Physics origin of universal unusual magnetoresistance

 I was alerted to a recent paper by Lijun Zhu et al titled “ Physics origin of universal unusual magnetoresistance ” in a recent article in 

https://scitechdaily.com/a-long-standing-spintronics-mystery-may-finally-be-solved/ regarding spin hall and unusual magneto-resonance.

It seems (current theological based*) theory cannot explain the observations. Not an unusual occurrence with the current outdated standard models of physics that these otherwise talented experimentalists have to adhere to. Of course reading these papers and their associated articles about imaginary physics like the above is difficult as they have refer to quasi religious concepts like ‘flows of electrons’ and ‘currents’. 

It does seem that as more observations come in they seem to be more and more mystified as to why electric current and all its electron based spin hall nonsense etc, seems to be dictated by a clear connection to the magnetic field orientation of atoms in their experiments. Contrary to current theory which tells them that electricity is an imaginary flow of electrons. 

My advice is that it is better to assume that all “electric current” is only a rotation of the conductor atoms magnetic fields. Nothing more. No imaginary flow of electrons is needed. 

Sooner or later theory will have to admit I’m right. Until then we will have to put up with new observations that don’t fit the magical and imaginary theories of electrons based on 18th C concepts of electricity dreamed up *flat earth mystical occultists as a flow of imaginary ‘electrons’.

Excess Gamma ray halo in Milky Way possibly due to dark matter

 Usual stuff about imaginary dark matter. The image supplied in the article taken from the paper does not look like the original halo predictions for dark matter. Better fit is to a model that has gamma rays scattering off intervening dust clouds. 

We know X-ray rings show that X-rays can scatter from intervening dust or gas clouds. As can gammarays (Rayleigh scattering). If one looks at the red part of image showing the purported signs of a dark matter “halo” it seems to follow the undulations of the blue part of the image.  Most likely the blue in the image is the distribution of dust or gas and the excess gammarays are scattered as in Rayleigh scattering. 

In other words…No imaginary dark matter is needed to explain the excess gammarays observed. Not least because other research shows visible mass can accurately model the rotation curves of galaxies without invoking imaginary dark matter.

Neutron star shows a dramatic X-ray variability linked to its rotation velocity

Recent observations show an Inverse relationship between a neutron stars 10 year rotation rate and its brightness in xrays. This sounds familiar and could be a theoretical confirmation of a separate prediction that the suns 11 year solar cycle is driven by a variable rotational velocity differential between inner core and surface rotation speeds. 

The Tyranny of Relativity

The Tyranny of Relativity

Abstract

Various criticisms and refutations of a pre-relativistic classical model of electromagnetic radiation have been presented in mainstream theoretical physics since the beginning of last century. Critics of the then established classical model cite various experiments as evidence, including experiments made by Michelson Morley, Sagnac, Ives Stillwell and deSitters’ double star refutation of a classical emission model of light. Here in this paper these criticisms are addressed and themselves refuted, showing how all these observations and experiments and others to date can still be made to be consistent with a non relativistic classical model of light where light travels at c relative to the source only. And is wave only not particulate. This is achieved simply by interpreting Michelson Morley experiment at face value: In that all this experiment did was show theorists that the aether did not impede the velocity or deflect the path of light.

Introduction: 1) Michelson Morley experiment

The first step to restoring the reputation of a classical wave only model of light is to correctly analyse the famous 1887 Michelson Morley experiment, which incidentally predates Einstein’s first paper on Special Relativity. The experiment and its theoretical ramifications are well known as it supposedly provided the evidence that refuted the concept of a ponderable aether through which wave only light was supposed to propagate. 

After the 1887 experiment, theorists of the day were perplexed by the results of MMX in which the speed of light was shown to be not affected by any motion of the experimental setup as it rotated around the earth and solar axes. The conclusion at the time was that there could be no ponderable aether and that if there were no aether then how could light be considered to be a wave if there was nothing to wave in. Here in this paper the argument is made that this was an odd conclusion to make. And that what theorists should have realised back in the early 20thC was that the Michelson Morley and subsequent experiments didn’t disprove the existence of an aether/vacuum. They only proved that, down to measurable limits, the velocity of wave only electromagnetic radiation through the aether/vacuum was not impeded or deflected. 

Quite why theorists after 1887 didn’t realise that there still was an aether/vacuum but it just wasn’t made of atomic particles or what’s now called baryons is puzzling. Why couldn’t the aether be a medium that had only one observable quality? That it could hold one or more different magnetic fields at any one point in space but not be made of atomic particles. Because as we now know it is not the aether/vacuum that slows down or deflects light. It is the atoms that are floating within that aether/vacuum which effect the velocities and direction of EMR.

And an even more profound implication of MMX that no theorist has also ever considered is that not only is light observed to travel always and only at c in the source frame, it always travels at c regardless of how the experiment moves relative to any other reference frame whilst the light travels out from the source and back to the interferometer. In other words MMX shows us that when light leaves the source it is quite literally dragged (but not rotated) around by the source to fulfil the requirement that it travels always and only at c out from and back to the interferometer/source in the apparatus. This is a fact backed up by a centuries worth of observations. From MMX to Sagnac to Ives Stillwell through to current versions of these experiments.

