Black hole Cosmos and the Micro Cosmos

.
by
.
U.V.S.Seshavatharam
Honorary faculty, I-SERVE, Alakapuri
Hyderabad-35, AP, India
Email: seshavatharam.uvs@gmail.com
.
S.Lakshminarayana
Dept.of Nuclear Physics, Andhra University
Visakhapatnam-03, AP, India
Email: lnsrirama@yahoo.com
.
.
Abstract
Point of ‘big bang’ can be considered as the center or characteristic reference point of cosmic expansion in all directions.
If so, the existence of ‘preferred direction’ in the universe may not be wrong.
Based on the Mach’s principle, it can be suggested that, within the ‘Hubble volume’ overall distribution of ‘Hubble mass’ will explain the
observed physical phenomena.
With the discovered applications it is very clear to say that, without a joint and unified study of cosmology and atomic & particle physics, one should not deny the concepts of black hole cosmology.
The most interesting thing is that, at any given cosmic time, if the universe is a primordial growing black hole, then certainly its ‘Schwarzschild radius’ can be considered as its characteristic minimum size at that time.
Clearly speaking, “forever rotating at light speed, high temperature and high angular velocity small sized primordial cosmic black hole gradually transforms into a low temperature and low angular velocity large sized massive primordial cosmic black hole”.
Independent of the redshift observations and considering the proposed relations, with a great confidence now one can start seeing/observing the universe as a primordial expanding and light speed rotating black hole. Based on the proposed relations and concepts of black hole cosmology, definitions of cosmic homogeneity and cosmic isotropy must be re-addressed.
It is also clear that, now the black hole universe is expanding in a decelerating mode at a very small rate in such a way that with current technology one cannot measure its deceleration rate.
Finally it can be suggested that cosmic acceleration and dark energy can be considered as pure mathematical concepts and there exists no physical base behind their affirmation.
For the most serious cosmologists this may be a bitter news, but it is a fact.
Authors hope that, by 2015 definitely this subject will come into main stream physics.
With reference to Black hole cosmology, it can be suggested that, characteristic nuclear charge radius and the characteristic angular momentum of the revolving electron increase with cosmic time.
In addition, characteristic nuclear charge radius is more fundamental than the reduced Planck’s constant.
The key point to be noted is that the Planck’s constant can be considered as a cosmological constant.
.
.

558 comments to Black hole Cosmos and the Micro Cosmos

  • eernie1

    Dear Andrea,
    Is the reluctance of the customer to allow observation of his production setup related to perhaps his not wanting to reveal some of his intellectual property involved in his program?

  • Koen Vandewalle

    Dear Andrea,
    does the ITP have the optimized control systems and, if so, do they have access to the software, or did they just receive a basic drive ?
    Are they allowed to tamper with everything ?

    You continue to answer and comment everyday on this blog. You do this very strictly, even when there is not so much news. It is as if the world is pregnant and we can listen daily only to the heartbeat of the baby.
    I think lots of us are longing to see her/his face and hear the first cry.

    Kind Regards,
    Koen

  • eernie1

    Wlad, Since the epo of Dirac is in the form of EM spinor fields, they can move as a massless unit such as the photon. Of course the energy of the generated photon is dependent on its frequency(hv) The frequency of the emitted photon is dependent upon the method of interaction with the external force causing the phase transformation. This allows photons to be created throughout the spectrum. All this can be derived by using the Dirac wave equation. Dirac was a quantum rebel since his theory disrupted many of the cornerstone ideas of the leading scientists and he was attacked often. But many of the observed atomic values were able to be derived using his formulas.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Pietro F.:
    Our Customer is a manufacturer, and uses the 1 MW plant for his production.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Pietro F.

    Buongiorno ing. Rossi,

    il vostro cliente é un fornitore di servizi (tipo riscaldamento) o un produttore industriale?
    Your client is a provider of services (such as heating) or an industrial manufacturer?

