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.

Classical Harmonic overtones observed in Zinc emission line spectra

 Classical Harmonic overtones observed in Zinc emission line spectra

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

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

Introduction

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

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

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

Methods

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paschen:   (Where f is 308 angstroms)

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

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

Balmer:  (Where f is 1178 angstroms)

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

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

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

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

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

Paschen limit/9 * 1.33 = f frequency 308 Angstroms 

Physics origin of universal unusual magnetoresistance

 I was alerted to a recent paper by Lijun Zhu et al titled “ Physics origin of universal unusual magnetoresistance ” in a recent article in 

https://scitechdaily.com/a-long-standing-spintronics-mystery-may-finally-be-solved/ regarding spin hall and unusual magneto-resonance.

It seems (current theological based*) theory cannot explain the observations. Not an unusual occurrence with the current outdated standard models of physics that these otherwise talented experimentalists have to adhere to. Of course reading these papers and their associated articles about imaginary physics like the above is difficult as they have refer to quasi religious concepts like ‘flows of electrons’ and ‘currents’. 

It does seem that as more observations come in they seem to be more and more mystified as to why electric current and all its electron based spin hall nonsense etc, seems to be dictated by a clear connection to the magnetic field orientation of atoms in their experiments. Contrary to current theory which tells them that electricity is an imaginary flow of electrons. 

My advice is that it is better to assume that all “electric current” is only a rotation of the conductor atoms magnetic fields. Nothing more. No imaginary flow of electrons is needed. 

Sooner or later theory will have to admit I’m right. Until then we will have to put up with new observations that don’t fit the magical and imaginary theories of electrons based on 18th C concepts of electricity dreamed up *flat earth mystical occultists as a flow of imaginary ‘electrons’.

Excess Gamma ray halo in Milky Way possibly due to dark matter

 Usual stuff about imaginary dark matter. The image supplied in the article taken from the paper does not look like the original halo predictions for dark matter. Better fit is to a model that has gamma rays scattering off intervening dust clouds. 

We know X-ray rings show that X-rays can scatter from intervening dust or gas clouds. As can gammarays (Rayleigh scattering). If one looks at the red part of image showing the purported signs of a dark matter “halo” it seems to follow the undulations of the blue part of the image.  Most likely the blue in the image is the distribution of dust or gas and the excess gammarays are scattered as in Rayleigh scattering. 

In other words…No imaginary dark matter is needed to explain the excess gammarays observed. Not least because other research shows visible mass can accurately model the rotation curves of galaxies without invoking imaginary dark matter.

Neutron star shows a dramatic X-ray variability linked to its rotation velocity

Recent observations show an Inverse relationship between a neutron stars 10 year rotation rate and its brightness in xrays. This sounds familiar and could be a theoretical confirmation of a separate prediction that the suns 11 year solar cycle is driven by a variable rotational velocity differential between inner core and surface rotation speeds. 

The Tyranny of Relativity

The Tyranny of Relativity

Abstract

Various criticisms and refutations of a pre-relativistic classical model of electromagnetic radiation have been presented in mainstream theoretical physics since the beginning of last century. Critics of the then established classical model cite various experiments as evidence, including experiments made by Michelson Morley, Sagnac, Ives Stillwell and deSitters’ double star refutation of a classical emission model of light. Here in this paper these criticisms are addressed and themselves refuted, showing how all these observations and experiments and others to date can still be made to be consistent with a non relativistic classical model of light where light travels at c relative to the source only. And is wave only not particulate. This is achieved simply by interpreting Michelson Morley experiment at face value: In that all this experiment did was show theorists that the aether did not impede the velocity or deflect the path of light.

Introduction: 1) Michelson Morley experiment

The first step to restoring the reputation of a classical wave only model of light is to correctly analyse the famous 1887 Michelson Morley experiment, which incidentally predates Einstein’s first paper on Special Relativity. The experiment and its theoretical ramifications are well known as it supposedly provided the evidence that refuted the concept of a ponderable aether through which wave only light was supposed to propagate. 

