GRB 190114C

GRB 190114C
The highest energy light from a GRB has been observed in this burst with energies up to 1 TeV.
This confirms a prediction made more than 20 years ago using a model that also first predicted that rebrightenings in the light curve in longer wavelengths would also be observed. This has since been confirmed as a normal feature in GRBs. This model also first predicted that GRBs can be much longer and much shorter. In fact since then very short GRBs have now been confirmed but erroneously assumed to be a seperate phenomena known as FRBs.
My model also first and correctly predicted more than 20 years ago that the rate of evolution of the bursts would follow a distinct profile of a decay from high to low energies proportional to wavelength. ( described in wiki as " The component frequencies of each burst are delayed by different amounts of time depending on the wavelength.)
This model predicts that the same evolution/ time lag in the burst profile is visible in all wavelengths longer (and shorter) than gamma in all GRBs. But due to limited data in longer wavelength observations to date, this has not yet been accepted as fact. In particular in optical this feature should be notable. That is if observed in multiple optical wavelengths simultaneously, rebrightenings will be observed to being delayed slightly later in longer optical wavelengths compared to the same rebrightening seen in shorter optical wavelengths.
In fact contrary to current understanding, as the following links show, this self similar lightcurve profile in all observed wavelengths is indeed now seen in the data. But not yet accepted by the science community because it is considered not possible under current theory ( including relativity)
One problem of not having sufficient data being that Swift is not able to simultaneously observe in multiple optical wavelengths. But rather always in one optical wavelength at a time. When a satelitte that is able to observe simultaneously in multiple optical wavelengths from UV through IR to G this prediction made by my model will be verified.
(Unfortunately in 2000 a paper outlining this model and first and correctly predicting all these attributes described above and later and subsequently observed in GRB data was submitted but not accepted for publication in Nature. Due to "lack of substantiating and quantifying data"!)
Theoretical overview GRB
GRB and FRB theoretical overview
Video description 1
Video description 2
Video description 3
Video description 4

Wave interference: Creating true 3D using LCD technology

Wave interference: 3D LCD viewer


A commonly observed interference pattern is one seen through overlapping grid mesh fences as one moves past them. If there is another fence or grid like screen behind the front fence, as one moves past the system an overlapping pattern of moving dark and light interference patterns are observed. Interference patterns created as light travels through the grid patterns of the fences to your moving eye.
Similar to effects described in optics where the interference patterns made from overlapping incident waves are observed on a screen. Young interference fringes being the classic example.
An example of moving interference fringes from 2 overlapping grid mesh screens can be seen at...
3D image
3D images

The resulting observed interference patterns of overlapping grids as shown in the above fence description depend on what grid pattern is particular to each of the two overlapping grids.
So for instance two overlapping grids consisting of vertical bars will create to the distant viewer interference patterns of much larger light and dark bars.
Or, two overlapping grids made of a cross mesh of horizontal and vertical strands will give to a distant viewer an image of much larger square grid pattern.
My experience is that two identical overlapping grid patterns about two meters apart and consisting of grid square meshes of about 2 inches spacing between wires, when seen by an observer from a distance of 100 feet approx will give interference square grid patterns of about ten times the size of the initial 2 grids


How to use this effect to make a standalone 3D image screen. I.e. A 3D tv screen that is an image from a screen that supplies the 3D image to the viewer who sits at a distance from the screen without the viewer needing 3D goggles.

Basically duplicate the effect mentioned above of the overlapping fences of grid mesh patterns. But on a MUCH a smaller scale using LCD technology.
So instead of:
A)two grids of 20cm spaced vertical and horizontal wires, each grid spaced two meters apart from the other and viewed by an observer at 200 meters distance.
One has:
B) two overlapping transparent LCD screens each with grid image of vertical and horizontal lines each spaced .02mm apart, each screen spaced approx .02 cm apart and observed by a viewer at 20 cm distance.
Provided each LCD was transparent and both are backlit by the same source a 3D image of a much larger grid pattern than the two overlapping LCD screens should be observable.
Moving or changing the grid on one layer relative to the other should give animated motion to the observed interference patterns.
Presumably complex moving overlapping patterns on each LCD grid would give complex and or realistic effects of images in 3D to the viewer.
Without the need for 3D goggles.

