FRB 20250316A: A Brilliant and Nearby One-off Fast Radio Burst Localized to 13 pc Precision

FRB 20250316A: A Brilliant and Nearby One-off Fast Radio Burst Localized to 13 pc Precision

The CHIME/FRB Collaboration:, Thomas C. Abbott

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/adf62f#apjladf62fs3

Once again the theorists have misunderstood the true nature of FRB and GRB phenomena. As I have pointed out for decades on this blog, it is a mistake to assume they are massive “explosions” at cosmological scale distances from earth. This is a false assumption based on other false assumptions about our universe and the true nature of electromagnetic radiation. False and unsubstantiated assumptions which I have discussed and refuted elsewhere here on this blog

However, to address this above cited paper specifically. It can be shown here how Gammaraybursts and Fast radio bursts are in fact, the same phenomena but occurring at different length timescales. An FRB is just a very short GRB. Nothing else. And more importantly it can be shown how these phenomena are not explosions at all, but rather purely optical effects coming originally from very distant but constant stellar sources in a non expanding universe. It’s not hard to show that the data in the above cited CHIME paper indeed backs up the GRB/FRB model described here. 

(It is important to point out that as far as this blog is concerned, repeating FRB’s should not in any way be considered to be caused by the same mechanisms as non repeating FRB’s. Which as anyone who is familiar with both repeating and non repeating FRB data will agree. Both types have distinctly different types of data streams that distinguish each type from the other as unrelated.)

For clear evidence  relating GRB and FRB as the same phenomena at different timescales look only to Figure 5 in the CHIME/FRB collaboration paper. (“PA profile of FRB 20250316A as a function of frequency over 400–800 MHz.”)

Notice how the self similar burst profiles in each frequency become more stretched in the time axis at successively lower frequencies. And that this  stretch in the time scale is proportional to wavelength. This exact profile of longer wavelengths being dilated to longer arrival timescales for FRB and GRB’s was predicted and outlined in this blog more than 20 years ago. Before Fast radio bursts were even “discovered” I had modelled and explained FRB ‘s in detail as being just very short GRB’s. But with the same distinctive time lag/wavelength relationship that can be seen in every available GRB burst dataset to date. A wavelength/time lag relationship which can also seen in figure 5 of the recent CHIME Collaboration paper. Notice as pointed out elsewhere on this blog, that all GRB light curve profiles from gamma to radio show the same distinctive wavelength to timescale stretch proportional to wavelength relationship. 

Unfortunately, theorists currently seem unwilling to admit relativity and the Big Bang are failed theories. And that going back to a more correct scientific model of light as a wave only, is the only option left to correctly explain all EMR phenomena including FRB burst profiles. A wave only classical model first described centuries ago by Theorists such as Thomas Young.

https://physicsexplained.blogspot.com/2014/08/this-following-brief-description-of-grb.html

https://physicsexplained.blogspot.com/2016/10/ives-stillwell-is-consistent-with.html

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

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

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

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

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

 A new way to save an old oft refuted theory: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tiny bright objects discovered at dawn of universe baffle scientists

 Tiny bright objects discovered at dawn of universe baffle scientists

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/ad55f7

It seems that supermassive very old mature galaxies, too old for the BBT to accommodate, have been confirmed to exist in the “very early” Big Bang universe in a new study just published in Astrophysical Journal letters. In this quote from an article on the paper in the online source Science daily, one researcher seems baffled:

“We have confirmed that these (galaxies) appear to be packed with ancient stars -- hundreds of millions of years old -- in a universe that is only 600-800 million years old. Remarkably, these objects hold the record for the earliest signatures of old starlight," said Bingjie Wang, a postdoctoral scholar at Penn State and lead author on the paper. "It was totally unexpected to find old stars in a very young universe. The standard models of cosmology and galaxy formation have been incredibly successful, yet, these luminous objects do not quite fit comfortably into those theories."

Incredibly successful? My understanding is that every time we look at the early universe it turns out to not match BBT predictions. Notice that the age of the imaginary Big Bang has changed over the years from 8 to 25 billion years. And finally only settled on its current age when the so called CMBR confined it to an exact 13 or so billion years old. 