After the 1887 experiment, theorists of the day were perplexed by the results of MMX in which the speed of light was shown to be not affected by any motion of the experimental setup as it rotated around the earth and solar axes. The conclusion at the time was that there could be no ponderable aether and that if there were no aether then how could light be considered to be a wave if there was nothing to wave in. Here in this paper the argument is made that this was an odd conclusion to make. And that what theorists should have realised back in the early 20thC was that the Michelson Morley and subsequent experiments didn’t disprove the existence of an aether/vacuum. They only proved that, down to measurable limits, the velocity of wave only electromagnetic radiation through the aether/vacuum was not impeded or deflected. 

Quite why theorists after 1887 didn’t realise that there still was an aether/vacuum but it just wasn’t made of atomic particles or what’s now called baryons is puzzling. Why couldn’t the aether be a medium that had only one observable quality? That it could hold one or more different magnetic fields at any one point in space but not be made of atomic particles. Because as we now know it is not the aether/vacuum that slows down or deflects light. It is the atoms that are floating within that aether/vacuum which effect the velocities and direction of EMR.

And an even more profound implication of MMX that no theorist has also ever considered is that not only is light observed to travel always and only at c in the source frame, it always travels at c regardless of how the experiment moves relative to any other reference frame whilst the light travels out from the source and back to the interferometer. In other words MMX shows us that when light leaves the source it is quite literally dragged (but not rotated) around by the source to fulfil the requirement that it travels always and only at c out from and back to the interferometer/source in the apparatus. This is a fact backed up by a centuries worth of observations. From MMX to Sagnac to Ives Stillwell through to current versions of these experiments.

Some argue that this conclusion I suggest here can be refuted

as it is based on current technological limitations only. And that with a sensitive enough apparatus the rotation of the experiment once a day around the earths axis will be measureable. However those who would present this, forget first that physics theory is only refutable if there are the observations that can refute the theory. And so far no observations of this possible measurement have ever been made. And further to that if there were to be a future experiment that could detect a fringe shift in MMX due to its rotation around the earths axis…this would also refute the theory of Special Relativity.

And so in conclusion one has to accept that contrary to myth MMX did not refute any classical wave only model of light. And further to this, one has to make the irrefutable conclusion from MMX that light can be dragged back and forth by the source after the light has left the source. As long as the light travels back and forth at c relative to the source frame as per the MMX apparatus. Because that’s exactly what is being observed and measured in any MMX style apparatus. 

So one must ignore any claims that experiments like Ives Stillwell, Sagnac and others provide evidence that is inconsistent with a wave only classical model of light. Because these are all false claims. As the following analysis made here in this paper on some of the most commonly cited examples show.

2)Fizeau experiment

Fizeau is another experiment that confused both relativists and their aetherist predecessors. In that their incorrect assumption was that for a classical model the speed v of water flow should be added to or subtracted from the speed of light in water. Presumably this erroneous assumption was arrived at by ignoring the fact that atoms sit as separate particles within the emptiness of the vacuum. At the time the accepted aetherist prediction was for the light to be dragged fully by the velocity v of water. However Fizeau observed a drag at less than the value expected. Interestingly enough Fresnels’ drag coefficient did make the correct prediction. Despite being based on an outdated partial aether drag model. An interesting case of the right formula for the wrong model. That Fresnel correctly predicted the observed drag decades before Fizeau is a significant achievement that has been largely overlooked because of its association with an aether drag model. Although the assumption that fresnels coefficient correctly models the observed change in velocity of light in the Fizeau setup is debatable as Fizeau observed an exact 1/2 fringe shift from the predicted full aether drag shift (+-v) if light were dragged fully by the water.  Yet in fact the Fizeau formula predicts a 3/7 shift which should equate to an observed 3/7 slowing of light from the waters velocity. Not the observed 1/2 velocity shift. In other words Fizeau’s results in fact do not match that predicted by the fresnel coefficient and by association, Special Relativity. Why this is the case is not ever mentioned in any literature on the subject and does potentially present a problem for any theory. 

Ignoring this problematic observation, to model the outcome of Fizeau for a classical wave only model involves treating the moving water in the Fizeau column as a more or less optically dense medium and as follows:

Assume the water is a collection of atoms/molecules floating in the ‘empty’ space of the aether/vacuum. As the light beam moves through the water, the light travels at a constant speed in a straight line through the vacuum between these molecules in the water. But the lights velocity through the water is impeded slightly by each molecules’ atoms as compared to its velocity if it were in just an atom free vacuum. Hence the slower velocity and the refractive index 1.33 for water. And, if the water moves towards the source, the light will encounter more atoms per second and move even slower. Because the light’s velocity through the moving water is now slower as the light is interacting with more atoms per second. Making the moving water a slightly more dense optical medium. But notice the light speed through the moving column isn’t slower by the total speed v of the water molecules . Its reduced speed is dictated by a percentage based on the increased amount of atoms the light beam encounters per second.

Here the traditional Fizeau formula c/n +- v(1-n^2) is used to describe this change in velocity due to change in density and refractive index. And this change in density is not the same as v, but as a percentage of v, as this formula correctly shows.

However to calculate and better explain Fizeau as a classical experiment one can also use a new formula presented here on this blog and for the first time. This formula shows more clearly the simple classical connection between the increased velocity and the resulting percentage change in optical density, ie refractive index of water, due to the waters motion:

c/[n+-(v/c x n)]

As described earlier, the light beam will encounter more or less water molecule/atoms when the water moves relative to the source making the water medium a more or less dense medium for the light to travel through. To model this change in optical density classically one must first define the new refractive index of the moving water by dividing the water velocity v by c in the above formula and then multiplying this by n (1.33) of water to calculate the percentage change in the refractive index of water due to the movement of the water. And then either subtract or add that small percentage difference to the usual refractive index 1.33 of water to give the relative increase or decrease in density and thus derive a new refractive index for the moving water, dependent on its velocity in the experiment. At which point a simple calculation of c/n with this newly derived refractive index of water n will correctly predict the final observed velocity of light in the moving water. As shown in the formula:

 c/[n+-(v/c x n)]. 

Which incidentally gives the same result as the original cited Fizeau(Fresnel) formula.

Proving Fizeau can be adequately explained classically without invoking relativity.

Considering Einstein cited Fizeau as a key reason for developing his special theory of relativity, the irony of the Fizeau experiment is that it proves that the speed of light in water is variable if one also moves the source at v and not the water at v relative to the source. That is if the water and observer don’t move and are in the same frame but the source instead slows down or speeds up in the water column. Contradicting the central premise of SR that the speed of light must always be a constant defined by n for water. Technically, the Fizeau experiment refutes relativity.

3)DeSitter refutation

In the decades following 1905, Willem deSitter tried to refute a classical model of light by saying that if light travelled only at c in the source frame as some classicists like Ritz were still arguing for in the early 20thC, then light would “pile up” as it travelled through space. And that this ‘ piling up’ of light in transit, would be observed in light from double star systems when observed from earth. As no such piling up was observed, he claimed this refuted any wave only classical model. Unfortunately there is a serious flaw in deSitters argument. Because in trying to prove that light was constant in all frames and did not travel at c in the source frame only as a classical model proposed, he falsified his calculations and prediction for a classical model by incorrectly having light travel at a variable speed in the source star frame as it travelled to earth from the double star system. A strange contradiction considering he was trying to disprove classical theory’s central premise that light only and always travelled only at c in the source frame!

The question should be, how did he manage to convince his peers of his day that he proved that light could not travel only at c in the source frame? When the maths of his calculations proving this impossibility for a classical model was clearly false and unscientific.

The answer to his theoretical sleight of hand was although he correctly assumed that a classical model predicates a constant speed in one frame only. His mathematical faux pas was not to have light move at c only in the source frame as a classical model dictates. But rather his calculations had light at c only in the observer frame. A frame that moved relative to the source! Completely ignoring the basic tenet of a classical model so as to conveniently and spuriously refute it as competition to relativity. 

