Black Hole Spectroscopy and tests of General Relativity with GW 250114

 LIGO: To detect or not to detect. That is the question.“On January 14, 2025, the LIGO detectors [1] recorded the loudest gravitational-wave (GW) signal to date, GW250114_082203 (hereafter GW250114) [2]. The Virgo [3] and KAGRA [4] interferometers were offline at the time.”

Introduction

This above quote from the beginning of a recent paper  Black Hole Spectroscopy and tests of General Relativity with GW 250114 on gravitational waves says it all. Notice only two detectors were recording. Proof positive that Gravitational waves are a fantasy as not a single 3 detector confirmed GW wave detection has ever been made. Despite all the investment in detectors and fanfare about how a 3 or 4 detector network was going to deliver unprecedented new insights into GW theory. Why? Because all the detectors are detecting are random locally generated chirps and the coincidence of two random chirps at two detectors within the necessary millisecond time frame the GW needs is the statistical limit for coincidences due to random accidentals. It is virtually impossible statistically to have 3 qualified random “chirps” occur at detectors within the millisecond time frame window required to confirm a GW, as described in detail here.

Theory

Essentially all detectors are detecting random chirps generated locally. No imaginary gravitational waves are ever detected. It is when two coincidental random locally generated chirps of significant intensity are matched in the short time millisecond time frame prescribed by theorists at two detectors that theorists have tricked themselves into thinking their billion dollar Hanford-Livingstone efforts have detected two imaginary black holes colliding. These 2 chirps are random and probably caused by local traffic etc. A mathematical analysis made here proves this. Yet theorists ignore data and facts and continue to trick themselves that they are verifying General relativity.

The big question they can’t answer is if these are gravitational waves, and a third and forth detector were added to the network in last few years then where are the confirmed 3 or 4 detector GW “detections”? 

There are none. There has never been a 3 detector event with 3 chirps of relatively equal strengths. The closest to a “3 detector event” is when 2 detectors get the random requisite strength coincidence chirps in the necessary time frame and the third only shows a slight almost imperceptible and much smaller almost imaginary blip that is so close to the background noise level as to be a ridiculous excuse for a 3 detector event. Or, the other excuses used are that either only two detectors were online at the time (as is the case here for 250114), or that the third detector was pointing in the wrong direction and couldn’t record any GW!

In other words gravitational waves are a fantasy. 

A magnetic avalanche as the central engine powering a solar flare

 Introduction

“Magnetic field lines reconnecting”. At least that’s what the theorists in “A magnetic avalanche as the central engine powering a solar flare” by L. P. Chitta have latched onto to describe what is happening. Unfortunately these assumptions are based on a misunderstanding of the true mechanisms driving the solar Dynamo. This misunderstanding of the true mechanism of the solar dynamo is like saying a car moves on its own on the road as if by magical force, which in turn rotates its wheels on the road! What actually happens is the differential rotation of the solar plasma due to the suns rotation creates eddy vortices in the liquid plasma and what’s called the dynamo effect in these local vortices. These vortices are also synonymous with the sunspots and their observed polarity. The vortices of rotating plasma create the magnetic field by rotating the individual plasma atoms and in turn rotating their magnetic fields inducing overall positive or negative polarities in the vortices eddy depending on the relative rotation direction.  Usually sunspot pairs have opposing rotations, thus opposing polarities in their induced magnetic fields. It is these opposing polarities which join up to contain or ‘create’ the plasma filaments in the ejected solar material. (Simple geometry tells us: For the arc to rotate in one direction the vortices or sunspots at the two ends of the arc must rotate in opposing directions) As both ends of the arced filaments rotate at different rates the filament becomes twisted and the “braiding” effect is observed. Either the braiding increases due to increase difference in rotation rates and breaks or two separate filaments cross over, interfere and break. Releasing the filament plasma to be ejected away from the sun by the pressure of the overall solar wind. Notice this is confirmed by observations as CME’s tend to either speed up or slowdown to match the solar wind speed. So essentially it is not magnetic field lines breaking and connecting, it is the physical rotation of the sunspots plasma due to differential rotation which in turn physically rotates the ejected plasma into focussed filaments which in turn induce the observed magnetic fields. When these rotating filaments cross or braid, they break and the constant intense solar wind pressure pushes the broken filament outwards. 

