Reversal of quantized Hall drift at non interacting and interacting topological boundaries.

 The following paper seems to misunderstand basic physics. And attributes what is essentially classical Newtonian physics to imaginary pseudoscientific quantum effects.

https://phys.org/news/2024-04-reveals-topological-reversal-quantum.html

This misunderstanding is based on the fact that QT theorists have assumed light is a particle *and* a wave. This is a false assumption. Light is wave only. And all imaginary magical “ quantum” effects are actually just theorists misunderstanding the wave based nature of light and pretending it’s also a particle. Any imaginary quantum effects can be just as well described by classical waves and classical polarisation. As the following links explain.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8H9kx9_sQYA

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

Take for instance the polarisation of EMR after reflection. Notice the handedness of the incident circular polarised wave changes handedness. But only in its direction of propagation!

Because from the observers point of view the incident wave has the same handedness as the reflected wave. 

This is because polarisation of light is dictated by the angle of the magnetic field of the incident light wave. And thus the handedness of the polarisation of the reflected light will be the same as the angle of the incident light waves. 

In case this doesn’t make sense to any student of physics indoctrinated into the nonsense of ridiculous quantum theory then look at how polarisation of a reflected wave depends on the polarisation of the incident wave.

If for an observer looking at the reflection plane at t_0 the incident circular polarised wave is polarised vertically relative to the observer at 12:00 o’clock. Then its reflected wave will also be polarised vertically. In other words the polarisation angle of the light beam moving towards and hitting the mirror will be vertical,relative to the observer.

Then it follows that at t_1 the incident circularly polarised wave has rotated slightly clockwise to 1:00 o’clock and that the reflected wave now moving towards the observer will also be polarised to the angle of 1:00 o’clock. BUT...relative to the observer.

This is referred to in physics as a flipping of handedness for polarisation at reflection. But what the reference fails to mention is that yes although the handedness flips at reflection. That is only true in the direction of propagation. Whereas from an observer point of view the handedness does not flip at reflection. 

This phenomena also can explain the observations in the experiment cited above. Because the handedness of the magnetic fields of the atoms upon reflection at the barrier is dependent on the angle of the atoms magnetic field before it reflects. And notice in the experiment the  handedness of the magnetic field of the atom after reflection is the same as before it is reflected. As with EMR at reflection.

No quantum effects needed. Just a simple following of the classical physics rule of magnetism on reflection. 

Which is: From an external observers point of view looking at the mirror, if a magnetic field is reflected its angle of polarisation must be preserved. And, for the external observer, be the same for the reflected atom or light wave as the angle of polarisation of the incident atom or lightwave.

Adam Riess discovers universe isn’t expanding after all

 A new study by Riess et al seems to have confirmed that something, once again, is wrong with the BBT model. 

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/ad1ddd

Part of the problem lies with the earlier mistake made by him and others in their nobel prize winning paper of 1998. They realised back then that the lightcurves of distant SN1a were too “dim” to be explained by the BBT. So to get around this massive failure of their BBT model they added another pre-copernican fix to their preferred model of expansion. And called this fix ‘acceleration’. 

What they failed to take into account is the fact that a non expanding model of the universe predicts that these distant SN1a will not have *time dilated* afterglow lightcurves. And thus the SN1a afterglow is predicted to appear to be fainter post peak fluence in a non expanding model than is predicted in an expanding model.

And...this is exactly what is observed in Riess et al’s 1998 data. Far from confirming the BBT with an added fix of acceleration, what they actually did was confirm the non expanding models predictions and proved that the universe isn’t expanding at all.

And so now this failure to understand the data by Big Bang theorists in 1998 has come home to haunt them again. Riess has just confirmed once again that the BBT is a failed model. And that once again Riess’s data shows the universe isn’t expanding. Except this time he can’t think of an easy excuse. Although its apparent he still doesn’t blame the BBT model. And instead says that somehow there must be new physics. New fantasies to cover up old fantasies failures is what he really means.

It is worth pointing out here the oft repeated claim made by BBT supporters that SN1a lightcurves show time dilation and confirm the BBT model. When using chi^2 fitting methods to match observed SN1a data to theoretical time dilated templates . Knop et al 2003 being one example.

https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0309368

This claim is dubious at best. Because analysis like this fails to do a control test on the SN1a data to see if a chi ^2 match to *non dilated* lightcurve templates can give as good, or even a better match to that of time dilated templates. 

And I have shown quite clearly in my blog page on supernova-light-curves-fit-non.html  that yes in fact the same hi-red shifted SN1a data gives at least as good a match to non dilated templates as it does to BBT inspired theoretical time dilated lightcurves. If not better. Considering that to make the SN1a data fit the dilated lightcurve templates, Knop had to arbitrarily fiddle the individual Hubble Space Telescope datapoints by as much as 15 % in luminosity to make a good fit to the expanding BBT models theoretical lightcurve templates.

 

Earths inner core slowing and coming to a stop.

 Once again the latest research confirms a prediction made by my theoretical model of the earths core and its associated magnetic field. The main feature of this recent paper is the “surprising” observation by authors of the paper cited below, that the earths inner core appears to slowing and possibly may go into reverse in the very near future.! Not previously expected or ever predicted in any peer reviewed paper. 

 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/367351565_Multidecadal_variation_of_the_Earth%27s_inner-core_rotation

This observation in this latest 2024 paper was also predicted in my paper and first published here on this blog in 2008. After unfortunately having been rejected by Elseviers Earths Science journal as having its predictions “not quantitively confirmed by observations”

A strange excuse for a journal to make seeing as my model used all the observed data that any other peer reviewed published model had ever used. Not to mention the oft confirmed fact that since then all other models predictions have subsequently failed or at least had to be revised. Whereas my model continues to successfully model all the observed data to date. As the above Researchgate paper once again confirms. I suppose what this shows is that established peer reviewed physics prime guiding rule to getting published is that it must never ever successfully predict any future data.

