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.
Sunday, 10 December 2017
Sunday, 5 November 2017
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.
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.
Wednesday, 1 March 2017
Huygens wavelets for 2 wavelengths, one double length the other.
This illustration shows how wavelength y of twice the length of wavelength x will have the same angles of order as wavelength x . (That's the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc diffraction orders)
If the longer wavelength y is at twice the speed, then the incident frequency at any incident plane parallel to the diffraction grating will also be the same. Effectively making the two separate wavelengths appear to be the same wavelength at the diffraction grating.
Friday, 17 February 2017
Classical wave theory of light
There is a fallacy in modern physics dating back to the original Michelson Morley experiment in the late 19th century that says that by not detecting the imaginary aether, a wave only classical model of light was refuted. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The very same experiment USED wave theory of light to measure the fact that the motion of the lab/source frame through the heliocentric frame of the sun did not effect the propagation speed of light. The interference patterns seen in these type of experiments can only have been produced by light as a wave propagating through an undetectable vacuum medium. Quite how relativists explain that is never clarified. Nor is it explained how light cannot be a wave for classical wave theory, while at the same time current relativistic and quantum models of light assume light travels as a wave through the vacuum without the need for an all pervading imaginary detectable aether! Hypocrisy on a grand scale indeed by relativist and quantum supporters.
Since the time of Newton, who thought light was emitted as corpuscles thrown off by the emitting object at c, there has been an evolution in the understanding and theoretical assumptions of light. With subsequent versions including the Huygens wave only model and various ballistic and aether models of light. Some of these were assumptions, including the aether, ballistic and corpuscle models and have since been ruled out. However throughout the history of the classical theory of light certain definitive observations have been made and remain unchallenged to this day. These include the observations that light is a wave ( Huygens) and can propagate freely in a vacuum, unhindered by any imaginary aether, at c in the lightsource frame. (The Michelson Morley experiment is the best known of these experiments). And that light does not gain velocity on reflection. ( Michelsons 1913 paper and Beckmann Mandics)
In the mid 19th century a significant although ultimately incorrect contribution was made by James Clerk Maxwell. With his undulatory model of light. Here he built upon among others the observations of Hertz and Thomson and various previous wave observations of light and assumptions of an aether, a model of light as electromagnetic radiation. With light assumed to be a combination of self propagating traverse oscillating waves of electrical and magnetic fields.
This of course makes the erroneous assumption that light oscillates in traverse waves. Which is not observed, contrary to many protestations by theorists then and now. Light travels in straight lines.
The reason for Maxwells failure to correctly model light was complex and involved relying on previous false assumptions by theorists. Including the unsubstantiated assumption of the existence of electrons and an aether medium that permeated the fabric of the universe. Since refuted by the experiment of Michelsons Morley.
What Maxwell failed to realise was that 'electromagnetic' radiation can be described solely as a self propagating magnetic oscillation in the vacuum. The emitting atoms magnetic field is excited and oscillates at various frequencies. Inducing sympathetic magnetic oscillations in the adjacent vacuum. These in turn induce further oscillations of magnetic fields in a repeating process that expands outwards at c from the source.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=0NwzwUedfFk
RITZIAN vs WAVES
Arguments against a wave model are often convoluted and contradictory. Often a simple mantra of "a ballistic model has been refuted by various experiments that show no c+-v" is used. The assumption being that by proving light isn't a Ritzian particle, one can then somehow rule out that it isn't a wave only!
It is important to realise that the wave only model has light always at c+-v *relative to the source*. Which means in experiments like Sagnac and Babcock & Berman the wavespeed is variable, not constant, in the frame that the source rotates in. (As opposed to a ballistic model which throws off the particles of light which then travel at *constant* speeds in the frame which the source rotates in)
POLARISATION
Polarisation is best described by the mechanical rotation of a magnetic field. Polarisation is essentially the propagating light wave having its oscillating magnetic field restricted to a specific angle. Hence polarised plane waves are described as having its magnetic field oscillate at one specific angle only. Circular polarisation is where the angle of oscillating magnetic field rotates over time and distance. This is well described in the article on Spin and orbital angular momentum on this blog. (Check table of contents)
https://youtube.com/watch?v=GODPF5K87wU
http://physicsexplained.blogspot.com/2017/01/spin-and-orbital-angular-momentum.html
ATOM SIZE vs EMISSION WAVELENGTHS
Another criticism of wave theory is that the atom, being smaller than for instance, the emitted wavelength of light, cannot emit or absorb larger wavelengths of light or other wavelengths of emr. Like microwave radiation in the example of masers. The argument being that it is impossible for a smaller object to create a wave larger than its radius. This incorrectly assumes that the emr wave produced is a displacement wave like water or sound. Electromagnetic radiation is not this type of wave. It is a self propagating oscillating magnetic field. Produced by a wave model of an atom that oscillates its magnetic field at different frequencies to produce various wavelengths of radiation. Shorter or longer than the physical radius of the emitting atom itself. An example would be the following. Take a 1 cm neodium magnet and rotate it at 500 cycles per second. The emitted radiation will have a wavelength many times greater than the rotating magnets diameter of 1cm.
PHOTOELECTRIC EFFECT
Once they have been confronted with the fact that Michelson Morley type experiments do not rule out the possibility of light travelling as a wave through the vacuum, critics of a classical wave theory usually switch to saying that it cannot explain the photoelectric effect. This of course is another fallacy perpetuated by relativists. They say that in this effect a current is created by photons knocking out electrons. And that a wave model predicts no lower frequency cutoff, which isn't observed. And a time lag is also predicted by a wave model between incident radiation and "ejected electron". Which also is not observed. Both these arguments are false.
A wave only classical model describes the atom as a non particulate resonant system. Where imaginary electrons are instead described with different sets of resonant frequencies for different elements. Which respond to different ranges of incident wave radiation. So to start with, to assume that there are electrons in a wave model is incorrect. And regarding the false assumption that wave radiation predicts a induced flow of current with no lower threshold. This is not the case in a wave model. Because in a wave model all incident radiation is not predicted to induce current. Only narrow ranges corresponding to the particular resonant frequency of that element. And this is confirmed in the photovoltaic effect. Relativists have misunderstood the photoelectric effect and confused it with the photovoltaic effect.
This is because in the photoelectric effect the current is produced by the applied external pd only. Photons do not create the current in the photoelectric effect. No current on any conductor will be created if one shines emr onto its surface without an external pd applied. A current or discharge, as with the gold leaf experiment, will only occur if it has previously been charged or if a pd is applied. The current observed is from an external source, not from the incident radiation. So it is erroneous to assume the current is created by photons or cannot be created by waves.
Regarding the prediction that a wave model predicts a delay between incident radiation and "ejected electron". This incorrectly assumes that each atom in the photocell starts at zero energy level and has to fill up, in order to discharge energy in a quantised amount. This ignores the reality of the wave model resonant atom. A wave atom will only discharge when full. Anything less, and it will retain its stored energy. Even after incident radiation is discontinued. So when the incident radiation is resumed, all atoms in the photocell are already at various levels of 'filled'. Some near zero, others almost full at 99%. No time delays are predicted as those atoms almost at their filled energy state will almost immediately release a quantised "electron" to the circuit without having to wait to fill from a zero energy state.
http://physicsexplained.blogspot.com/2017/02/photoelectric-and-photovoltaic-effects.html
DE SITTER
The DeSitter model of how a emission theory cannot explain observed light from binary star systems is an example of how by refuting a ballistic model one can pretend that all classical models of light are refuted. In the ballistic model deSitter rightly shows how a particulate light model has an emission speed of c+-v from the rotating star, in the inertial earth frame. Current to the writing of this blog post there is a good visual example on wiki. Showing how the light thrown off by the rotating binary has a greater speed when it is emitted from the star as it moves towards the earth than when it moves away in its rotation cycle. And subsequently the ballistic model predicts light arriving to earth at different speeds and piling up in pulses. This of course is not observed. However the fallacy is that a wave model would predict the same. It doesn't. Because light HAS to be at c in the source frame. It must therefore be at a variable speed in the earth frame. So a correct calculation has does not allow any piling up of light as it arrives. All emitted light travels at the same speed in the star frame. And therefore always at the same variable speed in the earth frame.
