Revisiting the Pound-Rebka experiment in light of Miles' new Gravity Paper and the Charge Field

Go down

Revisiting the Pound-Rebka experiment in light of Miles' new Gravity Paper and the Charge Field Empty Revisiting the Pound-Rebka experiment in light of Miles' new Gravity Paper and the Charge Field

Post by Cr6 on Mon Mar 04, 2019 12:43 am

Just wanted to recap some of Miles' earlier work on Blue-shift and the Charge Field. I think if this could be reconciled with Charge-Field mechanics it could lead to a lot clarity on Mathis' "Binding" and gravity. Color is an important part of photon-mechanics that many of the modeling efforts here often over look...not on purpose but it is very difficult to account for. If photon-binding mechanics are too random...then why don't we see the immediate objects in front of our eyes fluctuating or changing colors depending on the state of current photon "collisions"?  

These earlier papers may need to be revisited. We may need to re-interpret his prior work in some areas if the binding gravity is set up going forward.
------
AN EXPLOSION OF THE POUND-REBKA EXPERIMENT

by Miles Mathis

http://milesmathis.com/pound.html

To measure the amount of blueshift, they thought to offset it with redshift. This makes perfect sense to me, and I congratulate them for this part of the experiment. They took some iron57 that was emitting gamma rays, let some of it emit from the top of the building downwards, and let the rest re-absorb the same rays in the basement. We suppose they found it wouldn't re-absorb in the basement, because it was at a different gravitational level. The light had been blueshifted and wouldn't fit back into the hole it left. So they let their lower iron57 move down with the rays, in a little elevator. This redshift offset the blueshift, and they had “measured” it. Appears brilliant, so far (except for that short “tower”).

Let me say that I accept the initial assumptions of this experiment. I agree that the motion of the light down in a gravity field should cause a blueshift. I agree that the movement of the iron in its elevator should cause a redshift. I agree that these should be capable of offsetting. I agree with the main lines of both Special Relativity and General Relativity. I believe in time dilation and length contraction and the need for transforms. I am not here to disprove Relativity or blueshifts. I am here to analyze this experiment, and especially the math underneath it.
...

In other words, it too reduces to the frequency transform. But since I agree that the gravity field of the Earth should cause a blueshift, I must come up with a new and better equation to express that.

To start with, the gravity transform should show more blueshift the longer the light is in the field. Gravity is an acceleration, so the shift must accelerate like anything else. It must change with time. The current equation expresses this in a way, but it does not express it clearly. In textbooks, the variables are always limited to hide this fact. In my paper on Feynman, I show this clearly, but Feynman himself blows by it without comment. His own equations show it, if we take an extended time, but in his Lectures he neither takes us there nor implies that it is true. If anything, he misdirects us, as the equations at Wiki and in other textbooks do.

Yes, light not only shifts blue, it must shifter bluer the longer it moves down in the field. And this means that it is not just the strength of the field that matters, it is the size of the field, and the time light spends in it.

...

The motion of the iron causes the redshift. What motion causes the blueshift? The light cannot cause its own shift. We have to give the surface of the Earth a motion in the math. Even the Wiki math shows this. That is why the velocities are different in the numerator and the denominator of the blueshift equation, or why the distances are different. Something besides the light has to be moving to show a blueshift, by definition. You can give it to the field instead of the surface of the Earth, but the end is the same. If the field is moving during the equation, this must be represented in the math. If the light is traveling the entire distance h during the math, the field movement cannot be represented in the math.
------------------
Keep in mind this recent paper as well.

Transfer of atomic mass with a photon solves the momentum paradox of light
June 30, 2017, Aalto University


Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-06-atomic-mass-photon-momentum-paradox.html#jCp


In a recent publication, Aalto University researchers show that in a transparent medium each photon is accompanied by an atomic mass density wave. The optical force of the photon sets the medium atoms in motion and makes them carry 92% of the total momentum of light, in the case of silicon.

