.

*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*

.

.

**Introduction**

In this paper by highlighting the following 28 major short comings of modern big bang cosmology the authors made an attempt to develop a possible model of Black hole cosmology in a constructive way [1-3].

From now onwards instead of focusing on ‘big bang cosmology’ it is better to concentrate on ‘black hole cosmology’.

Its validity can be well confirmed from a combined study of cosmological and microscopic physical phenomena.

It can be suggested that, there exists one variable physical quantity in the presently believed atomic and nuclear physical constants and “rate of change” in its magnitude can be considered as a “standard measure” of the present “cosmic rate of expansion”.

Michael E. McCulloch says [4]: For an observer in an expanding universe there is a maximum volume that can be observed, since beyond the Hubble distance the velocity of recession is greater than the speed of light and the redshift is infinite: this is the Hubble volume.

Its boundary is similar to the event horizon of a black hole because it marks a boundary to what can be observed.

This means that it is reasonable to assume that Hawking radiation is emitted at this boundary both outwards and inwards to conserve energy, and any wavelength that does not fit exactly within this size cannot be allowed for the inwards radiation, and therefore also for the outwards radiation.

According to Hawking, the mass of a black hole is linearly related to its temperature or inversely-linearly related to the wavelength of the Hawking radiation it emits.

Therefore, for a given size of the universe there is a maximum Hawking wavelength it can have and a minimum allowed gravitational mass it can have.

If its mass was less than this then the Hawking radiation would have a wavelength that is bigger than the size of the observed universe and would be disallowed.

The minimum mass it predicts is encouragingly close to the observed mass of the Hubble volume.

Thus it is possible to model the Hubble volume as a black hole that emits Hawking radiation inwards, disallowing wavelengths that do not fit exactly into the Hubble diameter, since partial waves would allow an inference of what lies outside the horizon.

According to Tinaxi Zhang [5-7], the universe originated from a hot star-like black hole with several solar masses and gradually grew up through a super massive black hole with billion solar masses to the present state with hundred billion-trillion solar masses by accreting ambient materials and merging with other black holes.

According to N. J. Poplawski [8-11], the Universe is the interior of an Einstein-Rosen black hole and began with the formation of the black hole from a supernova explosion in the center of a galaxy.

He theorizes that torsion manifests itself as a repulsive force which causes fermions to be spatially extended and prevents the formation of a gravitational singularity within the black hole’s event horizon.

Because of torsion, the collapsing matter on the other side of the horizon reaches an enormous but finite density, explodes and rebounds, forming an Einstein-Rosen bridge (wormhole) to a new, closed, expanding universe.

Analogously, the Big Bang is replaced by the Big Bounce before which the Universe was the interior of a black hole.

The rotation of a black hole would influence the space-time on the other side of its event horizon and results in a preferred direction in the new universe.

Most recently cosmologists Razieh Pourhasan, Niayesh Afshordi and Robert B. Manna have proposed [12] that the Universe formed from the debris ejected when a four-dimensional star collapsed into a black hole – a scenario that would help to explain why the cosmos seems to be so uniform in all directions.

Dear Andrea Rossi,

Some posts on eCat-World.com reveal that during a test of the Rossi Effect reactor performed by Dr. Parkhomov, he measured a significant drop in internal gas pressure. This drop in internal pressure seems counter-intuitive to me. A sealed vessel should maintain the same pressure or elevate as temperature is increased. It seems the magnitude of the change cannot be adequately explained by additional adsorption into the nickel.

a. Can you explain what is happening in the Rossi Effect that might allow such a drop?

b. Do you attribute the decrease to a break in the “seal” of the reactor?

c. Have you measured the internal pressure in your testing?

d. If so, have you observed a similar effect?

Andrea.You can let us hear the voice of the E-Cat putting a clip on YouTube?

