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

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    Have you considered adding a small readioactive source to the interior of the eCat? This might stabilize the reaction and improve your COP. Maybe Thorium or something similar?

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    Congradulations on your successful technology transfer to your partner corporation. An independent build and successful operation is an enormous achievement. This is truly a landmark day.

  • Eugenio Mieli

    Thanks for your reply, Dr. Rossi !

  • Arthur B

    Dear Dr. Rossi,

    Thank you for confirming my suspicion. No doubt eventually Hot E-Cats will also supply all the electrical power requirements as well. Maybe Next year?

    I suspect that the customer of the E-Cat shipped to the USA a couple of months ago is in fact also the USA E-Cat Factory? I learned a long time ago that when you are selling something that potential everyone (factories) needs you should first become your own best customer. It shows you believe 100% in your products and inspires confidence. Customers will be queuing up. Is that your plan?

  • Greg Leonard

    Dear AR,
    This is such good news.
    I can imagine you have had to commit enormous amounts of your time to simply building units to complete your plants. Now the new production unit has been shown to deliver units without your ‘hands on’ work, it will free your time for the, even more important, task of scientific development,

    As we say in England, ‘more power to your elbow’.

  • Joe

    Wladimir,

    You have suggested that, in the future, QRT will be improved by the work of other scientists. Are you implying that QRT will never be a finished theory? (This, of course, would contradict your philosophical outlook on such matters.)

    All the best,
    Joe

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    JR wrote in July 7th, 2013 at 9:23 AM

    Wladimir,

    1-
    You make it sound as if qualitative and quantitative understanding are mutually exclusive.

    COMMENT
    Yes, they are exclusive when the qualitative model is incompatible with the quantitative properties measured by experiments.

    For instance, from the principles of current Nuclear Physics it`s IMPOSSIBLE to explain why light nuclei with Z=N=pair have non-spherical shape.

    Along 80 years the nuclear theorists used to believe that light nuclei with Z=N=pair should have spherical shape.
    The experiments published in Nature in 2012 have shown that along 80 years the nuclear theorists had believed in a wrong theory.

    While my book Quantum Ring Theory published in 2006 had predicted correctly that ligth nuclei with Z=N=pair have non-spherical shape.
    See Plagiarism in the Journal Natur:
    http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3402

    2-
    I’m not sure what you think the “current model of nuclear physics” is, but it’s been known and accepted for decades the nuclei don’t have to be spherical – they can be oblate or prolate, have can have quadrupole or octopole deformations, etc…., all of which involve being deformed along some axis.

    COMMENT
    Of course… when Z=odd or N=odd.
    Because since there is no perfect symmetry in the distribution of protons and neutrons, the nucleus cannot behave similar to a gas of molecules within a vessel.

    3-
    Modern nuclear models have been used to make quantitative calculations of these deformations, including the octopole deformation, and the measurement you cite was an experimental confirmation of these predictions by current models of nuclear physics.

    COMMENT
    Of course… when Z=odd or N=odd.

    4-
    On the other hand we have traditional nuclear models which can provide quantitative calculations of which deformations occur in which nuclei and how large they are.

    COMMENT
    Of course… when Z=odd or N=odd.

    5-
    I fail to see how this makes your approach better than the traditional models?

    COMMENT
    Then I suggest you to ask it to the physicist Peter Butler of the University of Liverpool, who said:

    “We have been able to show that while radium-224 is pear-shaped, radon- 220 does not assume the fixed shape of a pear but rather vibrates about this shape. The details of these findings are in contradiction with some nuclear theories and will help others to be refined.
    http://www.triumf.ca/research-highlights/experimental-result/cern-isolde-reports-pear-shaped-nuclei

    Of course is very easy to understand why 220Rd and 224Rn contradict the nuclear theories.
    After all, they both have Z=pair and N=pair.

    There is no way to explain why they have no spherical shape, by considering the current theories of Nuclear Physics.

    regards
    wlad

  • Andrea Rossi

    Arthur B.:
    You are right: the Factory will be totally supplied by the E-Cats for all the necessary thermal energy, starting this year.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Eugenio Mieli:
    I already answered to your questions: please see my answers on July 3rd and July 4th 2013.
    Please read carefully those answers:
    1- The E-Cat technology is undergoing rigorous testing and the results- positive, negative, or inconclusive- will provide further guidance about its potential
    2- We 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 our 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.
    AND HERE IS AN UPDATE OF TODAY, JULY 8TH:
    The past three days have been holidays for most, but for us have been a tremendous period of work during which we made a historic page for what concerns our tech: for the first time, an E-Cat module, entirely produced by our USA Partner in the new factory ( a magnificence), charged with the charge made by the Partner’s CEO, using the materials we teached to buy, prepare,manipulate, treat, to make the charges, assembled , insulated, has started its operation, and the results are the same of the E-Cats built by us. This event means that for the first time an E-Cat not built by me, not controlled by me and not charged by me, not tested in my factory, but manufactured from third parties upon our instructions and know how has worked properly. This is the first unit of the plant that will give to the factory of our USA Partner all its necessary thermal energy, and is also the school ship for the employees. It is very important that it has been completely made by the Customer, not by me: it is the first of millions, but the first is always special. We celebrated with Coca Cola ( alcohol is forbidden in that factory). All the former plants, even if built in the USA, had been supplied with reactors cores made by me, so this is a very important step.
    3- Technological development can require a long process, involving many changes as a technology moves forward. E-Cat is undergoing that process now. 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.
    4- E-Cat is still also in a phase of R&D, as I continue this work more findings will be released and additional technical information will be provided once practicable. As I focus on continuing my research, I will not be able to respond to each specific question.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Hi Andrea, here are the links 3 for the 3 interview segments we’ve compiled so far:

    Skepticism:
    https://vimeo.com/69864491

    Andrea Rossi talks about Dr. Sergio Focardi:
    https://vimeo.com/68983909

    The End of the middle Ages;
    https://vimeo.com/68776012

    There will be more segments in the coming weeks.

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe wrote in July 6th, 2013 at 11:20 PM
    Wladimir,

    Six weeks ago, I asked you how you knew where to place the nucleons along the gravitational fluxes n(o) in the case of excited nuclei since you tell us that excited nuclei do not follow the Least Action Principle. You told me that you did not know. Therefore, how can QRT be “qualitatively correct” in determining the shape of excited nuclei if it is lacking the laws to do so?

    Dear Joe
    I said that concerning the light nuclei.
    The place to be taken by the nucleons in excited nuclei depends on the discovery of quantitative laws, to be obtained with the help of experimental data.
    So, in the case of light nuclei is not a qualitative problem, actually it is quantitative.

    regards
    wlad

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    JR wrote in July 7th, 2013 at 9:23 AM

    Wladimir,
    In addition, your description of a supporting example from modern nuclear physics is wrong in most every particular. Their measurements indicate octopole deformation (i.e. pear-like shape) for 220Rn and 224Ra (not “92U”).

    RESPONSE

    Dear JR, you did not understand.

    The non-excited 92U238 is spherical.
    But the EXCITED 92U238 becomes ellipsoidal.

    This shape of excited 92U238 is impossible from the current Nuclear Physics, and I will explain why.

    Consider a spherical rubber ball with radius R filled with gas at temperature 10C.
    The same ball with temperature 50C will have radius R+d, because of the dilation of the gas (d is the increase of the radius).
    The ball keeps its spherical shape (it shape does not become ellipsoidal, because the increase of the pressure of the gas actuates in all the directions). So, the growth ~r~ of the radius R occurs in all radial directions.

    The same would have to occur with the excited nuclei with Z=pair and N=pair, because according to current Nuclear Physics the nucleons occupy the nuclei like a gas of protons and neutrons.

    So, we have according to current Nuclear Physics:
    1- All non-excited nuclei with Z=pair and N=pair have to have a spherical shape.
    2- All excited nuclei with Z=pair and N=pair also have to have a spherical shape.

    There is NOT any physical cause, according to current Nuclear Physics, for the excited nuclei with Z=pair and N=pair to get an ellipsoidal shape, as occurs when the non-excited 92U238 becomes excited.

    Look at the difference:

    1- Non-excited 92U238 must be spherical
    2- Excited 92U238 is ellipsoidal
    3- Non-excited 220Rn and 224Ra are pear-like shape.

    Let` see why, according to Quantum Ring Theory.

    1- Consider 20Ca40.
    It has 3 complete hexagonal floors (odd).
    Therefore 20Ca40 must have a spherical shape, thanks to Pauli`s Principle (thanks to a central floor, the two other floors do not face one each other, and so from Pauli`s Principle they do not interact directly).

    2- Consider 26Fe52
    It has 4 complete hexagonal floors(pair).
    Therefore 26Fe52 must be pear-shape (because there is a conflict between the 4 floors, due to Pauli`s Principle).
    Actually 26Fe52 must vibrate about the pear-shape form, because there is a perfect symmetry in its structure about the central 2He4 (two floors above the central 2He4, and two floors bellow the central 2He4).
    The nucleus vibrate in pear-shape form because due the symmetry the two sides about the central 2He4 dispute the interaction with the 2He4 in the same condictions.

    3- Consider 28Ni56
    It has 4 complete hexagonal floors(pair) + 2 deuterons.
    Therefore 28Ni56 must have stable pear-shape form (because it has NO symmetry about the central 2He4).
    The reason is because the 2 deuterons in excess contribute for one side of the nucleus to be more close to the central 2He4.

    4- Consider 220Rn
    It has 4 complete hexagonal floors (pair)
    So, due to Pauli`s Principle, it must vibrate about pear-shape form (because there is a perfect symmetry about the central 2He4).

