MeerKAT uncovers the physics of an Odd Radio Circle: A suggested Annulus theory:

 MeerKAT uncovers the physics of an Odd Radio Circles: A suggested Annulus theory:

Regarding the recently discovered ORC phenomenon. It’s not clear but all the available reference on these rings suggests these various ORC are all the same size of 1 arc minute regardless of there assumed distance from the earth observer. If this is correct it’s odd that they would all just happen to be the same visual size in the observers image plane. Despite being attributed to galactic sources at various different cosmological distances. If so, this is a strange phenomena indeed. That aside;

However this paper has an image of an ORC (called ORC 1 in the paper in figure 1 from the paper) that is interesting. The assumption is that in this case (and generally with the other OCD’s ) the rings in this image are two intersecting expanding circles of some sort of ejecta rings that are orthogonal to each other. And that these expanding thin circles are actually “bubbles”. But because the bubbles ejecta density is relatively thin we only see the edge of each bubble ring where the overall density is greatest. The problem with this model is that in the above cited Norris et al figure 1 image of ORC 1 the bubble rings are not perfect circles. Which they would have to be if they were just the optically more dense edge of each of the two bubbles. In other words the ORC 1 "rings" could not be caused by expanding bubbles of ejecta, because they do not appear to us in the image as two perfectly circular overlapping rings. Something they would have to be to be explained by the usual bubble ejecta theory. Note in the cited ORC image the rings are flattened elipses Not perfect circles. 

Annulus explanation

To explain ORC-1 using the usual bubble ejecta model mentioned in various different reference and particularly in Norris et al, my idea is that, in this case at least, these are two seperate ejecta bubbles expanding out from two seperate slightly offset central sources. Each source separated by a small distance on the image plane. We see only the circular rings of the edge of the bubbles where the ejecta is more optically dense. And that these two expanding spherical bubbles are overlapping with each other and forming a third internal expanding annulus ring (as shown in the illustration below) as they expand. Rather than a two separate flattened expanding rings from the same source that are orthogonal to each other as is usually interpreted from the cited image.

If one studies the image from the paper, the outer slightly flattened elipse is in fact a combination of the visible edges of 2 separate circular ejecta bubbles. And the internal orthogonally skewed ring is in fact the annulus ring denoting where the two seperate bubbles interact orthoganally with each other. Indicating that these are two seperate bubble shockwaves of ejected material with a third internal annulus ring where the two intersect. 

Of course the problem here is that the coincidence of two seperate neighbouring bubbles erupting at the same time is statistically pretty small. However it’s possible that this small statistical probability explains why this type of ORC 1 observations as described in the Norris et al paper are fairly uncommon.

Dark energy survives major challenge

Introduction 

In 2025 a group of theorists claimed the evidence for acceleration of the universe via dark energy in the SN1a data didn’t stand up to scrutiny. Their research suggested that the expansion of the universe might no longer be speeding up and offered a different mathematical solution to the apparent “acceleration” problem first mooted by Reiss and others a few decades ago. However an even more recent paper (Still accelerating: type Ia supernova cosmology is robust to host galaxy age evolution. Wiseman, Reiss et al 2026.) with authors including Reiss, one of the the original proponents of imaginary acceleration, argued this 2025 paper refuting acceleration was based on an incorrect analysis.

Separate to this It’s amazing how critics say that any paper that doesn’t supply enough “maths” does not contain acceptable levels of theoretical  ‘proof’ to publish. Yet these same maths obsessed theorists will ignore the fact that endless “acceptable” peer reviewed published papers with pages and pages of maths and formulae will end up being subsequently rejected as erroneous and not acceptable as theoretically acceptable anyways. Despite having initially claimed having so much maths in these papers confers proof. (Proven as they prefer to say). Probably 99 % of these math riddled papers proving various erroneous now rejected concepts and published in the last century have been subsequent rejected as nonsense theory by the same establishment theorists who claim that endless pages of maths confers instant acceptabilty for publication regardless of how ridiculous the theoretical concept proposed in the paper actually is. Give a theoretical physicist an orange and with enough pages of maths, he can claim it’s actually an apple.

Anyways to get back to this tit for tat about the imaginary Big Bang acceleration debate: Its worth pointing out that in fact despite endless fiddling of the evidence with maths, the acceleration and expansion problem is theoretically unsound as the acceleration first mooted by those theorists including Reiss in the 90’s is ignored the fact that the SN1a data sourced from the SCP actually shows no expansion at all! As shown by the analysis in this chi squared maths page. 

And so the apparent acceleration claimed by Reiss and others was an attempt to try and explain why the non expanding data seemed to fit less and less well with data from ever higher and higher redshifted SN2a data in the BBT expanding model.

Summary

Essentially the SN1a data is not time dilated at all. As this analysis shows. Fortunately for theorists, it turned out that at low redshifts and with arbitrary tweaking of the luminosities of the Hubble Space Telescope SN1a data a fit of sorts to an expanding model was  possible. Although as this analysis shows the theorists forgot to control test the data with a z=0 chi square fitted model. If they had done this as the cited analysis shows, they would have found that the SN1a data fits as well and better to a non expanding model than to any expanding BBT model. And so when even higher redshifted data was fitted to their expanding model by theorists it failed to show the expected increased time dilation at these ever higher redshifts, as can be expected seeing as the universe isn’t expanding at all.

To account for this increasing lack of any observed time dilation at all in the very high redshifted data, theorists like Reiss and Wiseman pretend that the extra dilated time dilated lightcurve is still there but it’s just too faint to be seen! And they argue that the reason why they think the very hi redshifted dilated lightcurve is still there but can’t be seen is because an Accelerated expansion has placed them even farther away from our telescopes then originally expected in their original imaginary BBT model and therefore made them appear fainter than expected than in their original non accelerating BBT model

What flights of fantasy these maths obsessed theoretical physicists resort to to cover up the fact that astronomical observations of our non expanding universe continue to refute the BBT. 

Was a photon teleported across 270 meters in stunning quantum breakthrough ?

In a quote from an online article on a paper recently published in Nature the claim is that: “In simple terms, this means the properties of one photon were transferred to another through quantum teleportation.”

Unfortunately quantum teleportation is a fantasy suitable only for a Star Trek movie. A fantasy that still haunts the halls of University physics departments the world over ever since Albert invented his imaginary photon in 1905. A photon invented so as to legitimise false assumptions he made about space and time in his subsequent papers on SR and GR.

Because what actually happens in this experiment and thousands like this is far simpler and no Quantum magic is necessary if one analyses an earlier version of this type of entanglement/teleportation experiment. 

First of all, ignore QT. Quantum theorists pretend these type of experimental results cannot be explained by a classical non relativistic, non quantum model. They have made the same erroneous assumptions  for decades in experiments like the double slit interference experiment through to the delayed choice quantum eraser experiments which this latest highly complex 2026 experiment seems to be based upon. But this is an erroneous assumption perpetuated for decades in ever more elaborate versions of what initially was a fairly basic experimental setup. Because once one can understand what is happening classically in the delayed choice quantum experiment one doesn’t need quantum magic teleportation to explain the the results of the delayed choice experiment or even for a more complex setup of relays of quantum dots as done in this recent 2026 experiment. Unfortunately it also means that the great future of quantum computers has not been confirmed by this “key step for future quantum communication networks” as the article and paper pretend it has. In fact they have spent/wasted a lot of money and time proving that if if one splits a source beam into two separate orthogonally polarised beams, and measures one of the two split beams polarised states. Then the other will always be orthogonally polarised. Regardless of how far away one measures it after it has left the beam splitter.

Analysis

In the cited experiment ‘Quantum teleportation with dissimilar quantum dots over a hybrid quantum network. Alessandro Laneve et al. 2026’ the photon, or it’s state was apparently magically transported 270 meters using relays of quantum dots. This ignores the fact that Classically the very basics of quantum teleportation can be explained even when the 2026 experiment manages to apparently transmit one or both paths down a path of 270 meters using a relay system of quantum dots etc. All they really did was what the original delayed choice experiment did which was read the polarisation state at one detector to find out the state at the other detector. 

Classically then, if the polarisation state is measured at one of the detectors then the state at the other 270 meters distant detector must always be opposite. That is if one was measured to be horizontal. The other must be  vertical. The fantasy in this paper and any other quantum entanglement teleportation style experiment is that measuring one state magically decides the other! 

The reality is that measuring one tells you the other must be opposite. And that these two opposite states were already decided when the original light source was split. As can be seen in the original delayed choice experiment that this latest 2026 experiment seems to be predicated upon. 

In the original delayed choice setup the light source is split into two orthogonal polarised coherent beams. Each beam being sent to a seperate detector to be measured as either vertical or horizontal polarised. Classically, the “choice” is made by the BBO detector when it splits the beam from source into two orthoganally polarised coherent beams.

Conclusions

The quantum fantasists pretend that this splitting made at the beam splitter ( in the original experiment this is made by the barium borate crystal) was actually magically decided later (!) at one of the detectors. The fantasy being that if one detector was measured to be horizontal polarised the other was magically created to be vertically polarised.

When will these quantum theorists stop practicing pseudoscience and magic? Probably when they realise in another few years that their silly quantum computers just never seem to work.!!

Re; Helioseismic evidence that the solar dynamo originates near the tachocline

A new paper titled “ Helioseismic evidence that the solar dynamo originates near the tachocline” K. mandal 2026 indicates that sunspots originate far deeper into the solar interior than previously assumed: 

“Our analysis reveals that the gradient of rotation displays ‘butterfly’–like behavior near the tachocline, which is similar to the magnetic butterfly diagram at the surface. This result supports the idea that the solar dynamo has a deep-seated origin, likely operating either near the tachocline or throughout the convection zone, thereby disfavoring the rcent scenario of a shallow, near-surface dynamo”. “https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-34336-1

“The team's analysis revealed that these migrating rotation bands in the deep solar interior form a butterfly-shaped flow pattern, mirroring the sunspot migration that later emerges at the surface.”

https://phys.org/news/2026-03-physicists-sun-magnetic-kilometers-surface.html

In other words this latest research published in Nature suggests that rather then being generated close to the suns surface the sunspot and their rotations in fact, start much deeper within the solar interior and nearer to the inner core than previously assumed.

So it looks like this latest research goes, at least part way, to confirming my Variable speed solar Dynamo model which predicts that sunspots and their rotations come from a physical mechanism deep within the suns core. A model that also explains the 22 year solar cycle more successfully than the traditional established “toroidial and polodial magnetic field” models driven by thermal convection of the solar plasma.

Sunspot Mechanism

In the variable speed model the overall solar dipole field is driven instead by a variable speed dynamo mechanism deep inside the sun. Proposed in this model is that the solar core rotates slower, and then faster than the outer solar plasma, as seen at the sun’s photosphere, over a 22 year repeating dynamo cycle. This creates an overall solar dipole field that reverses the suns overall magnetic dipole polarity every 11 years for a full 22 year cycle. The variable speed gradient between the rotation velocity of the inner core and rotational velocity of the outer parts of the solar plasma at the photosphere also creates physical eddies or vortices in the more liquid convection radiative zone plasma between the core and the photosphere. Vortices which in turn are observed as sunspots.

Very much in the same way as the speed gradient of a liquid, like water, flowing over a static river bottom will physically generate vortices or eddies in the water due to the speed gradient differential between the river bottom and the moving water surface. This means that sunspots,in the same way as the water eddies, are eddies or vortices that have their roots deep within the sun near its core and stretch upwards all the way to the surface at the photosphere. As this recently published research in Nature seems to have realised.

In the sun these individual vortices in the plasma are generated by differential rotation between the suns core and the surface in addition to the differential rotational speeds of the plasma due to the Coriolis effect between sun equator and poles, create the observed local swirling dynamo effects called sunspots in the solar plasma. The rotating plasma of each sunspot vortex is the dynamo that drives the localised sunspots magnetic field. Not the other way around as current models assume where established theory erroneously assumes magnetic fields generated by thermal convection twist the plasma into rotating dipoles of sunspots.

It is not a coincidence that the sunspots rotation direction is observed to be seen as having either negative or positive magnetic fields directions depending on the clockwise or counter clockwise rotation direction of the spot. Nor is it a coincidence that as the solar core rotates faster or slower relative to the photosphere, the coreolis effect and vortices rotation directions reverse for the sunspots in each hemisphere. And this reverse in rotation direction thus reverses the sunspots polarity. As observed.

Summary

In summary is important to point out here that contrary to traditional and current thermal convection theories of the solar dynamo which has magnetic fields generating sunspot rotation directions and motions, the variable speed model outlined here is the reverse. The physical rotations of the solar plasma between core and surface creates a dynamo that generates the overall solar dipole field and the rotational motions and rotations in the plasma as vortice eddies, in turn generate the dipole magnetic fields of sunspots.

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.