Fyodor:

As I already said, the R&D on the Hot Cat is going on here where I am working with the 1 MW E-Cat, where a test line for the Hot Cats has been set up. About the electric power generation, we decided for the Carnot Cycle, made possible by the temperatures we can reach with the Hot Cat.

We are making R&D also for other systems of electric power production, about which I must hold confidentiality, but not reached so far acceptable efficiency and reliability. So far.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Mr. Rossi

Can you tell us anything about the work that others at your company are doing while you live inside the container? Has there been additional experimentation on the Hot-Cat? Electricity generation?

Thank you for taking the time to answer my question.

Frank Acland:

The voice of the E-Cat during these nights is constant and stable. But unpredictable too, as always!

Warm Regards

A.R.

Dear Andrea,

What does the voice of the machine tell you these days? Is it agitated, calm, unpredictable, angry . . . something else?

Kind regards,

Frank Acland

DTravchenko:

Yes, I too infer from the application that they have replicated the effect in their laboratories.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Quadrupole deformations are types of multiple deformations of the atomic nucleus and belong to the area of collective models. You can find a rigorous description of them on:

“Nuclear Models”, Greiner- Maruhn, Springer 1996, pp 99- 206 ( see in particular pp 108- 135).

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Peter Metz:

Before giving any kind of answer to these kind of questions we must complete the cycle of tests. It will take at the least until the end of the year.

We want not to publish any intermediate result. Let me remind you that the final results could be positive, but they could also be negative.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Dima Redko:

LENR should descibe any kind of nuclear effect observed in the order of magnitude of temperature within the thousands Celsius degrees instead of in the millions degrees.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Dear Andrea Rossi,

Is LENR a Low Energy (fission) Nuclear Reaction or Low Energy (fusion) Nuclear Reaction?

Dear Andrea Rossi,

If the COP of the 1MW is say 6, will you not know that the result will be positive (as far as energy use goes) after 2 months? Are we there yet???

Regards,

Peter Metz

Renoir:

Tell to your physicist friend to read Cole A.J. ” Statistical Models for Nuclear Decay”, IOP Publishers, Bristol 2000, pp 155, 156:

“Understanding the low energy fission process has proved so difficult that, even 60 years after the Bohr Wheeler liquid drop statistical model , which provided a qualitative understanding of fission, there does not seem to exist a well defined and universally accepted theory”. Note: this has been written in the year 2000! If he does not understand this, try this other one: ” Nobody has been able to detect gravitons so far, therefore how can you be sure that you can crash if jump from the window of a 10th floor apartment?”

But your friend could still have his vindication, if the test of the 1 MW plant, from the inside of which I am writing this answer, will turn out to be negative after one year of operation. You never know.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Dear Andrea Rossi:

Can you address me to find where I can get good information about the quadrupole deformations ?

Thank you for your patience,

W.G.

Dear Dr Rossi:

Airbus has made a patent application on LENR basically copied from your work: reading the text of the application appears they too have replicated your effect!

Warm Regards,

DT

Dr Rossi:

During a discussion, a physicist asked me how can exist the Rossi Effect if there is not a well defined theory about it.

Answers?

Hank Mills:

1- no

2- not so far

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Dear Andrea,

1 – Does refueling a reactor in a low or high temperature E-Cat require replacing any part other than the fuel powder?

2 – Are the reactors in the one megawatt plant showing any sign of wear, corrosion, or fatigue that could eventually result in a need for replacement?

Dear Dr. Eernie1 sir,

Regarding “galaxy growth rate”, I humbly request you to please see sections (8) and (9) of ‘this’ published paper.

http://pubs.sciepub.com/faac/1/1/2/index.html

thanking you sir,

yours sincerely,

U.V.S.Seshavatharam.

Dear U.V.S. Seshavatharam,

Are you saying that the reason we can observe objects having superluminal velocities such as the movement of the spiral arms of galaxies is due to the change in mass densities of their black bodies and the subsequent expansion of the Hubble radius?

Regards and good luck with what I consider one of the most complex scientific fields.