    5- Consider 224Ra
    It has 14 complete hexagonal floors (pair) + 2 deuterons.
    So, due to Pauli`s Principle 224Ra must have stable pear-shape form (because there is NO symmetry about the central 2He4).

    6- Consider 92U238
    It has 15 floors (odd, like 20Ca40).
    Therefore due to Pauli`s Principle 92U238 must be spherial, like 20Ca40.

    Note that we are speaking about nuclei with Z=pair and N=pair (because it contributes for the symmetry of the distribution of deuterons about the central 2He4).

    regards
    wlad

  • julian_becker

    Dear Mr. Rossi,

    Congratulations to the Ecat up and running in the United States.

    I know you cannot give any details about the location of the plant, but could you at least name the State or the region within the US where your plant is located (e.g. New England, West Coast, Midwest).

    Best regards,

    Julian

  • Here is the next segment from my interview with Andrea Rossi recorded earlier this year. This segment is about the subject of skepticism as it relates to Andrea Rossi’s work.

    https://vimeo.com/69864491

  • Joe

    Andreas Moraitis,

    If Nature exists, it must necessarily have a structure.
    If Nature does not exist, it can not possibly have a structure.

    The question is, since Nature eludes us, does it do so because its structure is beyond our firm grasp? Or because Nature just simply does not exist?

    Who really knows?

    All the best,
    Joe

  • JR

    Wladimir,

    You make it sound as if qualitative and quantitative understanding are mutually exclusive. Most models that let you calculate various properties of nuclei also provide qualitative pictures of what’s going on. So first off, it’s just silly to dismiss quantitative models as a whole.

    In addition, your description of a supporting example from modern nuclear physics is wrong in most every particular. Their measurements indicate octopole deformation (i.e. pear-like shape) for 220Rn and 224Ra (not “92U”).

    I’m not sure what you think the “current model of nuclear physics” is, but it’s been known and accepted for decades the nuclei don’t have to be spherical – they can be oblate or prolate, have can have quadrupole or octopole deformations, etc…., all of which involve being deformed along some axis. Modern nuclear models have been used to make quantitative calculations of these deformations, including the octopole deformation, and the measurement you cite was an experimental confirmation of these predictions by current models of nuclear physics.

    So on one hand, we have your qualitative model, where you “predict” that it is possible for nuclei to have deformations along an axis. On the other hand we have traditional nuclear models which can provide quantitative calculations of which deformations occur in which nuclei and how large they are. I fail to see how this makes your approach better than the traditional models?

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe wrote in July 6th, 2013 at 4:22 PM

    Andreas Moraitis,

    Humans can not have full knowledge of Nature since we are only a part of Nature. We develop models to help us grapple with the mystery that surrounds us. These models make sense only to us and not Nature. And they keep changing because the challenges that humans face keep changing. A perfect model does not exist. In fact, such a term is an oxymoron. A model is just simply the hope that we have been able to identify some aspect of Nature. But seeing Nature for what it really is, is impossible. Nature escapes us always.

    Dear Joe,
    the science of physics has 2000 years, by considering that his father is Aristotles.

    Classic Physics was born with Galileu and Newton about 400 years ago.

    Modern Physics was born with Einstein 100 years ago.

    How many years we have ahead?
    500 ?
    1000 ?
    2000 ?
    5000 ?
    10.000 ?

    Do you think that scientists will keep your ideas on the indecipherable nature of the Nature along 1000, 2000, 5000. 10.000 years?

    Look at how the experiments are advancing very fast in the last 10 years, in the branch of nanotechnology.
    Now imagine the level of accuracy of experiments along 100 years, 200 yaars, 1000 years…

    Suppose that the models proposed in my Quantum Ring Theory really represent the fundamental structure of the models existing in Nature.

    And suppose the physicists start up to investigate my models in the next upcoming decades.

    Do you think that even along 200, 200, 2000 years… the scientists will not succeed to verify if Nature indeed has the sort of structures proposed in my theory?

    And even if they are not 100% correct (in spite of along the last 5 years the experiments are pointing out that my theory is in the right way), do you think that scientists are not capable to discover another most accurate version of Quantum Ring Theory, along 2000, 5000, 10.000 years ?

    To me… it’s hard to think like you.

    I am refering to the discovery of the nature of MATTER and space (aether).

    Obviously there are other branches of science most difficult to be discovered, as in the field of the origin of the universe, the origin of life, what is inteligence, what is our soul, reincarnation, etc.

    It’s hard to investigate them, because some of them cannot be investigated from the present scientific method, since there is no way to make experiments with some of them (for instance, you cannot make experiments so that to investigate the origin of the universe).
    Perhaps we will never get answer for some mysteries.

    But matter and aether are suitable to be investigated from our scientific method (aether is harder).

