# 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

• Andrea Rossi

Sergio Caterina:
Thank you for your kind words.
So far let’s fly down and think to make our 1 MW plant work well and please remember that this technology will integrate, if it works well, in the existing system.
About publishing the know how, it would stop any serious investment. I already commented many times this issue.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

• Salve Dr Andrea
Sono un suo Fan, la seguo da diversi anni giornalmente sia sul blog che sulle varie news. . . pensi che sono in lista per 4 e-cat domestici “spero per un futuro immediato” …
la mia domanda è: a quando il cambio di era? non è curioso di vedere cosa accade pubblicando integralmente i progetti in rete? scavalcare ogni pregiudizio economico, prospettare un vero e proprio cambio di era, fine delle guerre, fine del petrolio… chissà come sarà la vita nel mondo..

• Andrea Rossi

Frank Acland:
Absolutely yes: as I answered also to Mark Ellenbroek, I am very useful to the Team, but not indispensable as I was one year ago.
This said, it’s quite unlikely that I will retire, at least not as long as God leaves me on this World.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

• Frank Acland

Dear Andrea,

I know it is not in your nature to retire from your work on the E-Cat, and I don’t expect this to happen, but let me pose a hypothetical:

If you decided tomorrow to move on to do something different with your life, could you leave feeling confident that your Team would have the skill and knowledge to bring the E-Cat successfully to the marketplace?

Kind regards,

Frank Acland

• Andrea Rossi

Mark Ellenbroek:
I am very useful to my Team, but I am not indispensable.
Besides, this technology is not an either or and it will be a support, not an enemy.
Thank you for your attention:
Warm Regards
A.R.

• Marc Ellenbroek

Dear Andrea,
At this moment you are working on a device which may well become the most important invention of the century. More and more scientists are recognizing your work and it will not take long before the E-cat will enter the market, I hope.
The E-cat will be disruptive to the energy market in the world. Many will profit by it, but also many (very rich) will be bankrupted. Those who will suffer will be forceful enemies of the work you are doing and they will try to stop you getting it on the market. They will use any means to do this, which may also be dangerous for you.
Apart from the personal tragedy, it would be a catastrophe for your work when something would happen to you. I am sure you realize that.
My question to you is: Have you taken action to avoid that if something would happen to you, your invention would ever be lost?

• Joe

1. In QRT, do non-rotating particles exist? (These would obviously be lacking gravitational fluxes n(o).)

2. Perhaps there exist two varieties of F(g):
i) strong
ii) residual

In the case of (i), at very short distances, F(g) is responsible for binding quarks together.
In the case of (ii), perhaps a lack of perfect coherence (“friction”, as you call it) in the gravitational fluxes n(o) of strong F(g) causes an amount of gravitons g to be continually left out to extend into the immediate environment outside the nucleons. The density of these gravitons g within these outer fluxes n(o) would obviously be smaller, and therefore residual F(g) would take on the usual characteristic of a smaller force than strong F(g).

All the best,
Joe

Joe wrote in February 15th, 2015 at 12:51 PM

If you define the strong nuclear force as the interaction between gravitational fluxes n(o), then what is the force responsible for holding the three quarks of a nucleon together?
——————————————————

I did not propose a model for quarks.
There would need to study the subject, in order to verify if a quark has its own gravitational flux n(o), and it interacts with the other quarks via strong force.

The rotation of the 3 quarks would induce the gravitational flux n(o) of the protona and electrons

regards

• Joe

If you define the strong nuclear force as the interaction between gravitational fluxes n(o), then what is the force responsible for holding the three quarks of a nucleon together?

All the best,
Joe

• Bernie Koppenhofer

Dr. Rossi: It is long overdue for you to put some limits on Mr. Guglinski’s comments. Thank you.