The novel discovery solves the centennial momentum paradox of light. In the literature, there has existed two different values for the momentum of light in the transparent medium. Typically, these values differ by a factor of ten and this discrepancy is known as the momentum paradox of light. The difference between the momentum values is caused by neglecting the momentum of atoms moving with the light pulse.

To solve the momentum paradox the authors prove that the special theory of relativity requires an extra atomic density to travel with the photon. In related classical computer simulations, they use optical force field and Newton´s second law to show that a wave of increased atomic mass density is propagating through the medium with the light pulse.

The mass transfer leads to splitting of the total momentum of light into two components. The fields' share of momentum is equal to the Abraham momentum while the total momentum, which includes also the momentum of atoms driven forward by the optical force, is equal to the Minkowski momentum.

Credit: Aalto University

"Since our work is theoretical and computational it must be still verified experimentally, before it can become a standard model of light in a transparent medium. Measuring the total momentum of a light pulse is not enough but one also has to measure the transferred atomic mass. This should be feasible using present interferometric and microscopic techniques and common photonic materials," researcher Mikko Partanen says.



Potential interstellar applications of the discovery

The researchers are working on potential optomechanical applications enabled by the optical shock wave of atoms predicted by the new theory. However, the theory applies not only to transparent liquids and solids but also to dilute interstellar gas. Using a simple kinematic consideration it can be shown that the energy loss caused by the mass transfer effect becomes for dilute interstellar gas proportional to the photon energy and distance travelled by light.

"This prompts for further simulations with realistic parameters for interstellar gas density, plasma properties and temperature. Presently the Hubble's law is explained by Doppler shift being larger from distant stars. This effectively supports the hypothesis of expanding universe. In the mass polariton theory of light this hypothesis is not needed since redshift becomes automatically proportional to the distance from the star to the observer," explains Professor Jukka Tulkki.


Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-06-atomic-mass-photon-momentum-paradox.html#jCp

Cr6
Admin

Posts : 1178
Join date : 2014-08-09

http://milesmathis.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Revisiting the Pound-Rebka experiment in light of Miles' new Gravity Paper and the Charge Field Empty Re: Revisiting the Pound-Rebka experiment in light of Miles' new Gravity Paper and the Charge Field

Post by Cr6 on Mon Mar 04, 2019 1:01 am

Rewriting the Rayleigh equation

by Miles Mathis
First published March 1, 2014


http://milesmathis.com/bright3.pdf

About a year ago, I promised to rebuild the Rayleigh equation from the ground up. Although I forgot to work on it until today, I found I was able to do the job in a matter of hours. I have learned some things in the meantime that helped me see how to solve it, so I guess it was best I left it until now. If you like math, you may like this paper. If you don't, I'm afraid this one won't thrill you.
....

That may have been obvious, but what might not be obvious is that although we get greater brightness at lower altitudes due to photon up-conversion, the density of down-coming light actually drops. Remember, we have real scattering at all altitudes, and so at each level some percentage of the original light will be lost to reflection. The dimming part of the equation indicates lower photon density as we move down, while the brightening part of the equation indicates more energetic photons. So we have fewer photons, but bigger photons. The shifted photons are what caused the blue color and the rise in overall energy, while the scattered photons cause the whiteness.

How might this affect the equation, or the summation? It will affect the value of x. At lower altitudes, you will have more charge recycled and a greater density of molecules, increasing the odds of interaction. But since fewer photons are coming down, the odds decrease. But the first effect will trump the second, giving an increase. Any precise summation would have to include that variation, although it is small.
I will conclude by pointing out how my new equation changes most of the claims of current theory. We are now told that the sky is blue because “Rayleigh scattering is inversely proportional to the fourth power of wavelength, so that shorter wavelength violet and blue light will scatter more than the longer wavelengths.” But that was always just a push to explain data, as we now see. The sky is not blue because molecules scatter more blue light. The sky is blue because the Earth's charge field up-converts an initial spectrum of less energetic light up into the blue range. In this way, Rayleigh scattering is not scattering at all (for the most part), but an analogue of magnetic reconnection.