    Buon lavoro

    Pietro F.

  • Andrea Rossi

    H-G Branzell:
    You may be right. Anyway, the report will be published by the ITP independently from the fact that it can be positive or negative.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Andreas Moraitis:
    Of course. Also is provided a solution in case of malfunction of the 1 MW plant, by means of a back up made using the traditional energy source.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Steven N. Karels:
    Surely in due time and situations we will give due information.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    I understand that you believe my previous comment about “poisons” was another attempt to extract information that you do not want to reveal — which it was. The question came up when I saw a video on Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR)which claims to be much more efficient (compared to uranium reactors) at using the available nuclear energy, that it is inherently safe and, if true, it might be a serious competitor to the Rossi Effect reactors for large scale energy production.

    In the video, the thorium is consumed, releasing the energy. At some point in time, you will reveal how the energy is generated with the Rossi Effect. Why not now?

    In the future, I suspect, you will describe what is required in the reconditioning process to recycle the fuel and to ensure it can be done in a safe and environmentally responsible manner. These actions will be required before the Rossi Effect reactors will be publically accepted as being among the viable energy production technologies. So you will answer the questions, it is only a matter of when.

    And of course, I must comment that my reaction to your response could have been either positive or negative. (LOL)

  • Andreas Moraitis

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    What would happen if the customer were forced to stop his production suddenly by some reason, so that the 1 MW plant would have to go in idle mode, without prior warning? Is there already a solution for such a scenario?

    Best regards,
    Andreas Moraitis

  • H-G Branzell

    Dear Andrea Rossi,
    You say that a negative third party report will encounter no obstacles to be published by a reputable scientific journal. I beg to differ with that opinion. You have told us that a negative report would be one that finds a COP < 1 + error margins. Considering the very low interest that the established scientific community has shown in the Rossi effect I think that a negative report will meet with the same interest from the scientific journals as a report stating that apples are still falling to the ground in the autumn.
    Kind regards, H-G Branzell

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    eernie1 wrote in September 25th, 2014 at 9:36 PM

    Wlad,
    Dirac explained that the spins(1/2) of the two particles were out of phase in the string and thereby could not combine. When they were in phase(Caused by an external force)the spins added and formed a photon(spin 1) which then traveled at the velocity of light down the connected strings.
    —————————

    Eernie
    then all the photons would have to have the same energy, since the electron and the positron have always the same mass, and they always move with the speed of light.
    But each photon has a different energy.

    In QRT the particle is formed by the agglutination of positive electricitons. The more quantity is of electricitions, heavier is the energy of the photon. While the antiparticle is formed by the glue of negative electricitons.

    2)
    This is why the photon always assumes the velocity of light with respect to the position of the observer since the rotation of the EM fields in the strings was at the speed of light. He would say your photon was the combined fields of a positron and an electron.
    —————————–

    As the electron and the positron have mass, having the speed of light they would have infinite mass, according to the Einstein’s equation.

    Besides, an aether formed by positron-electron would be detecable by experiments

    regards
    wlad

  • eernie1

    Wlad,
    Dirac explained that the spins(1/2) of the two particles were out of phase in the string and thereby could not combine. When they were in phase(Caused by an external force)the spins added and formed a photon(spin 1) which then traveled at the velocity of light down the connected strings. This is why the photon always assumes the velocity of light with respect to the position of the observer since the rotation of the EM fields in the strings was at the speed of light. He would say your photon was the combined fields of a positron and an electron.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Steven N. Karels:
    Do you understand that this comment of yours ( and my answer) can make of Orsobubu a permanent LOL- contortionist ?
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.
    P.S.: Steve, my friend: I am not laughing at you, I am laughing WITH you. You understand why, I’m sure.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Giuliano Bettini:
    Maybe.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Daniel G. Zavela:
    I do not know.
    Thank you for your kind wishes.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • eernie1

    Wlad,
    My question was based on your claim to have proposed a particle antiparticle structure for space. That is what Dirac proposed when he suggested space was comprised by the electron(particle) positron(antiparticle)combined in an EM field string. Can you elaborate on how this is different from your proposal?