• Andrea Rossi

You wrote in a recent comment you posted in this blog:
“..there are some events you do not know and are forcing my silence” ( Sic !!!)
Please do not be ridiculous.
I gave you an enormous room in this blog, so that you had all the possibility to explain your theories, that I think are completely wrong, but nonetheless I wanted to publish them . I wanted to help you anyway to explain yourself, because I see that you are putting enthusiasm in what you say, wrong or right as it might be. I share the statement that Evelyn Beatrice Hall attributed ( wrongly) to Voltaire, which sounded like ” I do not agree with you, but I am ready to be killed to defend your right to speak”.
This said, recently you tried to involve me in your discussions, and I warned you that I want not to be involved, therefore I am simply spamming all the comments of yours in which you try to involve in your theories me and Professors that never heard about you and are totally not interested in aetheric issues.
I am continuing to publish all your comments, as I did today, and to spam any comment from you that tries to involve me in a discussion regarding your theories.
The two Professors that you are insulting and bullying with arrogance do not know me, do not know you, do not have, I suppose, any intention to answer to all your stuff. I simply suggested to you ( very humbly, not having your tremendous nuclear Physics background) to read their text because I supposed you could learn more about photons, in a rigorous way. You, instead of studying that book, are insulting the Authors who are, I repeat, totally strange to whatever you do and do not know what I wrote to you in this blog and what you wrote everywhere. They teach nuclear Physics in one of the most important Universities of the world ( Institut fur Teoretische Physik der Johann Wolfgang Goethe – Universitat Frankfurt). The book we are talking about is “Nuclear Models” of W. Greiner and J.A. Maruhn. Conjugating the reading of this book with “Models of the Atomic Nucleus” of Prof Norman Cook I have improved my work.
I will not return on this point, therefore, in a nutshell: do not involve me again in your comments, if you want me not to spam them. The only thing that ” is forcing your silence” (sic!) is that you force me to spam the comments that involve me in discussions regarding your theories.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

My reply to Vlad in the ZPenergy

I write herein in the ZPenergy not only for the readers of the present days. I write also for the readers of the future.
When in the future the aether will be finally accepted by the scientific community, the science historians will be looking for the historical events that marked the rejection of the ether in Physics, and one of their sources for searching for historical records will be the pages of the ZPenergy.

regards

eernie1 wrote in February 14th, 2015 at 2:11 PM

You do not have to answer this blog, but I…
—————————————————-

Dear Eernie
there are some events you do not know and are forcing my silence.

Let me explain why I cannot accept Dirac’s theory.

In the Quantum Ring Theory the electric and magnetic fields are formed by a flux composed by the motion of particles e(+), m(+), p(+), g(+), G(+) , and their antiparticles.

The electric and magnetic fields of the proton and the electron are formed by the those fluxes. The electric and magnetic fields of the atomic nuclei is also formed by those fluxes.
And there is no way to consider a flux composed by electrons and positrons in my model of proton, electron, and nuclear model.

I am very sorry Diract is not alive.
If he were alive, I am sure Dirac would be very interested in my theory, and he would realize that my theory is more complete than that proposed by he (after all , he never proposed a nuclear model formed by the structure of aether formed by electrons and positrons).

regards

Joe wrote in February 14th, 2015 at 3:26 PM

In your new QRT, you replaced the magnetic force F(M) with the gravitational force F(g). Is F(g) created by the same gravitons g that create the gravitational fluxes n(o)?
————————————————

Joe,
Yes.
Look at the Figure 5.1 at the page 10 of my paper.
The flux n(o) of the central 2He4 rotates and has “friction” with the rotation of the flux n(o) of the proton, both the fluxes n(o) being formed by gravitons g(+).

This “friction” of fluxes n(o) is the resposible for the strong nuclear force, as I show in the page 207 of my book Quantum Ring Theory, in the article Strong Nuclear Force as Consequence of Gravitational Interactions.

Obvisously such “friction” is not in the sense of the ordinary friction known in the Classical Physics.

regards

• Andrea Rossi

Italo R.:
I cannot give any suggestion regarding the technology to build a reactor resistant and reliable for long periods. As I already said, the manufacturing of the shielding of our Hot Cats is part of the IP know how. To know if a system works or not you have just to try it.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

• Italo R.

