JedRothwell wrote:
I do not see anything wrong with that. I assume they thought it might work despite their inability to replicate.
That's exactly what cheaters do! Thanks...
This make you look as a unreliable Rossi supporter even if you aren't
Walter Pegeto
Member
- Member since Feb 28th 2019
- Last Activity:
Posts by Walter Pegeto
-
-
Pseudoscience relies heavily on anachronistic thinking.
Pseudoscience appeals to false authority, to emotion, sentiment, or distrust of established fact.
Pseudoscience relies heavily on subjective validation.
Who believes in conspiracies? New research offers a theory
https://www.sciencedaily.com/r…/2018/09/180925075108.htm
"Some people are also habitual conspiracists who entertain a variety of generic theories. For example, they believe that world politics are controlled by a cabal instead of governments or that scientists systematically deceive the public. This indicates that personality or other individual differences might be at play."
-
Translating what you says in layman's terms, we can state that a large part of the international scientific community, like in the middle-age, follows sheeply a religious paradigm that simply does not work?
Sorry to repeat again the same mantra, but all this stuff looks to me as yet another conspiracy theory.
-
"The history of physics (alas, seldom studied by physicists) clearly shows that many simple theories have had to be abandoned in favour of more complex and ‘ugly’ ones."
-
Ptolemaic epicycles were very complex
This is a paralogism, an apparently rational statement that unfortunately doesn't work.
Does not exist such a thing as a simple computer or a "simple" living being. Humans are much more complex than bacteria.
Please, Just use common sense!
Almost all of physicists consider SM the state of art. How it is possible that they are wrong and a few percent right ?
How can be possible that global international hugely funded projects are not the right-thing to do ?
Only paranoic die-hard conspiracy theorists may think differently
-
Masse is energy, energy is mass E= mc2
Ok? Wow!
What new stuff this would "simpler perspective" would imply?
The short answer is always the same: I dunno!
It's should be clear to all now, that significant new advances in physics can come exclusively from large, well funded, organization as CERN or very large international projects as ITER. It's important to discover always new particles and new laws that enrich more and more our knowledge database. SM is at moment the most advanced and consequently complex model available for understanding physical reality.
-
Display More
If you mention Mills as an author and use math SM people don't understand/know (SO(4)) you get kicked out before a reviewer can read it...
In fact the US dominated publication system has imposed an1984 like mind terror that started with killing people/"alternate knowledge" in Wikipedia/arxiv first. If you are not an approved member/scholar of what I call mafia then you have to find alternate way for publishing.
80 years ago a model did attract people if it could exactly describe experiments and physical facts. Today you have to exactly repeat the nonsense people talk since 50 years. (even worse you have to confirm that they are correct...)
Unluckily my new model matches extremely well with the experiment. Even more unluckily all the factors and metrics are given by known math (quaternions, SO(4)). But there is no match with SM...
I know that after some time there will be no way around than looking at a new method and if there already exists one it will be very helpful.
I will sum up the found facts and possibly publish a book.
I understand what you mean, however these arguments are similar to those proposed by risible tin-foil-hat conspiracy theorists, i.e. exist a global Mafia (that is behind 9/11, massive migration, drug-trade, false-flags, etc. ) that controls mainstream media and politics
-
Emilia
July 3, 2019 at 8:46 AM
I noticed that in the field of LENR women are totally absent: there are not publications of females. How do you explain?
Andrea Rossi
July 3, 2019 at 9:19 AM
Emilia:
Well, as a matter of fact it is not true in absolute, for example Dr Evelyn Foschi, a physicist from the University of Bologna, has coauthored publications about LENR, but in general you are right, the presence of women is low. I am not able to answer why, I do not see any reason for this fact.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
A scientific answer to the question from CERN, easily found on the web
http://www.enzopennetta.it/wp-…/TheoryGenderTalk_PDF.pdf
Gender Talk at CERN
-
Wyttenbach,
Have your theories published on a peer-reviewed, well respected, scientific journal ?
The web is full of self-published pet theories that never become mainstream.
Is Theoretical Physics Wasting Our Best Living Minds On Nonsense?