Solar Dynamo mechanism

As the solar Dynamo model outlined in this paper cited here suggests, the magnetic fields, sunspots and solar flares are in fact created by the physical motion of the solar plasma due to differential rotation of the sun at and below the photosphere. This differential rotation creates vortices in the plasma. Rotations that when great enough become observable as sunspots. The direction of rotation defines the magnetic field of the dynamo mechanism within the sunspot vortex. And in turn this rotation is passed on to the filaments of plasma being ejected by the suns surface. Notice connecting filaments observed always connect opposing rotating vortices in the plasma. In other words a filament is always observed to connect between a positive and negative rotating vortices on the solar surface. They both rotate together. Two same direction rotations cannot connect physically as when they connect in an arch above the surface, they will rotating in opposite directions and not connect. It’s also noted in the Nature paper that the filaments rotate and become “braided”. This is because the rotations between two connecting vortices are unequal in rotation rates. One end of the filament arch is being rotated at a slightly different speed by its vortex source. The two rates mismatch and create braided structures in the filament.

As the sunspots become more tightly packed due to differential rotation near the height of the 11 year solar cycle, the rotating filaments also increase in number size and complexity. They increasingly overlap, braid, and cross over with others, interfere and and then break. 

The magnetic fields observed don’t drive the motions and flares. It’s the other way round. The rotation of the plasma in the vortices drive the motions and rotation directions of the filaments of ejected plasma.

Milky Way embedded in large sheet of dark matter

Regarding a recent published article on a recently published paper “The mass distribution in and around the Local Group” that claims to have found that there is a sheet of imaginary dark matter surrounding the local group of galaxies.

To start with is the claim in the above article that Hubble discovered the universe was expanding. In fact he never agreed with the expanding universe of the Big Bang theory. He always believed the cosmological redshift he discovered was due to light losing or decreasing frequency over distance. It was the relativists of the time who, being fanatical Einstein followers, pretended that Hubbles redshift did not refute Alberts photon model. Which it most obviously did. And to save Einsteins theories and their own reputations, which they had all bought into by 1929, they created the quasi religious pseudo science of an expanding universe to save the disgraced theories of photons and by association also the various disgraced relativity theories.

But to return to the main thrust of the above article and paper, the reason why theorists invoked dark matter was because they (Rubin, Zwicky) didn’t do the right maths when trying to calculate rotation curves for galaxies. They forgot to correctly include in their calculations the fact that although the mass distribution of galaxies decreases exponentially with radius, it is offset by an similar exponential  increase in volume of the disk with any increase in radius. And calculations made in this paper, that correctly take into account the mass distribution of visible mass in the spiral disc, will always give a flat galaxy rotation curve that does match the flatter rotation curves of the observed rotation speeds of stars in the spiral disks of any galaxy. No need for any dark matter. 

It’s worth pointing out here that the assumptions made in the “dark matter sheet” paper only confirms that the visible mass does correctly model any observed motions of the local group due to gravity. In that they admit in their paper that the invoked sheet of imaginary dark matter mirrors that of the existing distribution of visible matter. Now if only they could correctly calculate visible mass distributions within each disc then they wouldn’t need any dark matter at all. Inside or in a sheet echoing the local group distribution. 

What’s amazing is what lengths these obviously well qualified mathematicians will go to in their papers to try to validate the erroneous assumptions of imaginary dark matter initially made by theorists early in the 20th Century.

Classical Harmonic overtones observed in Zinc emission line spectra

 Classical Harmonic overtones observed in Zinc emission line spectra

Following on from the theoretical proposals outlined in the following paper: ‘Hydrogen spectral series as Harmonic overtones of a single fundamental wavelength’, it can be shown that the observed data from NIST also matches closely to spectral lines for zinc predicted using the same proposed harmonic relationship seen between the various observed Hydrogen emission lines in the Balmer and Paschen Hydrogen spectral series as outlined in the above paper.

(The following are some of the stronger observed zinc emission lines from NIST 2086,2138,2350,2542,2550,2561,2608,2770,2800,3075,3282,3302,3345,3515,3779,3965,4292,4680,4722,4810,6362 Angstroms.)

Introduction

In the above cited paper it is shown that all observed hydrogen spectral lines in the optical spectrum and their respective sets of Lyman, Balmer ,Paschen etc  are based on one single fundamental wavelength f. That wavelength for Hydrogen being the Lyman Alpha line. And further that each alpha line from each spectral set within the Hydrogen series has a specific mathematical harmonic relationship with not only the B,C,D,E lines within each set, but also with all other lines from all the other sets observed within the Hydrogen spectral series. 

