Ives Stillwell modelled as a classical effect

The predicted doppler shift for classical theory is calculated by relativists using... W1=W(1+-v/c). Where W1 is observed doppler shifted wavelength and W is restframe wavelength.
So if v were 0.5c and W was 100 nm, then approaching blueshifted light would be 50 nm and receding would be 150 nm. Which is what relativists call a null result for classical theory ( ie, wavelength change is the same amount for both red and blueshifted in classical). Hence the well used argument that classical theory cannot correctly model the observed offset displacement in the spectra in the Ives Stillwell experiment.
This is incorrect. If v is+- 0.5 c then the total observed speed of the blueshifted light under classical theory is 1.5 c and for redshifted light it is 0.5 c.
Now if if one looks at the the redshifted lightspeed first: It is 1/2 the speed of the restframe light. If the restframe wavelength is 100 nm at c then at 1/2 c it will appear to be the same as 200 nm light at c ( thats the appearance of double the wavelength for half the frequency) And for the blueshifted light; 100 nm at 1.5c will appear to be the same as 66.66 nm of light at c in the spectrograph. In other words classical theory actually predicts that a restframe wavelength of 100 nm will have its observed wavelength stretched by 100 nm when receding at 0.5 c but ONLY compressed by approximately 33.33 nm when approaching.
On the linear scale this would give an offset, not a null result. And this is observed in Ives Stillwell.
(It is important to remember that the actual wavelength under the classical model doesnt change. But the frequency does, which makes it appear as if the wavelength has changed.)

Delayed Choice Classical Eraser Experiment

The main illustration above is a schematic of the Delayed choice quantum eraser experiment. (Kim et al 1999)

The coincidence rates compiled from the 5 detectors can be explained by a classical model. By assuming the following: The light arriving at D0, D3, and D4 is vertically and horizontally polarized. Alternating between the two states once per frequency cycle of the light beam. (Circular polarization is one possibility). Each polarized state has its own associated interference pattern. The image on the movable detector plane of D0 is of two, overlapping, out of phase interference patterns rapidly oscillating between each other. Once per frequency cycle of the light. The overall superimposed image of the two overlapping patterns, over time, is of no overall interference pattern. 

The lightbeams arriving at D1 and D2 have been additionally plane polarized. One vertical one horizontally. This also puts the horizontal out of phase by half a cycle, temporaly, from the vertical.Thus essentially, the detectors D1 and D2 each only recieve half of the light pulse that leaves the beam splitter. Either vertical or horizontally polarized. This allows detectors D1 and D2 to only trigger light detections coincident with a light detection from only one of the two rapidly oscillating interference patterns at D0. 

Detectors D3 and D4 on the other hand, receive both vertical and horizontal plarized light. And thus detectors D3 and D4 have coincident detections with both overlapping oscllating interference patterns at D0.

This is what is observed in the Kim et al experimental setup.

There is no need for a counterintuitive "quantum erasure". The observed coincidence rates are explained simply by polarization states of light incident on the 5 detectors.

(Sept2021 postscript: Ive noticed from some comments that a more detailed explanation is needed. Here is additional information: This experiment is as easily explained using classical wave only theory and polarised states. Light leaves the double slit/BBO/Glan Thompson prism with alternating polarity between vertical and horizontal.

(This is essentially circular polarised light. Because if the two beams going to detector zero werent alternating between horizontal and vertical polarised light each cycle and instead were just two same plane polarised beams as some pretend, then the two phase shifted interference patterns and diffraction patterns observed at detector 0 would not be possible) 

Detectors 1 and 2 get two light beams each. One beam reflected twice which means the light incident on each detector is a combination of left and right hand circular polarised light beams. Which can only result in plane polarised light hitting each detector 1&2.  (Note that if one combines a left handed circular polarised beam with a right handed circular polarised beam the combined result is a beam that alternates between two opposing polarised states and plane polarisation each cycle. That is effectively plane polarised light.

Because the D1 beams undergo opposite reflections at the mirrors and beam splitters from the D2 beams...the two detectors 1&2 thus also each receive polarised light that is phase shifted by half cycle from the other. Ie..vertical and horizontal respectively.

Detectors 3 and 4 only get one beam reflected once, each.(The one reflection restores the polarity of the beams from orthogonally polarised circular light leaving the BBO/G-T prism setup back to identically circular polarisation. Which means they get the same phase light as that arriving at detector zero. 

The resulting polarised states mean D1&2 each only “observe at Detector Zero” via the coincidence counter two seperate phase shifted interference patterns from the other .And detectors 3 & 4, having the same incident polarised light as detector zero , observe diffraction patterns via the coincidence counter. 