Dear Dr. Rossi, what do you think about using tungsten tube filled with tungsten foam for containing the “fuel” for hot-cat?

In the recent tests made by Parkhomov and MFMP, they have had several problems due to the fragility of alumina and for hot-spots.
Using tungsten for containing the reaction, and a foam for having a great internal surface for the powder would help for a correct running with less problems.

I have read it here:
http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/02/15/the-ultimate-dog-bone-axil-axil/

Kind Regards,
Italo R.

• Joe

SR says that two clocks suffer the same time dilation due to a common relative velocity. Each clock sees the other clock as ticking slower. But if they meet, each clock would expect the other clock to be younger (a smaller elapsed time). This paradox invalidates SR. If there is no difference in age, an aether must then exist which acts upon both clocks dilating their proper time in such a way that keeps them the same age. And if there is a difference in age, SR is falsified since SR claims that each clock sees the other as younger – and not one younger, the other older. Of course, only an aether could allow for an age difference.

NB. Although it does not apply to our discussion here, talking about relativistic velocities necessarily invokes the Composition Law for Velocities:

s = (v + u)/(1 + (vu/c^2))

(This is for the case of collinear motion.)
We must be careful to avoid the simple Galilean addition of velocities.

All the best,
Joe

• Joe

In your new QRT, you replaced the magnetic force F(M) with the gravitational force F(g). Is F(g) created by the same gravitons g that create the gravitational fluxes n(o)?

All the best,
Joe

• eernie1

You do not have to answer this blog, but I think Dirac was trying to describe more than the properties of light particles with his theory of the EPO. As an example, his theory suggested that the neutron was the primary cluster of EPOs that emerged from the sea of ground state EPOs when an external force was applied to space. This neutron then degenerated into a proton and electron thereby answering the question of why a proton and electron have the same amount of charge(negative and positive). This was his answer also to the question of why there seems to be much more matter than antimatter. The antimatter resides inside the neutrons and protons within the EPOs that constitute them. It also is an answer to why there are equal numbers of electrons and protons in the universe, and why the number of neutrons are not proportional to the other particles. He also suggested that gravitational forces arise from the attraction of the aligned bipolar EPOs. The electric and magnetic fields he used in his description arose naturally through his use of the spinor field base in his theory as well as the spin quantum number associated with the Fermions.
For myself, his theory provides as close and acceptable a unified theory as any other I have studied. As you and others have stated there are questions that can be asked of any accepted paradigm, and as shown by the differences among other contributors to this site can lead to interesting discussions.
Regards and happy hunting theory grounds.

• Andrea Rossi

Curiosone:
Yesterday we had problems with the control system, eventually fixed.
Today ( Saturday) I can see that so far all is ok.
Warm Regards
A.R.

• Andrea Rossi

JC Renoir:
We have a back up.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

• Andrea Rossi

M.Sc. Enrico Billi:
Thank you for your information, very interesting and important. Of course the quest is on! Thanks to the great work of my Team, though.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
P.S.
Lavolale, Lavolale!

• Andrea Rossi

Joya del Sol:
It is not true that several years ago we were testing a 1 MW plant in the premises of an industrial Customer. I never said that.
We are doing it now. The future will depend on the final results of the tests on course. The results could be positive, as we hope, but also negative, as I have to say. This plant is the first commercial plant in operation in the world making thermal energy necessary to an industrial manufacturing concern, inside the premises of the Customer. This plant’s efficiency is not just measured on the base of scientific calculations, as happened up to now, but mainly on the base of the energy costs related to the manufacturing system of the Customer: what counts for the Customer are not the scientific calculations, but the money he makes ( or loses) using the E-Cat instead of a regular plant.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Joe wrote in February 11th, 2015 at 5:01 PM

I think that SR might allow knowledge of which twin is faster, but I do not know if SR can allow knowledge of the absolute speed. (After all. that is why SR exists.) Maybe it depends on the Lorentz beta factor.

For example,
——————————————————————-

Joe, the puzzle is not reagarding to get knowledge of which thin has faster speed. The puzzle is concerning why one of them ages faster in the empty space.