Don’t forget that not only did Hubble himself never accept expansion as an explanation for the observed redshift/distance relationship called Hubble redshift, but that the BBT itself was invented by a devout Catholic priest LeMaitre! 

So once again the Big Bang theory has failed spectacularly. But the bigger question is...Why are they so confused? We Critics of the Big Bang have been saying for years that the universe is infinite in age and not expanding and that JWST would confirm that the BBT was a delusional fantasy. 

Adam Riess discovers universe isn’t expanding after all

 A new study by Riess et al seems to have confirmed that something, once again, is wrong with the BBT model. 

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/ad1ddd

Part of the problem lies with the earlier mistake made by him and others in their nobel prize winning paper of 1998. They realised back then that the lightcurves of distant SN1a were too “dim” to be explained by the BBT. So to get around this massive failure of their BBT model they added another pre-copernican fix to their preferred model of expansion. And called this fix ‘acceleration’. 

What they failed to take into account is the fact that a non expanding model of the universe predicts that these distant SN1a will not have *time dilated* afterglow lightcurves. And thus the SN1a afterglow is predicted to appear to be fainter post peak fluence in a non expanding model than is predicted in an expanding model.

And...this is exactly what is observed in Riess et al’s 1998 data. Far from confirming the BBT with an added fix of acceleration, what they actually did was confirm the non expanding models predictions and proved that the universe isn’t expanding at all.

And so now this failure to understand the data by Big Bang theorists in 1998 has come home to haunt them again. Riess has just confirmed once again that the BBT is a failed model. And that once again Riess’s data shows the universe isn’t expanding. Except this time he can’t think of an easy excuse. Although its apparent he still doesn’t blame the BBT model. And instead says that somehow there must be new physics. New fantasies to cover up old fantasies failures is what he really means.

It is worth pointing out here the oft repeated claim made by BBT supporters that SN1a lightcurves show time dilation and confirm the BBT model. When using chi^2 fitting methods to match observed SN1a data to theoretical time dilated templates . Knop et al 2003 being one example.

https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0309368

This claim is dubious at best. Because analysis like this fails to do a control test on the SN1a data to see if a chi ^2 match to *non dilated* lightcurve templates can give as good, or even a better match to that of time dilated templates. 

And I have shown quite clearly in my blog page on supernova-light-curves-fit-non.html  that yes in fact the same hi-red shifted SN1a data gives at least as good a match to non dilated templates as it does to BBT inspired theoretical time dilated lightcurves. If not better. Considering that to make the SN1a data fit the dilated lightcurve templates, Knop had to arbitrarily fiddle the individual Hubble Space Telescope datapoints by as much as 15 % in luminosity to make a good fit to the expanding BBT models theoretical lightcurve templates.

 

What causes redshift in a non expanding universe?

 What causes redshift in a non expanding universe?

To follow on from previous articles on this blog describing how light and atoms are wave only and how the offset between emission and absorption spectra can be described by waves only, I would like to supply a possible explanation and mechanism for what could cause the redshifting of light in a non expanding universe. This mechanism that occurs between an atom and emr and leads to a redshifting of light between absorbed and emitted light is the same mechanism. But on a much smaller scale when light propagates through a vacuum.

Distributing higher energies received to lower energies transmitted by any point in space of the vacuum.

Offset between absorption and emission spectra

 Offset between absorption and emission spectra

Although atoms are said to emit and absorb emr at only very specific frequencies (ie. Hydrogens Balmer series), observations contradict this. And show that there is an offset between the absorbed and re emitted light. Which seems counter-intuitive, given the assumption that the atoms resonant frequency should respond to and produce the same frequencies of light. Not two slightly different frequencies

To explain this one must realise that the each of atoms resonant frequencies is actually a range of resonant frequencies clustered around a single frequency. And described in graph form by a bell curve. And confirmed also in spectra by the observed width of the emission/absorption line. With the peak amplitude of resonant wavelength being at the Center of the spectral line. 

In other words at each resonant frequency of the atom, as illustrated by the width of the observed spectral line of the atom, the atom actually has a range of resonant frequencies clustered around that specific frequency. And described in graph form by a bell curve with the maximum frequency being at the peak of the curve at the Center of the observed spectral line.

