Advanced concepts in black hole cosmology

.
by
U.V.S.Seshavatharam
Honorary faculty, I-SERVE, Alakapuri, Hyderabad-35, AP, India
QA-Spun division, LANCO Industries Ltd, Srikalahasti-517641, AP, India
E-mail: seshavatharam.uvs@gmail.com
.
.
Abstract
Based on the big bang concepts- in the expanding universe, ‘rate of decrease in CMBR temperature’ is a measure of  the cosmic ‘rate of expansion’. Modern standard cosmology is based on two contradictory statements. They are – present CMBR temperature is isotropic and the present universe is accelerating. In particle physics also, till today laboratory evidence for the existence of ‘dark matter’ and ‘dark energy’ is very poor. Recent observations and thoughts supports the existence of the ‘cosmic axis of evil’. In this connection an attempt is made to study the universe with a closed and growing model of cosmology. If the primordial universe is a natural setting for the creation of black holes and other non-perturbative gravitational entities, it is also possible to assume that throughout its journey, the whole universe is a primordial (growing and rotating) cosmic black hole. Instead of the Planck scale, initial conditions can be represented with the Coulomb or Stoney scale. Obtained value of the present Hubble constant is close to 71 Km/sec/Mpc.
.
.

333 comments to Advanced concepts in black hole cosmology

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Peter Forsberg wrote in July 4th, 2013 at 1:29 AM

    Joe,

    I am glad that you believe this, since this is also what I and Einstein belived. Einstein held that there should be a local hidden variable theory underlying quantum mechanics and, consequently, that the present theory was incomplete.

    Peter,
    the hidden variable underlying quantum mechanics is just the helical trajectory.

    But the most interesting is that Shroedinger had proposed an interpretation of the Dirac equation of the electron by considering the zitterbewegung (helical trajectory).

    The theorists, led by Heisenberg, had rejected Schroedinger’s proposal.

    So, if the theorists should had accepted the Schroedinger interpretation of zitterbewegung, the quantum mechanics would be developed in a different way, and many incoherences would be avoided.

    Such duel Heisenberg versus Schroedinger is described in my book The Missed U-Turn.

    regards
    wlad

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Errata:

    In my comment of July 4th, 2013 at 8:38 AM, where it is writing:

    But matter has a wave nature. The helical trajectory gives to matter some properties that waves have.

    the correct is:

    But matter has NOT a wave nature.

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe,
    I understand your viewpoint, because you share the Philosophy of Science preconized by the academic physicists and philosophers.

    Philosophy of Science advances together with the Science.
    Along the 20th Century the physicists did not succeed to develop a coherent theory of Physics.
    Modern Physics is plenty of incoherences and philosophical nonsenses.

    Then the philosophers of Science, together with the physicists, had been forced to develop a Philosophy of Science in order to try to justify the incoherences of the theory.

    But obviously it’s impossible to find a coherent philosophical explanation for something which makes no sense.

    Therefore the own Philosophy of Science nowadays is plenty of incoherences.

    I am sure the Theoretical Physics will advance in the upcoming years, by changing some fundamental principles of current Physics. I hope my Quantum Ring Theory may help in such advancement.
    And then in such New Theoretical Physics of the future the incoherences will be eliminated.

    So, obviously the own Philosophy of Science will be changed, and the incoherences that you try to justify will be eliminated.

    regards
    wlad

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe wrote in July 3rd, 2013 at 9:19 PM
    Wladimir,

    1-
    A helix is composed of sinusoidal x and y components.
    A sinusoid represents a wave.
    Therefore, a helix is a wave.

    COMMENT
    ??????????????

    Joe,
    suppose you jump with parachute from a plane. and one of the sides of the parachute is not rightly streched, so that you describe a helix trajectory in the falling down.

    Then are you a wave?

    No. You are not a wave.
    We can describe mathematically you trajectory as a sinusoid. But you are not a wave.

    2-
    And since QRT employs the helical trajectory in its description of various phenomena, QRT necessarily incorporates the notion of wave nature.

    COMMENT
    No.
    QRT explains why the matter sometimes has the same property exhibited by waves, as for instance the diffraction.

    But matter has a wave nature. The helical trajectory gives to matter some properties that waves have.

    Without the helical trajectory the matter does not exhibit that properties exhibited by waves.

    3-
    A wave is not the disturbance of a medium.
    A wave is a geometric property that may exist in the disturbance of a medium.

    COMMENT
    Then the theorists have changed the meaning of wave. Probably because their crazy theories make no sense, then they need to justify them by addopting a new incoherent meaning.
    I did not know such a definition of wave.

    4-
    As far as the methodology involved in creating models, it includes both logic and math. Every scientific mind employs both. Using only one gives poor results. For example, using only logic would result in an unworkable concoction. (It looks nice, but it can not even begin to give a qualitative prediction – let alone a quantitative one.) Using only math would result direction-less derivations. (It looks sophisticated, and there are plenty of quantitative redictions, but these never come to pass.

    COMMENT
    Joe,
    the logic has been divorced from Physics a long time ago.
    Remember the words said by Bohr:
    Your theory is crazy, but it’s not crazy enough to be true.

    You are trying to give coherence for the nonsense

    regards
    wlad

  • Andrea Rossi

    Steven N Karels:
    The cow is harassed, has to pull.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    David Linebarger:
    It happens to work 24 hours straight to me, in particular situation when it is indispensable my presence for very important tests. Our Team members make normal shifts, of course, but in exceptional situations they work more than that; as a matter of fact, the 24/7 are covered by shifts.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Neri B.:
    We made thousands of tests, many of them, maybe hunedreds, have not gone well, for a reason or the other. These tests are essential part of our R&D process. Technological development requires a long process, involving many changes as a technology moves forward. E-Cat is undergoing that process since it has been born. This process will continue as long as needed, until such time as the Team believes the technology is able to fulfill its promise in commercial settings.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Neri B.