Some argue that this conclusion I suggest here can be refuted

as it is based on current technological limitations only. And that with a sensitive enough apparatus the rotation of the experiment once a day around the earths axis will be measureable. However those who would present this, forget first that physics theory is only refutable if there are the observations that can refute the theory. And so far no observations of this possible measurement have ever been made. And further to that if there were to be a future experiment that could detect a fringe shift in MMX due to its rotation around the earths axis…this would also refute the theory of Special Relativity.

And so in conclusion one has to accept that contrary to myth MMX did not refute any classical wave only model of light. And further to this, one has to make the irrefutable conclusion from MMX that light can be dragged back and forth by the source after the light has left the source. As long as the light travels back and forth at c relative to the source frame as per the MMX apparatus. Because that’s exactly what is being observed and measured in any MMX style apparatus. 

So one must ignore any claims that experiments like Ives Stillwell, Sagnac and others provide evidence that is inconsistent with a wave only classical model of light. Because these are all false claims. As the following analysis made here in this paper on some of the most commonly cited examples show.

2)Fizeau experiment

Fizeau is another experiment that confused both relativists and their aetherist predecessors. In that their incorrect assumption was that for a classical model the speed v of water flow should be added to or subtracted from the speed of light in water. Presumably this erroneous assumption was arrived at by ignoring the fact that atoms sit as separate particles within the emptiness of the vacuum. At the time the accepted aetherist prediction was for the light to be dragged fully by the velocity v of water. However Fizeau observed a drag at less than the value expected. Interestingly enough Fresnels’ drag coefficient did make the correct prediction. Despite being based on an outdated partial aether drag model. An interesting case of the right formula for the wrong model. That Fresnel correctly predicted the observed drag decades before Fizeau is a significant achievement that has been largely overlooked because of its association with an aether drag model. Although the assumption that fresnels coefficient correctly models the observed change in velocity of light in the Fizeau setup is debatable as Fizeau observed an exact 1/2 fringe shift from the predicted full aether drag shift (+-v) if light were dragged fully by the water.  Yet in fact the Fizeau formula predicts a 3/7 shift which should equate to an observed 3/7 slowing of light from the waters velocity. Not the observed 1/2 velocity shift. In other words Fizeau’s results in fact do not match that predicted by the fresnel coefficient and by association, Special Relativity. Why this is the case is not ever mentioned in any literature on the subject and does potentially present a problem for any theory. 

Ignoring this problematic observation, to model the outcome of Fizeau for a classical wave only model involves treating the moving water in the Fizeau column as a more or less optically dense medium and as follows:

Assume the water is a collection of atoms/molecules floating in the ‘empty’ space of the aether/vacuum. As the light beam moves through the water, the light travels at a constant speed in a straight line through the vacuum between these molecules in the water. But the lights velocity through the water is impeded slightly by each molecules’ atoms as compared to its velocity if it were in just an atom free vacuum. Hence the slower velocity and the refractive index 1.33 for water. And, if the water moves towards the source, the light will encounter more atoms per second and move even slower. Because the light’s velocity through the moving water is now slower as the light is interacting with more atoms per second. Making the moving water a slightly more dense optical medium. But notice the light speed through the moving column isn’t slower by the total speed v of the water molecules . Its reduced speed is dictated by a percentage based on the increased amount of atoms the light beam encounters per second.

Here the traditional Fizeau formula c/n +- v(1-n^2) is used to describe this change in velocity due to change in density and refractive index. And this change in density is not the same as v, but as a percentage of v, as this formula correctly shows.

However to calculate and better explain Fizeau as a classical experiment one can also use a new formula presented here on this blog and for the first time. This formula shows more clearly the simple classical connection between the increased velocity and the resulting percentage change in optical density, ie refractive index of water, due to the waters motion:

c/[n+-(v/c x n)]

As described earlier, the light beam will encounter more or less water molecule/atoms when the water moves relative to the source making the water medium a more or less dense medium for the light to travel through. To model this change in optical density classically one must first define the new refractive index of the moving water by dividing the water velocity v by c in the above formula and then multiplying this by n (1.33) of water to calculate the percentage change in the refractive index of water due to the movement of the water. And then either subtract or add that small percentage difference to the usual refractive index 1.33 of water to give the relative increase or decrease in density and thus derive a new refractive index for the moving water, dependent on its velocity in the experiment. At which point a simple calculation of c/n with this newly derived refractive index of water n will correctly predict the final observed velocity of light in the moving water. As shown in the formula:

 c/[n+-(v/c x n)]. 

Which incidentally gives the same result as the original cited Fizeau(Fresnel) formula.

Proving Fizeau can be adequately explained classically without invoking relativity.

Considering Einstein cited Fizeau as a key reason for developing his special theory of relativity, the irony of the Fizeau experiment is that it proves that the speed of light in water is variable if one also moves the source at v and not the water at v relative to the source. That is if the water and observer don’t move and are in the same frame but the source instead slows down or speeds up in the water column. Contradicting the central premise of SR that the speed of light must always be a constant defined by n for water. Technically, the Fizeau experiment refutes relativity.

