Particle / wave duality on a scale of light frequencies.

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Let's present a scale of frequencies of light. For initial we’ll take frequency of visible light. Here particle / wave duality is shown fifty- fifty.
At increase or decrease of frequency this proportion is broken.

Frequency increasing.
Properties of a particle start to prevail of properties of a wave.
The gamma radiation, for example, possesses properties of a particle in the greater degree, than properties of a wave.
On frequency 1.930605x10 ^ 18 Hz we can see hydrogen [This value of frequency is result of researches of remarkable Russian scientist Poljansky V.N. (vlamir)]
Further on a scale there are all elements of Mendeleyev's table in ascending order of their nuclear mass.

On this range of frequencies the duality is absent – light exists as particles.
MASS (GRAVITY FORCE) IS DIRECTLI PROPORTIONAL TO FREQUENCY OF LIGHT.
Application of mass of atom of hydrogen as the unit of measurement of mass of atoms of other elements is wrongly. The proof of it is not the whole values of mass of atoms of other elements in these units. I assert, that the periodic system of elements should be constructed on a frequency principle and a unit of measurements of mass of atoms should be a frequency of photon.
Frequency decreasing.
Here the return phenomenon is observed.
Properties of a wave prevail of properties of a particle.
At radiowaves of a long-wave range, for example, it is impossible to find out a properties of particle.
In a range of frequencies from the bottom border of infra-red radiation close to zero the duality of light is absent also. It is electromagnetism (EM).The reality exists in the current Plank time only. It is the minimal cycle of time. The continuity is prodigal. Discreteness is economic. The nature always chooses an optimum variant. Any object (the particle or any their combination) has a cycle of time inherent in it. Time for each object individually and represents the counter working on subtraction. From a birth to death. All time cycles are synchronized by the minimal cycle of time. It is fair both for macroobjects, and for microobjects.
Time is connected to frequency of a wave the return relation.
It is possible to tell, that the carrying wave of the maximal frequency corresponds to the minimal cycle of time and the cycle of time of object corresponds to a combination of frequencies or a data set. Let’s take a look at the scale of light frequencies. It possesses the property of symmetry. Moreover, this symmetry exists concerning two points of a scale, i.e. it is double symmetry. To say, these are VERY STRANGE POINTS. The first point is on frequency of visible light.
Here the magnetic and gravity properties ASPIRE TO ZERO. But PROCESS of ACHIEVEMENT of ABSOLUTE ZERO is INFINITE. Hence, it is the singular point.
THE FREQUENCY OF PHOTON IS THE FIRST SINGULAR POINT ON THE SCALE OF LIGHT FREQUENCIES.
The second point UNITES the opposite ends of a scale. Here the magnetic and gravity forces aspire to indefinite great value. It is a Black Hole.
A BLACK HOLE IS THE SECOND SINGULAR POINT ON THE SCALE OF LIGHT FREQUENCIES.
But. Two infinity cannot exist separately. Actually it is ONE INFINITY. TWO SINGULAR POINTS are MIRROR in RELATION of EACH OTHER. It defines a MIRROR of FREQUENCIES which, in turn, DEFINES THE MAGNETIC AND GRAVITY PROPERTYES.
Two mirror singular points provide ETERNAL MOVEMENT and represent the oscillator which recycles the universe with the maximal frequency 1/Planck Time.

Each object with each time unit loses unit of the data set. This process is observed as radiation of a photon of the certain frequency. But radiation of a photon does not occur in "anywhere" and absorption does not occur "anywhere". Only on channels “ object – object ”. All objects are capable to absorb a data set ( photons) which have supplementing their set up to initial one. It is the process of regeneration.

EM FORCE IS INVERSELY TO FREQUENCY OF LIGHT.

FREQUENCY OF VISIBLE LIGHT IS THE ZERO POINT ON THE GENERAL SCALE OF GRAVITY AND EM FORCES.
Let's consider well-known relations:
E=mc^2
and
E=h \nu\
whence mc^2=h \nu\
or
m=k\nu\
here k= h/c^2
This new relation proves my rightness.
Further accepting
\nu\ = f_w – f_p
where
f_w - frequency of object's wave
f_p - frequency of photon
for f_w > f_p
we have positive value of mass.
It provides STRONG FORCE inside particle and GRAVITY FORCE between particles .
for f_w < f_p
we have negative (mirror) value.
It is the CHARGE inside particle and MAGNET FORCE outside one.
A CHARGE THIS A MIRROR REFLECTION OF MASS CONCERNING THE FREQUENCY OF PHOTON. THE MAGNET FORCE THIS A MIRROR REFLECTION OF GRAVITY FORCE CONCERNING THE FREQUENCY OF PHOTON.

Thus, on the scale of light frequencies are:
* A constant magnetic dipole with a maximal value of magnetic force- at frequency close to zero (length of a wave --> infinity). It has no mass in principle. It is one end of a scale;

**In the middle of this scale there is a visible light - photon. It has no mass as well as has no magnetic properties. Therefore I have chosen it as a zero point of their general scale. Visible light is a border between gravitation and magnetism. It is a reason of its amazing properties and duality behavior. Here there is a balancing between zero values of an gravity and magnetic forces.

***Object having the maximal mass (gravity force) at the maximal frequency (length of a wave --> the zero) – it is a Black Hole. It is other end of a scale.
On the one hand, this object should not have magnetic properties. On the other hand, achievement of an absolute zero (by the length of wave ) is infinite process.
From this point of view the end points of a scale are equivalent.
It means, that the Black Hole is the general point of the both ends of a scale, i.e. the scale of light frequencies does close in this point. Here there is a balancing between the maximal values of gravitational and magnetic forces.
Thus
THE PHOTON IS THE ANTIPODE OF BLACK HOLE
As well as
THE BLACK HOLE IS THE ANTIPODE OF PHOTON.
A wave it is always a wave. At any displays of its properties on a scale of frequencies.
Change of properties of a wave depending on its frequency is an attribute of interaction with other wave.
All these properties are shown on a background of a base carrying wave of the maximal frequency which is generated constantly by the Black Hole.
If "switch off" the Black Hole then our universe will stop the existence.
All observable phenomena are consequence of an interference of waves.
I am keeping good old concept, that one wave can exist on a background of other CARRYING WAVE. Thus frequency of a carrying wave should be, at least, 2 times more than a frequency of modulating wave. It is confirmed experimental data.
Besides at frequency modulation on which principles our universe is constructed, there should be some frequency of quantization. It defines an accuracy of approximation of the form of a real wave to an ideal wave. It is confirmed experimental data too.
Hence, such things for maintenance of work of our universe are necessary:
- stable oscillator of the carrying frequency;
- carrying wave;
- modulating wave;
- frequency of quantization.
The stable oscillator on a base of two singular mirror points (see above) is realized. The carrying wave has the maximal frequency 1/Planck Time.
The modulating waves is all objects of the universe.
The Frequency of quantization has two levels:
1. The basic frequency of quantization corresponds to the frequency of carrying wave.
2. An additional frequency of quantization corresponds to the frequency of photon.
The first level defines the properties of channels "object - object" or of intervals between objects and is shown as GRAVITATY and MAGNETIC FORCES.
The second one defines internal properties of objects and is shown as STRONG FORCE and the CHARGE.



Light has appeared as the unique "element" from which our universe is constructed.

So, I have made that up to me nobody could make. I have explained a general origin of gravity and magnet forces as well as strong force and charge.They are mirror reflection of each other on the general scale of frequencies. I have proved, also, one of a basic postulate of the Bible –
OUR WORLD IS CREATED OF LIGHT.

2003 Michael F. Dmitriyev

[russ_watters]

That is not how light is observed to work. The particle/wave duality exists for all frequencies and is dependent on how you attempt to measure it.

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by russ_watters
That is not how light is observed to work. The particle/wave duality exists for all frequencies and is dependent on how you attempt to measure it.
Are you meaning, that observable properties of atom do not differs from observable properties of infralow frequencie radiowave? I cannot agree with it.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
Are you meaning, that observable properties of atom do not differs from observable properties of infralow frequencie radiowave? I cannot agree with it. That doesn't make any sense. If you mean: Do you mean that the observed properties of atoms differ from the observed properties of ULF radio waves? Then the answer is yes. They do. Very very very very much so.

[Brad_Ad23]

Indeed. No matter what light frequency you look at, it displays the same particle/wave duality. The only things different are the wavelength and energy. Now, if said photon of a certain frequency is being used to accelerate a particle, then the particle will start to take on more point particle properties because its deBroglie wavelength will shrink towards zero, but can still never reach zero. And then when you factor in the HUP, if we carefully monitor the particles momentum, we will have less and less of an idea where exactly it is. But as for photons themselves in light streams, a photon is a photon. Just having a different energy and characteristic wave front.

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by russ_watters
That doesn't make any sense. If you mean: Then the answer is yes. They do. Very very very very much so.
Okay!And all these distinctions depend only on one thing. It is a frequency of light. That is how light is observed to work.

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
Indeed. No matter what light frequency you look at, it displays the same particle/wave duality. The only things different are the wavelength and energy. Now, if said photon of a certain frequency is being used to accelerate a particle, then the particle will start to take on more point particle properties because its deBroglie wavelength will shrink towards zero, but can still never reach zero. And then when you factor in the HUP, if we carefully monitor the particles momentum, we will have less and less of an idea where exactly it is. But as for photons themselves in light streams, a photon is a photon. Just having a different energy and characteristic wave front.
Frequency of EM waves (light) and its front are not interconnected. The front of a wave or the form of fluctuations defines presence and quantity of harmonics. Sine form fluctuation has no harmonics while pulses of the rectangular form have unlimited number of harmonics. Frequency of fluctuations at change of front does not change.

[Brad_Ad23]

Mike, frequency and wavelength are very much related.
&lambda; = c/&nu; That alone is basic.

The rest of your post however makes no sense. "The form functions have no harmonics but rectangular forms have unlimited harmonics." Wouldn't a rectangular form be itself a fluctuation? The answer is yes.

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
Mike, frequency and wavelength are very much related.
&lambda; = c/&nu; That alone is basic.

The rest of your post however makes no sense. "The form functions have no harmonics but rectangular forms have unlimited harmonics." Wouldn't a rectangular form be itself a fluctuation? The answer is yes.
Brad,
Read my last post attentively. I have told:
“ Sine form fluctuation has no harmonics while pulses of the rectangular form have unlimited number of harmonics. ”
You quote me in another way:
" the form functions have no harmonics but rectangular forms have unlimited harmonics. "
In result the sense was completely deformed.
Certainly, frequency and length of a fluctuation have strong interconnection.
But, Brad, frequency and front are the different things.

[McQueen]

That is not how light is observed to work. The particle/wave duality exists for all frequencies and is dependent on how you attempt to measure it.
I agree . One of the main characteristics of photons is their ability to retain their identity , if photons continued to increase their wave length equivavlent to their loss of energy , we would have no idea of what the Universe is all about . We would be like blind people trying to figure out what came from where. Photons do increase their wave-lengths but within definite limits. See http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight/natureoflight for a new theory on how this takes place.McQueen

[Brad_Ad23]

Ah, I admit I read sine as "since". But a sine wave does indeed have a harmonic property to it.

And regardless, photons are not observed to act as you state. If they did, we would not be able to do gamma ray astronomy. Now an interesting thing to realize is that gamma rays diffract less than radio waves. You might liken this to be more particle like, but it is simply because gamma rays have a much much much shorter wavelength than radio waves. They still do difract as if they were waves of their wavelength. But by no means do they seem more "particle like".

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
Ah, I admit I read sine as "since". But a sine wave does indeed have a harmonic property to it.

And regardless, photons are not observed to act as you state. If they did, we would not be able to do gamma ray astronomy. Now an interesting thing to realize is that gamma rays diffract less than radio waves. You might liken this to be more particle like, but it is simply because gamma rays have a much much much shorter wavelength than radio waves. They still do difract as if they were waves of their wavelength. But by no means do they seem more "particle like".
Brad,
You are not right again. Sine wave fluctuations HAVE no HARMONICS.
The method of measurement of harmonious distortions is based on it. The sine wave signal of the DEFORMED FORM has harmonics. Find the corresponding literature and be convinced of it. I hope to not come back any more to this question.
Now the second part of your post.
Gamma rays are not radio waves, because they are completely deprived of magnetic properties. But they already have mass, as against visible light because their frequency is much higher. Asserting it we recognize direct dependence of mass on frequency of fluctuations. Look after my point once again.
From the zero value of frequency up to visible light magnetic properties are present, but a mass is absent.
Visible light neutral. It has no mass and has no magnetic properties. It¡¦s acceptable name is "photon".
Further, in a direction of frequency increasing, magnetic properties completely are absent, and attributes of mass start to be shown. More frequency „³ more energy „³ more mass.
There are objections?

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by McQueen
I agree . One of the main characteristics of photons is their ability to retain their identity , if photons continued to increase their wave length equivavlent to their loss of energy , we would have no idea of what the Universe is all about . We would be like blind people trying to figure out what came from where. Photons do increase their wave-lengths but within definite limits. See http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight/natureoflight for a new theory on how this takes place.McQueen

McQueen,
Thanks for link. I have looked it and have not found out anything interesting or new.
Same was chewed at last 100 years.

[Brad_Ad23]

Yes Mike, there are objections. In fact every observation is an objection. Learn some real physics for a change, will you?

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
Yes Mike, there are objections. In fact every observation is an objection. Learn some real physics for a change, will you?
Brad,
Yours concrete objections which refute my point, please.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
Brad,
Yours concrete objections which refute my point, please. It appears you already know the answers, you just refuse to accept them. What you are saying is directly contrary to the way em radiation is observed to work. Existing theories on the nature of em radation are the way they are because thats how em radiation is observed to work in real life. They are not wrong, you are wrong. If you refuse to accept that, there isn't anything we can do to help you.

Like he said: learn (and accept) some real physics.

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by russ_watters
It appears you already know the answers, you just refuse to accept them. What you are saying is directly contrary to the way em radiation is observed to work. Existing theories on the nature of em radation are the way they are because thats how em radiation is observed to work in real life. They are not wrong, you are wrong. If you refuse to accept that, there isn't anything we can do to help you.

Like he said: learn (and accept) some real physics.
Occam's Razor: it results in a simpler description of reality.

[neutroncount]

Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
Occam's Razor: it results in a simpler description of reality.

That doesn't mean it's true. If you refuse to take account for what is really observed in nature, that's your own ignorance. Nature isn't simple. Who says it has to be?

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

I have attached this post to initial one.

[neutroncount]

Damn....you ARE a psycho! You're basing your extremely losely based theory on the bible, and than coming up with hypotheses already shown not to be true. I give you credit though. You push your crackpottery as far as it can go.

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by neutroncount
Damn....you ARE a psycho! You're basing your extremely losely based theory on the bible, and than coming up with hypotheses already shown not to be true. I give you credit though. You push your crackpottery as far as it can go.
...............................................
It was deleted by me.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
Occam's Razor: it results in a simpler description of reality. That isn't what Occam's Razor is for. Occam's Razor is for comparing two different theories that both ACCURATELY describe reality. To apply Occam's Razor you first have to start with an ACCURATE description of reality. Your description is inaccurate. So, I have made that up to me nobody could make. I have explained a general origin of mass and magnetism. I have proved, also, one of a basic postulate of the Bible –
OUR WORLD IS CREATED OF LIGHT. Lol, I get it now. Funny joke.

[vlamir]

Originally posted by neutroncount
Damn....you ARE a psycho! You're basing your extremely losely based theory on the bible, and than coming up with hypotheses already shown not to be true. I give you credit though. You push your crackpottery as far as it can go.
Bertrand Russell did not understand, that between the fool and the fanatic the infinity stretches.

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

That isn't what Occam's Razor is for. Occam's Razor is for comparing two different theories that both ACCURATELY describe reality. To apply Occam's Razor you first have to start with an ACCURATE description of reality. Your description is inaccurate.
I guess, that PF not a place for accommodation and discussions of the whole theory. The new theory begins with new idea or some point. I have offered my own idea for discussion. This idea does not contradict existing observations. Taking into account, that observations and theories are different things, I do not think that the contradiction of new idea with the existing theory is a lack. The new idea should be such by definition. Perhaps, you consider, what the existing theory explains all phenomena and does not require development?
In any case I would like to hear concrete opinions on idea, instead of the common reasoning. Particularly on properties of a particle or a wave depending on the placement on a scale of frequencies.
So?

Lol, I get it now. Funny joke.
It is not the joke as seems to you. It is quite serious. Perhaps, you have data on similar idea and its author? Then inform, please.
BTW, each person can operate only the volume of information, which he able to perceive.

[vlamir]

Michael,
I feel, that in your thoughts there is a rational kernel.
Please, think on these pictures - left-spiral atom and photon.
Energy circulates in rings with speed of light and twists on the left spiral.
Magnetic component in photons is green.
Quite clearly, that exist and right-spiral hydrogen atoms.
Maybe, these figures will direct you to new thoughts.
I wish you successes.
http://www.sinor.ru/~polytron/h_atom.gif
http://www.sinor.ru/~polytron/photon.gif

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
This idea does not contradict existing observations. It does. Sorry. You are going to waste a lot of your time by continuing to try to develop this idea. You'd help yourself out a lot by learning some physics. Then you would know what observations say about light and not waste time developing ideas that are contrary to reality.Perhaps, you consider, what the existing theory explains all phenomena and does not require development? No one said any such thing. Existing theories are well known to be incomplete. What you propose is not one of the ways in which our existing theories on light are incomplete. What you are describing would be a fundamental property of light and is contrary to observation. In any case I would like to hear concrete opinions on idea, instead of the common reasoning. Particularly on properties of a particle or a wave depending on the placement on a scale of frequencies. You can't get any more fundamental than being specifically wrong in what observations say about light. There is really nothing else to say.It is not the joke as seems to you. It is quite serious. Perhaps, you have data on similar idea and its author? Then inform, please. Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, Heisenberg. I recommend reading some of their work.

[elas]

That is not how light is observed to work. The particle/wave duality exists for all frequencies and is dependent on how you attempt to measure it.

Fear not; I am not going to introduce my own project yet again. But the above statement is not satisfactory . Are you saying that Vlamir's
a) mathematics are wromg or are you saying
b) they are correct but do not match observations or finally, are you saying
c) they are wrong mathematically as well as not matching observations.

If reply (b) is your answer I will develope arguement on a seperate forum

[vlamir]

Elas,
I consider, that your researches are very interesting also part from them deserves steadfast attention.
Recently young Russian physicist Sergey Polyschuk won the gold medal and premium of Russian Academy of Sciences for new theoretical developments in physics of nanoworld. The scientific work by Sergey is bounded with researching of ring energy elements of nanoworld.
Your ideas and the ideas by S. Polyschuk have many conterminous features.
I approve of your sentence about a new separate forum. But only it should be one big forum (not a lot of small).

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by elas
That is not how light is observed to work. The particle/wave duality exists for all frequencies and is dependent on how you attempt to measure it.

Fear not; I am not going to introduce my own project yet again. But the above statement is not satisfactory . Are you saying that Vlamir's
a) mathematics are wromg or are you saying
b) they are correct but do not match observations or finally, are you saying
c) they are wrong mathematically as well as not matching observations.

If reply (b) is your answer I will develope arguement on a seperate forum I haven't looked at the math. Frankly, his ideas are so wrong as to not be ready to apply any math to. In any case, if his math matches his logic, then the answer is c. If his math matches reality, then he doesn't understand his own idea. And I find that unlikely.

Remember also, having the arithmetic correct is not the same as having the math correct. 1+1=2 (for example) is a true statement but it doesn't tell us anything about the nature of light.

[elas]

Frankly, his ideas are so wrong as to not be ready to apply any math to.

MASS (GRAVITY FORCE) IS DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL TO FREQUENCY OF LIGHT.
EM FORCE IS INVERSELY TO FREQUENCY OF LIGHT.
FREQUENCY OF VISIBLE LIGHT IS THE ZERO POINT ON THE GENERAL SCALE OF GRAVITY AND EM FORCES.

russ_watters

The three statements made by Vlamir are not just "ideas" they are claimed to be statements of mathematical fact. I need an independent comfirmation or refutation of each statement.

Not having had the mathematical training of either yourself or Vlamir I am unable to check his work. But by using graphs, Emsley's 'Table of Elements' and The Fractional Quantum Hall Experiment, I have shown various relationship including the cause of the relationship between vaccum wave, em wave and atomic radii. If Vlamir work is correct then (regardless of the opinion of quantum physicist) particle physicist have for the first time ever, an explanation of the cause of the internal structure of particles and atoms.
Given that several universities are working on a possible vacuum theory to replace relativity and that my work is based on vacuum fields then the statements made by Vlamir could be the key to a totally new theory that does not replace current theory but makes a similar adjustment to it as that made by Einstein to the work of Newton (on a lesser scale, of course). For that reason it is important to know wether they are mathematically correct or not. If they are correct then we can start debating the quality of the idea.

Vlamir

The list of scientist who have intially been derided for their ides is far to long to repeat, (and the number of wrong ideas that have been eagerly accepted is not all that short). Do not be disheartened by snap judgements but keep insisting on constructive criticism. I am starting on an alternative explanation of magnetism (not new laws but new vacuum based explanations) this will take some time. Meanwhile I shall try and keep up with your work
regards
elas

[vlamir]

Two phenomena, which underlay modern physical theories, are constructed on two fictions by scientists XIX and XX of centuries.
The first phenomenon is the dualism of wave and particle.
The second phenomenon is the transmutation of mass and energy.
The first fiction is the fundamental particle.
The second fiction is the formalism "mass".

If we shall eliminate both fictions from phenomena, then remains with reality:
Wave = Energy.

The reason of our obstinate misunderstanding of the reality is, that training of man to any theories represents the targeted process of cultivating of stereotypes in consciousness and subconsciousness of the man.
It is the Pavlov's theory, which, it is necessary to tell, still never has yielded of failure.
I consciously speak, that it is zombeing of students. For students a lot of theoretical material give, and then require good knowledge its material. Complexity, multiformity and problemness of the experimental facts they should find out already after training-zombeing.

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by elas

MASS (GRAVITY FORCE) IS DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL TO FREQUENCY OF LIGHT.
EM FORCE IS INVERSELY TO FREQUENCY OF LIGHT.
FREQUENCY OF VISIBLE LIGHT IS THE ZERO POINT ON THE GENERAL SCALE OF GRAVITY AND EM FORCES.

The three statements made by Vlamir are not just "ideas" they are claimed to be statements of mathematical fact. I need an independent comfirmation or refutation of each statement.

Elas,
I join to your kind words concerning the works of vlamir. I have too respect to him. I wish vlamir the further successes and the deserved recognition. But, I am sorry, elas. This the statements made by me. This is my own ideas. Look at an initial post of this thread, please.
Best regards.
Michael F. Dmitriyev.

[elas]

Micheal

My deepest apologies, I do not know how but I thought I was dealing with one person instead of two (Micheal and Vlamir). This mistake arises because I only get short periods on my computer and old age is affecting my ability to make quick judgements, so I concentrate on trying to make a considered reply rather than checking out that I am addressing the right person. I will be more carefull in future.

I do not entirely agree with your latest submission but I need a little time to put my case in order. The most exciting thing is that between us we have linked wave to mass and radii to mass while both agreeing that the term 'mass' should really be replaced with 'energy'. So we have the start of a theory that brings the size of particles and atoms, together with their particular energy and wave structure. The fact that we dissagree over the existence or non-existence of particles is a matter for further debate. Please correct me if I have got that wrong.
regards
elas

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by elas
Frankly, his ideas are so wrong as to not be ready to apply any math to.

MASS (GRAVITY FORCE) IS DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL TO FREQUENCY OF LIGHT.
EM FORCE IS INVERSELY TO FREQUENCY OF LIGHT.
FREQUENCY OF VISIBLE LIGHT IS THE ZERO POINT ON THE GENERAL SCALE OF GRAVITY AND EM FORCES.

russ_watters

The three statements made by Vlamir are not just "ideas" they are claimed to be statements of mathematical fact. I need an independent comfirmation or refutation of each statement. [?] [?] If what the math says is observed in the real world to be wrong, then its wrong. I'm not sure how else to explain it. 1+1 may equal 2, but that doesn't tell us anything of significance about the nature of light. His first "statement of mathematical fact" is is somethinig that could be measured directly if it were true. Specifically, if light had/carried mass, then a light source would also be a source of gravity. You could measure it. DATA. His "mathematical fact" is CONTRARY to DATA. It is wrong. For that reason it is important to know wether they are mathematically correct or not. If they are correct then we can start debating the quality of the idea. Let me explain another way. You start with data/observations, you fit a theory to it (apply math in this case) and then draw a conclusion, then you compare your conclusion to other observations. You can build a little matrix with 4 possible conditions and outcomes:

1. Correct data, correct math
2. Correct data, incorrect math
3. Incorrect data, incorrect math
4. Incorrect data, correct math

Now, it should be obvious what sort of conclusions this leads to. Only case 1 will lead to a correct conclusion. The other three will not.

Now, is the math correct? Dunno. But as you can see, its irrelevant. Since the conclusion is observed to be wrong, either the starting data is wrong or the math is wrong. If I had to guess, I 'd guess he did his arithmetic right, just with wrong starting data. Thats how these things usually go. If the people who develop these ideas had a better understanding of physics, they wouldn't be trying to develop these ideas. They would know that they are contrary to observed reality.

[elas]

if light had/carried mass, then a light source would also be a source of gravity. You could measure it. DATA. His "mathematical fact" is CONTRARY to DATA. It is wrong.

This has been debated on various forums. There is a theoretical mass for light that is roughly 1/3 on the lowest mass measureable experimentally. So the conclusion is only observably wrong because of the limitations of the equipment used to conduct the experiment.

However, my interest does not lie solely in the light aspect of Micheal's work but in the linkage between electromagnetic waves and mass in general. You will I trust agree that each particle and atom has its own peculiar wave structure, then if Micheal has found a link between wave and mass, he has made a significant contribution to Particle Physics.

The transmission of light is subject to many questions and is a long way from being satisfactorily explained (see Enc. Brit.), so I would ask you to put that to one side and return to my request, "is [B]Micheal[/B mathematically correct?, if he is then we can got down to the heart of the matter which is not necessarily concerned with bosons but rather with baryons and leptons.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by elas
if light had/carried mass, then a light source would also be a source of gravity. You could measure it. DATA. His "mathematical fact" is CONTRARY to DATA. It is wrong.

This has been debated on various forums. There is a theoretical mass for light that is roughly 1/3 on the lowest mass measureable experimentally. So the conclusion is only observably wrong because of the limitations of the equipment used to conduct the experiment. That makes no sense - you could get 3x the mass by observing 3x the light. In any case, thats only one of the many inconsistencies in what he is describing - the wave/particle duality of light is another important error he's operating on.so I would ask you to put that to one side and return to my request, "is [B]Micheal[/B mathematically correct?, You're just not getting it. Sorry, there isn't any simpler way for me to explain it to you. His math needs to reflect reality. Reality isn't bound to reflect his math. Refusal to accept that will bring you much failure in your scientific pursuits.

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by vlamir
....we shall remains with reality:
Wave = Energy.
You are right, vlamir.
But, what parameters of a wave defines its energy?
It is a frequency. In fact it is an efficient amplitude.
At increasing of frequency an efficient amplitude has changing.
THESE CHANGES ARE ABSOLUTE OPPOSITE FOR MAGNETIC AND FOR GRAVITY PROPERTIES. What will be with an energy in this case?

[elas]

That makes no sense - you could get 3x the mass by observing 3x the light.

It is not possible to conduct an experiment where more than one photon occupies the same point on the same line of advance. But it is possible to prove by experiment that there is a limit to the number of electrons occupying the same point at the same time, could that be due to their mass?. We do not know because we need movement to measure mass.

[vlamir]

Michael,
Now I am at difficulty even to make the supposition concerning it.
I debate the theme " Dissociation of hydrogen " in Science Forums and I am in active correspondence with Mr. A.Kushelev concerning these wave parameters.
Perhaps, the situation becomes more clear in the near future.
Best regards.

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by vlamir
Michael,
Now I am at difficulty even to make the supposition concerning it.
I debate the theme " Dissociation of hydrogen " in Science Forums and I am in active correspondence with Mr. A.Kushelev concerning these wave parameters.
Perhaps, the situation becomes more clear in the near future.
Best regards.
Okay.
4) Photons are spread rectilinearly and have no the rest mass.
5) Atoms have a rest mass and can magnify and diminish it at the expense of absorption and emission of photons.
The facts 4) and 5) gives for us the basis to state, that a mass and curvature of speed (i.e. radial acceleration) are inseparably linked each with other.
The mathematical simulation of processes of radiation and absorption of light by multifrequency ring oscillators (polytrons) has allowed calculating diameter of these oscillators.
Dear vlamir. I hope, you have found out yours statements from the thread “ dipole of speed ”. I think the facts 4) and 5) are the direct proofs of my correctness.

[elas]

5) Atoms have a rest mass and can magnify and diminish it at the expense of absorption and emission of photons.


So were does the mass added to or removed from the atom go to or come from?

[vlamir]

Yes Michael, of course.
But the precise calculations are necessary. I am very tired to search for the experimental facts in the literature and in Internet. I shall ask the help from A.Kushelev and S.Polyschuk.

Elas,
Mass is curvature of speed of light in atoms.

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by elas
5) Atoms have a rest mass and can magnify and diminish it at the expense of absorption and emission of photons.


So were does the mass added to or removed from the atom go to or come from?
Dear Elas.
I see a trap which contains your question.
Do you mean that the photon, not having a rest mass, cannot change a rest mass of atom at radiation or absorption? On existing view it is so.
But if take to advantage of my scale where ALL phenomena are defined only by one parameter – frequency of a wave, then this contradiction is absent. The absorbed photon increases a frequency of a standing wave which represents a particle (atom). It is shown as effect of increase a rest mass of this particle (atom).
The radiated photon reduces a frequency of this wave and it is shown as effect of decrease a rest mass of particle (atom).

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

The initial post of this thread has been edited. Some specifications explaining my point are added. Read this post once again, please.

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Dear Vlamir,
As far as I know, your experiments with ring oscillators (polytrons)as well as your mathematical calculations allows to find the energy spectrums of atoms, or a set of own resonance frequencies of atomic oscillators[B/] for hydrogen and helium.
But, WHY YOU ARE HAVE ACCOUNT THESE DATA AS SUITABLE ONLY FOR ACCOMMODATION IN THE DIRECTORY?
[B]Actually, it is a fundamental data!

[elas]

Just recovered from yet another crash. Glad to see debate continuing will submit reply soon
elas

[vlamir]

Michael,
I have fulfilled calculations not only for hydrogen and helium. At present I have calculated upper spectrums for silicon and has compared them with experimental data. But for heavier elements such data are absent in the literature.
As to usage of my method - here deadlock. I accessed in NIST and more than to 10 leading theorists in the different countries. But they have not answered to my letters.

[elas]

1) Do you mean that the photon, not having a rest mass, cannot change a rest mass of atom at radiation or absorption? On existing view it is so.

2) But if take to advantage of my scale where ALL phenomena are defined only by one parameter – frequency of a wave, then this contradiction is absent.

1a) I am saying that in order to have an effect on other particles a photon must have a rest mass. You will be aware that some leading physicist agree that mass is a prerequisite of existence and therefore a photon must have mass even if it is the most insignificant of quantities. I am saying this 'insignificance' is due to the absence of a photon vacuum field.

2a) Every wave must have a wave carrier, just as every force must have a force carrier. In my opinion these carriers are one and the same thing. It is this 'force carrier' that I believe holds the key that might unite our seperate ideas into a possible new theory.

Would you agree that if photon frequency 1 reflects off atom A it has a different frequency (frequency 2). Now if it reflects off atom B it has another frequency (frequency C).
But if an electron followed the same path its frequency would not necessarily change.
I explain this difference in behaviour as being due to the abscence (in the case of a photon) or the presence (in the case of an electron) of a vacuum field.

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by elas
1) Do you mean that the photon, not having a rest mass, cannot change a rest mass of atom at radiation or absorption? On existing view it is so.

2) But if take to advantage of my scale where ALL phenomena are defined only by one parameter – frequency of a wave, then this contradiction is absent.

1a) I am saying that in order to have an effect on other particles a photon must have a rest mass. You will be aware that some leading physicist agree that mass is a prerequisite of existence and therefore a photon must have mass even if it is the most insignificant of quantities. I am saying this 'insignificance' is due to the absence of a photon vacuum field.

2a) Every wave must have a wave carrier, just as every force must have a force carrier. In my opinion these carriers are one and the same thing. It is this 'force carrier' that I believe holds the key that might unite our seperate ideas into a possible new theory.

Would you agree that if photon frequency 1 reflects off atom A it has a different frequency (frequency 2). Now if it reflects off atom B it has another frequency (frequency C).
But if an electron followed the same path its frequency would not necessarily change.
I explain this difference in behaviour as being due to the abscence (in the case of a photon) or the presence (in the case of an electron) of a vacuum field.
1-1a)I am saying that the photon is in balancing near zero value of mass and magnetic property. Achievement of absolute zero value it is infinite process. Therefore it is possible to say quite definitely, that the photon has mass and magnetic properties close, but not equal to zero.
2-2a) About a carrying wave was told in an initial post (edited) of this thread.
Read it once again, please.
As the unit of measurement of a frequency is 1/sec and the unit of measurement of time is sec, that a frequency and time are the opposite essences.
Therefore the laws concerning these two essences are identical (except a sign).
I have invented “ The law of conservation of time circle”

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1054

It means preservation of the frequency inherent at object too.
For this reason atom A radiates photons of frequency 1, and atom B radiates photons of frequency 2. They are not dependent on frequency of the absorbed photon.
My point about concept "field" can be seen in mine topic “Does field exist?”
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6130

[QuantumNet]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
Indeed. No matter what light frequency you look at, it displays the same particle/wave duality.

I'd go one step further. Since net is moving against particles, the amount of motion is always mc in the same way as the resting mass is m.

All particles, no matter how fast they move, has the amount of motion mc and thereby the inner amount of motion is m(c^2-v^2)^0,5. This funktion is hard to integrate. What is the integrale of this function?

[QuantumNet]

I'll move this theory of the atom to The Atom, still in the theory development forum

[elas]

Michael

It would help me to understand your theory better if you would give your explanation as to the origin of the wave structure. (i.e. what brings the wave into existance?

regards
elas

[QuantumNet]

Originally posted by elas
Michael

what brings the wave into existance?

regards
elas

What makes the string vibrate?

A loss of mass. [6)]

[elas]

But if take to advantage of my scale where ALL phenomena are defined only by one parameter – frequency of a wave, then this contradiction is absent.

