-
Do u reckon that the James Webb will confirm the bigbang?Dave aint a professor. And he aint a Dr. And u obviously have not looked at Dr R's youtube(s).
I have and I split a gut laughing at his claims that the CMBR originates with the Earth's oceans. There is a reason that Pierre sticks to Youtube to preach because his claims wouldn't survive anywhere else. I don't really need Professor Dave (other than the entertaining video) because I already know what the CMBR theory is about (it originates from the Recombination Era).
Pierre thinks the theory originates from mere moments after the BB. Which, as I said a few posts ago, means he has absolutely no concept of what the CMBR even is. He's so inept at understanding the basic science that he doesn't even know where to begin in attacking it.
Or kill it?
If it kills the BB -- then would that mean that the CMBR satellites etc are merely space junk? -
Another inappropriate statement: "Opening the mail, & checking to see if it came to the correct address, is not peer review."
1. As I said, modern peer review started a few decades later than 1905.
2. Serious editors of journals like Annalen der Physik take responsibility for what they publish.
3. Opening the mail and checking for the correct address is how you get stuff on YouTube. -
Partial quotes:
It's been said a few times I think but people (a) aren't entirely sure (b) don't want to get into an argument (c) don't want to be told they are crazy just because they experienced something or have some knowledge (d) expect their statement to be totally misinterpreted if they are not painfully clear. My apologies for d especially (although it happened, in which case apologies for not immediately correcting that too). But you seem so set in your absolute expectation.
What?<snip stuff getting long just keeping for the link above>
I like your twin media idea, but because thin insulation makes no difference to the speed of electricity down a wire, it's not going to achieve much, unfortunately.
? When did u decide that insulation on wire duznt affect the speed of electricity on the wire?
But for example:Re antennas -- my guess is that a transmitting dipole antenna painted with enamel would have to be 50% longer (to give the same frequency).
I think no. This could be tested with a nanoVNA, balun, and some wire on strings. It is not a test I really want to do. Perhaps a bit head in the sand, but I'm old enough to rest on my assumptions and beliefs despite knowing that is how the rot sets in. (Note I said no not so.)
Your contention would mean that rain for example would detune an antenna by an enormous amount. It does detune by some, but small %. It depends on how much field is in the dielectric, a thin layer like 100 microns won't be significant (I said no difference, I fell that needed to be said to get the point through). I checked on the web for aluminium's natural oxide film but that is 4nm (a lot thinner than I expected).
Best to simply put a link:
http://karinya.net/g3txq/hexbeam/rain/
This doesn't confirm everything I am saying to the letter, I don't want it to. But the gist is clear. -
Partial quotes:
Yes, interesting. It appears that antennas are another box that my electons tick.
It's been said a few times I think but people (a) aren't entirely sure (b) don't want to get into an argument (c) don't want to be told they are crazy just because they experienced something or have some knowledge (d) expect their statement to be totally misinterpreted if they are not painfully clear. My apologies for d especially (although it happened, in which case apologies for not immediately correcting that too). But you seem so set in your absolute expectation.
What?<snip stuff getting long just keeping for the link above>
I like your twin media idea, but because thin insulation makes no difference to the speed of electricity down a wire, it's not going to achieve much, unfortunately.? When did u decide that insulation on wire duznt affect the speed of electricity on the wire?
But for example:
Your contention would mean that rain for example would detune an antenna by an enormous amount. It does detune by some, but small %. It depends on how much field is in the dielectric, a thin layer like 100 microns won't be significant (I said no difference, I fell that needed to be said to get the point through). I checked on the web for aluminium's natural oxide film but that is 4nm (a lot thinner than I expected).Re antennas -- my guess is that a transmitting dipole antenna painted with enamel would have to be 50% longer (to give the same frequency).
I think no. This could be tested with a nanoVNA, balun, and some wire on strings. It is not a test I really want to do. Perhaps a bit head in the sand, but I'm old enough to rest on my assumptions and beliefs despite knowing that is how the rot sets in. (Note I said no not so.)
Best to simply put a link:
http://karinya.net/g3txq/hexbeam/rain/
This doesn't confirm everything I am saying to the letter, I don't want it to. But the gist is clear.