For instance, consider that Joe and Peter are in a planet with relativistic speed V having a motion toward a right direction in the space.

And Peter exits the planet in a spacecraft with the same relativistic speed V having a motion in the contrary direction of the planet motion in the sapce (tbe spacecraft moves in the left direction in the space).

So, as the space is empty, both Peter and Joe move with relativistic speed V in the space.
Would one of them age faster ?

regards

• Joya del Sol

Dear Dr. Rossi,

I am returning to your website/blog after a few years. Last time I was here, you were going to test the E-cat at your 1st industrial customer’s premises. However it seems your plans for commercial launch have slowed down. I am still curious though about the current schedule of your planned commercial launch for the general public and when the world at large can experience the wonders of your technology. Please share your current plans for the E-cat.

Thanks and Regards,
Joya Del Sol

Joe,
the reason why the even-even nuclei with Z=N have null magnetic moment is explained in the page 11 of the present paper:

———————————————————————
So, the even-even nuclei with Z=N have magnetic moment zero because the rotation of the body-rings of the protons within the principal field of the nucleus does not induce magnetic moment due to the rotation of the nucleus. Therefore the even-even nuclei with Z=N have magnetic moment zero because:

a) In spite of the electric charge of the secondary field Sn of the nucleus is positive, however because of the property of the field Sn shown in Fig. 4.2 there is no induction of magnetic field by the rotations of the field Sn.

b) There is not induction of magnetic moments by the body-rings of deuterons within the principal field Sp of any even-even nucleus with Z=N, since each pair of deuterons cancell each other their magnetic moment.
—————————————————————————-

Joe,
also note that the gravity force Fg , in the present paper, responsible for the agglutination of the nucleons within a nucleus, is similar to the strong nuclear force considered in the Standard Model, because the strong nuclear force can have gravitational origin (the strong nuclear force is a sort of dynamic gravity, a hypothesis shared by some physicists).

What did you think about the paper?

regards

• Dear Andrea,

today i got this new replication news from Russia. Do we facing a new “Space Race”? Can we call it “Low Energy Nuclear Race”

http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Andrea-Rossi-Vindicated-Cold-Fusion-Takes-Another-Step-Towards-Credibility.html

LavoLaLe lavoLaLe
Enrico Billi

• JCRenoir

Dear Andrea Rossi:
If in the geographic area where the 1 MW Ecat is operating happens a black out, what happens to the plant? I mean: safety systems, computers, etc, since I assume the reactors can also go in self sustaining mode.
JCR

• Curiosone

Can you give us an example of the operation of the 1 MW plant in operation? For example: what happened Yesterday ? Anything anomalous? And today?
W.G.

• Andrea Rossi

Paul:
Good. Alexander Parkhomov merited this. I am honoured from this strong interest in Russia for our work.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

• Paul

Andrea,

It looks like you are not the only one interested in LENR+ jet engines:

From e-catworld: Here’s an interesting announcement about anupcoming workshop that is posted on the Russian Cold Nuclear Transmutation and CMM site (Google translated from the Russian):

19/02/2015 in CIAM workshop report “Physical and mathematical model of radiant heat in the combustion chambers of gas turbine engines and heat generation in the generators of Rossi – Parkhomov, which means the Rossi Effect as replicated by Alexander Parkomov.

On Thursday, February 19, 2015 at the Central Institute of Aviation Motors. PI Baranova, a regular meeting mezhotrasle-new scientific and technical seminar “Applied Problems of Mechanics-tinuous medium in aircraft engine.” Will make a report:

“Physical and mathematical model of radiant heat in the combustion chambers of GTE and heat generation in the generators of Rossi – Parkhomov. ”
(Authors: MJ Ivanov, VK Mamaev, MA Surin).

http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/02/09/workshop-on-rossiparkhomov-heat-at-ciam-russian-aviation-engineering-institute/

Paul

• Andrea Rossi

Hank Mills:
All I know of Alexander Parkhomov’s replication test is what I read and saw in the internet. He made a remarkable work.
I can add nothing to this comment.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

