CMB dead -- BB dead -- censorship alive.

[crawler]

24 January 2019
Professor Panayiotis Frangos,
Editor, Journal of Applied Electromagnetism (JAE),
Athens, Greece
Dear Sir,
You will no doubt recall our very recent correspondence (below for reference) regarding the paper, Herouni P. About Self Noises of Radio-Optical Telescope ROT-54/2,6 Antenna, Journal of Applied Electromagnetism, Athens, 1999, V. 2., N 1., P. 51-57, missing from the electronic archive of JAE, and that upon your advice that you did not know about the paper and had no JAE record of it, suggesting that I perhaps had incorrect citation, I said that I would look into it. I subsequently located the niece of professor Herouni, professor Arevik Sargsyan, and informed her that her uncle's paper was not in the JAE electronic archive and asked her if she had a copy of it. She has informed me that she asked Dr. Tamara Knyazyan from the Laboratory of professor Hovik Baghdasaryan to search the laboratory library shelves for the hard copy of JAE, V. 2. N 1, 1999. Dr. Knyazyan found the hard copy of the issue. Professor Sargsyan has sent me photographs of the cover of the JAE issue and her uncle's paper therein, proving its existence.
Professor Sargsyan has informed me that she contacted you about her uncle's missing paper. According to professor Sargsyan, you wrote to her “this paper by your uncle P. Herouni does not appear in Vol. 2, No. 1 issue (year 1999) of our ‘JAE Journal’ (I have this copy both in hardcopy form, and also in electronic form, in our ‘JAE archive’, as this appears in our ‘web site’,http://jae.ece.ntua.gr).” You informed me that you became Editor of JAE in 2007. I have ascertained that your predecessor was professor Nikolaos Uzunoglu. It appears that professor Uzunoglu published professor Herouni's paper in JAE, V. 2. N 1, 1999. Professor Sargsyan has advised me that you wrote to her, “The matter of its registration to our ‘JAE archive’ is still a ‘mystery’ for me....(I still can not understand that....In any case....).”
I was aware of the importance of professor Herouni's paper by virtue of his abstract, which he presented at a conference in St. Petersburg in 2006, which recently came to my attention: hence my reason for seeking it and my writing to you in the first instance, when I could not find the paper in JAE records. From the photographs of the paper I have been able to study it, and reaffirm that it is the most important paper ever published on cosmology. The so-called Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) was first reported at ~3 K by Penzias and Wilson in 1965, their detection from the ground. They subsequently shared a Nobel Prize for this. In 1989 NASA's COBE satellite reported detection of the CMB at ~2.725 K, at ~900km above Earth. Both John Mather and George Smoot of the COBE Team shared a Nobel Prize for this alleged CMB detection. In 2001 NASA's WMAP satellite to L2 reported detection of anisotropies in the 'CMB'. The WMAP Science Team shared the lucrative 2018 Breakthrough Prize – Fundamental Physics for their 'anisotropies', i.e. “detailed maps of the early universe”. In 2009 the European Space Agency launched its PLANCK satellite to L2 and also reported detection of CMB anisotropies, supposedly in much greater refinement than WMAP.
I find it disturbing that professor Herouni's paper is not in the JAE archive and that you could not find it in the hardcopy of JAE, V. 2. N 1, 1999 held in the JAE records. Possibly the answer to your surprise that it is not in JAE records is that professor Herouni's paper proves that the CMB does not exist, and, consequently, that Big Bang cosmology is false. In his paper professor Herouni wrote:
“This very low level of our measured self noises of ROT Antenna rises the query to well known cosmogonic theory of 'Big Bang'. … But the presented above results of our measurements shows that either this 2.8K is a relict background, then self noises of ROT is equal zero (what is impossible) or this is self noises of Antenna, and then the relict background is absent (or almost absent). In this case it has sense to return to the earlier 'quantes aging' theory which explains also the known 'red shift'.”
Such revelations are anathema to astronomers and cosmologists who have built many careers and reputations on Big Bang and CMB, in a very public international fashion. It seems that a person or persons unknown may have therefore removed professor Herouni's paper from the JAE electronic archive, and substituted the hard copy of the journal issue in your records with one that does not contain professor Herouni's paper, strange as it may seem.
But the question now is: What to do about it? I suggest that JAE republish professor Herouni's paper with editorial comment that the original 1999 paper has gone missing. In any event professor Herouni's paper must surely be reinstated in the JAE records. Perhaps professor Uzunoglu can assist you, since it seems that he originally published professor Herouni's paper in JAE.
Please keep me informed of developments.
Yours faithfully,
Steve Crothers
(Australia)
3rd February 2019
Professor Panayiotis Frangos,
Editor, Journal of Applied Electromagnetism (JAE),
Athens, Greece
Dear Sir,
Pursuant to our previous correspondence (see below) regarding the mysterious disappearance of the paper Herouni P. About Self Noises of Radio-Optical Telescope ROT-54/2,6 Antenna, Journal of Applied Electromagnetism, Athens, 1999, V. 2., N 1., P. 51-57 from electronic and harcopy records of JAE, I note that the paper has been reinstated, at my instigation. You will recall that I requested you to keep me appraised of developments, but you did not do so. I however kept a watchful eye on developments and noted that on the of 30th January 2019 professor Herouni's paper was reinstated, thanks apparently to the intervention of professor Uzunoglu; but not in its original index. It is now, as you know, located in Journal of Applied Electromagnetism, Athens, 1999, V. 2., N 2., where it is appended as the final entry (No.7) in a zip file, without the editorial comment I requested from you. The paper there is a pdf file of scanned images of the original paper that I obtained from Armenain scientists, which reaffirms that JAE had no record of the paper in any format whatsoever. I also note that in V.2 N.1 the page numbers originally assigned to professor Herouni's paper are now occupied by a paper by a different author. Clearly the removal of professor Herouni's paper from JAE records was perpetrated with deliberation by the unknown offenders.
I now ask if you intend to inquire as to how this paper was removed from JAE records in the first place, and if you intend to attempt to identify the person or persons responsible for deleting it from the journal's records. I am compiling a full record for historical purposes as professor Herouni's null measurement of the so-called 'CMB', at 8mm (proving that the 'CMB' does not exist), will come to stand as a magnificent edifice in the history of astronomy and cosmology.
Professor Robitaille in the USA and me in Australia have in the meantime not been idle. Here is our latest development (with much more to follow):
The Herouni Antenna - The Death of the Big Bang!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8lKQMEYYLw
I will keep you informed of developments, even if you decide to continue to keep me in the dark.
Yours faithfully,
Steve Crothers
(Australia)