SUPERNOVAE ARRIVAL TIMES
Another similar criticism includes the claim that light, in a classical wave model from the initial supernovae flash, would arrive not in a flash as observed, but over thousands of years. As ejecta is at different speeds in different directions in the original explosion and light from this ejecta would leave the supernova at a great range of speeds from zero to 5,000 k/s. The premise being that the light at 5,000 k/s would travel across space to earth at greater speeds and arrive centuries earlier.
First of all only the light pointing towards earth will contribute to the initial flash. And if it comes from the ejected material, which is debatable, then that ejecta which is directed towards us will have very small differencials in speed. Much much smaller than the 5,000 k/s differential assumed currently. And there is definitely a time delay already observed in the initial bright observable peak in supernovae that could account for a small variation in speeds in a wave only model. Months if not years is observed in the famous Tycho SN in the 16th century. Furthermore the claim that light would arrive over thousands of years spread out by different speeds in a wave model is not actually refuted by observations. Five hundred years after the Tycho SN we still have light arriving from the supernovae! Thousands for other earlier supernovae. Once again relativists, desperate to erroneously refute any competing theory to relativity have made up imaginary predictions for a classical model, not based on logic or fact. To refute a classical model, when in fact in every example they use a classical model is found to be consistent with the experiments or observations.
Since the time of Newton, who thought light was emitted as corpuscles thrown off by the emitting object at c, there has been an evolution in the understanding and theoretical assumptions of light. With subsequent versions including the Huygens wave only model and various ballistic and aether models of light. Some of these were assumptions, including the aether, ballistic and corpuscle models and have since been ruled out. However throughout the history of the classical theory of light certain definitive observations have been made and remain unchallenged to this day. These include the observations that light is a wave ( Huygens) and can propagate freely in a vacuum, unhindered by any imaginary aether, at c in the lightsource frame. (The Michelson Morley experiment is the best known of these experiments). And that light does not gain velocity on reflection. ( Michelsons 1913 paper and Beckmann Mandics)
In the mid 19th century a significant although ultimately incorrect contribution was made by James Clerk Maxwell. With his undulatory model of light. Here he built upon among others the observations of Hertz and Thomson and various previous wave observations of light and assumptions of an aether, a model of light as electromagnetic radiation. With light assumed to be a combination of self propagating traverse oscillating waves of electrical and magnetic fields.
This of course makes the erroneous assumption that light oscillates in traverse waves. Which is not observed, contrary to many protestations by theorists then and now. Light travels in straight lines.
The reason for Maxwells failure to correctly model light was complex and involved relying on previous false assumptions by theorists. Including the unsubstantiated assumption of the existence of electrons and an aether medium that permeated the fabric of the universe. Since refuted by the experiment of Michelsons Morley.
What Maxwell failed to realise was that 'electromagnetic' radiation can be described solely as a self propagating magnetic oscillation in the vacuum. The emitting atoms magnetic field is excited and oscillates at various frequencies. Inducing sympathetic magnetic oscillations in the adjacent vacuum. These in turn induce further oscillations of magnetic fields in a repeating process that expands outwards at c from the source.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=0NwzwUedfFk
RITZIAN vs WAVES
Arguments against a wave model are often convoluted and contradictory. Often a simple mantra of "a ballistic model has been refuted by various experiments that show no c+-v" is used. The assumption being that by proving light isn't a Ritzian particle, one can then somehow rule out that it isn't a wave only!
It is important to realise that the wave only model has light always at c+-v *relative to the source*. Which means in experiments like Sagnac and Babcock & Berman the wavespeed is variable, not constant, in the frame that the source rotates in. (As opposed to a ballistic model which throws off the particles of light which then travel at *constant* speeds in the frame which the source rotates in)
POLARISATION
Polarisation is best described by the mechanical rotation of a magnetic field. Polarisation is essentially the propagating light wave having its oscillating magnetic field restricted to a specific angle. Hence polarised plane waves are described as having its magnetic field oscillate at one specific angle only. Circular polarisation is where the angle of oscillating magnetic field rotates over time and distance. This is well described in the article on Spin and orbital angular momentum on this blog. (Check table of contents)
https://youtube.com/watch?v=GODPF5K87wU
http://physicsexplained.blogspot.com/2017/01/spin-and-orbital-angular-momentum.html
ATOM SIZE vs EMISSION WAVELENGTHS
Another criticism of wave theory is that the atom, being smaller than for instance, the emitted wavelength of light, cannot emit or absorb larger wavelengths of light or other wavelengths of emr. Like microwave radiation in the example of masers. The argument being that it is impossible for a smaller object to create a wave larger than its radius. This incorrectly assumes that the emr wave produced is a displacement wave like water or sound. Electromagnetic radiation is not this type of wave. It is a self propagating oscillating magnetic field. Produced by a wave model of an atom that oscillates its magnetic field at different frequencies to produce various wavelengths of radiation. Shorter or longer than the physical radius of the emitting atom itself. An example would be the following. Take a 1 cm neodium magnet and rotate it at 500 cycles per second. The emitted radiation will have a wavelength many times greater than the rotating magnets diameter of 1cm.
