Looking recently at the National Geographic article about the "hum" detected from the earth. A hum of roughly 4.5 millihertz observed at any point on the earths mantle.
Possible sources for the hum mentioned in the article were waves and wind. In the following I offer a new original( at the time of writing) and alternative explanation based on the rotation of the earths liquid inner core as it rubs against the harder more brittle outer mantle. And produces the hum, much as a finger rubbing on a glass rim produces a sound.
If one studies the system of running a finger around a glass rim. A resonant tone is produced by the friction of your finger against the glass rim as it goes around the rim. As you rub your finger on the rim your finger alternatively sticks and slides in very rapid succession. Which produces a vibration in the glass. The generally accepted theory is that it is the vibrating molecules in the glass which resonate at a certain frequency in unison at one frequency. Inducing sound waves of a similar frequency in the surrounding air. This can be altered by adjusting the water level in the glass. This increases the mass of the system, reduces the resonant vibration of the glass molecules and lowers the resonant tone. What is noticeable also from personal attempts is that there is also a superimposed overtone that changes in pitch (as well as volume) as one moves the finger faster and slower around the rim. The faster one moves the finger, the higher the pitch produced.
Based upon these generally accepted principles one can then apply it to the Earth as a whole. The Earth consists of a inner liquid core which is rotating around the equatorial circumference inside the Earth. This in turn rubs against the harder more brittle mantle. Which produces, like the finger on the glass, a resonant frequency that is then picked up by sensors at the sea floor. As the liquid core/mantle is one whole defined system in the same way as the finger glass system is, it follows that at any point around the mantle the resonant frequency will be constant. As is observed with both the earths "hum" and the finger/glass system. Generally, as with the ringing glass, the earths hum is roughly constant at any point on the globe.
Quantifying exactly the specific observed 4.5 millihertz frequency is not possible to do for me at this point, not least because so little is known about the exact conditions inside the earths core. But the general rules seem consistent with the observed frequency of the earths hum. The mass of the Earth system is much greater obviously, then the finger glass system. Accounting for, at least in general theoretical terms, the very low observed frequency of about 1 cycle every 222 seconds.
It is also possible to account, at least in part, for the specific "earths hum" frequency being related to the speed of the rotation of the liquid core flow. As I have pointed out earlier that the pitch of the ringing glass changes with the speed of the rubbing finger around the rim. Implying that the very slow rotation of the liquid core relative to the earths mantle (centuries for one complete rotation) would also be consistent with the observed low frequency of the hum.
One point I would like to make here is that currently the generally accepted theory of the movement of the earths liquid core prohibits a rotational motion of the liquid core. Which in turn means the model I present here would not be able to explain the overall steady friction of the liquid core rubbing against the mantle. Which is probably why theorists have not considered this option I present here. Current theory (i.e./Glatzmeir) predicts only localised thermal eddies in the liquid core. However as I have theorised with my paper on the 'Earths Magnetic Field'(available here on this blog site from the table of contents) a rotating liquid core is not only consistent with observations. But can in fact explain the earths magnetic field, direction of polarity, movement and direction of magnetic North Pole and finally the frequent historical geological record of the flipping or reversal of the earths magnetic field. In that the rotating liquid core mantle solid inner core system is acting as a single system rotating dynamo.
Sunday, 10 December 2017
Sunday, 5 November 2017
LIGO hoax update: GW 170817 missing time delay in data.
The latest so called detection of a gravitational wave GW 170817 is particularly suspicious. Notably the SNR for the two signals at LIGO are indeed strong. But too strong to not be detected in VIRGO. The excuse being that it arrived in VIRGOs blind spot! That's two so called detections in the same month that rely on explaining the non detection in VIRGO as being explained by saying both arrived in the very small blind spot window for VIRGO. A convenient coincidence. But nonetheless too convenient. Especially considering that the so called confirmation detection by Fermi of a related GRB was also fabricated well after the event. But made to look in press releases and papers to be triggers detected simulataneously.
In fact if one looks at the time sequence of this so called Gravitational Wave its provenance begins to fall apart. For starters as already mentioned there was no detection in VIRGO, contrary to the claims by theorists. VIRGO did not trigger on this. What happened was two very strong minute long signals , most likely environmental, triggered both LIGO detectors. Unusual and very noticeable. And not signal types ever predicted. A new type of event was manufactured and theorists went back to VIRGO to scour the LIGO event time frame. They found a convenient low SNR random event to match in the Fermi data and then claimed that somehow this event must have come from a direction defined as one that would arrive in VIRGOs blind spot. The theorist tried spuriously to pretend that this non detection in VIRGO was actually a detection in VIRGO! By virtue of the fact that it wasn't detected and therefore must have arrived in its blind spot. Questionable indeed. Then, to compound the hoax, theorists realised that they needed an associated event in optical and gamma to back up their erroneous conclusion that a strong LIGO signal like this could only be from nearby. So they went back to Fermi data, scoured it and found a low SNR signal in the noise and pretended this weak blip was actually an associated GRB. Then announced it eight hours later. If one looks at GCN we can see a "trigger" was then announced . Eight hours after a real trigger should have automatically been announced! The theorists needed this fabricated fermi trigger on the record to validate their claims. Notice no mention of the fact by theorists that in fact Fermi didn't trigger on this event. Rather they pretend that the official GCN released eight hours later was actually released eight hours earlier and coincident with the actual LIGO event. A lie.
At this point all the worlds telescopes and radio arrays were then pointed at this small region of space. It is worth noting that if the worlds telescopes had been pointed at any similar region at the same time, the same sort of observations of variable sources etc could be made and supplied as evidence of an optical verification.
This GW was indeed a notorious hoax. By a desperate theoretical community made within days of LIGO closing. Obviously a success was needed to continue funding for the fake Gravitational wave community.
Where is the observed time delay for GW 170817? Nowhere.
What is even more questionable about the research surrounding GW 170817 is the fact that in the official paper on the gravitational wave no mention is made of what is possibly the most important piece of evidence needed to confirm this is indeed a gravitational wave as predicted by relativity theory. This missing data is the time delay between the arrival times of the seperate detections in each of the LIGO detectors at Hanford and Livingston. Where is this vital piece of information? How do the theorists prove that the time delay is only in a few milliseconds at most as dictated by GR?
A serious flaw in the otherwise even more seriously flawed theoretical assumptions and interpretations made from the observed data.
In fact if one looks at the time sequence of this so called Gravitational Wave its provenance begins to fall apart. For starters as already mentioned there was no detection in VIRGO, contrary to the claims by theorists. VIRGO did not trigger on this. What happened was two very strong minute long signals , most likely environmental, triggered both LIGO detectors. Unusual and very noticeable. And not signal types ever predicted. A new type of event was manufactured and theorists went back to VIRGO to scour the LIGO event time frame. They found a convenient low SNR random event to match in the Fermi data and then claimed that somehow this event must have come from a direction defined as one that would arrive in VIRGOs blind spot. The theorist tried spuriously to pretend that this non detection in VIRGO was actually a detection in VIRGO! By virtue of the fact that it wasn't detected and therefore must have arrived in its blind spot. Questionable indeed. Then, to compound the hoax, theorists realised that they needed an associated event in optical and gamma to back up their erroneous conclusion that a strong LIGO signal like this could only be from nearby. So they went back to Fermi data, scoured it and found a low SNR signal in the noise and pretended this weak blip was actually an associated GRB. Then announced it eight hours later. If one looks at GCN we can see a "trigger" was then announced . Eight hours after a real trigger should have automatically been announced! The theorists needed this fabricated fermi trigger on the record to validate their claims. Notice no mention of the fact by theorists that in fact Fermi didn't trigger on this event. Rather they pretend that the official GCN released eight hours later was actually released eight hours earlier and coincident with the actual LIGO event. A lie.
At this point all the worlds telescopes and radio arrays were then pointed at this small region of space. It is worth noting that if the worlds telescopes had been pointed at any similar region at the same time, the same sort of observations of variable sources etc could be made and supplied as evidence of an optical verification.
This GW was indeed a notorious hoax. By a desperate theoretical community made within days of LIGO closing. Obviously a success was needed to continue funding for the fake Gravitational wave community.
Where is the observed time delay for GW 170817? Nowhere.
