Albert Einstein and the speed of light

Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Locked
Justatruthseeker
Posts: 46
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 5:51 pm

Re: Albert Einstein and the speed of light

Post by Justatruthseeker » Mon Feb 20, 2017 7:50 am

kiwi wrote:
Justatruthseeker wrote:
kiwi wrote:
willendure wrote:
kiwi wrote:and the Hydrogen bond in water is capable of producing photons at the expected frequencies? ... it appears so http://vixra.org/pdf/1310.0129v1.pdf
So that is why my cup of tea gets hot in a micro-wave oven... :)
Oh no! ... first you must "steep" your Tea in cold water, save the cold liquid then gently heat the leaves to near boiling in fresh water... combine the two and voila! ... Tea is served ... Microwave oven?? .. Philistine!! ;)

Truthseeker ...
Oh, and what makes you believe it is a thermal signature?
Because the Monopole signal shows a Black Body curve, off-set by 3 kelvin ... but a "thermal" curve nonetheless

Cheers :)
I believe there is a video on thunderbolts you tube that explains my feelings of black body radiation pretty well. Wasn't it Robetelli (spelling) that did it? Kirchhoff' Laws or something such.
Edit: found it

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=c-Luq0fOJK8
Thanks Truthseeker :)

Its the work of Dr Robitaille I represent here with my previous posts ... there is nothing coming through the Galactic "noise" that could in any way be construed as a bonafide "signal" of any description originating from the Cosmos ... but apparently Astrophysicist's have an open ticket to bend and twist the laws of Physic's as they please

Cheers
Agreed because the 3k signal is from the deceleration of the solar wind at the heliosphere. :)

As he pointed out it is not a temperature measurement but a vibrational lattice from energy. The same vibrational lattice that is occurring at the double layers at the Suns heliosphere.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kanYuBptuZ0

Plasma naturally sets up that vibrational crystalline lattice in zero g, but not on earth.
Fabricated Ad-hoc Inventions Repeatedly Invoked in Effort to Defend Untennable Scientific Theory - Fairie Dust

If one closes one's eyes they can imagine a universe of infinite possibilities, but until one opens one's eyes they will never see the light - me

kiwi
Posts: 564
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 3:58 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: Albert Einstein and the speed of light

Post by kiwi » Tue Feb 21, 2017 11:26 am

Agreed because the 3k signal is from the deceleration of the solar wind at the heliosphere
Absolutely not ... I think you are confusing the issue

Justatruthseeker
Posts: 46
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 5:51 pm

Re: Albert Einstein and the speed of light

Post by Justatruthseeker » Wed Feb 22, 2017 8:10 am

kiwi wrote:
Agreed because the 3k signal is from the deceleration of the solar wind at the heliosphere
Absolutely not ... I think you are confusing the issue
Lol, and yet the same energy required to decelerate he solar wind as it took to accelerate it has never been accounted for. Since it would be in the microwave frequencies and no other microwave radiation has been detected.........

And honestly I don't think the oceans are capable of putting out a 3k signal, else satellites would record this when taking temperatures.
Fabricated Ad-hoc Inventions Repeatedly Invoked in Effort to Defend Untennable Scientific Theory - Fairie Dust

If one closes one's eyes they can imagine a universe of infinite possibilities, but until one opens one's eyes they will never see the light - me

kiwi
Posts: 564
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 3:58 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: Albert Einstein and the speed of light

Post by kiwi » Fri Feb 24, 2017 4:24 pm

Hi Truthseeker...

You stated back up the thread ...
I believe there is a video on thunderbolts you tube that explains my feelings of black body radiation pretty well. Wasn't it Robetelli (spelling) that did it? Kirchhoff' Laws or something such.
Edit: found it

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=c-Luq0fOJK8
And yet you contradict that entirely with your following assumption..
Lol, and yet the same energy required to decelerate he solar wind as it took to accelerate it has never been accounted for. Since it would be in the microwave frequencies and no other microwave radiation has been detected.........
Why would anybody expect a thermal curve from what is essentially the deceleration of an e-current? .. The Laws of Thermal radiation state implicitly the setting and conditions from which it can be applied ... there is NO wriggle- room
And honestly I don't think the oceans are capable of putting out a 3k signal, else satellites would record this when taking temperatures.
Again its clear you are not grasping the situation, here are a couple of papers that ( if you are anything like myself) take many readings for a lay person to get a proper understanding of whats being said.

http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/ ... -08-02.PDF

http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/ ... -17-L3.PDF



Respect :)

Justatruthseeker
Posts: 46
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 5:51 pm

Re: Albert Einstein and the speed of light

Post by Justatruthseeker » Tue Mar 07, 2017 10:06 am

kiwi wrote:Hi Truthseeker...