4)Sagnac

Sagnac, like MMX has been grossly misrepresented by critics of a classical model simply by once again incorrectly calculating how long the two light paths are when the setup (ring or mirrored) is rotating. One only has to look at the many various calculations, illustrations and computer simulations that have been created since the experiment was first performed by Sagnac that show the ring rotating around the central axis with the light travelling at a constant speed in both directions as the source/detector point rotates in one CW or CCW direction. To deliberately make these calculations for a classical model incorrect they have pretended that when the mirrored setup rotates the light will travel at a constant speed (c +-v) in the lab, not at a constant speed c in the source frame. This is the same mistake that deSitter makes. Because they have forgotten that light in a classical model must always travel at a constant speed c in the source frame only. Not at a constant speed c in any or all other frames. So if one looks at any incorrect rotating calculation used for Sagnac, you can see that the incorrect calculation for a classical model has light travelling at a variable speed relative to the rotating source.

Any correct calculation/simulation for a classical model has to have the source not move in its own frame and the mirrored setup rotating around the static source. One path will always be longer than the opposite path in this frame. (This is illustrated in an associated video and blogpost elsewhere on this blog.) This is the correct frame to calculate light path lengths for a classical model. It will always give a path difference. Contrary to false claims by relativists trying to erroneously discredit the old pre relativistic classical wave only model of light.

5)Faster than light, instantaneous transmission of information over great distances using effects first discovered in MMX

To follow on from section 1) a further effect can also found in the Michelson Morley experimental observations. As is also discussed above in section 1 of this post the experiment shows that light appears to be dragged  back and forth for any observer in any frame that is not the source frame. In that as long as light is observed to travel always at c in the MMX source frame then it will appear to be dragged back and forth as it propagates away from the source in any observer frame that has relative motion to the source. Conversely it follows that if a source emits light that propagates away from the source and arrives at an observer, then if the source is then moved or vibrated rapidly back and forth relative to the observer, the observer will Instantaneously observe this vibration in any light that has already left the source before the vibration in the source was started. The result is that the Michelson Morley experiment gives us the blueprint for a design of a mechanism that will give faster than light, indeed instantaneous, transmission of information through a vacuum over great distances. Truly an important invention first published here on this blog for the upcoming space race. Just imagine what is within easy reach of future mars unmanned robot landers;  Virtually instant communication between ground control and the robot lander. How much faster the current NASA mars explorer robots could operate with this easy to construct communication device. Yet because the backwards mindset of relativists and their unscientific theories controls our scientific community, we are being held back in space exploration.

This hi lites the advantage a wave only classical model has over relativity. Classical physics is based always and only on what is observed. Relativity is usually based only on what is assumed. Observations seem to be ignored by relativists.

6)Particles at detectors explained as quantised waves 

All of the previous analyses of the experiments cited above have not yet mentioned Newtons particle and Einsteins photon. However in any classical wave only model as the one outlined here in this paper it is imperative to stress that light is never considered to be a particle. It’s always wave only. This doesn’t necessarily matter for the above analyses of experiments but for more observations using photodetectors a classical explanation of light incident on a photodetector plane is necessary. 

When dots appeared in film and photo detectors in various experiments  the automatic assumption was that these are proof of the wave/particle duality of light and that it is considered to sometimes be a particle. 

This ignores centuries of the physics of oscillation, resonating systems and resonant catastrophe. We have centuries of observations of real world macro objects that will sympathetically resonate when subjected to external wave energy at or around that objects natural resonant frequency. And not only will they sympathetically resonate to incident wave energy, these macro objects are observed to store and release this energy in pulses to another external system. It is proposed here that this also happens to the atoms or collections of atoms in each pixel in any photo detector. The incident electromagnetic wave energy is observed to elicit resonance at and around that photodetectors atoms natural resonating frequency. And we know from observations of visible resonant systems that resonant systems release their energy in pulses. This is what’s called classic resonant catastrophe. And so for photodetectors the classical model has EMR wave energy incident on the detector atom. The detector atom resonates sympathetically and then releases it in pulses to the electron cascade in the circuit. Or simply transfers the resonance to the next atom in the electric circuit. To be then sent to a pc screen as a pulse and to be mistaken by quantum theorists as a particle of light hitting the photo detector.

7)CERN particle paths as wave only interferences.

The same logic is used here to explain the sub atomic particles apparently “seen” in colliders. Once again theorists have ignored centuries of study of wave interference. Young showed us in 1827 that two light sources could interfere to produce bands of light and dark on a 2 dimensional screen. In 3 dimensions those 2 overlapping interfering wavefronts produce what’s called an annulus ring. That’s 2 expanding wavefront ‘bubbles’ overlapping and producing a single expanding ring of interference as they propagate out in space from their separate sources at c.

If one calculates what happens when three coherent sources each produce an expanding wavefront bubble. Then it can be shown here that the first two waves will produce a single annulus ring where the brightness from interference between the two is at its greatest. And as the third overlapping wavefront bubble can only interacts at two points on that annulus it will produce two identical opposite direction single particle like paths that are a direct consequence of 3 separate expanding coherent waves interfering at only two points in space. These “paths” produced by the 3 expanding wavefronts are identical opposite twins. And can be either spiral, curved  or straight. This is exactly what is observed. 

In summary the proposal here is that the apparent ‘particle’ paths in colliders are in fact interference paths between 3 energy wavefronts overlapping as they spread out after being emitted by 3 protons colliding. Those “paths” represent the point of greatest energy due to wave interference between 3 expanding overlapping wavefronts. Simple geometry of wave only propagation in space explains this illusion of particles in cloud detectors. No wonder China has cancelled their new super collider this November 2025. They read my earlier blogpost and YouTube video on my blog and realised that the particles in colliders were illusions. And it was a waste of billions of pounds of money looking for mythical particles in particle accelerators like CERN.

Ives Stillwell

There are various erroneous claims made for a classical model of light from Einstein through Ives Stillwell to the present. All of them claim that a classical model predicts no offset for the Ives Stillwell experiment. As we know, an offset is observed. Supposedly ruling out a classical model of light which apparently predicts an even displacement of light from Doppler shifting. The reason why this claim has survived unchallenged for so long is simple. The various formulas evoked for "classical" are actually not correctly modelling light as c+-v for a classical model because they incorrectly use wavelength w instead of frequency f. One must calculate the offset using frequency and then convert that result to wavelength to check against the observed wavelength offset. The excuse relativists use is that one must model Doppler shift for light in a classical model by erroneously assuming there is an aether and that this imaginary aether/vacuum slows light down. This is pseudoscience from relativists. Because they conveniently ignore the earlier results from MMX in 1887 that show that the aether/vacuum does not impede or deflect light paths velocities and direction. If MMX showed that light in a classical model was not impeded by the aether/vacuum,…why do relativists insist that a classical model of light must ignore the 1887 MMX experiment?!

If one wishes to *correctly* model observed speeds for a classical model the following formula using f must be used: 

Assuming v is 0.005, and f is the emitted source frequency as in the Ives Stillwell experiment. 

1.005 X f = f1(forward) 

0.995 X f = f2(rearward) 

Calculate the two Doppler shifted frequencies. Convert both shifted frequencies f1&2 to wavelength w1&2 and average them out ((w-w1)+(w2-w)/2). This gives an average predicted offset for a classical model, that now matches the observed offset in the Ives Stillwell experiment. Verifying that a classical model is still very much consistent with Ives Stillwell.

GPS

Probably one of most misused excuses to refute a classical model is GPS, although technically it involves modelling atoms as well as light for a classical model. Following on from section 6 “Particles at detectors explained as quantised waves” it is assumed here in this paper that atoms in a wave only classical model are not considered to be particulate but rather as wavelike like resonating systems in the vacuum of space.

