James Webb Space Telescope is expected to observe mature galaxy formation in early universe

Looking forward to having the JWST confirm the following observations. That mature galaxies are observed in any new deep field survey of the distant universe. Confounding the current predictions of BB theorists that JWST would confirm their predictions that no early mature galaxy formations would be observed in any new deep field survey conducted by the JWST. Note the theoretical physicists who have to date predicted that the JWST would see no new or early galaxy formation will rapidly make up new excuses to explain the failure of the BB model and its predictions. They will say...that they had predicted these galaxies in the early universe!! My guess is they will invoke "distortion of time itself in the early era of the Big Bang universe " to explain why the JWST observed mature galaxies where none were predicted previously by the BBT. Separate to this is my expectation that the JWST will also observe what I predicted on this blog for a decade and more and also as far back as 2001 on my www.gammarayburst.com webpage. That in the near and far infrared the delay in peak flux of gammarayburst afterglows will occur later and in longer wavelengths. A delay that will be Proportional to wavelength. The same wavelength/time delay relationship as seen in current observed Fast radio burst(FRB)decays in radio. Described currently on the wiki FRB page as: "The component frequencies of each burst are delayed by different amounts of time depending on the wavelength". In 2001 I described this expected delay as "proportional to wavelength". I expect this wavelength/delay in peak flux of GRB afterglows to be observed by JWST whenever it finally comes online later this year Why do I say this? Because the literature on the JWST suggests that it can observe multiple points simultaneously in its field of view at any wavelength of the electromagnetic spectrum within near and far infrared wavelengths. I assume this means the programmers of the JWST can observe GRB afterglows, if they feel inclined, in multiple wavelength observations from the *SAME* point in the sky simultaneously in different parts of the near and far infrared emr spectrum. My prediction is if they do make these observations of GRB afterglows they will not only confirm my models predictions, but also not be consistent with current established theory. Nor will they be able to explain these observations without admitting that their theoretical assumptions of a constant speed of light in all frames has been proved incorrect.

Electric current, Drude model and Brownian motion.

Although the Drude model has a good grasp of conductivity it fails in part because it incorrectly assumes the existence of electrons An assumption that should have been dismissed at least a century ago. It is the ATOM which bounces around, not the imaginary electron. So if one correctly models “current” as the atom rather than the electron bouncing around, as Drude originally speculated, then confirmation by observation can back up this assumption. Seeing as we know the atom has an inherent magnetic field. And we know from observations that if one moves a magnetic field a current is induced. No need for bouncing electrons and Quantum theory.

Thermal radiation

 

Thermal radiation explained:

Thermal radiation is electromagnetic radiation generated by the thermal motion of atoms in matter. How does a bouncing atom create such high frequency radiation in optical? 

When heated, the atoms bounce around hitting each other. The measured distance between some atoms in black body thermal radiators can be on order of only a few angstroms. The frequency of the thermal radiation emitted would be dependent on how fast and how far one atom has to travel before it gets nearer the adjacent atoms magnetic field and bounces back.  The two recoil and create the moving magnetic field, which in turn creates the electromagnetic wave and thus; the thermal radiation. 

Seeing as the space between atoms can be only as little as one tenths of nm and that black body radiation peaks in optical in the hundreds of nm wavelengths, then it follows that any motion of an atom in the heated blackbody material would mean its oscillation frequency around the optical and infrared  frequencies can be easily accounted for. By virtue of the very short distance the atom has to move between its succesive ‘bounces’. An analogy is if one bounces a ball at a constant speed between two walls x distance apart, then at the same speed that balls “bounce” frequency will increase the shorter the distance ‘x’ is between the walls. 

On a microscopic scale, heat conduction occurs as hot, rapidly moving or vibrating atoms and molecules interact with neighboring atoms and molecules, transferring some of their energy (heat) to these neighboring particles. 

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