.
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.
.
.
silvio caggia wrote in September 9th, 2014 at 5:49 PM
@joe
Quantum Entanglement has interesting explanations at the cost that you exit from the mainstream phisics…
A “simple” explanation is that the entangled particles are connected THRU time… you find details in Transactional Interpretation o QM by John Cramer.
A “less simple” explanation is that space and time are not phisical containers but only aspects of the real constituent of whole universe: scalar motion. We live in a projection of scalar motion in a 3D space+clock time reference system, but there is also a reciprocal 3Dtime+clock space reference system… You find details in Reciprocal System of theory by Larson.
================================================
COMMENT
Silvio,
500 years ago Galileo said that science and logic cannot be divorced. If somebody creates a theory divorced to logic, you can be sure that his theory is wrong, because the Nature does not work divorced to logic.
The problem of Modern Physics started when Einstein proposed a theory divorced to logic, where an empty space can have contraction and dilation.
Following the Einstein’s example, the creators of the Quantum Mechanics, lead by Heisenberg, developed a theory divorced to logic too, because they supposed be impossible to create a theory in the field of quantum physics compatible with the logic.
The origin of the crisis in the Modern Physics was the empty space proposed by Einstein.
Because of the elimination of the physical space (aether) in the Theoretical Physics, many hidden mechanisms used by the Nature in the production of the phenomena were neglected by the theorists. And this is the reason why many of them used the desperate resource of trying crazy theoretical solutions.
So, the physicists were induced to believe that Nature is no logic, and such conclusion opened the door for all the sort of theories based on several crazy hypothesis.
In such a panorama, along the years, when a new paradox appeared defying the current theories, the theorist used to propose solutions divorced to the logic.
Many experiments published along the 5 last years are showing that Quantum Mechanics was developed from wrong foundations. And the experiment published by the journal Nature in 2011 showed that Einstein’s theory of empty space is wrong.
Therefore,
it is not now the time to keep the crazy solutions adopted by some theorists along the years with the aim to explain paradoxes not solved via the current Quantum Mechanics and the Theory of Relativity, because all those crazy solutions are based on the wrong foundations of Quantum Mechanics.
It is now the time of starting everything again, from the zero, by introducing the concept of aether in the Relativity, and by introducing several new principles missing in the Quantum Mechanics.
This is the only way.
The Nature is not crazy.
But crazy theories sometimes are proposed when some theorists develop them by starting up from the assumption that Nature is crazy.
regards
wlad
Joe wrote in September 9th, 2014 at 12:21 PM
Wladimir,
Aether (physical) and space (mental) are not identical with each other. How can you ascertain the dilation or contraction, i.e. the change in density, of aether without a FIXED space in which the aether could operate, and against which the aether could be measured?
=======================================================
Joe,
I call density d=1 of the aether those regions far away of the presence of matter (for instance, the intergalactic space between stars).
The density of the aether around a star could be established via the gravitational field of the star.
Suppose that only one star was existing in the universe.
The regions very far away of the star, where the gravity is practically zero, would be regions with density d=1 of the aether.
In a point near to the star, the density of the aether would be changing proportional to the square of the distance between that point and the star.
regards
wlad
@joe
Quantum Entanglement has interesting explanations at the cost that you exit from the mainstream phisics…
A “simple” explanation is that the entangled particles are connected THRU time… you find details in Transactional Interpretation o QM by John Cramer.
A “less simple” explanation is that space and time are not phisical containers but only aspects of the real constituent of whole universe: scalar motion. We live in a projection of scalar motion in a 3D space+clock time reference system, but there is also a reciprocal 3Dtime+clock space reference system… You find details in Reciprocal System of theory by Larson.
Note: both explanations require that you reconsider deeply the nature of time.
H-G Branzell:
You are right.
Warm Regards
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
The acronym should be ITPR, not TIPR because it is a report from an independent third party. It is neither a report from a third independent party nor the third report from an independent party, i. e. is an (ITP)R but neither a (TIP)R nor a T(IPR).
Best regards, H-G Branzell
Wladimir,
Aether (physical) and space (mental) are not identical with each other. How can you ascertain the dilation or contraction, i.e. the change in density, of aether without a FIXED space in which the aether could operate, and against which the aether could be measured?
All the best,
Joe
Eric,
You bring up three important points:
1. You are right to be concerned about the manner in which the physical world would connect to the mental world of space and time. The interface is very subtle. It is hard to tease the two worlds apart.
2. The reason QE is a hard subject for QM is because QM believes that QE is fundamentally nebulous – probabilistic rather than deterministic. But I have already explained how a Nature based on uncertainty would not even exist.
3. Many years ago, I had contemplated the use of an incompressible medium. But that brings with itself a whole new set of incongruities. (It would be possible to explain instantaneity over a short distance but not over a long distance what with disturbances of the medium with various physical phenomena.)
All the best,
Joe
Koen Vandewalle:
The evolution of our technology is permanent and depends on the R&D on course amd the tests. For obvious reasons, the most important test is the TIPR related one.
IP is matter of out patent attorneys.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
thank you very much for your very positive answer.
This opens new perspective on “positive or negative”.
Did you or your team make important or structural modifications on the low temperature e-cat and high-temperature e-cat because of this improved control on the Rossi-Effect ?
Will the patents, if ever granted, not be outdated or obsolete because of this ?
I hope you and your team find a way out.
Kind Regards,
Koen
Joe, Regards your comment to Wladimir. You state ” So since space and time are non physical they are no impediments to the concept of instanteneity. Therefore, instantaneity can exist in reality. You could equally state that distance and duration are non physical concepts but without the physical these non physical concepts would not exist as a concept of reality. Instantaneity is an event that without the physical would not exist as a concept (as a conceived idea). The photon I think of as a minute physical structure and thereby is able to bring into existence the concept of space and time. I find physics fscinating but I am not academic and therefore non technical. This concept of entanglement with regards a split photon, if my understanding is correct, could it be that the word entanglement could be misleading?. As an example would it be accurate to describe a radio set entangled with a transmitter. As I see it, because there is no such thing as empty space, resonance is able to maintain a connection over any distance due to the aether i.e. not exactly an entanglement more of a ‘knock on effect’ moreso like two objects connected by a solid rod providing instantaneouse reaction. The two objects must have the same identical resonance. What would Wladimir think of this. As I have said this subject is fascinating. Regards Eric Ashworth.
Joe wrote in September 8th, 2014 at 6:19 PM
Wladimir,
1) ====================
There is nothing wrong with a hypothesis being proven wrong. That proof can take either of two forms: logical or experimental. In the case of Aristotle, it is experimental.
==========================
Galileo proved it not only experimentally.
He proved it by logic.
If you take a body with mass m and other heavier body with mass M and glue them togehter, the body with mass M+m needs to fall down slowly than the body with mass M, because the body with mass m will retard the falling down of the body with mass M.
But the body with mass M+m must fall down faster than the body with mass M, because M+m is heavier.
Therefore there is a paradox: the body with mass M+m cannot fall down slowly and faster than the body with mass M, and therefore all the bodies fall down with the same acceleration.
,
2)=======================
In the case of Einstein, it is logical. His example is self-contradicting as I have shown in my previous post.
========================
Einstein’s theory is illogical because he supposed that space is empty. But as he realized that space must have dilation, then he decided to connect space and time, by creating the concept of space-time.
However space and time are not connected.
Actually space is physical (the aether).
And time actually does not exist (it is only a mathematical concept used so that to measure the evolution of mass changings).
A new experiment published in the journal Nature in 2011 prove be wrong Einstein’s concept of empty space:
Light created from vacuum shows empty space a myth
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/science/Light-created-from-vacuum-shows-empty-space-a-myth/articleshow/10789049.cms
.
3)============================
But there is no room for contradicting realities in science.
=============================
Yes, as said Galileo.
That’s why I decided to develop my theory, in order to discover if it would be possible to eliminate the nonsenses of Modern Phusics (introduced firstly by Einstein).
.
4) ======================
So his hypothesis – the physicality of space and time – must be wrong.
========================
Not for the space.
The space is physical.
Only the time is non-physical, because actually time does not exist.
The contraction and dilation of the space-time supposed by Einstein is actually due to the dilation and contraction of the aether
.
5) ======================
There can be no experiment that will prove otherwise.
So since space and time are nonphysical, they are no impediment to the concept of instantaneity. Therefore instantaneity can exist in reality.
============================
Being the space physical, there is no way to have an instantenous interaction between two paticles aparted far away one of the other.
.
6) ===========================
But as I have also explained in another previous post, the concept of QE is illogical and therefore can not exist realistically even though it is popularly associated with the concept of instantaneity.
==============================
QE is illogical in Quantum Mechanics, because wrongly interpreted by quantum theorists.
regards
wlad
Lata:
No, it is not possible. Besides, we do not produce any radioactive residual, as well as we do not use any radioactive material. The E-Cat works in a totally different way. The thermoelectric device you gave the link of is a classic generator based upon the Seebeck Effect, that I know pretty well, having worked with it for many years. The particular application fueled by radioactive isotopes has been used by NASA in space devices like spaceships, satellites etc. As a source has been normally used plutonium. This application has been abandoned, due to the risk related to a possible fall of the apparatus on the surface of the Earth. All this has nothing to do with the possible applications of the E-Cat.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Hi Andrea,
Is it possible to induce radioactivity in e-cat fuel through LENR reactions and then use the activated fuel for Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator(RTG). If this can be done, the end product will be simplified and it will be easier to protect the trade secrets because you will be giving away only the activated fuel not the whole e-cat setup. You already see transmutations in e-cat, so this should be possible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator
Regards,
Lata
Wladimir,
You write,
“Galileo proved that Aristotle was wrong by making the experiment in the Pisa tower.”
There is nothing wrong with a hypothesis being proven wrong. That proof can take either of two forms: logical or experimental. In the case of Aristotle, it is experimental. In the case of Einstein, it is logical. His example is self-contradicting as I have shown in my previous post. But there is no room for contradicting realities in science. So his hypothesis – the physicality of space and time – must be wrong. There can be no experiment that will prove otherwise.
So since space and time are nonphysical, they are no impediment to the concept of instantaneity. Therefore instantaneity can exist in reality.
But as I have also explained in another previous post, the concept of QE is illogical and therefore can not exist realistically even though it is popularly associated with the concept of instantaneity.
All the best,
Joe
Eernie1:
Wrong, we need a certification for the domestic E-Cats: no reliable insurances can give a proper and consistent insurance for non certified apparatuses.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Tom Conover:
The report will contain the detailed description of the test. I am not able to answer because I have not been there continuously.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
silvio caggia wrote in September 5th, 2014 at 8:01 PM
@Vladimir Guglinski
By the way…
Which is your model interpretation of Wheeler’s delayed choice experiment?
=================================
Dear Silvio
the error comes from this wrong interpretation by quantum theorists:
——————————————-
If the apparatus is changed so that a second beam splitter is placed in the upper-right corner, then the two detectors will exhibit interference effects. Experimenters must explain these phenomena as consequences of the wave nature of light. They may affirm that each photon must have traveled by both paths as a wave else that photon could not have interfered with itself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler%27s_delayed_choice_experiment
——————————————-
The error is because quantum theorist suppose that the photon is a wave-particle duality.
The photon is NOT a wave-particle duality.
The photon is a corpuscle formed by particle-antiparticle moving by helical trajectory, and the wave feature of the photon is due to its helical trajectory.
In 2012 an experiment made by Aephraim Steinberg proved that the photon can have interference with itself, which was supposed impossible by the quantum theorists, because they dont know the true structure of the photon.
http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.100404
So,
the photon is NOT a wave-particle duality, as believed the quantum theorists along 100 years.
The photon is a corpuscle moving with helical trajectory, and its wave feature is consequence of its helical trajectory, and that’s why the photon can have interference with itself.
The photon decides NOTHING in the Wheeler’s experiment, because the photon has AT THE SAME TIME the two features corpuscle and wave, because the photon is a corpuscle and the wave feature is due to the helical trajectory of the corpuscle.
Therefore the quantum theorists had interpreted wrongly the Wheeler’s experiment, because they wrongly supposed that the photon cannot have interference with itself.
regards
wlad
Dear Andrea,
1) Was the 1st TIP conducted on the older style Ecat?
2) Was the 2nd TIP conducted on the newer style Activator-Ecat?
Thanks in advance!
God bless you,
Tom Conover
Eernie1:
We did not note discrepances between them.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
I was specifically asking about the units which were used in the configuration of the 1 Mev devices. I assume they were all tested with the same routine to assure consistent operating values. In this testing, were there large deviations in outputs and did they perform reliably with a minimum of failure upon startup procedures?
Fond regards.
Joe wrote in September 7th, 2014 at 8:02 PM
Wladimir,
I deduced that space and time are not physical through the use of reason.
See my post on September 1st, 2014 at 6:42 PM.
=================================
Dear Joe,
Aristotle also had deduced through the use of reason several assumptions, later proved wrong by Galileo, because Aristotle did not take in account some hidden mechanisms which work as cause of some phenomena. For instance, Galileo left two body with different masses to fall down from the Piza tower, and proved that they arrive at the same time in the ground, while Aristotle believed that heavy bodies fall down faster than light ones.
Aristotle was suggested to think wrongly that lighter bodies fall down slowly than heavy ones because leaves of trees fall slowly, and he did not realize that leaves fall slowly due to their interaction with the air.
So, dear Joe,
it seems to me that you had been suggested to think that two entangled photons interact instantaneously because Alain Aspect experiment had suggested such conclusion to all the quantum theorists, because they do not know the structure of the photon, and so they are committing the same mistake commited by Aristotle.
Galileo proved that Aristotle was wrong by making the experiment in the Piza tower.
Dont you think that we have to undertake new experiments (like those suggested by me to Gabriela Lemos), so that to discover the true physical mechamisms of the photons entanglement?
regards
wlad
Eernie1:
We made tests with many different configurations and there are deviations in the outputs, depending on many factors.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Wladimir,
I deduced that space and time are not physical through the use of reason.
See my post on September 1st, 2014 at 6:42 PM.
All the best,
Joe
Dear Andrea,
You must have run hundreds of units at this time. Can you tell us if their is a deviation of output you have measured between units? If so, how large(1% or more). Also, do you have any reliability numbers for successful unit operations you can release?
Thanks for any information you can release.
KL:
We are a great Team. We are making together a strong work of R&D, industrialization. It is soon to know if the results will be positive or negative, but we are working together with enthusiasm. I am helped in my work as I never have been in my life.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Mr Rossi
Whilst we await the publication of the TIP, which we understand may be positive or negative, can you comment on the current level of confidence in your technology amongst the qualified/experienced engineers and scientists with whom you have been working at IH?
Best regards.
KL
Henry Ethancourt:
He,he,he,he,he!
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Hello all. This is HOT news. A photograph recently taken right in the lab of Industrial canned Heat, LLC, showing the CEO of IcH and the CEO of Leonarduck Corporation at work.
The reaction catalyst appears to be a well-known Italian product!
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Byy1eWi2Qr7JLTU1LUVtbFFQcHM/edit?usp=sharing
Italo R.:
I already know what I need:
Lavolale, Lavolale!
Warm Regards
A.R.
Dear Dr. Rossi
Only for joke: you have to learn chinese language, too..:-))
Mandarin Regards,
Italo R.