    So, in my opinion one day we will have a final theory.
    I dont know how many years there is need.
    But we will get it.

    regards
    wlad

  • Eugenio Mieli

    Dear Dr. Rossi.
    I know that you can’t respond fully because of the obligations with your commercial partner, but I wanted to underline the need to give a true green light to the marketing of products E-Cat.
    We are witnessing the paradox that, while technological research on the apparatus E-Cat runs and, despite the resistance of the academics, the scientific awards arrive, the commercial aspects are left to “dear friend” (as we say in Italy).
    After more than two years after your first shocking public demonstration, from the commercial point of view very little has happened. You can see it from the attendance in your blog which is now limited to us fans, who hang out every day for technical aspects than for organizational developments.
    We no longer see that healthy commercial interest that, even according to you, will make the difference against your opponents. Until now from none of the several licensees significant news have come on the sale and distribution of the E-Cat.
    To conclude, I think your business partner should finally come out and, with you, usher in the beginning of the civil LENR energy.
    Thanks for your attention,
    Eugenio Mieli

  • Andreas Moraitis

    Joe,

    the term “structure” is not equivalent to “ontological status”. Of course, the real “nature” of things remains hidden for us. But looking for it is not the responsibility of scientists.

    Regards,
    Andreas

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    ERRATA:

    In my last post the correct is:

    So, of the great errors of the theorists in the 20th Century had been to neglect the effort so that to find qualitative models, believing that they are NOT of the science interest.

  • Joe

    Wladimir,

    Six weeks ago, I asked you how you knew where to place the nucleons along the gravitational fluxes n(o) in the case of excited nuclei since you tell us that excited nuclei do not follow the Least Action Principle. You told me that you did not know. Therefore, how can QRT be “qualitatively correct” in determining the shape of excited nuclei if it is lacking the laws to do so?

    All the best,
    Joe

  • Arthur B

    Dear Dr. Rossi,

    I have a feeling you may be going this route. If the new Factory is not powered 100% by E-Cats, then E-Cats will be supplying a substantial amount of the required power.???

    Arthur

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Steven N. Karels wrote in July 5th, 2013 at 6:35 AM
    Wladimir,

    All (man-made)theories are just models of the physical universe. They help us understand and predict physical performance and observable activities. Theories are evaluated based on their usefulness.

    Steven,
    let me explain you a big error of the physicists (shared by you, Joe, and many others)

    The theories of Modern Physics have been developed so that to be usefulness, as you said.

    That’s why those theories are in essence mathematical. The main objective of the theorists is to find equations, so that the theory be able to supply QUANTITATIVE results, in order to compare the quantitative results with the values measured in the experiments.

    The theoriest believe that, if the QUANTITATIVE results of the equations are confirmed by experiments, this means that such theory is correct.

    However, from suitable assumptions it is possible to find equations that supply quantitative results corroborated by the experiments, in spite of the physical model adopted does not correspond to the physical model existing in the Nature.

    Therefore a QUANTITATIVE theory is sujected sometimes to be wrong.

    On another hand, QUALITATIVE models are not able to supply quantitative predictions, and so often such models are rejected by the theorists.

    However, the QUALITATIVE models have a great virtue:
    if the model is not able to describe a qualitative property of the model existing in the nature, you can be sure that such qualitative model is wrong.

    According to the current Nuclear Physics, within the nuclei the protons and neutrons have a distribution about the center of the nucleus.

    Then let’s analyse if such physical structure of the nuclei is able to explain a property of the nucleus 92U.
    When 92U is excited, its shape is distorted, and it changes from spherical to ellipsoidal.
    If the distribution of protons and neutrons should be about the center of the nucleus, when 92U is excited its distortion would have to happen in all directions (and not along an axis).
    Therefore the excited 92U would have to keep its spherical shape (but having an increase of the radius in all directions).

    Therefore, from the QUALITATIVE aspect, the current nuclear model of Nuclear Physics cannot be correct, because it is unable to explain a QUALITATIVE property of the heavy nuclei: their distortion occurs along an axis, and NOT along radially along all the directions.

    So, when we discover a correct QUALITATIVE models (which physical structure corresponds to that existing in Nature), such qualitative model is very IMPORTANT, because it suggests to us that protons and neutrons cannot be distributed along the center of the nucleus, as considered in current Nuclear Physics.

    In May-2013 the journal Science had published the paper Studies of pear-shaped nuclei using accelerated radioactive beams,
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v497/n7448/full/nature12073.html
    which suggests that nuclei have indeed an internal axis, and therefore the distribution of protons and neutrons cannot be like considered in Nuclear Physics (distribution about the center of the nucleus).

    Tim Chupp, one of the authors of the paper, gave an interview for the Brazillian blog Inovaçao Tecnológica, where he says:

    ”The pear shape is special. It means that neutrons and protons which compose the nucleus take positions a litle different along an internal axis“

    Such property of nuclei (of having an internal axis) is predicted in the new nuclear model proposed in my book Quantum Ring Theory.

