Rapidly Varying Ionization Features in a Quasi-periodic Eruption: A Homologous Expansion Model for the Spectroscopic Evolution

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/adb972

Once again anything that the Black hole clerics don’t understand, they call a black hole. Or dark energy if they are really desperate. Odd that they’re still at it considering all of the only 3 “images” of supposed ‘black holes’ to date have no accretion discs. Their flimsy excuse is that by some 1/30,000 coincidence all three Black holes images to date are exactly face on to us here on earth. A ‘fact’ even NASA admits is extremely odd and statistically very unlikely. They just can’t admit these images aren’t black holes.

Although one can only speculate on the real nature of the data from another galaxy referred to in this paper cited above, I prefer the variable speed solar Dynamo model to explain the data rather than using the extremely rapid spinning object model as the above cited paper suggests. The variable speed model of the solar Dynamo cycle is a 22 year cycle consisting of two 11 year phases. For 11 years the inner core of the sun rotates faster than its photosphere, and for the next 11 years slower. Etc. 

And this solar Dynamo model can be used to also model other repeating phenomena like quasars and pulsars. In that these repeating bursts in X-ray or other frequencies are signs of a very short time scale slowing down and speeding up of the stars inner core relative to its outer plasma shell.

So why have a model of a massive star spinning multiple times per second when it’s more realistic to suggest that the objects in question are spinning much slower in hours or days. And instead, as the variable speed solar Dynamo style model proposes, have the inner core and outer photosphere both spinning in the same direction but slowing down and speeding up relative to each other over seconds. Less drastic and unrealistic assumptions are made in the solar Dynamo style model. 

But as mentioned above this dynamo cycle is much faster than the suns 22 year cycle and lasts only just days. And thus being much more energetic. Hence the profuse x ray emissions. 

We should be glad our suns cycle is a long 22 year cycle.

Scientists Found a Quantum Surprise in Ordinary Light

 https://scitechdaily.com/scientists-found-a-quantum-surprise-in-ordinary-light/

Isolating the classical and quantum coherence of a multiphoton system. Chenglong You et al. 2024

Once again the theorists forget that their coincidence counters, called correlation counters in this study, are the magic card trick mechanisms creating the imaginary quantum effects which the researchers claim are being observed. In reality the observed data has nothing to do with spooky magic action at a distance. 

No wonder they supposedly found that classical light sources seem to behave as if they were being subjected to quantum effects. When all that really happens in these ridiculous experiments is that light from different detectors with different polarised states, arrives at the coincidence counter. Where the data is collected , collated and then later matched up as “coincidences” by researchers to make their imaginary quantum effects appear. Where in truth there are none. It can all be explained classically with polarisation. 

It’s a simple card trick used by Quantum researchers ever since the early days of the fakery of quantum eraser experiments as described at the link below.

Basically what all these Quantum experiments do is divide the original light beam into three paths to three detectors. One is the original beam going to a master detector D1 measuring all states of vertical V and horizontal H polarisations. etc. V,H,V,H,V,....etc

Then two more paths with either only V or H beams go to two other detectors D2 and D3. So for instance, D2 gets only the Vertical polarised portion of the cycle and the other detector D3 only receives the Horizontal polarised portion of the cycle. Notice now that a correlation counter will match detections from D2 to D1 but at the same point in time...NO DETECTIONS from D3 to D1 will be recorded. Because the original emitted beams polarisation alternates and therefore peaks at different times between the vertical and horizontal polarised states each cycle. 

This isn’t quantum magic. This is creative accounting making classical polarisation look like quantum magic.

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

Scientists pin down the origins of a fast radio burst (MIT)

“Magnetospheric origin of a fast radio burst constrained using scintillation. Kenzie Nimmo2024”

Once again the ‘experts’ continue to make up ridiculous fantastical scenarios to try to explain why FRB’s do not conform to relativity and its constant speed of light in all frames nonsense. A sad history of ignoring the facts that started in 1928 when Hubble found that light changed frequency over distance which refuted Einsteins photon model. And by association refuted his relativity theories which relied on the erroneous assumption that a photon can NOT change frequency over distance.

The real story of FRB’s is that they are just very fast GRB’s. The length of a GRB lightcurve is usually in the order of seconds with the optical counterpart in hours and radio in days as modelled here. But an FRB, being just a very fast short GRB, will have its gamma lightcurve last only in nano seconds, its optical curve in slightly longer nanosecond timescales and the radio transient being the only observable lightcurve, lasting in microseconds. Just long enough to capture as an event in the radio data.

Dark Energy is Misidentification of Variations in Kinetic Energy of Universe’s Expansion

 A new way to save an old oft refuted theory: 

https://www.sci.news/astronomy/dark-energy-13531.html

“A simple expansion law consistent with Einstein’s general relativity does not have to obey Friedmann’s equation.” Wiltshire et al 2024. 

Translation into English: “ The Big Bang doesn’t seem to be expanding at the rate predicted by the Big Bang theory. This is a confirmation of how great the BigBang theory is.”  !?