Joe wrote in September 5th, 2014 at 1:27 AM
Wladimir,
Space and time are not of the physical world. That does not mean that the physical world does not exist. The physical world is not constrained by space and time. But our view of the physical world IS constrained by space and time since they are mental objects.
Dear Joe
where did you get from the idea that space and time are not of the physical world and they are mental objects ?
Steven N Karels
Regarding the onion question; I think we have to consider to how many joule we can produce by surface and the ability to convert it to power.
Regards, Roberto
Anonymous:
Again we lost in the spam your comment as I tried to publish it. Very strange. Anyway, thank you for your kind considerations and sustain. I confirm that, as you wrote, I found in the USA a very strong help, at any level, without which this technology could never arrive to the point it arrived so far, even if I must add that the results from the TIP report and the 1 MW operation could be positive, as well as negative.
Also: the US team is preparing with Chinese scientists an important R&D operation that will help the industrialization of our devices: LAVOLALE, LAVOLALE!
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Steven N. Karels:
1- yes
2- yes
3- no
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Aka:
Yes, as you can read in former reports: there is published a photo of a reactor whose external surface was in caramic.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Roberto:
It could make sense, everything is manufacturable, safety can be assessed for any device. Costs and convenience of it all is another story and only R&D can resolve the issue.The development algorythm of any prodct from our Team is:
1st: study and desicn of the concept
2nd: prototype construction
3rd: tests
4th: decisions about the development toward manufacturing
5th: passing the design to the manufacturing factoryfrom the laboratory
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea.
First, if it makes sense, then the manufacturability and safety and control of the system.
Roberto
Dear Andrea,
You indicated that a ceramic reactor vessel was used during 2012 testing.
I did some reading on the first independent test report that was first published in May 2012.
The report indeed mentioned a construction having three concentric cylinders out of which two were made from ceramic materials and the cylinder holding the (Ni) powder made of AISI 310 steel.
Let me phrase my question on using a ceramic vessel more specific:
Would it be possible to also make the cylinder that holds the (Ni) powder holder out of ceramic material(s)?
Sincerely,
Aka
Dear Andrea Rossi,
I believe the “onion” question referred not necessarily to power output but to individual module operating temperature range. For example, the initial eCat might operate over a reduced temperature range, the next one a higher range and the last eCat over a narrow but high temperature regime. Can you answer the following?
1. Does the control and the stability of the eCat reactor depend on the average temperature the reactor is running at?
2. Does the control and stability of the eCat reactor improve if the operating range is narrower than the full temperature range of the entire system (i.e., room temperature to say, 1000 degC)?
3. Does control and stability improve going beyond the “mouse” and “cat” architecture to three, four or more modules in thermal series?
Roberto:
This depends on which meaning you want to relate to the word “realistic”.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
Is it realistic to think to an ECAT with an onion structure where many layers are gradually increasing the power. Start with a mouse then a cat, then a dog, then a tiger and so on…
Roberto
Andreas Moraitis:
To be more precise: I referred to the possibility to enhance the reactions in a specific area of the charge.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
With regard to the answer you gave Koen Vandewalle: Did you refer to a single, isolated grain or a specific grain in the powder?
Best regards,
Andreas Moraitis
Mark:
I do not know the date of publication, but I expect it anytime.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Andrea,
Are you anticipating this report in late September?
Sorry if this question has been popup
Anonymous:
Your message got lost in the spam when I tried to publish it, I do not know why, but here is your question, that I remember perfectly, and the related answer:
You asked: ” What were the Professors of the TIP allowed to?”
Answer: in the report will be described the protocol. I cannot anticipate this information.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
@Vladimir Guglinski
By the way…
Which is your model interpretation of Wheeler’s delayed choice experiment?
Thanks in advance
Koen Vandewalle:
1- yes
2- yes
3- yes
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Aka:
Yes, we did it and also published the report of a test in 2012.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
Ignoring the minor side effect of atomic transmutations, would the “Rossi-effect” be feasible in a ceramic reactor vessel?
Sincerely,
Aka