    Therefore a qualitative model is very usefull for the discovery of the structure existing in the Nature.

    And after discovering the correct qualitative model, the next step is to discover the laws that rule its working, so that to find the equations from which we can get quantitative predictions from the model

    So, of the great errors of the theorists in the 20th Century had been to neglect the effort so that to find qualitative models, believing that they are of the science interest.

    regards
    wlad

  • Joe

    Andreas Moraitis,

    Humans can not have full knowledge of Nature since we are only a part of Nature. We develop models to help us grapple with the mystery that surrounds us. These models make sense only to us and not Nature. And they keep changing because the challenges that humans face keep changing. A perfect model does not exist. In fact, such a term is an oxymoron. A model is just simply the hope that we have been able to identify some aspect of Nature. But seeing Nature for what it really is, is impossible. Nature escapes us always.

    All the best,
    Joe

  • Andreas Moraitis

    Wladimir,

    You wrote: “I think that if a theory shows to be successful in all the levels, we may conclude that there is identity between the model and the observed reality.”

    I admit that the opposite would be at least very unlikely, although it seems (in my opinion) not completely impossible. The complex, multilayered structure of physical reality – normally an obstacle for science – turns out to be an advantage: In a less complex world, the number of functional identical (but structural different) potential models would be much higher, therefore the difficulties to find the “right” theory could be tremendous.

    Regards,
    Andreas

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Andreas Moraitis wrote in July 6th, 2013 at 3:12 AM
    Joe,

    1-
    “Truth” in a strong sense would require structural identity of the model and
    the observed reality.

    COMMENT:
    Yes.
    Just because Quantum Mechanics works in the level of atoms and molecules, but it fails in deeper levels like nuclei and particles.

    The experiments in the LHC have been made with the aim to test the present theories in a deeper level.
    And the experiments have shown that there is no identity between the model and the observe reality.

    So, the current theories of Modern Physics are not truth in the strong sence (they are 100% wrong).

    2-
    Admittedly, it’s very difficult (if not impossible) to determine if this is the case: Even if we find no differences between
    predictions and observations we can never be sure, for the above-mentioned reason.

    COMMENT:
    Andreas,
    I think that if a theory shows to be successful in all the levels, we may conclude that there is identity between the model and the observed reality.

    regards
    wlad

  • Steven N. Karels

    Wladimir Guglinski,

    Thank you for your response. Obviously you are a mathematician or a physicist, while I am an engineer. You seek absolute truth while I seek “close enough” to make it work.

    I would suggest seeking a theory that is 100% correct is a fool’s errand – you will never achieve it. A theory that is so perfect that it cannot be improved or refined? Also, if it is not verified by experimentation, what good is it? At some level, it must be tested and accurately predict, within experimental errors, the outcome.

    Under your definition of anything short of 100% correct must be 100% incorrect, then all theories are 100% incorrect. For a theory to be 100% incorrect, it must fail all tests. Is a theory that predicts correct observable behavior, say, 80% of the time a 100% incorrect theory?

    I always enjoy your posts, though, I must admit that I understand little of what you propose. Theorectical physics is not my field.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Arthur B:
    Thank you for the suggestion,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Arthur B

    Hi There Dr. Rossi,

    If I were your corporate partner, I would build a Brand New Showcase Factory to build E-Cats, Power it exclusively by E-Cats before opening it up to the public. The factory will be 100% green and say it all.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    Joe,

    I agree. Nevertheless, models with very different structures can generate the
    same output from an identical input. For instance, ancient astronomers were
    able to make accurate predictions in many cases, although most of their
    assumptions were wrong. Their theories were useful, as is classical mechanics
    to this day, despite of the fact that is has been outdated by relativistic
    physics. Therefore, you could call all these theories “true” in a weak sense.
    “Truth” in a strong sense would require structural identity of the model and
    the observed reality. Admittedly, it’s very difficult (if not impossible) to
    determine if this is the case: Even if we find no differences between
    predictions and observations we can never be sure, for the above-mentioned
    reason.

    Regards,
    Andreas

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Steven N. Karels wrote in July 5th, 2013 at 6:35 AM
    Wladimir,

    1-
    Theories are evaluated based on their usefulness. No one expects a theory to be 100% correct.

    COMMENT
    I expect.
    It’s enough for me.

    If I thought like you, Joe, the physicists, and the philosophers, I would never had started to develop my theory.

    2-
    They help us understand and predict physical performance and observable activities. Theories are evaluated based on their usefulness

    COMMENT
    I did not develop my theory so that to predict physical performance and observable activities.

    I did develop my theory so that to discover the structure of the matter and space, the laws that rule the behavior of matter, so that to understand how the universe works.

    Predictions are consequence.

    If the theory is 100% correct (if its structure corresponds to that existing in Nature), then of course such theory will give correct predictions and will describe correctly the phenomena.