No spooky quantum mumbo jumbo  maths needed to explain this experiment.

And finally to address claims that the Glan Thompson prism used in the experiment cannot send circular polarised light beams to the rest of the experimental setup. Critics cite evidence showing that similar birefringement mediums such as calcite crystals split the beam into two orthogonally plane polarised beams. And using plane polarisation filters they show how the two exiting light beams must be only plane polarised. As a plane polarised filter put over the two images only allows through one of the two images coming through the calcite filter. 

However this ignores the fact that a vertically plane polarising filter allows through not just vertical polarised light...but all angles except horizontal. So for instance around 45% of the light polarised at 45 degrees to vertical is let through a vertically polarised filter. The more the polarisation angle of the light deviates from vertical the less light is let through etc.

In other words a circular polarised beam will be split into two polarised beams by the crystal one beam preserving majority vertical, one majority horizontal. But still containing elements of all other angles of polarisation. And thus the circular polarisation of the beam is preserved.

Proof of this is available at any demonstration showing unpolarised light going through two plane polarised filters. Position both filters at vertical and all vertically polarised light from a source goes through, and blocking all horizontal polarised light. Turn one filter slowly to horizontal and the light coming through decreases to zero as both vertical and horizontal light from the source are now blocked. Light coming through doesn’t immediately decrease to zero as soon as the two polarised filters angle starts to diverge. It is an incremental decrease. Proving a plane or linear polarising filter still lets through almost all angles of polarisation. But at different amplitudes. 

This is how one can explain how two circular polarised light beams can appear as two plane polarised beams exiting the Glan Thompson prism.

For further description of how this can be modelled as a classical effect only, watch the following...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KekfbrzO74

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

Gamma ray bursts and Fast radio bursts: A Theoretical model

Gammaraybursts and Fast Radio Bursts: A Classical Model.
This page was originally published 2000-2014 at gammarayburst.com

The following description of a GRB model can also be used to explain
more recent FRB observations. Essentially a FRB is a very fast GRB where
wavelengths shorter than radio are too short in duration to be observed.

In a non expanding universe of infinite age and size, observors should see
emr from all directions and from great cosmological distances. This assumes
a non Big Bang universe  not conforming to the laws of relativity. At these
scales some stellar sources will actually be moving away from the earth at
speeds greater than c. The earth then must be travelling away from the
source, at speeds greater than c and we would therefore overtake this light
and "see" the light in reverse. That is, what appears to be a flash above us is
actually light we are overtaking from the opposite direction below our feet.
Much as a fast boat can overtake slower waves on water and the waves
appear to be coming towards the observer in the prow of the boat when
in fact they are travelling in the same direction as the boat but at a slower
speed. Taking into account the assumption that we would always be
decellerating in relation to the source of the light, the burst would first
be seen as more blue shifted (at the gamma end of the spectrum) and as
time progresses observations in longer wavelengths would be observed.
So the original gamma lightcurve profile would be seen stretched out
over longer time frames in longer wavelengths . If the burst was for
20 seconds in gamma and 200 in optical and then it would be seen for
2000 sec in radio. But always show the same distinctive profile for each
burst in various parts of the observed spectrum.
For a brief visual explanation of this see..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLSfmvFcLB8

The model I describe here predicts that the afterglows in different parts
of the emr spectrum will be similar in profile to that of the gammaray
lightcurve, but with different timescales. This is consistent with all
observations and shown in the illustration below. The graph below shows
this in data from grb 970508. Using gamma, optical and radio observations.
The prediction would be that other unmeasured lightcurves like x-rays
would also have similar profiles as their counterpart in gamma.
The shorter the wavelength the shorter the timescale. That is; in x ray
the burst duration would be shorter than optical and longer than gamma.
In the comparison graph below, between the 3 lightcurves,  a self
similarity of lightcurve profiles from different parts of the emr spectrum
is observed. The length of the afterglow is directly proportional to the
wavelength. It also indicates that if  gamma and optical burst time lengths
very were small, on the order of smaller than milliseconds. Then in radio,
these bursts would be observed having time scales in millisconds. And
that there would be measurable delays between shorter and longer
radio wavelengths. This is confirmed by recent Fast Radio Burst
observations.

 

 
 

Fractal Atomic numbers

 

The illustration/graph compilations on this page highlite the

similarities  between features in the graphs of atomic number

vs. element conductivity.  Repeating patterns and self

similarity between small and large sections  of the original

red graph suggest a fractal element to the arrangement

of  atomic numbers and their associated properties.

Initially consider the the four highest conducting elements

(Be, Al, Cu, Ag and Au) They increase their atomic numbers

at very near the same  rate as the increase seen in the noble

gases  The increases are shown in the example below .