What makes the string vibrate?
A loss of mass.

If you are using only one parameter, there is no mass, hence my question.
For a loss of mass to occur, the origin of mass must be accounted for. On my site I put forward a proposal for the origin of both mass and wave and show how the wave structure is related to the observed universe and the observed mass is related to vacuum force.
The aim of my question was to obtain an understanding of the origin of the waves in Micheal's and Vlamir's theories so that I could make some comparison.

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by elas
Michael

It would help me to understand your theory better if you would give your explanation as to the origin of the wave structure. (i.e. what brings the wave into existance?

regards
elas
The carrier of one wave can be the other wave ONLY. Thus, frequency of a carrying wave should be at least in 2 times more, then a frequency of a wave which it carries (a theorem of Kotelnikov). Digital video and audio is based on this principle of recording. How many levels of “ the wave carries other wave ” exists, I do not know. It is possible to do only assumptions, how many such levels exist.

[elas]

The carrier of one wave can be the other wave ONLY. Thus, frequency of a carrying wave should be at least in 2 times more, then a frequency of a wave which it carries (a theorem of Kotelnikov).

This is close to the root of my question. Without knowing anything about Kotelnikov and his work, I showed that each vacuum half-wave creates two waves in the force carrier due to the relationship between the mass and elasticity within the field (because the mass/density and elasticity decrease and increase along the radius). Note that I use The Fractional Quantum Hall Experiment to relate my work to experimental observations.

You seem to be implying that a single (original) wave existed without a wave carrier and I cannot understand how it (the wave) can do so. Surely in order for any wave to exist there must be a substance in which to create the wave. By that I mean you cannot have a wave made of nothing operating in a field of nothing. Can you please clarify this point.

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by elas

You seem to be implying that a single (original) wave existed without a wave carrier and I cannot understand how it (the wave) can do so. Surely in order for any wave to exist there must be a substance in which to create the wave. By that I mean you cannot have a wave made of nothing operating in a field of nothing. Can you please clarify this point.
The carrying (original) wave exists in the fine structure (vacuum) and it is a fluctuation of this substance. What this layer is “made” of, as well as, how many sublayers exist, we do not know. Probably, it will not be accessible to us never. Therefore we can develop more or less “working” model of this substance only.

[elas]

Micheal

"The carrying (original) wave exists in the fine structure (vacuum) and it is a fluctuation of this substance . What this layer is “made” of, as well as, how many sublayers exist, we do not know".

So is this not the same as saying that the vacuum wave is carried on the vacuum force carrier. Surely we are using different words to describe very similar concepts. The only difference that I can find is that my concept does not have sub-layers in the same manner as yours but, in a manner that accounts for the existence of the other forces. This is shown in graph form on my web page.

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by elas

So is this not the same as saying that the vacuum wave is carried on the vacuum force carrier. Surely we are using different words to describe very similar concepts. The only difference that I can find is that my concept does not have sub-layers in the same manner as yours but, in a manner that accounts for the existence of the other forces. This is shown in graph form on my web page.
Dear elas ,
I am glad, that our representations about the fine structure are coincides in something. To be sure, I need to know your theory. Bring a link of your web page, please.
Preliminarily.
The source of EM fluctuations can be:
1) a rotating magnetic dipole;
2) the magnetic dipole in which the poles can be switched with some frequency.
What you are preferring (as the source of EM wave)?

[elas]

Micheal

My site address is
http://elasticity2.tripod.com/

At present only a small piece on the origin of the electromagnetic wave is on site. This is partly due to the current revision after a program crash and partly due to my lack of traing in mathematics.
Deispite these shortcomings I think the links I make between the wave structures (vacuum and electromagnetism) of TFQHE and the wave structures of cosmic bodies are original and worthy of proffessional comment.

Have just gone back to my site to find that the cosmic body wave page has not yet been reloaded. Will do this within the next week and let you know when it is reloaded.
regards
elas

[Rader]

Would anyone care to give me some insight.

En general Quantum Mechanics’ does not predict only one result from each observation. What it does do, is predict a certain number of possible results or probabilities of each of them. In the same system and under the same conditions, the path of the particle A to B is measured. The result obtained successively is the number approximately of A to B. The sum of all the histories of the trajectory of A to B in space-time is calculated.

I can visualize this that a determined number of approximate paths can make the approximate calculated trajectory. What is the width of that trajectory? The plank length? What I am asking is, what is the width of an orbit of a particle. If it is the plank length then the trajectory between A and B is a determined, one width and one path decision. Is this correct logic.

[8)]

[elas]

Micheal

I am glad, that our representations about the fine structure are coincides in something. To be sure, I need to know your theory. Bring a link of your web page, please.

Please read Why all the nut cases in Theory development where I have entered a lengthy defence of my theory. Having been forced to research a defense has made me aware of why the opposition is so vigorous. It has also opened my eyes to what leading academics in other branches of science think of QP, String Theory and The Standard Model. It is worth asking yourself in which category they would place your theory, but keep up the good work,
regards
elas

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by Rader
Would anyone care to give me some insight.

En general Quantum Mechanics’ does not predict only one result from each observation. What it does do, is predict a certain number of possible results or probabilities of each of them. In the same system and under the same conditions, the path of the particle A to B is measured. The result obtained successively is the number approximately of A to B. The sum of all the histories of the trajectory of A to B in space-time is calculated.

I can visualize this that a determined number of approximate paths can make the approximate calculated trajectory. What is the width of that trajectory? The plank length? What I am asking is, what is the width of an orbit of a particle. If it is the plank length then the trajectory between A and B is a determined, one width and one path decision. Is this correct logic.

[8)]
I have offered “ the CHANNEL of INTERACTION ” instead of “ FIELD”

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6130

Only EM wave can move on this channel. This wave it is consecutive change of conditions of elements of fine structure similar to switching of poles of elementary magnets. Speed of switching is a fundamental constant of fine structure.
Such point explains all inexplicable on today the phenomena:
- absoluteness of speed of light;
- origin of inertia (mass);
- origin of gravity force;
- origin of magnetic and EM forces;
- origin of strong force
- all objects orbiting.
Any particle is the certain combination of frequencies (a set of bit or the data set). Its moving occurs as CONSECUTIVE moving this data set through the channel.
It is obvious, that the greater volume of the data (mass of a particle) demands greater time for its moving. The volume of data determines a measure of inertia of object or TIME of ITS REWRITING on fine structure.
The width of the channel corresponds Plank length. Taking into account that any system cannot be in one condition during the different moments of time, coincidence of paths with such accuracy is excluded.

[Rader]

Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
I have offered “ the CHANNEL of INTERACTION ” instead of “ FIELD”

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6130

Only EM wave can move on this channel. This wave it is consecutive change of conditions of elements of fine structure similar to switching of poles of elementary magnets. Speed of switching is a fundamental constant of fine structure.
Such point explains all inexplicable on today the phenomena:
- absoluteness of speed of light;
- origin of inertia (mass);
- origin of gravity force;
- origin of magnetic and EM forces;
- origin of strong force
- all objects orbiting.
Any particle is the certain combination of frequencies (a set of bit or the data set). Its moving occurs as CONSECUTIVE moving this data set through the channel.
It is obvious, that the greater volume of the data (mass of a particle) demands greater time for its moving. The volume of data determines a measure of inertia of object or TIME of ITS REWRITING on fine structure.
The width of the channel corresponds Plank length. Taking into account that any system cannot be in one condition during the different moments of time, coincidence of paths with such accuracy is excluded.

Let examine this. Then if any particle has a certain combination of frequencies or data set of them, in movements through time, they could not be pinpointed in a said condition. Is this to mean that any system is in constant change though space-time? Can time be broken down to plank units of time? Can a systems wave funtion be in only one condition in a plank unit of time. Does this not account for particle structure?
[8)]

[elas]

Does this not account for particle structure?

This question shows how QP is misunderstood even by its exponents. I have summarized the problem in a lengthy reply in the forum “Why all the nutcases”.
‘the question of whether or not the wave is real or whether the need to use wave mathematics is purely coincidental, has not yet been settled and leading academics have different views on this question’.
This problem arises because QP predicts the existence of entities such as waves, mass and energies that are then given names, but their properties are not defined in structural terms; so QP tells us how the wave behaves but not what it is. Each entity can be tested in a particular manner but not in combinations that allow knowledge of the structure (i.e. is a photon a wave or particle etc).
If QP could be linked to structure it would in the eyes of those who specialise in the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge cease to be a philosophy and instead become a science.

[Rader]

Originally posted by elas
Does this not account for particle structure?

This question shows how QP is misunderstood even by its exponents. I have summarized the problem in a lengthy reply in the forum “Why all the nutcases”.

I have been following it.

‘the question of whether or not the wave is real or whether the need to use wave mathematics is purely coincidental, has not yet been settled and leading academics have different views on this question’.

Whether or not the wave is real, whatever you want to take that as, is debatable, but when there is a observation of fine structure, objective mass manifests itself.

This problem arises because QP predicts the existence of entities such as waves, mass and energies that are then given names, but their properties are not defined in structural terms; so QP tells us how the wave behaves but not what it is. Each entity can be tested in a particular manner but not in combinations that allow knowledge of the structure (i.e. is a photon a wave or particle etc).
If QP could be linked to structure it would in the eyes of those who specialise in the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge cease to be a philosophy and instead become a science.

There seems to be built in SAS, in fine structure, through mathematics, by which the law or laws of nature, can determine which is the best way for a system to evolve into self aware complex entities..

Have you seen the web link to the nano guitar, on this site? Has anyone ever condidered building a micro-telescope, the size of atoms, to probe the plank lenght. It would be no different looking into, as we do, out to with a telecope now. We could then view what is between the atom and the plank lenght.

Question how does a fuzzy system become a discrete measurement when observed? Its interesting to read some of the assumptions and that is what they are as no one really knows yet.

Niel Bohr says "on quote" that macroscopic systems can not be considered in the same way as microscopic systems. They can not be discussed in quantum terms. The measurment simple happens, it can not be analysed further and must be accepted unquestionigly.

Quite differently John Wheeler says "on quote" quite a staggering one, that collapse of the wave funtion does not happen, but that all the possible measurements are actually observed, somewhere. In our universe only one is observed, but in an infinite number of alternative universes, an infinite number of doppelgangers of ourselves are observing all the other possible outcomes. We can not know them but they exist.

It seems to me that thinking, assumptions, theory, testing, and confirmation is all part of the game.
[8)]

[elas]

Rader
Thank-you for your reply. I was beginning to think no one had read my piece in'nutcases' or that no one considered it worthy of a reply.
Now I see that the opposition is going to use the beyond explanation defense common to religion and philosophy.
I refuse to accept that such a defense has any place in science, so the battle line is now clearly drawn.
I will answer by argueing that two systems that cannot be discussed in the same way can still be linked together by definning and relating their entities (i.e. by building a bridge).
regards
elas

[Rader]

Originally posted by elas
Rader
Thank-you for your reply. I was beginning to think no one had read my piece in'nutcases' or that no one considered it worthy of a reply.
Now I see that the opposition is going to use the beyond explanation defense common to religion and philosophy.
I refuse to accept that such a defense has any place in science, so the battle line is now clearly drawn.
I will answer by argueing that two systems that cannot be discussed in the same way can still be linked together by definning and relating their entities (i.e. by building a bridge).
regards
elas

There are many symmetries en nature, it seem to be a constant. String theory is witness to that. Maybe there is symmetry in your theory to QM. I would have to agree with Tom, it has to be proven with mathematics. Fine structure has to have first and foremost mathematics as its first parameter, as to defining how it works. Theories have to be proven with mathematics so they can be tested and then become proofs.
[8)]

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by Rader
Let examine this. Then if any particle has a certain combination of frequencies or data set of them, in movements through time, they could not be pinpointed in a said condition. Is this to mean that any system is in constant change though space-time? Can time be broken down to plank units of time? Can a systems wave funtion be in only one condition in a plank unit of time. Does this not account for particle structure?
[8)]
Yes. The reality exists in current Plank time only. It is the minimal cycle of time. The continuity is prodigal. Discreteness is economic. The nature always chooses an optimum variant. Any object (the particle or any their combination) has a cycle of time inherent in it. Time for each object individually and represents the counter working on subtraction. From a birth to death. All time cycles are synchronized by the minimal cycle of time. It is fair both for macroobjects and for microobjects.
Time is connected to frequency of a wave the return relation.
It is possible to tell, that the carrying wave of the maximal frequency corresponds to the minimal cycle of time and the cycle of time of object corresponds to a combination of frequencies or a data set.
Each object with each time unit loses the unit of it's data set. This process is observed as radiation of a photon of the certain frequency. But radiation of a photon does not occur in "anywhere" and absorption does not occur "anywhere". Only on channels “ object – object ”. All objects are capable to absorb a data set ( photons) which have supplementing their set up to initial one. It is the process of regeneration.

[alflud]

wasn't me. (Sorry.)

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by russ_watters
I will freely admit to having only a conceptual (ie, not mathematical) understanding of high end concpets in physics such as the nature of light. But that is all that is required to see that some of his statements are directly contradictory to what is actually observed. Heck, the title of his other thread is itself an easy example. [/B]
You are repeating it with persistence worthy the best application. But when you’ll tell definitely, at last, where this contradictions are observed. Is it your great secret?

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
You are repeating it with persistence worthy the best application. But when you’ll tell definitely, at last, where this contradictions are observed. Is it your great secret? Secret? In the second post of this thread, I said: That is not how light is observed to work. The particle/wave duality exists for all frequencies and is dependent on how you attempt to measure it. Thats it (others echoed it though). There is nothing more to say except to examine (in another thread) WHY you refuse to accept a veritable MOUNTAIN of imperical evidence.

edit: reading back to the beginning, I may have found the source of your misunderstanding. You mention the frequency of hydrogen. I'm not sure if thats the natural frequency or just the frequency of light it absorbs, but in any case, QM - the Hesienberg Uncertainty Principle - predicts (and its observed) that particles obey a similar duality. Electrons for example can only be modeled as being in a "cloud" for this reason. And electron stream will create a diffraction pattern. Though the uncertainty gets quickly lower and lower as the particles get bigger, it still exists for all particles. (someone else can get more in depth there - thats about my limit). You may be confusing this concept with the behavior of light. Though similar, that does NOT mean particles are simply high frequency em radiation.

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Secret? In the second post of this thread, I said: Thats it (others echoed it though). There is nothing more to say except to examine (in another thread) WHY you refuse to accept a veritable MOUNTAIN of imperical evidence.

edit: reading back to the beginning, I may have found the source of your misunderstanding. You mention the frequency of hydrogen. I'm not sure if thats the natural frequency or just the frequency of light it absorbs, but in any case, QM - the Hesienberg Uncertainty Principle - predicts (and its observed) that particles obey a similar duality. Electrons for example can only be modeled as being in a "cloud" for this reason. And electron stream will create a diffraction pattern. Though the uncertainty gets quickly lower and lower as the particles get bigger, it still exists for all particles. (someone else can get more in depth there - thats about my limit). You may be confusing this concept with the behavior of light. Though similar, that does NOT mean particles are simply high frequency em radiation.
I do not “refuse to accept a veritable MOUNTAIN of empirical evidence”. I completely recognize them. But I draw OTHER CONCLUSIONS on these results. Agree, it is not empty obstinacy in which you reproach me. I try to find the REASON of such behavior of a wave and a particle. And these searches have led me to what you see here.
MY CONCLUSIONS DO NOT CONTRADICT ANY OBSERVATION.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
MY CONCLUSIONS DO NOT CONTRADICT ANY OBSERVATION. This is getting tedious. Yes. They do contradict observations. Again, your opening statement - the crux of your arguement - does not fit with observations. For another example, if what you said were correct, a gravitational lens would act like a gravitational PRISM.

EM radiation obeys the particle/wave duality in all frequencies and which manifests itself more depends on the specific experiment, not the frequency of the radiation being meausured. And the particle/wave duality of light isn't a conclusion to be reached, its DATA. It IS the observation. The observations themsleves display the particle/wave duality. When you look at a diffraction pattern for example, you are looking at a wave phenomenon.

One strange thing here is that you are attempting to fit a binary criteria (yes or no question) to a spectrum: you can't say one thing acts more like a wave than another - either they act like waves or they don't. Do they display diffraction patterns? If yes, its a wave, if no, its not a wave. Same goes for particle properties - can you quantize it or not?

I realize you will refuse to accept this, but its the truth. If you crack open a physics book and ACCEPT what you read, you'll learn it.

I might as well be redundant (save me the effort later): The particle/wave duality is not a conclusion or a theory, it is the OBSERVATIONS themselves. We don't theorize that light exhibits a particle/wave duality, we OBSERVE it.

Besides that, you can just reread your own thread here from the beginning (not that I really think it will help). All of this has been said before.

Let me try another approach. Can you suggest/link an experiment that would show what you are saying? For example, lets say I hypothesized that red light was waves and blue light particles. To display this, I'd set up a diffraction experiment and if I were right, the red light would show a diffraction pattern and the blue light wouldn't.