[Cargo]

This is mega! Go Steve!

[Cargo]

Here the paper from Herouni

http://elib.sci.am/2007_1/10_1_2007.pdf

A nice image I found through duckduckgo

credit: https://dreamheron.wordpress.com/2019/0 ... ot-see-it/

[GaryN]

Can the Big Bang Survive in the Space Age?-Alfvén, Hannes, Fälthammar, Carl-Gunne
http://kth.diva-portal.org/smash/get/di ... TEXT01.pdf

Bibhas De, an associate of Alfven has been calling fraud on the BB model for years.

The Falsifiers of the Universe: BIG BANG COSMOLOGY: The first fraud in the final frontier
https://www.amazon.ca/Falsifiers-Univer ... 1507704933

[neilwilkes]

This is mega! Go Steve!

It's much, much more than that - this is direct incontrovertible proof of academic fraud and censorship.
Steve, when all is said & done in years to come your name will shine like the beacon of hope it is.
Keep up the pressure

[crawler]

Conrad Ranzan has a paper re -- THE COSMIC BACKGROUND RADIATION IN THE DSSU. http://www.cellularuniverse.org/CBR1inDSSU.pdf
Ranzan says that the CMBR can be explained by the redshifting of sunlight as it passes throo the cellular universe. Likewize the 0.2 deg anisotropy. And Olber's Paradox.