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Wladimir Guglinski
    September 25th, 2014 at 3:55 PM

    eernie1 wrote in September 25th, 2014 at 10:43 AM

    Dear Wlad,
    How does your theory of the aether differ from that of Dirac. He proposed that the aether consists of strings composed of a positron and an electron whose form is an electromagnetic wave(epo) rotating at the speed of light.
    —————————————–

    eernie,
    but the main difference between my theory of aether and that of Dirac is because his theory is impossible.
    Because an electron and a positron have fusion when they meet together, producing pure energy. The Universe filled by the aether conceived by Dirac would instantaneously explode in a big bang.

    In my model of aether the particle and antiparticle have no fusion, because the repulsive gravitons avoid them to fuse together.

    Thanks to the repulsive gravitons the particle and antiparticle of the photon do not have fusion.

    Such a question was not solved by the authors of the paper published in 2013 by the European Physical Journal, because in spite of they had proposed that the space is filled by particles and antiparticles, however they do not explain why the particle and antiparticle do not fuse together.
    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1140%2Fepjd%2Fe2013-30578-7#page-1

    The reason why the authors of the paper published by the European Physica Journal did not solve such question is because they did not conceive a complete structure for the aether.
    They proposed an ad hoc theory, so that to explain the experiment published in 2012 by the journal Nature, which proved that the space is not empty.
    http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/science/Light-created-from-vacuum-shows-empty-space-a-myth/articleshow/10789049.cms
    As because the experiment showed that space is not empty, and it is able to create light, the authors of the paper published by the European Physical Journal felt the need of proposing a structure for the aether.

    Unlike, my model of the aether had been conceived taking in consideration several questions, as the structure of the photon, the structure of elementary particles as the proton and electron, and the structure of the atomic nuclei.
    That’s why I arrived to a complete structure for the aether

    regards
    wlad

  • Dear Dr. Rossi,

    You have stated that the Third Party Report could have positive or negative results in their summary. A third possibility is that the results of their testing could be reported as “inconclusive” due to repeatability problems with inconsistent startup and shutdown issues, or sudden shutdown or temperature control variations. Based on your current research and testing do you feel that an “inconclusive” summary judgement in the Third Party Report is unlikely or is this a probability due to the technology not yet being mature?

    Again I wish you the best of luck to counter the 1,000 scientists who say “Climate change is not statistically” real. The earth needs your help.

    Best Regards,

    Daniel G. Zavela

  • Giuliano Bettini

    Andrea, Jean Pierre:
    maybe the issue is not:
    AC has something positive.
    Maybe the issue is: DC has something negative (which gas doesn’t have).
    As a matter of fact, things may be positive, but also negative.
    Magnetic regards
    Giuliano Bettini.

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    In conventional nuclear reactors, there are elements and isotopes generated during the normal nuclear reaction which eventually “poison” the reaction, thus necessitating the removal and reprocessing of the nuclear rods.

    1. Is there an equivalent in the Rossi Effect reactor?

    2. Are “poisons” created or generated which require the reprocessing of the fuel?

    3. Or does the portion of the “fuel” that is active in the reaction disappear or become inactive/ineffective?

  • eernie1

    Wlad,
    Are you saying that Dirac is wrong? The epo is totally existing as an EM field in the string until it exits the string and converts to what is perceived as mass or as an ejected photon traveling at the speed of sound. The mass differential in the conversion of a neutron to a proton is due to relativistic velocity considerations between the quarks in the nucleus. Please review his theory.
    Regards.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Jean Pierre:
    Sorry, I cannot give you this information.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    eernie1 wrote in September 25th, 2014 at 10:43 AM

    Dear Wlad,
    How does your theory of the aether differ from that of Dirac. He proposed that the aether consists of strings composed of a positron and an electron whose form is an electromagnetic wave(epo) rotating at the speed of light.
    ————————

    eernie,
    a space composed by positron and electron makes no sense, because they both have mass, and the space would interact with the matter with motion, having friction.