PHOTOELECTRIC EFFECT
Once they have been confronted with the fact that Michelson Morley type experiments do not rule out the possibility of light travelling as a wave through the vacuum, critics of a classical wave theory usually switch to saying that it cannot explain the photoelectric effect. This of course is another fallacy perpetuated by relativists. They say that in this effect a current is created by photons knocking out electrons. And that a wave model predicts no lower frequency cutoff, which isn't observed. And a time lag is also predicted by a wave model between incident radiation and "ejected electron". Which also is not observed. Both these arguments are false.
A wave only classical model describes the atom as a non particulate resonant system. Where imaginary electrons are instead described with different sets of resonant frequencies for different elements. Which respond to different ranges of incident wave radiation. So to start with, to assume that there are electrons in a wave model is incorrect. And regarding the false assumption that wave radiation predicts a induced flow of current with no lower threshold. This is not the case in a wave model. Because in a wave model all incident radiation is not predicted to induce current. Only narrow ranges corresponding to the particular resonant frequency of that element. And this is confirmed in the photovoltaic effect. Relativists have misunderstood the photoelectric effect and confused it with the photovoltaic effect.
This is because in the photoelectric effect the current is produced by the applied external pd only. Photons do not create the current in the photoelectric effect. No current on any conductor will be created if one shines emr onto its surface without an external pd applied. A current or discharge, as with the gold leaf experiment, will only occur if it has previously been charged or if a pd is applied. The current observed is from an external source, not from the incident radiation. So it is erroneous to assume the current is created by photons or cannot be created by waves.
Regarding the prediction that a wave model predicts a delay between incident radiation and "ejected electron". This incorrectly assumes that each atom in the photocell starts at zero energy level and has to fill up, in order to discharge energy in a quantised amount. This ignores the reality of the wave model resonant atom. A wave atom will only discharge when full. Anything less, and it will retain its stored energy. Even after incident radiation is discontinued. So when the incident radiation is resumed, all atoms in the photocell are already at various levels of 'filled'. Some near zero, others almost full at 99%. No time delays are predicted as those atoms almost at their filled energy state will almost immediately release a quantised "electron" to the circuit without having to wait to fill from a zero energy state.
http://physicsexplained.blogspot.com/2017/02/photoelectric-and-photovoltaic-effects.html
DE SITTER
The DeSitter model of how a emission theory cannot explain observed light from binary star systems is an example of how by refuting a ballistic model one can pretend that all classical models of light are refuted. In the ballistic model deSitter rightly shows how a particulate light model has an emission speed of c+-v from the rotating star, in the inertial earth frame. Current to the writing of this blog post there is a good visual example on wiki. Showing how the light thrown off by the rotating binary has a greater speed when it is emitted from the star as it moves towards the earth than when it moves away in its rotation cycle. And subsequently the ballistic model predicts light arriving to earth at different speeds and piling up in pulses. This of course is not observed. However the fallacy is that a wave model would predict the same. It doesn't. Because light HAS to be at c in the source frame. It must therefore be at a variable speed in the earth frame. So a correct calculation has does not allow any piling up of light as it arrives. All emitted light travels at the same speed in the star frame. And therefore always at the same variable speed in the earth frame.
SUPERNOVAE ARRIVAL TIMES
Another similar criticism includes the claim that light, in a classical wave model from the initial supernovae flash, would arrive not in a flash as observed, but over thousands of years. As ejecta is at different speeds in different directions in the original explosion and light from this ejecta would leave the supernova at a great range of speeds from zero to 5,000 k/s. The premise being that the light at 5,000 k/s would travel across space to earth at greater speeds and arrive centuries earlier.