For instance, between Ag and Au the increase in conductivity

is 32. Note the same increase in atomic number, 32, is

seen in the noble gases between Xe and Ra...

Be(4)    Al (13)  Cu(29)  Ag (47)  Au ( 79) - best conductors

         9            16       18         32

Ne(10)  Ar(18)   Kr( 36)  Xe (54)  Ra (86)  - noble gases

         8           18        18        32
 

In the illustrations supplied the original graph of element

conductivity vs atomic number is in red. Overlayed in the

illustrations are graphs of various repeating patterns. These

graph sections are taken from the original red graph and

either placed size as in different parts of  the illustration

or enlarged or reduced and repositioned onto the red graph

to show similarities in profile.
In the first illustration these samples are labelled as sets
1 to 5 in the table below. For instance, sets 3,4 and 5 show
how the main peaks in the red conductivity graph between
Calcium (20) and Copper (29),  are in fact a repeating
pattern found in other parts of the red graph.
Also, set 1 shows how the section from the  main red graph 

between Be (4) and Ag (47) , once enlarged , very closely

matches that of the section in the main red graph between

Be (4)  and  Au (79).
In the second illustration a section from the red graph up to
atomic number of Ag is stretched to 2 different sizes and
re-overlayed onto the red graph to show how a fractal element
can be seen in small and large sections of the red graph

 

 

Set 1

Be  Ca  Cu  Ag  Au

4    20   29   47  79

matches

Be  Al   Ca  Cu  Ag

4    13  20   29   47

Set 2

Cu  Rb  Mo  Ag

29  37   42   48

matches

Ca  Cr  Co  Cu

20  24  27   29

REPEATING PATTERNS...

Set 3

Ca  Cr  Co  Cu

20  24  2 7   29

matches

Be -     Na   Al

4    -     11  13

Set 4

Ca  Cr  Co  Cu

20  24  27  29

matches

Rb  Mo  Rh  Ag

37   42  45  48

Set 5

Ca  Cr  Co  Cu

20  24  27  29

matches

Yb  W  Ir    Au

70  74  77  79

 

 

How the ancients cut their stone slabs

There are stones found in prehistoric sites that are unusually smooth and flat.
With joins that have very tight fits. And very flat outer surfaces. There are two
possible low-tech methods that I thought could explain the flatness and
smoothness of the stones The first is a method I saw as kid on an NFB short
about Inuit igloo making skills. As the blocks of hardened snow have to be snug
fit and at odd angles due to the dome shape, the Inuit rough cut the hardened
snow blocks with little metal hand saws ( the snow is  easy to cut).
They then rough fit them in place and then using the saw they saw up and down
in the joining space between the blocks. Slowly removing any uneven surfaces
on either block. The result is a tight fit at the right angle.
Although rock is a different harder material I thought a similar technique could
be used. Rough cut the blocks. Put in place, and then between the two blocks that
need fitting, insert a large metal saw and start cutting up and down in the crack.
Every so often opening up the space between the two blocks and blowing out the
sandy residue.
Theoretically this would, like the igloo snow blocks, remove any unevenness
between the blocks and presumably give a join that's straight and snug.

The second is how to get a flat outer face on the large slabs. One idea I had
was based on the milling stones that grind flour...Place the rough cut
5 X 10 foot slab that needs to be smoothed onto the ground. With the face up
that needs to be flattened and smoothed. Then place on top, a large circular
milling stone preferably already sufficiently flat. Make it 10 foot diameter
with a handle(s) on its perimeter inserted to allow slaves to rotate and grind
the slab underneath. Although Ive never tried this myself I think it might give
a flat surface if enough circular grinding is applied to the lower slab. It may
be important to *not* allow the circular grinding stone to always rotate on the
same spot as this may not give such a flat finish.

A neodium magnet falling through a copper pipe has its rate of descent, through the pipe, slowed. An effect similar to a magnet being pushed through a copper solenoid. Inserted here is a 3 drawing illustration showing top and 3/4 views of an experimental setup that tries to duplicate the copper pipes` "electro"-magnetic interaction on the falling magnet. In these illustrations Ive tried to replicate the effect of copper being moved past the magnet by having 5 rotating copper rimmed wheels with their rims pointing inwards in a star pattern as best seen in the top view section of the illustration.

The intent of this design is to try to rotate all 5 of the copper rimmed wheels at the same steady speed. Fast enough to levitate the magnet. Presumably varying the speed of rotation will change the height of the magnet . Not included in these illustrations is a means by which to constrain the magnet from flipping or moving away from the central axis , marked x in the illustrations. To do this maybe a vertical transparent plastic tube around the magnet could be added. To keep the magnet positioned above the axis but free to move up and down.