedrone. what is the spiral radius for a photon, electron or C60 molecule

Originally Posted by pedrone View Post
LHC experiments showed that SUSY is wrong.
The LHC experiments showed that SUSY predictions for particles in the range that it can detect so far are wrong.

Wladimir Guglinski remains a tiny minded crank as shown in many posts, e.g.

Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
And now you have added even more delusions from Guglinski
  • He thinks that super-symmetry particles have light masses so that the selectron (lower mass estimates of ~20 GeV) can provide ~2 MeV of mass in a neutron.
  • He thinks that there are 'replusive gravitons'. This of course requires the existence of negative mass and negative energy .
  • He creates 2 new forces of nature (attractive and replusive gravity) and arbitrarily puts their strength at almost that of EM. Why not the strong force? Why not the weak force? Why not any of an infinite other values?
P.S.
pedrone. what is the spiral radius for a photon, electron or C60 molecule
First asked 17 June 2011
The non-detection of super-symmetry particles with light masses, debunks QRT even more !

Why the hell does Guglinski base his theory on particles which DO NOT EXIST ?????????

Why does a reviewer state that Guglinski's model of a neutron is a proton + selectron (the usual crank proton + electron is obviously stupid because the spins do not add up).
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th May 2012, 05:51 PM   #333
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,500
Exclamation Evidence that shows that Guglinski is a crank XIII

Wow, pedrone: You keep on debunking Quantum Ring Theory!
Originally Posted by pedrone View Post
and the nucleus 3Li7 in the page 229 of the book Quantum Ring Theory, where we see that the nucleon 1H2 is situated about 6fm from the center of the nucleus.
Such distance 6fm was used for theoretical calculation of the nuclear magnetic moment of the 3Li7, by Guglinski :
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...32c960f4b3.jpg
The nucleus 3Li7 in actual physics is not a halo nucleus. The nuclear charge radius of 7Li is measured to be 2.4 fm (2004).
This makes using such distance 6fm for theoretical calculation of the nuclear magnetic moment of the 3Li7, by Guglinski, yet another bit of evidence that Guglinski is both a crank and ignorant of nuclear physics.

Last edited by Reality Check; 9th May 2012 at 05:53 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2012, 04:25 AM   #334
pedrone
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 508
plagiarism in the Journal Nature

The following email was sent to the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal Nature, by W. Guglinski

To: Philip Campbell/ Editor-in-Chief, journal Nature
cc: Peter Jones, Editor, Bäuu Instute Press, publishing house of Quantum Ring Theory
Subject: Plagiarism in the journal Nature
Dear Editor-in-Chief

The journal Nature published in 19 July 2012 the paper “How atomic nuclei cluster” , where there is a plagiarism of an idea of mine, proposed in my book Quantum Ring Theory, published in 2006.

According to current Nuclear Physics, the nuclei have a spherical distribution of the protons and neutrons within the nuclei.

In 1993 I started a deep analysis of the current Nuclear Theory, and then I arrived to the conclusion that, by considering the fundamental principles adopted in the theory, it was impossible to conceive a satisfactory model of nucleus, in order to explain the nuclear properties of the nuclei.

Read more:
http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?...ticle&sid=3402
pedrone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2012, 04:29 AM   #335
Kid Eager
Philosopher
 
Kid Eager's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7,296
you seem to not understand what plagiarism is
__________________
What do Narwhals, Magnets and Apollo 13 have in common? Think about it....
Kid Eager is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2012, 10:10 AM   #336
ben m
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
This is not plagiarism, Pedrone.

In your book, you drew a bunch of pictures that you made up out of thin air, made up some nonsense about how theses were pictures of nuclei, and included the word "cluster" because you'd drawn things sticking together.

In this paper, ebran et. al. use the standard methods of quantum mechanics, expanding on standard and well-known methods for identifying multi-particle correlations. This has been a standard part of nuclear theory since the days of Maria Goeppert Mayer.

I can assure you in the strongest possible terms that Ebran's work is not plagiarized in any way, shape, or form from your self-published nonsense. First, Ebran's sense of "clustering" is part of a line of nuclear-physics thought that long, long, long precedes you. Second, Ebran's work follows normal quantum mechanics, whereas your work is crackpot nonsense with no physics motivation whatsoever. Third, virtually no one has ever read your self-published crackpot book. Fourth, but irrelevantly here, adopting a scientific idea from someone else's publication can never be plagiarism.