What is even more questionable about the research surrounding GW 170817 is the fact that in the official paper on the gravitational wave no mention is made of what is possibly the most important piece of evidence needed to confirm this is indeed a gravitational wave as predicted by relativity theory. This missing data is the time delay between the arrival times of the seperate detections in each of the LIGO detectors at Hanford and Livingston. Where is this vital piece of information? How do the theorists prove that the time delay is only in a few milliseconds at most as dictated by GR?
A serious flaw in the otherwise even more seriously flawed theoretical assumptions and interpretations made from the observed data.
Wednesday, 1 March 2017
Huygens wavelets for 2 wavelengths, one double length the other.
This illustration shows how wavelength y of twice the length of wavelength x will have the same angles of order as wavelength x . (That's the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc diffraction orders)
If the longer wavelength y is at twice the speed, then the incident frequency at any incident plane parallel to the diffraction grating will also be the same. Effectively making the two separate wavelengths appear to be the same wavelength at the diffraction grating.
Friday, 17 February 2017
Classical wave theory of light
There is a fallacy in modern physics dating back to the original Michelson Morley experiment in the late 19th century that says that by not detecting the imaginary aether, a wave only classical model of light was refuted. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The very same experiment USED wave theory of light to measure the fact that the motion of the lab/source frame through the heliocentric frame of the sun did not effect the propagation speed of light. The interference patterns seen in these type of experiments can only have been produced by light as a wave propagating through an undetectable vacuum medium. Quite how relativists explain that is never clarified. Nor is it explained how light cannot be a wave for classical wave theory, while at the same time current relativistic and quantum models of light assume light travels as a wave through the vacuum without the need for an all pervading imaginary detectable aether! Hypocrisy on a grand scale indeed by relativist and quantum supporters.
Since the time of Newton, who thought light was emitted as corpuscles thrown off by the emitting object at c, there has been an evolution in the understanding and theoretical assumptions of light. With subsequent versions including the Huygens wave only model and various ballistic and aether models of light. Some of these were assumptions, including the aether, ballistic and corpuscle models and have since been ruled out. However throughout the history of the classical theory of light certain definitive observations have been made and remain unchallenged to this day. These include the observations that light is a wave ( Huygens) and can propagate freely in a vacuum, unhindered by any imaginary aether, at c in the lightsource frame. (The Michelson Morley experiment is the best known of these experiments). And that light does not gain velocity on reflection. ( Michelsons 1913 paper and Beckmann Mandics)
In the mid 19th century a significant although ultimately incorrect contribution was made by James Clerk Maxwell. With his undulatory model of light. Here he built upon among others the observations of Hertz and Thomson and various previous wave observations of light and assumptions of an aether, a model of light as electromagnetic radiation. With light assumed to be a combination of self propagating traverse oscillating waves of electrical and magnetic fields.
This of course makes the erroneous assumption that light oscillates in traverse waves. Which is not observed, contrary to many protestations by theorists then and now. Light travels in straight lines.
The reason for Maxwells failure to correctly model light was complex and involved relying on previous false assumptions by theorists. Including the unsubstantiated assumption of the existence of electrons and an aether medium that permeated the fabric of the universe. Since refuted by the experiment of Michelsons Morley.
What Maxwell failed to realise was that 'electromagnetic' radiation can be described solely as a self propagating magnetic oscillation in the vacuum. The emitting atoms magnetic field is excited and oscillates at various frequencies. Inducing sympathetic magnetic oscillations in the adjacent vacuum. These in turn induce further oscillations of magnetic fields in a repeating process that expands outwards at c from the source.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=0NwzwUedfFk
RITZIAN vs WAVES
Arguments against a wave model are often convoluted and contradictory. Often a simple mantra of "a ballistic model has been refuted by various experiments that show no c+-v" is used. The assumption being that by proving light isn't a Ritzian particle, one can then somehow rule out that it isn't a wave only!
It is important to realise that the wave only model has light always at c+-v *relative to the source*. Which means in experiments like Sagnac and Babcock & Berman the wavespeed is variable, not constant, in the frame that the source rotates in. (As opposed to a ballistic model which throws off the particles of light which then travel at *constant* speeds in the frame which the source rotates in)
POLARISATION
Polarisation is best described by the mechanical rotation of a magnetic field. Polarisation is essentially the propagating light wave having its oscillating magnetic field restricted to a specific angle. Hence polarised plane waves are described as having its magnetic field oscillate at one specific angle only. Circular polarisation is where the angle of oscillating magnetic field rotates over time and distance. This is well described in the article on Spin and orbital angular momentum on this blog. (Check table of contents)
https://youtube.com/watch?v=GODPF5K87wU
http://physicsexplained.blogspot.com/2017/01/spin-and-orbital-angular-momentum.html
ATOM SIZE vs EMISSION WAVELENGTHS
Another criticism of wave theory is that the atom, being smaller than for instance, the emitted wavelength of light, cannot emit or absorb larger wavelengths of light or other wavelengths of emr. Like microwave radiation in the example of masers. The argument being that it is impossible for a smaller object to create a wave larger than its radius. This incorrectly assumes that the emr wave produced is a displacement wave like water or sound. Electromagnetic radiation is not this type of wave. It is a self propagating oscillating magnetic field. Produced by a wave model of an atom that oscillates its magnetic field at different frequencies to produce various wavelengths of radiation. Shorter or longer than the physical radius of the emitting atom itself. An example would be the following. Take a 1 cm neodium magnet and rotate it at 500 cycles per second. The emitted radiation will have a wavelength many times greater than the rotating magnets diameter of 1cm.
PHOTOELECTRIC EFFECT
Once they have been confronted with the fact that Michelson Morley type experiments do not rule out the possibility of light travelling as a wave through the vacuum, critics of a classical wave theory usually switch to saying that it cannot explain the photoelectric effect. This of course is another fallacy perpetuated by relativists. They say that in this effect a current is created by photons knocking out electrons. And that a wave model predicts no lower frequency cutoff, which isn't observed. And a time lag is also predicted by a wave model between incident radiation and "ejected electron". Which also is not observed. Both these arguments are false.
A wave only classical model describes the atom as a non particulate resonant system. Where imaginary electrons are instead described with different sets of resonant frequencies for different elements. Which respond to different ranges of incident wave radiation. So to start with, to assume that there are electrons in a wave model is incorrect. And regarding the false assumption that wave radiation predicts a induced flow of current with no lower threshold. This is not the case in a wave model. Because in a wave model all incident radiation is not predicted to induce current. Only narrow ranges corresponding to the particular resonant frequency of that element. And this is confirmed in the photovoltaic effect. Relativists have misunderstood the photoelectric effect and confused it with the photovoltaic effect.
This is because in the photoelectric effect the current is produced by the applied external pd only. Photons do not create the current in the photoelectric effect. No current on any conductor will be created if one shines emr onto its surface without an external pd applied. A current or discharge, as with the gold leaf experiment, will only occur if it has previously been charged or if a pd is applied. The current observed is from an external source, not from the incident radiation. So it is erroneous to assume the current is created by photons or cannot be created by waves.
Regarding the prediction that a wave model predicts a delay between incident radiation and "ejected electron". This incorrectly assumes that each atom in the photocell starts at zero energy level and has to fill up, in order to discharge energy in a quantised amount. This ignores the reality of the wave model resonant atom. A wave atom will only discharge when full. Anything less, and it will retain its stored energy. Even after incident radiation is discontinued. So when the incident radiation is resumed, all atoms in the photocell are already at various levels of 'filled'. Some near zero, others almost full at 99%. No time delays are predicted as those atoms almost at their filled energy state will almost immediately release a quantised "electron" to the circuit without having to wait to fill from a zero energy state.
http://physicsexplained.blogspot.com/2017/02/photoelectric-and-photovoltaic-effects.html
DE SITTER
The DeSitter model of how a emission theory cannot explain observed light from binary star systems is an example of how by refuting a ballistic model one can pretend that all classical models of light are refuted. In the ballistic model deSitter rightly shows how a particulate light model has an emission speed of c+-v from the rotating star, in the inertial earth frame. Current to the writing of this blog post there is a good visual example on wiki. Showing how the light thrown off by the rotating binary has a greater speed when it is emitted from the star as it moves towards the earth than when it moves away in its rotation cycle. And subsequently the ballistic model predicts light arriving to earth at different speeds and piling up in pulses. This of course is not observed. However the fallacy is that a wave model would predict the same. It doesn't. Because light HAS to be at c in the source frame. It must therefore be at a variable speed in the earth frame. So a correct calculation has does not allow any piling up of light as it arrives. All emitted light travels at the same speed in the star frame. And therefore always at the same variable speed in the earth frame.
SUPERNOVAE ARRIVAL TIMES
Another similar criticism includes the claim that light, in a classical wave model from the initial supernovae flash, would arrive not in a flash as observed, but over thousands of years. As ejecta is at different speeds in different directions in the original explosion and light from this ejecta would leave the supernova at a great range of speeds from zero to 5,000 k/s. The premise being that the light at 5,000 k/s would travel across space to earth at greater speeds and arrive centuries earlier.
First of all only the light pointing towards earth will contribute to the initial flash. And if it comes from the ejected material, which is debatable, then that ejecta which is directed towards us will have very small differencials in speed. Much much smaller than the 5,000 k/s differential assumed currently. And there is definitely a time delay already observed in the initial bright observable peak in supernovae that could account for a small variation in speeds in a wave only model. Months if not years is observed in the famous Tycho SN in the 16th century. Furthermore the claim that light would arrive over thousands of years spread out by different speeds in a wave model is not actually refuted by observations. Five hundred years after the Tycho SN we still have light arriving from the supernovae! Thousands for other earlier supernovae. Once again relativists, desperate to erroneously refute any competing theory to relativity have made up imaginary predictions for a classical model, not based on logic or fact. To refute a classical model, when in fact in every example they use a classical model is found to be consistent with the experiments or observations.
Since the time of Newton, who thought light was emitted as corpuscles thrown off by the emitting object at c, there has been an evolution in the understanding and theoretical assumptions of light. With subsequent versions including the Huygens wave only model and various ballistic and aether models of light. Some of these were assumptions, including the aether, ballistic and corpuscle models and have since been ruled out. However throughout the history of the classical theory of light certain definitive observations have been made and remain unchallenged to this day. These include the observations that light is a wave ( Huygens) and can propagate freely in a vacuum, unhindered by any imaginary aether, at c in the lightsource frame. (The Michelson Morley experiment is the best known of these experiments). And that light does not gain velocity on reflection. ( Michelsons 1913 paper and Beckmann Mandics)
In the mid 19th century a significant although ultimately incorrect contribution was made by James Clerk Maxwell. With his undulatory model of light. Here he built upon among others the observations of Hertz and Thomson and various previous wave observations of light and assumptions of an aether, a model of light as electromagnetic radiation. With light assumed to be a combination of self propagating traverse oscillating waves of electrical and magnetic fields.
This of course makes the erroneous assumption that light oscillates in traverse waves. Which is not observed, contrary to many protestations by theorists then and now. Light travels in straight lines.
The reason for Maxwells failure to correctly model light was complex and involved relying on previous false assumptions by theorists. Including the unsubstantiated assumption of the existence of electrons and an aether medium that permeated the fabric of the universe. Since refuted by the experiment of Michelsons Morley.
What Maxwell failed to realise was that 'electromagnetic' radiation can be described solely as a self propagating magnetic oscillation in the vacuum. The emitting atoms magnetic field is excited and oscillates at various frequencies. Inducing sympathetic magnetic oscillations in the adjacent vacuum. These in turn induce further oscillations of magnetic fields in a repeating process that expands outwards at c from the source.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=0NwzwUedfFk
RITZIAN vs WAVES
Arguments against a wave model are often convoluted and contradictory. Often a simple mantra of "a ballistic model has been refuted by various experiments that show no c+-v" is used. The assumption being that by proving light isn't a Ritzian particle, one can then somehow rule out that it isn't a wave only!
It is important to realise that the wave only model has light always at c+-v *relative to the source*. Which means in experiments like Sagnac and Babcock & Berman the wavespeed is variable, not constant, in the frame that the source rotates in. (As opposed to a ballistic model which throws off the particles of light which then travel at *constant* speeds in the frame which the source rotates in)
POLARISATION
Polarisation is best described by the mechanical rotation of a magnetic field. Polarisation is essentially the propagating light wave having its oscillating magnetic field restricted to a specific angle. Hence polarised plane waves are described as having its magnetic field oscillate at one specific angle only. Circular polarisation is where the angle of oscillating magnetic field rotates over time and distance. This is well described in the article on Spin and orbital angular momentum on this blog. (Check table of contents)
https://youtube.com/watch?v=GODPF5K87wU
http://physicsexplained.blogspot.com/2017/01/spin-and-orbital-angular-momentum.html
ATOM SIZE vs EMISSION WAVELENGTHS
Another criticism of wave theory is that the atom, being smaller than for instance, the emitted wavelength of light, cannot emit or absorb larger wavelengths of light or other wavelengths of emr. Like microwave radiation in the example of masers. The argument being that it is impossible for a smaller object to create a wave larger than its radius. This incorrectly assumes that the emr wave produced is a displacement wave like water or sound. Electromagnetic radiation is not this type of wave. It is a self propagating oscillating magnetic field. Produced by a wave model of an atom that oscillates its magnetic field at different frequencies to produce various wavelengths of radiation. Shorter or longer than the physical radius of the emitting atom itself. An example would be the following. Take a 1 cm neodium magnet and rotate it at 500 cycles per second. The emitted radiation will have a wavelength many times greater than the rotating magnets diameter of 1cm.
PHOTOELECTRIC EFFECT
Once they have been confronted with the fact that Michelson Morley type experiments do not rule out the possibility of light travelling as a wave through the vacuum, critics of a classical wave theory usually switch to saying that it cannot explain the photoelectric effect. This of course is another fallacy perpetuated by relativists. They say that in this effect a current is created by photons knocking out electrons. And that a wave model predicts no lower frequency cutoff, which isn't observed. And a time lag is also predicted by a wave model between incident radiation and "ejected electron". Which also is not observed. Both these arguments are false.
A wave only classical model describes the atom as a non particulate resonant system. Where imaginary electrons are instead described with different sets of resonant frequencies for different elements. Which respond to different ranges of incident wave radiation. So to start with, to assume that there are electrons in a wave model is incorrect. And regarding the false assumption that wave radiation predicts a induced flow of current with no lower threshold. This is not the case in a wave model. Because in a wave model all incident radiation is not predicted to induce current. Only narrow ranges corresponding to the particular resonant frequency of that element. And this is confirmed in the photovoltaic effect. Relativists have misunderstood the photoelectric effect and confused it with the photovoltaic effect.
This is because in the photoelectric effect the current is produced by the applied external pd only. Photons do not create the current in the photoelectric effect. No current on any conductor will be created if one shines emr onto its surface without an external pd applied. A current or discharge, as with the gold leaf experiment, will only occur if it has previously been charged or if a pd is applied. The current observed is from an external source, not from the incident radiation. So it is erroneous to assume the current is created by photons or cannot be created by waves.
Regarding the prediction that a wave model predicts a delay between incident radiation and "ejected electron". This incorrectly assumes that each atom in the photocell starts at zero energy level and has to fill up, in order to discharge energy in a quantised amount. This ignores the reality of the wave model resonant atom. A wave atom will only discharge when full. Anything less, and it will retain its stored energy. Even after incident radiation is discontinued. So when the incident radiation is resumed, all atoms in the photocell are already at various levels of 'filled'. Some near zero, others almost full at 99%. No time delays are predicted as those atoms almost at their filled energy state will almost immediately release a quantised "electron" to the circuit without having to wait to fill from a zero energy state.
http://physicsexplained.blogspot.com/2017/02/photoelectric-and-photovoltaic-effects.html
DE SITTER
The DeSitter model of how a emission theory cannot explain observed light from binary star systems is an example of how by refuting a ballistic model one can pretend that all classical models of light are refuted. In the ballistic model deSitter rightly shows how a particulate light model has an emission speed of c+-v from the rotating star, in the inertial earth frame. Current to the writing of this blog post there is a good visual example on wiki. Showing how the light thrown off by the rotating binary has a greater speed when it is emitted from the star as it moves towards the earth than when it moves away in its rotation cycle. And subsequently the ballistic model predicts light arriving to earth at different speeds and piling up in pulses. This of course is not observed. However the fallacy is that a wave model would predict the same. It doesn't. Because light HAS to be at c in the source frame. It must therefore be at a variable speed in the earth frame. So a correct calculation has does not allow any piling up of light as it arrives. All emitted light travels at the same speed in the star frame. And therefore always at the same variable speed in the earth frame.
SUPERNOVAE ARRIVAL TIMES
Another similar criticism includes the claim that light, in a classical wave model from the initial supernovae flash, would arrive not in a flash as observed, but over thousands of years. As ejecta is at different speeds in different directions in the original explosion and light from this ejecta would leave the supernova at a great range of speeds from zero to 5,000 k/s. The premise being that the light at 5,000 k/s would travel across space to earth at greater speeds and arrive centuries earlier.
First of all only the light pointing towards earth will contribute to the initial flash. And if it comes from the ejected material, which is debatable, then that ejecta which is directed towards us will have very small differencials in speed. Much much smaller than the 5,000 k/s differential assumed currently. And there is definitely a time delay already observed in the initial bright observable peak in supernovae that could account for a small variation in speeds in a wave only model. Months if not years is observed in the famous Tycho SN in the 16th century. Furthermore the claim that light would arrive over thousands of years spread out by different speeds in a wave model is not actually refuted by observations. Five hundred years after the Tycho SN we still have light arriving from the supernovae! Thousands for other earlier supernovae. Once again relativists, desperate to erroneously refute any competing theory to relativity have made up imaginary predictions for a classical model, not based on logic or fact. To refute a classical model, when in fact in every example they use a classical model is found to be consistent with the experiments or observations.
For information on how a classical post Newtonian non relativistic model can better explain the anomalous preccession of Mercury please read:https://physicsexplained.blogspot.com/2022/03/mercury-preccession-classical.html
Wednesday, 1 February 2017
Photoelectric and Photovoltaic effects
There are two described effects. The photoelectric and photovoltaic effects. The photovoltaic effect shows a current induced by narrow frequency ranges of incident radiation. The photoelectric effect has usually a metal conductor with an external voltage applied conduct a greater current when exposed to all incident radiation above a certain frequency. As compared to the voltaic effect which only produces a current in narrow frequency ranges above a base frequency.
What is not so clear in conventional physics is the separation between them. The photovoltaic effect is essentially light shining on a detector, and inducing an electric current. As with solar panels. Here the effect is consistent with a wave only model of light, contrary to the erroneous unsubstantiated claims made by theorists determined to prove the photon model as being the only model consistent with observations.
Simply put the atom in a wave model is a resonant system, rather than the particulate standard model with electrons , protons etc. And as observations have shown, all resonant systems respond to narrow frequency ranges and emit this input energy in pulses called resonant catastrophe. And this is observed in solar panels where incident radiation in narrow frequency bands "liberate electrons". That is incident wave radiation in narrow frequency ranges are absorbed and re emitted by the detector atoms in quantised pulses to the circuit.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8H9kx9_sQYA
The photoelectric effect appears to be a gross misrepresentation by supporters of the photon model. Nowhere is it made clear if the photoelectric effect actually produces excess current than that already supplied by the external voltage pd applied. It appears no excess is supplied. Whatever happens in the "photoelectric" effect, it is not the case that an excess current is induced by the incident radiation. Hence, there is no legitimacy in the claims it cannot be described by a wave only model. Simply put, no excess current is induced by the incident radiation in the first place. So it is erroneous to conclude that a wave model cannot explain why an imaginary excess current has not been produced by incident radiation! Typical lies and misrepresentation from relativists and standard model theorists.
What is not so clear in conventional physics is the separation between them. The photovoltaic effect is essentially light shining on a detector, and inducing an electric current. As with solar panels. Here the effect is consistent with a wave only model of light, contrary to the erroneous unsubstantiated claims made by theorists determined to prove the photon model as being the only model consistent with observations.
Simply put the atom in a wave model is a resonant system, rather than the particulate standard model with electrons , protons etc. And as observations have shown, all resonant systems respond to narrow frequency ranges and emit this input energy in pulses called resonant catastrophe. And this is observed in solar panels where incident radiation in narrow frequency bands "liberate electrons". That is incident wave radiation in narrow frequency ranges are absorbed and re emitted by the detector atoms in quantised pulses to the circuit.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8H9kx9_sQYA
The photoelectric effect appears to be a gross misrepresentation by supporters of the photon model. Nowhere is it made clear if the photoelectric effect actually produces excess current than that already supplied by the external voltage pd applied. It appears no excess is supplied. Whatever happens in the "photoelectric" effect, it is not the case that an excess current is induced by the incident radiation. Hence, there is no legitimacy in the claims it cannot be described by a wave only model. Simply put, no excess current is induced by the incident radiation in the first place. So it is erroneous to conclude that a wave model cannot explain why an imaginary excess current has not been produced by incident radiation! Typical lies and misrepresentation from relativists and standard model theorists.
Wednesday, 25 January 2017
Sagnac as a classical experiment
In a true classical model, light always travels at c relative to the source. In any other frame, that moves relative to the source, light cannot be at c in that frame.
In rotating frames light also travels at c relative to the source. This is observed to happen in the Michelson Morley experiment. Where the lab rotates around the earths axis but light is observed to travel at c on both arms.
Of course relativists will argue that light actually is variant in the lab frame to counter the classical assumption it isn't. This however is unsubstantiated. To date no variance has been observed in any MMX style experiments.
In the Sagnac experiment relativists have long argued that classical theory cannot explain the fringe shift observed in the rotating setup. They do so by erroneously assuming classical theory predicts light will be at a constant speed in the lab. That is at c+-v in the lab. This is a ridiculous claim as even relativists admit classical theory predicates that light must always propagate away from a source at c in the *source frame*. But this is an impossible calculation as a constant speed in a rotating source frame will not, by a Galilean transformation, lead to a constant speed in the lab frame.
It is a mathematical impossibility for an object to travel the same distance in a straight line every second, away from a rotating object. This is the mistake relativists make when trying erroneously to discredit a classical model
In Sagnac there are three separate frames to consider.
1)The lab frame, where the source and mirrors rotate. This is the traditional frame used by relativists to describe both classical and SR. In this frame light travels at variable speeds in a classical model. (As it has to travel at constant speeds away from the rotating source.)
2)The rotating setup frame where the lab and the universe rotate around the setup but the source and mirrors don't move. In this frame the light travels at a constant speed relative to the source. But because the setup itself rotates and the light beam has to travel in the same direction in the universal frame (for instance due west), the light beam curves in this frame, always propagating in a specific universal direction. (This frame is similar to the MMX source frame where light is also at a constant speed but curves on each path).
To explain in detail, think of it like this. If you shine a beam of light into space in one direction (west) and then swivel the beam to another direction (north west) Does the beam that initially left in a westerly direction from your source also move or get dragged north? No. This is never observed. So if a single point of the light beam from the Sagnac source left the source when it pointed west it will continue travelling west at c away from the source. Which is why if you are in a rotating frame with the source rotating in a circle then the beam will curve away from the source in this frame until it hits the first mirror. Then it will curve in that direction etc..
https://youtube.com/watch?v=qGQil7I0ixg
3)And thirdly, the rotating source frame where the source and the mirrors rotate around a point centred on the source. But the rest of the background universe including the lab only move slightly back and forth on the spot.
This is the true source frame as in this frame the light is at constant speeds and in straight lines.
This is the frame in which one can easiest calculate the path difference for classical theory. Because the light travels at the same speed in straight lines and one only has to calculate where and when the mirrors are for each reflection. It is this frame in which the path differences become obvious. Note how one light path chases the mirrors around,as they move away from the direction of beam travel, leading to a longer path length than the light beam travelling in the same direction as the mirrors rotation.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=7X8wlbXFaMo
In rotating frames light also travels at c relative to the source. This is observed to happen in the Michelson Morley experiment. Where the lab rotates around the earths axis but light is observed to travel at c on both arms.
Of course relativists will argue that light actually is variant in the lab frame to counter the classical assumption it isn't. This however is unsubstantiated. To date no variance has been observed in any MMX style experiments.