    3-
    Likewise, no one expects a theory to be 100% incorrect as to become a theory it must have shown some veracity in the observable world to become a theory.

    COMMENT
    I dont need to expect a theory to be 100% incorrect.

    If the theory is not 100% correct, then obviously it is 100% incorrect.

    regards
    wlad

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Andreas Moraitis wrote in July 5th, 2013 at 1:46 AM

    Joe: I think that the controversy between you and Wladimir is just based on a semantic difference.

    However, Wladimir seems to favor a stronger concept of “truth”. For him, a theory must not only gain correct predictions, it must also reflect the structure of the observed reality and describe correctly the underlying processes.

    Andreas,
    you did get the point.

    As I said earlier, the Philosophy of Science advances together with the advancement of Theoretical Physics.

    As the theories of Modern Physics are 100% wrong, the physicists and philosophers have created such concept of “partially correct”, so that to give credibility to their theories.

    It would be hard for them to consider their theories as 100% wrong.

    There is a structure of matter and space in the Nature.
    If a theory is not developed from the same structure existing in Nature, the theory is 100% wrong.

    But from suitable premises, it’s possible to develop a mathematic theory capable to get some correct predictions in a certain level, in spite the physical theory underlying that mathematical theory is 100% wrong (because its structure of matter and space is not of that existing in Nature).

    In the future the physicists and philosophers will change such criterium addopted in the Philosophy of Science

    regards
    wlad

  • Joe

    Andreas Moraitis,

    The simulation of a phenomenon can teach us a little about the nature of that phenomenon, even if only in the abstract. For example, the attempt to create artificial intelligence stems from the fact that the brain resembles a network of signals and can therefore perhaps be modeled using electric circuits.

    All the best,
    Joe

  • Andrea Rossi

    Svein Utne:
    Yes, full time now.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Dear Andrea Rossi,
    Are you working for the “USA Concern”?

    Regares
    Svein Utne

  • Andrea Rossi

    Michel:
    R&D involves our technology in all its aspects, and all the tests we are making are at the base of the evolution of all our present and future line of production. As the chief scientist of the USA Concern, this is my main duty.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Steven N. Karels

    Wladimir,

    I agree with Joe reqarding “100% Correct” and “100% incorrect” statements. All (man-made)theories are just models of the physical universe. They help us understand and predict physical performance and observable activities. Theories are evaluated based on their usefulness. No one expects a theory to be 100% correct. Likewise, no one expects a theory to be 100% incorrect as to become a theory it must have shown some veracity in the observable world to become a theory.

    So, in my opinion, to use the term 100% correct or 100% incorrect weakens your argument.

  • Michel

    Dear Dr Rossi,

    You said E-cat is still in a phase of R&D: do you mean 10kW domestic E-cat?
    If yes, i understand certification is not the only reason for the postponement of large-scale manufacturing?

    Regards,

    Michel

  • Andreas Moraitis

    Joe: I think that the controversy between you and Wladimir is just based on a semantic difference. If I understand you correctly, in your opinion a theory is already “true” if it allows predictions about forthcoming events. In this case, it would be suitable at least for practical purposes. However, Wladimir seems to favor a stronger concept of “truth”. For him, a theory must not only gain correct predictions, it must also reflect the structure of the observed reality and describe correctly the underlying processes. Take the example of a chess computer, being able to simulate the “behavior” of a human chess player: Although the computer might work well, examining its hard- and software would tell us almost nothing about the human brain’s structure and mode of operation.

    Regards,
    Andreas

  • Peter Forsberg

    Interesting. Thanks for your reply Wladimir!

  • Joe

    Wladimir,

    There will always exist a multitude of models, each of which contributes something positive. As such is the case, these models will always be disjoint to a degree. Therefore, incoherencies are to be expected. Science is an ongoing pursuit of knowledge, and never a finished product. For example, although gravity has yet to be incorporated into the Standard Model, the present laws of gravity still work well enough for engineers to use when calculating the flight paths of satellites or probes.

    As far as waves are concerned, they follow the same rule that everything else does: behavior and nature are inseparable. The helical trajectory of an electron about the proton in a H atom is caused by the interaction of the wave natures of both the electron and the proton. (Here, I am assuming that neither one exhibited helicity before they met each other.) If either one lacked a wave nature, no helical trajectory would result since no combination of wave natures would be possible. Wave nature speaks only to wave nature. (Likewise, particle nature speaks only to particle nature.)

    All the best,
    Joe

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe wrote in July 4th, 2013 at 5:28 PM
    Wladimir,

    1-
    The Ptolemaic system is not 100% wrong.

    COMMENT
    Joe, in Ptolemaic system all the planets and the Sun move about the Earth.

    This is 100% wrong, since we know that actually the Earth and the planets move about the Sun.

