User talk:Seshavatharam.bhc

Welcome!

Hello, Seshavatharam.bhc, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Salih ( talk ) 16:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Proposed deletion of Black hole cosmology


The article Black hole cosmology has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * WP:NOTESSAY; article is entirely an essay composed of original research

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Conflict of interest
If you have a personal interest in the works of U.V.S. Seshavatharam please review Wikipedia policy on conflict of interest before editing topics that relate to those works. Joja lozzo  17:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Please avoid introducing original research into wikipedia articles, such as physical cosmology. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 00:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

My humble appeal
Dear sir,

1) 1929 Hubble's interpretations were incomplete. Correct idea is: rate of increase in red shift is a measure is a measure of rate of expansion. Bare redshift is not a measure of rate of expansion.     2) There is absolutely no comparison in between cosmic age and human science age. The subject of cosmology is still open. In 1917 Einstein proposed Lambda term. Physicists around the world forced him to abandon the term. Fortunately now people say: He was correct. But he proposed a closed model and now it turns out to be a flat and accelerating!. Moreover, dark energy is having no particle physics back ground. No one knows its single physical identity. Now the situation is that, keeping that unknown and unphysical thing in mind, scientists are trying to modifying the experimentally tested theory of gravitation. Clearly speaking, from one point of view, they say: Einstein was correct and Einsteins theory of gravity has to be modified!!

3)To understand the CMBR isotropy in flat model cosmology, 'Inflation' was introduced which demands super luminal speeds.

4) Flat model assumes a size of Hubble volume as the event volume. What happens outside the Hubble volume is a mystery. And there is no definite origin to the event volume. For 'n' number of observers there exists 'n' event volumes. From this it is clear that there is no definite working boundary in the flat accelerating model.

5) Without a working boundary, CMBR stretching is impossible. To have a stretching, rubber band must be pulled in opposite directions from two different points.

6) Growth can be possible with closed boundaries like Human growth, apple growth etc. 7) If that growth follows Black hole concepts, growth will be minimum.

8) Observations indicates that, galactic central black holes are rotating close to the light speed. More over recent observations reveals that formation and growth of any galaxy depends on the growth of its central black hole.

9) Dimensionally it can be shown that, dimensions of Hubble's constant are radian/sec but not 1/sec. With growth and rotation cosmic stability can be understood. 10)Possibility of closed model and open model in understanding universe is 50 - 50%.

11) If universe is black hole, origin of CMBR temperature (past and present) can be answered. Not only that Planck particle can be considered as the baby cosmic black hole.

12) Thus Black hole physics, planck scale physics and cosmology can be studied in a unified manner.

I hope with this lengthy discussion, you will certainly consider 'Black hole cosmology' as a hot topic in Wikipedia for open discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.184.24.157 (talk) 13:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * But Wikipedia is not a discussion forum! &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Black hole cosmology for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Black hole cosmology is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Black hole cosmology until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)