Quantized redshift anomaly

Again, there is no quantum for intensity. When a photodetector is triggered by a single photon, that is clearly not a single elyson in Meta Model theory, but rather is a singlet lightwave, which must have a specific frequency but might have any amplitude/intensity. (See descriptions of the photoelectric effect in your nearest physics text.)

Physics has been struggling for 200 years to make sense of such experiments with a single, coherent model. The trouble is that, while new experimental results are arriving often, we no longer compare various models to determine which works best, but instead try to patch the standard model to keep it viable. The fact that the standard model is hopelessly broken never seems to provide enough incentive for a paradigm shift. But eventually, one of the simpler explanations will catch on because it is easier to learn, understand, and/or use. -|Tom|-

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michiel

Tommy states that a photon could be a wave closing in around itself.

---

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">(jmb) The propagation of light in the vacuum obeys Maxwell's equations (which are linear) with an extreme precision; to get remarkable points in a field, points able to represent a particle, a nonlinearity is necessary. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">


I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that little or nothing in science is true.
Seems that Maxwell's equations describe accurately only what has been observed, and tell us nothing about how it came to be.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">With that as prologue, a new generation of physicists, also educated in the grand assumption that "Heaviside's Equations" are actually "Maxwell's," were abruptly brought up short in 1959 with another remarkable, equally elegant experiment -- which finally demonstrated in the laboratory the stark reality of Maxwell's "pesky scalar potentials" ... those same "mystical" potentials that Heaviside so effectively banished for all time from current (university-taught) EM theory.

In that year two physicists, Yakir Aharonov and David Bohm, conducted a seminal "electrodynamics" laboratory experiment ("Significance of Electromagnetic Potentials in Quantum Theory," The Physical Review, Vol. 115, No. 3, pp. 485-491; August, 1959). Aharonov and Bohm, almost 100 years after Maxwell first predicted their existence, succeeded in actually measuring the "hidden potential" of free space, lurking in Maxwell's original scalar quaternion equations. To do so, they had to cool the experiment to a mere 9 degrees above Absolute Zero, thus creating a total shielding around a superconducting magnetic ring [for a slightly different version of this same experiment -- see diagram; the oscillation of electrical resistance in the ring (bottom graph) is due to the changing electron "wave functions" -- triggered by the "hidden Maxwell scalar potential" created by the shielded magnet -- see text, below].

Once having successfully accomplished this non-trivial laboratory set up, they promptly observed an "impossible" phenomenon:

Totally screened, by all measurements, from the magnetic influence of the ring itself, a test beam of electrons fired by Aharonov and Bohm at the superconducting "donut," nonetheless, changed their electronic state ("wave functions") as they passed through the observably "field-free" region of the hole -- indicating they were sensing "something," even though it could NOT be the ring's magnetic field. Confirmed now by decades of other physicists' experiments as a true phenomenon (and not merely improper shielding of the magnet), this "Aharonov-Bohm Effect" provides compelling proof of a deeper "spatial strain" -- a "scalar potential" -- underlying the existence of a so-called magnetic "force-field" itself. (Later experiments revealed a similar effect with shielded electrostatic fields ...)

All of which provides compelling proof of "something else," underlying all reality, capable of transmitting energy and information across space and time ... even in the complete absence of an electromagnetically detectable 3-D spatial "field"--

Maxwell's quaternion ... hyperdimensional "potential."

---

So, what does all this have to do with NASA's announcement of a "new planet?"

If a "potential" without a field can exist in space -- as Maxwell's quaternion analysis first asserted, and Aharonov-Bohm "only" a century later ultimately found -- then, as defined by Maxwell in his comparisons of the aether with certain properties of laboratory "solids," such a potential is equivalent to an unseen, vorticular (rotating) "stress" in space. Or, in Maxwell's own words (first written in 1873 ...):


"There are physical quantities of another kind [in the aether] which are related to directions in space, but which are not vectors. Stresses and strains in solid bodies are examples, and so are some of the properties of bodies considered in the theory of elasticity and in the theory of double [rotated] refraction. Quantities of this class require for their definition nine [part of the "27-line"...] numerical specifications. They are expressed in the language of quaternions by linear and vector functions of a vector ..."
-- J.C. Maxwell, "A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism,"
(Vol.1, 3rd Edition, New York, 1954)

And stresses, when they are relieved, must release energy into their surroundings ...

