A justificativa do Physics Forums para rejeitar meu tópico:
Nugatory started a new conversation with you at Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion.
Personal Speculation Warning
Hi wladg,
In regards to your post:
https://www.physicsforums.com/posts/6580990/
The forum rules require that new theories have been published in an appropriate peer-reviewed journal before they can be posted for discussion here. It is unfortunate that you have been unable to find a suitable publisher, but we are not going to make an exception for you. This post has been removed.
Please view our forum rules guidelines for more information.
Thanks for your understanding and participation at Physics Forums!
Moderation Staff
Minha resposta:
Dear members of the Moderation Staff
In regards to my post:
https://www.physicsforums.com/posts/6580990/
in my post is mentioned:
1- my paper "Wrong math procedure used in nuclear physics for the calculation of magnetic moemnts of excited Z=N even-even nuclei", published in 2019 by the PEER-REVIEW journal Physics Essays.
https://physicsessays.org/browse-journa ... uclei.html
2- my post in Physics Forums describes a theoretical prediction made in my book Quantum Ring Theory, published in 2006, as follows:
a) The prediction that even-even nuclei have ELIPSOIDAL shape, which was confirmed by an experiment published by the journal Nature in 2012.
But along more than 50 years the nuclear theorists belived that even-even nuclei are SPHERICAL.
b) The prediction that inside atomic nuclei there is a Z-axis. In 2013 was published a paper about the Ra224, whose pear shape suggested to the physicists that made the experiment that there is a Z-axis in the structure of the atomic nuclei.
I suppose that an experiment that confirms a prediction made in a book (defying two dogmas of nuclear physics - in which nuclear theorists believed along more than 50 years) is more reliable than any publication in any peer-review journal of physics, because the decision of two reviewers (about the proposal of the paper) can be wrong, whereas the results of an experiment, published in the journal Nature, obviously cannot be wrong.
So, dear members of the Moderation Staff,
you have to reavaluate what is more important:
A theoretical prediction published in a book and confirmed by experiments
or
the opinion of reviewers of the peer-review journals (they even sometimes reject papers whose predictions are later confirmed by experiments, since reviewers belive in dogmas of physics that later can be refuted by experiments, as some predictions of my book Quantum Ring Theory).
Regards
W Guglinski
Até agora, 17 minutos após a postagem de minha réplica, ela ainda não foi liberada: