by
U.V.S.Seshavatharam
Honorary Faculty, Institute of Scientific Research on Vedas(I-SERVE)
Hyderabad-35, India
Email: seshavatharam.uvs@gmail.com
.
.
Introduction
Now as recently reported at the American Astronomical Society a study using the Very Large Array radio telescope in New Mexico and the French Plateau de Bure Interferometer has enabled astronomers to peer within a billion years of the Big Bang and found evidence that black holes were the first that leads galaxy growth. The implication is that the black holes started growing first. Initially astrophysicists attempted to explain the presence of these black holes by describing the evolution of galaxies as gathering mass until black holes format their center but further observation demanded that the galactic central black hole co-evolved with the galactic bulge plasma dynamics and the galactic arms. This is a fundamental confirmation of N. Haramein’s theory described in his papers as a universe composed of “different scale black holes from universal size to atomic size”.
This clearly suggests that: galaxy constitutes a central black hole; the central black hole grows first; Star and galaxy growth goes parallel or later to the central black holes growth. The fundamental questions are: If “black hole” is the result of a collapsing star, how and why a stable galaxy contains a black hole at its center? Where does the central black hole comes from? How the galaxy center will grow like a black hole? How its event horizon exists with growing? If these are the observed and believed facts — not only for the author — this is a big problem for the whole science community to be understood.
Any how, the important point to be noted here is that “due to some unknown reason galactic central black holes are growing”! This is the key point for the beginning of the proposed expanding or growing cosmic black hole! See this latest published reference for the “black hole universe”. In our daily life generally it is observed that any animal or fruit or human beings (from birth to death) grows with closed boundaries (irregular shapes also can have a closed boundary). An apple grows like an apple. An elephant grows like an elephant. A plant grows like a plant. A human grows like a human. Through out their lifetime they won’t change their respective identities. These are observed facts. From these observed facts it can be suggested that “growth” or “expansion” can be possible with a closed boundary. By any reason if the closed boundary is opened it leads to “destruction” rather than “growth or expansion”. Thinking that nature loves symmetry, in a heuristic approach in this paper author assumes that“ through out its lifetime universe is a black hole”. Even though it is growing, at any time it is having an event horizon with a closed boundary and thus it retains her identity as a black hole forever. Note that universe is an independent body. It may have its own set of laws. At any time if universe maintains a closed boundary to have its size minimum at that time it must follow “strong gravity” at that time.
If universe is having no black hole structure any massive body(which is bound to the universe) may not show a black hole structure. That is black hole structure may be a subset of cosmic structure. This idea may be given a chance.
Rotation is a universal phenomenon. We know that black holes are having rotation and are not stationary. Recent observations indicates that black holes are spinning close to speed of light.
In this paper author made an attempt to give an outline of “expanding and light speed rotating black hole universe” that follows strong gravity from its birth to end of expansion.
Stephen Hawking in his famous book A Brief History of Time, in Chapter 3 which is entitled The Expanding Universe, says: “Friedmann made two very simple assumptions about the universe: that the universe looks identical in which ever direction we look, and that this would also be true if we were observing the universe from anywhere else. From these two ideas alone, Friedmann showed that we should not expect the universe to be static. In fact, in 1922, several years before Edwin Hubble’s discovery, Friedmann predicted exactly what Hubble found… We have no scientific evidence for, or against, the Friedmann’s second assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty: it would be most remarkable if the universe looked the same in every direction around us, but not around other points in the universe”.
From this statement it is very clear and can be suggested that, the possibility for a “closed universe” and a “flat universe” is 50–50 per cent and one cannot completely avoid the concept of a “closed universe”.
Clearly speaking, from Hubble’s observations and interpretations in 1929, the possibility of “galaxy receding” and “galaxy revolution” is 50–50 per cent and one cannot completely avoid the concept of “rotating universe”.
.
.
Hank Mills:
Thank you for your good questions, useful to make clear that:
1- we are trying to use gas as fuel instead of electric power, because gas is very cheap now in the USA: this is R&D
2- jet engines do not necessarily have to fly: they can make co-generation and tri-generation, heat generation.
3- all our mail lines of R&D remain open
Warmest Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Regarding your answer to Frank Acland: When you are talking about a hybridized system, do you mean that the H-Cat is directly combined with the gas turbine, or do you refer to a compound system with a separate water/steam cycle that utilizes your reactors (perhaps with a bypass from the gas line) as an additional heat source?
Best regards,
Andreas Moraitis
Mark Saker:
So far all we want to do is test the operation of the Hot Cats in a ” hybridized” old and not flying jet engine on the bench. After that we will think to the possible applications, if the results will be positive. But could be negative, so for now we are just at the R&D level.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
Please tell me if you are working on a hybridized jet engine for aviation purposes (reducing the combustible fuel by using the ecat to heat the air) or purely for electricity generation?
Your wording could be misconstrued as it sounds like jet engine for aviation unless that is what you mean 🙂
thanks
Mark
Dear Andrea,
The E-Cat seems to be the ideal cold fusion or LENR device in many way: it produces very high temperature, requires only cheap nickel and hydrogen, can self sustain, does not prodice any nuclear waste, produces only tiny ammounts of low level gamma that can be easily shielded, etc. The only weakness of the tech – even though it is amazing in all other areas – is that it requires large ammounts of input power to keep it stable. If some other method could be developed to stop the reaction from running away, the COP could go be almost infinite and this technology literally could not get any better.
What is the line of thinking that convinced you to spend time, money, and energy on jet engine applications instead of the one final area of the technology that could use improvement? I understand that prodicts need to be developed so money can be made to further research. However, you are already working on electrical production via traditional steam turbines. Why move onto somethong else before figuring out a way of limiting the temperature of the reactor without large amounts of input power?
I just see the E-Cat as a tech that already beats all others on the planet, but could be made even better with one more improvement.
Frank Acland:
Perhaps you remember that we made R&D also using gas as a fuel. That line of R&D has been carried on and we are now preparing for a pilot jet engine gas fueled hybridized with an E-Cats assembly. This is exactly what I am working upon during these very days, while the work of the third indipendent party is going on with the hot cat. Obviously, the technology of the Hot Cat is strictly connected with the gas fueled Hot Cat. But remember: I still must say that:
THE RESULTS OF THE EXPERIMENT IN COURSE MADE BY THE THIRD INDIPENDENT PARTY CAN BE POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE AND NOTHING SPECIFIC ABOUT THE FUTURE WORK CAN BE SAID UNTIL THE RESULTS ARE PUBLISHED, POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE AS THEY MIGHT BE.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Anonymous:
I too hope you are well.
A- the third party test is going on. There will be no updates until the publication of the report.
B- my position of chief scientist of Industrial Heat does not involve me in commercial issues. I know strong activity is in course for what concerns the industrialization.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
You mentioned on the JONP that the Hot Cat could be useful with a gas turbine
“If we will be able to get positive results, the ranges of temperature will be enough high to allow gas turbines or very good efficiencies with the Carnot cycle, especially in co-generation or three-generation assemblies.”
— but I don’t understand how a gas turbine would work since you have no combustible fuel.
Am I misunderstanding you?
Thank you!
Frank Acland:
Thank you for your important reference from the consulting electrical engineer Tom Wind. Very interesting lecture.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Mr. Rossi
I hope that you are well.
I was wondering
(A) if there was any update on the status of the third party test and
(B) Whether there was anything you could tell us about possible industrialization efforts. Are you targeting current applications or negotiating with potential customers or is your focus currently on research?
Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions
Dear Andrea,
I went to the University of Northern Iowa last night to attend a lecture about LENR by consulting electrical engineer Tom Wind. He was very positive about the subject, and spend a good portion of the meeting talking about the E-Cat. Here’s a report I wrote:
http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/03/report-uni-lenr-lecture-by-tom-wind/
Best wishes, Frank Acland
Joe wrote in March 10th, 2014 at 3:16 PM
Wladimir,
By D.1, a difference between P(+) and P(-) in their interaction with n(o) would mean a difference in electric charge between particles. But in reality, charges are identical.
——————————————–
COMMENT
Joe,
there is a possible explanation.
Consider that, regarding to the aether at rest in the space, we have:
a) the flux n(o) formed by gravitons g(+) gyrates in clockwise direction
b) the flux n(o) formed by gravitons g(-) gyrates in counter clockwise direction.
c) the interaction between P(+) and P(-) with the flux n(o) is stable only when the flux n(o) gyrates in closckwise direction with lower angular velocity w.
d) the interaction between P(+) and P(-) with the flux n(o) is stable only when the flux n(o) gyreates in the counter clockwise direction with faster angular velocity W.
.
So, let us analyse the proton, the positron, the electron, and the neutron:
Proton
It is stable because as the flux n(o) formed by gravitons g(+) gyrates in clockwise direction and lower angular velocity w, and so the fields formed by P(+) and P(-) are stable
Positron
It is NO stable because as the flux n(o) formed by gravitons g(+) gyrates in counter clockwise direction and faster angular velocity W, and so the fields formed by P(+) P(-) are NO stable
Electron
It is stable because as the flux n(o) formed by gravitons g(-) gyrates in counter clockwise direction and faster angular velocity W, and so the fields formed by P(+) and P(-) are stable.
Neutron formed by proton+electron:
The flux n(o) of the proton gyrates in clockwise direction, and the flux n(o) of the electron gyrates in reverse.
The coupling of the two fluxes n(o) is like the coupling of two gears, because in the coupling of two gears they rotate in reverse. This coupling in reverse of the two fluxes n(o) contributes for the interaction proton-electron in the structure of the neutron.
regards
wlad
Joe wrote in March 10th, 2014 at 3:16 PM
Wladimir,
By D.1, a difference between P(+) and P(-) in their interaction with n(o) would mean a difference in electric charge between particles. But in reality, charges are identical.
————————————————–
COMMENT
I am not saying about difference in the intensity.
I am thinking about a difference in the way as the interaction occurs.
Perhaps the interaction between n(o) and P(-) does not create a stable field.
I was also thinking that perhaps there is another particle which helps the interaction between the flux n(o) and the particles P(+) and P(-).
For instance, a particle i(o).
And the interaction between P(+) and i(o) occurs in a different way as it occurs between P(-) and i(o).
For instance,
we could suppose that i(o) interacts 100% with P(+), but not 100% with P(-).
regards
wlad
Wladimir,
By D.1, a difference between P(+) and P(-) in their interaction with n(o) would mean a difference in electric charge between particles. But in reality, charges are identical.
All the best,
Joe
Joe wrote in March 9th, 2014 at 7:36 PM
Wladimir,
4. How does QRT explain the preference for matter over antimatter in the Universe?
—————————————–
COMMENT:
Joe,
actually the assymetry must be the following:
a) either there is a little different between the interaction of the permeabilitons p(+) and p(-) with the flux n(0)
or
b) there is a little different between the interaction of the permeabilitons P(+) and P(-) with the flux n(0).
or
c) both at the same time
regards
wlad
Joe wrote in March 9th, 2014 at 7:36 PM
Wladimir,
1.
How does QRT explain the constancy of electric charge? Is the answer that, by Law 5, the angular velocity of the flux n(o) of the particle must be constant?
——————————————
COMMENT:
Yes
2.
How do gravitons g and G interact with each other in the aether away from the particle?
———————————————
COMMENT:
Gravitons g do not interact with gravitons G
3.
Likewise, how do two g gravitons interact with each other in the aether away from the particle?
——————————————-
COMMENT
They do not interact in the aether away from the particle.
This is known as Mach Principle.
The space (aether) has its properties thanks to the presence of matter in the universe.
The interaction of any two particles is via the permeabilitons p(+), p(-), P(+), P(-).
4.
How does QRT explain the preference for matter over antimatter in the Universe?
——————————————-
COMMENT
I think that there is a little different between the interaction of the permeabilitons p(+) and P(+) with the flux n(0).
Such assymetry is responsible for the matter preference over antimatter
regards
wlad
Wladimir,
1. How does QRT explain the constancy of electric charge? Is the answer that, by Law 5, the angular velocity of the flux n(o) of the particle must be constant?
2. How do gravitons g and G interact with each other in the aether away from the particle?
3. Likewise, how do two g gravitons interact with each other in the aether away from the particle?
4. How does QRT explain the preference for matter over antimatter in the Universe?
All the best,
Joe
Joe wrote in March 7th, 2014 at 9:44 PM
Wladimir,
In QRT, repulsive gravitons G surround the fluxes n(o) of attractive gravitons g. This has the effect of keeping the fluxes n(o) from attracting each other and uniting, which means that G is neutralizing g (in the short distance). Since neutralization implies that G = g, how is it possible that g still has an influence beyond the short distance?
=============================================
COMMENT
Dear Joe,
after the analysis of several questions (as the mass and charge of proton and electron, and the similarity between the structures of the neutron, neutrino, and photon), my conclusion is that there are the following particles of the aether:
gravitons g(+) and g(-), G(+) and G(-)
magnetons m(+) and m(-)
electricitons e(+) and e(-)
permeabilitons p(+) and p(-) , P(+) and P(-)
.
Laws of interaction forming the fields of the proton:
Law 1- The body-ring of proton gyrates and induces the flux n(o) formed by gravitons g(+) with the speed c of light. It is the Principal field Sp(p) of proton.
Law 2- The flux n(o) gyrates and induces a second field formed by permeabilitons p(+) and P(+). Such field formed by p(+) and P(+) is spread in the aether around the field Sp(p). This is the secondary field Sn(p) of the proton. This field Sn(p) does not gyrate, because it is an extension of the aether around the body-ring of proton, meaning that such secondary field is a portion of the aether around the proton, formed by with p(+) and P(+) excited by the rotation of the flux n(o).
Law 3- The permeabilitons p(+) excited by the flux n(o) of the proton capture magnetons m(+), and so a magnetic field is formed by magnetons m(+) in the proton.
Law 4- The permeabilitons P(+) excited by the flux n(o) of the proton capture electricitons e(+), and so an electric field is formed by electricitons e(+).
Law 5-The intensity of excitation of the permeabilitons P(+) depends on the velocity of the rotation of the flux n(o).
Law 6- The intensity of excitation of the permeabilitons p(+) does not change with the changing of the velocity of rotation of the flux n(o).
Law 7- The magnetons m(+) of the proton’s magnetic field capture gravitons G(+), and so a gravity field of gravitons G(+) is formed in the aether surrounding the proton.
Law 8- The interaction between two gravitons G(+) is 10^40 times weaker than the interaction between two electricitons e(+)
Law 9- Two gravitons G(+) and G(-) moving in two parallel circular motion with radius R in contrary direction cancel each other their interaction with the gravitons G(+) and G(-) of the aether
.
A) Inertia-mass of the proton
Suppose a proton is at rest in the aether. The gravitons G(+) of the proton’s field interact with the gravitons G(+) of the ether, and so the there is need a force F in order to put the proton moving with velocity v, because the force of interaction between the gravitons G(+) of the proton and the gravitons G(+) of the aether must be won.
Imagine that a force F is applied on the proton. Then those gravitons G(+) of the aether are left behind the displacement of the proton, and other grávitons G(+) of the aether (in front of the motion) have interaction with the gravitons G(+) of the proton’s field.
I call such phenomenon “substitution frequency” (when a graviton G(+) is abandoned and other gráviton G(+) is captured ahead the motion), and it is responsible for the Newton’s inertia Law. For the proton moving with velocity “v” there is a specific substitution frequency. If another force is applied, and the proton’s velocity increases from v to V , then the substitution frequency increases, and so the motion gets a new specific substitution frequency. For each velocity of the proton corresponds a specific subsitution frequency.
The substitution frequency is responsible for the Newton’s inertia Law. But it is also responsible for the Einstein’s Law of inertia growth with the velocity, because the growth of the substitution frequency grows according to Einstein’s equation of the inertia growth. When the proton approaches the velocity of light, the substitution frequency approaches to a maximum value and the inertia of the proton tends to infinitum.
.
B) Electric interaction between two protons
When there is overlap between the fields of two protons, there is a force of repulsion between their electricitons e(+), and so there is a Coulomb repulsion between them.
.
C) Gravity interaction between two protons
When there is overlap between the fields of two protons, the grvitons G(+) of the two prótons have Interaction, and so there is a gravity attraction between them. As the magnitude of the attraction between two gravitons G(+) is 10^40 times weaker than the repulsion between two electricitons e(+), therefore the gravity interaction is 10^40 times weaker than the electrical interaction.
.
D) Why electron is less massive than the proton
The electric and gravity fields of the electron are similar to the two fields of the proton, replacing the particles by their antiparticles g(-), G(-), m(-), e(-), p(-), P(-).
However the body-ring of the electron is formed by quarks k and q which are less massive than the quarks up and down of the proton.
Therefore the flux n(o) of the electron, formed by gravitons g(-), is weaker than the flux n(o) of gravitons g(+) in the proton (i.e., the quantity of gravitons g(-) in the flux n(o) of the electron is lower). But in another hand, the rotation of the electron’s body-ring is faster, and it gyrates with angular velocity “W” faster than the angular velocity “w” in the proton.
And then we have:
.
D.1) Electric charge of the electron:
The permeabilitons P(-) in the field of the electron are susceptible to the faster angular velocity W of the flux n(o) of gravitons g(-) which cross the body-ring of the electron (see Law 5). As consequence, in spite of the flux of gravitons g(-) is weaker in the electron, however (due to the faster angular velocity W) the field of permeabilitons P(-) induced in the electron has the same intensity as occurs in the field of permeabiltons P(+) induced in the proton. As the intensity of the field formed by P(-) in the electron is the same intensity of the field formed by P(+) in the proton, then the quantity of electricitons e(-) in the electron captured by P(-) is the same quantity of electricitons e(+) in the proton captured by P(+). That’s why the electron and the proton have the same electric charge 1,6×10^-19C, negative in the electron and positive in the proton.
.
D.2) Mass of the electron
The permeabilitons p(-) in the field of the electron are not suscetible to the faster angular velocity W of the flux n(o) , (see Law 6). As consequence the field of permeabilitons p(-) in the electron is weaker than the field of permeabilitons p(+) in the proton (because for the proton its flux of gravitons g(+) within the flux n(o) is stronger). Thereby, as the field of permeabilitons p(-) in the electron is weaker, the field captures a lower quantity of magnetons m(-) compared with the quantity of magnetons m(+) captured in the proton. As the quantity of magnetons m(-) in the electron is lower, then it captures a lower quantity of gravitons G(-). And since the gravitons G(-) are responsible for the mass of the electron, then its mass is lower than the mass of the proton.
.
D.3) Gravity interaction between proton and electron
When there is overlap between the fields of one proton and one electron, there is a force of atraction between the gravitons G(+) and G(-) of their fields, and it is 10^40 times weaker than the electric force of attraction due to interaction between e(+) and e(-).
.
The photon
The photon is composed by two particles f(+) and its antiparticle f(-). The particle f(+) is formed by the agglutination of electricitons e(+), and the particle f(-) is formed by the agglutination of electricitons e(-).
Gravitons G(+) are captured by magnetons m(+) of the magnetic field of the particle f(+), while gravitons G(-) are captured by the magnetons m(-) of the magnetic field of the antiparticle f(-).
The particle f(+) and the antiparticle f(-) move in circular motion in contrary direction, transverse to the their displacement around the straight line center of their helical trajectory. The interactions of the gravitons G(+) and G(-) of the photon with the gravitons G(+) and G(-) of the aether are canceled due to the Law 9, and so the photon is massless, because it has no gravity interaction with the aether.
.
Dear Joe,
it seems that now the puzzles of the elementary particles is finally solved with perfect philosophical coherence
regards
wlad
Greg Leonard:
I totally agree,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Really good Frank.
You have found a good singer for those words and music.
An excellent production.
Greg
Frank Acland:
Melissa Hollick is fantastic, but you too are very good as a song writer!
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Andreas Moraitis:
Not necessarily and anyway not limited to.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Steven N. Karels,
maybe he can describe details of the controversial topics without explicitely referring to the journals?
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Would you say that the letter “N” in “LENR” should not be interpreted solely with respect to fusion and transmutation?
Best regards,
Andreas Moraitis
Wladimir,
In QRT, repulsive gravitons G surround the fluxes n(o) of attractive gravitons g. This has the effect of keeping the fluxes n(o) from attracting each other and uniting, which means that G is neutralizing g (in the short distance). Since neutralization implies that G = g, how is it possible that g still has an influence beyond the short distance?
All the best,
Joe
Steven N. Karels wrote in March 7th, 2014 at 10:26 AM
Wladimir Guglinski,
I suggest you NOT put that into your book. First, it weakens the strengths of your arguments by making you seem vindictive.
===========================================
Dear Steve,
let me tell you other reasons I have.
When a publishing house publishes a book in the field of Physics, the first and principal care of the editors is write on the back cover of the book the academic titles of the author (always an academic physicist), as for instance:
Dr. John Melford, PhD
Physicist of the Michigan Institute of Physics
Author of several scientific papers published in Nature, Science, International Journal of Modern Physics
Member of the Royal Academy of Sciences
President of the Institute for Advanced Physics
etc. etc. etc.
The more is the quantity of titles of the author, more credibility is attributed to his book.
I have no academic titles, dear Steve
The merit of Quantum Ring Theory does not relies on academic titles.
The merit of my theory relies on the confirmation by experiments of the models proposed in my QRT and its predictions.
Therefore, I cannot supress the “titles” given to me by the confirmation by scientific experiments
regards
wlad
Dear Andrea,
The singer is named Melissa Hollick — she’s an English singer. You will be glad it was her and not me singing!
Best wishes,
Frank
Steven N. Karels wrote in March 7th, 2014 at 10:26 AM:
Wladimir Guglinski,
Reference your statement “However now I’m glad with the breach of Agreement, because I am introducing many news in the book, as for instance:
a) the plagiarism by the journals Nature
b) the plagiarism by the European Physical Journal”
I suggest you NOT put that into your book. First, it weakens the strengths of your arguments by making you seem vindictive.
==========================================
Dear Steve,
let me also show that you are wrong in your conclusion.
It is not a question of revenge.
Two ideas of my book Quantum Ring Theory had been plagiarized by the two most important journals of Physics of the world.
This means that those two ideas of mine have scientific merit, otherwise they would not be plagiarized by two of the most important journals of Physics worldwide.
Along 80 years the nuclear theorists believed that light even-even nuclei with Z=N have to be spherical.
My Quantum Ring Theory predicted correctly that such scientific dogma of 80 years was wrong, as shown in the page 137 of my book, where it is shown that oxygen nucleus 8O16 has non-spherical shape.
So, beyond the plagiarism by the journal Nature, my QRT also predicted correctly the non-sphererical shape of those light nuclei, confirmed by the publication in 2012 in the Nature’s paper How atomic nuclei cluster.
Therefore, the readers of my upcoming book THE MISSED U-TURN have the right to know those facts, because those facts testify in favor of the scientific merit of my Quantum Ring Theory.
regards
wlad
Steven N. Karels wrote in March 7th, 2014 at 10:26 AM
Wladimir Guglinski,
Reference your statement “However now I’m glad with the breach of Agreement, because I am introducing many news in the book, as for instance:
a) the plagiarism by the journals Nature
b) the plagiarism by the European Physical Journal”
I suggest you NOT put that into your book. First, it weakens the strengths of your arguments by making you seem vindictive. Regardless of the truth of your assertion, such as statement does not belong in a theoretical physics book. Second, it would make a publisher less likely to produce your book because of legal issues. My thoughts, hope they help. Steve
==============================================
Dear Steve
thank to your suggestion.
However, I cannot see what is the problem.
The journal Nature and the European Physical Journal published a plagiarims of my ideas, and I have to be afraid of legal issues ???????
It seems to me to be just the contrary: as the two journals published plagiarisms of my ideas, then the editors of Nature and EPJ have to be afraid of legal issues
Besides, it is not a theoretical physics book.
It is atually a book on the Hystory of Physics, describing the Evolution of Physics.
And today the plagiarisms of my ideas by the Nature and the European Physical Journal constitute a page of the History of Physics.
regards
wlad
Frank Acland:
Thank you for your enthusiasm. Very nice song! Is a poetry and the music is really good. You gave us a reason to smile. Who is the delighting singer?
Warm Regards,
Andrea
Dear Andrea, this is the final version of the song I mentioned to you — dedicated to the work that you and others are doing in bringing a new and better fire to the world to help us all.
A Reason to Smile — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZowDa5Hl-E
Wladimir Guglinski,
Reference your statement “However now I’m glad with the breach of Agreement, because I am introducing many news in the book, as for instance:
a) the plagiarism by the journals Nature
b) the plagiarism by the European Physical Journal”
I suggest you NOT put that into your book. First, it weakens the strengths of your arguments by making you seem vindictive. Regardless of the truth of your assertion, such as statement does not belong in a theoretical physics book. Second, it would make a publisher less likely to produce your book because of legal issues. My thoughts, hope they help. Steve
Dear Orsobubu,
there is something I would like to explain you.
The phantasmagoric Heisenberg’s scientific method is NOT pernicious for the develpoment of Theoretical Physics.
Actually Heinsenberg’s method was indispensable for the development of Physics.
Without the discoveries made thanks to the Heisenberg’s method would be impossible for me to make the discoveries proposed in my Quantum Ring Theory.
In my book THE MISSED U-TURN I show that Theoretical Physics was developed along the centuries thanks to the alternation of two methods: the method of Newton and the method of Descartes.
For instance, for the explanation of the Michelson experiment Fitzgeral proposed a solution based on the Descartes method, and Einstein proposed a solution based on the Newton method.
However, for the discovery of the Theory of Relativity, Einstein used the Descartes method, and after that he used the Newton method, in order to get mathematical confirmations for the discoveries made via Descartes method.
The physicist Voigt used the Newton method so that to explain the Balmer scale. While Bohr used the Descartes method. And this is the reason why Bohr discovered the hydrogen model of atom, and Voigt did not.
Later Schroedinger used the Newton method and applied it to the hidrogen atom discovered by Bohr (thanks to the Descartes method).
Today we are in a stage along which the theorists are using the Heisenberg method, which is new mode of the Newton method.
The next step is to use again the Descartes method (thanks to the discoveries conquested by the Heisenberg method), in order to discover what is missing in the current Theoretical Physics.
This is just the step made by me: I used the Descartes method.
And the last step in the future will be to apply again the Newton method, so that to verify if my discoveries (made via Descartes method) are correct.
If my discoveries are not correct, other attempts via Descartes method need to be made, and later submitted to the Newton method.
regards
wlad
orsobubu wrote in March 5th, 2014 at 5:28 PM
1)
Wlad, will your next “The missed U-turn” be an informative book,
===================================
COMMENT
Dear Orsobubu,
in my new book I explain for the laymen the evolution of Physics since Newton up to Rossi’s e-Cat, and at the same time I explain the fundamental principles and models proposed in my Quantum Ring Theory.
.
2)
or contain new developments/insights for your Quantum Ring Theory?
======================================
COMMENT
There are also some new discoveries.
For instance, in 2014 I have finally discovered that the mass of particles is not due to the flux n(o) formed by grávitons g(+) in the proton and g(-) in the electron, as I believed. It is actually caused by the interaction between theaether and the field of repulsive gravitons G(+) in the electron and repulsive G(-) in the proton.
