CMBR – A Rydberg Photon Precession by Francis Viren Fernandes

Respectfully Frances,

As I have thoughtfully pointed out in my essay, BITTERS, one real Universe can only be unique, once. Each naturally or fabricated snowflake is unique once. Each photon would have to be unique once. To pretend for a moment that Rydberg could possibly measure the radius of an actual photon and suggest that that radial measurement could be exactly double that of Bohr's is incorrect. In the first place, real light is unique and of a whole piece. Photons are perfect abstractions. All of mathematics is postulated abstraction. Although abstractions can be perfectly manipulated repeatedly to perfectly equate, reality cannot because everything real is unique and only occurs once.

The Rydberg number is a measured entity. The gamma factor is a measured entity.

My entire essay is based on experimental data.

Definition of a photon - A photon obeys the equation - q squared = m x r x 10^7

137 is a spectral entity. Wavelength = 2 Pi r 137

Wavelength is a measured entity

Input Bohr radius as r in the charge squared equation and get 2 Rydberg photons

Photons are a measure of the frequency of one 737 mass - 7.37 x 10^-51kg

The evidence of this I have solved - The time on the clock for electroplating a metal or discharge of hydrogen at the cathode during electrolysis is related exactly with the frequency of the element being plated or hydrogen - hence the electrochemical series.

Each snow flake is unique because of the changed frequency of 737.

I use math for dimensional homogeneity.

I have solved the gamma factor -

m [ 1 - v^2/c^2 ] = m*

m is electron mass

m* for 2 Rydberg photons

v is the Bohr velocity c/137.036

A photon is real with mass and not an abstraction.

change in frequency / frequency of light emitted = m g h / m c^2

m is a photon mass.

Without the photon mass there is no frequency and no show.

Respected Francis Viren Fernandes,

Yours is a very good argument and I also accept big crunch is not possible which is the required for producing Bigbang. TO your words:

. . . . . The Nobel Committee allowed a huge assumption by accepting a connection between CMBR and a supposed Big Bang. Today world over people think of the Big Bang as fact. The so-named relic frequency of the supposed Big Bang starts from a place in time where all the mass of the Universe is crunched to a dense point mass. I will now argue that it is impossible to crunch the Universe to a dense point mass. . . . .

I want to add one more question , how can there be 33% Blue shifted Galaxies in a totally expanding universe?

In addition I also presented a paper that in this contest now,

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1607

. . . . showing that Bigbang generated CMBR was never detected, never measured; What so ever measured so far is only star light and Galaxy light. I hope you will have a look. Best. . . . . .

Red and blue shifts has got to do with

change in frequency / frequency of light emitted = m g h / m c^2

the local g at a distance h from the source emitter acts on the photon mass m causing blue or red shift depending on g

this is gravitational lensing in all its simplicity

gravitational lensing is an ether phenomenon as I have shown for earth with real data in one line

I read your abstract and need to reread. I always give a month before comment.

Its nice to know that we are thinking the same thing at the same time. Which makes me believe that thoughts come from beyond ourselves to a God who reveals his love by reason and faith. The snow flake is a super example of infinite unique patterns in nature at 10^-9 meters. The ether is at 10^-36 meters at the 186-ether: planck length dynamic pulsate scale by 137.036

Francis,

There is no such thing as a real photon. You can mathematically prove that there ought to be a perfect number of identical abstract photons in a perfect abstract light, however, there is no way you could ever calculate the number of photons in the real unique light emitted by a real lightening bug. Each flash of real lightning is unique. Each ray of sunshine is unique.

Although the fabricated light detection instruments are built to display indistinguishable (identical) wave length patterns, light is actually the only stationary substance in the Universe. The wave patterns could be caused by the electrical energy source of the instruments. There is no real way to tell.

Joe

Do listen to my lecture on Sat =

www.worldsci.org

https://www.fuzemeeting.com/fuze/app/fccff073/19815331

I will discuss 5 experiments on saturday ,orning US time and all are welcome by clicking on the above link

I will be discussing the structure of a photon

Francis,

Do read my essay BITTERS.

Francis.

I attended your lecture, but unfortunately, I could not get any video or audio of it.

Joe:

I was blocked. Did not deliver. More than 20 attendees were there. Just ran the slides.