• Andrea Rossi

Robert Curto:
Thank you for the information.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

• Andrea Rossi

Marco Serra:
To answer you I’d need a cristal ball. I cannot give guarantees, but we hope within the term you cited the domestic applications will be on.
For what concerns stoves and fireplaces, I am not an enthusiast of them, since the combustion of wood in such devices, with small combustion rooms and a very short retention time of the uncombusted molecules, is usually very polluting. There is a metropolitan legend that says that to burn wood is environmentally friend: the contrary is true, wood generated smoke is very polluting ( traces of dioxin are there too) if it is not burned in a plant with an efficient post-combustion system. Besides, I am all but convinced that you will pay back them in five years.
This, obviously, is not related to the E-Cat.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

• Marco Serra

Dear Dr. Rossi
I’m currently restoring my house after a fire almost destroyed it 🙁
For heating I’m using a boiler with radiators in each room.
The question arising now is: should I switch to an alternative heating system (stove or fireplace) considering that it will pay for itself in approx. five years ?
My wife, who does not know the Rossi Effect, say yes. I say no, because I believe house heating expenses will be much much lower in 5 years.
Now I have to make a decision. Can you kindly help us sharing your opinion ?

Many thanx in advance
God bless you
Marco

• Robert Curto

Dr. Rossi, if you or your readers are interested in the 912 million dollar World’s most advanced x-ray-shooting super Lab then Google:
NSLS-II
Robert Curto
Ft. Lauderdale Florida
USA

• Hank Mills

Dear Andrea,

You have stated that you think the results of A. Parkhomov are valid and interesting. That is significant to me, because according to his data he achieved several minutes of self sustained operation at around 1200C with no input power when the resistor burned out. Of course the difference between his setup and your reactors are night and day: his are test rigs that burn out quickly, but yours have been designed to operate for months at a time. However, can you clarify if his results – specifically including short lived self sustain – should be achievable by qualified expert scientists using the same basic setup and fuel? Or are his results interesting because they were a random event that should not have happened?

• Andrea Rossi

Bernie Koppenhofer:
Alexander Parkhomov replica is very interesting, though !
As I said, the tests of the 1 MW plant delivered to our Customer will end between November 2015 and February 2016.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

• Bernie Koppenhofer

Dr. Rossi: Could you give us a hint about when the 400 days started for your industrial reactor now in use? Everyone is getting bored watching MFMP blow up reactors. (:

The Vacuum Catastrophe – Zero-Point Energy

QED is the most precise physical theory we have; its predictions have been verified to 1 part in 10 billion! The zero-point field is the “ground state” of the electromagnetic field. In this ground state, the equations indicate that no ordinary physical photons are present, yet electromagnetic energy is present. The energy for a given frequency is ½ hf , one half of the usual energy of a photon. Sometimes the zero-point field is described as consisting of “virtual” or very short-lived photons, that appear and disappear before it is possible to detect them. The presence of zero-point fluctuations has been verified experimentally with very accurate measurements of the Lamb Shift, other atomic energy level shifts, the magnetic moment of the electron, and the Casimir force. QED predicts that the number of ZP quanta (½ hf ) of frequency f is proportional to the square of the frequency. This gives an energy density for the vacuum that goes as the cube of the frequency.

Special relativity requires that any observer going through space cannot tell how fast she is going in an absolute sense. Thus the zero-point fluctuations must look the same, independent of her velocity as she travels through space. Therefore the Doppler shifted frequency spectrum must look the same as the unshifted frequency spectrum. This requirement of special relativity results in an energy density of the zero-point fluctuations identical to that predicted by QED, namely an energy density proportional to the cube of the frequency. Summing over all the frequencies present, gives a total energy density in the vacuum of which is proportional to 1/L4 where L is the shortest wavelength of the ZP fluctuations allowed. If we take L as zero, then we obtain an infinite energy. Applying quantum principles to general relativity (geometrodynamics) suggests that at lengths shorter than the Planck length (10**-35 m), the nature of space-time fluctuates, and therefore no meaning can be ascribed to a length shorter than the Planck length. Thus we could use the Planck length as a cutoff.