[vlamir]

Originally posted by russ_watters
... QM - the Hesienberg Uncertainty Principle - predicts (and its observed) that particles obey a similar duality. Electrons for example can only be modeled as being in a "cloud" for this reason.
...
russ_waters,
QM is the theory of an imaginary world, which is described in the terms of mathematics of imaginary numbers.
I work on the theory of the real world, and recently I have found the equation of the electrical moment of elementary charge q_{e}. This moment is the function of elementary cycle of time. In the equation, it is set by way of frequency f_{c}. I want apart to underline, that Michael earlier had offered this theme for discussion, but anybody in PF has not understood his idea. It is very pity.
Now you can look, what is QM in terms of mathematics of the real world.

p_{q}(m,n_{r},r,\theta )=\frac{2\pi f_{c}q_{e}\sqrt{\frac{r}{D}n^{2}_{r}sin\theta}{(1+ 18.254(\frac{r}{D})^{2})^{\frac{3}{4}}\sqrt{m^{2}+ 0.298^{2}n^{2}_{r}}}

Where
r – radius-vector from center of charge into point of observing
D – diameter of charge
n_{r} – relative amplitude of oscillations
m – frequency quantum number
\theta\ – the angle between radius-vector and the symmetry plane of charge.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by vlamir
QM is the theory of an imaginary world, which is described in the terms of mathematics of imaginary numbers. If you are saying the math and science of QM isn't an accurate description of physical reality, that just plain isn't true. If you don't believe me, you'd better turn off your computer before QM fails and your computer blows up.

There have been a number of theories that when first created made mathematical predictions that scientists didn't like. There is an ongoing debate about the physical validity of certain mathematical models. The mathematical models virtually always show themselves to be an accurate representation of physical reality (that is of course the reason we have them).

Black holes are a good example. The existence of black holes was derived mathematically but many people just plain didn't like the idea. But we have since found them.

A great book (not too mathematical - exactly my taste) that examines the bizarreness of QM is "Schroedinger's Kittens" (can't remember who wrote it). It talks about a lot of predictions of QM that scientists thought were just too bizarre to be physically real. Things like a photon (or even an electron!) being in two places at the same time. So far a lot have been verified and AFAIK, none have been shown to be wrong.

[vlamir]

Kepler had written his mathematics for the angels, which roll planets on hard celestial orbs. Heisenberg, Shrodinger etc. had written their mathematics for imaginary world.
Their mathematics cannot explain secret of life and secret of the God.
It means, that the reality is much complex, than we think.
Therefore, we should search new, more perfect, mathematics.
For this purpose the fresh, not ordinary, ideas and physical models are necessary.
The forum Theory Development is intended for search of new models, but not for their funeral.

[pelastration]

Originally posted by vlamir
The forum Theory Development is intended for search of new models, but not for their funeral.
[:D]
That's right Vlamir ... but if we say that we have another or alternative solution we must accept that it is attacked. This is a discussion forum.

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by russ_watters

Let me try another approach. Can you suggest/link an experiment that would show what you are saying? For example, lets say I hypothesized that red light was waves and blue light particles. To display this, I'd set up a diffraction experiment and if I were right, the red light would show a diffraction pattern and the blue light wouldn't.
You come near the true, but you are limited to very small range of frequencies. Look more widely, Russ! In a range of visible light the distinction is insignificant. But I assume, that exact experiment should confirm distinction in the diffraction patterns of boundary frequencies of visible light. Besides, I can predict a deviation of red light in a strong magnetic field and absence of such effect for a blue light (TRUE RED SHIFT! ).
Let to take wider wave band now. You cannot deny, that EM radio wave and gamma ray differ from visible light by frequency only. However they possess the various properties. EM radio wave deviate in the magnetic field and do not do it in a gravity one. Gamma ray has return properties i.e. deviate in a gravity field and do not do it in magnetic field.
I hope, all told above does not contradict any observation and can be confirmed by a community of physicists.
We move ahead further on a scale of frequencies. On one side of a scale, i.e. on low frequencies we'll see the MAGNETIC DIPOLE. On other side of a scale, i.e. on frequencies is higher, than gamma we' see PARTICLES and further, ATOMS.
Certainly, atom is not a simple wave of high frequency. It is a standing wave with the complex structure. It contains a combination of high-frequency and low-frequency packages.
The low-frequency package provides magnetic properties (see above) of particles included in atom – such as proton and electron, for example. The total wave of such particle CREATES the diffraction patterns.

[vlamir]

Dear Dirk,
I perfectly understand your ideas of pelastrations.
But I try to express the same ideas by means of the new equations and precise calculations.
See http://vlamir.nsk.ru/index.htm

[pelastration]

Originally posted by vlamir
Dear Dirk,
I perfectly understand your ideas of pelastrations.
But I try to express the same ideas by means of the new equations and precise calculations.
See http://vlamir.nsk.ru/index.htm
Vlamir that's great. I will check your website and contact you.

[Nereid]

Michael F. Dmitriyev wrote: [b]You cannot deny, that EM radio wave and gamma ray differ from visible light by frequency only. However they possess the various properties. EM radio wave deviate in the magnetic field and do not do it in a gravity one. Gamma ray has return properties i.e. deviate in a gravity field and do not do it in magnetic field. Really? Would you be so kind as to give us some links to experiments which show that radio wave (and not gammas) are deflected by a magnetic field, and that radio waves are not deflected in a gravitational field?

BTW, here are a couple of links showing that 'radio' is deflected by 'gravity', just as GR predicts:
http://skyandtelescope.com/news/article_1066_1.asp
http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/google_referrer.taf?article_product_code=NATURE&fulltext_filename=/nature/journal/v425/n6956/full/nature01997_fs.html&_UserReference=C0A804F846519130EC04D5F5051B3FCFDD8 3

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by Nereid

BTW, here are a couple of links showing that 'radio' is deflected by 'gravity', just as GR predicts:
Due to the warping of spacetime by the Sun’s gravitational field, the round trip time to the spacecraft was a trace longer than it would have been without this relativistic curvature. The result: a tiny extra frequency shift in Cassini’s radio signals.

As the magnetic field of the Sun "has not been switched - off", I tend to assert it have led to such result.

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Magnet dipole...Radio wave ....Visible light...Gamma...Particles
------------------------------------- -----------------------------
magnet properties---------------------------gravity properties

[Nereid]

Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
As the magnetic field of the Sun "has not been switched - off", I tend to assert it have led to such result. Let's see your calculations of the size of the radio-magnetic field effect please.

I'm sure the folks building the LHC at CERN will be interested in this effect. Further, it will be very noticable, seeing as how they have magnets with field strengths >10,000 greater than those which radio photons from Cassini will have experienced (the Sun's mean field at the poles is ~10G, at Cassini distances perhaps only 1% or less that; the LHC magnets are >100,000G).

Another point: the gravitational deflection observed in photons passing near the Sun is independent of frequency (wavelength), just as GR predicts. This independence is seen across the radio spectrum (e.g. VLBI observations of quasars which pass close to the line of sight to the Sun; Cassini, Viking on Mars, ...), as well as into the optical.

Oh, and BTW, your radio-magnetic field idea will have to account for the fact that observations of the radio deflection near the Sun do not appear to vary with time, yet the magnetic field strengths most assuredly do.

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by Nereid
Let's see your calculations of the size of the radio-magnetic field effect please.
I'm sure the folks building the LHC at CERN will be interested in this effect. Further, it will be very noticable, seeing as how they have magnets with field strengths >10,000 greater than those which radio photons from Cassini will have experienced (the Sun's mean field at the poles is ~10G, at Cassini distances perhaps only 1% or less that; the LHC magnets are >100,000G).
Another point: the gravitational deflection observed in photons passing near the Sun is independent of frequency (wavelength), just as GR predicts. This independence is seen across the radio spectrum (e.g. VLBI observations of quasars which pass close to the line of sight to the Sun; Cassini, Viking on Mars, ...), as well as into the optical.
Oh, and BTW, your radio-magnetic field idea will have to account for the fact that observations of the radio deflection near the Sun do not appear to vary with time, yet the magnetic field strengths most assuredly do.
I offer the simple experiment which will answer all questions. It can be executed, using a powerful magnet similar the LHC magnet, here, on the Earth. Except of a magnet, two lasers : blue and red are necessary. Their beams are parallel and directed at one target. They pass between poles of a magnet. The distances between red and blue points on a target and their coordinates on a target at the switched OFF magnet is measured. The same is carried out at the magnet switched ON. Certainly, lasers should be closer to a magnet, and the target is far as it possible.
Expected result: the red beam, as against a blue beam, will be deflected by a magnetic field.

[Nereid]

Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
I offer the simple experiment which will answer all questions. It can be executed, using a powerful magnet similar the LHC magnet, here, on the Earth. Except of a magnet, two lasers : blue and red are necessary. Their beams are parallel and directed at one target. They pass between poles of a magnet. The distances between red and blue points on a target and their coordinates on a target at the switched OFF magnet is measured. The same is carried out at the magnet switched ON. Certainly, lasers should be closer to a magnet, and the target is far as it possible.
Expected result: the red beam, as against a blue beam, will be deflected by a magnetic field. Have you written up your experiment, and its results, and submitted them to a peer-reviewed journal? If so, please give us a reference; if not, why not?

I'm no expert, but if the "lasers should be closer to a magnet", it may be that the effect has more to do with the effect of the magnet on the laser than on the light it emits! What happens when you repeat the experiment, with the lasers at differing distances from the magnet?

[russ_watters]

It sounds to me like he's SUGGESTING the experiment (I asked if he could). I don't think he's actually DONE any experiments.

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Have you written up your experiment, and its results, and submitted them to a peer-reviewed journal? If so, please give us a reference; if not, why not?
Take a look at my location. It is clear defines why not. I have addressed at forum’s team with an offer what to do with a new ideas ( in the post “ What about new ideas?”). Regrettably I don’t get any answer.

I'm no expert, but if the "lasers should be closer to a magnet", it may be that the effect has more to do with the effect of the magnet on the laser than on the light it emits! What happens when you repeat the experiment, with the lasers at differing distances from the magnet?

I have in mind lasers should be closer to a magnet regarding the target. Agree, their placement near target has no sense.
It sounds to me like he's SUGGESTING the experiment (I asked if he could). I don't think he's actually DONE any experiments.
You would been surprised, but I have DONE them.
Certainly, I have no opportunity to use such a magnets and lasers which you have . In comparison it is simply toys. But even on them I have received a quite distinctive result. Therefore I suggest to execute experiment on the fine equipment and to receive confirmation of result on 100 %. I hope, a company wishing to make it will be found. Especially if for this purpose it is not needed to start spacecraft and wait for result some months. Distinction in the prices of such experiments obviously. So?
BTW, I have DONE also an experiments by definition of dependence of magnetic force from the frequency of rotation of the magnetic dipole. They authentically shows the return characteristic of this dependence. Prolongation of this characteristic shows zero value of magnetic force at the frequency of visible light. But RED yet have a tiny magnetic property.
I think, your fine equipment does have not enough my ideas and on the contrary. Perhaps, we can find a way of the mutually advantageous cooperation, Nereid ? Anyway, I see your interest to my ideas. As against of a forum’s mentors, unfortunately.

[Nereid]

Take a look at my location. It is clear defines why not. I have addressed at forum’s team with an offer what to do with a new ideas ( in the post “ What about new ideas?”). Regrettably I don’t get any answer. I must have missed it (unless it's a doc3.doc.php attachment earlier in this thread, which I couldn't open); can you post it again please?

[russ_watters]

The thing is, MFD, quite a bit is known about lasers and the way they behave. We point lasers at specific spots on the moon for lunar ranging experiments for example. Don't you think that if the effects you describe existed theyd be noticed by others?

[pelastration]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Don't you think that if the effects you describe existed theyd be noticed by others?
Russ ... that's not serious.

[Rader]

Why not investigate it. Is not this main purpose of this forum to find paradigmatic shifts in knowledge.
[8)]

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by pelastration
Russ ... that's not serious. ?? I'm absolutely serious. Most people who post new theories in here act like they are the first people to examine the subject of their theories. Frankly, I think thats pretty arrogant.

The behavior of light has been EXQUISITELY studied.

[pelastration]

Originally posted by russ_watters
The behavior of light has been EXQUISITELY studied.
So all ... is known ... done business. Nothing to add. Point.
That's good, even very good news. [;)]

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by pelastration
So all ... is known ... done business. Nothing to add. Point.
That's good, even very good news. [;)] I have never said any such thing. No, we don't know everything. But we know a whole lot and thousands of high end scientists have done a lot of research on the subject. So for one person to think he's thought of something so important that they have missed is arrogant.

[Nereid]

Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
Here there should be an attachment. Not that I can see ... I thought you said there was a site?

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by Nereid
Not that I can see ... I thought you said there was a site?
I tried to make the attachment in the all accessible formats. Why it is not reflected in the message, I do not know.

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by russ_watters
I have never said any such thing. No, we don't know everything. But we know a whole lot and thousands of high end scientists have done a lot of research on the subject. So for one person to think he's thought of something so important that they have missed is arrogant.
Any invention is a thing which others have missed or could not see. Are you accepting all inventors are arrogant?

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
Any invention is a thing which others have missed or could not see. Are you accepting all inventors are arrogant? Thats a false analogy because a new invention doesn't require that all related previous inventions not work.

Your hypothesis directly contradicts the known laws of physics and the experimental evidence that supports it. These laws have served us well this past century. They work. If what you are doing isn't arrogance, then its ignorance. But I've said that before - you don't understand enough of what we DO know about physics to start to put together your own extending theory, much less a contradictory one.I tried to make the attachment in the all accessible formats. Why it is not reflected in the message, I do not know. Format doesn't matter, the attachment simply isn't there.

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Our discussion can be endless. I see a simple exit at this situation.
Just repeat the experiment suggested by me above.

[Nereid]

Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
Our discussion can be endless. I see a simple exit at this situation.
Just repeat the experiment suggested by me above. Yes, that would be one way to exit the discussion.

Another would be for you to write up the experiment, and have it published in a peer-reviewed physics journal.

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by Nereid

Another would be for you to write up the experiment, and have it published in a peer-reviewed physics journal.
Advise please how it can be made.
http://light51.narod.ru/ligtscale.png

[vlamir]

Michael,
I have completed research of the moments (electrical, magnetic and mechanical) and has received unexpected outcome, which allows expressing the gravitational electron mass in units of angular acceleration.
M_e=\frac{g_c}{\pi D}=\frac{2c^2{}}{\pi D^2{}}=1.463681837\times 10^{36}
D – diameter of charge
Maybe it will help you to find a base point on frequency scale.
Regards,
Vlamir

[vlamir]

Originally posted by Nereid
Yes, that would be one way to exit the discussion.

Another would be for you to write up the experiment, and have it published in a peer-reviewed physics journal.
Nereid,
You are very naive. Most arrogant the pseudo-scientific persons work just in peer-reviewed physics journals.
In past year I dispatched my papers into some scientific magazines in Russia, Europe and US. Big paper I dispatched into American Journal of Mathematical Physics. My paper fell into hands to the scientific editor, which carries a loud surname Newton (but not Isaac). He answered, that my work is philosophical, but not physical and mathematical. In this my paper there are more 100 formulas. This is frank arrogance.
From European magazines I had received refusals with more disguised arrogance; from the Russian magazines - impudent bureaucratic formal reply

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Thats a false analogy because a new invention doesn't require that all related previous inventions not work.

Your hypothesis directly contradicts the known laws of physics and the experimental evidence that supports it. These laws have served us well this past century. They work. If what you are doing isn't arrogance, then its ignorance. But I've said that before - you don't understand enough of what we DO know about physics to start to put together your own extending theory, much less a contradictory one. Format doesn't matter, the attachment simply isn't there.
I am compelled to repeat once again:
MY IDEA DOES NOT CONTRADICT EXPERIMENTAL DATA.
It differs from an existing EXPLANATION of results of these experiments, i.e. the THEORY. Well, but it is not my problem.
It is possible to bring the set of examples when the new theory replaced old one.
I do not see any tragedy here.
Insignificant ideas led to the slow accumulation of knowledge. Ingenious ideas led to the re-comprehension of this knowledge. It lifts up the evolution of knowledge on a new step of development. I don’t doubt, each participant of this forum have claims for a role of genius. This claim in the some cases can be proved. And I see a role of mentors in the careful research of these bases.
But you even hypothetically cannot assume such situation.
You are not right, Russ.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
I am compelled to repeat once again:
MY IDEA DOES NOT CONTRADICT EXPERIMENTAL DATA. It really doesn't matter how may times you repeat it - it doesn't get any less false.

That takes us back to the beginning of the thread where a number of people told you that until you know more about accepted physics, you can't know whether or not it contradicts experimental data or existing theories. Its the same fallacy tha vlamir is falling victim to - in science, ignorance of data/theories does not relieve you of the responsibility to account for them.

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by vlamir
Michael,
I have completed research of the moments (electrical, magnetic and mechanical) and has received unexpected outcome, which allows expressing the gravitational electron mass in units of angular acceleration.
M_e=\frac{g_c}{piD}=\frac{2c^2{}}{piD^2{}}=1.46368 1837\times\10^{36}
D – diameter of charge
Maybe it will help you to find a base point on frequency scale.
Regards,
Vlamir
Thank you, VLAMIR, here even two such the points.

