Cassini data does not rule out refraction of EMR waves

 Contrary to numerous claims that Cassini data rules out refraction as the source of observed time delays, Bertotti et al (1993 & 2003) actually never did ANY analysis to test and rule out refraction. 

In fact as the papers authors, Bertotti et al 2003 admit in section 3.1, the two seperate frequencies measured for time delay by Cassini had to be combined together using algorithms. Because each frequency on its own was far too messy due to intense coronal variation. In other words data from each channel was not ever even available for testing of refraction. In his 1993 or 2003 papers

Bertotti admits in his 1993 Cassini paper that at no point is refraction between frequencies tested for. As he combines the two observed Ka and X frequencies into one mixed band for analysis.  

As a “mixed optical” path as described in his 1993 paper. Which is then compared to *hypothetical* time delays predicted by GR theory and *assumptions* of electron column properties. 

(Bertotti also does this in his closed loop 2003 arxiv paper and admits the data from Ka is discontinuous and the corona is too variable to analyse as two seperate frequencies. )

Three way link yes, but still only 2 frequencies. Just smaller error margins. And the Ka and X bands are then combined by calculation. Notice that the 2 dispersive and 1 non dispersive parts are not measured seperately. They are ‘Calculations’ based on theoretical assumptions. 

And combined to see if they fit the observed time delay from the combined Ka and X frequency bands. As described in the various 4 sections of the 1993 paper cited above. 

Bertotti et al, 1993 Astron. Astrophys. 269, 608–616 1993 

A paper referenced in both the arxiv and Nature 2003 papers.

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.

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.

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)

                

.