3)DeSitter refutation

In the decades following 1905, Willem deSitter tried to refute a classical model of light by saying that if light travelled only at c in the source frame as some classicists like Ritz were still arguing for in the early 20thC, then light would “pile up” as it travelled through space. And that this ‘ piling up’ of light in transit, would be observed in light from double star systems when observed from earth. As no such piling up was observed, he claimed this refuted any wave only classical model. Unfortunately there is a serious flaw in deSitters argument. Because in trying to prove that light was constant in all frames and did not travel at c in the source frame only as a classical model proposed, he falsified his calculations and prediction for a classical model by incorrectly having light travel at a variable speed in the source star frame as it travelled to earth from the double star system. A strange contradiction considering he was trying to disprove classical theory’s central premise that light only and always travelled only at c in the source frame!

The question should be, how did he manage to convince his peers of his day that he proved that light could not travel only at c in the source frame? When the maths of his calculations proving this impossibility for a classical model was clearly false and unscientific.

The answer to his theoretical sleight of hand was although he correctly assumed that a classical model predicates a constant speed in one frame only. His mathematical faux pas was not to have light move at c only in the source frame as a classical model dictates. But rather his calculations had light at c only in the observer frame. A frame that moved relative to the source! Completely ignoring the basic tenet of a classical model so as to conveniently and spuriously refute it as competition to relativity. 

4)Sagnac

Sagnac, like MMX has been grossly misrepresented by critics of a classical model simply by once again incorrectly calculating how long the two light paths are when the setup (ring or mirrored) is rotating. One only has to look at the many various calculations, illustrations and computer simulations that have been created since the experiment was first performed by Sagnac that show the ring rotating around the central axis with the light travelling at a constant speed in both directions as the source/detector point rotates in one CW or CCW direction. To deliberately make these calculations for a classical model incorrect they have pretended that when the mirrored setup rotates the light will travel at a constant speed (c +-v) in the lab, not at a constant speed c in the source frame. This is the same mistake that deSitter makes. Because they have forgotten that light in a classical model must always travel at a constant speed c in the source frame only. Not at a constant speed c in any or all other frames. So if one looks at any incorrect rotating calculation used for Sagnac, you can see that the incorrect calculation for a classical model has light travelling at a variable speed relative to the rotating source.

Any correct calculation/simulation for a classical model has to have the source not move in its own frame and the mirrored setup rotating around the static source. One path will always be longer than the opposite path in this frame. (This is illustrated in an associated video and blogpost elsewhere on this blog.) This is the correct frame to calculate light path lengths for a classical model. It will always give a path difference. Contrary to false claims by relativists trying to erroneously discredit the old pre relativistic classical wave only model of light.

5)Faster than light, instantaneous transmission of information over great distances using effects first discovered in MMX

To follow on from section 1) a further effect can also found in the Michelson Morley experimental observations. As is also discussed above in section 1 of this post the experiment shows that light appears to be dragged  back and forth for any observer in any frame that is not the source frame. In that as long as light is observed to travel always at c in the MMX source frame then it will appear to be dragged back and forth as it propagates away from the source in any observer frame that has relative motion to the source. Conversely it follows that if a source emits light that propagates away from the source and arrives at an observer, then if the source is then moved or vibrated rapidly back and forth relative to the observer, the observer will Instantaneously observe this vibration in any light that has already left the source before the vibration in the source was started. The result is that the Michelson Morley experiment gives us the blueprint for a design of a mechanism that will give faster than light, indeed instantaneous, transmission of information through a vacuum over great distances. Truly an important invention first published here on this blog for the upcoming space race. Just imagine what is within easy reach of future mars unmanned robot landers;  Virtually instant communication between ground control and the robot lander. How much faster the current NASA mars explorer robots could operate with this easy to construct communication device. Yet because the backwards mindset of relativists and their unscientific theories controls our scientific community, we are being held back in space exploration.

This hi lites the advantage a wave only classical model has over relativity. Classical physics is based always and only on what is observed. Relativity is usually based only on what is assumed. Observations seem to be ignored by relativists.

6)Particles at detectors explained as quantised waves 

All of the previous analyses of the experiments cited above have not yet mentioned Newtons particle and Einsteins photon. However in any classical wave only model as the one outlined here in this paper it is imperative to stress that light is never considered to be a particle. It’s always wave only. This doesn’t necessarily matter for the above analyses of experiments but for more observations using photodetectors a classical explanation of light incident on a photodetector plane is necessary. 

When dots appeared in film and photo detectors in various experiments  the automatic assumption was that these are proof of the wave/particle duality of light and that it is considered to sometimes be a particle. 

This ignores centuries of the physics of oscillation, resonating systems and resonant catastrophe. We have centuries of observations of real world macro objects that will sympathetically resonate when subjected to external wave energy at or around that objects natural resonant frequency. And not only will they sympathetically resonate to incident wave energy, these macro objects are observed to store and release this energy in pulses to another external system. It is proposed here that this also happens to the atoms or collections of atoms in each pixel in any photo detector. The incident electromagnetic wave energy is observed to elicit resonance at and around that photodetectors atoms natural resonating frequency. And we know from observations of visible resonant systems that resonant systems release their energy in pulses. This is what’s called classic resonant catastrophe. And so for photodetectors the classical model has EMR wave energy incident on the detector atom. The detector atom resonates sympathetically and then releases it in pulses to the electron cascade in the circuit. Or simply transfers the resonance to the next atom in the electric circuit. To be then sent to a pc screen as a pulse and to be mistaken by quantum theorists as a particle of light hitting the photo detector.

7)CERN particle paths as wave only interferences.

The same logic is used here to explain the sub atomic particles apparently “seen” in colliders. Once again theorists have ignored centuries of study of wave interference. Young showed us in 1827 that two light sources could interfere to produce bands of light and dark on a 2 dimensional screen. In 3 dimensions those 2 overlapping interfering wavefronts produce what’s called an annulus ring. That’s 2 expanding wavefront ‘bubbles’ overlapping and producing a single expanding ring of interference as they propagate out in space from their separate sources at c.

If one calculates what happens when three coherent sources each produce an expanding wavefront bubble. Then it can be shown here that the first two waves will produce a single annulus ring where the brightness from interference between the two is at its greatest. And as the third overlapping wavefront bubble can only interacts at two points on that annulus it will produce two identical opposite direction single particle like paths that are a direct consequence of 3 separate expanding coherent waves interfering at only two points in space. These “paths” produced by the 3 expanding wavefronts are identical opposite twins. And can be either spiral, curved  or straight. This is exactly what is observed. 

In summary the proposal here is that the apparent ‘particle’ paths in colliders are in fact interference paths between 3 energy wavefronts overlapping as they spread out after being emitted by 3 protons colliding. Those “paths” represent the point of greatest energy due to wave interference between 3 expanding overlapping wavefronts. Simple geometry of wave only propagation in space explains this illusion of particles in cloud detectors. No wonder China has cancelled their new super collider this November 2025. They read my earlier blogpost and YouTube video on my blog and realised that the particles in colliders were illusions. And it was a waste of billions of pounds of money looking for mythical particles in particle accelerators like CERN.

Ives Stillwell

There are various erroneous claims made for a classical model of light from Einstein through Ives Stillwell to the present. All of them claim that a classical model predicts no offset for the Ives Stillwell experiment. As we know, an offset is observed. Supposedly ruling out a classical model of light which apparently predicts an even displacement of light from Doppler shifting. The reason why this claim has survived unchallenged for so long is simple. The various formulas evoked for "classical" are actually not correctly modelling light as c+-v for a classical model because they incorrectly use wavelength w instead of frequency f. One must calculate the offset using frequency and then convert that result to wavelength to check against the observed wavelength offset. The excuse relativists use is that one must model Doppler shift for light in a classical model by erroneously assuming there is an aether and that this imaginary aether/vacuum slows light down. This is pseudoscience from relativists. Because they conveniently ignore the earlier results from MMX in 1887 that show that the aether/vacuum does not impede or deflect light paths velocities and direction. If MMX showed that light in a classical model was not impeded by the aether/vacuum,…why do relativists insist that a classical model of light must ignore the 1887 MMX experiment?!

If one wishes to *correctly* model observed speeds for a classical model the following formula using f must be used: 

Assuming v is 0.005, and f is the emitted source frequency as in the Ives Stillwell experiment. 

1.005 X f = f1(forward) 

0.995 X f = f2(rearward) 

Calculate the two Doppler shifted frequencies. Convert both shifted frequencies f1&2 to wavelength w1&2 and average them out ((w-w1)+(w2-w)/2). This gives an average predicted offset for a classical model, that now matches the observed offset in the Ives Stillwell experiment. Verifying that a classical model is still very much consistent with Ives Stillwell.

GPS

Probably one of most misused excuses to refute a classical model is GPS, although technically it involves modelling atoms as well as light for a classical model. Following on from section 6 “Particles at detectors explained as quantised waves” it is assumed here in this paper that atoms in a wave only classical model are not considered to be particulate but rather as wavelike like resonating systems in the vacuum of space.

Because resonating systems are always observed to respond to more or less external force by lowering or raising their resonant frequency, then this same classical observation is used to correctly predict that atoms, being resonating systems will lower or raise their natural resonant frequencies when subjected to more or less external force. This is exactly what is observed in GPS. The caesium clock atoms will speed up their natural resonant frequency in response to a reduction in the force of gravity where there is also an increase in radius distance from the centre of planet earth. Because GPS clock atoms are farther out from the centre of earths gravity field, they oscillate faster. Time doesn’t change with altitude, the clocks tick rates are speeding up or slowing down in response to more or less gravitational force. 

Another false argument that is sometimes used against this being relevant for a classical model is that for classical theory the force of gravity is always erroneously assumed to be defined by r^2 in Newtons’ gravitational acceleration formula F= m1 +m2/r^2. An odd hypocritical condition for relativists to impose on a classical model, considering they accept that the force of gravity on mass in a gravitational field is relative to radius in their relativistic model. Not radius squared. Why is it OK for force to be different from acceleration for relativity theory, but not OK for a classical model to make this same assumption. When did Newton ever claim that acceleration is the same as force? Never.