In the Sagnac experiment relativists have long argued that classical theory cannot explain the fringe shift observed in the rotating setup. They do so by erroneously assuming classical theory predicts light will be at a constant speed in the lab. That is at c+-v in the lab. This is a ridiculous claim as even relativists admit classical theory predicates that light must always propagate away from a source at c in the *source frame*. But this is an impossible calculation as a constant speed in a rotating source frame will not, by a Galilean transformation, lead to a constant speed in the lab frame.
It is a mathematical impossibility for an object to travel the same distance in a straight line every second, away from a rotating object. This is the mistake relativists make when trying erroneously to discredit a classical model
In Sagnac there are three separate frames to consider.
1)The lab frame, where the source and mirrors rotate. This is the traditional frame used by relativists to describe both classical and SR. In this frame light travels at variable speeds in a classical model. (As it has to travel at constant speeds away from the rotating source.)
2)The rotating setup frame where the lab and the universe rotate around the setup but the source and mirrors don't move. In this frame the light travels at a constant speed relative to the source. But because the setup itself rotates and the light beam has to travel in the same direction in the universal frame (for instance due west), the light beam curves in this frame, always propagating in a specific universal direction. (This frame is similar to the MMX source frame where light is also at a constant speed but curves on each path).
To explain in detail, think of it like this. If you shine a beam of light into space in one direction (west) and then swivel the beam to another direction (north west) Does the beam that initially left in a westerly direction from your source also move or get dragged north? No. This is never observed. So if a single point of the light beam from the Sagnac source left the source when it pointed west it will continue travelling west at c away from the source. Which is why if you are in a rotating frame with the source rotating in a circle then the beam will curve away from the source in this frame until it hits the first mirror. Then it will curve in that direction etc..
https://youtube.com/watch?v=qGQil7I0ixg
3)And thirdly, the rotating source frame where the source and the mirrors rotate around a point centred on the source. But the rest of the background universe including the lab only move slightly back and forth on the spot.
This is the true source frame as in this frame the light is at constant speeds and in straight lines.
This is the frame in which one can easiest calculate the path difference for classical theory. Because the light travels at the same speed in straight lines and one only has to calculate where and when the mirrors are for each reflection. It is this frame in which the path differences become obvious. Note how one light path chases the mirrors around,as they move away from the direction of beam travel, leading to a longer path length than the light beam travelling in the same direction as the mirrors rotation.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=7X8wlbXFaMo
Precession of a bicycle wheel
A rotating wheel has every point on its rim circumference travelling at the same tangential speed. However if the axis is allowed to freely rotate, as in the example of precession, then the pull of gravity will effect a greater speed for the downward moving half of the wheel than that of the upward moving half. Which in turn means that the parts of the wheel that have a greater speed will travel a greater distance than those parts with a lesser speed. Hence the precession. So when the wheel rotates in a counter clockwise direction the wheel will precess to the right of the axis. This allows parts of the wheel travelling at different speeds to travel different distances.
Looking at the rotating wheel with the rotation axis pointing out of the page/screen:
As the wheel rotates counter clockwise its direction of precession will be to the right. All rotating points on the wheel experience the same downwards pull of gravity. A and D on the wheel experience the same momentum of equal but opposite horizontal momentum from the rotational speed of the wheel. But B experiences the gravitational pull downwards added to the downwards motion of the wheel rotation forcing it to accelerate as it moves downwards from the top to the bottom of the wheel. Whereas D decelerates as it moves from the bottom to the top of the wheel. As it has the same rotational momentum as all other parts of the wheel, but an opposing gravitational pull downwards that slows it down.
C therefore travels slower and must cover less distance. B travels faster and covers more distance. To compensate, the wheel precesses to the right to allow B to travel farther than C.
Overall the fastest parts of the wheel circumference will be moving to the right at the bottom of the wheel and the slowest parts of will be moving left at the top of the wheel.
The paths of two opposite points on the circumference show that if the wheel precesses to the right at it rotates counter clockwise, the upper part of the wheel travels shorter distances
Looking at the rotating wheel with the rotation axis pointing out of the page/screen:
As the wheel rotates counter clockwise its direction of precession will be to the right. All rotating points on the wheel experience the same downwards pull of gravity. A and D on the wheel experience the same momentum of equal but opposite horizontal momentum from the rotational speed of the wheel. But B experiences the gravitational pull downwards added to the downwards motion of the wheel rotation forcing it to accelerate as it moves downwards from the top to the bottom of the wheel. Whereas D decelerates as it moves from the bottom to the top of the wheel. As it has the same rotational momentum as all other parts of the wheel, but an opposing gravitational pull downwards that slows it down.
C therefore travels slower and must cover less distance. B travels faster and covers more distance. To compensate, the wheel precesses to the right to allow B to travel farther than C.
Overall the fastest parts of the wheel circumference will be moving to the right at the bottom of the wheel and the slowest parts of will be moving left at the top of the wheel.
The paths of two opposite points on the circumference show that if the wheel precesses to the right at it rotates counter clockwise, the upper part of the wheel travels shorter distances
Monday, 23 January 2017
Pound Rebka, Hafele Keating and GPS modelled as classical resonance
Einstein predicted that time speeds up or slows down when the strength of the gravitational field changes. Hence the well worn relativist arguments about time dilation and gravitational red shifting. What his original theory didnt predict was that the resonant frequencies of atoms would change due to changing external forces like different strengths of gravitational field. That GR does predict these changes in the resonant frequency of atoms is a misleading argument proposed by relativists. Resonance and resonating frequencies were a well understood phenomena before Einstein was born. And effects such as the observation that an increase of mass of a resonating systems will decrease its resonant frequency were also well understood and observed previous to GR. Yet this is conveniently ignored by relativists.
So the fact is that Einstein only predicted 'time' would pass at different speeds in different strengths of gravitational field in his original theory. Not that resonating frequencies would vary relative to external forces. Any observed changes in resonant frequencies was never part of his original theory. Nor are later relativists attempt to appropriate these classical effects of resonance acceptable or legitimate.
In experiments like Pound Rebka or the observed variation of GPS clocks, the atoms resonant frequencies are observed to change with different strengths of gravity on the atom. What has been ignored is that the amount of gravitational potential energy of an object, essentially its weight, depends on the height of the object above the earths surface. If it is a well known classical effect that a resonating system reduces its natural resonant frequency when its mass increases, then its not unreasonable to assume that a change in the atoms weight or gravitational potential will also increase or decrease its natural resonant frequency.
Essentially any predicted relativistic time dilation is premature. Experiments like Pound Rebka or the observed variable GPS clock times can be modelled and are consistent with classical resonant effects only. No need for GR or SR
Hafele Keating : In the same way that the force of gravity at different heights effects the natural resonant frequencies of resonant systems, different forces acting on an object at the same level will also produce differing effects on that objects natural resonant frequency. By applying force to an object to move it horizontally through a gravitational field will be equivalent to the object being subjected to stronger gravitational fields, and thus lower the objects natural resonant frequency.
So the fact is that Einstein only predicted 'time' would pass at different speeds in different strengths of gravitational field in his original theory. Not that resonating frequencies would vary relative to external forces. Any observed changes in resonant frequencies was never part of his original theory. Nor are later relativists attempt to appropriate these classical effects of resonance acceptable or legitimate.
In experiments like Pound Rebka or the observed variation of GPS clocks, the atoms resonant frequencies are observed to change with different strengths of gravity on the atom. What has been ignored is that the amount of gravitational potential energy of an object, essentially its weight, depends on the height of the object above the earths surface. If it is a well known classical effect that a resonating system reduces its natural resonant frequency when its mass increases, then its not unreasonable to assume that a change in the atoms weight or gravitational potential will also increase or decrease its natural resonant frequency.
Essentially any predicted relativistic time dilation is premature. Experiments like Pound Rebka or the observed variable GPS clock times can be modelled and are consistent with classical resonant effects only. No need for GR or SR
Hafele Keating : In the same way that the force of gravity at different heights effects the natural resonant frequencies of resonant systems, different forces acting on an object at the same level will also produce differing effects on that objects natural resonant frequency. By applying force to an object to move it horizontally through a gravitational field will be equivalent to the object being subjected to stronger gravitational fields, and thus lower the objects natural resonant frequency.
This is confirmed by the Hafele Keating experiment
Pound Rebka
The frequency shift in Pound Rebka would then be explained as:
If one studies the P-R setup Notice that the detector setup is such
that it only measures emr in a narrow frequency band. Which happens to
be the same as the emitted radiation when both emitter and detector
are at the the same altitude. Both being a sample of Fe57.
But place the emitter and detector at opposite ends of the tower and
the lower detector sample , now being subjected to a greater
external force of g than the emitter at the top of the tower would have
it’s resonant frequency changed by a stronger g at the base of the tower.
It would not be able absorb the incoming wave radiation from the
sample at the top of the tower because it’s resonant frequency was changed
due to a different g between the two samples. In resonance we have observed
this effect for centuries. A resonating system will always absorb
any incoming wave energy that is only at the same frequency as its resonant frequency.
Apply an external force to any resonating system and it’s resonant frequency
changes. And it no longer will be able to absorb those incoming waves because
the incoming waves are no longer at the same frequency as the systems old
resonant f.
The same happens in P-R. The lower absorbing samples resonant f
is now in a stronger g potential. It’s resonant frequency is lower
than the emitting f of the sample on the top of the tower. Giving
the false impression that the emitting radiation is blue shifted!
To correct this the emitter is vibrated creating a range of higher
and lower Doppler shifted radiation. Some of which was then
at the right f again to be absorbed by the detector sample.
Friday, 20 January 2017
Inertia
The Mach principle, although considered to be not well defined, is a good starting point for a description of what causes inertia.
Theorists have disagreed on any one interpretation of the principle so I will use it only as a starting point. Mach got closest to describing how it works by suggesting it was a gravitational force relative to the fixed background of the universe. Here are some quotes from the current wiki page on Machs take on inertia...
"Local physical laws are determined by the large scale structure of the universe"
"Mach's principle says that this is not a coincidence—that there is a physical law that relates the motion of the distant stars to the local inertial frame. If you see all the stars whirling around you, Mach suggests that there is some physical law which would make it so you would feel a centrifugal force. There are a number of rival formulations of the principle. It is often stated in vague ways, like "mass out there influences inertia here".
Essentially what Mach didn't say but suggests is that it is gravitational effects exerted by the rest of the universe that can effect the local motion of any object. He describes it in vague terms as a physical law. For some reason he couldn't make the final conceptual step to realising the "physical law" was gravity itself.
So, If one were to be floating in space then all the universe mass pulls on you with its gravitational force equally from all directions. You are effectively at the centre of the universe. If you wish to move an object in any direction you have to exert energy to move in that direction. To move left you have to counter the pull from the universe from the right hand side.
An analogy would be being held by strings top, bottom, left and right. If you want to move right you have to exert effort to counter the pull from the string pulling you to the left.
That is essentially inertia!
It is gravity from the rest of the universe making sure you don't move without having to exert energy or force in any one direction. In the same way that one needs to exert energy in one direction up, to counter the local pull of earths gravity down.
Theorists have disagreed on any one interpretation of the principle so I will use it only as a starting point. Mach got closest to describing how it works by suggesting it was a gravitational force relative to the fixed background of the universe. Here are some quotes from the current wiki page on Machs take on inertia...
"Local physical laws are determined by the large scale structure of the universe"
"Mach's principle says that this is not a coincidence—that there is a physical law that relates the motion of the distant stars to the local inertial frame. If you see all the stars whirling around you, Mach suggests that there is some physical law which would make it so you would feel a centrifugal force. There are a number of rival formulations of the principle. It is often stated in vague ways, like "mass out there influences inertia here".
Essentially what Mach didn't say but suggests is that it is gravitational effects exerted by the rest of the universe that can effect the local motion of any object. He describes it in vague terms as a physical law. For some reason he couldn't make the final conceptual step to realising the "physical law" was gravity itself.
So, If one were to be floating in space then all the universe mass pulls on you with its gravitational force equally from all directions. You are effectively at the centre of the universe. If you wish to move an object in any direction you have to exert energy to move in that direction. To move left you have to counter the pull from the universe from the right hand side.
An analogy would be being held by strings top, bottom, left and right. If you want to move right you have to exert effort to counter the pull from the string pulling you to the left.
That is essentially inertia!
It is gravity from the rest of the universe making sure you don't move without having to exert energy or force in any one direction. In the same way that one needs to exert energy in one direction up, to counter the local pull of earths gravity down.
Thursday, 19 January 2017
Push Gravity: a wave based LeSagian model
Normally push gravity is associated with LeSage. However LeSage, being particulate has its problems, including not being able to explain how the mass of an atom doesn't increase over time. But by remodelling push gravity as a wave EMR based model one can avoid these theoretical problems. To do this one has to discard any relativistic or Big Bang assumptions.
As the non expanding universe is infinite in size and age, all matter will have relative motions between different regions of space. And one can then postulate that mass in one part of the universe can move at many times the speed of light towards or away from another. This in turn means that emr emitted from one part will also have great relative speed differences to another. So that from any one point an observer will be experiencing isotopic radiation with radiation speeds of many times less than or greater than c. It is this wave emr radiation that in total can be the basis for push gravity. It pushes in and passes through all mass from all directions. Imbalances occur when an observer is near any other mass. For instance the moon experiences from among other sources, a relative imbalance of this push gravity radiation from earth. More radiation pushes the moon down towards the earth than comes up through the earth. Hence an imbalance and the moon is 'pushed' towards the earth.
It is worth pointing out that the push model has no definite speed of gravity but then again it isn't infinite. It must be a range of finite speeds but still on average, much greater than c.
To avoid the theoretical pitfalls of a particulate LeSage gravity this emr based wave gravity must not be absorbed by atoms. It must pass through. Modelling how exactly it can interact with mass while it passes through can only be speculative, but the best scenario is that some directional anisotropic gravity radiation that passes through the atom gets re-radiated isotropically as it passes through. Explaining not only the actual push mechanism but also the other observed forces associated with atoms. Like the strong and electroweak and magnetic forces. While also still being able to explain how no wave energy is stored in the atom itself as it passes through.
Plus, as this is a wave based model, the atom itself can be thought of as a standing wave or nodal point in this infinite sea of energy. Something that is in fact a more correct explanation than other models like the particulate Standard model. Because as the closer we get to looking in macroscopic detail at atoms and electricity, the more wave like and resonant these phenomena appear. As a wave only push model describes.
A good way to visualise a push model is to use the analogy of a vibrating tray of water. Notice that raised nodal points of water appear. These are standing waves in the water created by the passing wave energy from the vibrations. They are analogous to the atom. And like the atom, these raised nodal points in the water are created by energy passing through. No energy stays at one point and builds up. Just as a wave only atom is the sum of many different frequencies of passing wave energy interfering with each other and creating a standing wave nodal point at a specific point in space. Maybe studying vibrating wave tanks would increase our understanding of this model. Research could see if manipulating these nodal points in the vibrating water could create effects similar to gravitational , strong and electroweak etc mechanisms.
One criticism of a push model, is that gravity has to be instantaneous to make its predictions match the observed orbital motions of planets etc. And push gravity by its nature does have to have a finite speed as I have mentioned earlier. But if one looks at the nature of a push model it becomes apparent that in fact the push mechanism will give instantaneous effects, as if it had an infinite speed. This is because if one looks at any point in the gravitational field of any object like a planet, it will at any point in its gravitational field already have the pressure imbalance I have mentioned earlier. Some wave gravity will already be at that point pushing up and more will already be at that point pushing down. You don't have to move into a new position in a orbit around earth to wait for earth to detect you and then reach out at a finite speed to pull you in. There already is push gravitational radiation pushing and pulling at any point in any gravitational field.
An important analogy would be: If you move across the paths of light rays at a distance from a light source, you don't have to wait for light to travel out at c from the source each time you move to a new position. *There will already be radiation* at each point in your path that has already left the source and travelled out to you.
This is an important distinction because it allows a push model with a finite speed to always have an instantaneous gravitational effect at any point in any gravitational field.
Another criticism of push gravity is that to have this imbalance occur in a gravitational field and be able to explain the larger fields near stars then it must infer a sea of great invisible energy permeating the universe which isn't normally detected. In other words each observer would have tremendous forces travelling through their bodies from all directions. This is an unfair criticism as it comes from theorists who at the same time postulate EXACTLY the same thing when speculating about quantum foam. The invisible sea of energy popping in and out of existence at any point in the vacuum.