Let’s take a look at the scale of light frequencies. It possesses the property of symmetry. Moreover, this symmetry exists concerning two points of a scale, i.e. it is double symmetry. To say, these are VERY STRANGE POINTS. The first point is on frequency of visible light.
Here the magnetic and gravity properties ASPIRE TO ZERO. But PROCESS of ACHIEVEMENT of ABSOLUTE ZERO is INFINITE. Hence, it is the SINGULAR POINT.
THE FREQUENCY OF PHOTON IS THE FIRST SINGULAR POINT ON THE SCALE OF LIGHT FREQUENCIES.
The second point UNITES the opposite ends of a scale. Here the magnetic and gravity forces aspire to indefinite great value. It is a Black Hole.
A BLACK HOLE IS THE SECOND SINGULAR POINT ON THE SCALE OF LIGHT FREQUENCIES.
But. Two infinity cannot exist separately. Actually it is ONE INFINITY. TWO SINGULAR POINTS are MIRROR in RELATION of EACH OTHER. It defines a MIRROR of FREQUENCIES which, in turn, DEFINES THE MAGNETIC AND GRAVITY PROPERTYES.
Two mirror singular points provide ETERNAL MOVEMENT and represent the oscillator which recycles the universe with the maximal frequency 1/Planck Time.

[vlamir]

Well, Michael,
Let's define more exactly the scales.
I appeal for you to read three of my last works concerning moments of inertia, magnetism and electricity, and to compare of the graphics.
Yesterday I have located on my site http://vlamir.nsk.ru/index.htm all these three files:
http://vlamir.nsk.ru/electricity_e.pdf
http://vlamir.nsk.ru/magnetism_e.pdf
http://vlamir.nsk.ru/inertia_e.pdf

[Nereid]

Michael,

I've just re-read this entire thread, looking for some specific formula which describes the effect on EM radiation (gammas to radio) of gravity and the magnetic field, according to your idea. I didn't find any; are they publicly available elsewhere?

I also looked for a description of what the result of your proposed red and blue laser beams through a strong magnetic field would be. I didn't find any; are these results posted elsewhere perhaps?

I did see that you had said the following:
1) "MY CONCLUSIONS DO NOT CONTRADICT ANY OBSERVATION"

2) "MASS (GRAVITY FORCE) IS DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL TO FREQUENCY OF LIGHT"

3) "EM FORCE IS INVERSELY [proportional] TO FREQUENCY OF LIGHT"

Let's look at just two sets of observations.

a) gravitational lensing. The observation is that EM radiation is deflected ('bent') from a straight line as it passes near a large mass. The degree of bending is independent of the frequency of the EM radiation, and GR accounts for this effect to at least 1 part in 104.
These observations are a direct contradition to 2) above (unless I have misunderstood what your idea is). Google on 'gravitational lensing' and you'll get plenty of links to papers reporting observations, and analyses, of this phenomenon.

b) magnetars. These are neutron stars with very strong magnetic fields, far stronger than we can create on Earth. They have been observed across the EM spectrum, and AFAIK, no unexplained, frequency-dependent results have been found. Again, you are welcome to read the original research papers reporting the results - you may even get access to much of the data on which the results are based - to check this for yourself.
These observations are a direct contradiction to 3) above.

Michael, perhaps I have misunderstood your proposed relationship between the gravity, magnetic field, and photons. If so, would you be so kind as to post a quantatitive formula detailing these relationships? Please also use your formulae to calculate what the deflections of radio waves (please specify a frequency) and light (also specify a frequency) past the Sun's disc will be (please specify the mass and magnetic field strength you use for these predictions, as well as the dependence of the deflection on the angular distance of the line of sight from the Sun's photosphere).

With these formulae and predictions, we will all be able to see clearly how well your idea matches observation.

[vlamir]

Originally posted by russ_watters
... Its the same fallacy tha vlamir is falling victim to - in science, ignorance of data/theories does not relieve you of the responsibility to account for them.
Formula for gravitational electron mass in units of angular acceleration
M_e=\frac{g_c}{\pi D}=\frac{2c^2{}}{\pi D^2{}}=1.463681837\times 10^{36} \frac{1}{s^2}
Where
D_s=197.714\times 10^{-12} m – the static diameter of hydrogen radial polytron (or approximate diameter of electron);
g_c=\frac{2c^2}{D_s} – the centripetal acceleration of ergoline in polytron (or the curvature of speed of light);
expresses the current state of real world.

The Earth is rotate around own axis and around of the Sun.
The solar system is rotate around of center of our Galaxy.
Our Galaxy is rotate around of center of some other Supergalaxy, etc.
Some of these systems can be rotating with accelerating; others can be rotating with slowing. The total of rotary accelerations influences the value of gravitation and mass in each point of space and time.
Besides, all these systems vibrate.
Atoms consist of vibrant energy rings - from polytrons.
The vibration of polytrons creates in space the electrical and magnetic forces, which are indissolubly coupled with each other. These forces are spread in space with speed of light, interacting with polytrons in atoms and with free polytrons, and create the lively and active medium for everything, what can vibrate.
I guess, that the electronegativity of the Earth is conditioned by her uniformly slowed gyration. In dinosaur's times the earth year and the earth day were shorter.
The equations of the electrical, magnetic and mechanical moments are designed specially to search for the laws of living substance in the mathematical form.

[russ_watters]

Maybe there is a language barrier here or maybe I'm just out of my depth, but I don't see the word "polytron" in any dictionary.

[Rader]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Maybe there is a language barrier here or maybe I'm just out of my depth, but I don't see the word "polytron" in any dictionary.

I found this Russ.
http://www.matrix.com.ru/pdf/pdf_en/gr-stavitski_en.pdf
http://www.sinor.ru/~polytron/
[8)]

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by Nereid
...
With these formulae and predictions, we will all be able to see clearly how well your idea matches observation.
Let's consider well-known relations:
E=mc^2
and
E=h \nu\
whence
mc^2=h \nu\
or
m=k\nu\
here k= h/c^2
accepting
\nu\ = f_w – f_p
where
f_w - frequency of wave
f_p - frequency of photon
for f_w > f_p
we have positive value of mass.
for f_w < f_p
we have negative (mirror) value.
It is the CHARGE.
A CHARGE THIS MIRROR REFLECTION OF MASS CONCERNING FREQUENCY OF THE PHOTON.
I have made my prediction earlier. RED SHIFT is a result of shifting a red beam in the magnetic field of a star, but not a result of acceleration. The UNIVERSE DOES NOT EXPAND, BUT is IN the CONDITION of DYNAMIC BALANCE.

[russ_watters]

The part where you lose me is the frequency of a photon being different from the frequency of a wave. A photon is a wave, ie a single photon of any form of em radiation has one and only one frequency. In fact, a photon is DEFINED according to its frequency (ie, photons of one frequency are called "light," while photons of another are called "gamma rays").

[Nereid]

Michael wrote: I have made my prediction earlier. RED SHIFT is a result of shifting a red beam in the magnetic field of a star, but not a result of acceleration As you may know, the gravitational redshift which GR predicts has been verified through many experiments. At least two of these experiments have results which conflict strongly with your idea.

The experiments are:
1) the 1960-1965 Pound-Rebka-Snider experiments, in which "two identical clocks (gamma-ray emitting iron nuclei) at different heights were intercompared."
2) a 1976 gravitational redshift experiment using a Hydrogen maser clock launched on a Scout rocket to an altitude of 10,000 km and compared with an identical clock on the ground.
(Source: arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9504017)

Both experiments measured a gravitational redshift as predicted by GR, to 1% (Pound-Rebka-Snider experiments) and 0.02% (H maser experiment).

How does this conflict with your idea?

According to your idea, the gravitational redshift is due to the Earth's magetic field, and is frequency dependent (linear relationship). Yet these two experiments involve photons whose frequencies differ by ~8 orders of magnitude, but no frequency dependence is seen.

Perhaps I have misunderstood your idea. Would you like to account for the results of the two experiments cited above? By this I mean: show that the experiments' results are consistent with your idea, by using actual data on the Earth's mass, photon frequencies, the Earth's magnetic field, and so on. You can determine the redshift measured in each experiment by applying GR equations.

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by russ_watters
The part where you lose me is the frequency of a photon being different from the frequency of a wave. A photon is a wave, ie a single photon of any form of em radiation has one and only one frequency. In fact, a photon is DEFINED according to its frequency (ie, photons of one frequency are called "light," while photons of another are called "gamma rays").
I am keeping good old concept, that one wave can exist on a background of other CARRYING WAVE. Thus frequency of a carrying wave should be, at least, 2 times more than a frequency of modulating wave. It is confirmed experimental data.
Besides at frequency modulation on which principles our universe is constructed, there should be some frequency of quantization. It defines an accuracy of approximation of the form of a real wave to an ideal wave. It is confirmed experimental data.
Hence, such things for maintenance of work of our universe are necessary:
- stable oscillator of the carrying frequency;
- carrying wave;
- modulating wave;
- frequency of quantization.
The stable oscillator on a base of two singular mirror points (see above) is realized. The carrying wave has the maximal frequency 1/Planck Time.
The modulating waves is all objects of the universe.
The Frequency of quantization has two levels:
1. The basic frequency of quantization corresponds to the frequency of carrying wave.
2. An additional frequency of quantization corresponds to the frequency of photon.
The first level defines the properties of channels "object - object" or of gaps between objects and is shown as GRAVITATY and MAGNETIC FORCES.
The second one defines internal properties of objects and is shown as MASS (INERTIA) AND the CHARGE.
Gamma it is a big package of photons. It has already the distinct property of mass. It is not one photon.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
I am keeping good old concept, that one wave can exist on a background of other CARRYING WAVE. Thus frequency of a carrying wave should be, at least, 2 times more than a frequency of modulating wave. It is confirmed experimental data.
Besides at frequency modulation on which principles our universe is constructed, there should be some frequency of quantization. That may be how radio broadcasts work, but thats not the way em radiation itself is observed to work. It is not confirmed by experimental data.

[Nereid]

Originally posted by vlamir
Formula for gravitational electron mass in units of angular acceleration
M_e=\frac{g_c}{\pi D}=\frac{2c^2{}}{\pi D^2{}}=1.463681837\times 10^{36} \frac{1}{s^2}
Where
D_s=197.714\times 10^{-12} m – the static diameter of hydrogen radial polytron (or approximate diameter of electron);
g_c=\frac{2c^2}{D_s} – the centripetal acceleration of ergoline in polytron (or the curvature of speed of light);
expresses the current state of real world.

The Earth is rotate around own axis and around of the Sun.
The solar system is rotate around of center of our Galaxy.
Our Galaxy is rotate around of center of some other Supergalaxy, etc.
Some of these systems can be rotating with accelerating; others can be rotating with slowing. The total of rotary accelerations influences the value of gravitation and mass in each point of space and time.
Besides, all these systems vibrate.
Atoms consist of vibrant energy rings - from polytrons.
The vibration of polytrons creates in space the electrical and magnetic forces, which are indissolubly coupled with each other. These forces are spread in space with speed of light, interacting with polytrons in atoms and with free polytrons, and create the lively and active medium for everything, what can vibrate.
I guess, that the electronegativity of the Earth is conditioned by her uniformly slowed gyration. In dinosaur's times the earth year and the earth day were shorter.
The equations of the electrical, magnetic and mechanical moments are designed specially to search for the laws of living substance in the mathematical form. Would you care to make some specific, quantitative predictions from your idea? For example:
-> the time rate-of-change of G, \alpha, c, or h
-> the value of the local Hubble constant
-> the rest mass of neutrino(s) - any kind

[Rader]

Originally posted by vlamir

The vibration of polytrons creates in space the electrical and magnetic forces, which are indissolubly coupled with each other. These forces are spread in space with speed of light, interacting with polytrons in atoms and with free polytrons, and create the lively and active medium for everything, what can vibrate.
I guess, that the electronegativity of the Earth is conditioned by her uniformly slowed gyration. In dinosaur's times the earth year and the earth day were shorter.
The equations of the electrical, magnetic and mechanical moments are designed specially to search for the laws of living substance in the mathematical form.

Are you equating this to a model how evolution works?
[8)]

[vlamir]

Originally posted by Nereid
Would you care to make some specific, quantitative predictions from your idea? For example:
-> the time rate-of-change of G, \alpha, c, or h
-> the value of the local Hubble constant
-> the rest mass of neutrino(s) - any kind
Thanks for good questions, Nereid.
As I spoke above, this formula became for me unexpectedness.
In the work
http://vlamir.nsk.ru/dipole of speed_e.pdf
this problem was partially solved. I wanted to prolong the work in some months, but absolutely unexpected, the solution has come earlier. The answers to some of your questions you can find in this paper.
Now I am forced to change my plans.
I want to go in the forum "Astronomy and Cosmology" and to discuss some problems.
In particular, I am interested with the "magnetic" history of the Earth.
The Earth is the huge gyroscope, which is charged by negative electricity. The gyration of electric charge generates some part of magnetic field of the Earth.
In order to test quantitatively this supposition it is necessary go to the "magnetic" history of the Earth. During the existence the Earth, her magnetic poles had turned over some times. Not so large energy is necessary for turn over of poles of the Earth. In any case, it is significant smaller than it is necessary for rotational displacement of our earth gyroscope on 180 degrees. But if to assume, that at rotation of the solar system around of galactic center, we moving on an elliptic orbit, then the pattern becomes more - less actual.
At moving of celestial body on an elliptic orbit the angular acceleration of the body changes the sign four times for each turnover. The period of revolution of the solar system around of center of our Galaxy is approximately equal of 240 millions years. Therefore, the period of revolution of the magnetic field of the Earth should be equal of 60 millions years.
As to neutrino, I could offer you to think of electrons and positrons, which have lost a charge. The polytronic model of electric charge allows to have a fractional charge, down to its complete losses.
But I would not like to hurry up with solution of this problem, as the neutrino is insufficiently known particle.
Regards.
Vlamir

[vlamir]

Originally posted by Rader
Are you equating this to a model how evolution works?
[8)]
Excuse me, please, but I didn't understand your question.

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by Nereid

Perhaps I have misunderstood your idea. Would you like to account for the results of the two experiments cited above?

Mirror symmetry of a mass - magnet properties does not reject an action of gravity which is BACKGROUND for ALL SCALE and works PRECISELY as predicted by GR and confirmed by all executed experiments. The scale defines on frequencies are lower of visible light, on a background of gravity the addition magnetic properties are shown. They have strong frequency dependence already.
Also, the scale shows the second level of quantization which concerns to internal properties of objects.
Seems, I need to make two scales instead of one. Perhaps, association of all properties to one scale is the reason of misunderstanding of my idea. If it is so, then my apologies. I’ll soon introduce a new variant of a scale.

[Nereid]

Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
I offer the simple experiment which will answer all questions. It can be executed, using a powerful magnet similar the LHC magnet, here, on the Earth. Except of a magnet, two lasers : blue and red are necessary. Their beams are parallel and directed at one target. They pass between poles of a magnet. The distances between red and blue points on a target and their coordinates on a target at the switched OFF magnet is measured. The same is carried out at the magnet switched ON. Certainly, lasers should be closer to a magnet, and the target is far as it possible.
Expected result: the red beam, as against a blue beam, will be deflected by a magnetic field. and: Mirror symmetry of a mass - magnet properties does not reject an action of gravity which is BACKGROUND for ALL SCALE and works PRECISELY as predicted by GR and confirmed by all executed experiments. Michael, could I ask that you state very clearly please: do the Cassini (and many other) observations of gravitational redshift, lensing, Sharipo time delay, etc due to the Sun's mass provide direct contradictions of your ideas or not?

On the one hand you say your ideas are consistent with GR; on the other you claim that the Cassini results are due to the Sun's magnetic field, not its mass. Please clarify.

WRT your blue and red lasers in a magnetic field, I'm still looking forward to your predictions as to the size of the differential bending. I'm looking forward even more to your explanation of how any measurable bending - even if the magnets were LHC ones - would be consistent with magnetar observations. FYI, the magnetic fields of magnetars are believed to be ~a billion times stronger than an LHC magnet's.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Nereid
FYI, the magnetic fields of magnetars are believed to be ~a billion times stronger than an LHC magnet's. What's a magnetar?

[Nereid]

Originally posted by russ_watters
What's a magnetar? "What do you call a neutron star with a super-strong magnetic field? You guessed it ... a Magnetar. Imagine a star with more mass than the sun, the density of a neutron, and a magnetic field about a thousand trillion (a one followed by 15 zeroes) times stronger than Earth's."

Here's a good place to start:
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap000122.html

[Rader]

Originally posted by vlamir
Excuse me, please, but I didn't understand your question.

The equations of the electrical, magnetic and mechanical moments are designed specially to search for the laws of living substance in the mathematical form

Are you equating this to a model how evolution works?

Then you are saying that the Polytronic Model could explain the evolution of the "magnetic" history of the Earth, during its existence, the change in her magnetic poles, in realtion to the equations of the electrical, magnetic and mechanical moments in polytrons.
[8)]

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Nereid
"What do you call a neutron star with a super-strong magnetic field? You guessed it ... a Magnetar. " Cool. Guess I could have googled it myself...

Anyway followup: is rotation what makes a neutron star a magnetar? If so, are all fast spinning pulsars magnetars?

[vlamir]

Rader,
Yes, I speak that Polytronic Model can explain not only structure of atoms, but it can help better to understand the evolution of Universe. For this purpose it is necessary again to analyze the available experimental data and to fulfil new calculations.
For those some days, which have passed from the moment of birth of the formula, I had not time to make it. Maybe, I shall do it in one year. You see, I have not any assistants.