But this false assumption about what the force of gravity is in classical physics is designed to have classical automatically fail the GPS test

Because in a classical universe we can observe with our own eyes that you need to apply a constant force to an object to get a constant acceleration. The object isn’t observed to accelerate all on its own. So for a classical model one must use a constant force of gravity (potential) applied to a point mass to get it to a constant acceleration.

And so it is this constant force (potential) on an object that is the true force of gravity in a classical model. Which means of course that to model resonance effect from gravity at different radii in a non relativistic classical model one must use r, not r squared.

To give Einstein credit, he realised that Newton and Laplaces potential defined the force of gravity more accurately than acceleration. He realised what both Newton and LaPlace had already discovered centuries earlier. Which is that Newtons little g (acceleration )was only a product of a force of gravity acting on a mass.

And finally to explain what is this mechanical classical explanation for gravity one need look no further than a revised wave only LeSagian push gravity theory to find the classical solution to what is behind this force of gravity. And it ties atoms neatly to waves for a wave only classical universe. 

Atoms are pushed down towards centres of larger masses by wave only “push” radiation. Not the original LeSagian particles which failed to accurately explain why masses didn’t increase constantly when subjected to the external LeSagian force of push gravity. These waves are all the electromagnetic waves that exist from all EMR sources in an infinite non Big Bang universe. Mass is derived from EMR. EMR is produced when mass moves relative to other masses.

And it is no accident that modelling the shadow of the earth on a satellite using arc degrees of the earth’s shadow as seen from the satellite gives a shadow gravity area that increases with r. Not r ^2. Confirming push gravity as a valid explanation for different tick rates in GPS.

Conclusion

By correctly calculating predicted effects for light in a classical model one can make all known observations and experimental results consistent with a classical model. As long as that model assumes light is not a particle in a viscous aether. But is instead a wave only phenomena that always travels at c relative to its source in this aether/vacuum. In this paper only a few key experiments are analysed but one can apply the classical model to any know observation. Simply by ignoring the same incorrect assumptions cited above in this paper that critics of a classical model erroneously apply to it to ensure it fails the above cited experimental or observational tests.

Reference

1)On the Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether. 1887, Michelson,Morley

2)On the Electrodynamics of moving bodies. 1905, Albert Einstein

3)The Hypotheses relating to the Luminous Aether and an experiment which appears to demonstrate that the motion of bodies alters the velocity with which light propagates itself in their interior. 1851, M. H. Fizeau

4)A proof of the constancy of the velocity of light (1913),Willem de Sitter

5) Recherches critiques sur l'Électrodynamique générale. 1908, Walther Ritz, Annales de Chimie et de Physique. 13: 145–275.

6)The luminiferous aether demonstrated by the effect of the wind relative to the aether in a uniformly rotating interferometer (1913),Georges Sagnac

7)An Experimental Study of the Rate of a Moving Atomic Clock. 1838, Ives,Stillwell

Stellar Aberration effects on the identification of rotation directions of spiral galaxies

Stellar Aberration effects on the identification of rotation directions of spiral galaxies

Abstract

In this paper the well documented non-relativistic classical effects of stellar aberration (1) are applied to light arriving to the earth observer from external spiral galaxies with possible implications for spiral galaxy rotation direction identifications. It is proposed here in this paper that the range of rotational velocities of stars within any external galaxy(4) must exert a blurring effect on that galaxies total emitted light incident at any earth observers image plane. In that the different internal velocities of all the stars in a spiral galaxy that rotates in the same direction as our Milky Way should effect more blurring of the spiral galaxy at the earth observers image plane due to stellar aberration, than the blurring of light at the image plane will be for light coming from all the stars in a galaxy that rotates in the opposite direction to our Milky Way. This proposed non-relativistic classical effect of stellar aberration(1) could make it harder to identify a co rotating spiral galaxy’s rotation direction than it would for a counter rotating galaxy’s rotation direction at any similar redshift distance from earth.

Introduction

The basis for this papers’ proposed Stellar Aberration effect on light arriving from spiral galaxies is based on the assumption that if light from any stellar object is displaced at an observer’s image plane via stellar aberration (1) then the magnitude of that displacement will be dictated by the earth observer’s relative transverse velocity to that particular stellar source. The accepted rule for stellar aberration (1) being that a higher transverse velocity of a star relative to the earth observers will result in a larger displacement of the star at the observers’ image plane. And that the scale of any additional displacement with any subsequent additional increases in relative transverse velocities will always be observed to increase (1) by smaller displacement amounts at the image plane with any subsequent increases in relative transverse velocities between the source and observer. For example, using only the pre relativistic classical theory of stellar aberration (1), the difference in the lateral displacement of a stars position at the image plane due to a difference in relative transverse velocities of between 0 to 25km/s between source and observer is assumed here to be larger than the difference in displacement of a stars light with a relative transverse velocity difference between the source and observer of between 25-50km/s. As also illustrated below in Fig 1 & 2 and summarised as follows:

For an increase in differences of velocity v in relative transverse velocities between source and observer a displacement d at the observers’ image plane will be observed. For any additional velocity increase of velocity v in relative transverse velocity between source and observer the observed additional increase in displacement at the image plane will be <d

This paper then proposes here that this same classical stellar aberration effect noted for stars in the Milky Way (1) should also be visible in any light coming from any individual star within any observed external spiral galaxy. And thus, that this range in velocities of rotational motions of all the stars in any external spiral galaxy must also effect a visible range of displacements of light from the observed spiral Galaxy as its light arrives at the earth observers image plane.