If you're not courteous enough to retract it yourself, Your letter will be thoroughly laughed at at the journal. The only question is how many people's time it wastes there. I presume it will be forwarded to the authors; I hope they waste minimal time writing the obvious "no, it's not" note to you; and I hope you drop the issue after that.

I'm remarkably tolerant of crackpots when they're off having fun writing up their wild ideas in their own wild journals. That's a lot of why I post on JREF, it's sort of a safe, harmless, educational environment in which to compare those ideas to reality. My crackpot tolerance goes rapidly to zero when, as you do here, they try to interfere with real work.
ben m is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2012, 01:42 PM   #337
ben m
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
ETA: Pedrone, I interpreted the post (and responded) thinking that *you* were Wladimir Guglinski, posting your own letter. Rereading it I realize that the post does not imply this, so please read the above post as a note to Guglinski himself rather than to you.
ben m is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2012, 03:14 PM   #338
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,500
Evidence that shows that Guglinski is a crank XIV

For those who may be interested, the evidence that W. Guglinski
is a crank has been listed in the Quantum Ring Theory: Evidence for photon and neutron models thread:
Evidence that shows that Guglinski is a crank XIII (and parts I to XII)

Calling nuclear theory that existed before his QRT fantasy "plagarism" is further evidence that W. Guglinski is a crank.

Once more time: Thanks pedrone for documenting the crackpottery that W. Guglinski displays.

Perhaps this thread should be merged with Quantum Ring Theory: Evidence for photon and neutron models ?
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2012, 04:33 PM   #339
pedrone
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 508
In the ZPEnergy link:


In 18 July 2012 Martin Freer had published in News & Views the article “Nuclear physics: Nucleons come together”, and I sent him the following comment:


Dear Martin Freer
With that distribution of charge of the 10Ne20 structure shown in Figure 1, how to explain that 10Ne20 has null electric quadrupole momentum ? That structure shown in Figure 1 is not spherical, and therefore 10Ne20 could not have null electric quadrupole momentum (detected in experiments concerning nuclear data)
Regards
WLADIMIR GUGLINSKI




And he sent me the following reply:

Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 07:53:09 +0100
From: M.Freer@bham.ac.uk
To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: ?spam? Re: Nuclear physics: Nucleons come together
The nucleus is intrinsically deformed as shown, but has spin 0. Consequently, there is no preferred orientation in the laboratory frame and thus the experimental quadrupole is an average over all orientations and hence is zero. Experimentally is is possible to show that the deformation of the ground state is non zero by breaking the symmetry and rotating the nucleus.
Martin



His explanation is just the same explanation proposed in the page 137 of my book published in 2006, concerning to the oxygen nucleus 8O116, where it is written the following:
Note that as the 8O16 has a null nuclear magnetic moment m=0, then its nuclear spin cannot be aligned toward a direction by applying an external magnetic field, and so its nuclear spin can indeed be chaotic. So the x-y plane has a chaotic rotation, and the six nucleons 1H2 performs the surface of a sphere, and the z-axis has a chaotic rotation around the center of the nucleus 8O16. By consequence the 8O16 behaves like if it should be a spherical distribution of positives loads, and not a flat distribution. That’s why the 8O16 has Q(b) = 0.


In spite of the nucleus 8O16 (and also the 10Ne20) have a total nuclear spin zero, however the nucleus has a rotation (and such rotation I had called “spin” in my argument). So, the idea proposed by me was the same idea mentioned by Martin Freer, used by the authors of the paper “How atomic nuclei cluster”

Last edited by pedrone; 13th August 2012 at 04:37 PM.
pedrone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2012, 04:54 PM   #340
ben m
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
Originally Posted by pedrone View Post
In the ZPEnergy link:


And he sent me the following reply:

His explanation is just the same explanation proposed in the page 137 of my book published in 2006, concerning to the oxygen nucleus 8O116, where it is written the following:
Note that as the 8O16 has a null nuclear magnetic moment m=0, then its nuclear spin cannot be aligned toward a direction by applying an external magnetic field, and so its nuclear spin can indeed be chaotic. So the x-y plane has a chaotic rotation, and the six nucleons 1H2 performs the surface of a sphere, and the z-axis has a chaotic rotation around the center of the nucleus 8O16. By consequence the 8O16 behaves like if it should be a spherical distribution of positives loads, and not a flat distribution. That’s why the 8O16 has Q(b) = 0.
Yep, that sounds like Guglinski's usual gibberish. There is no sense in which this makes sense, and no sense in which it agrees with Freer's sensible statements.

Also amusing: Guglinski apparently didn't notice that "news and Views" is Nature's feature for reporting, i.e. third-party writers summarizing published research for more-general audiences. He wrote to Freer, author of the news summary, not to Ebran, who performed (and wrote up) the actual research.
ben m is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2012, 05:07 PM   #341
AlBell
Philosopher
 
AlBell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,360
Originally Posted by pedrone View Post
In the ZPEnergy link:


In 18 July 2012 Martin Freer had published in News & Views the article “Nuclear physics: Nucleons come together”, and I sent him the following comment:


Dear Martin Freer
With that distribution of charge of the 10Ne20 structure shown in Figure 1, how to explain that 10Ne20 has null electric quadrupole momentum ? That structure shown in Figure 1 is not spherical, and therefore 10Ne20 could not have null electric quadrupole momentum (detected in experiments concerning nuclear data)
Regards
WLADIMIR GUGLINSKI




And he sent me the following reply:

Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 07:53:09 +0100
From: M.Freer@bham.ac.uk
To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: ?spam? Re: Nuclear physics: Nucleons come together
The nucleus is intrinsically deformed as shown, but has spin 0. Consequently, there is no preferred orientation in the laboratory frame and thus the experimental quadrupole is an average over all orientations and hence is zero. Experimentally is is possible to show that the deformation of the ground state is non zero by breaking the symmetry and rotating the nucleus.
Martin



His explanation is just the same explanation proposed in the page 137 of my book published in 2006, concerning to the oxygen nucleus 8O116, where it is written the following:
Note that as the 8O16 has a null nuclear magnetic moment m=0, then its nuclear spin cannot be aligned toward a direction by applying an external magnetic field, and so its nuclear spin can indeed be chaotic. So the x-y plane has a chaotic rotation, and the six nucleons 1H2 performs the surface of a sphere, and the z-axis has a chaotic rotation around the center of the nucleus 8O16. By consequence the 8O16 behaves like if it should be a spherical distribution of positives loads, and not a flat distribution. That’s why the 8O16 has Q(b) = 0.


In spite of the nucleus 8O16 (and also the 10Ne20) have a total nuclear spin zero, however the nucleus has a rotation (and such rotation I had called “spin” in my argument). So, the idea proposed by me was the same idea mentioned by Martin Freer, used by the authors of the paper “How atomic nuclei cluster”
"I sent..." implying WLADIMIR GUGLINSKI == pedrone.
AlBell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2012, 05:36 PM   #342
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
 
CapelDodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cardiff, South Wales
Posts: 25,100
Originally Posted by pedrone View Post
According to current Nuclear Physics, the nuclei have a spherical distribution of the protons and neutrons within the nuclei.
The nuclei of what?

Quote:
Read more:


Rest assured that I'm not going to.
__________________
It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898)

God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150
CapelDodger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2012, 05:50 PM   #343
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
 
CapelDodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cardiff, South Wales
Posts: 25,100
Originally Posted by Kid Eager View Post
you seem to not understand what plagiarism is
pedrone seem to not understand what plagiarism is.

It's an open question whether pedrone understands anything that can be expressed in a known or even hypothetical language. I was born beyond caring; I'm just here for the slghtly guilty pleasure of watching an idiot getting turned-over in a stylish manner.
__________________
It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898)

God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150
CapelDodger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2012, 06:22 PM   #344
ben m
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
Guglinski doesn't understand plagiarism at a really hilarious level:

from the ZPEngy link:

Quote:

Also, I recommend that, before to publish new papers regarding any new model of the nucleus, the editors of Nature should suggest to the authors to read my book, in order to avoid future plagiarisms.
ben m is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2012, 06:29 PM   #345
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,500
Any one see the idiotic comment at the bottom of the letter?
"Also, I recommend that, before to publish new papers regarding any new model of the nucleus, the editors of Nature should suggest to the authors to read my book, in order to avoid future plagiarisms."

So W. Guglinski has the delusion that he has some kind of copyright on science.
But wait - there were models of the nucleus before his book. Thus it is W. Guglinski who is the plagiarist (according to his logic) !

ETA
Whoops - ben m saw it!

Last edited by Reality Check; 13th August 2012 at 06:30 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2012, 04:47 AM   #346
pedrone
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 508
Subject: RE: plagiarism in the journal Nature
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 20:52:03 +0100
From: J.Dunning-Davies@hull.ac.uk
To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com


Dear Wladimir,
Sorry to hear about this but it certainly wouldn't be the first time Nature has 'sailed close to the wind'. I myself had a piece published there after I'd taken the then editor (John Maddox) to the Press Complaints Commission. In the end they told him to publish in two weeks or else. On another occasion, Nature printed an article with a reference that simply didn't exist. Frankly, it may have had a good name in the past but it doesn't deserve one now and certainly doesn't deserve the rating it gets!
Hope things work out here. Do please let me know what transpires.
Best wishes,
Jeremy.


Jeremy Dunning-Davies
President
Telesio - Galilei Academy of Science
http://www.telesio-galilei.com/tg/
pedrone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2012, 04:53 AM   #347
pedrone
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 508
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 13:26:38 +0200
Subject: Re: plagiarism in the journal Nature
From: sorli.bistra@gmail.com
To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
CC: aleggett@uiuc.edu

Hi,

this guys only publish what they want,
they forgot physics is only about facts
SR is not physical theory in only mathematical theory

yours Amrit
pedrone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2012, 05:11 AM   #348
pedrone
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 508
Mod WarningBreach of rule 4 removed.
Responding to this mod box in thread will be off topic Posted By:Cuddles


http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?...&thold=0#14488

Last edited by Cuddles; 15th August 2012 at 03:48 AM.
pedrone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2012, 05:35 AM   #349
fagin
Philosopher
 
fagin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: As far away from casebro as possible.
Posts: 7,070
I'd be a tad annoyed if some idiot was posting my email address etc on a public forum.
__________________
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
fagin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2012, 09:47 AM   #350
ben m
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
Pedrone, are you here to *discuss* anything, or are you just going to post random quotes from Guglinski's correspondence?

Those aware of the Zeuzzz//etc. plasma-cosmology fandom may recognize Jeremy Dunning-Davies' name.
ben m is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2012, 09:57 AM   #351
Spindrift
Time Person of the Year, 2006
 
Spindrift's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Right here!
Posts: 19,246
Originally Posted by pedrone View Post
Subject: RE: plagiarism in the journal Nature
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 20:52:03 +0100
From: J.Dunning-Davies@hull.ac.uk
To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com


Dear Wladimir,
Sorry to hear about this but it certainly wouldn't be the first time Nature has 'sailed close to the wind'. I myself had a piece published there after I'd taken the then editor (John Maddox) to the Press Complaints Commission. In the end they told him to publish in two weeks or else. On another occasion, Nature printed an article with a reference that simply didn't exist. Frankly, it may have had a good name in the past but it doesn't deserve one now and certainly doesn't deserve the rating it gets!
Hope things work out here. Do please let me know what transpires.
Best wishes,
Jeremy.


Jeremy Dunning-Davies
President
Telesio - Galilei Academy of Science
http://www.telesio-galilei.com/tg/
Jeremy Dunning-Davies

http://drmyronevans.wordpress.com/20...unning-davies/
__________________
I've always believed that cluelessness evolved as an adaptation to allow the truly appalling to live with themselves. - G. B. Trudeau
A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. - Kay, Men in Black.
Enjoy every sandwich. - Warren Zevon
Spindrift is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2012, 10:04 AM   #352
dlorde
Philosopher
 
dlorde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,859
Originally Posted by fagin View Post
I'd be a tad annoyed if some idiot was posting my email address etc on a public forum.
Possible breach of Rule 8 ?
__________________
Simple probability tells us that we should expect coincidences, and simple psychology tells us that we'll remember the ones we notice...
dlorde is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2012, 02:54 PM   #353
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,500
Originally Posted by pedrone View Post
Subject: RE: plagiarism in the journal Nature
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 20:52:03 +0100
From: J.Dunning-Davies@hull.ac.uk
To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
...
Oh dear - we ready have Guglinski who is totally ignorant of the meaning of plagiarism and now you quote an email from someone supporting that ignorance!
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2012, 02:55 PM   #354
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,500
Originally Posted by pedrone View Post
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 13:26:38 +0200
Subject: Re: plagiarism in the journal Nature
From: sorli.bistra@gmail.com
To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
CC: aleggett@uiuc.edu
...
yours Amrit
Another ignorant person with a conspiracy theory!
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2012, 04:11 PM   #355
ben m
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
Originally Posted by Spindrift View Post
Where does it end? Yes, this post is perfectly correct---Dunning-Davies is part of the bizarre, litigious, self-congratulatory, and vaguely scammy-sounding world of Fucilla, Santilli, and co.---a bunch of pseudoscientists and nobodies who give one another awards and start shell companies together.

But the writer, Myron Evans, is *himself* a crackpot, known for vaguely self-congratulatory behavior, publishing his theory in crackpot journals, winning meaningless awards, etc.. In fact, Evans is to Wales pretty much exactly what Santilli is to Italy. Minus the scammy-sounding shell companies.

I'm sure that some googling could turn up *another* crackpot complaining about how Myron Evans mistreated him. And so on. Bottomless.

Last edited by ben m; 14th August 2012 at 04:16 PM.
ben m is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2012, 04:40 PM   #356
gerdbonk
Penultimate Amazing
 
gerdbonk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Ángeles de Porciúncula
Posts: 21,977
Originally Posted by ben m View Post
Where does it end? Yes, this post is perfectly correct---Dunning-Davies is part of the bizarre, litigious, self-congratulatory, and vaguely scammy-sounding world of Fucilla, Santilli, and co.---a bunch of pseudoscientists and nobodies who give one another awards and start shell companies together.

But the writer, Myron Evans, is *himself* a crackpot, known for vaguely self-congratulatory behavior, publishing his theory in crackpot journals, winning meaningless awards, etc.. In fact, Evans is to Wales pretty much exactly what Santilli is to Italy. Minus the scammy-sounding shell companies.

I'm sure that some googling could turn up *another* crackpot complaining about how Myron Evans mistreated him. And so on. Bottomless.
So, it's crackpots all the way down?
__________________
I'll bet you didn't notice that I was Totally ExoneratedTM when I wrote this.

Disavow any knowledge of my twitter here.
gerdbonk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2012, 05:01 PM   #357
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Yokohama, Japan
Posts: 26,325
Originally Posted by ben m View Post
Guglinski doesn't understand plagiarism at a really hilarious level:

from the ZPEngy link:


Thanks. That's the funniest thing I read all week.
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2012, 11:50 PM   #358
John Hewitt
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 924
Would people please post stating :-

1. What ideas, material or text has supposedly been plagiarized?
2. Who are the authors of the supposed plagiarism?
3. Where was the original publication?
4. Which parties and vested interests are hidden under the preudonyms used on this forum?

Please refrain from pejorative language.
__________________
Evolution and Origin . http://www.evolution-origin.co.uk
A Habit of Lies: How Scientists Cheat
.
http://www.habitoflies.co.uk
John Hewitt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2012, 12:01 AM   #359
PixyMisa
Persnickety Insect
 
PixyMisa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sunny Munuvia
Posts: 16,343
Originally Posted by John Hewitt View Post
4. Which parties and vested interests are hidden under the preudonyms used on this forum?
Most of us are in the pay of the Wisconsin Dairy Farmers' Co-operative, A.K.A Big Cheese.
__________________
Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu
What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO
PixyMisa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2012, 12:09 AM   #360
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 54,930
Originally Posted by John Hewitt View Post
Would people please post stating :-

1. What ideas, material or text has supposedly been plagiarized?
2. Who are the authors of the supposed plagiarism?
3. Where was the original publication?
All this is covered in the material quoted by pedrone throughout this thread, including, notably, in the OP.

Quote:
4. Which parties and vested interests are hidden under the preudonyms used on this forum?
I represent the Lollipop Guild. There used to be more of us, but we've come up short, like ten midgets in a brawl.

Quote:
Please refrain from pejorative language.
Oops.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:03 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.