First of all only the light pointing towards earth will contribute to the initial flash. And if it comes from the ejected material, which is debatable, then that ejecta which is directed towards us will have very small differencials in speed. Much much smaller than the 5,000 k/s differential assumed currently. And there is definitely a time delay already observed in the initial bright observable peak in supernovae that could account for a small variation in speeds in a wave only model. Months if not years is observed in the famous Tycho SN in the 16th century. Furthermore the claim that light would arrive over thousands of years spread out by different speeds in a wave model is not actually refuted by observations. Five hundred years after the Tycho SN we still have light arriving from the supernovae! Thousands for other earlier supernovae. Once again relativists, desperate to erroneously refute any competing theory to relativity have made up imaginary predictions for a classical model, not based on logic or fact. To refute a classical model, when in fact in every example they use a classical model is found to be consistent with the experiments or observations.
For information on how a classical post Newtonian non relativistic model can better explain the anomalous preccession of Mercury please read:https://physicsexplained.blogspot.com/2022/03/mercury-preccession-classical.html
Wednesday, 1 February 2017
Photoelectric and Photovoltaic effects
There are two described effects. The photoelectric and photovoltaic effects. The photovoltaic effect shows a current induced by narrow frequency ranges of incident radiation. The photoelectric effect has usually a metal conductor with an external voltage applied conduct a greater current when exposed to all incident radiation above a certain frequency. As compared to the voltaic effect which only produces a current in narrow frequency ranges above a base frequency.
What is not so clear in conventional physics is the separation between them. The photovoltaic effect is essentially light shining on a detector, and inducing an electric current. As with solar panels. Here the effect is consistent with a wave only model of light, contrary to the erroneous unsubstantiated claims made by theorists determined to prove the photon model as being the only model consistent with observations.
Simply put the atom in a wave model is a resonant system, rather than the particulate standard model with electrons , protons etc. And as observations have shown, all resonant systems respond to narrow frequency ranges and emit this input energy in pulses called resonant catastrophe. And this is observed in solar panels where incident radiation in narrow frequency bands "liberate electrons". That is incident wave radiation in narrow frequency ranges are absorbed and re emitted by the detector atoms in quantised pulses to the circuit.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8H9kx9_sQYA
The photoelectric effect appears to be a gross misrepresentation by supporters of the photon model. Nowhere is it made clear if the photoelectric effect actually produces excess current than that already supplied by the external voltage pd applied. It appears no excess is supplied. Whatever happens in the "photoelectric" effect, it is not the case that an excess current is induced by the incident radiation. Hence, there is no legitimacy in the claims it cannot be described by a wave only model. Simply put, no excess current is induced by the incident radiation in the first place. So it is erroneous to conclude that a wave model cannot explain why an imaginary excess current has not been produced by incident radiation! Typical lies and misrepresentation from relativists and standard model theorists.
What is not so clear in conventional physics is the separation between them. The photovoltaic effect is essentially light shining on a detector, and inducing an electric current. As with solar panels. Here the effect is consistent with a wave only model of light, contrary to the erroneous unsubstantiated claims made by theorists determined to prove the photon model as being the only model consistent with observations.
Simply put the atom in a wave model is a resonant system, rather than the particulate standard model with electrons , protons etc. And as observations have shown, all resonant systems respond to narrow frequency ranges and emit this input energy in pulses called resonant catastrophe. And this is observed in solar panels where incident radiation in narrow frequency bands "liberate electrons". That is incident wave radiation in narrow frequency ranges are absorbed and re emitted by the detector atoms in quantised pulses to the circuit.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8H9kx9_sQYA
The photoelectric effect appears to be a gross misrepresentation by supporters of the photon model. Nowhere is it made clear if the photoelectric effect actually produces excess current than that already supplied by the external voltage pd applied. It appears no excess is supplied. Whatever happens in the "photoelectric" effect, it is not the case that an excess current is induced by the incident radiation. Hence, there is no legitimacy in the claims it cannot be described by a wave only model. Simply put, no excess current is induced by the incident radiation in the first place. So it is erroneous to conclude that a wave model cannot explain why an imaginary excess current has not been produced by incident radiation! Typical lies and misrepresentation from relativists and standard model theorists.