As the non expanding universe is infinite in size and age, all matter will have relative motions between different regions of space. And one can then postulate that mass in one part of the universe can move at many times the speed of light towards or away from another. This in turn means that emr emitted from one part will also have great relative speed differences to another. So that from any one point an observer will be experiencing isotopic radiation with radiation speeds of many times less than or greater than c. It is this wave emr radiation that in total can be the basis for push gravity. It pushes in and passes through all mass from all directions. Imbalances occur when an observer is near any other mass. For instance the moon experiences from among other sources, a relative imbalance of this push gravity radiation from earth. More radiation pushes the moon down towards the earth than comes up through the earth. Hence an imbalance and the moon is 'pushed' towards the earth.
It is worth pointing out that the push model has no definite speed of gravity but then again it isn't infinite. It must be a range of finite speeds but still on average, much greater than c.
To avoid the theoretical pitfalls of a particulate LeSage gravity this emr based wave gravity must not be absorbed by atoms. It must pass through. Modelling how exactly it can interact with mass while it passes through can only be speculative, but the best scenario is that some directional anisotropic gravity radiation that passes through the atom gets re-radiated isotropically as it passes through. Explaining not only the actual push mechanism but also the other observed forces associated with atoms. Like the strong and electroweak and magnetic forces. While also still being able to explain how no wave energy is stored in the atom itself as it passes through.
Plus, as this is a wave based model, the atom itself can be thought of as a standing wave or nodal point in this infinite sea of energy. Something that is in fact a more correct explanation than other models like the particulate Standard model. Because as the closer we get to looking in macroscopic detail at atoms and electricity, the more wave like and resonant these phenomena appear. As a wave only push model describes.
A good way to visualise a push model is to use the analogy of a vibrating tray of water. Notice that raised nodal points of water appear. These are standing waves in the water created by the passing wave energy from the vibrations. They are analogous to the atom. And like the atom, these raised nodal points in the water are created by energy passing through. No energy stays at one point and builds up. Just as a wave only atom is the sum of many different frequencies of passing wave energy interfering with each other and creating a standing wave nodal point at a specific point in space. Maybe studying vibrating wave tanks would increase our understanding of this model. Research could see if manipulating these nodal points in the vibrating water could create effects similar to gravitational , strong and electroweak etc mechanisms.
One criticism of a push model, is that gravity has to be instantaneous to make its predictions match the observed orbital motions of planets etc. And push gravity by its nature does have to have a finite speed as I have mentioned earlier. But if one looks at the nature of a push model it becomes apparent that in fact the push mechanism will give instantaneous effects, as if it had an infinite speed. This is because if one looks at any point in the gravitational field of any object like a planet, it will at any point in its gravitational field already have the pressure imbalance I have mentioned earlier. Some wave gravity will already be at that point pushing up and more will already be at that point pushing down. You don't have to move into a new position in a orbit around earth to wait for earth to detect you and then reach out at a finite speed to pull you in. There already is push gravitational radiation pushing and pulling at any point in any gravitational field.
An important analogy would be: If you move across the paths of light rays at a distance from a light source, you don't have to wait for light to travel out at c from the source each time you move to a new position. *There will already be radiation* at each point in your path that has already left the source and travelled out to you.
This is an important distinction because it allows a push model with a finite speed to always have an instantaneous gravitational effect at any point in any gravitational field.
Another criticism of push gravity is that to have this imbalance occur in a gravitational field and be able to explain the larger fields near stars then it must infer a sea of great invisible energy permeating the universe which isn't normally detected. In other words each observer would have tremendous forces travelling through their bodies from all directions. This is an unfair criticism as it comes from theorists who at the same time postulate EXACTLY the same thing when speculating about quantum foam. The invisible sea of energy popping in and out of existence at any point in the vacuum.
Thursday, 12 January 2017
Stellar Abberation
https://youtube.com/watch?v=HMCVZPun_iA
Stellar abberation has always been explained as star light arriving in the inertial solar frame with the earth moving through the incident light wavefronts. Although generally this works, when applied to the water filled telescope the light appears to move slower in the inertial frame and a different angle of abberation is predicted. But not observed. This left the ground open to the claims by SR supporters that only a relativistic calculation can explain all the observations of stellar abberation. However what has been ignored since the effect was first observed is the fact that the abberation angle can be observed by naked eye using a mural quadrant!
In other words the light must already be arriving at an angle in the earth observer frame. Contrary to erroneous assumptions it arrives vertically. Which in turn creates the imaginary problems with, for instance, the water filled telescope. To take into account this important fact one must calculate the angle of aberration by using the following very simple calculation:
Earths speed around the sun is 30 ks and lightspeed arriving is 299792 ks.
So that's a horizontal speed of 30 against a vertical speed of 299792ks.
Putting this information into a right angle triangle to represent starlight arriving at earth from vertically above. Opposite and adjacent sides of the triangle are:
Opposite is 299792ks Adjacent is 30ks (see illustration below)
In other words every second earth moves across 30ks the starlight travels down 299792 ks
This gives an angle of adjacent/ hypoteneuse as approximately 0.00573 degrees
Compare this to the observed 'angle of aberration constant' of 20 arcseconds. 20 arcseconds is 20/3600 = 1/180 degree = 0.00555 degree
The calculated value very closely matches the observed angle of abberation.
In the earth frame the light is therefore arriving at an angle of approximately 0.00573. And to take this into account the telescope must be set at that angle. If the telescope is water filled the slower speed of light in water will not effect the abberation angle as the light is ALREADY arriving at an angle.
The only conclusion is that a classical model can fully explain the observed effects of stellar abberation.
This shows how if one uses the earth observer frame to explain abberation, the light now is seen to be arriving at an angle. The telescope then only needs to be tilted in the right direction, as calculated using the method described above. Furthermore if the telescope is filled with water the slower speed of light in water does not effect the path of the light through the telescope barrel. And still arrives at its correct position at the eyepiece. What is remarkable is how Bradley in the 18th century did not realise this simple explanation. Probably one reason for this misunderstanding was their assumption of an imaginary aether to help them explain how lightwaves propagate. However there never was neccesity for aether in a classical wave emission model of light. Quite why aetherists supported the need for an aether is vague. Probably a lack of understanding of physics. But it must be noted that the same people who supported the need for an unneccesary aether went on to support another unneccesary theory...Spacetime and relativity.
This illustration shows how to calculate abberation angle using a simple triangle method of earth speed horizontally against light speed arriving vertically.
This is the traditional frame used to explain abberation. The starlight arrives vertically and the earth, shown here by the telescope cross section, travels from right to left. The light moves down the tube to the bottom if the angle of the telescope is positioned correctly.
Theorists from Bradley through to current relativists illustrate the water filled telescope moving in the heliocentric frame. However they erroneously assume that the water in the telescope doesn't move in that frame! This is an absurd conclusion as they admit the telescope does move. Ignoring the waters motion and calculating the lightspeed for the water in the inertial heliocentric frame, theorists have erroneously concluded that the light actually moves faster than c for water in the telescope. They do this by assuming the light travels straight down in the inertial frame. Which can only mean it is travelling faster than c through the water as the water is moving in this frame.
A correct calculation should have the light always travelling at c relative to the moving water filled barrel of the telescope. Which means it has to travel diagonally across the inertial frame rather than straight down.
The path of the light through the water is bent forwards in the direction of the motion of the telescope.
As with refraction the light has to travel this path of least resistance. As it is the only path that it can take to travel at c. To deviate means it must travel either slower or faster than c in water. Something it cannot do as the light source does not move closer or farther relative to the telescope
Stellar abberation has always been explained as star light arriving in the inertial solar frame with the earth moving through the incident light wavefronts. Although generally this works, when applied to the water filled telescope the light appears to move slower in the inertial frame and a different angle of abberation is predicted. But not observed. This left the ground open to the claims by SR supporters that only a relativistic calculation can explain all the observations of stellar abberation. However what has been ignored since the effect was first observed is the fact that the abberation angle can be observed by naked eye using a mural quadrant!