Taking this into account one can then explain how the offset between emission and absorption occurs. Because although the frequency range of the atoms resonant frequency is a uniform bell curve above and below the center of that particular resonant frequency. The input and output energies are different on either side of the Center. 

The Higher frequency side of the bell curve will have more input energy than the lower frequency side seeing as higher frequencies have more energy. Thus the absorption spectral line appears to be stronger on the higher frequency side of the curve. And conversely when that same absorbed energy is emitted again by the atom, the lower frequencies appear brighter. Because although a larger part of the input energy to the atom was from the higher side of the frequency bell curve of the atom, the total emitted energy is split equally between both hi and low frequency sides of the resonant frequency bell curve. Resulting in a slightly lower frequency emission line

This assumption is based on the fact that the atoms resonant frequency is centered on a single hypothetical wavelength. When absorbing equal frequencies of energy on either side of the bell curve it becomes obvious the higher frequency side receives more energy and appears brighter in the observed spectra. But when this energy is emitted equally between lower and higher frequencies ...the lower frequency side of the bell curve appears brighter. Thus shifting the emitted spectral line slightly to a longer spectral wavelength. As observed.

A new model for a wave only atom

 A new model of a wave only atom

In this blog and it’s associated YouTube channel I have provided various descriptions of how a wave only model of light and atoms can explain phenomena like induction and radiation and particle paths in particle accelerators. Here I would like to focus on a way to describe how emr waves can be used to model the atom itself.

We know from centuries of observation that EM radiation emitted by atoms is wave like. And that atoms when measured always appear to be wave like as resonant systems. 

Starting off from the oft repeated assumption in this blog that the universe is non expanding and infinite in size and age it is possible to then say that light itself from very distant sources will not only be redshifted.  But also blueshifted as distant parts of a non expanding universe move towards or away from our relative position here on earth.

This means that in an infinite non expanding universe light from any direction can not only be blueshifted but also can be redshifted. So much so that the wavefront itself will appear stationary to us here on earth. Superimpose these standing waves of the same wavelength coming in from all directions so that they meet at one central point. This is the theoretical Center of the wave atom. This physical effect can be seen in 2 D examples like waves rippling in to the Center of a vibrating bowl of water. Vibrate the bowl and the waves radiate in to the Center and where they meet is a central node  where the converging waves overlap and there is a concentration of energy at that point. Ie the Center of energy of the system which is the analogy of the Center of a system of the wave atom. In this example the vibrating source( edge of bowl) doesn’t move relative to the Center so waves move in to and through the center. If this were the case with a wave only atom then the magnetic field would oscillate betwen north and south. It doesn’t.

But if the source for all these waves were moving away from the ‘Center’ at c, then the wavefronts converging at the Center of the atom would be stationary. Allowing the atom to display a stable north south magnetic field.

Imagine this wave only scenario  in 3 dimensions and we not only get a Center point corresponding to the atom , we also find that the closer together the converging waves are the more amplitude the spherical converging waves possess. This gives a shell like structure to the atom for that wavelength. And corresponds to what particle physicists incorrectly call electron energy levels of atoms. The closer the converging waves are to the Center, the greater the strength  of the magnetic attraction. And conversely it’s repulsion ( sometimes called the strong interaction)

Each element has its own set of converging wavelengths. Which are observed as the different lines in an emission or absorption spectra.

It’s no coincidence that the more lines the element has, the “heavier” and thus farther down the periodic table the atom sits.

Obviously these wavelength shells I describe are directly related to the mass of the atom. Seeing as each wavelength shell is essentially a n-s magnetic field, lined up with all the other n-s orientations of the different wavelength shells. It thus takes energy (in the form of a external magnetic field) to move or rotate each shell. The more shells,...the more energy needed to move or rotate all the shells of that atom. Hence the mass of the atom is accounted for. 

And as described elsewhere in this blog we can then relate this model and describe ALL other known forces and phenomena related to atoms. Including gravity as a LeSage push gravity, Van der Waals and the strong, weak and electromagnetic forces. Without having to resort to the veritable overpopulated and ridiculous zoo of particles and imaginary forces that the precopernican Standard model has become littered with.

Tired Light and cosmological redshift

Some “tired light” theorists have suggested that the reason light redshifts over distance is due, not to expansion, but to light slowing down as it travels from a distant source to an observer on earth. Although I have previously agreed in this blog with the non expanding model of the universe, unfortunately I have to find fault with the suggested cause of the observed Hubble redshift being due to light losing speed over distance.

The problem with a reducing speed of c over distance is that it would result in no observed redshifting of light! Contrary to the misconceptions made by authors in Various published papers. The reason for this is simple. If light waves reduced speed over distance then they would have to be be travelling at a slower speed then any light waves later emitted by the same source. The obvious conclusion of this model is that: Any wavefronts emitted by a source would always be slowly “catching up” with those wavefronts already emitted by the source at an earlier time. And the distance between successive wavefronts emitted would always have to decrease to accommodate the different speeds between each successive wavefront.

Taking this into account it becomes clear that even though if the speed of the wave slows, because the distance between wavefronts also diminishes...the observed frequency would still remain the same over any distance. In other words the observed frequency of light would not decay over great cosmological distances in any model where light speed is asssumed to decrease over distance. And as we know this conclusion is ruled out by the observed Hubble redshift 

So my conclusion is that although yes I agree with the non expanding model of a universe, I don’t believe a slowing of light speed over distance can explain the observed decay of frequency over distance as observed in cosmological redshift.

And here is another interesting piece from the historical record quoted below. Looks like in 1929 Hubble knew “expansion” was not real. He just couldn’t attribute it to a failure of Einsteins photon model. Because Albert was just too famous to challenge. Seeing as Albert had just won the Nobel prize for saying that light does *not* lose energy/frequency over distance!

“Hubble concluded that his observed log N(m) distribution showed a large departure from Euclidean geometry, provided that the effect of redshifts on the apparent magnitudes was calculated as if the redshifts were due to a real expansion. A different correction is required if no motion exists, the redshifts then being due to an unknown cause. Hubble believed that his count data gave a more reasonable result concerning spatial curvature if the redshift correction was made assuming no recession. To the very end of his writings he maintained this position, favouring (or at the very least keeping open) the model where no true expansion exists, and therefore that the redshift "represents a hitherto unrecognized principle of nature". This viewpoint is emphasized (a) in The Realm of the Nebulae, (b) in his reply (Hubble 1937a) to the criticisms of the 1936 papers by Eddington and by McVittie, and (c) in his 1937 Rhodes Lectures published as The Observational Approach to Cosmology (Hubble 1937b). It also persists in his last published scientific paper which is an account of his Darwin Lecture (Hubble 1953).”

https://apod.nasa.gov/diamond_jubilee/1996/sandage_hubble.html

Distorted galaxies in deep field images

 Hubble has already shown us images of distorted galaxy formation in deep field images. These incidentally were not initially predicted by the BBT. However theorists now pretend this apparent isotropic evolution in galaxy shapes from the “early universe” to now is all part of the success of the predictive powers of the BBT. Presumably JWST will reveal more of these distorted galaxy shapes in the distant universe.

But can these distortions be explained in a non expanding universe? I believe it can. Using two simple methods. Firstly one must take into account optical distortion. The more distance light travels through the gas and dust filled plasma of the vacuum, the more distorted the images will be. Just as light travelling through an imperfect glass or atmospheric medium distorts light images. And this distortion of course will be isotropic. The second method relies on the simple rule of light speed in a non relativistic model of EMR. Outlined in other pages of this blog on pages like my DeSitter page in this blog. As I have said elsewhere the MMX and Sagnac experiments show us light always travels at c relative to the source. This means that if the source moves relative to the observer or vice versa the speed of light of *all the light that has ever left* the source is always still at c relative to the source. A simple example can be explained as follows: Light propagates away from a source at c. The observer moves in a circle relative to the source. Notice as the observer moves away from the source the measured light speed is slower. And when they travel towards the source the light speed increases. 

Now apply this observation to the early universe. We see a galaxy rotate from our point of view. But from a star at the edge of the galaxies POV, they see earth rotate in the sky. Lightpaths from that star are always travelling at c in a straight line towards the earth relative to the star. Whereas the earth is moving back and forth across these light paths. From the earths POV the light appears to be dragged back and forth across the sky. And the light also appears to slow down and speed up as it arrives here on earth.Even though in fact in the stars frame it is always propagating in straight lines at a constant speed c.

So in the earths frame if one then tracked the path of light from various stars around the edge of the galaxy but always kept the light travelling at c in straight lines relative to each star, then over great cosmological time frames the image of the galaxy would *appear* to warp and bend from the earths point of view. Even though in fact the galaxy itself has not warped and bent.

Redshifting as ‘tired light’ does not lose energy over distance

There seems to be a flaw in the assumption that cosmological redshift of galaxies first observed by Hubble and others in the 1920s cannot be explained by tired light because there is no explanation as to how light ‘loses’ energy over distance. The argument being a “photon” of light at 100nm has more energy than one at 200nm. But this seems to overlook a fundamental point which is that a light beam with a wavelength range of 100-200nm when redshifted to 200-400nm still has the same total energy as the rest frame emitted range. But just spread out across a range double that of the original rest frame emission range.

My question is: A source emits a constant amount of energy as EMR with a range of 100-200 nm. Will the measured total energy of that emission by an observor be the same for the rest frame beam of 100-200nm as it would be for the same beam redshifted to 200-400nm beam during the same observation time frame?

My assumption is that where 100-200 nm gets redshifted to a longer wavelength the energy is *still conserved*. Just spread out across a larger wavelength range. Contrary to and negating the argument used by Big Bang theorists that a tired light non expanding universe would have to explain how light “loses” energy.

Redshift Distance relationship in a non expanding model of the universe

 Redshift/Distance relationship for a Non expanding model

In cosmology redshift is given by the letter z.  The z to wavelength relationship in an expanding model works as follows:

A restframe source emits a wavelength range of 500-1000 nm. At z= 1 it doubles to an observed range of 1000-2000. At z=2 the range is 1500 to 3000. At z=3 the range is redshifted to 2000 to 4000 etc. The distance to the source in an expanding model is explained and given as velocity in km/s. The higher the redshift the faster it is moving away from us and the farther away it is. 

In other words the distance to a source at z=2 in an expanding model is much farther than predicted for a non expanding model because in a non expanding universe the source is not moving away from the observer on earth. So that for instance in a non expanding model a star at z=2 is twice as far away from earth as a star at z=1 is from earth.

Unfortunately to date the best confirmed real actual distance of any star from earth is much less than z=1. Which is z=0.1 to the Virgo cluster. The table below assumes distance X at z=1 is a known actual real distance and not an assumed distance related to velocity, as is the case in a Big Bang universe. 

z=0 (500nm to 1000nm ) = restframe

z= 1 (1000 to 2000)=distance A

z=3  (2000 to 4000)=distance 2xA

z=7 (4000 to 8000)=distance 3xA

z=15 (8000 to 16000)

z=31 (16000 to 32000)

z=63 (32000 to 64000)

z=127

z=255

z=511

z=1023(ie Microwave)=distance 10xA

Therefore in a non expanding universe z=1023 is only twice as far away as z=31. Or 10 times as far away as an object at z=1 

So far the current available limits of detection in optical are via the JWST mid infrared camera. ( JWST MIR camera range is 5-28 microns. Equivelent to a redshift range of z=9 to z=49)

The big question is...how far away is z=1 in a non expanding model?

That will be hard to quantify as so far only the Virgo cluster at approx z=0.001 has a known real distance. Using various methods like parralax. 

Thus in a non expanding universe the CMBR is explained as redshifted light from galaxies at and around z=1023. That is galaxies at around 10 times the distance from earth as any source observed at a distance where the light is redshifted to z=1.

The average black body spectrum of all the billions of stars in that distance parameter around z=1023 combine to give the observed CMBR. And because at that distance there is still a small variation in distribution of galaxies this also accounts for the slight graininess observed in the COBE CMBR images.

Black Holes in M87 and Sag A

 Recent news from Event Horizon Telescope consortium is a new discovery of a black hole at sag A in our Milky Way. With an image surprisingly similar to the BH in M87

Notice M87 didn’t have a mandatory accretion disc. The rather disingenuous excuse from NASA is that by some remarkeable coincidence the BH is face on to us. The only angle that an accretion disc wouldn’t show up in observations. I said back then this is a failed image of an imaginary BH with a lousy excuse to legitimise the image not having a mandatory accretion disc. 

Guess what? The BH in sag A also doesn’t have an accretion disc either. And guess what NASA’s excuse is this time? 

“If confirmed this means that from our vantage point we are looking down on Sgr A* and its ring more than we are from side-on, surprisingly similar to EHT's first target M87*.”(NASA)

Another amazing coincidence to back up a failed prediction about Black Holes by theorists? Or just an imaginary BH from a unsubstantiatable theory.

Mercury anomalous preccession: A classical explanation

Mercury anomalous preccession and the Flyby anomaly.

Newton assumes we use the center of mass to calculate F=G*(mM/r^2)

This is true in the sense that yes, with the mass of volume being considered as homogenous, the pull of gravity is definitely towards the Center of mass. But it doesn’t take into account the fact that mass is not all concentrated at a hypothetical center of volume. It, the mass, is spread across the volume. So how does this affect Newton’s orbital calculations when trying to model both planets orbital preccession and the flyby anomaly?

We already know Newtonian calculations can not account for the observed anomalous preccession, first noticed by Le Verrier, unless an additional gravitational force is added. Le Verrier assumed an additional mass inside its orbital path. Others including Einstein provided their own explanations. (Einstein invoked an additional 1/r^4 gravitational force as the source of the anomalous advance of preccession.) All supplied mathematical proofs. 

I believe a non relativistic solution is still needed. And have found a simpler explanation based on the assumption that if the suns mass is spread across its volume, rather than concentrated at its center, this effects an outcome on perehilion that is slightly different from F=G(mM/r^2)

And this effect is related to the fact that an orbiting body will experience an additional gravitational pull from what Newtons formula predicts, the closer it is to the suns volume. Based on the assumption that some of the suns mass is closer to the orbitting body than the center of the sun is to the orbiting body at perehilion. And therefore must exert an additional increase in gravitational pull as defined by F in the Newtonian formula above.

But how can this be quantified without resorting to Le Verrier or General Relativity?

I believe I can supply not only the theoretical explanation but also the mathematical calculation to explain not only the anomalous preccession of the planets. But also the flyby anomaly.

The theoretical explanation is outlined above by assuming the suns mass is distributed across its volume. Not at its center. I call this the classical model seeing as it is a non relativistic explanation.

The calculations are as follows: Assuming this effect is greatest at perehilion than this neccessitates calculating the additional gravitational force at the perehilion. Not at the semi major axis as Newton, Einstein and others assume.

I have found that a simple 1/r^2 formula using r at perehilion instead of at semi major axis gives a reliable outcome that quantifies the additional preccession at least as well if not better than  Le Verrier, Gerber or Einstein. Without needing to resort to fantasies about Vulcan or imaginary Spacetime. Altering distance r at perehilion slightly, by adding an additional distance R, gives an even more accurate formula that can be consistently applied to model all the planets anomalous preccessions.

Notice that in my version of the classic r^2 relationship between gravity and radius, the radius is not the radius of the sun. But the radius of the orbit at perehilion. The explanation for this is that the effect is based on the assumption that the anomalous preccession is directly related to the diameter of the sun vs the distance of the orbitting body from the suns center. Notice that the diameter of the sun as seen from the orbitting body is determined by r^2. (Its size in the sky as seen from the orbitting body gets smaller with distance using 1/r^2)

Where r is perehilion distance and R is radius of the sun, are the following “classical” formulae:

A)Preccessional advance in arc seconds=1/(r+R)^2

B)Preccessional advance in arcseconds= 1/(r+3R)^2

The following table shows column 1 planet, column 2 observed, column 3 predicted GRT (relativity), columns  4&5 predicted  classical model. 

Notice classical version B is more accurate even than GRT for predicting all the planets observed preccessions.