Robert Curto:

Thank you for the reference.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Dear Dr.Eernie1 sir,

I would like to bring to your kind notice that, for the cosmic black hole, if mass density suddenly falls down to thermal energy density, Hubble radius increases by a factor of 27 and similarly if mass density suddenly falls down to the mass density of elliptical or spiral galaxies, Hubble radius increases by a factor of 5. With these two points, one can suspect the existence of currently believed “dark energy”. First of all, from particle physics point of dark energy and dark matter must be addressed. Then only it is possible to think about the other applications dark energy.

thanking you sir,

yours sincerely,

U.V.S.Seshavatharam.

Dr. Rossi, you and your Readers may be interested in a Book written by Stephen Hawking’s wife.

It was made into a Movie, that won many Awards.

Google:

Traveling to Infinity: My Life With Stephen

Robert Curto

Ft. Lauderdale, Florida

USA

U.V.S. Seshavatharam,

IMHO I think many of the questions in cosmology can be answered by the Dirac theory of epos. As an example the sea of epos that constitute space are in a ground state that cannot be detected because they are not luminal but exhibit gravity interactions with the epos that are excited into the sensible portion of our space. Thus they can be the entities that we call dark energy.

Can I ask your opinion of the possibility for application to your theory?

Regards and perhaps we can emerge from this dark period of science.

Dear Dr. Alexvs sir,

I would like to bring to your kind notice that, Galaxy rotation curves can be considered as key supporting item for black hole cosmology. But the main problem is with “finding the cosmic center”. We are working on this. For the time being I humbly request you to see section (7) of this published paper.

Title: “On the Evolving Black Holes and Black Hole Cosmology Scale

Independent Quantum Gravity Approach”

“so far many models have been proposed for understanding the real picture of ‘quantum gravity’. But none is successful in interpreting the observed cosmological phenomena. By going through this revised paper as a review article, many concepts on evolving black holes, black hole radiation, black hole cosmology, scale independent cosmological quantum gravity, CMBR isotropy and anisotropy, ordered galactic structures, galactic rotation curves, observed galactic redshifts, present and future cosmic rate of expansion etc. can be understood. The three heuristic concepts are: 1) Evolving universe is a scale independent quantum gravitational object. 2) CMBR temperature is a quantum gravitational effect of the (evolving and light speed rotating) primordial black hole universe and 3) Observed cosmic redshift is the result of a characteristic light emission mechanism of the cosmologically evolving hydrogen atom and is inversely proportional to the cosmic temperature”.

I humbly request you yo please see this link.

http://www.sciepub.com/reference/85162

thanking you sir,

yours sincerely,

U.V.S.Seshavatharam.

U.V.S. Seshavatharam:

Thank you for your answer to Joe. I found your paper very interesting, even if I am not an expert of the matter related to Black Holes. I am just a staunch reader ( not student) of the books of Stephen Hawking.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Dear Dr. Joe sir,

I would like to bring to your kind notice that, so far no theoretical model proposed a solution for the origin of ‘rest mass’ of nay elementary particle. Newtonian as well as Einstein theory both could not address the ‘origin of mass’ of matter or ‘origin of mass’ of the universe. One should not forget the fact that stars, galaxies, black holes and plasma etc all are composed of elementary particles. If one is considering any celestial object – it means – knowingly and unknowingly one is considering the elementary particles whose massive origin is still a mystery. So far no world laboratory detected the dark matter.At utmost fundamental level, current physics is very silent. So far no astrophysicist knows the composition of a black hole! In this context, I humbly request you to please re-think. With black hole cosmology, we are trying to link the known and unknown physical quantities of the observable universe with accurate data fitting. Something is better than nothing. I request you to please see the following link. http://pubs.sciepub.com/faac/1/1/3/index.html

yours sincerely,

U.V.S.Seshavatharam

Concerning the paper “To Understand the Basics of Black Hole Cosmology,” the following three issues come to mind:

1. The factor M – the mass of the Universe or of a black hole – should not be used with the certainty shown in the paper since it is almost guaranteed to be wrong. All the other factors are derived from lab experiments, so they are trustworthy. The mass of the Universe is a very rough estimate.