[Nereid]

Originally posted by vlamir
Thanks for good questions, Nereid.
As I spoke above, this formula became for me unexpectedness.
In the work
http://vlamir.nsk.ru/dipole of speed_e.pdf
this problem was partially solved. I wanted to prolong the work in some months, but absolutely unexpected, the solution has come earlier. The answers to some of your questions you can find in this paper.
Now I am forced to change my plans.
I want to go in the forum "Astronomy and Cosmology" and to discuss some problems.
In particular, I am interested with the "magnetic" history of the Earth.
The Earth is the huge gyroscope, which is charged by negative electricity. The gyration of electric charge generates some part of magnetic field of the Earth.
In order to test quantitatively this supposition it is necessary go to the "magnetic" history of the Earth. During the existence the Earth, her magnetic poles had turned over some times. Not so large energy is necessary for turn over of poles of the Earth. In any case, it is significant smaller than it is necessary for rotational displacement of our earth gyroscope on 180 degrees. But if to assume, that at rotation of the solar system around of galactic center, we moving on an elliptic orbit, then the pattern becomes more - less actual.
At moving of celestial body on an elliptic orbit the angular acceleration of the body changes the sign four times for each turnover. The period of revolution of the solar system around of center of our Galaxy is approximately equal of 240 millions years. Therefore, the period of revolution of the magnetic field of the Earth should be equal of 60 millions years.
As to neutrino, I could offer you to think of electrons and positrons, which have lost a charge. The polytronic model of electric charge allows to have a fractional charge, down to its complete losses.
But I would not like to hurry up with solution of this problem, as the neutrino is insufficiently known particle.
Regards.
Vlamir I look forward to your specific, quantitative predictions, and demonstrations that they match observations.

In your paper I note your comment that the current CMB temperature corresponds to the 118<->117 H Rydberg transition. It's not clear to me whether you claim some significance for this, other than pure coincidence. If you do see some deep significance, I'd be interested to see how you explain observations which show that the temperature of the CMB was higher in the past, just as predicted by the recent cosmological models.

[Nereid]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Cool. Guess I could have googled it myself...

Anyway followup: is rotation what makes a neutron star a magnetar? If so, are all fast spinning pulsars magnetars? More googling would have found you this (from Wikipedia):
http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetar

From this site: "If the neutron star is initially rotating as fast as the period of convection, about ten milliseconds, then the convection currents are able to operate globally and transfer a significant amount of their kinetic energy into magnetic field strength. In slower-rotating neutron stars, the convection currents only form in local regions."

[vlamir]

Nereid,
I have tested my formulas for spectrums of the high - ionized atoms with data:
NIST Atomic Spectra Database and Kelly Atomic Line Database.
Frequency CMB in the scale of polytronic radiation, I have found then, when try to understand, whether the Universe can cool down up to temperature of absolute zero.
So, the frequency CMB is the subproduct of common legitimacy.
The Universe utilizes the binary mathematics. In this mathematics the numbers 2^{n} play important and, at the same time, mysterious role.
One of my suppositions consists in, that after reaching the frequency order m=2^{8}, the cooling of the Universe should stop.
After that the compression will begin.

[Nereid]

vladmir wrote: Frequency CMB in the scale of polytronic radiation, I have found then, when try to understand, whether the Universe can cool down up to temperature of absolute zero.
So, the frequency CMB is the subproduct of common legitimacy.
The Universe utilizes the binary mathematics. In this mathematics the numbers LaTeX graphic is being generated. Reload this page in a moment. play important and, at the same time, mysterious role.
One of my suppositions consists in, that after reaching the frequency order LaTeX graphic is being generated. Reload this page in a moment., the cooling of the Universe should stop. I do not understand what you have written here.

Can you make a prediction of the CMB temperature, from the time of last scattering till today? If so, have you made such a calculation? If so, please publish it so we can see how well it matches observations.

[vlamir]

Nereid,
I wrote 2^n it is the binary mathematics of the Universe.
One of my suppositions consists in, that after reaching the frequency order m=2^8, the cooling of the Universe should stop.
After that the compression will begin.
It is only supposition.
That is why I consider, that the theme Particle-wave duality on a scale of light frequencies by Michael is very actual.
I think, that the solution of this task will help to find the answer for my supposition.

[Rader]

Vladmir on your site you have stated that;

In the electromagnetic wave the electrical and magnetic component of the field are inseparably linked with each other. The same link exists and in the ring wave of radial polytron.

By analogy with the magnetic and electrical moments, we have selected for the mechanical moment of polytron such structure, in order the product of the mechanical moments of two polytrons was equal to gravitational force of interaction between them.

The force of gravitational interaction between two radial polytrons is equal to product of their mechanical moments.

Question; The magnetic and electrical moments being linked as one and the same would occur at the same moment but the mechcanical angular moment would lag behind in a small unit of plank time?
[8)]

[vlamir]

Dear Rader,
Your thought is new and interesting for me. But I for a while yet was not engaged by link between the different moments. If you will make the mathematics, I with pleasure shall place your work in the site Polytronic Physics under your name.

Now I would like to return to the frequency scale.
At the mathematical analysis of the polytronic equations I have confronted with not clear outcome. On the graphics in the attached file on the abscissa axis the scale of own frequencies of hydrogen polytrons in units of the frequency order is postponed. On the axis of ordinates the values of stability of the resonance process, reduced to unit are given.
The left dashed line (m=4) corresponds to high-frequency boundary of radiation of free neutral atomic hydrogen. The right dashed line (m=236) corresponds to radiation of CMB. At m=16, hydrogen atom radiates the Compton's wave. But, in my opinion, the Compton effect has more composite mechanism, than it is described in the textbooks of physics. At m=2, hydrogen atom can emit the first particle – electron.

At first I have decided, that the peaks on the graphics come up owing to abnormality of my equations. But the careful check has shown, that the structure of the equations cannot yield such big errors. Then I have decided to test the equations at a different integration step. But also at change of an integration step the peaks on the graphics remain, but their height varies. One peaks become lower, at the same time other peaks become higher.
The last supposition, which I cannot test, is, that a reason of appearance of peaks is the software of the computer.
The mathematical processor of the computer utilizes the binary system.
The polytronic equations also are constructed under the binary scheme.
But, it is possible, that further mathematical operations the computer fulfils with the help of mathematical rows.
If it so, then mathematical rows (constructed on the module e^x) are unsuitable for the description of quantum processes.
If it not so, then is necessary much carefully search for a reason in the nature of resonance processes.
Now wavelength of Cosmic Background Radiation is equal 7.4 cm. If my supposition will appear valid, then at the wavelength 9.4 cm the extension of the Universe meets the obstacle of peak of instability.
http://www.sinor.ru/~polytron/zigzags.gif

[Nereid]

vlamir wrote: Now wavelength of Cosmic Background Radiation is equal 7.4 cm. Er, no.

The CMB spectrum is quite different from the line spectrum of excited H atoms; the former is blackbody (with deviations), the latter is a set of discrete wavelengths.

[Rader]

Originally posted by vlamir
Dear Rader,
Your thought is new and interesting for me. But I for a while yet was not engaged by link between the different moments. If you will make the mathematics, I with pleasure shall place your work in the site Polytronic Physics under your name.

Now I would like to return to the frequency scale.
At the mathematical analysis of the polytronic equations I have confronted with not clear outcome. On the graphics in the attached file on the abscissa axis the scale of own frequencies of hydrogen polytrons in units of the frequency order is postponed. On the axis of ordinates the values of stability of the resonance process, reduced to unit are given.
The left dashed line (m=4) corresponds to high-frequency boundary of radiation of free neutral atomic hydrogen. The right dashed line (m=236) corresponds to radiation of CMB. At m=16, hydrogen atom radiates the Compton's wave. But, in my opinion, the Compton effect has more composite mechanism, than it is described in the textbooks of physics. At m=2, hydrogen atom can emit the first particle – electron.

At first I have decided, that the peaks on the graphics come up owing to abnormality of my equations. But the careful check has shown, that the structure of the equations cannot yield such big errors. Then I have decided to test the equations at a different integration step. But also at change of an integration step the peaks on the graphics remain, but their height varies. One peaks become lower, at the same time other peaks become higher.
The last supposition, which I cannot test, is, that a reason of appearance of peaks is the software of the computer.
The mathematical processor of the computer utilizes the binary system.
The polytronic equations also are constructed under the binary scheme.
But, it is possible, that further mathematical operations the computer fulfils with the help of mathematical rows.
If it so, then mathematical rows (constructed on the module e^x) are unsuitable for the description of quantum processes.
If it not so, then is necessary much carefully search for a reason in the nature of resonance processes.
Now wavelength of Cosmic Background Radiation is equal 7.4 cm. If my supposition will appear valid, then at the wavelength 9.4 cm the extension of the Universe meets the obstacle of peak of instability.
http://www.sinor.ru/~polytron/zigzags.gif

Vladmir i am not qualified to do this, if i was, the mathematics would be posted.

You have stated that Polytronic Model can explain not only structure of atoms, but it can help better to understand the evolution of Universe. For this purpose it is necessary again to analyze the available experimental data and to fulfil new calculations.

The thought behind my question was the realtionship between the evolution of Universe and the evolution of consciousness.
http://users.erols.com/wcri/CONSCIOUSNESS.html
The collapse of the wave function in the human mind, relating to the electrical and magnetic moment and the mechanical moment relating to physicl existence. You state in your Polytronic Model that there is a change over time of polytronic interaction. Paper on the Compton's wave http://www.autodynamics.org/new99/Experiments/ComptEff.html
DOCBUGAN6Y
[8)]

[vlamir]

Nereid, I know it.
The CBR spectrum should incorporate lines of hydrogen (~80 % of integral intensity), lines of helium (~20 %) and lines of the rest elements (~1 %). In different areas of the Universe the spectrum has variations, both in intensity, and in time. It is logically.

[Nereid]

Originally posted by vlamir
Nereid, I know it.
The CBR spectrum should incorporate lines of hydrogen (~80 % of integral intensity), lines of helium (~20 %) and lines of the rest elements (~1 %). In different areas of the Universe the spectrum has variations, both in intensity, and in time. It is logically. Can you accurately account for the observed CMB using your idea, or not?

[vlamir]

Thanks for information, Rader.
Ricardo L. Carezani utilizes the generally accepted concept of a moment of momentum.
Nevertheless, his conclusion is qualitatively valid.
I consider, that elastic collision between a quantum and electron does not exist, but there is a multistage process - atom swallows a quantum, then energy of a quantum is reallocated between polytrons and, then the atom radiates superfluous energy in the form of "the scattered photon".

[vlamir]

Originally posted by Nereid
Can you accurately account for the observed CMB using your idea, or not?
I have not detailed experimental data of CBR.

[Nereid]

Originally posted by vlamir
I have not detailed experimental data of CBR. For your initial purposes, I expect that the COBE results would be adequate.

At the 0th order:
-> isotropic blackbody of temperature 2.725 (+/- 0.002) K

At the next level:
-> a dipole of temperature 3.358 (+/- 0.023) mK superimposed on the isotropic 0th order CMB, in the direction (l, b) = (264.31o +/- 0.16, +48.05o +/- 0.09)

In more detail:
http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/cobe/dmr_prod_table.cfm

[vlamir]

Originally posted by Nereid
For your initial purposes, I expect that the COBE results would be adequate.

At the 0th order:
-> isotropic blackbody of temperature 2.725 (+/- 0.002) K

At the next level:
-> a dipole of temperature 3.358 (+/- 0.023) mK superimposed on the isotropic 0th order CMB, in the direction (l, b) = (264.31o +/- 0.16, +48.05o +/- 0.09)

In more detail:
http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/cobe/dmr_prod_table.cfm
Thank Nereid. But, unfortunately, I cannot load in the computer such huge information NASA.
And second. The temperature characterizes an integral radiation flow. In order to "decode" composition of the flow, it is necessary to know lengths of some waves near maximum of intensity.
According to my preliminary calculations, the maximum CMB should be shaped of the following waves:
on hydrogen scale – 7.21cm, 7.39cm and 7.59cm;
on first helium scale – 7.27cm, 7.39cm and 7.51cm;
on second helium scale – 7.29cm, 7,45cm and 7.61cm.
The hydrogen scale is "tied" to Compton wave.

[Nereid]

Originally posted by vlamir
Thank Nereid. But, unfortunately, I cannot load in the computer such huge information NASA.
And second. The temperature characterizes an integral radiation flow. In order to "decode" composition of the flow, it is necessary to know lengths of some waves near maximum of intensity.
According to my preliminary calculations, the maximum CMB should be shaped of the following waves:
on hydrogen scale – 7.21cm, 7.39cm and 7.59cm;
on first helium scale – 7.27cm, 7.39cm and 7.51cm;
on second helium scale – 7.29cm, 7,45cm and 7.61cm.
The hydrogen scale is "tied" to Compton wave. You may wish to plot the intensity of 2.725 K blackbody radiation against wavelength; you will find that the peak is different from what your idea predicts, by a quite considerable factor. I conclude that, unless your preliminary calculations are considerably in error, there is no match between your idea and the CMB observations.

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Addition to the basic scale here.
BTW, on the basis of properties of “the scale of light frequencies” I can make one more prediction:
Observable color of radiation of a star depends of its magnetic property. It varies from blue at stars with a strong magnetic field (green-blue at a neutron star) up to yellow - red at stars with a weak magnetic field (dwarfs).

[Nereid]

Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
Addition to the basic scale here.
BTW, on the basis of properties of “the scale of light frequencies” I can make one more prediction:
Observable color of radiation of a star depends of its magnetic property. It varies from blue at stars with a strong magnetic field (green-blue at a neutron star) up to yellow - red at stars with a weak magnetic field (dwarfs). Please be a bit more specific - what do you mean by 'observable color of radiation of a star'?

What are the magnetic field strengths of stars of differernt clors?

[vlamir]

Nereid,
Blackbodies do not exist in the nature. The law of radiation by Kirchhoff (1859) is correct only for radiation inside closed concavity. The Universe is not closed concavity.
The law of radiation by Planck is constructed on the module e^x and also describes the equilibrium radiation
u_{\nu ,T} =\frac{8\pi h\nu ^3}{c^{3}e^{\frac{h\nu}{kT}}}
The module e^x fulfils the role of correction factor for the cubic function of frequency. In my equations there is no correction factor, therefore radiant intensity is proportional to the square-law function of frequency. It corresponds to the extending Universe better, than steady-state radiation of blackbody.
Why you obstinately pull us in XIX century and do not wish to think of dynamics?
I research spectrums to understand a structure of atoms, but not to fit data under aged paradigms. The antennas catch waves CMB 7-7.5cm.
Have you other data?

[Nereid]

Originally posted by vlamir
Nereid,
Blackbodies do not exist in the nature. The law of radiation by Kirchhoff (1859) is correct only for radiation inside closed concavity. The Universe is not closed concavity.
The law of radiation by Planck is constructed on the module e^x and also describes the equilibrium radiation
u_{\nu ,T} =\frac{8\pi h\nu ^3}{c^{3}e^{\frac{h\nu}{kT}}}
The module e^x fulfils the role of correction factor for the cubic function of frequency. In my equations there is no correction factor, therefore radiant intensity is proportional to the square-law function of frequency. It corresponds to the extending Universe better, than steady-state radiation of blackbody.
Why you obstinately pull us in XIX century and do not wish to think of dynamics?
I research spectrums to understand a structure of atoms, but not to fit data under aged paradigms. The antennas catch waves CMB 7-7.5cm.
Have you other data? There's a stunning chart in one of the pages presenting the COBE results; it plots the observational data on the intensity-wavelength graph for a 2.725 K blackbody (there's also a formal analysis of the statistical quality of the match, elsewhere in the site).
http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/cobe/firas_image.cfm

You might also like to read more about the three COBE instruments, particularly the wavelengths they observed.
FIRAS: http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/cobe/about_firas.cfm
DIBRE: http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/cobe/dirbe_overview.cfm
DMR:
http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/cobe/dmr_overview.cfm

[vlamir]

Many thanks for information, Nereid,
We had glorious talk about different parts of spectrum of relict radiation of the Universe.
I spoke about radiation, which have discovered by Pensias and Wilson.
You spoke about more short-wave radiation.
But, strangely enough, you have proved my formulas. I thank you once again.
Now I would like to talk about living instruments, which can tell to us about influence of a magnetic field to resonance processes. I think, that this theme also can answer some questions about shift of frequencies under effect of magnetic field. These living "antennas" and "spectrometers" have much more major sensitivity, than ours irons (æåëåçÿêè).

Once day, I had read about influence of a magnetic field onto development of embryo of frog. It was a long time ago, therefore, unfortunately, I do not remember the writers of experiment.
The berries of frog, which had age three days, were divided into two small groups and one group was covered with a page of thin permalloy. In the allotted time from berries, which were not covered by permalloy, the tadpoles were hatched. Development of berries, which were under permalloy was hampered, and they, eventually, have perished.
Recently, I have tried to find any experimental facts about global changes of magnetic field of the Earth in Cambrian period, i.e. behind the last 600 millions years.
Unfortunately, my searches have not crowned by success. I managed to find a little information of twenty years' prescription about local changes of the earth magnetism with accuracy a plus - minus of 15 millions years.
At the same time, the paleontology displays, that the extinction of one sorts of organisms and appearance of new sorts happened with periodicity of 50-70 millions years.
I would like to hear the opinion of members of the forum, which have the information about more modern researches.

[Nereid]

vlamir wrote: Many thanks for information, Nereid,
We had glorious talk about different parts of spectrum of relict radiation of the Universe.
I spoke about radiation, which have discovered by Pensias and Wilson.
You spoke about more short-wave radiation.
But, strangely enough, you have proved my formulas. I thank you once again. Hmm, let's see:

vlamir: "the maximum CMB should be shaped of the following waves:
on hydrogen scale – 7.21cm, 7.39cm and 7.59cm;
on first helium scale – 7.27cm, 7.39cm and 7.51cm;
on second helium scale – 7.29cm, 7,45cm and 7.61cm."