Current estimates based on observations (2,3) of stellar rotational velocities around the Milky Way core are between 200 - 250km/s. Although rotational velocities may vary greatly across spiral galaxies this cited 200-250km/s velocity range (2,3) for stars in the Milky Way is assumed here for the purposes of this paper to be also an average rotational velocity range for all stars in all spiral galaxies. Thus, it is assumed here in this paper that the internal stellar rotational velocities in all galaxies

around their respective cores can be on average approximated to be in the range of around 200- 250km/s. And that it follows that the average range of stellar velocities around a spiral Galaxy core can be assumed to be approximately 50km/s between the slowest and the fastest stellar velocities. It should be noted here that this assumption is roughly in line with the published analysis of observed data of various spiral galaxy types (4). The conclusion based on this above cited data and reached here in this paper is that the average velocity range of all stars in any spiral Galaxy can be considered here for the purposes of this paper to be equivalent to up to 1/5 of the total average rotational velocity of its host spiral galaxy. This insinuates that all light coming from any spiral galaxy will have a range of transverse velocities relative to the earth observer of approximately 1/5 more or less than its average galactic rotational velocity.

It is important to point out here that although both the James Bradley classical and the later Relativistic theories of Stellar aberration predict similar displacements of light at the earth observers image plane (1). It is considered here for the purposes of this paper necessary only for one to invoke Bradley’s Classical theory of stellar aberration to fully explain not only the displacement of light but the predicted blurring of spiral Galaxies light at the earth observers image plane.

Displacement and blurring mechanism

Taking into account classical stellar aberration effects, it is proposed here in this paper that this assumed average velocity range of stars within galaxies (1,2,3,4) could have a significant measurable effect on light arriving from galaxies to the earth observer. In that the range of displacements from stellar aberration alone (1) at the image plane of light from any spiral galaxy should create an optical blurring of the galaxy at the earth observers image plane. And that it is predicted here in this paper that the images of spiral galaxies will more or less blurred depending on whether or not the observed spiral galaxy is rotating with or oppositely to our own Milky Way. To summarise, displacements of stellar positions within images of spiral galaxies due to the classical theory of stellar aberration will create a proposed range of blurring of spiral galaxies at the earth observers image plane that is straightforward and can be summarised as follows:

A) The relative transverse velocity between any stellar source and earth observer effects a lateral displacement of that light on the image plane due to stellar aberration (1). And that this displacement is then assumed here to occur to light from stars within our Milky Way and from stars located in any other external spiral galaxies.

B) The theory of stellar aberration based on centuries of observation (1) tells us that the higher the relative transverse velocity the greater the displacement at the image plane from stellar aberration will be. And also that any subsequent increase in relative velocity will create a subsequently smaller amount of further lateral displacement on the image plane. (Fig1&2)

C) It is assumed in this paper (3,4) that the average rotation velocity of spiral galaxies will be in a mid range of 225km/s.

D) Based on the above cited averages it assumed here that spiral galaxies rotating oppositely to our Milky Way will have internal stellar transverse rotation velocities of on average between 200- 250km/s relative to an earth observer, and that stars orbiting in spiral galaxies that are rotating with our Milky Way will have an internal transverse velocity range of approximately +-25km/s relative to the earth observer. Both ranges being on average consisting of a velocity difference of 50km/s.

E) Lateral displacements at the image plane due to Stellar aberration always are observed to increase with increases in relative velocities between source and observer (1). But successive lateral displacements increase less so in magnitude between successively larger increases in relative velocities between source and observer (1). As also illustrated in Fig 1 & 2 below.

With all these points taken into consideration it becomes obvious, particularly from point E) above, that the total difference in magnitude of lateral displacements of all light from a set of a galaxy’s stellar sources with a relative transverse motions of 200-250 km/s relative to an earth observer will always be less than the total difference in magnitude of lateral displacements of all light from a set of a galaxy’s stellar sources with relative transverse motions of only +-25km/s relative to the earth observer (Fig1). In other words, this paper proposes here that light incident on the earth observers image plane from a galaxy that rotates with our Milky Way should always be more distorted and blurred due to a greater magnitude of lateral displacements at the image plane due to stellar aberration. Than light incident on the image plane from any spiral galaxy that rotates oppositely to our Milky Way at any similar redshift distance.

Fig 1) A is earth observer and V is relative transverse velocity axis between stellar source and earth observer. Angle x is larger than angle y. Angle x represents range of incident angles of light from galaxies that rotate with the Milky Way and angle y represents range of incident angles of light from galaxies that rotate in opposite directions to the Milky Way. Due to the effects of stellar aberration, light from a galaxy rotating with the Milky Way will arrive with a greater range of incident angles x than the range of incident angles y of light arriving from a galaxy that rotates in the opposite direction to the Milky Way (1). This difference in the range of incident angles between x and y will result in smaller lateral displacements of the galaxy light incident for y at the image plane than the greater range of lateral displacements of light for x at the image plane. And result in this papers’ predicted increased blurring for light arriving at x, than for light arriving at y. The size in arc seconds of any galaxy at the earth observer’s camera image plane becomes proportionately smaller for progressively higher redshifts (taking up less pixels at image plane for higher redshift galaxies). But the 2 relative transverse velocity ranges between any spiral galaxy and the earth observer will always be the same between any redshift galaxy and the earth observer (-+25km/s for co rotating, 200-250km/s for counter rotating*). It follows then that these 2 ratios of image size decreasing with increased redshift vs constant relative transverse velocity between earth and any spiral galaxy at any redshift; will result in a progressively apparent (but not real) increase of blurring of galaxy images at higher redshifts due to stellar aberration. And additionally, should effect a greater amount of blurring of co rotating galaxies than counter rotating galaxies at higher redshifts due to the relative velocity differences between the 2 ratios*. This increased blurring effect for higher redshifts will therefore make it harder to identify co rotating galaxy rotation directions than counter rotating galaxies at progressively higher redshifts.

Fig 2) Three illustrations showing how stellar aberration can displace light from individual stars in a spiral galaxy’s arm to effectively “blur” the galaxies image. Showing different amounts of blurring for different directions of relative galactic rotation between a galaxy and the earth observer. Left is a starfield with no aberration from no relative transverse velocities between all the stars in the galaxy and earth observer. Centre is with a small range of Stellar Aberration from a galaxy that rotates oppositely to the earth observer. Right is with the larger range of Stellar aberration from a galaxy that rotates with the Milky Way. Notice how the co rotating galaxy’s starfield illustrated on the right is more spread out and diffuse due to a larger range of displacements of each stars position within the galaxy due to stellar aberration.

Conclusion

Classical non-relativistic Stellar aberration theory (1), when applied to light from external galaxies, should effect different ranges of displacement of stellar light coming from spiral galaxies as it arrives at the earth observers image plane due to the observed range of different rotational velocities of stars around galaxy cores (1,2,3,4). As a consequence, it is proposed here in this paper that the predicted range of displacements at the earth observers image plane should be greater for all stellar light coming from galaxies that rotate with our Milky Way than for all stellar light coming from spiral galaxies that rotate in an opposite direction to our Milky Way. And further to this it is proposed here that this stellar aberration effect should manifest itself as different amounts of blurring of images of spiral galaxies. And that this blurring effect should be greater for galaxies that have relatively lower transverse rotational velocities relative to an earth observer. And therefore, light arriving at the earth observers image plane from a galaxy that rotates in the same direction as our own Milky Way should appear to be more blurred than a galaxy that rotates in an opposite direction to our Milky Way for spiral galaxies at similar redshifts. And as a conclusion it is proposed here that this purely classical effect of stellar aberration is predicted to make the rotation direction of a galaxy that rotates in the same direction as the milky way harder to identify than any galaxy that rotates oppositely to our own Milky Way at any similar redshift.

Reference

1)Aberration (astronomy) page at Wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_Astronomy

2) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rotation_curve_(Milky_Way).svg

3) Median Statistics Estimate of the Galactic Rotational Velocity.Tia Camarillo et al 

4)Comparison of Rotation Curves of different Galaxy Types. Roberts & Rots, 1973

 

FRB 20250316A: A Brilliant and Nearby One-off Fast Radio Burst Localized to 13 pc Precision

FRB 20250316A: A Brilliant and Nearby One-off Fast Radio Burst Localized to 13 pc Precision

The CHIME/FRB Collaboration:, Thomas C. Abbott

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/adf62f#apjladf62fs3

Once again the theorists have misunderstood the true nature of FRB and GRB phenomena. As I have pointed out for decades on this blog, it is a mistake to assume they are massive “explosions” at cosmological scale distances from earth. This is a false assumption based on other false assumptions about our universe and the true nature of electromagnetic radiation. False and unsubstantiated assumptions which I have discussed and refuted elsewhere here on this blog

However, to address this above cited paper specifically. It can be shown here how Gammaraybursts and Fast radio bursts are in fact, the same phenomena but occurring at different length timescales. An FRB is just a very short GRB. Nothing else. And more importantly it can be shown how these phenomena are not explosions at all, but rather purely optical effects coming originally from very distant but constant stellar sources in a non expanding universe. It’s not hard to show that the data in the above cited CHIME paper indeed backs up the GRB/FRB model described here. 

(It is important to point out that as far as this blog is concerned, repeating FRB’s should not in any way be considered to be caused by the same mechanisms as non repeating FRB’s. Which as anyone who is familiar with both repeating and non repeating FRB data will agree. Both types have distinctly different types of data streams that distinguish each type from the other as unrelated.)