Joe:

This saturday hopefully the rerun will work

http://www.worldsci.org/php/index.php?tab0=Events&tab1=Display&id=615

Dear Francis

Very picky and many of measure but easy to understand, however if you conclude: "bit from it" so then: it is from?

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1802

Francis,

If given the time and the wits to evaluate over 120 more entries, I have a month to try. My seemingly whimsical title, "It's good to be the king," is serious about our subject.

Jim

Hello Francis,

Just to encourage you efforts. Your essay has more to do with cosmology, unlike mine which is a different but you may find it interesting also. But just one question for you since you say: "The assumption that the early Universe was crunched down to a point mass of infinite density is conjecture...".

QUESTION: Can it be a conjecture also that all the matter-energy in the universe was created all at once rather than gradually?

In other words, that matter-energy cannot be a conserved quantity if the universe is created from nothing. In that case, infinite density may be avoided at a Big Bang or a Big Crunch, if these are not conjectures.

Best regards,

Akinbo

*Reply me on my blogbecause I don't know when next coming here.

Hi Francis,

Your essay caught my eye since it suggests a paradigm shift which unifies electromagnetism and gravity. Your position I found to be reflective of the findings from a 12 year experiment I have recently concluded. Although you have a different approach to unification than I do, I found your essay inspiring and most worthy of merit.

Good luck in the competition.

Manuel

Hello Francis

Richard Feynman in his Nobel Acceptance Speech

(http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1965/feynman-lecture.html)

said: "It always seems odd to me that the fundamental laws of physics, when discovered, can appear in so many different forms that are not apparently identical at first, but with a little mathematical fiddling you can show the relationship. And example of this is the Schrodinger equation and the Heisenberg formulation of quantum mechanics. I don't know why that is - it remains a mystery, but it was something I learned from experience. There is always another way to say the same thing that doesn't look at all like the way you said it before. I don't know what the reason for this is. I think it is somehow a representation of the simplicity of nature."

I too believe in the simplicity of nature, and I am glad that Richard Feynman, a Nobel-winning famous physicist, also believe in the same thing I do, but I had come to my belief long before I knew about that particular statement.

The belief that "Nature is simple" is however being expressed differently in my essay "Analogical Engine" linked to http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1865 .

Specifically though, I said "Planck constant is the Mother of All Dualities" and I put it schematically as: wave-particle ~ quantum-classical ~ gene-protein ~ analogy- reasoning ~ linear-nonlinear ~ connected-notconnected ~ computable-notcomputable ~ mind-body ~ Bit-It ~ variation-selection ~ freedom-determinism ... and so on.

Taken two at a time, it can be read as "what quantum is to classical" is similar to (~) "what wave is to particle." You can choose any two from among the multitudes that can be found in our discourses.

I could have put Schrodinger wave ontology-Heisenberg particle ontology duality in the list had it comes to my mind!

Since "Nature is Analogical", we are free to probe nature in so many different ways. And each of us surely must have touched some corners of it.

Good luck and good cheers!

Than Tin

Dear Francis,

We are at the end of this essay contest.

In conclusion, at the question to know if Information is more fundamental than Matter, there is a good reason to answer that Matter is made of an amazing mixture of eInfo and eEnergy, at the same time.

Matter is thus eInfo made with eEnergy rather than answer it is made with eEnergy and eInfo ; because eInfo is eEnergy, and the one does not go without the other one.

eEnergy and eInfo are the two basic Principles of the eUniverse. Nothing can exist if it is not eEnergy, and any object is eInfo, and therefore eEnergy.

And consequently our eReality is eInfo made with eEnergy. And the final verdict is : eReality is virtual, and virtuality is our fundamental eReality.

Good luck to the winners,

And see you soon, with good news on this topic, and the Theory of Everything.

Amazigh H.

I rated your essay.

Please visit My essay.

Dear Francis,

I have now finished reviewing all 180 essays for the contest and appreciate your contribution to this competition.

I have been thoroughly impressed at the breadth, depth and quality of the ideas represented in this contest. In true academic spirit, if you have not yet reviewed my essay, I invite you to do so and leave your comments.

You can find the latest version of my essay here:

http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/Borrill-TimeOne-V1.1a.pdf

(sorry if the fqxi web site splits this url up, I haven't figured out a way to not make it do that).

May the best essays win!

Kind regards,

Paul Borrill

paul at borrill dot com