COBE: CMB looks like blackbody radiation of temperature 2.725 K, to at least 99.7%

Since a 2.725 K blackbody has a maximum intensity near 0.1cm, I would say that "your formulas" do not come close to matching the observations, and so your idea has been convincingly disproved.

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by Nereid
Please be a bit more specific - what do you mean by 'observable color of radiation of a star'?
I mean a color of star which the observer can see. Take a look, please, attachment in my last post. I have shown an origin of four fundamental forces here. They are mirror reflection of each other on the general scale of frequencies.

...I am surprised why attachment appears in post many hours later.

[Nereid]

Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
I mean a color of star which the observer can see. Take a look, please, attachment in my last post. I have shown an origin of four fundamental forces here. They are mirror reflection of each other on the general scale of frequencies. Astronomers measure a star's 'colour' in many ways, one that's common is in terms of UBVRI, a set of standard broadband 'optical' filters.

I encourage you to research the publicly available data on well determined magnetic field strengths in stars; you will find many observations also give the stars' colours. Please let us know what you find.

What do I expect you will find? 'blue stars' with 'weak magnetic fields' (as well as strong); 'red stars' with 'strong magnetic fields' (as well as weak).

[vlamir]

Nereid,
I speak not about coincidence of lengths of waves. I have in view the shape of intensity graph.
I have the equation, which can "draw" the similar graph in any part of spectrum and for each of elements separately.
Now, about the word "BACKGROUND". The hydrogen is the first element in the Mendeleyev's table and the most widespread element in the Universe. Therefore, the word "BACKGROUND" first of all should belong to hydrogen and slightly to helium, but not at all to cosmic dust.
Wherefrom dust had appeared at moment of the Big Band?
Carbon is not such element, that freely to walk about in the Universe. The carbon will constitutes with hydrogen the simple organic molecules (acetylene, methane, ethylene) and carbon clusters, i.e. dust. The elementary carbon cluster contains in polytronic model 24 emitters. The free atom of carbon has the line 162 micrometers. I think, that the carbon line 158 micrometers belongs to atoms, which are coupled in a cluster.
I for a long time was not returning to the mentioned equation. This equation establishes communication between amplitude of radiation and amount of atoms, which participate in coherent radiation. Probably, the next year I shall have time to work with this equation more seriously.

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by Nereid
and: Michael, could I ask that you state very clearly please: do the Cassini (and many other) observations of gravitational redshift, lensing, Sharipo time delay, etc due to the Sun's mass provide direct contradictions of your ideas or not?

On the one hand you say your ideas are consistent with GR; on the other you claim that the Cassini results are due to the Sun's magnetic field, not its mass. Please clarify.
I think, that this graph answers these questions:
http://www.myscale.narod.ru/scale3.png
Point A corresponds to equivalent action at radio and gamma waves, but the reasons of this action are different. It is result of complex action of gravity and magnet forces of stars, the sun for example.

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Here my next prediction which had based on the properties of "the scale of light frequencies” :
The temperature of poles of a magnetic dipole is lower than temperature between poles.

[Nereid]

Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
I think, that this graph answers these questions:
http://www.myscale.narod.ru/scale3.png
Point A corresponds to equivalent action at radio and gamma waves, but the reasons of this action are different. It is result of complex action of gravity and magnet forces of stars, the sun for example. I asked "do the Cassini (and many other) observations of gravitational redshift, lensing, Sharipo time delay, etc due to the Sun's mass provide direct contradictions of your ideas...?" I can't understand your graph, so would you be so kind as to say YES or NO?

[Nereid]

Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
Here my next prediction which had based on the properties of "the scale of light frequencies” :
The temperature of poles of a magnetic dipole is lower than temperature between poles. What's the quantitative relationship between temperature and dipole strength?

BTW, what were the results of your research into the colour-magnetic field strength of stars?

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by Nereid
I asked "do the Cassini (and many other) observations of gravitational redshift, lensing, Sharipo time delay, etc due to the Sun's mass provide direct contradictions of your ideas...?" I can't understand your graph, so would you be so kind as to say YES or NO?
NO!
I do not refuse the results of these experiments at all.
According to the scale suggested by me, I explain the reason of reception of such results.
Let’s take a look. In a case of gamma these results really due to the Sun's mass because gamma have properties of a particle and have no magnetic properties. Therefore the magnetic field does not provide on gamma any influence.
In a case of microwaves and radiowaves, these results are an action of a magnetic field of the Sun since they possess magnetic properties and are not subject to force of gravitation. There is the uncountable set of proofs of deviation and distortion of radiowaves by a magnetic field. If for you one more experiment is necessary, then bring please the working electrorazor close to a radio receiver. You will hear the result immediately. But you cannot furnish any proof of influence of gravity on radiowaves because for cleanliness of experiment it is necessary to switch off completely a magnetic field of the Sun, for example.
Notation.
The result of experiment is the measured value or a set of values. In our case it is a value of deviation of various beams at their passage near to the Sun. The explanation of the reason of such behavior does not grow out as the result of experiment. It is attempt of creation of the theory adequately describing these results.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
NO! So where is the contradiction? Your theory and the existing theory of em radiation say two vastly different things, so its not possible for both to fit the data.

[Nereid]

Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
NO!
I do not refuse the results of these experiments at all.
According to the scale suggested by me, I explain the reason of reception of such results.
Let’s take a look. In a case of gamma these results really due to the Sun's mass because gamma have properties of a particle and have no magnetic properties. Therefore the magnetic field does not provide on gamma any influence.
In a case of microwaves and radiowaves, these results are an action of a magnetic field of the Sun since they possess magnetic properties and are not subject to force of gravitation. There is the uncountable set of proofs of deviation and distortion of radiowaves by a magnetic field. If for you one more experiment is necessary, then bring please the working electrorazor close to a radio receiver. You will hear the result immediately. But you cannot furnish any proof of influence of gravity on radiowaves because for cleanliness of experiment it is necessary to switch off completely a magnetic field of the Sun, for example.
Notation.
The result of experiment is the measured value or a set of values. In our case it is a value of deviation of various beams at their passage near to the Sun. The explanation of the reason of such behavior does not grow out as the result of experiment. It is attempt of creation of the theory adequately describing these results. Can you please provide a set of concrete, quantitative predictions from your idea? Just those where there is a (significant) difference between what your idea predicts and what SR, GR, the Standard Model, QFT, etc predict.

If there are NO such differences, even in principle, please also state that.

[pallidin]

OK, I have read this rather long thread with considerable interest. I would like to pose a single question:

Is there ANY peer-reviewed published experimental data which suggests that ultra-super-high frequencies of EM photons exhibit non-rest mass?

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by pallidin
OK, I have read this rather long thread with considerable interest. I would like to pose a single question:

Is there ANY peer-reviewed published experimental data which suggests that ultra-super-high frequencies of EM photons exhibit non-rest mass?
I think it is the huge mistake to accept waves of any frequency as EM.
The range of EM waves ONLY from zero up to frequency of visible light is located.
Above a frequency of visible light the wave band having gravitational properties is located. These have no any relation at EM waves at all. Therefore it is possible to name their GRAVITATIONAL WAVES. I do not know ANY peer-reviewed published experimental data concerning to such questions. The world surrounding us gives us these data constantly. It is necessary to see them only. It is obvious to me.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
It is obvious to me. What is obvious to you is not obvious to others and must be PROVEN with calculations, predictions, and straightforward experiments: you didn't answer palladin's (or Nereid's) question.

[pallidin]

Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
The world surrounding us gives us these data constantly. It is necessary to see them only.

Michael, for a moment, let's assume that your theories are worth serious consideration.
Indeed, have not many important discoveries in physics been conjectured before experimentalization determined the parameters of truth? Of course, this happens all the time, and then they seek to verify their own claims before going any further.
So instead of spending weeks, months or even years developing a full-blown theory based merely on conjecture, would it not be wiser to spend the time aggressively persuing experimental validation of its foundations?
Do we not spend much time fully testing a new design for a jet engine well before we put in on a passenger-laden commercial jet?
So, given all that, what might a responsible physicist do with a potentially new theory?
Test, test, test. Test the foundations of the theory through universally accepted standards. Carefully document those tests. If all seems well, then invite others to witness your test and inspect all matters concerning it. Then if all is still well, have others duplicate the test independently of you, many times. If all is still well, then you now have the respect and admiration of your peers, and an important new discovery.

Look, I am not against your ideas. But I far more respect a theorist whom, after originating a concept, goes about to solidy prove the foundations of it. Even if it turns out to be wrong, I respect the theorist who actually tried to prove it.
Should anything less be asked or expected?

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by Nereid
Can you please provide a set of concrete, quantitative predictions from your idea? Just those where there is a (significant) difference between what your idea predicts and what SR, GR, the Standard Model, QFT, etc predict.

If there are NO such differences, even in principle, please also state that.
Here some of predictions which follows from the properties of my “the scale of light frequencies”, what SR, GR, the Standard Model, QFT, etc have not predicted and cannot predict:
- Existence of blue shift of light radiation of a star directly dependent on a value of its magnetic field;
- Action of the poles of magnetic dipole as a prism for visible light. The prism effect directly depends on a value of magnetic field;
- Existence of thermal action of a magnetic dipole on environment surrounding its poles. The temperature of a material in the area of poles of a magnetic dipole has back dependence on a value of magnetic field;
- The opportunity of creation of the perpetual motion machine on the principles of photon working.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
Here some of predictions which follows from the properties of my “the scale of light frequencies”, what SR, GR, the Standard Model, QFT, etc have not predicted and cannot predict: The question follows (again) - do you have any evidence for this? Anyone can make predictions and make them sound logical. That doesn't make them true.

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by pallidin
Michael, for a moment, let's assume that your theories are worth serious consideration.
Indeed, have not many important discoveries in physics been conjectured before experimentalization determined the parameters of truth? Of course, this happens all the time, and then they seek to verify their own claims before going any further.
So instead of spending weeks, months or even years developing a full-blown theory based merely on conjecture, would it not be wiser to spend the time aggressively persuing experimental validation of its foundations?
Do we not spend much time fully testing a new design for a jet engine well before we put in on a passenger-laden commercial jet?
So, given all that, what might a responsible physicist do with a potentially new theory?
Test, test, test. Test the foundations of the theory through universally accepted standards. Carefully document those tests. If all seems well, then invite others to witness your test and inspect all matters concerning it. Then if all is still well, have others duplicate the test independently of you, many times. If all is still well, then you now have the respect and admiration of your peers, and an important new discovery.

Look, I am not against your ideas. But I far more respect a theorist whom, after originating a concept, goes about to solidy prove the foundations of it. Even if it turns out to be wrong, I respect the theorist who actually tried to prove it.
Should anything less be asked or expected?
The question is the conceptual perception of uncountable amount of already carried out experiences and observations of the nature during existence of mankind.
The same experiences and observations have found an other explanation at the change of concept.
For example, all observations showing that the sun, the moon and stars have moving concerning the earth, were authentic and incontestable within millennia. An explanation was the set of postulate which are named now as the “geocentric system”. Any attempts to give another explanation to these facts at the best were ignored. In a consequence replacement of geocentric concept on heliocentric one the other explanation to the same facts was given. Certainly, the new concept should not comprise an old one. Otherwise it is simple development of an old concept.
I offer the new concept of the forces and matter origin. It differs from existing by definition. . It explains all saved up facts of experiences and observations from another point of view and does not contradict any of them. Besides that, existing concepts does not gives the answer to the many important questions. More precisely, they do not give on them any answers at all.
I think that for accepting the new concept there is no necessity to repeat all previous experiences and observations.
If you have the facts (not the theories!) which, in your opinion, contradicts to my concept then inform me, please.

BTW, I have offered earlier a very simple experience with the beams of blue and red lasers which are passing between the magnet’s poles. Is it too hard to execute this?

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
It explains all saved up facts of experiences and observations from another point of view and does not contradict any of them. That doesn't appear to us to be true. Thats why we are asking you to be specific.

[Nereid]

Michael wrote: BTW, I have offered earlier a very simple experience with the beams of blue and red lasers which are passing between the magnet’s poles. Is it too hard to execute this? 1) you haven't said how big an effect you expect to see (relative difference, in micro-radians, between the paths of the red and blue beams, as a function of magnetic field strength, integrated over the paths would be nice; but right now I'd settle for almost any quantitative statement). Without this prediction from you, there's no point doing such an experiment

2) as you've given no statement about the expected size of the effect, except to say that it would be detectable with a strong electromagnet, I'm free to make up some figures. Here goes:
- Michael's strong magnet: 10,000 G
- relative deflection (blue - red): 5\mu rad
- Michael's effect scales linearly by G, and EM frequency

-> X-rays cannot escape from magnetars, in direct contradition with observations.

How come? All you need to know - apart from the frequency of X-rays cf blue light - is the magnetic field strength of magnetars; it's ~1015 G

3) earlier in this thread you were asked why there was no frequency-dependent deflection observed in EM from distant sources going through the Sun's magnetic field (these would have been observed in the various experiments which validated GR to 1 part in ~105), especially since the magnetic field would have varied among the experiments. You didn't reply, so I'm free to interpret your silence as implicit recognition that your idea has already been falsified.

Observation 2, Michael 0.

[pallidin]

Originally posted by Nereid
1) you haven't said how big an effect you expect to see (relative difference, in micro-radians, between the paths of the red and blue beams, as a function of magnetic field strength, integrated over the paths would be nice; but right now I'd settle for almost any quantitative statement). Without this prediction from you, there's no point doing such an experiment

2) as you've given no statement about the expected size of the effect, except to say that it would be detectable with a strong electromagnet, I'm free to make up some figures. Here goes:
- Michael's strong magnet: 10,000 G
- relative deflection (blue - red): 5\mu rad
- Michael's effect scales linearly by G, and EM frequency

-> X-rays cannot escape from magnetars, in direct contradition with observations.

How come? All you need to know - apart from the frequency of X-rays cf blue light - is the magnetic field strength of magnetars; it's ~1015 G

3) earlier in this thread you were asked why there was no frequency-dependent deflection observed in EM from distant sources going through the Sun's magnetic field (these would have been observed in the various experiments which validated GR to 1 part in ~105), especially since the magnetic field would have varied among the experiments. You didn't reply, so I'm free to interpret your silence as implicit recognition that your idea has already been falsified.

Observation 2, Michael 0.

OK, now we are getting somewhere.
We are taking a critical look at a potential experiment to validate, or invalidate, the foundations of the proposed theory.

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by russ_watters
The question follows (again) - do you have any evidence for this? Anyone can make predictions and make them sound logical. That doesn't make them true.
Well.
I present evidence on each prediction. I want to notice that these evidence more than convincing because they are given by the nature itself. So, predictions and evidences.
Prediction #1:
- Existence of blue shift of light radiation of a star directly dependent on a value of its magnetic field;
Evidence:
spectrum of light radiation of the different stars have observable blue shifting depending on a value of its magnetic field. The presence of red color in a spectrum of radiation is typical of stars having very weak magnetic field. The presence of orange color at absence of red color typically for stars with stronger magnetic field and further in ascending order of a magnetic field there are stars with the presence in a spectrum of yellow color at absence of red and orange colors.
The further increase in a magnetic field of a star excludes from a spectrum the yellow color too.
Further increasing magnetic field does not influence at a spectrum of stars. A green, blue, dark blue and violet component of a spectrum are defined only by a gravity field of the star.
In the result we observe a real picture of spectrum of radiation of stars. Is it not so? Have you any other explanation of this picture?
Prediction #2
- Action of the poles of magnetic dipole as a prism for visible light. The prism effect directly depends on a value of magnetic field;
Evidence:
It is authentically known phenomenon having the name “ the polar glowing ”.
It is observed only in areas close to a magnetic pole of the Earth. In the areas remote from a pole this phenomenon is not observed.
Have you any other explanation of this picture?

Prediction #3
- Existence of thermal action of a magnetic dipole on environment surrounding its poles. The temperature of a material in the area of poles of a magnetic dipole has back dependence on a value of magnetic field;
Evidence:
The temperature on the magnetic poles of any space object, the Earth for example, always below, than in another areas of object. It is an established fact, that at displacement of magnetic poles of object the area of low temperatures is displaced together with them.
Have you any other explanation of this picture?

Prediction #4
- The opportunity of creation of the perpetual motion machine on the principles of photon working.
Evidence:
The ray of light can travel in the universe billions years without parameters changing . Is it not perpetual motion?
Without using of some kind of the renewable source of primary energy it would be impossible. The understanding of a principle how photon works can be used for creation of the machine working on this principle. But owing to an extreme importance of this problem, I do not think it is possible to continue it in the open discussion.

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by Nereid


-> X-rays cannot escape from magnetars, in direct contradition with observations.
It shows, that you are really do not understand my idea. X-ray is located in a gravity part of my scale and the magnetic field does not influence it. X-rays can leave magnetar.

To be continued.