Insulation on an antenna duz affect frequency (ie it affects the speed of my electons)(which one day will be our electons). And rain water duz too. And i suppose ice.
And more interesting, there is mention of a 4 nm aluminium oxide layer possibly affecting antennas.
Because we have here another possible experiment, here we are testing the effect of thickness of insulation (on the speed of our electons).
And it is very thin insulation which u had on your mind (not just ordinary thickness), so that makes sense now.
So, how can we apply a controlled thin thickness of plastic on a wire?
And, i did mention this kind of X & this problem of getting a controlled thickness a long time ago here.
I definitely need to brush up on my Swedish. One of my golf mates was Swedish (his wife was from the Volvo family). And another golf mate had a Swedish wife, she was a famous opera singer, as was he.
They might know someone who knows someone who is on the Nobel committee. -
The Herouni antenna excludes the signal from the oceans, & it tells us that the signal from the sky is zero, zilch, nix, nada, nought, nothing.Dave aint a professor. And he aint a Dr. And u obviously have not looked at Dr R's youtube(s).
I have and I split a gut laughing at his claims that the CMBR originates with the Earth's oceans. There is a reason that Pierre sticks to Youtube to preach because his claims wouldn't survive anywhere else. I don't really need Professor Dave (other than the entertaining video) because I already know what the CMBR theory is about (it originates from the Recombination Era).
Pierre thinks the theory originates from mere moments after the BB. Which, as I said a few posts ago, means he has absolutely no concept of what the CMBR even is. He's so inept at understanding the basic science that he doesn't even know where to begin in attacking it.
-
Yup, those COBE and Planck satellites really picked up on the signal from earth's oceans =D
-
[...]
The Herouni antenna excludes the signal from the oceans, & it tells us that the signal from the sky is zero, zilch, nix, nada, nought, nothing.
<>
Seeing how you said ealier that the internet, wiki, youtube etc is changing the face of research. Yes it is, in one regard it is fantastic, it is possible to share research and data accross the world, data visualisation and analysis aren't quite the epic tasks they used to be and all this can be shared with accedemics alike, and the general public. There are some good open access and low pay-wall journals. But the problem with sharing data so fast and openly, most noteably with CERN, is that it is possible to draw some very premature and incorrect conclusions - remember the faster than light particles at CERN circa 2010? It immediately hit the papers that faster than light particles were detected - esentially they were, but only because the time synchronisation had failed between detector stations.
So, one one hand it is good that so many people are getting involved and taking an interest, but it is actually very damaging also to the fringe-physics theories themselves, it pushes them into their own dark age... ironically. I don't even use the term fringe-physics in a derogatory sense, we have shadow governments, peer review and fringe-festivals as a counter-point to tradiation and main-stream for a reason. But the more background noise, the less of it actually gets considered and honestly critiqued - the result being that most people stand-by theories without a proper discourse and the harsher the ridicule of 'cranks'.
So, where that video you presented draws a conclusion of "there must be no experimental errors because no accedemics replied" is not necesarily a good conclusion at all, there are many reasons an accedemic won't respond to unsolicited requests for review. -
Yes, interesting. It appears that antennas are another box that my electons tick.
Maybe, in a qualitative sense (I swore off commenting on your electon theory a few pages ago, because it does no good to have me guessing).
But there is some way to go in a quantitative sense; your 50% prediction in antenna length difference changed to 1% (difference per article), and your delay numbers in my aether test apparatus needed a tweak down by a factor of 1000 after I showed this would be easily testable also. I've shown at least a couple of ways the threaded rod experiment will show delay despite asserting it won't (certainly not ~50% more), this isn't a contradiction but comes down to splitting hairs over definitions (like whether 2 orders of magnitude is significant - to each their own). It's early days, your theory is still evolving, no one can expect it to be perfect at this stage.
And I think that's about all I can say. -
No. It doesn't. Their dynamic behavior is totally different. You can see this by comparing the two-port representations of the capacitor and transmission line:
A fully charged DC transmission line, having 2 parallel closely space wires, acts exactly like a capacitor.
Let's try one last time:You weren't able to spot the blatantly obvious mistake in Catt's paper. I assume that you are also unable to identify the mistakes in all these "papers".