Magnetism: polarity.The atom as a resonating system

How to explain why an atom has polarity in its N-S magnetic field. Other pages here on this blog show how an atom is comprised of multiple overlapping nodes of different resonant frequencies. As shown in illustration below which has waves of one frequency converging into central nodal point. That point being the theoretical center of the atom.

The illustration gives a depth to the standing wave as it would appear to be in water where incoming waves are observed to create vertical standing waves. However for atoms the waves have no depth as they are oscillating north and south magnetic fields.
The north south polarity of the standing wave in an emr based atom would then be observed to oscillate back and forth at many times per second. Dictated by the different incoming frequency of radiation.

Of course the argument would then be that an atoms N-S polarity is not observed to oscillate between north and south....this doesn't explain polarity of each end of the axis of magnetism nor does it explain how such a model could explain opposing n-n fields for instance.
But maybe it could. One possibility is that any atom that oscillates at one frequency will always be north or south along that vertical axis. So any other nearby atom that oscillates in the same frequency but opposing polarity ( pointing down when the other atom points up) would be forced or force the two to reoriente so that they were both oscillating at the same frequency with the same polarity in the same direction.. The polarity being that both would have to be oriented so that generally both point up or down *at the same time*.
So in summary, all atoms oscillate their magnetic fields rapidly between north and south. And the observed polarity comes from when an atoms north south field is oscillating at the same time or opposite to an adjacent atom.
If at the same time then both atoms will orient themselves along the same axis. If opposite then the two will orient themselves on the same axis but one will flip over so that its north is always up when the others North Pole is also up.

Seperate to this is another possible explanation of which I have more recently contemplated. If wave electromagnetic radiation from the rest of the infinitely large universe creates the standing  wave of the atom at one point in space. Then this radiation  could be only from sources where the motion of the source is away from the atom. And travelling away at a speed of exactly c, Creating a non moving wave that overlaps with non moving standing waves from other directions. (This method is easier to explain in video simulation of which I hope to soon make available. But if one looks at the above illustration. Rather than having the emr waves travelling through the center point and creating an oscillating North South polarity at its center, imagine instead those waves in the above illustration are from sources moving away at c. And thus are standing still rather than moving through the center point of the atom. Creating a magnetic pole where North always points in the same direction.) The advantage of this model is there is no oscillating waves creating the nodal center point of the atom. So the north south polarity doesn’t change and is consistent with current observations of atoms. Which always have a non changing N-S polarity. (Unlike the rapidly oscillating N-S polarisation described above in the first model on this blogpost..)

Freestanding Stereo viewer

Illustration in perspective view. Box with open top. And square cut out of front side to allow person standing in front of box opening to see both mirrored images simultaneously. Stereo images are on either end of box, either back lit in a closed box or top lit in open box, and combined by reflecting in mirrors and projecting into freestanding viewers eyes. In this experimental version box is about 2 foot long and combined stereo image plane about 1 and a 1/2 foot in front of side opening in box.

Concept was to be able to duplicate mirrored setup with long rows of angled mirrored ridges reflecting stereo image into freestanding viewers eyes. Noticed MEMS technology could make this technologically possible on an industrial scale.