To save the pre Copernican flat earth inspired Big Bang theory, the theorists have now invoked the powers of Relativity to make that what is in essence a sows ear still look like a silk purse. 

What Wiltshire forgot to say say was that the Big Bang theory itself was invented in 1928 to save both of Einsteins theories of relativity. Because in 1928 Einstein was God. And in 1928 his photon model, proposed by Albert just before his first relativity paper to make sure his theories of relativity weren’t refuted by the prevailing ( and correct) wave only theory of light, had just been proved wrong by Hubble and his newly observed cosmological redshift of light. Which showed that light did change frequency over distance. Something Alberts photon predicted was impossible. 

So now we are full circle in relativity lala land. Relativity is being used to save the Big Bang fantasy. A century after the imaginary Big Bang fantasy was invented to save the nonsense of Einsteins photon reliant theory of Relativity.

First demonstration of quantum teleportation over busy Internet cables

Quantum teleportation coexisting with classical communications in optical fiber. Thomas et al 2024. https://opg.optica.org/optica/fulltext.cfm?uri=optica-11-12-1700&id=565936

Sounds to me like all they really have done in this paper is use the latest technology in fibre optics and recent observations of light scattering to send the imaginary quantum “entangled photons” down a very narrow bandwidth in a fibre optic cable. A bandwidth which is deemed to be less ‘busy’. And then pretend because that particular wavelength for  the entangled signal was essentially cleared of all other offending data except the experimental signal it must be proof that somehow this implied two imaginary photons were “entangled” when surrounded by busy internet traffic in other wavelengths in the same fibre.

Two problems here. First is that these type of quantum entangled experiments always only compare signals AFTER they have been received at a detector. That’s called coincidence counting. Quantum theorists forget that the coincident counters in any entanglement experiment always collects and collates the data from different detectors arriving at different times down different length paths and then pretends that comparing the data later proves imaginary particles were somehow entangled. For more information on this misconception read Here .

And second, that by placing a horizontally polarised filter after a vertically polarised filter somehow this is proof that a magic quantum party trick was performed when no light comes through the two crossed filters. 

There is no quantum magic in clearing out a particular range of wavelengths using filters etc. in the fibre and only sending and measuring data encoded within that narrow cleared bandwidth. That’s just an improvement in fibre optic manufacturing technology. 

Supernovae evidence for foundational change to cosmological models

 Supernovae evidence for foundational change to cosmological models

Seifert et al. 2024

https://academic.oup.com/mnrasl/article/537/1/L55/7926647?login=false

https://phys.org/news/2024-12-dark-energy-doesnt-lumpy-universe.html

Another article on imaginary dark energy. Looks like theorists are finally admitting it is imaginary after all. But now fortunately we have new improved Timescape. Astrophysics has its latest excuse for the continued failure of the BBT to explain any of the data since the priest LeMaitre recycled the creation myth as an expanding universe. His attempt to explain why Hubbles observed redshifted light over distance was not consistent with Einsteins’ photon model. A photon model which incidentally, predicts that photons cannot change frequency over distance. 

It’s worth pointing out the fact that Hubble himself didn’t believe in expansion. Being a good scientist he knew that cosmological redshift must just be EMR changing frequency over distance rather than an imaginary divine event at the beginning of time. Because the fact is that the Sn1a data that led the BBT community to scratch their collective heads in 1998, is not showing any expansion at all let alone acceleration. 

Best chi fits of SN1a data to z=0 here show that the SN1a data best fits a non expanding model. 

And this contradiction between no observed time dilation in any data and imaginary dilation predicted by the BBT expansion was starting to look really bad for the BBT.

The best way out of this conundrum is to change the data to make it look like there’s a Big Bang, even when the JWST and other data shows there isn’t.

And now thanks to Timescape, a new improved better excuse has been invented and the BBT is safe again for a while. To account for observed non dilated lightcurves and various other BBT predictions recently refuted by the JWST data, Timescape offers the BBT a way out of its self induced mess. By saying that yes the universe is expanding, but it’s just that imaginary effects due to general relativity mean that it just doesn’t look like it’s expanding!! Which is why the data shows no expansion. 

All you need is faith.

Earth’s inner core may be changing shape

 Once again predictions made in my 2009 paper published here have been verified. Further confirming the predictions made by my Variable speed Inner Core Earth Dynamo model and outlined in the paper at the above link. To summarise: In the paper I proposed that earths inner solid core rotates at different speeds to the mantle and the more liquid outer core. Sometimes faster sometimes slower and creating the field reversals seen in the geomagnetic record. And that the inner cores rotation speed is dictated by an off centered asymmetric volume that changes over time to become elongated in the north south axis to flattened at the equator. It is this changing shape which dictates its relative speed to the outer liquid core and the mantle. In the same way that a spinning ballet dancer can increase or decrease their rotational speed by stretching out or retracting their arms to speed up or slow down their rotation.

The irony is that when I initially tried to publish in a peer reviewed journal in 2009, the paper was rejected because I had no evidence that the earths core was changing or had ever changed shape as my model had proposed!