    Dear Andrea,
    when you say “…negative, or inconclusive tests…”
    could you please explain a bit what you are refferring to and make an example of negative and inconclusive test you experienced over the past years?
    This sentence could be misinterpeted by some people we know..
    Neri B.

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe wrote in July 3rd, 2013 at 7:38 PM
    Peter,

    For example, the geocentric model of the Universe in the form of the Ptolemaic system served its purpose well for over 1,000 years. It made successful predictions of heavenly events such as eclipses.

    COMMENT
    But Ptolemaic system is 100% wrong.

    So, it means that even with theories 100% wrong it is possible to get god results (as occurs with Quantum Mechanics).

    Ptolemaic model was successful in predicting eclispes because if you take the earth as a reference, from the principle of relative motion the sun is moving about the earth.

    regards
    wlad

  • David Linebarger

    Hi Andrea Rossi. When you said “to date and I will share more as our work continues 24/7 in the USA.” does that literally mean that some people are working on this all night too in the USA? If people are working at night perhaps you can elaborate what the type of people that are working at night. Thanks.

    Warm Regards,
    David L

  • Peter Forsberg

    Wladimir,

    Interesting and disturbing.

    Regards

    Peter

  • Peter Forsberg

    Joe,

    You wrote: “As far as Nature is concerned, it most definitely does not rely on chance. The theory of probability is based on human limitations.”

    I am glad that you believe this, since this is also what I and Einstein belived. Einstein held that there should be a local hidden variable theory underlying quantum mechanics and, consequently, that the present theory was incomplete.

    But mainstream physisists either don’t care about this (the shut up and calculate crowd) or they actually believe that quantum mechanics has disproved determinism. That the fundamental laws of nature is intrinsically truly random.

    But such a belief is utterly unscientific. Science is the pursuit of finding causal relationships. To say that something happen by chance is to give up science. Therefore I admire Wladimir and others that actually do not give up, but continues to try finding the underlying mechanisms.

  • @Peter Forsberg,

    You wrote: “The problem currently is that the current paradigm of physics is in a state of crisis. There are too many anomalys. But the censorship of the state sponsored scientific institutions is too strong to even admit that.”

    My answer: I don’t agree with you where you insinuate that the censorship is due to the fact that the institutions are ‘state sponsored’

    My opinion and experience is different. For me, the best guarantee to have objective science is that scientists can work independently, and ‘state sponsorship’ often (maybe not always but more likely or often than not) is the best guarantee to obtain this. Because, if science only is sponsored by business-intrests, who often only seek their own growth and gain in a very competitive world, we quickly would loose all objectivity. And there are many examples who proove that. Think, for instance, on the discussion of the health hasards of smoking cigaretes. If the research is only done by the companies who produce and sell cigaretes, the results tend to be less objective, isn’t it? 😉

  • Steven N. Karels

    Bernie,

    I think a better representation is that Climate Change can be influenced by carbon emission level (both natural and man-made). A massive transformation away from fossil fuels (carbon based) to eCat can only help the situation IMHO.

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    Thank you for your clarification. Remember to take time out for yourself. Its not acceptable for the world’s leading expert on eCat technology to become sick.

    My personal experience is that when one loves the work, you can work long hours for long periods. But there is a price to be paid. Choose wisely and conserve your strength.

  • Joe

    Wladimir,

    A helix is composed of sinusoidal x and y components.
    A sinusoid represents a wave.
    Therefore, a helix is a wave.
    And since QRT employs the helical trajectory in its description of various phenomena, QRT necessarily incorporates the notion of wave nature.

    A wave is not the disturbance of a medium.
    A wave is a geometric property that may exist in the disturbance of a medium.

    As far as the methodology involved in creating models, it includes both logic and math. Every scientific mind employs both. Using only one gives poor results. For example, using only logic would result in an unworkable concoction. (It looks nice, but it can not even begin to give a qualitative prediction – let alone a quantitative one.) Using only math would result direction-less derivations. (It looks sophisticated, and there are plenty of quantitative predictions, but these never come to pass. Think ‘String Theory’: 40 years on, and not one successful, quantitatively accurate prediction to its name. This gives the old joke that String Theory describes every possible universe… except our own.) So both logic and math are needed for strong scientific advancement.

    All the best,
    Joe

  • Joe

    Peter,

    When scientists use the term ‘duality’, they are just simply implying an emphasis on one model – or one aspect of a model – over another. They understand that they are only approximating reality. That is the purpose of a model after all. Therefore, no model is ever a failure. It always has its reason for being.

    For example, the geocentric model of the Universe in the form of the Ptolemaic system served its purpose well for over 1,000 years. It made successful predictions of heavenly events such as eclipses. But then it became superceded by Newtonian mechanics which obviated the need for epicycles which described the motions of the heavenly bodies using circular paths alone and was therefore a less accurate approximation of things occurring in the sky.

    As far as Nature is concerned, it most definitely does not rely on chance. The theory of probability is based on human limitations. If Nature were limited, it would cease to exist since it would not have the capability to make even one decision concerning its immediate progress. But we see regularity in the world around us, so we know that Nature is fully aware of everything and acting accordingly. In fact, the concept of ‘everything’ is the very essence of Nature.

    All the best,
    Joe

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Peter Forsberg wrote in July 3rd, 2013 at 2:40 AM

    Joe,
    The problem currently is that the current paradigm of physics is in a state of crisis. There are too many anomalys. But the censorship of the state sponsored scientific institutions is too strong to even admit that. Experiments that should be done are not allowed. Articles that should be published are not allowed to be published. So I understand Wladimirs frustration fully.

