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

CMBR explained in a non expanding universe

 CMBR explained using the model of a non expanding universe

In previous posts on this blog I have offered an alternative explanation to the observed temp and wavelength of the CMBR for a non expanding model of the universe, in that the source of the CMBR isn’t the hot soup of an early Big Bang. But rather the conglomerate output of stars and galaxies at certain great cosmological distances. What causes redshift in a non expanding universeAnd secondly in recent posts on this blog I have outlined how redshift itself in a non expanding model can be modelled by basing it on similar phenomena observed in emission and absorption spectra of atoms. Where the emitted light is redshifted slightly from the absorbed light. Offset between absorption and emission spectra

To test this model describing CMBR in a non expanding universe I have used the following data:

The CMBR peaks at 1.023 mm=1023000nm. 

With a measured temperature of 2.7260±0.0013 K. 

The Suns surface temp is 5778 K

The energy peak of its blackbody spectra is at approximately 500nm. 

And also assuming the following rule of wavelength to energy via Planks energy wavelength inverse relationship. (In that the energy halves with each doubling of the wavelength.)

As I have outlined in recent previous posts on this blog cited above, I have already suggested that blackbody radiation emitted from distant stars/galaxies at and around z=1023 could be the source of the observed CMBR in a non expanding model of the universe.

The following calculations use the above data:

First I test to see if rest frame blackbody radiation from 500nm (solar spectra is used as an example) from these distant Galaxies (at z=1023) could, when redshifted in a non expanding model match to that observed at 1023000nm in the CMBR. 

And the fit is very good.

To stretch the wavelength of emitted blackbody radiation from 500nm rest frame to that observed in CMBR in the microwave region of 1023000 nm I have provided the calculations below:

(Notice that blackbody emission spectrum peaking at 500nm when redshifted to observers on earth from a distance of z=1023 has a wavelength exactly 11 times longer than the initial emission peak of 500nm. Which is 1023000nm in the microwave region.)

Divide 1023000/2=511500

Repeat this 10 more times ( for a total of 11 times) to get approx 500nm

Which is equivelent to the average peak of a rest frame blackbody emmission spectrum of a star.

This gives the relationship between redshift z to distance in a non expanding universe. Which is that in a non expanding universe the CMBR is defined as the rest frame blackbody emission spectrum of star/galaxy sources redshifted over great cosmological distances to the microwave region. Or in other words: the average rest frame peak of the blackbody emission spectrum of 500nm (visible light) from distant galaxies at z=1023 in a non expanding model of the universe will be stretched, via cosmological redshifting, to 1023000 nm (microwave).

The interesting thing is that this also gives a close match to the observed temperature 2.72K of the CMBR using the inverse relationship between wavelength and energy of light. In that when the temperature of the emitted rest frame radiation from distant galaxies ( using 5770 K, the proxy spectra of the Sun as an example) is redshifted to us on earth by z= 1023 it becomes 2.81 K. 

That is 5770k is divided by 2 (11 times). This uses the same method as when calculating the stretch of wavelengths from visible light rest frame emission to microwave.

Indicating that the average stellar spectra at z=1023, and locally, must be approximately 5600 K. Seeing as 5600K redshifted from z=1023 is 2.73 K. ( CMBR being 2.72.6 K)

What causes redshift in a non expanding universe?

 What causes redshift in a non expanding universe?

To follow on from previous articles on this blog describing how light and atoms are wave only and how the offset between emission and absorption spectra can be described by waves only, I would like to supply a possible explanation and mechanism for what could cause the redshifting of light in a non expanding universe. This mechanism that occurs between an atom and emr and leads to a redshifting of light between absorbed and emitted light is the same mechanism. But on a much smaller scale when light propagates through a vacuum.

Distributing higher energies received to lower energies transmitted by any point in space of the vacuum.