By this way I finally understood the following:
1) why the photon is massless
2) why the neutrino (composed by pósitron-electron) is not massless, but having a mass near to zero.
3) why and the neutron (composed by proton-electron) is not massless
4) in spite of all them have gravitons G(+) and G(-) in their fields.
It was impossible to explain it by considering that the mass is due to the flux n(o) formed by gravitons g(+) and g(-)
Then finally I also discovered the mechanism which causes the “mass defect” (I did not succeed to discover it earlier of understanding that the mass of particles is due to the gravitons G(+) and G(-) ).
.
3)
Will you wait for the 3rd party report (and supposed Rossi’s explanations of the “effect”) be published, first?
======================================
COMMENT
No, the publication is independent of the 3rd party report.
I am looking for a publisher.
In 2012 the Cambridge International Science Publishing signed an Aggreement for the publication of the book.
But they did not fulfill the Aggreement (signed by the Editor Victor Riecansky).
However now I’m glad with the breach of Aggreement, because I am introducing many news in the book, as for instance:
a) the plagiarism by the journals Nature
b) the plagiarism by the European Physical Journal
c) the suggestion on the existence of the z-axis in the nuclei, by Prof. Butler of the Liverpool University in 2013, because the existence of the z-axis was proposed in my book Quantum Ring Theory published in 2006.
d) some puzzles explained by my new nuclear model, as for instance the exotic neutron halo in Be11 in a distance of 7fm from the rest of the nucleus, which defies the prevailing dogma that nuclei are bound via strong force.
.
4)
Will you enclose a summary of arguments debated with your “adversaries” here in JNP?
===============================================
COMMENT
No.
But I will mention the paper Stability of Light Nuclei published here in the JoNP, where it is explained why the halo neutron can be at the distance of 7fm in the exotic Be11 (which is impossible to explain by considering the current models of the Standard Nuclear Physcis).
.
5)
Will it enclose a part specifically targeted to LENR technologies, taking into account that such a linkage could be a good opportunity, in terms of scientific visibility?
==================================
COMMENT
First of all, I would like to say that I dont agree to the name LENR. Such name was proposed because the nuclear theorists hate the correct name “cold fusion”. So, LENR was proposed as a strategy, so that to try to eliminate the resistance against the researches.
But the book do not cover LENR technologies, because there are other books published (written by authors who are researchers in the LENR field, and so they are experts in the subject).
My book speaks about the foundations of Physics. If the current foundations of current Nuclear Physics are wrong, there is NO WAY to explain cold fusion without to discover what fundamental principles are missing in the Standard Nuclear Physics.
The puzzle of the proton radius (reinforced now in February 2014) is pointing out that Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) and the Standard Model are in serious troubles, and a New Physics is need.
.
6)
I’m referring to the fact that, if different LENRS technologies go mainstream, there also will be a competion among various alternative theories developed by respective researchers.
============================================
COMMENT
Yes, I agree.
However, it makes no sense to propose a theory for explaining LENR if the theory is not able to explain other unsolved puzzles, as for instance the strange behavior of several exotic light nuclei, the puzzle of the proton radius, what causes the existence of the z-axis in the nuclei (predicted in my QRT), why the light even-even nuclei with Z=N are non-spherical (as predicted in my QRT), and etc, etc, etc…
The theorists today are trying to solve those puzzles which defy the current theories via the phantasmagoric Heisenberg’s scientific method.
However, the crisis in Theoretical Physics nowadays has its origin just in the fact that current theories of Modern Physics had been developed by the Heisenberg’s phantasmagoric method.
And as Einstein already had taught us:
we cannot eliminate a crisis by the same method which generated the crisis.
—————————————————
I suppose that the theorists will finally understand Einstein’s advice.
—————————————————
Otherwise they will never eliminate the crisis created by the phantasmagoric Heisenberg’s scientific method.
regards
wlad
Dear sirs,
After confirming the cosmic black hole rotation I will try to concentrate on particle’s rotation and galaxy rotation.
Please see the following web sites.
http://www.sciencepubco.com/index.php/IJAA/article/view/1061
http://prespacetime.com/index.php/pst/article/view/607
They may give some idea on Black holes. I strongly feel that, Black hole geometry plays a key role. Black hole mass, size and density all are secondary. Why because, as the black hole mass increases to billion solar masses its mass density falls down to 1kg/m3. Now the questions are, 1) Such a small density, how it will be stable? 2)With such a small density, how it will be able to maintain a galaxy stable? … hence I strongly feel that, Black hole geometry can be given a top priority rather than its other physical properties. If the black hole rotates at light speed, then it may get maximum possible support. Please see the above links.