    Dear Peter,
    not only articles are not allowed to be published.

    In 2011 I had signed an agreement with the Cambridge International Science Publishing, so that to publish my book The Missed U-Turn.

    The book is divided in two parts:

    1- The Evolution of Physics – From Newton to Rossi’s eCat

    2- The Evolution of Quantum Mechanics – The duel Heisenberg versus SChrödinger

    Look at the signature of the publisher Victor Riecansky, in the agreement signed by him in 20 October 2011:

    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=144260805770912&set=a.114614052068921.1073741826.100005609798296&type=1&theater

    The book would have to be published in the middle of 2012.
    But it had not been published.

    I suspect the publisher Riecansky had been threatened by the scientific community of physicists (although I dont know how they had discovered that my book should be published by Cambridge Int Sci. Pub).

    In 3 April 2013 I had received an email from Riecansky, in which he promised to publish the book till the end of that month:

    ===============================
    From: ver@cisp-publishing.com
    To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
    Subject: Book
    Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2013 21:04:03 +0100

    Dear Wladimir

    Sorry about the delay in publishing your book, it will be published at the end of this month

    Best wishes

    Victor Riecansky

    Publisher
    Cambridge International Science Publishing
    http://www.cisp-publishing.com
    ver@cisp-publishing.com
    ===============================

    But, again, the book had not been published.

    regards
    wlad

  • Andrea Rossi

    Eernie1:
    The Ecat technology is undergoing rigorous testing and the results- positive, negative, or inconclusive- will provide further guidance about its potential.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Daved Lenebarger:
    Our USA Partner and world Licensee for the manufacturing is the sole in charge to determine the sales of energy and/or plants.
    I have great hopes for the E-Cat and what it can accomplish, and I am pleased about the findings of the other Scientists who have participated in evaluating it so far.
    As this technology is still in the development stage and undergoing rigorous review, I want to allow the continued process of testing that technology to determine its potential and its uses.
    I am pleased with our progress to date and I will share more as our work continues 24/7 in the USA.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • David Linebarger

    Hi Rossi, can you give some kind of indication when you will start selling E-cats to the public, or for public utilities. Like is it likely that within the next 6 months, or year, or two years, or more you will probably start selling e-cats. Some kind of indication as to when were getting close to that time.

    Regards.
    David L

  • Andrea Rossi

    Bernie Koppenhofer:
    Is the climate change man made? This is very difficult to know and to proof. Nevertheless, we need to reduce pollution as much as possible for our health and for respect toward Nature, indipendently from the answer. I am not able to give an answer, because data so far are controversal. The E-Cat has no emissions at all.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Steven NKarels:
    Total lack of time even to attend only. I can’t work more than 16 hours per day, and still I have not time to make all I have to make.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    When asked the question “Any chance that you or the US manufacturer will present at the ICCF-18 conference?” you reponded “Impossible”. Could you please clarify?

    Possible reasons for “Impossible”

    a. Insufficient time (too busy) to prepare a submission – perhaps a later conference?
    b. You view them as competitors likely to take your intellectual property?
    c. Some other reason?

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Dr. Rossi: Sorry if this is a little off topic, but I respect your opinion. Do you think climate change is man made? If it is, do you agree your E-cat could be a crucial part of replacing “dirty” fossil fuel plants?

  • Hello Andrea, Here is the 2nd segment of the interview recorded earlier this year. We’ll have another segment next week.

    http://vimeo.com/68776012

  • Andrea Rossi

    To the Readers:
    Very interesting publication on arXiv: 1304.5379v [physics.acc-ph].
    By the way gives evidence that the most important articles in Physics are published also on arXiv.
    A.R.

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe wrote in July 2nd, 2013 at 2:18 PM
    Wladimir,

    1-
    You contradict yourself when you say,

    “The wave nature does not exist.
    The wave behavior of particles is given to them by their helical trajectory.”

    COMMENT
    No, Joe
    The wave behavior is not a wave nature.

    Because there is NOT any wave.
    What exists is ONLY MATTER.

    As wave does not exist, it cannot be nature of anything.

    Matter is particle.
    But thanks to the helical trajectory, the particles get some properties characteristics of waves, as for instance the diffraction.

    But such property of matter, given to it by the helycal trajectory, does not imply that matter has a wave nature.

    2-
    If particles have a wave behavior, then they necessarily have a wave nature. It does not matter what the specific relationship between wave and particle nature is. One nature is not more important than another.

    COMMENT
    Already showed above that you’re wrong.

    Besides, wave is a disturbance of a medium. The wave feature of matter is not given by a disturbance of a medium. The wave feature is given by the helical trajectory.

    3-
    You seem to imply that scientists have only rarely contemplated structural mechanisms when doing research. That is impossible since that is not how the human mind works.

    COMMENT
    This is not my opinion.
    Lindsay and Margenau taught it to me.
    In the page 191 of their book Foundations of Physics they say:

    “To be sure,the preceding considerations are not a final argument against the mechanistic hypothesis It may be indeed that dynamical laws exist, but what under their action an aggregate consisting on many such elements, in our case disintegration atoms, does not reveal their exact nature and can be described more adequately by obliterating every reference to these laws. Whatever the interpretation, a statement of the regularities in the behavior of the aggregate in question can be made more precisely and simply in terms of probabilities; whether these probabilities point ultimately in the action of unknown dynamical laws is obscure.
    […]
    The design of the mechanisms within the atom would be an engineering problem capable of solution. It is at once aparent, however, that this fantastic model, regardless of its unreasonableness, calls for a very great number of independent hypothetical features, intrinsically without coherence, and joined ony by our effort to explain one isolated pbenomenon. For one thing, we have no assurance that the properties of the atom here imagined will manifest themselves in other fields of observation. We recognize that the strict adherence to dynamical laws may be wasteful of hypotheses, and contradictory to one of the most powerful principles guiding us in our physical reasoning: that of simplicity

    So, Joe,
    we realize that, if there are indeed dynamical laws ruling the phenomena, however from the scientific method it is not possible to discover them.