2. Today, we know that most matter in the Universe is composed of plasma. And so the laws of EM will necessarily need to make their presence known in calculations concerning phenomena out in Space. Since EM forces are 39 orders stronger than gravity, having a gravity-only approach like in the present paper guarantees a failure of conclusion.

3. Even if all phenomena out in Space were gravitational in nature, we must ask which definition of gravity – Newton or Einstein. With Newton, mass can be deduced from observing phenomena. With Einstein, gravity is geometry of space. And geometry is influenced by both mass and energy. So how do we decide which phenomena are due to the presence of mass and which are due to the presence of energy? By ignoring energy, the present paper takes the Newton approach by default. But the Newton Universe is obsolete, thereby negating any conclusion reached by the paper.

All the best,

Joe

I’m truly impressed, I didn’t realize that Wladimir was famous/infamous enough to get a Nobel Prize winner to correct his basic physics misunderstandings. I guess all of those spam emails finally paid off.

Of course, this simply follows from what Wladimir has been told on numerous occasions: the magnetic moment is by definition zero for spin-0 nuclei. Wladimir claims that there’s no need to define some things, and that the definition that “feels” right to him is better than the formal definition used in physics. That would be fine if he actually shared his own definition and stuck to it, but he simply changes it in his head and then makes false claims that HIS version of the magnetic moment has been measured to be zero. It appears as zero in tables for spin-0 nuclei, because it’s zero by definition – the real definition not Wladimir’s. I hope it’s obvious (at least to people other than Wladimir) that you can’t simply redefine what some quantity means and then plug in numerical values that come from a different definition.

Wladimir Guglinski, Prof. Brian Josephson:

I totally agree with Prof Brian Josephson.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Alexvs:

Stimulated by your comment, I read the paper of the Professors Seshavatharam- Lakhsminarayana on the JoNP.

It is intriguing and very interesting, besides is well sustained under a mathematical point of view. I cannot criticize it, because I am not an expert of black holes, but I think the paper is worth a reading. I am fascinated by the idea that the Universe could be the internal of a super massive black hole generated by the collapse of stars…I am not able to understand if this is possible or not, because I am not a student of the matter. About your question, I do not think I have understood what do you mean regarding the existence of even N isotopes related specifically to the paragraph 11.

Maybe the Authors are more qualified than I am to give you a satisfying answer.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Comment by the Nobel Prize in Physics Dr. Brian Josephson in Amazon.com, on the bookThe Evolution of Physics- from Newton to Rossi’s eCat:Dr. Josephson sent me the following email:

————————————————————–

Subject: Re: The Evolution of Physics: The duel Newton versus Descartes

From: bdj10@cam.ac.uk

Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 10:22:50 +0000

To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com

Hmmm. I suppose your spamming people had a good result in the end, in that people will now be warned of the deficiencies of your friend’s book, which they otherwise would not have been. See review page at

http://www.amazon.com/review/R23H8JJ5NJU48

A system with an even number of fermions can be in an S state, which is spherically symmetrical and so must have zero magnetic moment.

Brian J.

————————————————————–

.

And his comment in the Amazon.com:

————————————————————–

By Brian

This review is from: The Evolution of Physics: From Newton to Rossi’s eCat (Kindle Edition)

The book summary says “any nuclear model proposed according to Standard Model cannot explain a nuclear property of the even-even nuclei with equal quantity of protons and neutrons: those nuclei have null magnetic moment. As the atomic nuclei have rotation, those nuclei cannot have null magnetic moment. Such puzzle cannot be solved by any nuclear model based on the Standard Model”. The author is right to think that rotating nuclei should have a magnetic moment, but seems not to have realised that even-even nuclei don’t necessarily rotate. So his conclusion that the data cannot be explained by the Standard Model is incorrect. His elementary failure in this regard must raise doubts as to the accuracy of the rest of the book.

