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.
No, the anisotropy is of the radiation itself, and concerns its origin.
The dipole anisotropy, first figure in the page cited, concerns the motion of the terrestial observation with respect to the rest frame of the cosmic radiation, presumably indicating where the original bang occurred with respect to our galaxy, etc. It corresponds nicely to the Earth's annual orbital motion.
Further measurements have demonstrated other features of the anisotropy, less magnitude than the primary dipole distribution.
U dont seem to understand that if the CMBR proves the aetherwind then that undermines Einsteinian stuff which undermines bigbang stuff which undermines CMBR which brings us back where we started.
The Soviets also sank the CMBR stuff done by theusofa WMAP & COBEfamiliesteams. Theusofa teams got Nobels, but the Soviets didnt.
The Soviets launched the first such satellite in 1983 -- Relikt-1. Later they launched Relikt-2.
These showed that the later calibrations by theusofa were rubbish, because it was discovered that Relikt-1 suffered due to a large signal from Earth, & this had to be overcome by Relikt-2 by using a different orbit etc.
"Any anisotropy supports aetherwind"
That statement is logically absurd. You could describe a specific hypothetical anisotropy that you claim would be caused by an aetherwind, and then someone else could easily postulate an anisotropy contrary to that.
Be more careful about absolute terms such as "any", "all", "none", etc.
Relikt-1 confirmed CMBR and Relikt-2 never launched. WTF are you talking about?
U dont seem to understand that if the CMBR proves the aetherwind then that undermines Einsteinian stuff which undermines bigbang stuff which undermines CMBR which brings us back where we started.You don't seem to understand how logic works.QuoteThe Soviets also sank the CMBR stuff done by theusofa WMAP & COBEfamiliesteams. Theusofa teams got Nobels, but the Soviets didnt.
The Soviets launched the first such satellite in 1983 -- Relikt-1. Later they launched Relikt-2.Relikt-1 confirmed CMBR and Relikt-2 never launched. WTF are you talking about?QuoteThese showed that the later calibrations by theusofa were rubbish, because it was discovered that Relikt-1 suffered due to a large signal from Earth, & this had to be overcome by Relikt-2 by using a different orbit etc.You're just all over the place. Do you have a source that says Relikt-2 launched? If so, where is the data?
The Soviet paper on the subject found their measurements in Relikt-1 to be in agreement with those of COBE.
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992MNRAS.258...71K/abstract
Relikt-1 confirmed CMBR and Relikt-2 never launched. WTF are you talking about?The whole failure to launch was faked. The absence of sensor data was actually recorded during an engineered quiet period while it was up in space, specially timed to look like it had not launched. The lack of graticules on the film supposedly taken from ground were erased from shots taken in space, and the forlorn looks on the faces of scientists were actually from actors paid to look sad, while the real scientists partied on vodka with NASA conspirators via video link. Photos of Relikt-2 on the ground are actually of Relikt-1 while the former was in outer space. When the experiments returned to Earth, tapes were rewound to different points and vacuum tubes were filled with air to cover up evidence of space.
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.pdfThere 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.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).
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.
I would be even more interested in any measurements that confirmed that why.
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.pdfThere 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.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).
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.I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say. I'm not fluent in gibberish.
What does your new theory say about a dipole antenna. What does its radiation pattern look like? For a transmitting and receiving dipole?
Can you point us to some of the books your relative wrote. What exactly happened to him?
I would be even more interested in any measurements that confirmed that why.Then get a VNA and do those measurements. You can get good ones for a few thousand USD. Or you can use something like the nanoVNA, though I'm not sure of the parameters.
Feynman has never said anything useful or interesting to me & my science, but i havnt spent much time on him.
Much of what he says in the youtube supports me.
He reckons that the sun shines from Einstein's bum, hence that lowers Feynman to the category of someone who is unlikely to teach me anything worthwhile.
And i believe that i can learn something from anyone, but Feynman might be an exception.
I dont know what he thought about aether.
However he might have liked my electons.
Feynman has never said anything useful or interesting to me & my science, but i havnt spent much time on him.Of course. Because you're allergic to learning.
https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/QuoteMuch of what he says in the youtube supports me.Lol."I don't know what he says. It isn't interesting. But it supports me."
Gawd you are an endless source of completely unaware self-parody.QuoteHe reckons that the sun shines from Einstein's bum, hence that lowers Feynman to the category of someone who is unlikely to teach me anything worthwhile.
And i believe that i can learn something from anyone, but Feynman might be an exception.Indeed. You should stay far away from Feynman lest you learn something useful.QuoteI dont know what he thought about aether.Lucky for you, he wrote down what he thought about aether. But I wouldn't open this link if I were you - you might break out in an allergic rash:
https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_15.htmlQuoteHowever he might have liked my electons.Nah. He said in the video I posted what he would've thought about you. You're just another crank asking the safecracker if they tried combination 20-30-40.
I was hoping you might've watched his remarks and maybe, just maybe, might've understood why academics ignore you. But nope. Ah well.
I had a look. Omigosh. I didnt realize just how stupid Feynman was. In less than 60 sec i see that he thort that Einstein believed in mass increase with speed. No.
He reckoned that the MMXs were null. No.
He believed in time dilation. Wrong.
I will read the rest later. What a dill.
What does your new theory say about a dipole antenna. What does its radiation pattern look like? For a transmitting and receiving dipole?I think that an insulated dipole or a wet dipole would in effect have a shorter L. And i suspect that that would lower its effective frequencies. This might lower the antenna's happy frequency by the ratio of the speed of light in air to the speed of light in water or to the speed of light in plastic.
I am not sure whether "happy frequency" is a valid technical term, but it should be. We might have the Happiness of an antenna (units needed here). The inverse could be called Haplessness.
adx said that insulation on an antenna affected its power by only a few %, not the 0.67 to 1.00 ratio that my electons suggest. But, adx should have been referring to the ratios of the happy frequencies, not the ratio of the powers.Can you point us to some of the books your relative wrote. What exactly happened to him?I emailed Tony Wakefield (he has been mentioned in this thread), he is a ham & lives in Melbourne too & might know of Diamond & his books.
Diamond was with his club cleaning rubbish from the center median of a dual highway in Melbourne when a say builder's trailer came off & hit him, he didn’t see it coming, he was in hospital for months, had brain damage, was in the same ward as my wife (his cousin) who died of brain cancer, & they didn’t know that the other was there. I don’t know how he is nowadays. I remember him telling me that his favorit person was Faraday. I think i argued with him that electricity was not due to electron drift, & i might have argued with him that radio waves were not photons, & i might have mentioned the aetherwind affecting the speed of radio waves, it was about 6 years ago, i didn’t yet have my new (electon) electricity theory back then.
I dont know the difference tween a VNA & an oscilloscope. But i would keep clear of radio antenna stuff i think -- too complicated.
I had a look. Omigosh. I didnt realize just how stupid Feynman was.
I will read the rest later. What a dill.
I ask u am i a genius or what.
[...]
I had a look. Omigosh. I didnt realize just how stupid Feynman was. In less than 60 sec i see that he thort that Einstein believed in mass increase with speed. No.
[...]
I ask u am i a genius or what.
<better snip that longness>