Because resonating systems are always observed to respond to more or less external force by lowering or raising their resonant frequency, then this same classical observation is used to correctly predict that atoms, being resonating systems will lower or raise their natural resonant frequencies when subjected to more or less external force. This is exactly what is observed in GPS. The caesium clock atoms will speed up their natural resonant frequency in response to a reduction in the force of gravity where there is also an increase in radius distance from the centre of planet earth. Because GPS clock atoms are farther out from the centre of earths gravity field, they oscillate faster. Time doesn’t change with altitude, the clocks tick rates are speeding up or slowing down in response to more or less gravitational force. 

Another false argument that is sometimes used against this being relevant for a classical model is that for classical theory the force of gravity is always erroneously assumed to be defined by r^2 in Newtons’ gravitational acceleration formula F= m1 +m2/r^2. An odd hypocritical condition for relativists to impose on a classical model, considering they accept that the force of gravity on mass in a gravitational field is relative to radius in their relativistic model. Not radius squared. Why is it OK for force to be different from acceleration for relativity theory, but not OK for a classical model to make this same assumption. When did Newton ever claim that acceleration is the same as force? Never.

But this false assumption about what the force of gravity is in classical physics is designed to have classical automatically fail the GPS test

Because in a classical universe we can observe with our own eyes that you need to apply a constant force to an object to get a constant acceleration. The object isn’t observed to accelerate all on its own. So for a classical model one must use a constant force of gravity (potential) applied to a point mass to get it to a constant acceleration.

And so it is this constant force (potential) on an object that is the true force of gravity in a classical model. Which means of course that to model resonance effect from gravity at different radii in a non relativistic classical model one must use r, not r squared.

To give Einstein credit, he realised that Newton and Laplaces potential defined the force of gravity more accurately than acceleration. He realised what both Newton and LaPlace had already discovered centuries earlier. Which is that Newtons little g (acceleration )was only a product of a force of gravity acting on a mass.

And finally to explain what is this mechanical classical explanation for gravity one need look no further than a revised wave only LeSagian push gravity theory to find the classical solution to what is behind this force of gravity. And it ties atoms neatly to waves for a wave only classical universe. 

Atoms are pushed down towards centres of larger masses by wave only “push” radiation. Not the original LeSagian particles which failed to accurately explain why masses didn’t increase constantly when subjected to the external LeSagian force of push gravity. These waves are all the electromagnetic waves that exist from all EMR sources in an infinite non Big Bang universe. Mass is derived from EMR. EMR is produced when mass moves relative to other masses.

And it is no accident that modelling the shadow of the earth on a satellite using arc degrees of the earth’s shadow as seen from the satellite gives a shadow gravity area that increases with r. Not r ^2. Confirming push gravity as a valid explanation for different tick rates in GPS.

Conclusion

By correctly calculating predicted effects for light in a classical model one can make all known observations and experimental results consistent with a classical model. As long as that model assumes light is not a particle in a viscous aether. But is instead a wave only phenomena that always travels at c relative to its source in this aether/vacuum. In this paper only a few key experiments are analysed but one can apply the classical model to any know observation. Simply by ignoring the same incorrect assumptions cited above in this paper that critics of a classical model erroneously apply to it to ensure it fails the above cited experimental or observational tests.

Reference

1)On the Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether. 1887, Michelson,Morley

2)On the Electrodynamics of moving bodies. 1905, Albert Einstein

3)The Hypotheses relating to the Luminous Aether and an experiment which appears to demonstrate that the motion of bodies alters the velocity with which light propagates itself in their interior. 1851, M. H. Fizeau

4)A proof of the constancy of the velocity of light (1913),Willem de Sitter

5) Recherches critiques sur l'Électrodynamique générale. 1908, Walther Ritz, Annales de Chimie et de Physique. 13: 145–275.

6)The luminiferous aether demonstrated by the effect of the wind relative to the aether in a uniformly rotating interferometer (1913),Georges Sagnac

7)An Experimental Study of the Rate of a Moving Atomic Clock. 1838, Ives,Stillwell