    Besides, the light could not travel in such a space

    regards
    wlad

  • Dear Andrea.
    Thank you for responding. My query in a nut shell is that alternating current and its associated accompanying magnetic field are associated with a REVERSAL over a cycle and as time goes by.
    DC does not provide this. The ECAT does not work on DC, only on AC.
    I cannot see that a gas heated ECAT is associated with any
    REVERSAL effect. Therefore, since DC does not work then why
    should gas heating? I hope you can provide the missing link?

    Keep up the good research and the very best wishes to you.
    Jean Pierre.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Alutam:
    I don’t have problems, I have opportunities ( x 10)
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Pekka Janhunen:
    Very interesting.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Dear Andrea,
    (Off-topic)A recent physics news: black holes don’t exist (http://uncnews.unc.edu/2014/09/23/carolinas-laura-mersini-houghton-shows-black-holes-exist/).

    They performed a coupled hydrodynamics and general relativity numerical simulation of stellar collapse, including also self-consistently the effects of Hawking radiation emission. The result: an event horizon never forms, the star loses mass by Hawking radiation just fast enough to prevent horizon (black hole) formation. To an external observer whose time is much dilated in comparison to the object itself, it looks like a very dark almost holelike region, but internally what happens is that the star collapses to a minimum size and then bounces back because it loses a lot of mass by Hawking radiation. The bounce back looks internally like an explosion (or “fireworks” as the authors say), but to an external observer is looks like the faint Hawking radiation which slowly evaporates the object away.

    Probably a lively discussion among physicists emerges from this. To me the analysis looks good and seems to make physical sense.
    r:/pekka

  • alutam

    Andrea,
    Problems?!
    Please repeat after me:
    “I don’t have problems, I have opportunities!”
    Doesn’t that feel better?
    Best regards.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Barty:
    Thank you for your kind attention.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • barty

    Dear Andrea,

    thank you for that information. It’s good to hear that this problems are “only” minor problems.
    Such kind of problems you always have to resolve 😉

    But it is good to hear that the problems are not major resp. “critical” about your “rossi effect” (not working at general or something else).

    Good luck and best regards from germany!
    barty

  • Andrea Rossi

    Eernie1:
    Yes, exactly; anyway, in my life I have designed and installed hundreds of industrial plants, never had the luck to see one pass through the first period of several months without troubles. This is NOT an exception.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • eernie1

    Dear Andrea,
    What you have in your installation program are bugs which are uncovered in any first field test. Just look at Apple with their introduction of the I-phone6 or Boeing with the 787. Nothing unusual.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Barty:
    We have a lot of minor problems; obviously I cannot give the particulars; also, we have to adjust the plant to the particular needs of the Customer, as you correctly said, therefore, as usually, from problems are born more problems. Lot of work to do.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • barty

    Dear Andrea,

    are the problems your team has to resolve minor or major problems?
    Maybe you only have to adjust some values to fit your customers needs?

    Best regards from germany
    barty

  • Andrea Rossi

    Jean Pierre:
    We did not receive your former comments, probably the robot anti-spam has eaten them. Please send your comments again, possibly from another address, or be sure you have not links with advertising.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Frank Acland:
    In the near future is impossible. In future yes, but I cannot give a scheduling, because it depends on what the Customer thinks: we are not in the factory of Industrial Heat, we are in the factory of a Customer. Presently we have problems to resolve.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Dear Andrea,
    Perhaps your robot has dumped my two previous emails to you at JONP (Rossi Blog Reader) The first was on 20Sept 2014 and the
    second was on 24 Sept 2014. I am well-disposed to both you and your research. I would at least very much appreciate an acknowledgement of the arrival of these two emails even if you
    are not prepared to answer my question. I have been following JONP comments for about three years now and this is the first time that I have submitted a question to you. I am like curiousone (ie curious) and have only good intentions. Jean Pierre