Robitaille & Crothers explain that a CMBR karnt be due to a bigbang koz gases do not emit radiation.

Herouni says that his measurements of the CMBR show zero deg at 8 mm.

Either way three strikes & the BB is out.

[Sci-Phy]

https://dreamheron.wordpress.com/2013/0 ... cosmology/

I was always wondering about the temperature.
Especially that low (2.7K of CBR) and especially in space.
The temperature defined as average kinetic energy of molecules.
Kinetic energy depend on velocity and velocity is relative term.
So, temperature defined relative to what?

[Aardwolf]

I suspect the CMBR is just light from more distant galaxies redshifted further into the MW range and nothing to do with the BB. However, once the JWST is up and running and they spot fully formed and very old galaxies in the mid/far infrared will that kill the BB theory? Not likely, too many vested interests so expect another mathemagical tweak.

[crawler]

I suspect the CMBR is just light from more distant galaxies redshifted further into the MW range and nothing to do with the BB. However, once the JWST is up and running and they spot fully formed and very old galaxies in the mid/far infrared will that kill the BB theory? Not likely, too many vested interests so expect another mathemagical tweak.

Yes i see that the JWST will target the infrared. Ranzan would agree that this will allow it to see further-better.

Unlike Hubble – which mainly looks at the part of the electromagnetic spectrum we can see as well – the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) will primarily see in the infrared.

These longer wavelength observations will enable JWST to reach farther back in time to the formation of the first galaxies, deeper inside dust clouds where stars and planetary systems are forming, and will offer the chance to analyse the atmospheres of distant potentially habitable worlds that may harbour life.

[Aardwolf]

Looks like they are aware of the problems already;

https://astronomynow.com/2019/08/07/alm ... -galaxies/

“By maintaining this rate of star formation, these ALMA-detected galaxies will likely transform into the first population of massive elliptical galaxies formed in the early universe,” says David Elbaz, an astronomer at CEA, and coauthor on the paper, “But there is a problem. They are unexpectedly abundant.”

Yet another observation falsifying their theories...and to be ignored just like all the other "anomalies".

[Electrodynamic]

I wouldn't say the cosmic microwave background or the big bang are dead.

First, if the known billion trillion stars in the universe radiate EM radiation in the microwave spectrum then where do you think all that radiation went?. It cannot just disappear and it cannot just dissipate into nothingness therefor it must be present everywhere is free space. Everyone seems to be ignoring the most basic premise of science in my opinion. If stars generate then radiate microwave radiation and they do then it has to go somewhere... where is the question.

Likewise, the big bang may or may not be a universal compression/expansion because nobody knows how big the universe actually is. I have never seen any evidence that the universe ever had a beginning or an end, or that it was created and could be destroyed violating the conservation of energy and mass. Thus what were actually talking about is speculation at best hence the term "Big Bang Theory".

It's kind of ridiculous when we think about it because we seem to have taken a page right out of the dark ages. In the past they believed the Earth was flat and we would fall off the edge of it for no other reason that they did not know what was over the horizon. Likewise, today we are making the same mistakes with the universe using the same flawed sense of logic and reason. So maybe it's best we straighten this fiasco out right now... if we do not know what is beyond the reach of our telescopes or measuring devices and we do not then logically we do not know how big the universe is or if it ends, period, end of debate.

What we do know as a fact is that there are many who have a vested interest in discrediting science because it does not fit with there business interests or personal beliefs. Which is fine and to each his own however while we have a right to our own beliefs we done not have a right to our own personal flavor of alternative facts.

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”, Christopher Hitchens

[crawler]

I wouldn't say the cosmic microwave background or the big bang are dead.

First, if the known billion trillion stars in the universe radiate EM radiation in the microwave spectrum then where do you think all that radiation went?. It cannot just disappear and it cannot just dissipate into nothingness therefor it must be present everywhere is free space. Everyone seems to be ignoring the most basic premise of science in my opinion. If stars generate then radiate microwave radiation and they do then it has to go somewhere... where is the question.