    That’s why I said in a previous post of mine that we are in the 4 stage of the development of Theoretical Physics. It is missing yet the 5 stage, where ne need to reject the criterium of simplicity, otherwise it would be impossible to discover how the nature really works.

    This is just done in my Quantum Ring Theory, and this is the reason why my theory finds a great resistance of the scientific community against its proposals.

    But the experiments published in the last 5 years are suggesting that I am right. They are showing to be wrong some fundamental principles of Modern Physics. And I hope in the future the scientists will realize that there is need to consider seriously the models proposed in my Quantum Ring Theory.

    4-
    You seem to be equating the failure of a model to a supposed lack of structural mechanism within that model. But what you fail to understand is that science is progress.

    COMMENT
    Yes, Joe,
    but Einstein told us that we cannot eliminate a crisis by the same method from which the crisis had been created.

    So, there is need to change the method of research. This is just what I did in my Quantum Ring Theory.

    5-
    And progress necessarily includes failure as well as success. They exist simultaneously.
    It is trial and error.

    COMMENT
    No.
    The crisis in Modern Physics shows that from the method of investigation it’s impossible to eliminate the crisis.
    Bu keeping the method, the progress of Physics in the future will be an alternation of faillures and faillures.

    6-
    The way that you would have it, science would not even exist.

    COMMENT
    Along the 20th Century science had been developed according to the criterium of simplicity.

    If Einstein had followed such a criterium, he would never discovered the Relativity, and Bohr would never had discovered his hydrogen atom.

    So, sometimes we need to forget the criterium of simplicity, otherwise it’s impossible to continue advancing the science.

    regards
    wlad

  • Peter Forsberg

    Joe,

    The problem currently is that the current paradigm of physics is in a state of crisis. There are too many anomalys. But the censorship of the state sponsored scientific institutions is too strong to even admit that. Experiments that should be done are not allowed. Articles that should be published are not allowed to be published. So I understand Wladimirs frustration fully.

    I think that it is possible to find the fundamental rules of nature. But first some cherished assumptions must be discarded. Such as the wave, particle duality. That concept is as useless as the concept of the universe orbiting the earth. Something can clearly not be either sometimes just a wave and somtimes just a particle. We have to find the underlying mechanism to explain the observations instead. Physics has currently resigned. The purpose of science is to find the fundamental workings of nature, not to give up and say that maybe it is impossible. Maybe the the underlying fabric of nature is just a game of chance. But remember that God does not play dice.

    Regards

    Peter

  • Joe

    Wladimir,

    You contradict yourself when you say,

    “The wave nature does not exist.
    The wave behavior of particles is given to them by their helical trajectory.”

    If particles have a wave behavior, then they necessarily have a wave nature. It does not matter what the specific relationship between wave and particle nature is. One nature is not more important than another.

    You seem to imply that scientists have only rarely contemplated structural mechanisms when doing research. That is impossible since that is not how the human mind works. You seem to be equating the failure of a model to a supposed lack of structural mechanism within that model. But what you fail to understand is that science is progress. And progress necessarily includes failure as well as success. They exist simultaneously. It is trial and error. The way that you would have it, science would not even exist. You would have expected nothing but the conception of the perfect model right from the moment when the first human mind began working. But even you know that experiments need to be done. And that includes the right to be wrong.

    All the best,
    Joe

  • Joe

    Peter,

    You are right in believing that various models will have to be created in order to implement any set of rules that explains Nature’s behavior. The reason for this is that we would need total knowledge about the state of the Universe at any one instant of time in order to predict behavior with 100% accuracy. Such knowledge would be impossible to achieve since we, humans, are a subset of Nature. Only Nature knows everything about Nature obviously.

    All the best,
    Joe

  • Andrea Rossi

    Josh R
    Impossible
    Warm regards
    AR

  • Josh R

    Hi Dr. Rossi. Any chance that you or the US manufacturer will present at the ICCF-18 conference?

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe wrote in July 1st, 2013 at 8:52 PM
    Wladimir,

    1-
    A wave nature exists.
    A particle nature exists.
    Therefore, wave and particle natures co-exist.
    Each nature contributes something that is positive and unique.
    They do not impede each other.
    They do not contradict each other.

    COMMENT
    No, Joe, you are wrong.
    What you claim contradicts the Steinberg experiment published in 2011.

    The wave nature does not exist.
    The wave behavior of particles is given to them by their helical trajectory.

    De Broglie had interpreted wrongly his postulate.
    The matter has not duality.

    Duality is not a property of matter.

    The wave-particle duality is a property of the helical trajectory of particles.

    Bohr had proposed the Principle of Complementarity so that to explain why sometimes we need to use the corpuscular theory, and sometimes we need to use the undulatory theory.

    But a new experiment made by Aephraim Steinberg and published in 2011 had showed that Bohr’s Principle of Complementarity is wrong, as I had proposed in my Quantum Ring Theory in 2006:

    Observing the Average Trajectories of Single Photons in a Two-Slit Interferometer
    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/1170.abstract

    The experiment shows that Quantum Mechanics is wrong, while Quantum Ring Theory is correct, because:

    1- According to Quantum Mechanics, a quantum particle can behave either as a particle or as a wave, but it cannot behave as wave and as a particle at the same time.