  • eernie1

    Dear Wlad,
    How does your theory of the aether differ from that of Dirac. He proposed that the aether consists of strings composed of a positron and an electron whose form is an electromagnetic wave(epo) rotating at the speed of light. One end of the string is positive and the other end is negative and the strings aligned +- throughout space. This is the reason for instantaneous causality and gravitational attraction. In this sea of epos there exists clumps of epos that make up the particles we call quarks that make up the protons and neutrons of the atomic nucleus. The fundamental particle is the neutron that degenerates into the proton with the emission of an electron from one of the epos inside the neutron and which is then captured as a field rotating about the nucleus. All other characteristics of matter can also be explained both empirically and mathematically by further analysis of his analogy. His theory also contains a possible quantum state below the lowest allowed energy level(Deep Dirac Level(DDL))which can explain the proposed Hydrino.

  • Frank Acland

    Dear Andrea,

    Thank you for your response regarding the 1 MW plant. Are you still planning on allowing visits to the plant in the near future?

    Best wishes,

    Frank Acland

  • Andrea Rossi

    Frank Acland:
    We are resolving problems, in a preliminary phase. It will take at least one year before considering consolidated the situation.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Joseph Fine:
    Thank you!
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Joseph Fine

    Andrea Rossi, Chris Johnson,

    Here is the link to abstracts from the Supercritical CO2 conference:

    http://www.swri.org/4org/d18/sco2/abstracts.htm

    Please turn on the lights!

    Joseph Fine

  • Frank Acland

    Dear Andrea,

    What’s the current status of the E-Cat plant you have installed at your customer’s site?

    Many thanks,

    Frank Acland

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    ON THE FORMATION OF THE UNIVERSE

    Dear Eric,
    the Big-Bang theory was conceived from the idea that the space is empty, and therefore not suitable to have contraction.

    By considering the space filled by aether, we are able to suppose that the Universe is like a Swiss cheese , where the holes are the galaxies (with aether with low density), and the cheese is the dark matter (aether with big density).

    Our system to measure the distance between stars works well only within our Milky Way galaxy.

    As the light moves slowly in the dark matter, the method to measure the size and the distance between the Earth and stars in other galaxies is wrong.

    So, suppose that the cosmologists calculate as being R the radius of a galaxy. Such size R is based on the calculation taking the speed of light as being c=300.000km/s.
    Therefore the velocity of the stars situated in the perimeter of the galaxy is v= w.R , where “w” is the angular velocity.
    The observations are showing that with such velocity v= w.R the stars of the galaxy would have to be expelled by the centripetal force.

    And suppose that the speed of the light in the dark matter is actually c=30.000km/s, i.e., 10 times slowly.

    The angular velocity w of the rotation of that galaxy is not changed by the error of calculation, because the time for the galaxy to make a full turn does not change.

    However, as the speed of light in the dark matter is c/10, and not “c” as the astronomers use, then the radius of the galaxy is actually R/10.
    So, the true velocity of the stars in the perimeter of that galaxy is v= w.R/10, a velocity 10 times slowly than the cosmologists are calculating.
    And therefore the stars in the periphery of the galaxy will not be expelled, as wrongly believe the cosmologists.

    Obviously I have taken as c=30.000km/s the speed of light in the dark matter only as an example, because we actually dont know what is the true speed of light in the dark matter.

    So, I think the cosmologists have to change their ideas with respect to the formation of the Universe by discarding what the idea of Einstein’s empty space had suggested to them up to now.
    They have to start to consider the aether in their reflections on the formation of the Universe.