Which mistake. I think u mean Cahill's paper. What mistakes in the other papers.
When can we expect equations that describe "new electric"?
I have read all of them & i dont remember any mistakes, but it was a long time ago.
Equations have given us Higgs gluons gravitons etc. These only exist in mathland.
Electons are not mathland.
He confused a transmission line with a capacitor.
And no the two are not the same!
Electons live in crazy land.
Especially if it is a coax.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-port_network
(And no. It's not my problem if you do not have the mathematical skills to understand two-port representations in the s domain. It just confirms that you are totally out of your depth.)
Catt measures the dynamic behavior of a transmission line in his paper. He then compares it to dynamic behavior of a capacitor and foolishly concludes that the theory is wrong.
Your theory is unable to produce numbers. What use does it have? -
Thats not what i see. I see a top scientist writing a top paper showing that the CMBR does not exist, & i see that no-one responded, & i see that he had invited comments from 10 leading laboratories, & none responded. U are inferring that some might have seen some possible errors but could not bother to report or reply.[...]
Seeing how you said ealier that the internet, wiki, youtube etc is changing the face of research. Yes it is, in one regard it is fantastic, it is possible to share research and data accross the world, data visualisation and analysis aren't quite the epic tasks they used to be and all this can be shared with accedemics alike, and the general public. There are some good open access and low pay-wall journals. But the problem with sharing data so fast and openly, most noteably with CERN, is that it is possible to draw some very premature and incorrect conclusions - remember the faster than light particles at CERN circa 2010? It immediately hit the papers that faster than light particles were detected - esentially they were, but only because the time synchronisation had failed between detector stations.
The Herouni antenna excludes the signal from the oceans, & it tells us that the signal from the sky is zero, zilch, nix, nada, nought, nothing.<>
So, one one hand it is good that so many people are getting involved and taking an interest, but it is actually very damaging also to the fringe-physics theories themselves, it pushes them into their own dark age... ironically. I don't even use the term fringe-physics in a derogatory sense, we have shadow governments, peer review and fringe-festivals as a counter-point to tradiation and main-stream for a reason. But the more background noise, the less of it actually gets considered and honestly critiqued - the result being that most people stand-by theories without a proper discourse and the harsher the ridicule of 'cranks'.
So, where that video you presented draws a conclusion of "there must be no experimental errors because no accedemics replied" is not necesarily a good conclusion at all, there are many reasons an accedemic won't respond to unsolicited requests for review.
I have seen only one criticism of Herouni's paper, & this mainly said that he was using old fashioned analogue instruments. It ignored that he had the best telescope the world had ever seen -- unique. -
I have never heard of two-port stuff. I am half interested in whether Catt stuff is not in accord.
No. It doesn't. Their dynamic behavior is totally different. You can see this by comparing the two-port representations of the capacitor and transmission line:
A fully charged DC transmission line, having 2 parallel closely space wires, acts exactly like a capacitor.
Let's try one last time:You weren't able to spot the blatantly obvious mistake in Catt's paper. I assume that you are also unable to identify the mistakes in all these "papers".
Which mistake. I think u mean Cahill's paper. What mistakes in the other papers.
When can we expect equations that describe "new electric"?
I have read all of them & i dont remember any mistakes, but it was a long time ago.
Equations have given us Higgs gluons gravitons etc. These only exist in mathland.
Electons are not mathland.
He confused a transmission line with a capacitor.
And no the two are not the same!
Electons live in crazy land.
Especially if it is a coax.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-port_network
(And no. It's not my problem if you do not have the mathematical skills to understand two-port representations in the s domain. It just confirms that you are totally out of your depth.)
Catt measures the dynamic behavior of a transmission line in his paper. He then compares it to dynamic behavior of a capacitor and foolishly concludes that the theory is wrong.
Your theory is unable to produce numbers. What use does it have?
But i am very interested in whether electons are not in accord. But here i would need someone to spell out exactly where my electons fail. And then i could make an effort to work out what it all means. I think that u are saying that my electons can be sunk with maths, & that i would not even understand any of that koz i can't understand the math.
