Particle / wave duality on a scale of light frequencies.

[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) = (264.31^o +/- 0.16, +48.05^o +/- 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) = (264.31^o +/- 0.16, +48.05^o +/- 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]

blackbody radiation

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
[tex]u_{\nu ,T} =\frac{8\pi h\nu ^3}{c^{3}e^{\frac{h\nu}{kT}}}[/tex]
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]

Please check out the COBE and WMAP results

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
[tex]u_{\nu ,T} =\frac{8\pi h\nu ^3}{c^{3}e^{\frac{h\nu}{kT}}}[/tex]
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]

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[tex]\mu rad[/tex]
- 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[tex]\mu rad[/tex]
- 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.