Riccardo C. Storti
added an answer
You've asked a very big question & in my opinion, the short answer is 'yes'. I say 'yes' because, believe it or not, being recognized in Physics is very much about 'wearing the right tie'. If you're not wearing 'the right tie', you won't get your ideas taken seriously. An example of this is String Theory; produces nothing tangible, cannot be verified & consumes resources. String Theory has legions of scientific fans because some people 'wearing the right tie' advertise it. Upcoming researchers seeking a career path, jump on the String Theory bandwagon because someone 'wearing the right tie' advertises it & it affords the young researcher a potential career path. Professional Physics is a difficult way to make a living, so when placements fill-up, you need to create new placements by inventing new areas.
Another example of 'yes' is the mass-less Photon. Absolute ZERO anything has never been experimentally observed in any form & is a Physical impossibility to verify; yet the entire Physics community sticks to 0(kg) religiously (no science, just religious belief). Rather than devoting more resources to measuring its actual value, we throw resources at String Theory etc. The Particle Data Group assigns the Photon a Mass-Energy Threshold, but the broader scientific community ignores the whole problem. The significance of knowing this number is enormous, it could be the biggest thing in Physics & can help explain other concepts such as Dark Matter & Dark Energy.
The primary reason I believe, that this fundamental & necessary question is not being addressed is because people 'wearing the right tie' have interests in other areas. Moreover, it is difficult to execute practical investigations of Photon Mass-Energy when doctrine stipulates that it's mass-less to begin with.
So 'yes', our best minds are being wasted on nonsense."
Otto E. Rossler
"My answer to the great question posed here is: It is even worse. The sub-strand of theoretical physics named “cosmology” ignores Zwicky 1929 ever since. Physics therefore is no longer a scientific discipline but has become a superstition adorned by ten Nobel medals as a “Big Bang” theory. This is a vintage for historians of the future while the physics profession is betting everyone's life on the BB via CERN's LHC experiment. Can the dear reader see a way how to spare all life being bet against Zwicky 1929? Zwicky was proven true by the new fundamental science of Cryodynamics, sister of Thermodynamics, not long ago as no one denies in view of the technological bonanza that is implied. The current situation therefore amounts to a return to Giordano Bruno 1600 but not with one man's life being sacrificed but all life. But that cannot be: Science on skid row including Stockholm for 9 decades?? Indeed not a single media person shows any interest. Only CERN itself displays dignity: It refuses to renew its 11 years old planetary safety report LSAG but this is to no avail because no media person inquires into the why. And the LSAG carries no date so the public can’t spot the for 11 years lacking planetary safety report. Nor can Trump or Xi and the emperor and the pope and Israel. “Dying for the Big Bang with an odds of ten percent” is the parole -- ever since Einstein’s friend Fritz Zwicky started to overtax the planetary IQ. Thank you, dear colleague, for your most original scientific question!"
-
zitterbewegung is very old stuff. Seems to me that user "Truth" is not aware that we are in 2019 and not in the thirties of the last century!
A comment from user "Truth" comments on FT article
"charge traveling at the speed of light" does not means "particle traveling at the speed of light".
In the zitterbewegung models electrons are modeled by charges that move at light speed.
You do not know what you are talking about!
Electron zitterbewegung models are discussed in many papers cited by Rossi:
"The zitterbewegung interpretation of quantum mechanics" https://www.researchgate.net/p…tion_of_quantum_mechanics
"Electron Structure, Ultra-dense Hydrogen and Low Energy Nuclear Reactions" https://www.researchgate.net/p…_Energy_Nuclear_Reactions
"Helical Model of the Electron" http://vixra.org/abs/1408.0203
-
SM doomsday is close. If blind mice rule the world then the cat's soon will get ton's of food. Once you understand that any metric related to gravity is outraging nonsense to describe dense matter, you also understand why I already yet call large parts of SM fringe science
In 30 years Mills and other alternative world views have never seriously challenged SM or traditional QM. These "alternative" theories are viewed by the average person as irrelevant, no more credible than Alex Jones fake news
-
Standard Model is the only one widely accepted by scientific community! All mainstream journals promptly reject all papers even vaguely related to Mills theories. Rossi paper has however many chances to be accepted on snarxiv.org (not to be confused with Cornell U. archive!).
-
A comment on Rossi paper on Financial Times article
"It seems to be a collection of phrases and equations from vaguely-related branches of physics, Once one gets to where it says "a charge traveling at the speed of light" one realises that Rossi doesn't understand Special Relativity, which rather scuppers the idea that he might know anything about nuclear reactions."
Even high-school students know that a mass at light-speed would have an infinite value
m = m0/(1-v2/c2)1/2