There is now much fevered discussion among physicists, (~100 years post-Maxwell) of the Quantum Electrodynamics Zero Point Energy (ZPE) of space -- or, "the energy of the vacuum"; to many familiar with the original works of Maxwell, Kelvin, et. al., this sounds an awful lot like the once-familiar "aether" ... merely updated and now passing under "an assumed name." Thus, creating -- then relieving -- a "stress" in Maxwell's vorticular aether is precisely equivalent to tapping the "energy of the vacuum" -- which, according to current "quantum mechanics' models," possesses a staggering amount of such energy per cubic inch of space. Even inefficiently releasing a tiny percentage of this "strain energy" into our three dimensions -- or, into a body existing in three-dimensional space -- could make it appear as if the energy was coming from nowhere ... "something from nothing." In other words, to an entire generation of students and astrophysicists woefully ignorant of Maxwell's real equations, such energy would appear as--

"Perpetual motion!"

Given the prodigious amount of "vacuum energy" calculated by modern physicists (trillions of atomic bomb equivalents per cubic centimeter ...), even a relatively minor but sudden release of such vast vacuum (aether) stress potential inside a planet ... could literally destroy it--

Finally answering the crucial astrophysical objection to the "exploded planet model" that Van Flandern has been encountering ...

"But Tom -- just how do you blow up' an entire world?!"

The answer is now obvious: via hyperdimensional "vacuum stress energy" ... ala Whittaker and Maxwell.

As we shall show, it is this "new" source of energy -- in a far more "controlled" context -- that seems also to be responsible now for not only the "anomalous infrared excesses" observed in the so-called "giant outer planets" of this solar system--

It is this same source of energy (in the Hyperdimensional Physics Model) that, according to our analysis, must now be primarily responsible for the radiated energies of stars ... including the Sun itself.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Tommy</i>
<br />"But Tom -- just how do you blow up' an entire world?!"<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> metaresearch.org/solar%20system/eph/PlanetExplosions.asp

But if you really wish to discuss this, please start a new thread in the appropriate forum. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Tommy</i>
I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that little or nothing in science is true.
Seems that Maxwell's equations describe accurately only what has been observed, and tell us nothing about how it came to be.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Remember "hypothesis non fingo" (Newton). We look for a description of the properties of nature. The theories are useful, but we must choose the best theories: they explain more with less hypothesis.
The problem is that marvellous theories are more interesting that old theories: the BB theories must introduce a lot of marvellous hypothesis (dark matter and energy, variation of the physical constants, ...); it will need other marvellous hypothesis to explain the periodicities... The CREIL explains much more with only simple hypothesis: for instance the whole spectrum of the quasars (including the periodicities) is obtained <b>supposing only</b> that the quasars are micro-quasars surrounded by a cloud of hydrogen; it explains the proximity effect, the "anomalous accelerations" of the Pioneer probes, and so on.
Similarily, the absurdity of useless "principles" of quantum theory, and QED will appear to everybody:
Finally, science will overcome present chimera.

An old theory as Maxwell's equations is able to set the CREIL which itself appears powerful. How can you write they explain "only what has been observed"?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
The trouble is that, while new experimental results are arriving often, we no longer compare various models to determine which works best, but instead try to patch the standard model to keep it viable.... But eventually, one of the simpler explanations will catch on because it is easier to learn, understand, and/or use. -|Tom|-
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I agree.
The problem is that science exploded in the 19th century so much that since 100 years people do not know old science. Thus, in despite of a lot of valuable criticism, people who have learnt a part of the old theories and recent but wrong theories are unable to understand the incoherence of the whole.
Wait !

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy

"But Tom -- just how do you blow up' an entire world?!"

Sorry Tom, this quote came from Tom Bearden. I included it because he was talking to you.

The point I was trying to make by including his entire quote is that Maxwell's equations are not the original equations that Maxwell formulated. According to Bearden, the original equations that Maxwell formulated have been simplified by eliminating the scalar component which Maxwell included to explain the displacement currents which would explain, he thought, HOW EMF fields exist in space. It is true that Maxwell's simplified equations accurately describe EMF, but the way it is done is by way of mathematical magic IMO, the magnetic wave gives rise to the electostatic wave which gives rise to the magnetic wave which... it goes on and on this way. Maxwell believed in the Aether, as did others in his time. But Maxwell's Aether was mechanical, and when the M&M experiment did not detect it, the assumption (there we go again) was that the Aether did not exist.

Well, that would be fine if it all stopped at that. But since then there have been a dozen different concepts which would replace the Aether. But as one sage puts it, switching the names of salt and sugar does not make salt taste sweet. There is something rotten going on in science, maybe rotting is a better word. I don't know what can be done about it if anything. But I can say with confidence that the truth will out. But it won't happen in this country.

JMB says that the ZPE is just noise. I don't believe him either.

After reading your article, it is very interesting that there are two interpretions of GR, this is the first time I ever heard of that. Sometimes I wonder if the Universe isn't infinite in that whatever we imagine it to be that is what it is to us.