You stated back up the thread ...
I believe there is a video on thunderbolts you tube that explains my feelings of black body radiation pretty well. Wasn't it Robetelli (spelling) that did it? Kirchhoff' Laws or something such.
Edit: found it

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=c-Luq0fOJK8
And yet you contradict that entirely with your following assumption..
Lol, and yet the same energy required to decelerate he solar wind as it took to accelerate it has never been accounted for. Since it would be in the microwave frequencies and no other microwave radiation has been detected.........
Ahh contrary to that just because I agree it is microwave radiation, does not mean I accept it is black body radiation, any more than Robitelli does. Are you saying he is contradicting himself since he also agrees it is microwave radiation but not a black body spectrum?
Why would anybody expect a thermal curve from what is essentially the deceleration of an e-current? .. The Laws of Thermal radiation state implicitly the setting and conditions from which it can be applied ... there is NO wriggle- room
No one is wiggling here, since both Robitelli and I agree it is not a thermal signature, but merely a vibrational lattice, I wouldn't expect a thermal signature since it is from deceleration by an e-field. He simply erroneously believes it is the oceans and I simply correctly believe it is from the vibrational lattice within a plasma environment, confirmed by actual experiments with plasma in space where it takes up a vibrational lattice in zero-g environments. Even if he acknowledges it is a vibrational lattice, not a thermal signature, he has simply not looked into other possibilities as this is his "baby".

Again its clear you are not grasping the situation, here are a couple of papers that ( if you are anything like myself) take many readings for a lay person to get a proper understanding of whats being said.

http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/ ... -08-02.PDF

http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/ ... -17-L3.PDF



Respect :)
I've read those before and he is simply wrong in his assumption that the source is the earths oceans. Simply because he was looking for any reason to ignore the CMB as pointing to the BB before Voyager discovered the true source of that radiation: deceleration of the solar wind at the Suns heliosphere by the double layers on a 360 degree sphere. The only real logical choice of all possibilities.
Fabricated Ad-hoc Inventions Repeatedly Invoked in Effort to Defend Untennable Scientific Theory - Fairie Dust

If one closes one's eyes they can imagine a universe of infinite possibilities, but until one opens one's eyes they will never see the light - me

willendure
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Albert Einstein and the speed of light

Post by willendure » Wed Mar 08, 2017 3:00 am

Justatruthseeker wrote:Voyager discovered the true source of that radiation: deceleration of the solar wind at the Suns heliosphere by the double layers on a 360 degree sphere. The only real logical choice of all possibilities.
Is it really on a 360 degree sphere though? I thought it was all around the sphere, but more strongly concentrated in a particular band around the sphere; the IBEX ribbon:

https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2014/0 ... pace-news/
https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2016/1 ... ections-2/

Justatruthseeker
Posts: 46
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 5:51 pm

Re: Albert Einstein and the speed of light

Post by Justatruthseeker » Wed Mar 08, 2017 4:06 am

willendure wrote:
Justatruthseeker wrote:Voyager discovered the true source of that radiation: deceleration of the solar wind at the Suns heliosphere by the double layers on a 360 degree sphere. The only real logical choice of all possibilities.
Is it really on a 360 degree sphere though? I thought it was all around the sphere, but more strongly concentrated in a particular band around the sphere; the IBEX ribbon:

https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2014/0 ... pace-news/
https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2016/1 ... ections-2/
It's more concentrated on the plane of the sun, yes, but then so is the CMB, it also has that same band, even if they try to remove it with statistical algorithms.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ ... ll4096.png
Fabricated Ad-hoc Inventions Repeatedly Invoked in Effort to Defend Untennable Scientific Theory - Fairie Dust

If one closes one's eyes they can imagine a universe of infinite possibilities, but until one opens one's eyes they will never see the light - me

willendure
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Albert Einstein and the speed of light