At the end of the above paper it also suggests that as one progresses up through the elements in the periodic table each successively heavier element should therefore have successively more fundamental wavelengths to account for not just its increase atomic number but also the increased complexity of emission spectra lines seen for successively heavier elements. Ie. If Hydrogen has only one fundamental wavelength in optical , Helium will have 2, Lithium 3, etc.

From this theoretical assumption it follows that Zinc must also have multiple fundamental wavelengths. And that two of the strongest observed spectral zinc lines at 4680 and 6362  angstroms can be shown to be alpha spectral lines generated by one or more of Zincs proposed fundamental wavelengths. And that each will also have a matching set of B,C,D,E and limit lines in the Zinc emission spectra. And indeed it can be shown here that the many of the stronger observed optical lines in Zinc do match the mathematical relationship seen also in Hydrogen and specifically in the analysis here with the Hydrogen Paschen and Balmer series. The  following calculations show that using this theoretical assumption one can get a reasonably close match between these two Zinc “alpha” lines mentioned above and other stronger observed emission lines seen in the Zinc optical spectra. Confirming that the harmonic relationship between A,B,C,D, E and limit lines for the well known Balmer and Paschen series in Hydrogen series can be also observed between various lines in the Zinc optical emission spectra. The analysis below matches the two Zinc alpha lines of 4680 and 6362 with two separate fundamental wavelengths of 1178 and 308 angstroms. And that these two lines are from a Balmer or Paschen like series respectively for zinc. With each of these two fundamental wavelengths generating either a Paschen or Balmer like series for zinc and matched to strong emission lines in the zinc spectra as described below.

Methods

As outlined in table 1 of the above cited paper there is a clear fundamental harmonic relationship between any Alpha line in any of the spectral line sets for hydrogen with the other B,C,D,E and associated limit lines from each respective set. 

For instance, if one refers to table 1 in the above cited paper, the Hydrogen Balmer Alpha line at 6563 Angstroms is 1.8 times the Balmer limit line of 3646. And further to this the Hydrogen Balmer B,C,D,E lines are each respectively  1.33,1.19,1.125, and 1.088 times the Hydrogen Balmer limit. 

Applying the above formula of the observed relationship between the Hydrogen Balmer and Paschen alpha lines and their respective sets to the strongest lines seen in zinc at 6362 and 4680 gives the following results. Indicating that many of the lines observed in the Zinc optical emission spectra and recorded at NIST, are part of spectral sets that have the same harmonic relationships as the Balmer and Paschen sets have in Hydrogen. Using this same harmonic relationship are the calculations for ‘Balmer and Paschen like’ predicted line sets for zinc:

Paaschen A 4680, B 3258, C 2778, D 2559, E 2350, limit 2088

Balmer A 6362, B 4700, C 4205, D 3976, E 3817, limit 3543.

If one then refers to the observed spectral line data from NIST (and noted above at the beginning of this page) one can see there is a good match between calculated Zinc spectral lines using the proposed fundamental frequency relationship first noted for Hydrogen in the above paper and the observed confirmed strong line data for Zinc from NIST.

Paschen:   (Where f is 308 angstroms)

Calculated: 4680, 3258, 2778, 2559, 2350, 2088 (limit)

Observed:   4680, 3282, 2800, 2561, 2350, 2087

Balmer:  (Where f is 1178 angstroms)

Calculated: 6362, 4700, 4205, 3976, 3817, 3543(limit)

Observed:   6362, 4700, 4292, 3965, 3779, 3515

*Please note the “observed” line cited above for the predicted ‘Balmer-like’ series for Zinc at 4700 is actually a series of observed spectral lines in Zinc observed between 4680 and 4722 Angstroms in NIST.

Based on the theoretical model proposed in the cited paper in table 1, when applied to the Zinc spectra these calculations also suggest that at least two of Zincs proposed fundamental frequencies f can be calculated as follows. (In that each of zincs fundamental wavelengths is always equivalent to a Lyman alpha line):

Ballmer limit/4 * 1.33 =  f frequency 1178 Angstroms (~NIST 1108)

Paschen limit/9 * 1.33 = f frequency 308 Angstroms 

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.