    However, it is hard to hope they will do it.

    regards
    wlad

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Andrea Rossi wrote in September 24th, 2014 at 8:46 PM

    Wladimir Guglinski:
    Of course the Journal of Nuclear Physics is open to publish any answer or comment the EUROPEAN PHYSICAL JOURNAL deems opportune to react with vs your declaration.
    =================================

    Dear Andrea Rossi,
    of course I will enjoy very much if the Editor of the EJP come here to explain why I have not the right of the paternity on the proposal for the structure of space formed by particle-antiparticle, published in my Quantum Ring Theory in 2006, and the merit for the paternity is actually due to the authors who published their paper in 2013 in the European Physical Journal.

    However, as a thief never comes back to the place he had stolen, I have doubts if the Editor-in-Chief of the European Physical Journal decides to come here to explain the reasons why the paternity of the idea is not mine.

    regards
    wlad

  • Andrea Rossi

    Chris Johnson:
    Thank you for the interesting information,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Wladimir Guglinski:
    Of course the Journal of Nuclear Physics is open to publish any answer or comment the EUROPEAN PHYSICAL JOURNAL deems opportune to react with vs your declaration.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    LAW SUIT AGAINST THE European Physical Journal, BECAUSE OF PLAGIARISM

    Dears readers of the JoNP

    In 2013 the Eureopean Physical Journal had published a paper where the authors proposed a structure for the space, which would be formed by particle and antiparticle.

    Such structure of the space (aether) formed by particle and antiparticle was proposed in my book Quantum Ring Theory, published in 2006.

    The Editor-in-Chief of the EPJ did not accepted my suggestion so that to publish a note in the journal, in order to credit to me the paternity of the theory.

    I dont have money, so that to suit in law the European Physical Journal, by plagiarism.

    That’s why I went with an interpellation in court against the sbf Brazillian Society of Physics-SBF, where I require to the SBF to suit in law the European Physical Journal.

    My request has judicial merit, because according to the Statute of the SBF that entity has the obligation of taking care about the rights and interests of the Brazillian physicits.

    The Law Suit against the European Physical Journal is translated to English by the Google and published in the Peswiki link bellow:

    Law suit against European Physical Journal
    http://peswiki.com/index.php/Law_suit_against_European_Physical_Journal

    regards
    wlad

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    THE FORMATION OF THE UNIVERSE

    Eric Ashworth wrote in September 24th, 2014 at 2:09 PM

    3. When people refer to dark matter are they referring to aether? because I would say this is a mistaken label.
    ==========================================

    Dear Eric,
    I dont think the Big-Bang is a good theory.

    In 1990 I supposed another mechanism for the formation of the Universe, by considering the space filled by aether, as follows.

    In the beggining, there was only aether.
    Due to the contraction because of the actuation of the gravity, in several places of the Universe the aether started to have a big density, under big pressure. Each of these places would become a galaxy.

    When the pressure in several points of those places became very high, suddenly the very dense aether started to have a collapse (a big implosion). In such implosion the aether was converted to the form of hydrogen (protons and electrons).
    Each of those points were stars.

    But each of those implosions consumed aether. In order that, in the space of each galaxy the density of the aether had a strong reduction.

    However, in the regions between two galaxies, in spite of the aether had a big contraction (and therefore it became very dense), nevertheless the pressure was not sufficient for the ignition of the implosions.
    Therefore in the regions between the galaxies there is today aether with very big density. And perhaps such very dense aether is just dark matter.

    The speed of light in the aether with big density (outside the galaxies) is very slowly than here in the interior of the galaxies, where we live, and where we make our experiments, by supposing that the density of the space is the same in the whole Universe, and where we measured the speed of light as being c=300.000km/s.
    So, our system of measuring the distances between the Earth and the stars is not correct.

    However, this is only speculation.
    And that’s why I have no interest to discuss it, since I cannot prove it.

    regards
    wlad

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

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