For clear evidence  relating GRB and FRB as the same phenomena at different timescales look only to Figure 5 in the CHIME/FRB collaboration paper. (“PA profile of FRB 20250316A as a function of frequency over 400–800 MHz.”)

Notice how the self similar burst profiles in each frequency become more stretched in the time axis at successively lower frequencies. And that this  stretch in the time scale is proportional to wavelength. This exact profile of longer wavelengths being dilated to longer arrival timescales for FRB and GRB’s was predicted and outlined in this blog more than 20 years ago. Before Fast radio bursts were even “discovered” I had modelled and explained FRB ‘s in detail as being just very short GRB’s. But with the same distinctive time lag/wavelength relationship that can be seen in every available GRB burst dataset to date. A wavelength/time lag relationship which can also seen in figure 5 of the recent CHIME Collaboration paper. Notice as pointed out elsewhere on this blog, that all GRB light curve profiles from gamma to radio show the same distinctive wavelength to timescale stretch proportional to wavelength relationship. 

Unfortunately, theorists currently seem unwilling to admit relativity and the Big Bang are failed theories. And that going back to a more correct scientific model of light as a wave only, is the only option left to correctly explain all EMR phenomena including FRB burst profiles. A wave only classical model first described centuries ago by Theorists such as Thomas Young.

https://physicsexplained.blogspot.com/2014/08/this-following-brief-description-of-grb.html

https://physicsexplained.blogspot.com/2016/10/ives-stillwell-is-consistent-with.html

Coherent and incoherent light scattering by single-atom wavepackets

 Coherent and incoherent light scattering by single-atom wavepackets

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2410.19671

With a summary here : 

https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/zwhd-1k2t

The usual quantum nonsense from physicists pretending that light, when sent through a double slit, is sometimes observed to be a photon and other times as a wave. Fact is; Light isn’t ever actually observed to be a photon. That is a false assumption. Seeing as no one can actually see an imaginary photon as it hits the photodetector plane. All we see is a readout on a pc screen of wave light incident on the photodetector. And as a classical wave only model correctly models, that incident wave radiation is quantised into pulses by the detector atoms and delivered, as an the ‘electron cascade’, to the circuit. To be then sent to the computer screen as dots. Dots that theorists incorrectly assume to be imaginary photons. Any interference pattern created by these dots is simply a readout of the intensity of wave only incident radiation on the detector screen and at that corresponding point on the pc screen. Where there is more light due to an interference pattern at the detector plane, there will be a greater intensity of incident wave radiation at that point. And more of these quantised dots will  appear at that corresponding point in the interference pattern on the computer screen. 

And where there is less incident wave only radiation at other points in the interference pattern there will be fewer quantised pulses from the photodetector and thus at that same corresponding point on the pc screen, fewer dots will be observed. 

No quantum wave particle duality is needed to explain both the dots and any of those dots creating the interference pattern. 

That is unless one is a QT theorist who, when looking at these dots on his pc screen pretended they were photons hitting the detector plane. And then erroneously assumed this collection of these imaginary photons arranged themselves magically into a wave like interference pattern when the source atoms were constrained into a coherent lattice. In fact, all they actually saw was an amplified second generation image of wave only light being quantised at and by the photodetector atoms. Then amplified electronically and delivered via software to the pc screen as an interference pattern.

But to deal specifically with this papers claims of quantum photon/wave duality magic is the following scientific classical wave only theoretical explanation:

What is creating the coherent light in the experiment described in above cited paper? 

If the array of atoms is held in a lattice and reflecting/re-emitting the incident laser light then the atom lattice is essentially a collection of coherent light sources. As we know only coherent light when split into two or more same coherent sources at a “slit” can create interference patterns when incident on any detector plane. First described in Thomas Youngs famous slit screen experiment.

And further to this, what is creating the incoherent light in the experiment when no interference patterns from the source atoms are observed? 

If the atoms are not in a lattice and moving randomly, and reflecting or re-emitting this incoherent light onto the detector screen, then at this point we know that no interference patterns can be created or observed from two or more incoherent sources. This is indeed observed in the above cited paper.

Because, as any one with a basic grasp of physics knows, two or more incoherent light sources cannot produce an interference pattern. And thus in the experiment only the atoms held together in a lattice and reflecting or re-emitting the light are considered multiple coherent light sources. And as mentioned above, two or more coherent sources can create interference patterns at any detector screen. As is observed and confirmed in the paper.

In their attempts to pretend they have supplied further proof of the quantum nature of light, the authors of the paper have forgotten basic physics. In that a classical model can fully explain their experimental results. In that in a wave only classical model of light, any incoherent classical wave light sources will not produce any interference at a detector plane. And will only do so only if the multi atom incoherent light source is artificially constrained into a lattice of multiple coherent light sources that can then produce interference. As is observed in the paper.

For more information on how a classical wave only model can explain so called wave particle duality, read here

https://physicsexplained.blogspot.com/2015/11/the-main-illustrationbelow-is-schematic.html