Likewise, the big bang may or may not be a universal compression/expansion because nobody knows how big the universe actually is. I have never seen any evidence that the universe ever had a beginning or an end, or that it was created and could be destroyed violating the conservation of energy and mass. Thus what were actually talking about is speculation at best hence the term "Big Bang Theory".

It's kind of ridiculous when we think about it because we seem to have taken a page right out of the dark ages. In the past they believed the Earth was flat and we would fall off the edge of it for no other reason that they did not know what was over the horizon. Likewise, today we are making the same mistakes with the universe using the same flawed sense of logic and reason. So maybe it's best we straighten this fiasco out right now... if we do not know what is beyond the reach of our telescopes or measuring devices and we do not then logically we do not know how big the universe is or if it ends, period, end of debate.

What we do know as a fact is that there are many who have a vested interest in discrediting science because it does not fit with there business interests or personal beliefs. Which is fine and to each his own however while we have a right to our own beliefs we done not have a right to our own personal flavor of alternative facts.

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”, Christopher Hitchens

I like your wordage re flatearth etc.
At prezent we liv in a flatearth dark age re standard science's ideas re radiation. Standard science believes that photons are em radiation & em radiation iz photons. No they aint. EM radiation iz photaenos, that radiate from the main body of all free photons & all confined photons. Photaenos hav mass & momentum & energy & size etc & travel at c or much more than c.

U mention radiation & microwave radiation & EM radiation, & u wonder where it all went (ie Olber's Paradox). Conrad Ranzan explains that some of it iz redshifted out of existence, & some iz annihilated in blackholes (but not in silly singularities).

[Electrodynamic]

Crawler

U mention radiation & microwave radiation & EM radiation, & u wonder where it all went (ie Olber's Paradox). Conrad Ranzan explains that some of it iz redshifted out of existence, & some iz annihilated in blackholes (but not in silly singularities).

Olber's Paradox... very interesting, thank you.
"the apparent paradox that if stars are distributed evenly throughout an infinite universe of infinite age, the night sky should display a uniform glow, since every line of sight would terminate at a star. But with an expanding universe of finite age, visible light from very distant stars has not reached the Earth."

So let me get this straight... Olbers believed that there should be a universal glow despite the fact that each star as a point source becomes infinitely smaller and less intense with distance (inverse square law) and the light is absorbed and converted into non-visible infrared EM energy by all matter present. You know they say about 60 tons of space dust falls to Earth each day...but from where?.

Now we could start connecting the dots, the universe is full of space dust not unlike a universal fog obscuring the light from distant stars and also converting the light energy to infrared EM energy which is not visible. We could call it "dark matter" then this conversion and supposed disappearance of energy could be called "dark energy". I don't know...it seems kind of obvious why there is no uniform glow in my opinion and it would relate to 1)the conservation of energy, 2)the transformation of energy and 3)the physical properties relating to each state of energy.

The lack of a uniform universal glow to substantiate the big bang theory just seems weak in my opinion. If a theory cannot stand on it's own two feet then... it ain't standing, maybe sitting possibly crouching at best.

On a side note the same misunderstanding relates to climate change. I talk to many people and they seem to have no comprehension how light energy(EM radiation ie. radiant energy) from the Sun transforms into heat energy(molecular oscillations)absorbed by the Earth which cannot be radiated back into space like light because... it's not light it's heat. You know like an insulated green house, the green house effect and apparently greenhouses are impossible and a Chinese hoax. It's just amazing how awesome people are I just wish more of them understood high school physics.

[nick c]

The best explanation I have seen, Don Scott on Olber's Paradox:
http://electric-cosmos.org/Olber.pdf

[Sci-Phy]

The best explanation I have seen, Don Scott on Olber's Paradox:
http://electric-cosmos.org/Olber.pdf

It's well known trick called quantization. That's how quantum physics was born:
http://www.sci-phy.ca/papers/QuantumPhy ... ysics.html
If you can't explain something then divide it to quanta and you are good.
Divide and conquer.

Cheers