The same thing applies to all the other “theory” surrounding Rayleigh scattering. Since the effect isn't scattering to start with, all the claims made about the effect are false. In rewriting the equation, we have to rewrite all the theory as well. Nothing will stand.

*The short-cut to that number is to divide the current diameter of the N2 molecule—which is said to be 300pm —by the fine structure constant 137. You end up with 2.2 x 10-12m, which is 530 times 4.14 x 10-15m.

Cr6
Admin

Posts : 1178
Join date : 2014-08-09

http://milesmathis.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Revisiting the Pound-Rebka experiment in light of Miles' new Gravity Paper and the Charge Field Empty Re: Revisiting the Pound-Rebka experiment in light of Miles' new Gravity Paper and the Charge Field

Post by Cr6 on Mon Mar 04, 2019 1:11 am


Revisiting the Pound-Rebka experiment in light of Miles' new Gravity Paper and the Charge Field Untitl10


That is a simplification, but it is much more accurate than the current simplifications, which ignore that the real field acts in four quadrants, not two halves (in 2D). The current diagram from NASA also ignores the most important part of the field lines, which shows charge coming out of the body at the equator. Actually, if we drew all the field lines, we would see charge coming out everywhere, but most at the equator and least at the poles.

Another thing that makes the quadrants look like halves in a cursory diagramming is that the quadrants are actually swapping charge streams. My diagram above is an over-simplification for the sake of clarity, but if we follow the real lines of potential, we find them switching color as they go through the Earth. What goes in as red comes out as blue, that is, and then follows the curve of the opposing loop. This acts to mask the field from our detectors in several ways. One, at the distance of the ionosphere— where we detect moving ions instead of trying to detect moving charge directly—the ions will already be moving mostly north or south, rather than out radially. So the artists at NASA or wherever will naturally draw them in field lines moving north and south. Their machines won't see the split at the equator, so they won't include it in the diagram. Two, if we try to detect the charge field at lower altitudes, we again get a split or bipolar field, in which both photons and antiphotons are moving straight up from the surface of the Earth. This split greatly lowers the local magnetism. Magnetism is caused by fields that are either strongly photonic or strongly antiphotonic. If you have both spins in the same line, they cancel, and the magnetic field is greatly reduced. What they need to do is try to detect the electrical field instead of the magnetic field. Best would be detecting the sub-electrical field, but we aren't good at following photon fields. Our machines are built to track the larger and slower moving ions. So the only way to detect the field lines I am talking about is to try to detect electrical current moving up, ignoring the local magnetic field.

The problem with that is there are fewer ions at lower altitudes, since existing ions have already been driven up to the ionosphere by previous charge moving up. That is why the ions are in the ionosphere in the first place, at higher altitudes: they have been driven up there by this charge field I am telling you about. So where the charge field is moving up the most, we have the fewest ions. Hence the difficulty in mapping the four quadrants correctly. Since NASA builds its diagrams from partial data, it fails to see that the two halves are really four quadrants, and without the four quadrants, the real channels of charge are hidden. Once these channels are hidden beneath bad diagrams, physicists have no potential to explain things like these Lunar cycle detections by organisms on Earth. As I have shown in other papers, they also have no way to explain core dynamics, mantle dynamics, continental drift, or even such things as the rising of sap or lift on a wing. But once you have the four quadrants, you can explain all these things with charge and simple mechanics.

http://milesmathis.com/pigeon.pdf

Cr6
Admin

Posts : 1178
Join date : 2014-08-09

http://milesmathis.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Revisiting the Pound-Rebka experiment in light of Miles' new Gravity Paper and the Charge Field Empty Re: Revisiting the Pound-Rebka experiment in light of Miles' new Gravity Paper and the Charge Field