The link to my paper and it’s prediction that the inner core rotation is slowing and will soon come to stop and reverse is made is at:

http://physicsexplained.blogspot.com/2008/12/earths-magnetic-field.html

Quantum ultra cold atomic magnetic spins refute Bohr model

 It’s amazing how the Bohr model continues to fail to model what actually happens at the atomic level of atoms their spectral lines and their associated magnetic fields. This paper in particular  explains the failings of the Bohr model with respect to spectral lines: 

https://vixra.org/pdf/2302.0102v1.pdf

However, as technology advances this also allows us to look closer at how the atoms magnetic field itself behaves. And as we look closer we find out that atoms magnetic fields , incorrectly assumed to be “spinning” electrons, are actually just small magnets interacting with each other. Confirming the theoretical modelling outlined in my article and video on how atoms, their magnetic fields and flow of electricity actually are modelled mechanically.

It’s surprising how close the illustration of what is happening to atomic magnetic fields in this paper 

https://news.mit.edu/2020/ultracold-quantum-magnetic-atom-spins-1216

reproduces earlier theoretical modelling of mine made in this video linked below. When will quantum theorists admit their electron spin model is outdated and needs to be replaced with a much simpler model as outlined in my research linked below.

http://physicsexplained.blogspot.com/2010/09/alternating-current.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wPKIBTeQng

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07N2rkA2esg

Cassini data does not rule out refraction of EMR waves

 Contrary to numerous claims that Cassini data rules out refraction as the source of observed time delays, Bertotti et al (1993 & 2003) actually never did ANY analysis to test and rule out refraction. 

In fact as the papers authors, Bertotti et al 2003 admit in section 3.1, the two seperate frequencies measured for time delay by Cassini had to be combined together using algorithms. Because each frequency on its own was far too messy due to intense coronal variation. In other words data from each channel was not ever even available for testing of refraction. In his 1993 or 2003 papers

Bertotti admits in his 1993 Cassini paper that at no point is refraction between frequencies tested for. As he combines the two observed Ka and X frequencies into one mixed band for analysis.  

As a “mixed optical” path as described in his 1993 paper. Which is then compared to *hypothetical* time delays predicted by GR theory and *assumptions* of electron column properties. 

(Bertotti also does this in his closed loop 2003 arxiv paper and admits the data from Ka is discontinuous and the corona is too variable to analyse as two seperate frequencies. )

Three way link yes, but still only 2 frequencies. Just smaller error margins. And the Ka and X bands are then combined by calculation. Notice that the 2 dispersive and 1 non dispersive parts are not measured seperately. They are ‘Calculations’ based on theoretical assumptions. 

And combined to see if they fit the observed time delay from the combined Ka and X frequency bands. As described in the various 4 sections of the 1993 paper cited above. 

Bertotti et al, 1993 Astron. Astrophys. 269, 608–616 1993 

A paper referenced in both the arxiv and Nature 2003 papers.

Sagnac Experiment and Undulatory emission theory

Abstract

Reference on ring gyro Sagnac instruments show that these gyros measure any rotation and not just those ones where the Center of the instrument is the Center of rotation. By putting the Center of rotation of the mirror setup in the traditional Sagnac experiment underneath the source in the experiment the source will now not move relative to the lab and instead the experimental mirror setup rotates in circles in the lab and around the source.

Current theoretical assumptions on emission theory

According to most if not all current reference is the prediction that; Under emission theory the speed of light in the lab frame of the mirrored sagnac experiment should be at c plus or minus any extra velocity from the motion of the source as it rotates in the lab frame. The calculation made using c+-v is not consistent with the observations of path difference in Sagnac X and thus emission theory can apparently be ruled out and replaced with SR.

Alternative and correct interpretation of observations.

Further scrutiny of this assumption shows that this c+-v calculation is incorrect. Whatever this calculation represents, is doesn’t correctly calculate for any emission theory. Because the one central property of all emission theories is that light always has to be at a constant speed c in the source frame in the Sagnac X. And if this were correctly translated to the lab frame, light should therefore be at a variable speed in the lab frame if indeed the source were rotating in the lab frame.

Not at a constant c+-v in the lab frame as many of those critics of emission theory seem to contend. So it is interesting to note that all these critics avoid making a calculation in the only other frame that counts. The source frame.

The Source Frame. A frame where emission theories predict light must always be at c. The most notable emission theory being Ritz’s undulatory theory of light from the early 20th C in which he very specifically states light must always propagate away from the source at c. Regardless of the  motion of the source relative to anything else. Reflection of the light does not change the speed of the light in the sources frame also in Ritz’s model.

This can be tested empirically using any version of the Sagnac X. The key is to combine the source with the lab frame by putting the axis of rotation of the mirrors exactly at the same point below the source. Which is the where the light path splits into 2 at the Beam splitter. By doing so one makes the source frame the same as the lab frame. Seeing as in the lab frame the source will now not be moving. And now the mirrors rotate around the unmoving source. And in this source/lab frame it is easier to calculate the speed of light for an emission model by measuring distances travelled for each clockwise and counter clockwise beam. As is also currently done for predictions for SR.

At this point predictions from both emission and SR theories are consistent with those observations of light paths where the path is calculated in the source/lab frame. 

DNA Chair

 

My chair design following the ethos of the classic Bauhaus cantilever chair designs