General > General Technical Chat
"Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
penfold:
--- Quote from: aetherist on February 25, 2022, 01:18:55 pm ---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,[...]
--- End quote ---
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.
TimFox:
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.
SandyCox:
--- Quote from: aetherist on February 25, 2022, 12:32:50 pm ---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
--- End quote ---
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?
HuronKing:
--- Quote from: aetherist on February 25, 2022, 01:11:14 am ---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?
--- End quote ---
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...
--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---
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.
aetherist:
--- Quote from: penfold on February 25, 2022, 02:39:51 pm ---
--- Quote from: aetherist on February 25, 2022, 01:18:55 pm ---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,[...]
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
Penzias & Wilson designed a horn that couldnt keep pigeons out, much less horizontal diffraction.
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
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version