[Nereid]

Michael wrote: Prediction #1:- Existence of blue shift of light radiation of a star directly dependent on a value of its magnetic field;
Evidence:
spectrum of light radiation of the different stars have observable blue shifting depending on a value of its magnetic field. The presence of red color in a spectrum of radiation is typical of stars having very weak magnetic field. The presence of orange color at absence of red color typically for stars with stronger magnetic field and further in ascending order of a magnetic field there are stars with the presence in a spectrum of yellow color at absence of red and orange colors.
The further increase in a magnetic field of a star excludes from a spectrum the yellow color too.
Further increasing magnetic field does not influence at a spectrum of stars. A green, blue, dark blue and violet component of a spectrum are defined only by a gravity field of the star.
In the result we observe a real picture of spectrum of radiation of stars. Is it not so? Have you any other explanation of this picture? Data please!

There are huge amounts of data about stars - magnetic fields, spectra (not just optical), masses, radii, ... - and much of it is publicly available!, e.g. through the internet. Please get some of this data, analyse it, and present your results so we can make our own evaluations. I'm sorry to be so harsh, but the kind of hand-waving you have written should be kept to yourself, until and unless you have quantitative data to back it up.Michael wrote: Prediction #2
- Action of the poles of magnetic dipole as a prism for visible light. The prism effect directly depends on a value of magnetic field;
Evidence:
It is authentically known phenomenon having the name “ the polar glowing ”.
It is observed only in areas close to a magnetic pole of the Earth. In the areas remote from a pole this phenomenon is not observed.
Have you any other explanation of this picture? If you mean the aurora, then yes; there's a very good set of explanations, involving the solar wind, O and N atoms, etc. Besides, if your idea were correct, and "polar glowing" were presented as evidence, then the non-observation of "polar glowing" around magnets hundreds, thousands, and even tens or hundreds of thousands of times stronger than the Earth's would be strong obserational proof that your idea is wrong. Further, you don't have to take my word for it; the Earth's dipole field is quite weak, compared to an ordinary 'fridge magnet, let alone a good high school bar magnet. Have you seen "polar glowing" around these magnets? If your idea is correct, and scales linearly, this glowing around an ordinary bar magnet should probably be bright enough to blind you!Michael wrote: It shows, that you are really do not understand my idea. X-ray is located in a gravity part of my scale and the magnetic field does not influence it. X-rays can leave magnetar. OK, the radio part of the EM spectrum gets seriously bent then, and I should have used pulsars as my example, not magnetars (pulsars' magnetic fields are weaker than magnetars' are, but pulsars emit copious quantities of radio EM; according to your idea, none of the radio EM would escape).

[pallidin]

Prediction #1: Blue-shifting depending on the stars magnetic field? Well, I have seen no evidence of this apart from the "blue-shift" being attributed to the stars movement towards us(or earth towards it)

Prediction #2: "polar glowing"? Do you mean "northern lights"? A well understood phenomenon. No secrets here.

Prediction #3: Magnetic influence on local thermal events? So what? Ever heard of magnetic cooling/heating? Nothing new here.

Prediction #4: A photon traveling billions of years without parameter changes? Not so! It's frequency decreases and eventually flat-lines. All is conserved... no perpetual motion.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by pallidin
Prediction #1: Blue-shifting depending on the stars magnetic field? Well, I have seen no evidence of this apart from the "blue-shift" being attributed to the stars movement towards us(or earth towards it) It almost sounds like he's talking about the actual color of the star and not the red/blue shift: As if Betlegeuse is red and Sirius is blus because of their magnetic field, not their temperature.

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by Nereid
Data please!

There are huge amounts of data about stars - magnetic fields, spectra (not just optical), masses, radii, ... - and much of it is publicly available!, e.g. through the internet. Please get some of this data, analyse it, and present your results so we can make our own evaluations. I'm sorry to be so harsh, but the kind of hand-waving you have written should be kept to yourself, until and unless you have quantitative data to back it up.
Your offer will demand from me too much time. Therefore I suggest another decision. I’ll make the table of dependence of a spectrum of radiation of stars from their magnetic and gravity field. Then you compare them to existing catalogues. It will be easy for you since I guess what the astronomy is your specialization.
If you mean the aurora, then yes; there's a very good set of explanations, involving the solar wind, O and N atoms, etc. Besides, if your idea were correct, and "polar glowing" were presented as evidence, then the non-observation of "polar glowing" around magnets hundreds, thousands, and even tens or hundreds of thousands of times stronger than the Earth's would be strong obserational proof that your idea is wrong. Further, you don't have to take my word for it; the Earth's dipole field is quite weak, compared to an ordinary 'fridge magnet, let alone a good high school bar magnet. Have you seen "polar glowing" around these magnets? If your idea is correct, and scales linearly, this glowing around an ordinary bar magnet should probably be bright enough to blind you!
Not so. Here important not only a value of magnetic force, but the size of dipole also. Division of beams becomes seen only through some tens of kilometers. May be you are have forgotten about suggested by you relative deflection 5 microradians?

OK, the radio part of the EM spectrum gets seriously bent then, and I should have used pulsars as my example, not magnetars (pulsars' magnetic fields are weaker than magnetars' are, but pulsars emit copious quantities of radio EM; according to your idea, none of the radio EM would escape).
Not so. The pulsar it is the rotating system of two stars i.e. it is the rotating magnetic dipole. According to my scale it is the usual generator of radiowaves.

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by russ_watters
It almost sounds like he's talking about the actual color of the star and not the red/blue shift: As if Betlegeuse is red and Sirius is blus because of their magnetic field, not their temperature.
The initial spectrum of radiation of a various stars (near their surface) cannot sharply differ, as all of them on one "fuel" are working. This work cannot be carried out in a wide range of temperatures, since the star or will blow up or will quickly cool down. It cannot decay for a long time, cooling down as a coal in fireplace. Thus, the temperature of all stars is approximately identical. The observable spectrum of a star depends only on its magnetic and gravity field.
BTW, temperature of a coal of red color about 500 C degrees only. Has Betelgeuse the such temperature?

[pallidin]

OK, guys, let's cut the crap, NOW.
The theory in question is dependent, entirely, on a validation I have not convincingly seen.
Move towards an experimental mode and I am all for it.
Either we seek, and demand, to establish veracity of claim(physically or mathematically), else I can see no further use of my own or anyone else's time to go any further.

Pallidin

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
The initial spectrum of radiation of a various stars (near their surface) cannot sharply differ, as all of them on one "fuel" are working. This work cannot be carried out in a wide range of temperatures, since the star or will blow up or will quickly cool down. It cannot decay for a long time, cooling down as a coal in fireplace. Thus, the temperature of all stars is approximately identical. The observable spectrum of a star depends only on its magnetic and gravity field.
BTW, temperature of a coal of red color about 500 C degrees only. Has Betelgeuse the such temperature? Ok, so that is what you are saying: you don't understand how stars work either. Your offer will demand from me too much time. This is work you are required to have already done before you can make such bold assertions. Without doing the work to prove your hypotheses, you have nothing but idle speculation under the guise of a well-developed theory. The theory in question is dependent, entirely, on a validation I have not convincingly seen.
Move towards an experimental mode and I am all for it.
Either we seek, and demand, to establish veracity of claim(physically or mathematically), else I can see no further use of my own or anyone else's time to go any further.

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by pallidin
OK, guys, let's cut the crap, NOW.
The theory in question is dependent, entirely, on a validation I have not convincingly seen.
Move towards an experimental mode and I am all for it.
Either we seek, and demand, to establish veracity of claim(physically or mathematically), else I can see no further use of my own or anyone else's time to go any further.

Pallidin
Here a quote from
http://skyandtelescope.com/news/article_1066_1.asp
Quote:
The result: a tiny extra frequency shift in Cassini’s radio signals.

It is the establishment physics at which the most powerful equipment is available.
I have already told above, that I have no such equipment. Why you demand from me more exact result than observable effect which for the establishment physics is allowed?
About mathematics. Look my initial post once again. There you’ll see the formula determining direct dependence of mass (gravity) from a photons frequency.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
I have already told above, that I have no such equipment. Why you demand from me more exact result than observable effect which for the establishment physics is allowed? We demand evidence because the claims you make require it. If you have no such evidence, then there is no basis for your claims.

Also, I don't really see the point of posting that quote. That quote refers to a GR effect and the fact that their measurements validated it to within 1 part in 40,000. If you're saying that your predictions would be outside the ability of such an experiment (or any experiment) to detect, like I said above, that means you have no evidence to support your hypothesis.

[pallidin]

Michael, my last post may have been a little harsh, and I certainly do not want to "sour" your experience and communication in these forums. Though I definitely stand by the gist of my message, I feel compelled to offer my apologies of the tone I used.
I was getting irritated, and it resulted in a generally unprofessional communication from me to you.
So again, please accept my apologies.

Michael, it is quite clear to me that you are a very creative person with a passion for new discoveries in science. I do not know your levels of education in physics or the sciences in general, but I am convinced from your writings that if you were further educated(formally or self-taught) you would have the potential to go far.

Since this is Theory Developement, everyone is free to offer speculations. Even "full-blown" speculations. This is totally fine and WELCOME. After all, that's what this particular forum in PF is for.

If you haven't noticed, Russ, Nereid, myself and others have been trying to help you: Help you to validate your theory and methods of approach. We are simply trying to assist you develop your own theory under acceptable standards. Yes, expect to be challenged here! How else can proper developement proceed! Most importantly, Michael, one should welcome the challenge, as do we not both learn through it?

Please listen carefully to what Russ(and others) have written to you; there is some great information and advise that will assist you now, and in the future.

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Here the spectrum of radiation of the stars and fogs in dependence from a value of gravity and magetic fields.

Also at
http://myscale.narod.ru/Table.png

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by pallidin
Michael, my last post may have been a little harsh, and I certainly do not want to "sour" your experience and communication in these forums. Though I definitely stand by the gist of my message, I feel compelled to offer my apologies of the tone I used.
I was getting irritated, and it resulted in a generally unprofessional communication from me to you.
So again, please accept my apologies.

Michael, it is quite clear to me that you are a very creative person with a passion for new discoveries in science. I do not know your levels of education in physics or the sciences in general, but I am convinced from your writings that if you were further educated(formally or self-taught) you would have the potential to go far.

Since this is Theory Developement, everyone is free to offer speculations. Even "full-blown" speculations. This is totally fine and WELCOME. After all, that's what this particular forum in PF is for.

If you haven't noticed, Russ, Nereid, myself and others have been trying to help you: Help you to validate your theory and methods of approach. We are simply trying to assist you develop your own theory under acceptable standards. Yes, expect to be challenged here! How else can proper developement proceed! Most importantly, Michael, one should welcome the challenge, as do we not both learn through it?

Please listen carefully to what Russ(and others) have written to you; there is some great information and advise that will assist you now, and in the future.
Thanks for the kind words at my address, pallidin.
This is unusual occurrence at forums, unfortunately. You are one of few gentleman which I met here within two years.
Probably it is difficult to present for you, but more than implicit insults I am afraid of the silence which comes after I have proved my correctness. It was already not once. I see the reason I am not the citizen of USA or the Western Europe. For inhabitants of this forum I am the representative of the wild country who has dared to be engaged with not inherent to him business. But, fortunately, God distributes his grants without consideration of residences. Thus I want to notice, that the residence it is an easily changeable size.
BTW, my son (25 years old) is a citizen of USA.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
Here the spectrum of radiation of the stars and fogs in dependence from a value of gravity and magetic fields.

Also at
http://myscale.narod.ru/Table.png That pic has no numbers on it, just qualitative statements. Its certainly nothing you can base a theory on or make predictions from.

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by russ_watters
That pic has no numbers on it, just qualitative statements. Its certainly nothing you can base a theory on or make predictions from.
May be you have not understood something? This table is not the basis for my theory or predictions. On the contrary, it grows out of the properties of my scale of light frequencies.
I ask highly skilled experts in the field of astrophysics such as Nereid and pallidin to compare the results received by me with existing catalogues and to draw conclusions about conformity.

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Can I interpret this silence as the consent with my theory?

[Nereid]

Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
Can I interpret this silence as the consent with my theory? not from me! I've had very limited internet access these last two weeks, and am only now catching up (there's a really important thread in Biology, on the 6th extinction, that will take a lot of my time to address).

To your idea: sorry to say that I don't understand your diagram.

You have 16 boxes, which are all possible combinations of 'magnetic' and 'gravity' fields, as grouped into four ranges each.

However (as Russ said), there are no numbers against either scale, so there's no way to refute anything; what are the quantatitive values for both scales/classes? OOM (order of magnitude) is sufficient for now.

Also, what do the {X,Y} notations mean? (X = gamma, X-rays; Y = microwave, radio, ..). Are these the bands in which an object with a magnetic and gravity character will emit (absorb?)?

Finally, what are the "color" icons? I can't even guess.

Finally, re the kind words on being a "highly skilled expert in the field of astrophysics", you should remember that this is the internet, so I may be a dog [;)] (do you have that joke in your country?)

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by Nereid

Finally, re the kind words on being a "highly skilled expert in the field of astrophysics", you should remember that this is the internet, so I may be a dog [;)] (do you have that joke in your country?)
I hear this joke for the first time, but I guess it speaks about the probable infringement of my copyrights. I think, that my idea so differs from existing theories, that hardly who’ll risk to be looked as crackpot (having appropriated it). Besides I have left something in a shadow.
I am going to publish the theory and to patent an inventions on behalf of citizen USA. He is my son and only to him I’ll transfer copyrights in full. If on this way there will be insuperable problems... Well.
Then it will appear in Uzbekistan or may be in Russia, or in another country, which will show an interest to my researches.

[vlamir]

Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev

I am going to publish the theory and to patent an inventions on behalf of citizen USA. He is my son and only to him I’ll transfer copyrights in full. If on this way there will be insuperable problems... Well.
Then it will appear in Uzbekistan or may be in Russia, or in another country, which will show an interest to my researches.
Michael,
You, probably, have forgotten, that it is impossible to patent discoveries in no country.
Earlier, in Russia (USSR) this right was applied, but it had been cancelled at Gorbachev.
Now, it is possible to patent every poppycock. Would be money. And besides, it is necessary to prove utility and applicability of the invention for household needs (ïîõîòåé) of Homo sapiens.
Excuse me, that I use unscientific expressions, but I have all bases so to speak.
I had personal experience in successful patenting of poppycock, but it was necessary for my research work. At that time I wrote my monograph “Bounds of human intelligence”. In this monograph I have precisely shown, how and from what components are formed new hypotheses in a human brain.
As to forums, it would be useful, if concerning to all original hypotheses the official right of priority operates. It, at least, would bring moral satisfaction.

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

As to forums, it would be useful, if concerning to all original hypotheses the official right of priority operates. It, at least, would bring moral satisfaction.
Seems this forum is the tomb for ideas. Here I was warned by participants of a forum, but not by administration, that “any claims can be proven correct by submitting them to a peer-reviewed journal only, not an internet message board.”
Hence, having placed the idea or the theory at forum, we deprive ourselves opportunities of its any further development. All of a peer-reviewed journals are warning, that they accept on consideration an original papers anywhere earlier not published.
Therefore I would like to hear answer of a forum’s administration on the following questions:
- why there is no warning of all negative consequences of accommodation of idea or the theory at this forum?
- why it is impossible to transform TD forum in independent a peer-reviewed journal or in an branch of existing one?
If I am mistaken then correct me, please.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
Therefore I would like to hear answer of a forum’s administration on the following questions:
- why there is no warning of all negative consequences of accommodation of idea or the theory at this forum?
- why it is impossible to transform TD forum in independent a peer-reviewed journal or in an branch of existing one? What negative consequences?

Your second question doesn't make any sense.

This forum is not associated with any technical journal, so nothing you do here will have any impact for or against your chances of getting your ideas published (aside from the opportunity to develop or receive feedback on your ideas).

[vlamir]

Theory Development is the most popular forum in Physics Forums.
Anyone peer-reviewed journal can envy.
It is not casual. Here it is possible to hear the most fantastic hypotheses and to suggest own. And, you can see the hypothesis in its initial form, without proof-readings.
In many of the suggested ideas there are particles of true.
But the technique of filtering of these particles is very imperfect.
As a matter of fact, the technique of estimation of hypotheses does not differ from what is used by magazines – if the hypothesis contradicts the official theory, it means this hypothesis is bad.
We frequently forget simple true, the new true appears at first only in one head.
And, as a rule, this new true seems fantastic for others.
While this idea will reach others, passes a lot of time. If you do not understand idea, it means a problem of your head, but not head of the author of idea.
Therefore, it is necessary to think of how to reduce the period of comprehension of non-ordinary ideas.
I don’t doubt, that the forum possesses huge advantages in comparison with magazines and, therefore, it should have more high status, than has now.
We excellently see, that the team of the forum applies many forces for improving it and we must be grateful for them.
As to association with magazines, I think, it is unnecessary.
Each of members of forum can make own site, to place in it his works after discussion in forums.
I, for example, have created own site three months ago. Now my site read more than 300 visitors among whom there are also popular scientific magazines and scientific institutes.
I am confident, that soon the life will force magazines to use the information from the forums in their publications.
But, it seems to me, we look aside from the basic idea of this topic.

[Nereid]

vlamir wrote: As a matter of fact, the technique of estimation of hypotheses does not differ from what is used by magazines – if the hypothesis contradicts the official theory, it means this hypothesis is bad. I can't speak for anyone else (duh!), but IMHO few of the ideas posted here in T&D pass muster on the most basic of tests - consistency with well-established observations, not 'official theory'. Goodness me, in most cases it's quite difficult to get the person who proposes the new idea to even give an OOM estimate of how well their idea matches some of the iconic physics experiments of the last century! In fact, IIRC, only wisp has done his homework (am note sure about andrew grey yet).