The energy density of the ZP fluctuations in empty space (according to QED) is about 10**114 joules/cubic meter if we use the Planck length (10**-35 m) as a cut-off.

General Relativity and Vacuum Energy
In general relativity, any form of energy has an equivalent mass, given by E = mc**2, and is therefore coupled to gravity. This enormous zero-point energy density is equivalent to a mass density of about 10**92 kg/cc, and would be expected to cause an enormous gravitational field. This large field leads to some major problems with general relativity, such as the collapse of the universe into a region of space that is about 1 Planck length across. Thus we have an inconsistency in two very important and well-verified theories, QED and General Relativity. A brief discussion of this problem is given in the excellent book “Lorentzian Wormholes” (Springer-Verlag, 1996, p. 82) by Matt Visser.

http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3598&mode=nested&order=0&thold=0#15495

.

JR wrote in February 11th, 2015 at 12:56 PM

1) ————————————————-
The point here is that the measurements do not require any sort of new “aether” to explain them; they all saw phenomena that were predicted by conventional physics.
—————————————————–

Dear JR
Marcel Urban, François Couchot, Xavier Sarazin, and Arache Djannati-Atai have different opinion than yours.
They are the authors of the paper The quantum vacuum as the origin of the speed of light, where they propose that space is filled by particles and antiparticles: “We show that the vacuum permeability μ 0 and permittivity ε 0 may originate from the magnetization and the polarization of continuously appearing and disappearing fermion pairs”.

Obviously I dont need to remmember you that their proposal is a plagiarism of my model of aether composed by particles and antiparticles, published in my book Quantum Ring Theory in 2006.

2) —————————————————————-
He seems to not understand what is meant by longitudinal vs transverse in the context of waves more generally, as light does not have transverse propagation (unless it’s some random redefinition of the word). Anyway, I know of now meaningful argument stating that transverse waves must exist in a medium.
——————————————————————–

My God !!!!
Dr. JR does not know what is a transverse propagation!!!!

Dear Dr. JR,
transverse waves are those ones which suffer polarization. Light can be polarizated. That’s why light has transverse propagation.

Electromagnetic waves such as light exhibit polarization, Sound waves in a gas or liquid do not exhibit polarization, since the oscillation is always in the direction the wave travels.
Light which can be approximated as a plane wave in free space or in an isotropic medium propagates as a transverse wave — both the electric and magnetic fields are perpendicular to the wave’s direction of travel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarization_%28waves%29

It seems you never te tired to come back to say nonsenses, Dr. JR

3) ———————————————————-
I’ve explained why his discussion of the “proton radius puzzle” is misguided, but he’s now changed his claim. In the past he claimed that the proton radius was very small, about 0.3fm.
————————————————————–

I changed nothing.
The radius of the proton 0,275fm calculated in my paper Anomalous Mass of the Neutron was made for the heavy nuclei, where the flux of gravitons crossing the ring of the proton is very strong, and causes a big shrinkage in the proton’s radius.

A free proton is crossed only the flux of gravitons of the own proton, and that’s why it has radius in order of 0,8fm.

I hope that in the experiment to be made via scattering proton-muon the radius of the proton will have a big shrinkage, because the mass of the muon is very higher than the mass of the electron, used in the older experiments via scattering proton-electron.
That’s why I expect that proton’s radius will be measured between 0,3fm and 0,6fm.

However,
let’s stop crap, and let us wait the experiments.

If the measurements will get a value very shorter than 0,8fm, I will be very eaglier hoping to hear an explanation from the experts of the Standard Model.
Then I will be glad to hear your opinion, Dr. JR.