How about we approach it from a different direction. How about u show me how electron drift fits the math but my hugging electons don’t fit the math. Then i will have to agree that drift beats hugging. I might be able to follow the math, who knows.
U say that electons have to produce numbers if electons are to be useful.
I think that if for some reason there is today no method for getting numbers then perhaps my electons can help to give numbers.
But i don’t understand. Are u asking for my electons to produce numbers that don’t presently exist? If they don’t presently exist then it means that they are not needed. Or, if they are needed, then it means that existing old (electron) electricity can't give a model that gives the desired numbers. In that case my electons might do the trick & make a model that does give good numbers. But that would be in the future, & it would further confirm that electons are true, & if so then i might be buried in a cathedral, & they might make a statue of me somewhere. Time will tell. -
[...]
Thats not what i see. I see a top scientist writing a top paper showing that the CMBR does not exist, & i see that no-one responded, & i see that he had invited comments from 10 leading peer groups, & none responded. U are inferring that some might have seen some possible errors but could not bother to report or reply.
[...]
That wasn't my intent. From the academics' side, that paper would have been one of many unsolicited papers received that day, it probably got ignored. You've met a professional academic, right? the kind that would sooner return a simple email with spelling corrections and ask for resubmission whilst moaning about how little time they have (before actually considering a technical response to it) and proceed to argue the toss between brands of chalk. I'm not surprised they didn't respond.
The correct conclusion is not that "there were no problems", but that "nobody identified problems"; why should the benefit of the doubt go to the person who got ignored and not to the more established body of work?
Surely, you understand the basics of a structured argument and are choosing to ignore it? For instance, "I didn't see the postman today" could result in the conclusion that "the postman is invisible", but that wouldn't be rational or complete - further tests might reveal that I was just asleep when he walked past. It is a similar absurdity as saying being asleep makes people invisible as it is to say not receiving a response prooves a theory.
-
I had a look at thems antenna articles, re rain & water & wet antennas. I couldn’t understand any of it. I couldn’t even work out whether they were transmitting or receiving or both. They talked about water foam of 1 water to 10 air. They mentioned 0.5 mm of water cover. Big drops every inch or two. They mentioned a 30% change (in the right direction).Yes, interesting. It appears that antennas are another box that my electons tick.
Maybe, in a qualitative sense (I swore off commenting on your electon theory a few pages ago, because it does no good to have me guessing).
But there is some way to go in a quantitative sense; your 50% prediction in antenna length difference changed to 1% (difference per article), and your delay numbers in my aether test apparatus needed a tweak down by a factor of 1000 after I showed this would be easily testable also. I've shown at least a couple of ways the threaded rod experiment will show delay despite asserting it won't (certainly not ~50% more), this isn't a contradiction but comes down to splitting hairs over definitions (like whether 2 orders of magnitude is significant - to each their own). It's early days, your theory is still evolving, no one can expect it to be perfect at this stage.
And I think that's about all I can say.
I don’t know how electons would explain any of that. They said that some antennas were badly affected by rain, & some were almost useless. They even said that rain affected an insulated antenna. How the hell did they get that?
Much of their stuff was based on models, not actual measurements. In fact none was based on measurement. Say no more.
https://www.qsl.net/yu1aw/Misc/wetantenas.pdf -
The bottom line is that Penzias & Wilson got the 1978 Nobel for accidentally finding an anomalous 3K, with their hornX, & they were credited with finding the CMBR, when in fact they never claimed that their signal was from the cosmos (in their paper). It was others (astronomers) that made that claim. Dr Robitaille says that the more logical explanation for their 3K was an Earthly source (eg the Atlantic Ocean 3 miles from their horn, & 140 ft below their horn). Their horn had zero shading/shrouding for the effects of diffraction from/of any signal coming horizontally (from the Atlantic).[...] Thats not what i see. I see a top scientist writing a top paper showing that the CMBR does not exist, & i see that no-one responded, & i see that he had invited comments from 10 leading peer groups, & none responded. U are inferring that some might have seen some possible errors but could not bother to report or reply. [...]