Post by Cr6 on Mon Mar 04, 2019 1:25 am


Additive Color Theory and antiphotons
by Miles Mathis
First published February 27, 2018

http://www.milesmathis.com/anticolor.pdf

So, how exactly does this cancelling of spins work? Well, all that would be required is some jostling of
photons as they travel side by side in the mix. Most photons don't affect eachother's spins much in that
situation, since the spins aren't greatly different. But when photons and antiphotons jostle like that,
they are strongly affected, since the spins are opposite. The spins catch like little gears and the outer
spins are tamped down. This is why and how magenta cancels cyan in this situation.

This tells us two things: 1) this is another analogue of magnetic reconnection, since I have used the
same mechanics to explain that. We should call it photonic reconnection, or just photonic connection,
since it is actually a sub-magnetic effect. All magnetism is a spin effect, so it isn't wrong to call it
magnetic reconnection. But previously the name has led us to believe all such phenomena are EM or
ionic. They are not, they are photonic. 2) such magnetic reconnection must always be present, and is
only a matter of degree. Previously we have only studied it in extreme cases, as in the Solar corona.
But it now looks like this photonic connection is happening all the time in all places. In the current
effect, it is much more subtle, causing only color changes rather than spin ups or spin downs that lead
to extreme heating or lepton creation.

This also implies that any coherence that would minimize this jostling would also minimize this effect.
In other words, if we can force the photons to travel in perfectly straight lines to the target, they will not
jostle. If they don't jostle, they can't cancel spins. Of course, to do that, we would also have to create a
near perfect vacuum, including a charge vacuum. In normal situations, the ambient field is full of ions,
molecules and charge, which interact with the light, re-jostling it.

So, do we have any other indication my theory is correct? Yes. We discovered in my previous light
papers that when we look at this black print on a computer screen through a prism, the letters are split
into CMY. Here is what I said there:

If you look at this black print through a prism, you fnd it turns magenta. Depending on the
orientation of the prism, you also get two ghosts. If the point of the prism is up, you get a
yellow ghost above and a cyan ghost below, with the yellow ghost higher than the cyan ghost is
low: the yellow ghost is about a full character above, while the cyan ghost is about a half
character below. If the point of the prism is down, you get a reversed effect.

That was always curious, though no one has commented on it until now. Even I didn't see anything in
it the first time. Why would yellow be bent up and cyan be bent down? And why would yellow be
bent twice as much? The only possible answer is that the yellow photons are spinning opposite the
cyan photons. So one or the other must be antiphotonic. And we can tell that although yellow and
cyan are opposite here, they do not have the same spin radius or energy.

What can we tell about magenta from this experiment? We can tell it is opposite to either cyan or
yellow, and that it is equal in energy to neither. This would seem to contradict my previous theory,
since we need magenta and cyan to have equal energies in order to cancel. However, as with magenta
and red-violet, we may have more than one cyan to work with. The cyan here may not be the same
cyan we were looking at above. In other words, we may have a photonic cyan and an antiphotonic
cyan. Only one of those is opposite to magenta. If magenta is antiphotonic, it is opposite the photonic
cyan. That would mean we have the antiphotonic cyan being bent down by the prism, and the photonic
yellow being bent up.

It is also curious that magenta is not bent at all by the prism. This would seem to make it even more
special, though I don't see how to read that right now. Much more work needs to be done in this line.
But if nothing else, I believe we have strong proof of antiphotons here, as well as their inclusion in the
basic light spectrum. I think you will agree this requires a complete rewrite of color theory.

Cr6
Admin

Posts : 1178
Join date : 2014-08-09

http://milesmathis.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Revisiting the Pound-Rebka experiment in light of Miles' new Gravity Paper and the Charge Field Empty Re: Revisiting the Pound-Rebka experiment in light of Miles' new Gravity Paper and the Charge Field

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum