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.

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.

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)

                

.

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.

The c+v hoax

Since SR was first conceived it has been assumed that classical theory cannot explain various phenomena like Sagnac, Ives Stilwell and the deSitter double star experiment. The claim being that light leaving a rotating or moving source travels at c+v in the inertial frame. That being the lab frame in Sagnac or the earth frame in de Sitter. This is an incorrect assumption made by supporters of relativity to rule out a classical model. Leaving SR as the only viable alternative. Analysis of this assumption shows it to be false.
Take the De Sitter example. ( De Sitter, Willem (1913), "On the constancy of the velocity of light", Proceedings of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Science, 395-396 ). In the currently available wiki page we have the quote: "According to simple emission theory, light thrown off by an object should move at a speed of c with respect to the emitting object". The authors of this page then proceed to contradict this statement by describing the exact opposite and say it travels at constant c+v in the inertial earth frame. This is a mathematical impossibility. If as relativists admit light must always travel at c in the source frame. It is impossible to have light travelling at a constant c+v speed in a inertial frame if one calculates using a Galilean transformation. To satisfy classicals constant c in a source frame it must be variable in the inertial frame. And in the accompanying java applet animation they actually show light leaving the source at *a variable speed* with respect to the source. In other words they have ignored the fact that they have just admitted classical theory only has light travelling at constant c relative to the source as it moves or rotates.
It is worth pointing out here that Classical theory of light does not have light at constant speed c in all frames. Only in the source frame. This is a fundamental aspect of Classical theory developed over many years prior to the inception of SR. Experiments such as MMX have only helped to confirm this property of light. The same mistake is made by relativists for the Sagnac theory in respect to Classical predictions. Here too the erroneous assumption is that light is c+v in the lab frame. Ignoring the fact that light should only be at constant speeds in the source frame. Regardless of the fact it rotates in the lab. If one looks at the Michelson Morley experiment from 1887 we observe light at constant speeds in all directions in the lab frame. Not in the inertial earth frame that the earth rotates in. This means that as the MMX rotates around the earths axis, light must be travelling at constant speeds in the rotating frame. Any Galilean translation to the inertial frame, as too with the rotating source in deSitter, will not give a constant speed in the inertial frame. Contrary to the claims of constant c+v in the inertial frame made by relativists. If one calculates speeds correctly for classical theory it becomes obvious that in fact light is variable in the inertial frame for Sagnac and deSitter among others and DOES not pile up on arriving at earth in deSitter. And CAN give a fringe shift in the rotating Sagnac source.
Examples of this are given as simulations in the video channel accompanying the blog channel "physics explained" for this article.
https://youtube.com/channel/UCcCBqQ2VHaWLL3Gzb8dIk-w
Further to this, some relativists claim that in fact light is variant in the MMX lab frame and that this therefore rules out the possibility that light is invariant and therefore constant only in the MMX lab frame. And by inference all other rotating source frames. Their argument is that although to date this claim they make hasn't actually been observed, the effect is there but too small to measure! This is basically suggesting that they believe that confirmed observation is overidden by unsubstantiated assumption. Not a very scientific approach on their part considering they usually insist verification by observation is of tantamount importance for any theoretical validity. As it turns out their assumptions about current experimental evidence not being sensitive enough to this 'imaginary' invariance appear to be false anyways. Because their assumptions are based on the assumptions made in 1887 that the aether winds effect on path difference was velocity of earth diluted by the refractive index of this in a theoretical aether
https://youtube.com/watch?v=7X8wlbXFaMo
In other words the aether wind was less than v of earth through the aether because it's refractive index reduced its effect. Whereas to test whether light is at c in the inertial or source frame, one does not have m take into account the refractive index of any aether and rather, just perform a straight Galilean translation from one frame to the other without invoking a refractive index. The following experiments are usually proposed by relativists to falsely claim that light cannot be only at c relative to its source. Contrary to relativists claims, they ARE all consistent with the prediction by classical theory that light is observed to travels at c relative to its source.
EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE:
IVES STILLWELL:
As explained in separate posts on this blog site, the Ives Stillwell experiment IS consistent with classical, and in fact invalidates SR. Contrary to claims made by relativists. And is probably the best classical style experiment to show this. Essentially to get the correct observed fringe offset, one needs to correctly calculate c+v. As opposed to relying on the erroneous calculations and assumptions made by Ives Stillwell. Correct calculations are supplied elsewhere on this blog in the relevant Ives Stillwell posts. If the only way to get the observed offset is to calculate using c+v, then it is impossible to have light at c as SR neccesitates to produce the observed offset. The SR calculations must then have been falsified to achieve the same result as classical. Probably some sort of lorentzian transformation to falsify data is used as SR does with Fizeau.
ALVAGER:
This is possibly the most audacious falsification of experimental data ever attempted by relativists. Essentially their argument is that a theoretical particle, the neutral pion, is the moving source for the observed gamma rays observed to travel at c in the experiment. As it turns out, neutral pions are assumed only and cannot nor ever actually have been observed experimentally. Their presumed existence relies solely on the observations of yes, you guessed it, gammarays observed in colliders in this very experiment.
Essentially what IS observed in this experiment are only gammarays travelling at c emitted by the non moving beryllium target. Perfectly consistent with classical theory which predicts emr will always only be observed to travel at c relative to its source. Relativists, desperate to discredit the obvious consistency of the experimental results with classical physics have invented an imaginary unsubstantiated particle that is emitted at near c by the target and then supposedly emits the observed gamma radiation. It is also worth pointing out the existence of these and other imaginary particles are in fact part of the standard model. Which itself is a theoretical framework based on false assumptions made by quantum theory about wave particle duality. An assumption about emr that has no substantiation. The photon is never actually observed, but only inferred. Either by scintillation or by photodetectors. Processes which themselves are easily explainable by a wave only classical theory of light. Utilising resonance to describe wave only light being absorbed or quantised in discreet amounts by the atoms in the detectors. FILIPPAS AND FOX: ( Velocity of Gamma Rays from a Moving Source, T.A. Filipas and J.G. Fox, Phys.Rev. 135, B1071). In this experiment it's not clear how curves A and B are calculated in the paper. No supporting calculations or assumptions are made to explain how exactly they have derived "incorrect" curves to invalidate classical theory. But a fundamental problem here is the assumption of photon pairs. Classical theory does not incorporate the concept photons or photon pairs. Light is a wave. Like Alvager any predictions can be identified as false assumptions for any classical model.
BECKMANN MANDICS:
Here the problem is simple. Light as a wave is not known to gain or lose velocity from reflection. Hence classical wave theory would also predict c in the lab seeing as the source is not moving. (Even if we were to assume additive velocities for wave reflection... why would the non moving lloyds mirror not return the speed to c again. It doesn't move relative to the interferometer.)
BABCOCK BERGER AND KANTOR:
Here we have another false assumption. The source window rotates. This means the speed for classical is NOT c+v. But rather variable. Data on window speed and design are not supplied and thus Calculations for the windows rotation need to be made to confirm what the average v would be for classical. But the conclusion would have to be much less than the assumed v as the rotating window as a source varies between 0 and v relative to the forward motion of the beam. Note there is an "unexplainable" fringe shift observed anyways in the experiment. Consistent with a slower than assumed source speed. At the very least these experiments are not conclusive either way.