In other words the light must already be arriving at an angle in the earth observer frame. Contrary to erroneous assumptions it arrives vertically. Which in turn creates the imaginary problems with, for instance, the water filled telescope. To take into account this important fact one must calculate the angle of aberration by using the following very simple calculation:
Earths speed around the sun is 30 ks and lightspeed arriving is 299792 ks.
So that's a horizontal speed of 30 against a vertical speed of 299792ks.
Putting this information into a right angle triangle to represent starlight arriving at earth from vertically above. Opposite and adjacent sides of the triangle are:
Opposite is 299792ks Adjacent is 30ks (see illustration below)
In other words every second earth moves across 30ks the starlight travels down 299792 ks
This gives an angle of adjacent/ hypoteneuse as approximately 0.00573 degrees
Compare this to the observed 'angle of aberration constant' of 20 arcseconds. 20 arcseconds is 20/3600 = 1/180 degree = 0.00555 degree
The calculated value very closely matches the observed angle of abberation.
In the earth frame the light is therefore arriving at an angle of approximately 0.00573. And to take this into account the telescope must be set at that angle. If the telescope is water filled the slower speed of light in water will not effect the abberation angle as the light is ALREADY arriving at an angle.
The only conclusion is that a classical model can fully explain the observed effects of stellar abberation.
This shows how if one uses the earth observer frame to explain abberation, the light now is seen to be arriving at an angle. The telescope then only needs to be tilted in the right direction, as calculated using the method described above. Furthermore if the telescope is filled with water the slower speed of light in water does not effect the path of the light through the telescope barrel. And still arrives at its correct position at the eyepiece. What is remarkable is how Bradley in the 18th century did not realise this simple explanation. Probably one reason for this misunderstanding was their assumption of an imaginary aether to help them explain how lightwaves propagate. However there never was neccesity for aether in a classical wave emission model of light. Quite why aetherists supported the need for an aether is vague. Probably a lack of understanding of physics. But it must be noted that the same people who supported the need for an unneccesary aether went on to support another unneccesary theory...Spacetime and relativity.
This illustration shows how to calculate abberation angle using a simple triangle method of earth speed horizontally against light speed arriving vertically.
This is the traditional frame used to explain abberation. The starlight arrives vertically and the earth, shown here by the telescope cross section, travels from right to left. The light moves down the tube to the bottom if the angle of the telescope is positioned correctly.
Theorists from Bradley through to current relativists illustrate the water filled telescope moving in the heliocentric frame. However they erroneously assume that the water in the telescope doesn't move in that frame! This is an absurd conclusion as they admit the telescope does move. Ignoring the waters motion and calculating the lightspeed for the water in the inertial heliocentric frame, theorists have erroneously concluded that the light actually moves faster than c for water in the telescope. They do this by assuming the light travels straight down in the inertial frame. Which can only mean it is travelling faster than c through the water as the water is moving in this frame.
A correct calculation should have the light always travelling at c relative to the moving water filled barrel of the telescope. Which means it has to travel diagonally across the inertial frame rather than straight down.
The path of the light through the water is bent forwards in the direction of the motion of the telescope.
As with refraction the light has to travel this path of least resistance. As it is the only path that it can take to travel at c. To deviate means it must travel either slower or faster than c in water. Something it cannot do as the light source does not move closer or farther relative to the telescope
Spin and Orbital angular momentum
Spin angular momentum and orbital angular momentum are caused only by the changing polarisation in the beam. It is the orientation of the polarisation within each beam that creates the different rotation axes for the test particles. The following video shows how polarisation angles within a cross section of the beam rotate. And the superimposed bars show the overall direction of rotation of the total thrust of the changing polarisation angles. It is worth noting that the OAM cross section has a double barred overall rotation. This corresponds to the greater momentum observed in OAM.
https://youtu.be/xbuwv-zzIaY
https://youtu.be/xbuwv-zzIaY
Saturday, 7 January 2017
Earths solid core precesses as it rotates creating high latitude flow in the liquid core
In the model described in my 2009 paper, (available here on this blog in the 2009 section) I predicted that a global equatorial rotation of the liquid core relative to the mantle, as being the driving force in the dynamo that creates the earths magnetic field. Not the opposite as some theorists believe. This rotation of the liquid core is driven by the inner core rotating faster or slower than the mantle. I proposed that the solid cores relative speed to the mantle varies over large time scales and when it's relative speed to the mantle changes from faster to slower or vis a versa, this reverses the dynamo mechanism which in turn reverses the magnetic field polarity. Hence long term flipping of the earths magnetic field can be explained. I also proposed that the solid inner core is malleable and can change shape over time from extended in the north south axis to flattened in the north south axis. As is understood with angular momentum, this action leads to any rotating body slowing down or speeding up its rotation speed. Hence when the solid core is stretched north south, it rotates faster than the mantle. As is observed currently and explained in more detail in my 2009 paper. Further to this I proposed that the solid core also wobbles as it spins. Leading to an off axis solid core. As my paper points out, current evidence suggests that the solid core is not only spinning faster than the mantle but also tilted off axis as it spins. Analogous to a spinning top that wobbles. And recent research has indicated this tilt to be currently at about 10 degrees off the earths north south axis with the north pointing at 10 degrees towards Siberia. In my paper I predicted this off axis core would create an off axis equatorial flow in the liquid core which in turn would create an off axis magnetic field. And that the field would be diametrical opposite to the off axis solid core. Which is also observed. The core currently points 10 degrees to Siberia and opposite to that in Canada, at roughly the same latitude is the magnetic North Pole. However at the time of the writing of my paper I assumed the speed of the wobbling solid cores' north and southern tips were the same as the overall rotational speed of the solid cord. Which is about 0.1 degree a year faster than the mantle eastwards. Hence I a predicted eastwards flow in the liquid core. Also by inference my model predicts the strongest speeds of the liquid core should be at the top and bottom stretched ends of the solid core, as they ascribe a circular path around the north and south poles of the earths rotational axis. (This is best explained visually by the video simulation I posted concurrently with the paper in 2009, the URL being available from the earlier post of this paper on this blog). Being closer to the mantle than any other part of the solid core they will induce the largest speed differential in the liquid core. Very much as the rotating blades of a mixing machine will have the fastest liquid rotation speeds nearest the blade ends itself.
The recent Livermore et al paper has confirmed all these predictions in my paper. Both unique and original predictions in 2009 and now. Most if not all other theories incorrectly assume convection.
The Livermore paper confirms a high speed liquid core flow centered above Siberia at 10 degrees off axis from the earths rotational polar axis exactly as my 2009 paper predicts. However, with one important caveat. The assumption in Livermore’s paper is a westward flow of the outer part of liquid core
This initially seems to rule out my model because although my model has accurately predicted most of the rest of the Livermore papers conclusions, his westward flow seems to contradict my models overall predicted eastward flow.
However on analysis, I realise now, that Phil has misinterpreted the westward movement of Earths dipole magnetic field with a westward flow of the liquid core near the mantle. In other words he hasn’t observed a westward flow of the liquid core. He has used satellite data showing anomalies in the earths field at those latitudes. And then made assumptions about core flow directions. Based on the flawed convection model. A model which is not only fundamentally different from my model. But to date has been consistently unsuccessful in all of its predictions made by various theorists over the decades.
The recent Livermore et al paper has confirmed all these predictions in my paper. Both unique and original predictions in 2009 and now. Most if not all other theories incorrectly assume convection.
The Livermore paper confirms a high speed liquid core flow centered above Siberia at 10 degrees off axis from the earths rotational polar axis exactly as my 2009 paper predicts. However, with one important caveat. The assumption in Livermore’s paper is a westward flow of the outer part of liquid core
This initially seems to rule out my model because although my model has accurately predicted most of the rest of the Livermore papers conclusions, his westward flow seems to contradict my models overall predicted eastward flow.
However on analysis, I realise now, that Phil has misinterpreted the westward movement of Earths dipole magnetic field with a westward flow of the liquid core near the mantle. In other words he hasn’t observed a westward flow of the liquid core. He has used satellite data showing anomalies in the earths field at those latitudes. And then made assumptions about core flow directions. Based on the flawed convection model. A model which is not only fundamentally different from my model. But to date has been consistently unsuccessful in all of its predictions made by various theorists over the decades.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)