wwlad

The Moderator has closed a topic of mine, with the following argument: Moderator Note We're a science discussion forum. If you wish to discuss your paper, please post it in the appropriate section, minus the emotional email distractions. If your paper doesn't follow mainstream science, you're welcome to post it in our Speculations section, where you can defend its merits with supportive evidence. Due to the fact that Fundamental Journals is a known predatory publisher, you'll need to present extraordinary evidence for any extraordinary claims. This thread is closed. Then let me exhibit an extraordinary evidence which proves that all the current nuclear models are wrong, because any of them is unable to explain a nuclear property, as shown in the Introduction of my paper "On how proton radius shrinkage can be connected with Lorentz factor violation": https://fundamentaljournals.org/ijfps/article/view/ijfps.2018.330114/149 The Introduction of the paper is shown ahead. If somebody is able to explain how a nucleus with Z=N pairs, excited with spin 2, can have null magnetic moment, I am very interested to know his explanation. INTRODUCTION An atomic nucleus with and pairs, excited with spin , cannot have null nuclear magnetic moment, because it is impossible any combination of spins capable to generate a null magnetic moment when the atomic nucleus has non-null spin. But there are several isotopes with Z and N pairs (some of them with Z=N ), excited with spin +2, whose magnetic moments are not quoted in nuclear tables. They are as, 6C12, 8016, 12Mg24, 14Si32, 18Ar37, 20Ca40, 20Ca42, 24Cr48, 26Fe52, 28Ni56. Implication. Null magnetic moments for those excited isotopes implies that the current Nuclear Theory is definitively wrong. So, how do the nuclear physicists deal with such puzzle? There are two hypotheses to be considered. A-Their magnetic moments were never measured. This is the argument used by nuclear theorists, in special the editors of the most reputable journals of physics. The editors claim that those excited isotopes have non null magnetic moment, but as the experimentalists have never measured them, this is the reason why their magnetic moments are not quoted in nuclear tables. This is the way the Editors-in-chief of the most reputable journals of physics avoid the definitive breakdown of the Nuclear Physics. B-Their magnetic moments were measured, but as the experimentalists found values zero, they did not report their measurements for the editors of nuclear tables. Analysis of hypothesis A. The hypothesis A is used by editors of reputable journals, but it is denied by the fact that many of those excited isotopes have their electric quadrupole moments ‎quoted in nuclear tables. They are (in barns), (6C12, Q= +0.06) , (12Mg24, Q= -0.29) , (14Si32, Q= -0.16) , (18Ar36, Q= +0.11) , (20Ca42, Q= -0.19). Analysis of hypothesis B. When the experimentalists have measured the electric quadrupole moments for the excited 6C12, 12Mg24, 14Si32, 18Ar36, and 20Ca42, of course they have also measured their magnetic moment, because all experimentalists aim to provide data for constructing a complete nuclear table, with all (measurable) nuclear properties of all isotopes of the whole elements of the Periodic Table. Conclusion of the hypothesis B. Therefore, it is discarded the hypothesis that the experimentalists did not measure the magnetic moment for the excited 6C12, 12Mg24, 14Si32, 18Ar36, and 20Ca42, because it makes no sense to suppose that they have measured the electric quadrupole moments, but the magnetic moments they did not do (it makes no sense because to measure magnetic moment is easier than to measure electric quadrupole moment). INEVITABLE CONCLUSIONS 1. The experimentalists have measured the magnetic moments of those excited isotopes. 2. They did not report their results, for the editors of nuclear tables, because the magnetic moment measured, for all those nuclei, was ZERO. 3. It seems the editors of nuclear tables have adopted the strategy of do not quote zero the magnetic moments when the experiments do not detect any value different of zero. By this way they avoid to quote “zero” the magnetic moments of the several nuclei with Z and N pairs, excited with spin +2, because to quote them zero would imply in the breakdown of the Nuclear Theory. All the current nuclear models (in which protons and neutrons are bound via strong nuclear force) are wrong, because there is not any of them capable to explain why the excited 6C12, 12Mg24, 14Si32, 18Ar36, and 20Ca42, have null magnetic moment. END OF THE INTRODUCTION Note: According to the new nuclear Hexagonal Floors model, some of the nuclei with pairs Z=N , excited with spin 2, are able to have null magnetic moment. In the page 24, item 17, of the paper '"Calculation of magnetic moments of light nuclei with number of protons between Z=3 and Z=30" , it is shown why exceites Ar36 and Ca40 have null magnetic mometns: https://www.scifedpublishers.com/open-access/calculation-of-magnetic-moments-of-light-nuclei-with-number-of-protonsbetween-z3-and-z30.pdf The explanation for the other excited nuclei with Z=N is shown in the paper "Testing the equations of the new nuclear Hexagonal Floors model", to be published now in August, by SciFed Journal of Nuclear Science.

Dear Prof. Andrea Pocar University of Massachusetts A new nuclear property (unknown by nuclear theorists) can be connected to dark matter. The new nuclear property is clearly evidenced in the lithium isotope 3Li6 (see "note" at the page 10 of the paper "Calculation of magnetic moments for light nuclei with number of protons between Z=3 and Z=30"), where it is written: Note: Perhaps this influence of the n(o)-flux in the inertia of the nuclei has relation with dark matter, whose origin intrigues the mind of the theorists nowadays. https://www.scifedpublishers.com/open-access/calculation-of-magnetic-moments-of-light-nuclei-with-number-of-protonsbetween-z3-and-z30.pdf It seems the n(o)-flux, existing in atomic nuclei, is formed by gravitons The paper is ended with the following comment: 22. Intriguing new experimental findings regarding entanglement The influence of the n(o)-flux in the inertial behavior of the 3Li6, seen in this paper, is very intriguing, and (as already mentioned in the note of the page 10) perhaps it has relation with the quantum entanglement. There are two speculations which perhaps deserve to be considered. The n(o)-flux seems to be the unique reasonable explanation for the quantum entanglement, because it seems to be improbable it can be a phantasmagoric phenomenon, inasmuch it seems there is no any way to find a physical cause responsible for the entanglement, by considering the current foundations of quantum theory. But besides the observation of its occurrence between photons and between atoms, recently in superconducting electric circuits entanglement of massive objects can also be generated and detected [6]. And it seems do not exist any candidate more reasonable on causing the entanglement between massive objects than the n(o)-flux, because all they are composed by atomic nuclei, where the n(o)-flux is generated. So, as entanglement is generated by massive objects, as new experiments are detecting, then perhaps the influence of the n(o)-flux in the inertia of the nuclei has relation with phenomena which theorists try to explain with the hypothesis of dark matter, whose origin intrigues the mind of the theorists nowadays. As the creation of a microscopic n(o)-flux is induced by rotation of quarks (or singletons, in the case of photons, as will be shown in the paper “On the origin of the mass of the elementary particles”, to be published later), maybe giant n(o)-graviton-fluxes can be induced by the rotation of a galaxy around a giant galaxy. And if galaxies have interaction through a gravitational quantum entanglement via n(o)-flux, then Newton’s gravitational theory cannot be applied for the case of interactions between some very massive objects, as the satellite galaxies of the Milky. In resume, if very, very massive galaxies are able to generate a giant n(o)-flux, then the hypothesis of dark matter can be dismissed for explaining the puzzle. The laws of the electromagnetism were discovered with the experiments made by Faraday. Those laws are consequence of interactions in the microworld, between magnetons and electricitons, which are some among other elementary particles which compose the aether [1,2]. The laws that rule the interaction between magnetons, electricitons, and gravitons, in the behavior of galaxies, were not yet discovered. But their discovery cannot be found if we do not discover, first of all, what are the fundamental laws which rule the interactions of elementary particles of the aether into the structure of quarks and inside the atomic nuclei. Regards W Guglinski

To: Dr. Frank Wilczek MIT- Massachusetts Institute of Technology Dear Dr. Wilczek In the end of 2017 I sent you an email, with the manuscript of my paper "On how Bohr hydrogen atom is connected to nuclear physics", and i invited you to face the challange of discovering the equations that rule the interactions between electric fields composed by elementary particles, as proposed in the Fig. 2 of my paper. The paper was published in June 2018: https://fundamentaljournals.org/index.php/ijfps/article/view/ijfps.2018.330113/144 You did not take seriously my invitation. Now I have the pleasure to tell you that by myself I discovered the equations, and they are in a paper to be published in upcoming August. I am sending you the manuscript of the paper attached. From the eq. (17) up to eq. (26) it is shown by calculation that there is no need to consider the quantum tunneling for the explanation on why alpha particle is emitted with 4,2MeV by the U238 nucleus, when it crosses a Coulomb barrier of 8,8MeV. The paper shows that Gamow theory is unnaceptable. From eq. (27) up to eq. (49) it is shown by calculation that there is no need to consider the quantum tunneling in the stellar nucleosynthesis, proposed in Gamow's theory. The Abstract and Keywords of the paper are ahead. Regards W. Guglinski ABSTRACT Oxygen isotopes have one complete hexagonal floor, composing one magnet whose rotation in oxygen-15 induces the induction-factor K(O15)= 1,3715, calculated in [1]. Calcium isotopes have three complete hexagonal floors, but two of them cancel each other their induction power, resulting that calcium has one magnet either. As both them are composed by one magnet, one has to expect that K(Ca39) converted to K(O15) needs to give a value near to 1,3715. Such expectation was confirmed in [1]. On another hand, silicon isotopes have two hexagonal floors, but the second floor rotates by 1800, and the two floors compose two magnets. Thereby, one has to expect to be required that K(exSi28), which is induced by two magnets, must be twice of K(O15) and K(Ca39), both tem induced by only one magnet. This prediction is confirmed in the present paper. But iron isotopes have four hexagonal floors, and two of them cancel each other their induction power, and so exFe53 also composes two magnets. Thereby one has to expect that induction-factor for exSi28 and exFe53 must be the same. In resume, one has to expect that K(exSi28)= K(exFe53)= 2.K(O15)= 2K.(Ca39). This conclusion is also confirmed in the present paper. And herein continues being successfully tested the equation KTH(X) =1,37176F/6 x PwR(X).R(X) / [ PwR(O15).R(O15) ] The success of the test implies that oxygen & calcium isotopes, as silicon & iron isotopes, are connected through physical laws, linked to the existence of hexagonal floors in the real atomic nuclei existing in the nature. The paper also shows that quantum tunneling is not required nor for the occurrence of stellar nucleosynthesis, and neither to explain how U238 emits alpha particles with 4,2MeV, which cross a Coulomb barrier with 8,8MeV, a puzzle that Gamow solved with an unacceptable theory. Keywords: Nuclear magnetic moments, Theoretical and empirical induction-factors, New equations replacing Gamow’s quantum tunneling in U238 alpha decay, New equations replacing quantum tunneling in stellar nucleosynthesis, Cold fusion, Rossi’s Ecat.