Wednesday, 25 January 2017
Sagnac as a classical experiment
In a true classical model, light always travels at c relative to the source. In any other frame, that moves relative to the source, light cannot be at c in that frame.
In rotating frames light also travels at c relative to the source. This is observed to happen in the Michelson Morley experiment. Where the lab rotates around the earths axis but light is observed to travel at c on both arms.
Of course relativists will argue that light actually is variant in the lab frame to counter the classical assumption it isn't. This however is unsubstantiated. To date no variance has been observed in any MMX style experiments.
In the Sagnac experiment relativists have long argued that classical theory cannot explain the fringe shift observed in the rotating setup. They do so by erroneously assuming classical theory predicts light will be at a constant speed in the lab. That is at c+-v in the lab. This is a ridiculous claim as even relativists admit classical theory predicates that light must always propagate away from a source at c in the *source frame*. But this is an impossible calculation as a constant speed in a rotating source frame will not, by a Galilean transformation, lead to a constant speed in the lab frame.
It is a mathematical impossibility for an object to travel the same distance in a straight line every second, away from a rotating object. This is the mistake relativists make when trying erroneously to discredit a classical model
In Sagnac there are three separate frames to consider.
1)The lab frame, where the source and mirrors rotate. This is the traditional frame used by relativists to describe both classical and SR. In this frame light travels at variable speeds in a classical model. (As it has to travel at constant speeds away from the rotating source.)
2)The rotating setup frame where the lab and the universe rotate around the setup but the source and mirrors don't move. In this frame the light travels at a constant speed relative to the source. But because the setup itself rotates and the light beam has to travel in the same direction in the universal frame (for instance due west), the light beam curves in this frame, always propagating in a specific universal direction. (This frame is similar to the MMX source frame where light is also at a constant speed but curves on each path).
To explain in detail, think of it like this. If you shine a beam of light into space in one direction (west) and then swivel the beam to another direction (north west) Does the beam that initially left in a westerly direction from your source also move or get dragged north? No. This is never observed. So if a single point of the light beam from the Sagnac source left the source when it pointed west it will continue travelling west at c away from the source. Which is why if you are in a rotating frame with the source rotating in a circle then the beam will curve away from the source in this frame until it hits the first mirror. Then it will curve in that direction etc..
https://youtube.com/watch?v=qGQil7I0ixg
3)And thirdly, the rotating source frame where the source and the mirrors rotate around a point centred on the source. But the rest of the background universe including the lab only move slightly back and forth on the spot.
This is the true source frame as in this frame the light is at constant speeds and in straight lines.
This is the frame in which one can easiest calculate the path difference for classical theory. Because the light travels at the same speed in straight lines and one only has to calculate where and when the mirrors are for each reflection. It is this frame in which the path differences become obvious. Note how one light path chases the mirrors around,as they move away from the direction of beam travel, leading to a longer path length than the light beam travelling in the same direction as the mirrors rotation.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=7X8wlbXFaMo
In rotating frames light also travels at c relative to the source. This is observed to happen in the Michelson Morley experiment. Where the lab rotates around the earths axis but light is observed to travel at c on both arms.
Of course relativists will argue that light actually is variant in the lab frame to counter the classical assumption it isn't. This however is unsubstantiated. To date no variance has been observed in any MMX style experiments.
In the Sagnac experiment relativists have long argued that classical theory cannot explain the fringe shift observed in the rotating setup. They do so by erroneously assuming classical theory predicts light will be at a constant speed in the lab. That is at c+-v in the lab. This is a ridiculous claim as even relativists admit classical theory predicates that light must always propagate away from a source at c in the *source frame*. But this is an impossible calculation as a constant speed in a rotating source frame will not, by a Galilean transformation, lead to a constant speed in the lab frame.
It is a mathematical impossibility for an object to travel the same distance in a straight line every second, away from a rotating object. This is the mistake relativists make when trying erroneously to discredit a classical model
In Sagnac there are three separate frames to consider.
1)The lab frame, where the source and mirrors rotate. This is the traditional frame used by relativists to describe both classical and SR. In this frame light travels at variable speeds in a classical model. (As it has to travel at constant speeds away from the rotating source.)
