Particle / wave duality on a scale of light frequencies.

[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]

Quantitative predictions?

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 possesses 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]

Where - explicitly - does your idea predict differences?

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 possesses 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 development 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 development 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 canceled 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).