Post by willendure » Wed Mar 08, 2017 4:52 am

Justatruthseeker wrote:
willendure wrote:
Justatruthseeker wrote:Voyager discovered the true source of that radiation: deceleration of the solar wind at the Suns heliosphere by the double layers on a 360 degree sphere. The only real logical choice of all possibilities.
Is it really on a 360 degree sphere though? I thought it was all around the sphere, but more strongly concentrated in a particular band around the sphere; the IBEX ribbon:

https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2014/0 ... pace-news/
https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2016/1 ... ections-2/
It's more concentrated on the plane of the sun, yes, but then so is the CMB, it also has that same band, even if they try to remove it with statistical algorithms.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ ... ll4096.png
I don't see it, which is not to say that it isn't there. Does anyone have the IBEX and CMB images in a suitable format where I can see them side by side, or overlayed on top of each other with the correct alignment?

sketch1946
Posts: 191
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2017 7:56 pm

Re: Albert Einstein and the speed of light

Post by sketch1946 » Wed Mar 08, 2017 8:36 am

Greetings
I agree, I mean I suspect that the CMB could better be explained by the Heliosheath/Heliopause interaction with charged particles in interstellar space...
I remember hearing about this surprise when an audible 3kHz signal was detected way out
past Jupiter...
a few years ago I read George Smoot's book 'Wrinkles in Time'...
where he describes the valiant efforts to find the much-needed anisotropy
of the CMB...

I just watched Pierre-Marie Robitaille's 47 min talk on blackbody radiation which is very relevant to the CMB
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8ijbu3bSqI
I read his ad (which apparently cost him a year's salary, and which he took out to publish his work because he couldn't get it accepted in mainstream publications...)
http://web.archive.org/web/200805111852 ... /times.pdf
Everything in that ad seems quite reasonable....
yet he has been subjected to extreme ad hominem attacks... 'crank', 'Nobel-disease' etc...

http://vixra.org/pdf/1101.0009v1.pdf
About Robitaille:
"...As director of magnetic resonance imaging research for the Department of Medicine of Ohio State University from 1989-2000 he made major advances in the science of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), leading the project to build the 8 Tesla Ultra High Field human MRI scanner..."

"...In 2000, he was asked to step down from his position as director (though he remains a professor) when he began to promote theories that were outside his actual realm of expertise, specifically related to non-mainstream beliefs in the areas of astronomy and physics: he maintains that satellite measurements of the cosmic microwave background radiation, believed by most astronomers to be an afterglow of the Big Bang, are actually observations of a glow from Earth's oceans...."

The reviewer has the arrogance to call him a 'crank'.... it's shameful to attack this guy for his reasonable and well argued alternate views...
https://www.uow.edu.au/~bmartin/pubs/04jse.html

Is there a natural alternative source for a 3 khz 'noise' that could be picked up by a radio interferometer in a satellite moving through Earth's magnetosphere?
Why yes! more than one...

From Voyagers 1 and 2:
"A radio source in the outer heliosphere has been detected by the plasma wave receivers on Voyagers 1 and 2. The radio emission is observed in the frequency range 2-3 kHz, and is above the local solar wind electron plasma frequency.... Possible sources include continuum radiation from Jupiter's distant magnetotail and radiation at the second harmonic of the plasma frequency at the heliopause."

"...The primary waves observed include occasional electron plasma oscillations and ion-acoustic waves..."

http://www-pw.physics.uiowa.edu/~dag/pu ... NATURE.pdf

"Sources in the Super Low and Extra Low Frequency bands (SLF and ELF) are mainly accidental or natural. For instance, electricity authorities have very long antennae, called power lines, that radiate at 50 or 60 Hz. This signal is picked up as 'hum' and is cursed by electrical engineers everywhere. A large natural source is the interaction of the solar wind with the ionosphere that produces low frequency currents (telluric currents) in the earth and oceans.....
http://www.animations.physics.unsw.edu. ... ctrum.html

"...At high latitudes, the motion of charged particles also creates a distinct radio signal, termed the polar chorus, with a characteristic frequency of 300 Hz to 2 kHz [Barr et al. 2000].
Polar chorus is associated with the solar wind, and the peak intensity is around 50 μ V m -1 as recorded from stations on the ground in Antarctica. It typically exhibits a diurnal variation [Salvati et al. 2000]. Telluric currents (and specifically GIC) were first documented in the 1840s with the invention of the telegraph. Buried telegraph lines are electrical conductors, and susceptible to electrical induction. Geomagnetically-induced currents caused interference during telegraph transmission, so that the telegraph needles hung frozen by the signals of the GIC. At first this phenomenon was attributed to
weather causes, but it was soon recognized that the hung needles coincided with the occurrence of aurora borealis and magnetic storms [Walker 1861]."

"... In the oceans, different layers of water will be stratified by temperature and salinity, and each influences density. Both of these gradients influence electrical conductivity, and create variations in electric currents in the oceans [Chave and Luther 1990].
The signals are low-frequency (30 kHz to 300 kHz) or lower, typically..."
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... ithosphere

I wonder how the space craft which are moving through the earth's magnetosphere..., and making the CMB observations, could be immune from the interaction of the solar wind with the earth's magnetosphere, possibly directly causing radio noise, which in turn induces low frequency geomagnetically induced currents which are related to multiple electrical effects on and under the surface of the earth.. including charged telluric currents in the oceans... can simple shielding be enough to cut out all interference and false signals?

How much can radio equipment be shielded from 'noise', presumably the measuring of CMB is done in very cold conditions, but according to Robitaille, this absolute shielding from stray thermal currents is practically impossible...

"The Noise Temperature, measured in degrees Kelvin, is a convenient measure for quantifying the effect of the noise and it allows the total effect of all the contributors to the noise to be calculated simply by adding together the individual temperatures of each contributor. It is the thermal equivalent of the noise source or sources and not necessarily an actual temperature. The thermal noise generated within the receiving equipment is the biggest factor and receiver is often cooled to a very low temperature, close to absolute zero, to minimise this noise."

"The Signal to Noise Ratio, (specified in dB), at any point in a communications link is the ratio between the signal level at that point and the level of the level of the background noise. Note that when the signal level is below the noise level the ratio will be negative."

"Noise Figure and Sensitivity: The Sensitivity of a radio receiver is the minimum detectable input signal level necessary to obtain a given output signal to noise ratio. In satellite systems, the measure of receiver's capability to handle low level signals is not usually specified as a signal level, but rather as a noise figure (specified in dB) which is the amount of noise added to the signal by the receiving antenna and the receiver electronics. The receiver sensitivity, can also be specified as a Figure of Merit which is the ratio of its gain to noise temperature or G/T where G is the gain and T is the noise temperature."

"Other Noise Sources include interference from other external electrical signals or discharges, crosstalk which is interference from adjacent parts of the communications system and intermodulation noise due to non-linearities in the system's signal processing which cause two or more frequencies in the signal to create other frequencies which did not exist in the original signal."
http://www.mpoweruk.com/satellites.htm

"The Van Allen Probes EMFISIS Waves instruments detect electric and magnetic components of plasma waves and radio waves that range through frequencies that include those audible to humans."
Shows heaps of radio waves at 2-3kHz...
http://www-pw.physics.uiowa.edu/rbsp/audio/

George Smoot in his book 'Wrinkles in Time' goes into the extreme maths needed to 'filter' out background noise...

"Then towards the end of 1990 and into the following year, the CMB began to swim into view in Smoot's data."

First the team saw it as uniform,

then they could make out the previously identified dipole.

Next they saw departures in temperature from the average background in the four poles of the sky – the first evidence of structure in the early universe.

Then finally they saw the many temperature fluctuations: the primordial seeds.

The pattern they made looked like a painting to Smoot. "We thought they would be like random grains of sand messing up a beautiful artwork," he says. "Now we realised they were part of it. There were large, middle and small-scale effects playing together to make really interesting textures on the sky."

Months of meticulous checks and data analysis followed.

Meanwhile other physicists grew restless as they awaited news of the big bang theory's fate.

Then, 18 years after he started work on the CMB satellite, Smoot made the historic announcement. The big bang model was safe: it could explain how the universe grew into what we see today. The CMB's cooler, denser regions would turn into galaxies, stars and planets.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 ... ang-cosmos
So the picture of three different maps of the CMB are all different, they evolved... :-)
640px-PIA16874-CobeWmapPlanckComparison-20130321.jpg
"Planck, launched in 2009, images the sky with more than 2.5 times greater resolution than WMAP, revealing patterns in the ancient cosmic light as small as one-twelfth of a degree on the sky. Planck has created the sharpest all-sky map ever made of the universe's cosmic microwave background, precisely fine-tuning what we know about the universe."