                 Observed.    GRT.           A         B

Mercury.     43.1          43.5          45.85    43.24

Venus.          8.0            8.6            8.54       8.33

Earth.            5.0           3.87          4.5         4.49

Mars.           *2.5           1.3            2.3         2.29

( Errors on Venus observed are 8.0 +-5.0)

(Source: Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 403, 1381–1391 (2010) 

[Table 1, column 9])

It is also worth pointing out that usually reference say Mars’ “observed” is 1.3. This is actually a theoretical assumption. Erroneously assumed to be consistent with the prediction made by GRT. 

In fact it is commonly accepted that only Mercury, Earth and Venus orbits can be measured to a any sufficient degree of accuracy. Not Mars or any of the other planets.

What relativist revisionists fail to mention is that total of the best measured preccession of Mars which includes any anomalous contribution is 9.0arcseconds/Century.

Of which *2.5* is an unattributable  “uncertainty”. Not 1.3

(https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-4722-z)

                

.

Big Bang, Acceleration and the cosmological constant.

 Big Bang, Acceleration and the cosmological constant.

In the 1998 the Supernova Cosmolgy Project and the Reiss et al paper (1) claims hi redshifted SN1a data shows not only expansion but acceleration in the expansion of the Big Bang. Yet an analysis of the data in the paper seems to indicate the opposite: ie no acceleration and no expansion. (Notice that an independent peer reviewed analysis (2) of similar hi redshifted SN1a shows no expansion in hi redshifted SN1a data).

The main point in the Reiss paper, hilited in italics in the paper, is that SN1a appear fainter or dimmer than expected by between 10-15% at higher redshifts. This is an odd claim considering that the Big Bang theory predicts that for the hi redshifted sample in the paper at z>1, time dilation of about 10-15% in lightcurve decays are expected. (In figure 13 of the paper it explains that ‘dimmer’ also equates to a faster decay than expected in a supernovae lightcurve.) In other words the 10-15% increase in lightcurve decays for the hi redshifted sample that the Big Bang theory predicts ...is not actually observed!

Of course it all depends on what exactly Reiss was referring to in figure 13 when it says that fainter or dimmer supernovae are those which are also decaying faster.

Yet not only does the paper and the Big Bang theory predict that SN1a data will show time dilation due to expansion, which it doesn’t, it also pretends that the reason why this predicted time dilation was not observed...was because a previous un predicted and anomalous acceleration of expansion is occurring in the universe from about 7 billion years to present. Due to a change in the cosmological constant. 

 A Sneaky way to make no time dilation observed in hi and low redshifted SN1a data...look like it was still predicted by the Big Bang theory.

1)Reiss et al 1998. “Observational evidence from supernovae for an accelerating universe and cosmological constant”

2)http://physicsexplained.blogspot.com/2015/10/supernova-light-curves-fit-non.html

James Webb observations contradict Big Bang Theory predictions

 Getting closer now to the JWST observing galaxies in a new deep field survey that were not predicted explained or even expected from the Big Bang Theory.

But how will the BB theorists get out of admitting their theory and its predictions screwed up (again)?

Brian Cox has led the way for the new revisionist version of BBT and has explained on his BBC religious program “Universe” exactly how the new upcoming JWST data and current data on large scale structures that until now cannot be explained by the BBT, can be made consistent with current dogma.

Apparently Brian and his fellow BBT fantasists are going to pretend the galaxies and large scale structures  that shouldn’t be there in the so called “early universe” predicted by these BBT nutters (and soon to be observed by the JWST) are “echoes” of the previous Big Bang.

And in an extra footnote to the whole BBT hoax here is a quote below from the historical record showing Hubble himself didn’t think redshift was due to expansion. Because in 1929 Hubble knew “expansion” was not real. He just couldn’t attribute it to a failure of Einsteins photon model. Because Albert was just too famous to challenge having just won the Nobel prize for pretending photons could not lose energy over distance. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1921/summary/

“Hubble concluded that his observed log N(m) distribution showed a large departure from Euclidean geometry, provided that the effect of redshifts on the apparent magnitudes was calculated as if the redshifts were due to a real expansion. A different correction is required if no motion exists, the redshifts then being due to an unknown cause. Hubble believed that his count data gave a more reasonable result concerning spatial curvature if the redshift correction was made assuming no recession. To the very end of his writings he maintained this position, favouring (or at the very least keeping open) the model where no true expansion exists, and therefore that the redshift "represents a hitherto unrecognized principle of nature". This viewpoint is emphasized (a) in The Realm of the Nebulae, (b) in his reply (Hubble 1937a) to the criticisms of the 1936 papers by Eddington and by McVittie, and (c) in his 1937 Rhodes Lectures published as The Observational Approach to Cosmology (Hubble 1937b). It also persists in his last published scientific paper which is an account of his Darwin Lecture (Hubble 1953).”

CERN particle Myth

Since the early part of the 20th C theoretical physics has using the standard model, attempted to describe the nature of atoms and light as being particulate. Ignoring the fact that almost all other scientific observations point to radiation being wave only and atoms as being only wave like resonating points in space. The only observation supporting the particle model are the observed "particle like" paths seen in cloud and bubble chambers and particle accelerator collisions. This video shows how the traditional explanation that these paths can only be caused by particles, to be a false assumption. By overlapping only 3 expanding wavefronts in 3 dimensions, all straight,curved, split,spiral,positive and negative paths observed in cloud chambers can be succesfully modeled using overlapping wavefronts only. I have produced a video of my own theoretical model of how particles are “created” in cloud chambers showing digital simulations of 3 expanding wavefronts and how they can recreate most if not all the observed "particle paths" seen in colliders.

  https://youtu.be/uU6VMPeuxRo 

I challenge anyone in the particle physics community: Give me a “particle path” and I’ll show you how it can be made by three overlapping wavefronts. No need for particles. Just as there was no need for an earth centered universe.

James Webb Space Telescope is expected to observe mature galaxy formation in early universe

Looking forward to having the JWST confirm the following observations. That mature galaxies are observed in any new deep field survey of the distant universe. Confounding the current predictions of BB theorists that JWST would confirm their predictions that no early mature galaxy formations would be observed in any new deep field survey conducted by the JWST. Note the theoretical physicists who have to date predicted that the JWST would see no new or early galaxy formation will rapidly make up new excuses to explain the failure of the BB model and its predictions. They will say...that they had predicted these galaxies in the early universe!! My guess is they will invoke "distortion of time itself in the early era of the Big Bang universe " to explain why the JWST observed mature galaxies where none were predicted previously by the BBT. Separate to this is my expectation that the JWST will also observe what I predicted on this blog for a decade and more and also as far back as 2001 on my www.gammarayburst.com webpage. That in the near and far infrared the delay in peak flux of gammarayburst afterglows will occur later and in longer wavelengths. A delay that will be Proportional to wavelength. The same wavelength/time delay relationship as seen in current observed Fast radio burst(FRB)decays in radio. Described currently on the wiki FRB page as: "The component frequencies of each burst are delayed by different amounts of time depending on the wavelength". In 2001 I described this expected delay as "proportional to wavelength". I expect this wavelength/delay in peak flux of GRB afterglows to be observed by JWST whenever it finally comes online later this year Why do I say this? Because the literature on the JWST suggests that it can observe multiple points simultaneously in its field of view at any wavelength of the electromagnetic spectrum within near and far infrared wavelengths. I assume this means the programmers of the JWST can observe GRB afterglows, if they feel inclined, in multiple wavelength observations from the *SAME* point in the sky simultaneously in different parts of the near and far infrared emr spectrum. My prediction is if they do make these observations of GRB afterglows they will not only confirm my models predictions, but also not be consistent with current established theory. Nor will they be able to explain these observations without admitting that their theoretical assumptions of a constant speed of light in all frames has been proved incorrect.

Supernova Light curves fit a non expanding model

Supernova (Sn1a) lightcurves have been used to illustrate time dilation due to the Big Bang expansion. This is an argument that has failed to follow a rigorous scientific method. The authors of these papers should have also tried to see if the observed lightcurve data fits a non expanding, z=0 model.  Using data from Knop et al 2003 I have created graphs of lightcurves where there is no expansion (z=0).  The following graphs are Knops dilated lightcurve graphs on the left and  for comparison, graphs of undilated fits on the right. These show how the data can also fit a non expanding model.