————————————————————–

.

And I sent to Dr. Josephson the following reply:

————————————————————–

From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com

To: bdj10@cam.ac.uk

Subject: RE: The Evolution of Physics: The duel Newton versus Descartes

Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 09:06:59 -0300

Dear Dr. Josephson,

you wrote in your comment in the Amazon.com:

“The author is right to think that rotating nuclei should have a magnetic moment, but seems not to have realised that even-even nuclei don’t necessarily rotate”.So, I would like you give me a good reason why nuclei with odd number of fermions rotate, while the nuclei with even number of fermions do not rotate.

For instance, 6C11 has rotation.

But if 6C11 captures a neutron, it transmutes to 6C12. And the rotation of the 11 fermions of the 6C11 stops, because the 6C11 has transmuted to 6C12 ????

How can one unique neutron get to eliminate the kinetic energy of rotation of 6 protons and 5 neutrons with fast rotation????

Besides,

you are wrong because of the following:

1- A paper published by Nature in 2012 had shown that even-even nuclei with Z=N have non-spherical shape:

How atomic nuclei clusterhttp://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v487/n7407/full/nature11246.html

2- I sent the following email to the journal Nature:

Dear Martin FreerWith that distribution of charge of the 10Ne20 structure shown in Figure 1, how to explain that 10Ne20 has null electric quadrupole momentum ? That structure shown in Figure 1 is not spherical, and therefore 10Ne20 could not have null electric quadrupole momentum (detected in experiments concerning nuclear data)

Regards

WLADIMIR GUGLINSKI

2- Martin Freer sent to me the following answer:

The nucleus is intrinsically deformed as shown, but has spin 0. Consequently, there is no preferred orientation in the laboratory frame and thus the experimental quadrupole is an average over all orientations and hence is zero. Experimentally is is possible to show that the deformation of the ground state is non zero by breaking the symmetry and rotating the nucleus.Martin

Therefore, Dr. Josephson,

your hypothesis that nuclei with even number of fermions have no rotation

is wrong, because if they had no rotation the experiments would have to detectnon-null quadrupole momentfor the even-even nuclei with Z=N.Sorry, but you are wrong, Dr. Josephson.

There is no way to solve the puzzle from the principles of the Standard Nuclear Physics

regards

Wladimir Guglinski

————————————————————–

Alexvs:

I am not the one who made the peer reviewing of the paper. I did not read it, yet. If you have questions regarding it, please put them to the Authors. I am sure they will be delighted to answer you.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Kenko 1:

I do not know. It is too soon to know: we are now focused on the test of the 1 MW plant and of the Hot Cat.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Dear Mr. Rossi

Did you read the above article “To Understand The Basics Of Black Hole Cosmology”?

If so, what is your opinion about it? I mean precisely paragraph 11. I think that following the reasoning, the probability of isotope existence at least for even N nuclei could be deduced. For most of even N atoms the stable isotopes follow the pattern: STABLE-UNSTABLE-STABLE…..STABLE-UNSTABLE-STABLE.

Greetings

If the results are positive for your customer, do they plan to use even more ecats for production of their products?

TIA

kenko1

Piero Mongioj ( so you are Nero!):

Also today your message arrived in the spam, but today I have been able to recover it!

Next time you better change the address from which you send the comments.

Thank you anyway for your comment: I wait to know the results of this new experiment of Alexander Parkhomov.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

P.S.

In the ancient Rome there has been another Nero: he too was an experimanmtalist of heat production systems…

Grazie… Have you seen the test “in fieri” by Parkhomov today? Comment! Buon lavoro… Con affetto, Nero

John Atkinson:

My vision ( and hope) is that we will have a mass production and utilization of the e-Cats.

Thank you for your kind attention,

Warm Regards,

A.R.

I would like to thank you for your devotion and iron will in developing and improving your invention the e cat. I have no dought that after you are satisfied that the e cat meets your clients and investers performance exspectations the world will be a better and differnt place.Considering the unprecedented progress you have had in the past five years,what is your vision five years from now of realistic applications for the e cat? Thank you

Steven N. Karels:

R&D, tests and industrial/commercial work are strictly bound.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Dear Andrea Rossi,

I think it is important to differentiate the Lugano tests and the Parkhomov tests from your commercial work. These tests characterized the relatively long term performance of the basic eCat design and the so-call Rossi effect. COP was relatively low and testing was conducted for long periods of time to produce statistics on average heat generation.

Your commercial work, I gather, is dealing with maximum energy efficiency, and short term control issues — keeping the Cat from becoming the Tiger. I would assume the emphasis on the commercial work is to demonstrate how much cost savings can be obtained while still keeping operation under total control. Comments?

Nero:

I unfortunately did not succeed to recover your comment from the spam where it wrongly is gone, because I made a wrong click.

But I read your question that was: why have not the measurements of the Lugano test been made with calorimetry as Parkhomov did?

Answer: I did not choose how to make measurements during the Lugano test, nor I did make such measurements. In the Report of the ITP it is clearly written the reason of the choice of the Professors. The important work of Parkhomov, who used a calorimetric system, has confirmed independently the results.

Warm Regards

A.R.

Eernie1:

Thank you for your insight.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Dear Andrea,

After the disclosure of the ash analysis and your confirmation that as far as you know it is correct, I think that there are a number of conclusions that can be made. First, there must be a source of thermal neutrons generated in the reaction. Second these neutrons must be generated by using relatively low energy sources(LENR). Thirdly there must be a large cross section for interaction with an atom for capture(most of the neutrons are then absorbed therefor not detected). Any generated Gammas must be of low energy and capable of interacting with the surrounding media to produce thermal energy.

There is a source of thermal neutrons available in the 7Li atom. They are the Halo neutrons located 7fm from the nucleus center and almost completely free from the strong force holding the other nucleons together. They should be able to be dislodged by a relatively small force such as a free electron passing near the atom colliding with it. since the neutron would be a relatively low energy neutron, it has a high probability for encountering an atom such as Ni in a lattice and entering its nucleus.

There are many other atoms possessing Halo neutrons(37Mg has two)available along with others that have not been explored. Perhaps neutrons captured by other atoms remain as Halo neutron, thereby much more volatile and capable of interacting further in the reaction. Because all these occur at low energies, the generated photons would also possess relatively low energies thus enhancing their probability for interaction with lattice configurations.

Many of these conjectures of course depend upon the ash analysis presently available to us. We look forward with great anticipation to further refinements of the analysis information

Regards and enjoyable analysis.

Frank Acland:

He is a mainstream scientist, a University Prof of Physics, with whom I am writing a paper regarding the Lugano results and the possible reconciliations, to which is also interested in. I am learning from him more than he is learning from me, for sure.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Dear Andrea,

Interesting to hear about your long Skype meetings with the physicist. Is this someone who takes your work seriously, and is able broaden your understanding — or are you trying to convince them of the validity of your work?

Many thanks,

Frank Acland

Paul:

Interesting.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

About the last paper published on the JoNP “To understand the basics of black hole cosmology”: good tentative. It does not explain the anomalous galaxy dinamic.

Andrea,

I have just purchased a high voltage self-charging capacitor to simulate the output of the photo cat. It is called a Van de Graaff generator. Playing with this 10pF 100 KV capacitor, it becomes obvious to me that, in the photo cat, the spacing of the electrode plates and the break down voltage of the gas between the plates determine the maximum voltage across the plates. In theory, the maximum possible voltage of the photo cat should be the maximum eV of the captured x-rays.

Stay Self-Sustaining,

Paul