Push Gravity modelled as an electromagnetic wave.

 Push gravity using a particle model has been shown to be vulnerable to various criticisms not least being unable to explain what particles that do the pushing are made of. But if EMR is used rather than particles I believe push gravity can stand up to scrutiny. 

The usual theoretical explanation for push gravity is that gravity as EMR ‘pushes’ in from all sides evenly. This means if two objects are close together each will throw a ‘shadow’ onto the other. The mass of each body reduces the push on the other  in its shadow. This of course will result in the two objects apparently having a gravitational attraction to each other. In fact, this is not gravity pulling but rather an external force pushing the two objects together.

Some say that even an EMR push theory wouldn’t work.  Saying it would lead to ‘drag’ of orbital bodies in the solar system and that this isn’t observed. Other criticism being: How does the EMR interact or ‘push’ the atom? Or,..wouldn’t the push waves energy build up in each atom and it would become heavier over time? These criticisms  *can* still be explained by a push EMR model. 

As I have outlined elsewhere in my other pages a push model using EMR would only work in an infinite and non expanding non Big Bang universe. And one where relativity or quantum effects like particles are not invoked.

In a EMR push gravity model any object whether it moves relative to any other mass or not is always at the center of its own infinite universe. Because in an infinite non BB universe any point or object  is always technically at the center of the universe by right of there always being an infinite amount of mass equally in any direction outside any object.

This means that once local gravitational forces are ignored there is a push pressure of EMR radiation pushing in *evenly* from all directions. Regardless of that objects location or its movement relative to any other object.  

In other words an orbitting body in our solar system will not experience ‘drag’ as long as it moves along its inertial path. And only experience “drag” if a change of direction in its inertial path is needed. Or of course if it experiences the gravitational ‘shadow’ from a nearby mass. 

This is essentially inertia. And indeed observations show that any object will continue travelling in a inertial path until force is applied to change its direction.  In the same way as an object with equal push force pushing in from all directions of the universe will need to use force to move against this equal pressure in any direction. And once the force has stopped pushing the object from any one direction it will be on a new inertial path where it still sits at its own center of an infinite universe. 

Some say push gravity wouldn’t work because to push the object would involve transferring wave energy or particles to the atom. And that this would imply atoms in any push models would grow bigger and heavier. Which obviously isn’t observed. In a particle push model this is a problem. But with a wave EMR model it isn’t. Because the radiation either goes straight through the atom, or for a small percentage of incident radiation, gets reflected back in the same direction as it came. This reflection is the force needed to explain the ‘ push’ of gravity. This is already observed with light pressure via solar sails. EMR radiation is observed to exert a push on the mass of the solar sail. That observed push on solar sails is essentially ...the same mechanism that gives us push gravity. 

To conclude it is important to say that in an infinite sized and infinite aged universe there will be primordial EMR that moves much faster then or slower than c due to local random motions within the infinite universe. Go far enough aback in time and a light source in a galaxy long ago dissipated will have its expanding bubble of EMR travelling at many and vast different speeds to our more recently created galaxy. And at speeds so high and thus energies so great that our instruments cannot detect them. However, these high energy waves are detectable. Because it is these energies of EMR that interact with mass to give ...Push Gravity. And ultimately it is these extreme high energies waves which themselves create the atoms. As standing waves or vortices in the EMR filled vacuum. A subject which I have and will continue to describe in other pages of my theoretical physics pages on this blog.

Faster than light communication

In various posts on this blog I have made the argument for a wave only model of EMR. Where light travels at c only in the source frame. (sometimes referred to as an emission model). In addition to this I have shown how all the standard experiments used by relativists and QT enthusiasts can also be shown to be consistent with wave only light that travels only at c in the source frame. Notably the Michaelson Morley experiment which confirms that light always appears to travel at c relative to the source and setup as it propagates away from the source in the experiment. What are the implications of this observation? To start with, as I've pointed out in other posts of this blog, pro relativity theorists like de Sitter were incorrect in assuming light "piles up" on its journey to earth from a rotating double star system in what he called an emission model. Notice De Sitter incorrectly has light travelling away at *variable speeds* relative to the source to make it look like it piles up. A falsehood and a contradiction, because DeSitter claims he is modelling how light travels in a model where light always propagates away from the source at c relative to the source! But to continue: In a true light at c only relative to the source model as I am advocatimg, this means that ANY light that travels away from a source ALWAYS travels at c away from that source. Regardless of the observers motion relative to the source after the light has left the source.(Providing extinction does not significantly effect the speed of light propagating away from the source.) This can only mean that if a light source moves away at a particular velocity from an observer AFTER the light has travelled part way to the observer and extinction does not come into play, then ANY light that has already left the source gets "pulled back" from the observer by the same velocity. This indicates that faster than light, indeed instantaneous communication is possible. Contrary to the limits of c set by relativity. So for instance, if light travels away from a source becomes visible over time to an observer on a distant star system then simply by pulling the source back and forth relative to the observer watching this light arrive, this Doppler shifted "back and forth" information should become immediately visible to the observer even though they may be many light years distant from the source! Of course this involves the almost impossible task of keeping the source coherent and functioning over the many thousand of years it takes for the light to travel the stellar distances between source and observer. But for shorter solar system distances it should be possible to perform and test this theoretical prediction.

Propulsion method for moving levitating superconductor.

LEVITATION:
As we know superconductors supercooled will hover above or below powerful magnetic fields. Tracks sometimes are used to illustrate this remarkable effect. For those inclined, these demonstrations on video look remarkeably like the descriptions used for UFO sightings. And it seems reasonable to suggest that this supercooled superconductor technology, if made of larger and more powerful superconducting materials, could use the earth's relatively weak magnetic field. Instead of the usual small powerful neodium magnets used in current lab experiments. Cynics say the earths field isn't powerful enough and at the wrong direction and not uniform enough to levitate supercooled superconductors. As usual these excuses don't stack up. The magnetic tracks in the lab versions are not uniform either. Nor does the field direction effect the observed levitating superconductor. Because as the videos of the experiments show...The superconductor levitating discs can be placed at any angle on the track and still levitate and move around the track at that fixed angle. ( In other words at any Angle to the magnetic field, including horizontally as with the earth's field at any point.) Obviously field direction is not a restriction. The only restriction really is....expense and technology. In other words it's possible that given the right research , money and time, one cannot rule out a large powerful supercooled superconductor levitating using only the earth's magnetic field.
PROPULSION:
But the second hurdle to face if trying to duplicate the many anecdotal descriptions of UFO sightings is...How to move the supercooled superconducting disc as it hovers above ground in the earth's field. Without using any observable or currently known propulsion methods, like rocket propulsion for instance. Answer...The phenomena associated with the Preccession of a spinning bicycle wheel. Note that a spinning wheel on an axis will precess or move in the direction of the bicycle wheel rotation. This is the answer to the problem of propelling the levitating superconductor disc without any obvious observable propulsion system. All that needs to be done is place a spinning wheel on a fixed axle and attach this to the levitating super conductor disc. And when this wheel spins it would move, ie precess, the superconducting levitating disc itself in the direction of the spinning wheel. To change direction of motion of the superconducting levitating disc, all one has to do is rotate the axis of the spinning wheel. To reverse the direction of motion....just reverse the rotational direction of the spinning wheel. Or Rotate the axis of rotation of the spinning wheel 180 degrees.
So there we have it. Known and proven effects of preccession to propel the levitating disc. And the tantalising possibility of tech advances in size and strength of superconductors to allow levitation itself in just the strength of the earth's magnetic field. My guess is...this has already been achieved in some secret lab somewhere already.

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.