thanking you sir,
yours obediently,
U.V.S.Seshavatharam
To whom it may interest:
The website http://www.ingandrearossi.com has been updated.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Wlad, will your next “The missed U-turn” be an informative book, or contain new developments/insights for your Quantum Ring Theory? Will you wait for the 3rd party report (and supposed Rossi’s explanations of the “effect”) be published, first? Will you enclose a summary of arguments debated with your “adversaries” here in JNP? Will it enclose a part specifically targeted to LENR technologies, taking into account that such a linkage could be a good opportunity, in terms of scientific visibility? I’m referring to the fact that, if different LENRS technologies go mainstream, there also will be a competion among various alternative theories developed by respective researchers.
eernie1:
We are a strong team with a strong trust in our work and we are going through the path we had decided from the beginning: first a throughly work of validation and R&D, then industrialization, when the results of the validation and R&D phase will be positive.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
Let us hope your company has a well constructed contingency plan.
All the best.
Dr. Rossi and readers, if you want to read about a $2.2 Billion Dollar Solar Plant.
Google:
WORLD’S LARGEST SOLAR PLANT
Eryl
Ft. Lauderdale
eernie1:
Let the work of the third indipendent party ( what you call 3P) arrive to a conclusion. Let the results, positive or negative as they might be, are published. Then we will see which will be the proper scheduling for our work. One way or the other, we will continue to work: our life is dedicated to this.
Thank you for your kind attention.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Giovanni Guerrini:
I agree.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Steven N. Karels:
1- I cannot disclose, so far, what happens inside the reactor
2- not witin the term of 6 months
3- same as in 1
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
You replied “The so called Rossi Effect works on the base of totally different principles.”
1. Can you tell us if the eCat works using Nuclear Fusion principles?
2. Do you notice a decrease in Hydrogen pressure after long eCat operations (days or months)?
3. Are there any provisions within the eCat design to make the eCat reactor gas-tight?
About the Hot Fusion,
we should not forget that ITER and the others are laboratories and speak about COP is a nonsense.
I think that with more political will and money,today humanity would have already the technology available.
Hot fusion and LENR are differnt things and world needs both.
My opinion is that when something can give energy with a ridicolous consumption of “fuel”,is something that can get humanity more free,because a technology is reproducible,hidrocarbons and uranium are not.
Regards G G
Dear Andrea,
Let us suppose that the 3P report is very favorable and confirms a significant COP with control. What is your next step? Does your company then provide modules of 10Kw or larger to end users? Do you provide a device with a boiler or sterling engine? Do you license to manufacturers? You have promised to reveal your theory of operation. Will you still do this?
Looking forward to the report which may be one of the most important of the last 100 years.
Dear Mr. Curiosone ( Walter Gentili)
In my last comment of March 5th, 2014 at 6:37 AM, Andrea Rossi suppressed the end of my comment. So, my comment as it was published sounds as if I was an idiot… hahaha… with a superficial understanding of the subject.
In spite of I think that you are right, however in my opinion Andrea Rossi is also right, because the best is do not talk about some embarrassing subjects. That’s why Rossi suppressed the end of my comment.
So, Andrea Rossi is right, and let us avoid to discuss about embarrassing questions, which can affect some people.
The most important is to work hard, as Rossi is doing, and avoid discussions which potentially can disrupt the progress of his work
regards
wlad
Wladimir Guglinski:
I do not agree with you and I explained why in my answer to Curiosone ( Walter Gentili).
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Curiosone wrote in March 4th, 2014 at 11:35 AM
Dr Rossi:
Let’s talk of hot fusion: the two plants in “operation”, after 50 years, are the ITER ( Europe) and the NIF ( USA). They reached the impressive result of a COP 1/ 100 000 : this means that they use 100 000 kWh to produce 1 kWh. They costed, so far, more than 100 billion dollars ( billions, with the “b” as in Bob). You made the E-Cat, with a COP higher than 3, using your own money. Why don’t you send them an E-Cat, so they put it inside their monsters and get a COP 3, with a stunning money saving for the taxpayers?
=============================
COMMENT:
Dear Andrea,
I agree to what said Mr. Curiosone, because not only extremely good scientists (as you say) are involved in such project which obtained the impressive (rsss) COP of 1/100.000.
There are other people involved, as for instance the government leaders who aprove the billion dollars for the hot fusion research.
regards
wlad
Dr Joseph Fine:
I thank you for your curiosity, but I am not allowed to give any information about the measurements of the professors of the third indipendent party and I myself do not know exactly what they are doing.
We have to wait the report that will be published after the end of the experiment, with all the results, positive or negative as they might be.
This answer is valid also for the many questions I am receiving, regarding information of any kind about the work of the indipendent examiners.
Thank you for your permanent attention,
Warm Regards,
A.R.