4) ————————————————-
I’m not sure where this came from, but it will not be tested by upcoming experiments (which are looking only at a free protons), and none of these experiments involve building a new accelerator, as he claims.
—————————————————-

So,
I am a lier:

Next stepts
Another goal is to repeat the scattering experiments, but instead of shooting electrons at protons they’ll shoot muons at protons. This project, the Muon Scattering Experiment, or MUSE, is set to take place at the Paul Scherrer Institute in Switzerland. The facilities there will allow researchers to simultaneously measure electron- and muon-scattering in one experiment.
http://www.livescience.com/28707-shrinking-proton-puzzle-new-experiments.html

5) ————————————————-
I don’t have the endurance to try and understand his arguments about special relativity, but it seems clear that others are aware that his comments there make no sense.
—————————————————–

But of course never somebody will be able to surpass the nonsense you said along the discussion about the shape of fhe nucleus 10Ne20 in the Figure 1:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v487/n7407/full/nature11246.html
when you had proposed a New Geometry, claiming that the shape of the 10Ne20 in the Figure 1 is spherical, because an ellipsoid has spherical shape.

The record of nonsense is your, DR. JR.
Dont be afraid.
Never somebody will take it from you.

regards

• Joe

I think that SR might allow knowledge of which twin is faster, but I do not know if SR can allow knowledge of the absolute speed. (After all. that is why SR exists.) Maybe it depends on the Lorentz beta factor.

For example,

Scenario 1:
Object 1 travels at v = 0.
Object 2 travels at v = 10m/s.

Scenario 2:
Object 1 travels at v = 1,000m/s.
Object 2 travels at v = 1,010m/s.

Both scenarios have the two objects with the same relative velocity: 10m/s (in the same direction, of course).

Now, if the beta factor in scenario 1 is the same as that in scenario 2, then there is no way to evaluate the absolute speeds of the objects. But if the beta factor in scenario 1 is different from that in scenario 2, then absolute speeds can be evaluated. (In this latter case, SR would be denied validity.)

So if QRT wants legitimacy, it must explain how absolute speeds can actually be evaluated (with the use of the aether as an absolute frame of reference) over and against the impossibility of doing so using the paradigm of SR.

All the best,
Joe

Joe wrote in February 11th, 2015 at 1:46 AM

Without an absolute frame of reference such as an aether, would it still be possible to determine which of the twins was moving faster?
————————————————

Joe,
such question you need to do the experts in Einstein’s theory.
I confess I cannot se how.

regards

Joe wrote in February 11th, 2015 at 1:46 AM

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?
—————————————————————

Dear Joe,
there is a point: we dont know the velocity of the planets in the aether.

But consider the following:
the twin paradox makes sense only if the spacecraft has relativistic speed.
As the planets have non-relativistic speed, and as Peter is within the spacecraft moving with relativistic speed, therefore Joe will age faster, because he is in the planet moving with non-relativistic speed regarding the aether.

In the case the planet is moving with relativistic speed, then if the spacecraft exits the planet with relativistic speed in the contrary direction of the motion of the planet, then the speed of the spacecraft will be slow regarding to the aether.
So, in this case Peter will age faster, since Joe will age slowly because he is moving with the planet with relativistic speed regarding the aether.

regards

• JR

Wladimir has been repeating several of his incorrect statements about theory, experiment, etc… Since I and others have explained why these claims are wrong, I haven’t bothered repeating those explanations. But I thought I’d comment on a few new things he’s claiming:

1) Experiments prove that his aether exists. As he *finally* admits, all things people call “aether” are not the same. So the fact that aether was shown not to exist long ago by Michelson and Morley only applies to the version of “aether” that they were studying/testing. Similarly, the fact that recent experiments are able to interact with the “quantum vacuum” is a test of the quantum vacuum as it’s understood in modern physics and doesn’t test any new predictions of Wladimir’s aether. He simply claims that if something exists in space, then it must be the thing he says exits in all space. Of course, it’s not quite right to say that it exists in all space, only that when you introduce an external probe or field you can create and observe virtual particles. But this is a subtlety that’s not too important here. The point here is that the measurements do not require any sort of new “aether” to explain them; they all saw phenomena that were predicted by conventional physics.