That wasn't my intent. From the academics' side, that paper would have been one of many unsolicited papers received that day, it probably got ignored. You've met a professional academic, right? the kind that would sooner return a simple email with spelling corrections and ask for resubmission whilst moaning about how little time they have (before actually considering a technical response to it) and proceed to argue the toss between brands of chalk. I'm not surprised they didn't respond.
The correct conclusion is not that "there were no problems", but that "nobody identified problems"; why should the benefit of the doubt go to the person who got ignored and not to the more established body of work?
Surely, you understand the basics of a structured argument and are choosing to ignore it? For instance, "I didn't see the postman today" could result in the conclusion that "the postman is invisible", but that wouldn't be rational or complete - further tests might reveal that I was just asleep when he walked past. It is a similar absurdity as saying being asleep makes people invisible as it is to say not receiving a response prooves a theory.
Then along comes Herouni, who finds an anomalous 0.0K (ie cosmic signal is zero K), with his unique telescope, which has double shading/shrouding for diffraction from the horizontal, & is at an elevation of 1700 m, & is 300 km from the Black Sea & 350 km from the Caspian Sea. But no Nobel for Prof Herouni. -
I had a look at thems antenna articles, re rain & water & wet antennas. I couldn’t understand any of it. I couldn’t even work out whether they were transmitting or receiving or both. They talked about water foam of 1 water to 10 air. They mentioned 0.5 mm of water cover. Big drops every inch or two. They mentioned a 30% change (in the right direction).Yes, interesting. It appears that antennas are another box that my electons tick.
Maybe, in a qualitative sense (I swore off commenting on your electon theory a few pages ago, because it does no good to have me guessing).
But there is some way to go in a quantitative sense; your 50% prediction in antenna length difference changed to 1% (difference per article), and your delay numbers in my aether test apparatus needed a tweak down by a factor of 1000 after I showed this would be easily testable also. I've shown at least a couple of ways the threaded rod experiment will show delay despite asserting it won't (certainly not ~50% more), this isn't a contradiction but comes down to splitting hairs over definitions (like whether 2 orders of magnitude is significant - to each their own). It's early days, your theory is still evolving, no one can expect it to be perfect at this stage.
And I think that's about all I can say.
I don’t know how electons would explain any of that. They said that some antennas were badly affected by rain, & some were almost useless. They even said that rain affected an insulated antenna. How the hell did they get that?
Much of their stuff was based on models, not actual measurements. In fact none was base on measurement. Say no more.
https://www.qsl.net/yu1aw/Misc/wetantenas.pdf
That's right - possibly all right. I wondered why they didn't just spray it with water and measure it. That's why I gave you the more practical link. But I did say it doesn't confirm everything I am saying to the letter ... I don't want it to ... gist is clear. That gist is that this is the norm - these things are modelled using conventional theory and expected to work. The testing comes later, when it's put into use. It's not production design in this case (ham hobby).
I didn't try to understand much of it. I mostly ignored the equations, I trust they simulated it right. I looked at the diagram, saw the concentric circles and made an assumption that I knew what they were on about. I honed in on the frequency graphs and used my confirmation bias to check there wasn't a dry vs wet frequency ratio on a graph that exceeded about 1%. These antennas are quite sensitive to tuning, so a small shift can make a big difference in operation. The foam idea is implicit confirmation by assumption that the fine distribution of dielectric materials doesn't matter, so on the scale of the wavelengths and fields involved, they average out as if it were a much less dense foam. The dielectric constant of water is about 80 I think it said (which is quite high), and this lowers to about 10 when 'mixed' with air between the drops. Nobody cares about the spacing or position of the drops or even the fact they are discontinuous. Rain affects an insulated wire antenna because the rain adds to the amount of insulation around and generally in the vicinity of the metal, which is all antenna designers care about - they are completely and totally unaware of your electon theory which says the photons are on rather than around the surface.
The resulting approach is a travesty of errors by your theory, but the users of this approach know theirs gives useful results, to the point of taking it for granted.
Making a rational inference from that is your job. -
The bottom line is that Penzias & Wilson got the 1978 Nobel for accidentally finding an anomalous 3K, with their hornX, & they were credited with finding the CMBR, when in fact they never claimed that their signal was from the cosmos (in their paper). [...]
Then along comes Herouni, who finds an anomalous 0.0K (ie cosmic signal is zero K), with his unique telescope, which has double shading/shrouding for diffraction from the horizontal,[...]
What difference does it make whether they attributed the results, themselves, directly to CMBR or not? The award was for the design and development of the experiment and their rational approach to it. Perhaps they accepted that they themselves were not qualified in the field of cosmology to justify a claim of CMBR - allowing un-biased free-thinking within the scientific community by those who were qualified to form such a conclusion? Perhaps. Just maybe that is what the prize recognises above all else.
Herouni: no verifiable claims, no respectable conclusions, theoretical work was shoddy and the antenna was famous for its technical faults.
-
Penzias and Wilson became aware of a previous prediction by R H Dicke (at Princeton) of CMBR and invited his group to look at their experimental data. After working together, the two groups sent notes in 1965 to Astrophysical Journal simultaneously to avoid a priority clash. Thus science progresses.
-
I had a look at thems antenna articles, re rain & water & wet antennas. I couldn’t understand any of it. I couldn’t even work out whether they were transmitting or receiving or both. They talked about water foam of 1 water to 10 air. They mentioned 0.5 mm of water cover. Big drops every inch or two. They mentioned a 30% change (in the right direction).
I don’t know how electons would explain any of that. They said that some antennas were badly affected by rain, & some were almost useless. They even said that rain affected an insulated antenna. How the hell did they get that?
Much of their stuff was based on models, not actual measurements. In fact none was base on measurement. Say no more.
https://www.qsl.net/yu1aw/Misc/wetantenas.pdf
There is no fundamental difference between a transmitting and receiving antenna. That's why they don't have to say whether it's a transmitting or receiving antenna. And no. If you cant see why this is the case it's not because the theory is wrong. It's because you are ignorant.
Engineers analyse antennas by solving Maxwell's equations, either theoretically or numerically. These solutions tell us that rain has an effect on an insulated antenna. Rain changes the electromagnetic environment on and around the antenna.
You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. You are wasting your time on scientific conspiracy theories that are based on ignorance and misconceptions. (Like Catt's paper.) Why don't you rather spend time to familiarize yourself with the theory of Electromagnetics?
-
Do u reckon that the James Webb will confirm the bigbang?
Or kill it?
If it kills the BB -- then would that mean that the CMBR satellites etc are merely space junk?
I anticipate the JWST to verify and expand our understanding of the CMBR. However, you've made it clear in this thread that there is no standard of proof or evidence from the JWST that would satisfy your crackpottery.
How do I know this? Because you brought up the Herouni Antenna...QuoteThe Herouni antenna excludes the signal from the oceans, & it tells us that the signal from the sky is zero, zilch, nix, nada, nought, nothing.
So, dozens and dozens of positive observations of CMBR since the 1980s are all invalid because *hand-wave*, but you insist that a single antenna measurement performed in the Soviet Union as it was collapsing and described in a paper in English 10 years after the measurements were done that has never been repeated or independently examined (tragically as the antenna he built is very neat) satisfies you?
Hopefully you can see why most everyone here regards you as a conspiratorial crackpot wasting your time. -
Penzias & Wilson designed a horn that couldnt keep pigeons out, much less horizontal diffraction.The bottom line is that Penzias & Wilson got the 1978 Nobel for accidentally finding an anomalous 3K, with their hornX, & they were credited with finding the CMBR, when in fact they never claimed that their signal was from the cosmos (in their paper). [...]Then along comes Herouni, who finds an anomalous 0.0K (ie cosmic signal is zero K), with his unique telescope, which has double shading/shrouding for diffraction from the horizontal,[...]
What difference does it make whether they attributed the results, themselves, directly to CMBR or not? The award was for the design and development of the experiment and their rational approach to it. Perhaps they accepted that they themselves were not qualified in the field of cosmology to justify a claim of CMBR - allowing un-biased free-thinking within the scientific community by those who were qualified to form such a conclusion? Perhaps. Just maybe that is what the prize recognises above all else.
Herouni: no verifiable claims, no respectable conclusions, theoretical work was shoddy and the antenna was famous for its technical faults.
Herouni's didnt make any claims, he merely submitted his reading of 0.0K.
His conclusion was that his reading was 0.0K.
Which theoretical work was shoddy?
Who said that it was shoddy?
What faults did the telescope have?
Where were the faults famous?
Notice that my hero Miller in 1933 said that any CMBR confirms the aether wind. Hence the modern CMBR stuff merely confirms my aetherwind.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1601.06518.pdf
Consoli et al 2016. Cosmic Background Radiation and ‘ether-drift’ experiments
CBR and ether-drift experiments.
Let us first observe that the discovery of an anisotropy of the Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR) [13,14] has introduced an important new element. Indeed, the standard interpretation of its dominant dipole component (the CBR kinematic dipole [15]) is in terms of a Doppler effect due to the motion of the solar system with average velocity v∼ 370 km/s toward a point in the sky of right ascension α∼ 168 deg and declination δ∼−7 deg . This makes the existence of a preferred reference frame more than a simple possibility.
Miller 1933. Other Evidences of Cosmic Motion.
The various astronomical determinations of motion of the solar system in space, by the nature of the methods employed, indicate relative motion and do not directly give any information as to an absolute motion. However, several recent important experiments in diverse fields seem to give evidence of a cosmic motion. Dr. Esclangon, Director of the Paris Observatory, has made elaborate studies of earth tides (deformation of the earth's crust) and of ocean tides. In the latter work he considered 166,500 observations extending over a period of nineteen years. There are component tidal effects which indicate a motion of the solar system in the plane which contains the sidereal time meridian of 4½h and 16½h.
By a study of the reflection of light, Esclangon finds strong evidence for what he calls an “ optical dissymmetry of space” with its axis of symmetry in the meridian of 8 hours and 20 hours, sidereal time. This effect would be explained by an ether-drift and the results are in striking agreement with the ether-drift observations here reported.
Many recent observations on cosmic rays show a very definite maximum of radiation in the direction indicated by the meridian of 5 hours and 17 hours, sidereal time. The very extensive observations of Kolhörster and von Salis, Büttner and Feld and of Steinke all show this effect. Observations made on the nonmagnetic ship “ Carnegie” show the same effect for the observations made between 30° north and 30° south latitude.
Evidences of galactic motions which are related more or less directly to the absolute motion of the solar system have been found by Harlow Shapley studying interstellar matter, by J. S. Plaskett from investigation of the motion of B-type stars, and by G. Strömberg from researches on star clusters and nebulae.
L. Courvoisier has made researches of several types to discover evidences of the absolute motion of the earth. His experiments relate to the reflection of light, the deformation of the earth, the elongations of Jupiter’s satellites, and to the aberration constant. R. Tomaschek and W. Schaffernicht have made observations on related subjects.
There are several anomalies in astronomical observations of less definite character, which, however, might be explained by the existence of an ether drift. Such anomalies occur in connection with the observed constant of aberration, standard star places and clock corrections determined at different times of day.
Karl G. Jansky of the Bell Telephone Laboratories has found evidences of a peculiar hissing sound in short wave radio reception, which comes from a definite cosmic direction lying in the meridian of 18 hours sidereal time -
There is always a difference tween a transmitting antenna & a receiving antenna. It is usually 100 km or 1000 km or more. If there is very little difference, say 1 km, then the antennas can be old cans of Bud Light (355 mL).I had a look at thems antenna articles, re rain & water & wet antennas. I couldn’t understand any of it. I couldn’t even work out whether they were transmitting or receiving or both. They talked about water foam of 1 water to 10 air. They mentioned 0.5 mm of water cover. Big drops every inch or two. They mentioned a 30% change (in the right direction).
There is no fundamental difference between a transmitting and receiving antenna. That's why they don't have to say whether it's a transmitting or receiving antenna. And no. If you cant see why this is the case it's not because the theory is wrong. It's because you are ignorant.
I don’t know how electons would explain any of that. They said that some antennas were badly affected by rain, & some were almost useless. They even said that rain affected an insulated antenna. How the hell did they get that?
Much of their stuff was based on models, not actual measurements. In fact none was base on measurement. Say no more.
https://www.qsl.net/yu1aw/Misc/wetantenas.pdf
U say it makes no difference whether it is a transmitting antenna or a receiving antenna. I do see 4 differences.
IS IS……………… The transmitting antenna is affected by rain. The receiving antenna is affected by rain.
IS AINT……….… The transmitting antenna is affected by rain. The receiving antenna is not affected.
AINT IS……….…. The transmitting antenna is not affected. The receiving antenna is affected.
AINT AINT……... The transmitting antenna is not affected. The receiving antenna is not affected.Engineers analyse antennas by solving Maxwell's equations, either theoretically or numerically. These solutions tell us that rain has an effect on an insulated antenna. Rain changes the electromagnetic environment on and around the antenna.
I am very interested in exactly why an insulated antenna acts differently when wet.
I would be even more interested in any measurements that confirmed that why.You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. You are wasting your time on scientific conspiracy theories that are based on ignorance and misconceptions. (Like Catt's paper.) Why don't you rather spend time to familiarize yourself with the theory of Electromagnetics?
I don’t think that antenna designers or users have conspired to cover up Einsteinian problems.
I am looking for antenna instances where drifting electrons give a better explanation than my electons.
And where my electons give a better explanation.
And where both work ok.
And where both don’t work.
And i suspect that these instances might be more apparent if we introduce insulation on the wires.
And perhaps wet antennas can tell us something worthwhile.
Antenna designers & users have no idea what i am talking about, ie my electons.
And antenna designers & users have no idea that their precious radio waves are not photons.
And that photons are not radio waves.
But ignorance & misconceptions do not appear to have resulted in them wasting their time. But mightbe it has.
They might be thrilled to hear of my electons. And my explanation for radio waves.
Funny. At a family reunion some years ago i had a nice argument with one of my relatives re electricity & re radio waves. He has written a number of books re design & wiring of radio stuff. Anyhow i heard that he got cleaned up by a runaway trailer whilst cleaning the roadside with his club, & that he has brain damage. I doubt that i will have a chance to ask him what he thinks about my electons. -
While I was still in grad school in the 1970s, I attended a lecture about the following experiment (new results at the time):
https://aether.lbl.gov/www/projects/u2/
The cool thing described in that lecture about the experimental setup was that it required cutting holes in the stressed skin of a U2 spy plane, which required getting retired Lockheed engineers back to do the mechanical analysis.
Flying at very high altitude with two different frequency antennae, it was able to map the anisotropy of the background radiation, far above the pigeons and oceans.
As discussed very briefly on that page, the experiment was repeated in the southern hemisphere with the same results.
About the same time, I also attended a lecture by one of the two (Penzias or Wilson) about their ground-based experiment, complete with cleaning out the pigeon droppings, but 50 years later I don't remember which of them presented the lecture. -
While I was still in grad school in the 1970s, I attended a lecture about the following experiment (new results at the time):
Good stuff.
https://aether.lbl.gov/www/projects/u2/
The cool thing described in that lecture about the experimental setup was that it required cutting holes in the stressed skin of a U2 spy plane, which required getting retired Lockheed engineers back to do the mechanical analysis.
Flying at very high altitude with two different frequency antennae, it was able to map the anisotropy of the background radiation, far above the pigeons and oceans.
As discussed very briefly on that page, the experiment was repeated in the southern hemisphere with the same results.
About the same time, I also attended a lecture by one of the two (Penzias or Wilson) about their ground-based experiment, complete with cleaning out the pigeon droppings, but 50 years later I don't remember which of them presented the lecture.
The anisotropy of course confirms my aetherwind stuff.
Funny. Years ago my wife & i visited an old girlfriend of my wife, & her new hubby from theusofa was an engineer who had worked on the design of one of the U2s. But we didnt discuss the U2.
And i had a pigeon (a gift) that had won the premier pigeon race in Ozz, the Alice Springs to Adelaide. I could tell a very sad story about that pigeon. -
LOLOL
"CMBR is rubbish and doesn't exist according to an uncorroborated Soviet antenna and the opinions of a medical radiologist"
"Of course CMBR proves the aetherwind."
I really ought to be doing other things but I can't help myself.
-
<<Just saving for the link>>
I think we both know that you don't need those answers. Bravo.