    2- Unlike, as Quantum Ring Theory considers that the wave-particle duality is consequence of the helical trajectory, then the particle can have interference with its own helical trajectory when it crosses a slit.
    So, according to QRT, the quantum particle can behave as a wave and as a particle as the same time.

    In the Steinberg experiment, a photon crossed a unique slit, and it had inferference with itself (a wave feature), while from Quantum Mechanics we would have to expect a particle feature only, since the photon crossed only one slit.

    So, the experiment corroborates the photon model of Quantum Ring Theory, while it contradicts a fundamental principle of Quantum Mechanics, according to which a quantum particle cannot behave at the same time as a wave and as a particle

    You can read more in the ZPenergy blog:
    http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3295

    Joe,
    according to Bohr interpretation, sometimes we need to use the corpuscular model, and sometimes we need to use the wave model.

    In Quantum Ring Theory we use only one model.
    My hydrogen model of atom conciliates the Bohr corpuscular model of atom with the Schrodinger Equation.

    Sorry, Joe,
    but the experiment made by Steinberg shows that you are wrong.

    2-
    In fact, it would be no problem at all if these two aspects of Nature were never able to be combined into a single model.

    COMMENT
    They are combined in the single model proposed in Quantum Ring Theory.

    3-
    I find it odd that you believe that scientists have yet to discover how Nature works since you are presently using a computer which is the fruit of many decades of scientific labor.

    COMMENT
    As I already had said earlier, the scientists often discover the mathematics which describes a phenomenon, but they do not know not know the mechanism that yields the phenomenon.
    Such a method of developing science works well, up to a certain level (that’s why I can use a computer).

    But in a more deep level the method fails.
    That’s why the theorists had failed with Susy.
    That’s why they had failed with their attempt in discovering the real structure of the nuclear model existing in Nature.
    That’s why they dont have a model of photon.
    That’s why they had failed to discover the true model of hydrogen atom existing in Nature.
    That’s why they had failed to discover the true mechanism of duality wave-particle.

    That’s why the experiments published along the last 5 years are showing that current theories of Modern Physics are wrong.

    regards
    wlad

  • Peter Forsberg

    Joe and Wladimir

    I find your discussion interesting. I believe that both of you are correct in a way. Wladimir is correct in that there is a fundamental level of nature that physics likely will be able to find the rules for. Probably in our life time. But Joe is correct that finding these rules is not the end of physics. From these fundamental rules it will never be possible to calculate what happens in the physical world at significantly higher levels of aggregation and abstraction. The reason is that it will be a computational irreduceable problem to do so. For these higher levels it will always be possible to create models that are useful to predict how the universe will behave. So both of you are actually partly right and partly wrong.

  • Joe

    Wladimir,

    A wave nature exists.
    A particle nature exists.
    Therefore, wave and particle natures co-exist.
    Each nature contributes something that is positive and unique.
    They do not impede each other.
    They do not contradict each other.
    Perhaps they have not been incorporated into one mathematical expression as of yet.
    But that is not Nature’s problem; it may be humankind’s problem.
    In fact, it would be no problem at all if these two aspects of Nature were never able to be combined into a single model. Nature does not demand it; we, on the other hand, may insist on it.

    One thing that historical reality teaches us is that science is progress. There is no finality to exploring physical phenomena. Therefore, there can not exist any type of fundamentality attached to any one physical phenomenon.

    I find it odd that you believe that scientists have yet to discover how Nature works since you are presently using a computer which is the fruit of many decades of scientific labor.

    All the best,
    Joe

  • eernie1

    Ing. Rossi, Seems like to me that you are making an MRI device. Putting a proton(H, spin 1/2) in a metallic area within a magnetic material(Nickel),then injecting an RF energy which can be absorbed by the aligned spins. Just asking. Looks like to me you are rapidly making great progress towards producing a commercial unit. Wishing continued good luck.

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe wrote in July 1st, 2013 at 2:41 AM
    Wladimir,

    1-
    The Maxwell equations work well because they are the result of many decades of research and not because of a “coincidence”.

    COMMENT
    You are wrong, Joe.
    A photon composed by particle & antiparticle moving with helical trajectory yield the Maxwell equations, as shown in my book.

    Often in Physics the theorists find the equations that describe a phenomenon,but they do not discover the physical structure responsible for that phenomenon.

    This just happened with the equations of the light propagation. Maxwell discovered the equations, but he did not discover the model of photon which produces those equations.

    In the age of Maxwell, the theorist used to suppose that light should be the propagation of a disturbance of the aether.
    This hypothesis is completely wrong because of many reasons. For example, such a propagation could not have the transverse character of light propagation.

    Therefore what the theorists in the age of Maxwell had supposed about the light is 100% wrong.

    2-
    The inclusion of the particle nature of light into EM theory does not invalidate the wave nature that had long been known. This is a refinement of EM theory, not a rejection.

    COMMENT
    Then Einstein was a stupid guy, since along all his life he tried unsuccessfuly to conciliate Maxwell’s equations with the quanta of light.
    He did not succeed to get such refinement claimed by you.
    So, I would like to know the name of the theorist who got success in such enterprise in which Einstein had failed.

    3-
    The problem with your approach is that you believe in the concept of fundamental nature.

    COMMENT
    And my oppinion is that the problem with your approach (shared by the community of physicists) is that you dont believe in the concept of fundamental nature.

    Because the theorists did not succeed to discover the fundamental concepts of nature does not mean that it does exist.

    They did not discover it because the scientific method had failed in this enterprise

    4-
    Such a concept implies an eventual end to science after all the knowledge of the Universe has been gathered.

    COMMENT
    And who told you that science will never have an end?
    The physicists theorists, or God ?

    5-
    But I repeat, science is an activity, not a storehouse.

    COMMENT
    Joe,
    The development of Theoretical Physics is discussed in my book The Evolution of Physics.

    In my book I show that Physics development along the centuries had been a sequence of alternation between two methods:

    1- Method of Descartes
    2- Method of Newton

    For instance, Bohr discovered his model by applying the method of Descartes. Unlike, Schrodinger discovered his equation by applying the Newtonian method.

    In my book I show that the development of Theoretical Physics has 5 stages.

    Now we are in the stage 4. The stage 5 is missing yet.

    Ahead is the page 127 of the book:

    <b:Page 127:
    =====================================
    Let’s analyse the paradox.

    First of all there is a need to emphasise the fact that, from the viewpoint of mathematical probability, it is impossible that Bohr’s successes can be just mere coincidence; that is, it is impossible that his successes do not have some connection with the real mechanism that exists within the atom, when it emits photons. Therefore, one cannot discount Bohr’s successes by simply alleging that they are accidental.

    For the existence of a centripetal acceleration on a particle, such as the electron, there is a need that such a particle to have a curved trajectory. Without a curved trajectory there is no centripetal acceleration. But the existence of a curved trajectory implies that a trajectory does exists which is contrary to the fundamental principle of Quantum Mechanics, as we have seen earlier.

    Therefore, Bohr’s successes have an important consequence for the quantum theorists. The successes show that Quantum Mechanics cannot be hundred percent correct.

    There is, in a mysterious way, participation of the centripetal acceleration in the mechanism of emission of photons by the atom. But Quantum Mechanics cannot explain it because, according to the theory, it is impossible for the electron to experience a centripetal acceleration, since the concept of trajectory was abolished from the theory.

    There is no resolution of this paradox from the Newtonian solution of Quantum Mechanics. In this case the conclusion is obvious: Bohr’s successes demonstrate, unequivocally, that the Quantum Mechanical model of the atom cannot be hundred percent correct.

    Let us see the stages followed in the development of the model of atom.

    STAGES ALREADY READY:

    Stage 1 – First Voigt failed when applying the Newtonian method.

    Stage 2 – After that Bohr was succeeded partially by applying the cartesian method. In this way, he discovered some fundamental mechanisms of the atom, like the emission of photons when the electron changes from one orbit to another. The cartesian method failed but opened a new path for the application of the Newtonian method starting from Bohr’s discoveries.

    Stage 3 – Schrödinger applied the Newtonian method again. He obtained a partial success and the method of Newton failed again, as shown by the successes of Bohr and the Dehmelt experiment.

    What comes later must be anticipated by the reader. For achieving total success, there are two stages missing needed for concluding the process.

    STAGES MISSING:

    Stage 4 – Re-apply the cartesian method in order to discover what is missing in Quantum Mechanics, in a process similar to that used by Bohr.

    Stage 5 – Re-apply the Newtonian method after stage 4, by applying the mathematical formalism for confirming the discoveries made in stage 4.

    At the present moment, we are in stage 4. What is missing in Quantum Mechanics is shown in the new model of the atom proposed in Quantum Ring Theory. It is still missing stage 5.

    The workings of the new model of the hydrogen atom of QRT are described in detail in the book The Missed U-Turn but, ahead, we give a résumé for the reader to gain an idea of how it explains the mysterious participation of the centripetal acceleration on the electron when the atom emits photons.
    =====================================

    6-
    Science only ends when we stop asking the question ‘why?’.

    COMMENT
    Joe,
    the theorist even did not succeed to respond to the question “how ?”

    7-
    Therefore, light (or any other physical phenomenon) has no fundamental nature, particle or otherwise.

    COMMENT
    And I say that it has.

    8-
    No one aspect of light is more important than another. And, therefore, declaring a theory to be 100% either right or wrong is absurd.

    COMMENT
    Absurd is to believe that Nature has not a physical reality, only because the theorists had failed in discovering HOW she works.

    regards
    wlad

  • Andrea Rossi

    Josh R:
    1- we will give detailed information in due time. For now I cannot give information about this issue
    2- the orders are issued to the US Manufacturer
    3- The production is made in the USA
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Josh R

    Hi Dr. Rossi. I am very excited to hear that plant production is now underway. Like many others, I am looking forward to hearing about people’s experiences with the new technology as it filters into the marketplace. I have a few questions for you.

    1. For how long now has production been underway? Was there an official start date?
    2. How many orders have you received?
    3. Will production just be in the US or will factories be build in other countries as well?

    Thank you for your time, and good luck in your fascinating work.

  • Joe

    Wladimir,

    The Maxwell equations work well because they are the result of many decades of research and not because of a “coincidence”. The inclusion of the particle nature of light into EM theory does not invalidate the wave nature that had long been known. This is a refinement of EM theory, not a rejection.

    The problem with your approach is that you believe in the concept of fundamental nature. Such a concept implies an eventual end to science after all the knowledge of the Universe has been gathered. But I repeat, science is an activity, not a storehouse. Science only ends when we stop asking the question ‘why?’.

    Therefore, light (or any other physical phenomenon) has no fundamental nature, particle or otherwise. No one aspect of light is more important than another. And, therefore, declaring a theory to be 100% either right or wrong is absurd.

    All the best,
    Joe

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe wrote in June 30th, 2013 at 3:47 PM
    Wladimir,

    You say that scientists before Planck were “100% wrong” in their theory of light since they did not include the particle nature of light in their theory. To me, this is a wrong judgment since MOST pre-Planck light theory is still valid today. Maxwell, one generation before Planck, discovered that light is electromagnetic radiation. This is considered to be true today by scientists. Therefore, pre-Planck light theory can NOT possibly be “100% wrong” as you have stated. As I have already told you in my previous comment, there is always something salvageable in any failed theory. The reason for this is that science, by its nature, is a probing for truth, and not a posit of knowledge. Therefore, the knowledge keeps changing and can never be, by this fact alone, 100% right. But this does not mean that therefore the knowledge is “100% wrong”. If that were so, the very concept of scientific knowledge would be absurd. We would never be able to ascertain any aspect of the physical world, such as sunshine being warm on our skin. Now, THAT would truly be “100% wrong”.

    Dear Joe,
    you are wrong.

    I gave you an example that there are theories 100% wrong, by using the pre-Planck theories.
    But we have many other examples.
    For instance, before Pasteur the scientists believed in the spontaneous generation. He proved by experiment that spontaneous generation does not exist.
    Therefore, the spontaneous generation theory is 100% wrong.

    Concerning the pre-Planck theories of light, you are making a confusion.

    The fact that light is electromagnetic radiation is only a property of the light composed by quanta. And Maxwell’s equations is able to describe light propagation because the light (composed by quanta) has electromagnetic propagation.

    Because light is composed by quanta it means that pre-Planck theory is 100% wrong, because to be composed by quanta is the fundamental nature of light.

    There is no way to concliate the quanta structure of light with Maxwell’s equations. Einstein tried it along all his life, and he concluded to be impossible (by considering the current foundations of Modern Physics).
    NOTE: we can conciliate them only by considering the helical trajectory of the photon, as shown in Quantum Ring Theory.

    Pre-Planck theory of light is incompatible with other properties of light.
    For instance, light composed by quanta is able to yield the photoelectric phenomenon.

    But it’s IMPOSSIBLE to concliate the photoelectric phenomenon with the hypothesis of continuous hypothesis.

    Therefore, the pre-Planck theory of light is 100% wrong , because it does not fit to the experiments made with light.

    However, the light composed by quanta can be described by Maxwell equations, because the light composed by quanta has also electromagnetic properties.

    This coincidence (because both pre-Planck concept of light and the quanta concept of light have electromagnetic properties) does not mean that pre-Planck theories are partially correct.
    Actually they are 100% wrong.
    But thanks to a coincidence (because light is an electromagnetic propagation, and so it is applied to pre-Planck theories and also to quantum theories of light), the Maxwell equations work well.

    regards
    wlad

  • Joe

    Wladimir,

    You say that scientists before Planck were “100% wrong” in their theory of light since they did not include the particle nature of light in their theory. To me, this is a wrong judgment since MOST pre-Planck light theory is still valid today. Maxwell, one generation before Planck, discovered that light is electromagnetic radiation. This is considered to be true today by scientists. Therefore, pre-Planck light theory can NOT possibly be “100% wrong” as you have stated. As I have already told you in my previous comment, there is always something salvageable in any failed theory. The reason for this is that science, by its nature, is a probing for truth, and not a posit of knowledge. Therefore, the knowledge keeps changing and can never be, by this fact alone, 100% right. But this does not mean that therefore the knowledge is “100% wrong”. If that were so, the very concept of scientific knowledge would be absurd. We would never be able to ascertain any aspect of the physical world, such as sunshine being warm on our skin. Now, THAT would truly be “100% wrong”.

    All the best,
    Joe

  • Andrea Rossi

    Franco:
    Thank you for the info.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe,
    there are theories 100% wrong, yes.

    Before the development of Quantum Physics, the classic theorists believed that light spectrum should be continous.
    Planck showed that light spectrum is not continuous, it is actually discrete.
    So, the theory of the classical theorists was 100% wrong.

    After the experiments made in the LHC, Susy is not a theory of Physics anymore, because the experiments have shown that supersymmetry has not connection with the physical reality.
    Susy is 100% wrong as a theory of Physics.

    Now Susy is a theory of Mathematics.
    It is only a mathematical curiosity, without connection with Physics.

    There is not matter in the universe proposed by Helayel.
    His theory is not a theory of Physics, because his proposal has not connection with the physical reality of the universe, because matter is one of the constituents of the universe.

    If Helayel loves so much Susy as we realize looking at his desperate effort by proposing a crazy hypothesis without connection with the physical reality, then he needs to change the way of his attitude.

    Helayel needs to leave out the Brazillian Center for Physical Research-CPBF, and he must go to a Institute of Mathematics of some University, where he can continue teaching Susy as a mathematical curiosity for young mathematicians.

    This is the most reasonable decision to be taken by a serious scientist.

    But his attempt in trying to keep Susy as a theory of Physics represents a betrayal to the scientific method.

    regards
    wlad

  • Franco

    Dear ing. Rossi,

    if You are still looking for a Stirling engine, I suggest to contact this potential European supplier:

    http://www.okofen-e.com/en/okofen-e/microgen-stirling-engine.html

    It could offer what You need.
    Best Regards

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe wrote in June 29th, 2013 at 5:26 PM in Electrical Catalyst

    Wladimir,

    There is a link posted by Daniel De Caluwe on June 26th, 2013 at 6:04 PM under your article from 2 months ago. It is to an article in Scientific American that describes how protons and neutrons seem to travel around within the nucleus as PAIRS, not as singles (at least 25% of the time anyway). This, of course, resembles the deuterons in your gravitational fluxes n(o). It is considered an “extreme view” of the nuclear dynamics.

    Your friend John Arrington says, “You really have to understand those reaction mechanisms to know what’s going on…” Of course, you have already briefed him on your Quantum Ring Theory, but he does not cite your work for some reason. Maybe he just forgot. Perhaps you should refresh his memory with an email. Perhaps you should contact everyone who rejected your thesis and place their responses here on JONP. It would be quite the learning experience.

    Do not forget to leave a comment at the end of the article in Scientific American.

    All the best,
    Joe

    Oh, my God !!!!!
    … the academic physicists will hate me more than are hating up to now !!!!!
    The experiments insist in corroborate my new nuclear model rssss

    Thanks, Joe,
    I will refresh the Arrington’s memory.
    But I am not sure he will enjoy it
    rsssss

    regards
    wlad

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe wrote in June 29th, 2013 at 9:59 PM
    Wladimir,

    1-
    Failed theories are always salvageable. No theory is completely wrong.

    COMMENT:
    You are wrong.
    Yes, there are theories completely wrong.

    Susy predicted that exist symmetric particles.
    The experiments in LHC have shown that they do not exist.
    So, the theory is wrong.
    To continue trying to save Susy is a betrayal to the scientific method.

    2-
    Scientists can continue to alter SUSY and create new schools of thought.

    COMMENT:
    Yes, they can, by proposing crazy and stupid alternatives.
    Helayel proposed a supersymmetry in the space-time.
    So, Helayel had suppressed the matter from the Universe (since Susy is a theory of the matter).
    Therefore, in the new universe proposed by Helayel there is only space-time, the matter does not exist.

    If you think that his theory makes sense, I am so sorry for you, Joe, because from his theory you do not exist.

    3-
    There will always be something positive to contribute to science.

    COMMENT
    If you think that it is positive to betray the scientific method by trying to keept wrong theories belied by experiments, you are right.

    4-
    It is sometimes hard for a scientist to change his way of thinking because of habit, or because he has a certain skill in only one way of analyzing problems.

    COMMENT
    Yes, for the betrayals of the scientific method is very hard

    5-
    Either way, it is not his fault.

    COMMENT
    Yes, it is. He is trying to stop the advancement of science, teaching a crazy theory to a new generation of physicists

    6-
    But do not worry. Science always marches forward.

    COMMENT
    Of course. Helayel, G. t’Hooft, and the other enemies of science will not survive forever.

    7-
    As far as the E-Cat is concerned, Dr Rossi has already stated to me that it is not a new science.

    COMMENT
    Joe, dont be so ingenuous.

    Why do you think the academic physicists like the Noble Laureate G. t’ Hooft do not accept Rossi’s work?

    Why, along 20 years, the academics had invented all sort of strategy so that to descredit cold fusion?
    The reason is obvious: it’s because all they know that cold fusion brings down all the foundations of current Modern Physics.
    Because they know that cold fusion requires a new science.

    Rossi knows that it’s a new science.
    But a new science always brings a big resistance against its acceptation.
    If Rossi should say that it’s a new science, he would get more problems against his work.
    That’s why he preffers do not irritate the academics. He already has enough problems with the snakes.

    regards
    wlad

  • Joe

    Wladimir,

    Failed theories are always salvageable. No theory is completely wrong. Scientists can continue to alter SUSY and create new schools of thought. There will always be something positive to contribute to science. It is sometimes hard for a scientist to change his way of thinking because of habit, or because he has a certain skill in only one way of analyzing problems. Either way, it is not his fault. But do not worry. Science always marches forward.

    As far as the E-Cat is concerned, Dr Rossi has already stated to me that it is not a new science. Really, this goes without say since science is not a posit of knowledge that keeps changing, but a methodology that is timeless. This is another reason for which approaches to investigation by scientists will never change.

    (By the way, I left an important comment for you in the last article after you responded to me concerning SUSY. Please read it. You might enjoy it.)

    All the best,
    Joe

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Dear Joe

    in 2002 I had a discussion with the Nobel Laureate Dr. G. t’Hooft on the Taleyarkhan and Borghi experiments.

    Regarding the Borghi experiment, Dr. t’Hooft sent me the following reply:

    ====================================
    From: Hooft ‘t G.
    To: ‘Wladimir Guglinski ‘
    Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 7:57 AM
    Subject: RE: fundamental objection against n=p+e

    There is much more wrong with n=p+e, but most of all the fact that the “experimental evidence” is phony.

    G. ‘t H. ======================================

    Joe,
    what do you guess Dr. t’Hooft is thinking about the Rossi’s eCat experimental evidences ?

    Probably he is claiming that Rossi’s technology is phony, dont you think so?

    Dr. Jose Abdala Helayel is a particle theorists of the CBPF- Brazillian Center for Physical Research.
    He is teaching Susy along more than 20 years.
    Now the LHC had proved that Susy is wrong: there are not symmetric particles.

    So, we had to expect that Dr. Helayel should have to accept the experimental evidence against Susy, and recognize it as a wrong theory.
    However Dr. Helayel continues teaching Susy in the CBPF.
    Instead of to reject the theory, he is proposing a new crazy version of Susy: he proposes that there is a supersymmetry in the space-time.

    So, the academic theorists are trying to stop the advancement of the Theoretical Physics, by betraying the scientific method, rejecting the new experimental findings obtained in the last 5 years, which defy the foundations of the current Modern Physics.

    How many years we have to wait, for the academic theorists to abandon their wrong theories, and to undertake a new way of theoretical research ?

    Have we wait that the present generation of academic die, and after their death the new generation start up to develop a new stage of the Modern Physics?

    Or do you think that Rossi’s technology, now finally getting the market in 2013/2014, will accelerate the process of changing the way of investigation, without needing to wait that the present generation of academic physicists die?

    What do you think about, dear Joe?

    regards
    wlad

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>