He claims that transverse waves must exist in a medium. However, he simply asserts this as fact but gives no explanation, just an analogies to other kinds of waves (which he gets wrong). He seems to not understand what is meant by longitudinal vs transverse in the context of waves more generally, as light does not have transverse propagation (unless it’s some random redefinition of the word). Anyway, I know of now meaningful argument stating that transverse waves must exist in a medium.

I’ve explained why his discussion of the “proton radius puzzle” is misguided, but he’s now changed his claim. In the past he claimed that the proton radius was very small, about 0.3fm. He somehow believed that a discrepancy between precise measurements giving 0.88fm and ultra-precise measurements giving 0.84fm was evidence that the real radius was closer to 0.3fm. That was obvious nonsense, but he always claimed that the next measurements would give his very small radius. Now he’s changed his prediction – a frequent occurrence – to say that a free proton is large (0.8fm) and a proton in a nucleus is much smaller (0.3fm). I’m not sure where this came from, but it will not be tested by upcoming experiments (which are looking only at a free protons), and none of these experiments involve building a new accelerator, as he claims. The good news is that measurements that are now decades old have looked for a change in size of the proton in nuclei, and find that such changes must be small (well below 10%, though it’s hard to set limits that are significantly more precise), ruling out his idea of a much smaller proton in nuclei. So it doesn’t matter if the people doing new experiments know about his prediction or not; they won’t be testing his new prediction and, based on past performance, if they did he would just change it again. Of course, that’s the scientific method – make predictions, test the model, improve the model. It’s just that most people give up on a model that has yet to make any successful predictions and has to constantly be updated to fix clear flaws.

I don’t have the endurance to try and understand his arguments about special relativity, but it seems clear that others are aware that his comments there make no sense.

• Andrea Rossi

I made my point and want not to return to this discussion. It is too much audacious, from my point of view, to talk of disproving the Relativity Theory on these bases.
I have not time for further discussions on this issue, until I will read something I will be really interested to. In the meantime I remain adherent to the Special Relativity Theory.
For this reason, while the JoNP’ s blog will continue to publish your comments, independently from my point of view, please do not involve me in your discussions. Let me anyway invite you to study “Nuclear Models” of Greiner – Maruhn ( Springer, Berlin 1996, available on Amazon) in particular pp 75- 206, to get some useful foundamentals regarding photons. Unless you think you do not need it, in this case just disregard this humble suggestion of mine.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Peter Forsberg wrote in February 11th, 2015 at 7:40 AM

This is unfortunate. Since they do not perform their experiment to test a prediction of your theory, it is not likely that your theory will get at boost even if it validates your theory in this regard.

Science dogma is not only about truth. It is also about influence. You will likely not succeed if you do not achieve that as well.
————————————————————-

Dear Peter,
Galileo waited 400 year to receive a pardon request from the papa, in the name of the Church.

As happened 500 years ago, when the priests had persecuted hereges, today the scientists persecute the defenders of the Scientific Truth, in the name of the Science.

regards

Joe wrote in February 11th, 2015 at 1:46 AM

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?
—————————————————————

Joe,
if the planet is moving in the right direction with with speed V, and the spacecraft exits the planet in the left direction with speed v, then the velocity of spacecraft regading the aether is V-v.

If the spacecraft leaves the planet in the right direction, its speed regarding the aether is V+v.

if the spacecraft leaves the planet in a direction orthogonal to the motion of the planet, the speed of the spacecraft regarding the aether is (V² + v²)^1/2.

regards

• Peter Forsberg

From previous posts:

“Peter:

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.”

This is unfortunate. Since they do not perform their experiment to test a prediction of your theory, it is not likely that your theory will get at boost even if it validates your theory in this regard.

Science dogma is not only about truth. It is also about influence. You will likely not succeed if you do not achieve that as well.

Regards

Peter

Andrea Rossi wrote in February 10th, 2015 at 9:37 PM

Valeriy Tarasov:
Albert Einstein based his theory on experimental results.
Thousands of experiments have confirmed the SRT; to cite some:
—————————————————————–

Albert Einstein is reported to have said: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

Non-transverse electromagnetic waves prove he is wrong

regards