    If you take the Earth as referential frame, you can consider the Sun moving about the Earth. And as the Moon movies about the Earth, then it is easy to understand why the 100% wrong Ptolemaic system is able to predict eclipses.

    But in a deeper level, the Ptolemaic fails 100% , when we try to make prediction with the other planets, since they move about the Sun, and not about the Earth.

    The same happens with Quantum Mechanics. It works in the level of atoms. But it fails in a deeper level: of nucleus and particle physics.

    2-
    Quantum Mechanics is not 100% wrong.

    Both have made successful predictions.

    Joe,
    in my book The Missed U-Turn it is written the following:

    ====================================
    So, Schrödinger Equation is successful thanks to a series of coincidences, because although many unknown mechanisms hidden in nature were not considered in his development, however he discovered the equation that discribes the resultant of those several unknown mechanisms.
    However, as happens with the own Quantum Mechanics, Schrödinger Equation is successful up to a level. In a deeper level it does not work. That’s why his equation cannot explain, for example, the existence of hydrine hydrides, produced by BlackLight Power Inc. For the explanation of their existence a new hydrogen model is required.

    […]

    As starting point, Schrödinger gained inspiration from the equation Bohr obtained for the energy levels of the hydrogen atom.

    Without knowing the true mechanism, shown here, by which the electron interacts with the proton in the hydrogen atom, he succeeded in finding the equation that describes the electron’s behavior.

    Schrödinger started from some properties inherent to the helical trajectory, such as the wave-particle duality expressed by the de Broglie equation λ=h/p, and, by speculating on the form of the differential equation that the wave should have, he arrived at the final form of his famous equation, which gives the energy levels of an the atom when it emits photons.

    The Schrödinger equation involves the use of imaginary numbers. An imaginary number is the square root of a negative number and, therefore, the square of an imaginary number is a negative number. This use of an imaginary number in Schrödinger’s equation reflects the complexity of the mechanisms to which the electron is subject in the hydrogen atom: the contraction of the space, the zoom-effect, the loss of inertia when the electron moves away from the proton, etc.

    Actually, one has to be amazed by the path followed to achieve this scientific discovery, since Schrödinger discovered his equation in the 1930’s and the true meaning of his equation, which connects his equation to physical reality, was discovered only in 2004.

    ====================================

    So, Joe,
    yes, Quantum Mechanics is 100% wrong. It is missing in the theory many fundamental concepts, as shown in my book.

    But consider the following:
    1- The electron moving about the proton with helical trajectory can be described by the sinusoidal equation considered by Schrodinger.

    2- But instead of to consider the helical trajectory, Schrodinger had considered the sinusoidal equation working together with the wave-particle duality of de Broglie

    3- Therefore, from the mathematical viewpoint, Schrodinger obtained a successful equation.

    4- However, the success was due to a COINCIDENCE, because the TRUE FUNDAMENTAL responsible for the success of Schrodinger equation is actually (among other mechanisms) the HELICAL TRAJECTORY.

    5-
    The only way to establish the veracity of a theory is by analyzing the results of its predictions.

    COMMENT
    WRONG

    Before Bohr had discovered his hydrogen model, the physicist Voigt had proposed a theory so that to explain the Balmer scale.
    His theory was pure mathematics.
    Voigt did not consider any fundamental mechanism considered in the Bohr model, as for instance:
    a) the electron moving about the proton
    b) the jumping of the electron between levels in the atom (keept in the Quantum Mechanics later).

    But in spite of Voigt theory was 100% wrong, because it was only a mathematical adaptation to the phenomena, however his theory was able to describe some phenomena.

    Therefore, due to some coincidences, from the mathematics is possible to get good predictions, if good assumptions are taken in consideration (as for instance the replacement of the helical trajectory by Schrodinger, replacing it by the sinusoidal equation and the de Broglie postulate of duality wave-particle).

    5-
    The greater that the percentage of positive results is, the truer that that theory is.

    COMMENT
    No.
    The percentage of positive results depends on the assumptions taken in consideration, as those taken by Schrodinger.

    6-
    How else can we establish the veracity of any theory, including QRT?

    COMMENT
    A theory 100% correct must be able to explain 100% all the phenomena.

    Quantum Mechanics is unable to explain several phenomena.
    For instance, the hydrino hydrides.
    That’s why the academic theorists prefer do not talk about their existence

    regards
    wlad

  • Andrea Rossi

    Steven Travis:
    You asked in your comment ( spammed because contained unpublicable phrases) a question which merits an answer about time and role.
    E-Cat is still in a phase of research and development, as I continue this work more findings will be released and additional technical information will be provided once practicable. As I focus on continuing my research, I will not be able to respond to each specific questions.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Peter Forsberg wrote in July 4th, 2013 at 12:01 PM

    Can you explain a little bit more in laymans terms how the electron or photon propagates through space? What is it, in your view, that causes the helical trajectory? (Surely not a defect parachute). What is space made of?