Faraday Wheel: Induction

Although all textbook references say that a current is not induced in a traditional Faraday wheel when just the magnet rotates and the wheel doesn't, this must be a false assumption. Otherwise, one of the basic laws of induction would be violated. There must be a current induced, but it's just too small to register. Possibly due to the resistance of the entire body of the conducting wheel between the two electrical contacts of the external circuit. Although it's worth noting that experimental tests of the Faraday paradox show only low level noise measured, the noise appears to have a polarity. Ie it is negative when the magnet is rotated in one direction. Unfortunately to date only one direction of magnet rotation is performed. It would be interesting to have further tests to be made to see if the noise does indeed show polarity. By measuring the noise from both clockwise and counterclockwise rotation of the magnet and see if the noise shows polarity.
To show that a current must be being induced in the conducting disc the following experiment should be performed. Take for example the traditional Faraday wheel shown at the top of the page of this link....
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homopolar_generator
(In particular note the external N-S magnetic field is only located at one point on the edge of the disc.)
Remove the conducting wheel from the lab setup. Replace that with a single conducting wire bridging the gap between the contacts at the axle and rim of the setup. This single conducting wire now connects to and completes the external circuit. Now perform the experiment again by rotating just the magnet. According to the laws of induction, every time the magnet passes over the outer end of the conducting wire, there should be a brief electrical current induced. Belying the assumption that no current is induced in the Faraday wheel when just the magnet rotates. Or if as in modern day experiments the magnet is a single disc magnet, then rotating it will give a constant induced current in the conducting wire.
Additionally if one were to position as many possible seperate conducting wires as possible, like spokes on a wheel, radiating out from the central axis to contacts at the periphery of the wheel, and each insulated from the other at the centre. One should then get multiple spikes of direct current in succession from each spoke as the magnet rotates around the stationary wheel, in the traditional faraday setup. Or constant direct currents where the magnet is a circular disc magnet.

Earths Mysterious Hum: A possible explanation

Looking recently at the National Geographic article about the "hum" detected from the earth. A hum of roughly 4.5 millihertz observed at any point on the earths mantle.
Possible sources for the hum mentioned in the article were waves and wind. In the following I offer a new original( at the time of writing) and alternative explanation based on the rotation of the earths liquid inner core as it rubs against the harder more brittle outer mantle. And produces the hum, much as a finger rubbing on a glass rim produces a sound.

If one studies the system of running a finger around a glass rim. A resonant tone is produced by the friction of your finger against the glass rim as it goes around the rim. As you rub your finger on the rim your finger alternatively sticks and slides in very rapid succession. Which produces a vibration in the glass. The generally accepted theory is that it is the vibrating molecules in the glass which resonate at a certain frequency in unison at one frequency. Inducing sound waves of a similar frequency in the surrounding air. This can be altered by adjusting the water level in the glass. This increases the mass of the system, reduces the resonant vibration of the glass molecules and lowers the resonant tone. What is noticeable also from personal attempts is that there is also a superimposed overtone that changes in pitch (as well as volume) as one moves the finger faster and slower around the rim. The faster one moves the finger, the higher the pitch produced.
Based upon these generally accepted principles one can then apply it to the Earth as a whole. The Earth consists of a inner liquid core which is rotating around the equatorial circumference inside the Earth. This in turn rubs against the harder more brittle mantle. Which produces, like the finger on the glass, a resonant frequency that is then picked up by sensors at the sea floor. As the liquid core/mantle is one whole defined system in the same way as the finger glass system is, it follows that at any point around the mantle the resonant frequency will be constant. As is observed with both the earths "hum" and the finger/glass system. Generally, as with the ringing glass, the earths hum is roughly constant at any point on the globe.
Quantifying exactly the specific observed 4.5 millihertz frequency is not possible to do for me at this point, not least because so little is known about the exact conditions inside the earths core. But the general rules seem consistent with the observed frequency of the earths hum. The mass of the Earth system is much greater obviously, then the finger glass system. Accounting for, at least in general theoretical terms, the very low observed frequency of about 1 cycle every 222 seconds.
It is also possible to account, at least in part, for the specific "earths hum" frequency being related to the speed of the rotation of the liquid core flow. As I have pointed out earlier that the pitch of the ringing glass changes with the speed of the rubbing finger around the rim. Implying that the very slow rotation of the liquid core relative to the earths mantle (centuries for one complete rotation) would also be consistent with the observed low frequency of the hum.
One point I would like to make here is that currently the generally accepted theory of the movement of the earths liquid core prohibits a rotational motion of the liquid core. Which in turn means the model I present here would not be able to explain the overall steady friction of the liquid core rubbing against the mantle. Which is probably why theorists have not considered this option I present here. Current theory (i.e./Glatzmeir) predicts only localised thermal eddies in the liquid core. However as I have theorised with my paper on the 'Earths Magnetic Field'(available here on this blog site from the table of contents) a rotating liquid core is not only consistent with observations. But can in fact explain the earths magnetic field, direction of polarity, movement and direction of magnetic North Pole and finally the frequent historical geological record of the flipping or reversal of the earths magnetic field. In that the rotating liquid core mantle solid inner core system is acting as a single system rotating dynamo.

LIGO hoax update: GW 170817 missing time delay in data.

The latest so called detection of a gravitational wave GW 170817 is particularly suspicious. Notably the SNR for the two signals at LIGO are indeed strong. But too strong to not be detected in VIRGO. The excuse being that it arrived in VIRGOs blind spot! That's two so called detections in the same month that rely on explaining the non detection in VIRGO as being explained by saying both arrived in the very small blind spot window for VIRGO. A convenient coincidence. But nonetheless too convenient. Especially considering that the so called confirmation detection by Fermi of a related GRB was also fabricated well after the event. But made to look in press releases and papers to be triggers detected simulataneously.
In fact if one looks at the time sequence of this so called Gravitational Wave its provenance begins to fall apart. For starters as already mentioned there was no detection in VIRGO, contrary to the claims by theorists. VIRGO did not trigger on this. What happened was two very strong minute long signals , most likely environmental, triggered both LIGO detectors. Unusual and very noticeable. And not signal types ever predicted. A new type of event was manufactured and theorists went back to VIRGO to scour the LIGO event time frame. They found a convenient low SNR random event to match in the Fermi data and then claimed that somehow this event must have come from a direction defined as one that would arrive in VIRGOs blind spot. The theorist tried spuriously to pretend that this non detection in VIRGO was actually a detection in VIRGO! By virtue of the fact that it wasn't detected and therefore must have arrived in its blind spot. Questionable indeed. Then, to compound the hoax, theorists realised that they needed an associated event in optical and gamma to back up their erroneous conclusion that a strong LIGO signal like this could only be from nearby. So they went back to Fermi data, scoured it and found a low SNR signal in the noise and pretended this weak blip was actually an associated GRB. Then announced it eight hours later. If one looks at GCN we can see a "trigger" was then announced . Eight hours after a real trigger should have automatically been announced! The theorists needed this fabricated fermi trigger on the record to validate their claims. Notice no mention of the fact by theorists that in fact Fermi didn't trigger on this event. Rather they pretend that the official GCN released eight hours later was actually released eight hours earlier and coincident with the actual LIGO event. A lie.
At this point all the worlds telescopes and radio arrays were then pointed at this small region of space. It is worth noting that if the worlds telescopes had been pointed at any similar region at the same time, the same sort of observations of variable sources etc could be made and supplied as evidence of an optical verification.
This GW was indeed a notorious hoax. By a desperate theoretical community made within days of LIGO closing. Obviously a success was needed to continue funding for the fake Gravitational wave community.
Where is the observed time delay for GW 170817? Nowhere.
What is even more questionable about the research surrounding GW 170817 is the fact that in the official paper on the gravitational wave no mention is made of what is possibly the most important piece of evidence needed to confirm this is indeed a gravitational wave as predicted by relativity theory. This missing data is the time delay between the arrival times of the seperate detections in each of the LIGO detectors at Hanford and Livingston. Where is this vital piece of information? How do the theorists prove that the time delay is only in a few milliseconds at most as dictated by GR?
A serious flaw in the otherwise even more seriously flawed theoretical assumptions and interpretations made from the observed data.