# Aether Structure for unification between gravity and electromagnetism

.

by
retired, author of the Quantum Ring Theory
.
In the book Quantum Ring Theory I had proposed a double-field model for elementary particles (composed by two concentric fields), therefore a field model fundamentally different of the mono-field model considered in the Quantum Electrodynamics  (QED).
The inner field, named principal field Sp, gyrates and induces the outer field, named secondary field Sn.  In the book, published in 2006, it was considered that the outer field Sn gyrates.
In this model, the outer field Sn is responsible for the electric charge of the particles as the electron, the proton, etc.
Later in 2010 I changed the  double-field model, by considering that the outer field Sn does not gyrates.  However, in 2014, after a long discussion with the reader Mr.Joe in the Comments of the Journal of Nuclear Physics, he drew our attention to two key points:
1. An outer field Sn induced by the rotation of an inner field Sp must have rotation.
2. A mono-field model violates the monopolar nature of the electric charge in the even-even nuclei with Z=N, because they have null magnetic moment, but as all the nuclei have rotation then the even-even nuclei with Z=N would have to have non-null magnetic moment (because the rotation of the positive charge of the proton would have to induce a magnetic moment). Therefore QED violates the monopolar nature of the electric charge in the case of the even-even nuclei with Z=N.
3. A double-field model in which the outer field Sn gyrates would have to induce a magnetic field in the case of even-even nuclei with Z=N, if we consider the field Sn in the classical sense of Euclidian space.  But the space considered in Quantum Ring Theory is not Euclidian, in order that the rotation of the field Sn never induces magnetic fields, and this is the reason why the even-even nuclei with Z=N have null magnetic moment.
Here we will analyse these questions in details.
.
.

### 538 comments to Aether Structure for unification between gravity and electromagnetism

• Joe

Without an absolute frame of reference such as an aether, would it still be possible to determine which of the twins was moving faster? Perhaps by emitting signals to each other in an agreed frequency, the slow twin would receive signals in a smaller frequency due to the dilated time in the fast twin’s frame of reference. (Conversely, the fast twin would receive signals in a larger frequency from the slow twin.) Both of them would then know who the slow or fast twin is?

All the best,
Joe

• Andrea Rossi

Valeriy Tarasov:
Albert Einstein based his theory on experimental results.
Thousands of experiments have confirmed the SRT; to cite some:
– the muon experiment
– Rossi and Hall experiment
– Hafele and Keating experiment
Now: do you want an experiment to validate the SRT you do probably everyday, as well as most of our Readers , even if they perhaps don’t know? The GPS you use to reach a destination is a proof of the SRT. Make the experiment now, set up your GPS to go somewhere: if it works, it is a proof of the SRT, if it does not work, change it ( the GPS, not the SRT).
On the contrary, no repeatable experiment has been able to give evidence that the SRT is wrong.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

eernie1 wrote in February 10th, 2015 at 6:51 PM

I cannot believe the father of the relativistic wave function would need to couch his theory in semantics. One of the reasons he combined the electron and positron was to create an entity that possessed an integer spin thereby giving it the characteristics of a Boson, allowing it to reach the speed of light like the photon, without the increase of mass to infinity as his formula required for Fermions(fractional spins).
————————————————-

Dear Eernie,
I have no interest in the Diract theory, because he proposed it with the aim of explaining the phenomena concerning the light ONLY.

Unlike, with the structure of aether proposed in my Quantum Ring Theory I propose to explain other phenomena, as the formation of magnetic and electric fields, the gravity, etc. And what is the most important: how the particles of the aether contribute for the formation of the structure of the atomic nuclei and their stability.

There is no way to apply a structure of aether formed by positron-electron, proposed by Dirac, in my nuclear model.

regards

Joe wrote in February 10th, 2015 at 2:05 PM

How does QRT resolve the Twins Paradox?
———————————————–

Joe,
the paradox exists only when we consider it from the Einstein’s theory, because as he considered the space as empty, you cannot consider any referencial frame at rest, and there is no way to make distinction between the two twins.

But having the aether as a referencial frame at rest, we can refer each one of the twins regarding the aether, as follows:
* The two twins Joe and Peter are in a planet with speed v regarding to the aether
* The twin Peter goes away the planet in a spacecraft moving with speed V.
Being V> v, Joe will age faster than Peter.

regards

• eernie1

I cannot believe the father of the relativistic wave function would need to couch his theory in semantics. One of the reasons he combined the electron and positron was to create an entity that possessed an integer spin thereby giving it the characteristics of a Boson, allowing it to reach the speed of light like the photon, without the increase of mass to infinity as his formula required for Fermions(fractional spins). It also allowed a description of the charge difference between a proton(composed of approx. 700 EPOs) and an electron(1/2 the apparent mass of an EPO). Each particle was also surrounded by a large number of EPOs thereby transferring any photonic reaction at light speed. The photonic nature of the EPO was demonstrated by the fact that when the phases of the two waves were properly aligned, the EPO resolved into two photons of a total energy of a little more than 1Mev.
There are more considerations including a possible solution to dark energy which are hinted at in his theory, but that is another story.
Regards and further delightful thoughts.

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

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

There is no honesty in the scientific community

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

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

• 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

• Peter Forsberg

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

• Joe

How does QRT resolve the Twins Paradox?

All the best,
Joe

• Andrea Rossi

Peter Forsberg:
He,he,he…maybe !
Warm Regards,
A.R.

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

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

regards

• 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

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

Dear Mr. Guglinski

—————————————-

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

Cold fusion mystery finally deciphered
Similarity between Wave Structure of Matter and Quantum Ring Theory
PowerPedia:Successes of the Bohr atom
PowerPedia:Quantum Ring Theory at Temple University
PowerPedia:Quantum Ring Theory burnt in a Brazillian university
PowerPedia:Foundations for Cold Fusion
PowerPedia:on the indistinguishibility of Quantum Mechanics
PowerPedia:magnetic monopole – new experiment corroborates Quantum Ring Theory
PowerPedia:quantum computer will never be constructed
PowerPedia:… and Schrödinger wins the duel with Heisenberg
PowerPedia:the mistery on the Andrea Rossi’s catalyzer

PowerPedia:Don Borghi’s experiment
PowerPedia:Cold Fusion Theories
PowerPedia:Cold fusion, Don Borghi’s Experiment, and hydrogen atom
PowerPedia:Einstein and entanglement: Guglinski interviews Dr. John Stachel
PowerPedia:Are there five fundamental forces in Nature?
Article: How zitterbewegung contributes for cold fusion in Pamela Mosier-Boss experiment
Repulsive gravity within the hydrogen atom

Script on the film Quantum Ring Theory:

PowerPedia:Guglinski’s Model of the Photon
PowerPedia:Guglinski on the De Broglie Paradox
PowerPedia:Zitterbewegung Hydrogen Atom of Quantum Ring Theory
PowerPedia:New model of neutron: explanation for cold fusion
Article: How magnet motors work
Article: AN INCOHERENCE OF RELATIVITY ELIMINATED WITH A PHOTON MODEL

Article: New nuclear model of Quantum Ring Theory corroborated by John Arrington’s experiment
Article:Quantum Field Theory is being developed in the wrong way

regards

• 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.

Greetings

Alexvs

• Peter Forsberg

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

eernie1 wrote in February 9th, 2015 at 6:29 PM

The more you describe your idea of the Ether(Aether),the more in my opinion it resembles the sea of EPOs that Dirac proposed made up the Ether. He proposed a combination of a negative wave(electron)and a positive wave(positron)rotating at the speed of light,
———————————————————

Dear Eernie,
in spite of my idea of the Aether resembles the Dirac’s EPOs, in my opinion a photon composed by positron-electron cannot reproduce all the properties of the photon.

Eernie,
Dirac proposed a photon composed by positron+electron because they are two particles detected by experiments.
Dirac did it because he hoped his theory would be more acceptable if he would propose a model of photon composed by particles already detected experimentally.

He knew that his theory would have a biggest rejection if he would propose a model of photon composed by particle and antiparticle of the Aether (as is proposed by me).
So,
in order to reduce the resistance against his model of photon, he had proposed a model formed by positron and electron.

regards

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

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

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

• eernie1

The more you describe your idea of the Ether(Aether),the more in my opinion it resembles the sea of EPOs that Dirac proposed made up the Ether. He proposed a combination of a negative wave(electron)and a positive wave(positron)rotating at the speed of light, out of phase and polarized, with one end of the EPO negative and the other end positive. All space, he postulated, was filled end to end with the EPOS negative end to positive end and extending from one end of space to the other. The EPOs would exist in their lowest energy state, below what he envisioned as a zero point level. In order to be observed, a quantity of the EPOs would have to be excited by an external energy to escape this ground state and produce a thermodynamic effect. He postulated that they would emerge in clumps and arrange themselves as neutrons which would then decay to a proton by ejecting an electron wave from one of the EPOs which then formed a basic Hydrogen atom. The rest of what we call matter then would be formed from this production of H through the processes we are familiar with in our Cosmological studies. Since the spin number of the EPOS is an integer, it is not constrained by the uncertainty principal and can occupy each others positions even though possessing the same Quantum features. When photons are generated by the various physical processes they travel through the EPO strings at a rate controlled by the rotation of the waves(speed of light=c).
Can you please comment since this description for me provides an insight to what the real constituents comprise the Ether?

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

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

• Andrea Rossi

Peter Forsberg:
Thank you!
Warm Regards,
A.R.

• Peter Forsberg

Dear Andrea,

I understand your point of view.

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.
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:
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,

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

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

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

• Andrea Rossi

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.