    Dear Peter,
    the helical trajectory is caused by the interaction of the particle motion with the aether.

    As you know, the electron has a spin. If the electron should not have a spin, it would move in the aether with a rectilinear trajectory.
    The spin works like a “defect” in the parachute.

    In QRT the space is filled by particles and their antiparticles:
    electric particles e(+) and e(-)
    magnetic particles m(+) and m(-)
    permeability particles p(+) and p(-)
    gravity attractive particles g(+) and g(-)
    gravity repulsive particles G(+) and G(-)

    The agglutination of the electric particles constitute the bodies of photons and quarks.

    With this structure is also explained the macroscopic phenomena, as for instance the magnetic field of a loadstone and the electromagnetic field around a wire with electric current.

    The interaction between those particles follow some rules.

    So, it seems its the such aether is similar to that supposed by Steven Wolfram.

    regards
    wlad

  • Joe

    Wladimir,

    The Ptolemaic system is not 100% wrong.

    Quantum Mechanics is not 100% wrong.

    Both have made successful predictions.

    The only way to establish the veracity of a theory is by analyzing the results of its predictions. The greater that the percentage of positive results is, the truer that that theory is.

    How else can we establish the veracity of any theory, including QRT?

    All the best,
    Joe

  • Joe

    Peter,

    The paradigm of cause and effect is the essence of science. Without causal relationships, Nature would be stillborn. A potential gap in the laws of Nature is absurd. This gives rise to the old saying: Nature abhors a void.

    All the best,
    Joe

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Email sent to Dr. John Arrington (Argonne National Laboratory):

    From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
    To: johna_6@yahoo.com

    CC: epja@itkp.uni-bonn.de; helayel@cbpf.br; jyeston@aaas.org; prc@aps.org; apr-edoffice@aip.org; nature@nature.com; cjp@fzu.cz; ver@cisp-publishing.com; pnj@bauuinstitute.com

    Subject: new experiment (May-2013) reinforces new nuclear model of QRT
    Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2013 16:29:16 -0300

    Dear Dr. John Arrington

    In my email to the Senior Editor Dr. Karen Howell of the journal Nature, of Sat 11 2013, I had stated to her:

    ========================================
    In my email to the editor of the European Physical Journal I told him that each day the journals of Physics will continue to publish plagiarisms of my book, because as many experiments are suggesting that my theory is correct, then it is obvious that new experimental findings (which are coming to light now and will be coming in the future) will oblige the theorists to addopt the arguments of mine proposed in my book.

    In 2012 the journal European Physica Journal had published a plagiarism of the idea of mine on the space filled by particles and antiparticles.

    http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3464&mode=&order=0&thold=0

    Now the journal Nature had published the plagiarism of my argument that there is a central axis within the nuclei.

    So, new plagiarism are coming, of course.
    ========================================

    Well,
    dear Dr. Arrington,
    my prediction was correct.

    A new experiment has showed protons and neutrons pairing up within the nuclei.

    As you know, such a property (protons and neutrons pairing up) of nuclei is predicted in my new nuclear model published in my book Quantum Ring Theory, in 2006.

    The experiment:

    Commented in Scientific American:
    Particle Pals: Neutrino Experiment Shows Protons and Neutrons Pairing Up
    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=neutrino-minerva&WT.mc_id=SA_WR_20130626

    Published by Physical Review Letters:
    Measurement of Muon Neutrino Quasi-Elastic Scattering on a Hydrocarbon Target at E_ν ~ 3.5 GeV
    http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.2243

    Look at the protons and neutrons pairing up in the oxygen and carbon nuclei, as published in the article Stability of Light Nuclei, published in the Andrea Rossi’s blog:

    oxigen 8O16, Figure 2, page 5

    carbon 6C12, Figure 15, page 18

    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Stability%20of%20light%20nuclei.pdf

    Of course, we may expect more confirmations and plagiarisms for the upcoming months and years.

    Regards
    WLADIMIR GUGLINSKI

  • Peter Forsberg

    Wladimir,

    Some extra explanation for what I am getting at: Steven Wolfram for example believes that space time is created by a connection of nodes and certain transformation rules. Leibniz speculated about nodes he called monads. What is your thinking?

    Regards

    Peter

  • Peter Forsberg

    Wladimir,

    Yes, I know these facts. The helical trajectory is an interesting hypothesis for explaining the zitterbewegung and the wave particle duality. But I am not physisist, so I am not competent to judge the validity.

    Can you explain a little bit more in laymans terms how the electron or photon propagates through space? What is it, in your view, that causes the helical trajectory? (Surely not a defect parachute). What is space made of?

    Regards

    Peter

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Steven N. Karels,

    I agree, for some reason when “man made” term is used, it ignites negative reactions, maybe it is just a natural human reaction, “it is not my fault”. At any rate you are right; fossil fuel use is the problem. To get the majority of people behind a speedy reduction is the real problem.

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>