2)The rotating setup frame where the lab and the universe rotate around the setup but the source and mirrors don't move. In this frame the light travels at a constant speed relative to the source. But because the setup itself rotates and the light beam has to travel in the same direction in the universal frame (for instance due west), the light beam curves in this frame, always propagating in a specific universal direction. (This frame is similar to the MMX source frame where light is also at a constant speed but curves on each path).
To explain in detail, think of it like this. If you shine a beam of light into space in one direction (west) and then swivel the beam to another direction (north west) Does the beam that initially left in a westerly direction from your source also move or get dragged north? No. This is never observed. So if a single point of the light beam from the Sagnac source left the source when it pointed west it will continue travelling west at c away from the source. Which is why if you are in a rotating frame with the source rotating in a circle then the beam will curve away from the source in this frame until it hits the first mirror. Then it will curve in that direction etc..
https://youtube.com/watch?v=qGQil7I0ixg
3)And thirdly, the rotating source frame where the source and the mirrors rotate around a point centred on the source. But the rest of the background universe including the lab only move slightly back and forth on the spot.
This is the true source frame as in this frame the light is at constant speeds and in straight lines.
This is the frame in which one can easiest calculate the path difference for classical theory. Because the light travels at the same speed in straight lines and one only has to calculate where and when the mirrors are for each reflection. It is this frame in which the path differences become obvious. Note how one light path chases the mirrors around,as they move away from the direction of beam travel, leading to a longer path length than the light beam travelling in the same direction as the mirrors rotation.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=7X8wlbXFaMo
Precession of a bicycle wheel
A rotating wheel has every point on its rim circumference travelling at the same tangential speed. However if the axis is allowed to freely rotate, as in the example of precession, then the pull of gravity will effect a greater speed for the downward moving half of the wheel than that of the upward moving half. Which in turn means that the parts of the wheel that have a greater speed will travel a greater distance than those parts with a lesser speed. Hence the precession. So when the wheel rotates in a counter clockwise direction the wheel will precess to the right of the axis. This allows parts of the wheel travelling at different speeds to travel different distances.
Looking at the rotating wheel with the rotation axis pointing out of the page/screen:
As the wheel rotates counter clockwise its direction of precession will be to the right. All rotating points on the wheel experience the same downwards pull of gravity. A and D on the wheel experience the same momentum of equal but opposite horizontal momentum from the rotational speed of the wheel. But B experiences the gravitational pull downwards added to the downwards motion of the wheel rotation forcing it to accelerate as it moves downwards from the top to the bottom of the wheel. Whereas D decelerates as it moves from the bottom to the top of the wheel. As it has the same rotational momentum as all other parts of the wheel, but an opposing gravitational pull downwards that slows it down.
C therefore travels slower and must cover less distance. B travels faster and covers more distance. To compensate, the wheel precesses to the right to allow B to travel farther than C.
Overall the fastest parts of the wheel circumference will be moving to the right at the bottom of the wheel and the slowest parts of will be moving left at the top of the wheel.
The paths of two opposite points on the circumference show that if the wheel precesses to the right at it rotates counter clockwise, the upper part of the wheel travels shorter distances
Looking at the rotating wheel with the rotation axis pointing out of the page/screen:
As the wheel rotates counter clockwise its direction of precession will be to the right. All rotating points on the wheel experience the same downwards pull of gravity. A and D on the wheel experience the same momentum of equal but opposite horizontal momentum from the rotational speed of the wheel. But B experiences the gravitational pull downwards added to the downwards motion of the wheel rotation forcing it to accelerate as it moves downwards from the top to the bottom of the wheel. Whereas D decelerates as it moves from the bottom to the top of the wheel. As it has the same rotational momentum as all other parts of the wheel, but an opposing gravitational pull downwards that slows it down.
C therefore travels slower and must cover less distance. B travels faster and covers more distance. To compensate, the wheel precesses to the right to allow B to travel farther than C.
Overall the fastest parts of the wheel circumference will be moving to the right at the bottom of the wheel and the slowest parts of will be moving left at the top of the wheel.
The paths of two opposite points on the circumference show that if the wheel precesses to the right at it rotates counter clockwise, the upper part of the wheel travels shorter distances
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)