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

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:

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

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

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

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

• Joe

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

• Andrea Rossi

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.

• 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 wrote in February 7th, 2015 at 7:04 PM

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.

After 2011 your opinion has 0% of chance to be right.

regards

• Peter Forsberg

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

• Andrea Rossi

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.

Andrea Rossi wrote in February 7th, 2015 at 9:11 AM

My solid opinion is that “Aether” does not exist.
—————————————————————

Dear Andrea Rossi,
the aether was detected experimentaly:
A vacuum can yield flashes of light
http://www.nature.com/news/a-vacuum-can-yield-flashes-of-light-1.12430

A structure for the aether was proposed in a paper published by the European Physical Journal, in 2013, where the authors propose that the aether is formed by particles and antiparticles, as proposed in my book Quatum Ring Theory, published in 2006:
The quantum vacuum as the origin of the speed of light

The scientific community uses to call the aether by other name: quantum vacuum.
But no matter what name we give to the aether, the fact is that the space is not empty as proposed by Einstein, and therefore the aether exists, and by consequence the aether has a structure.

Obviously the structure proposed in the paper published by the European Physical Journal is incomplete, because those authors proposed a simple structure only with the aim for explaining the emission of light by the space, while I had proposed a structure for the space with the aim for explaining several other phenomena, including the stability of the atomic nuclei.

Of course in the future the theorists will arrive to the conclusion that a more complex structure is need than that proposed in the European Physical Journal, and they will finally arrive to the conclusion that the structure of the aether proposed by me is correct.

I respect your opinion, dear Andrea Rossi.
However I cannot neglect the results of experiments, as that which detected the existence of the quantum vacuum (aether), and so I prefer to keep my opinion that the aether exists.

regards

• Robert Curto

Dr. Rossi, have no fear of someone taking you “out.”
Anyone with one ounce of brain power knows that would have ZERO effect on the development of the E-Cat.
You have already given IH enough of your brain power so that they could continue without you, and everyone that would do you harm is well aware of that fact.
Robert Curto
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
USA

• Andrea Rossi

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.

To the readers of the JoNP:

With the present paper “Aether Structure for unification between gravity and electromagnetism” published now in the JoNP, my opinion is that we have an entire theory for a complete explanation for the cold fusion phenomena thanks to the the combination between the present paper published herein and the other paper published in Peswiki in 2014:

“Cold fusion mystery finally deciphered”
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Cold_fusion_mystery_finally_deciphered

I am very thankful to Andrea Rossi and his staff of the JoNP

regards

• JonJon

Milva,
Andrea must exercise extreme caution, when appearing in the public. Not hard to imagine there are “dogs” would want him D##d or detained.
This is a dangerous time for him.

• Andrea Rossi

Milva:
First of all, thank you for your kind attention.
1- I cannot leave the 1 MW plant in operation in the USA
2- The replications made are very interesting. Our IP is related to apparatuses that are able to produce energy in a reliable way and in amount useful for industrial and domestic real utilizations
3- I can just take notice of what is happening
4- Maybe
5- We got already the safety certifications necessary for the industrial application, about the domestic apparatuses we are continuing to work upon this issue too.
6- Soon I do not think, sooner or later yes.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

• Milva

Hi Dear Andrea, how are you?
reading your Journal you seem very active and energetic as always! But how do you do ?! 🙂
Considered that for so long I have not written to you, I would like to know a few things, if you will take the patience to answer:
1. are you coming to Padua in April for the 19th ICCF! It should be a very great event with your presence, considering that this year this annual event will take place in your native Country (I try to whet your emotions, as you see 🙂 ),
2. What you are doing has aroused enormous interest in LENR. Nobody has the courage to say that the LENR does not exist, now ! Indeed, there are people who try to reproduce, with some success, your experiments, as simple as it seems the formula. But I just cannot believe that everything is there, as expressed in TPRII?  Considering how hardly you worked to keep the secret and preserve your IP, if everything was in those simple formulas it would be really reductive ?!
3. But it seems that what you have revealed is sufficient to create positive replicas, even if not industrially exploitable with these values?
4. Considering that now the road is open, maybe that someone else will add some ideas, some new technology; so it will quickly take off towards the final goal that we all hope!
5. I also wanted to know something about the certifications of your apparatuses. You do not talk about it anymore. Has you continued with that and with which results ?
6. Is there any possibility that soon something will be ready also for the market household, too?
Many thanks and… I wish you good job.
Warm regards
Milva

• Andrea Rossi

Andreas Moraitis:
thank you for the important information, this is another replication of the so called Rossi Effect and a confirm, in general, of the LENR.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

• Andreas Moraitis

Dear Andrea Rossi,

This new paper has been found by a blog user:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1502.01474

Best regards,
Andreas Moraitis

• Andrea Rossi

JC Renoir:
Industrial Heat has published today on Ecatworld a statement I fully share.
Warm Regards,
A.R.