Now the data obtained are so accurate that no-one can argue with it..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_Ba ... d_Explorer
300px-Cmbr.svg.png
300px-Cmbr.svg.png (9.81 KiB) Viewed 14027 times
""Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) spectrum plotted in waves per centimeter vs. intensity. The solid curve shows the expected intensity from a single temperature blackbody spectrum, as predicted by the hot Big Bang theory. A blackbody is a hypothetical body that absorbs all electromagnetic radiation falling on it and reflects none whatsoever. The FIRAS data were taken at 34 positions equally spaced along this curve. The FIRAS data match the curve so exactly, with error uncertainties less than the width of the blackbody curve, that it is impossible to distinguish the data from the theoretical curve...."

Suspiciously accurate....

User avatar
Zyxzevn
Posts: 1002
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm
Contact:

Re: Albert Einstein and the speed of light

Post by Zyxzevn » Wed Mar 08, 2017 10:43 am

sketch1946 wrote:
So the picture of three different maps of the CMB are all different, they evolved... :-)
Image
Robitaille shows that the pictures are mixed. The Plank image uses data from the COBE.
This is like telling what the weather is by using information from inside your house. ("No wind and no sun today").

They also subtract one frequency-image from the other frequency-image, which enlarges the
noise. Effectively they are creating something from nothing. As someone who is educated in signal
processing, the mainstream astronomy clearly show a bad knowledge on noise reduction.

In the end of his CMB speech, he shows that the real combined image of the Plank is just a
bunch of point sources.
It might be interesting to follow his steps and do a good analysis on the original data from the plank satellite.
It is clear for me that the whole CMB thing, is similar to telling that the clouds in the sky are at
the end of the universe.

Whatever the source of the CMB is, the picture already shows that it depends on where you
place your sensors. In that sense it debunks itself.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@

sketch1946
Posts: 191
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2017 7:56 pm

Re: Albert Einstein and the speed of light

Post by sketch1946 » Wed Mar 08, 2017 5:28 pm

Harking back to Robitaille's discourse on the practical difficulties involved in eradicating noise from the measurement of a perfect black box.... and how Robitaille shows Max Planck created a 'constant' from a mathematical abstraction, not physical evidence, and how eliminating 'noise' in radio is impossible in practice...
Kai Fauth · University of Wuerzburg "...I have so far concluded for myself that what Planck 'did' is certainly not on the level of a rigorous proof. The question to analyze then is, whether this lack of rigor renders the conclusion invalid...."
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_Ki ... n_now_dead

What is the Cosmic Microwave Background except 'noise'?

By definition, noise is what George Smoot was looking for, and noise is what he found,

In graphics, a 'noise' filter can add small amounts of mathematical randomness to a set of identical pixel values in a perfectly smooth image,
a set of pixels that all have the same internal values for each pixel can be multiplied by some value to create a grainy image... in the days of photographic silver halide based images, grainy images were bad....image processing artifacts can make a 'grainy' image... in the old days of film processing:

"Grain can be forced out of any film. It just takes a little work with some. Underexposure has been mentioned. Certain films, usually faster films, will appear grainy with normal development when underexposed. Extended development. Even when film has been properly exposed overdevelopment can bring out the grain. Combine this with underexposure and you have the classic recipe for grain: push processing. " ie manipulate film processing parameters...
https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/o ... in.309226/

"One notable featured of photographic film has always been grain. Although, like high ISO noise in digital world, it was a result of increased light sensitivity and as such, an undesirable degradation of image quality..."

"...Make no mistake, film grain, whether digitally added or a “natural” one, does degrade technical image quality."
https://photographylife.com/mastering-l ... ilm-grain/

But now, we have all grown up!
No more abstract religion-like speculating about the cosmos!
From Smoot's 'evidence' of the CMB, from now on we'll only accept hard physical evidence only... :-)

"Astrophysicists say Smoot and Mather’s announcement of COBE’s results was a turning point for cosmology, when philosophical speculation about the universe’s origins gave way to a science built on quantitative evidence." (remember this 'no more speculation', see below) :-)

"By the time COBE was launched on November 18, 1989, astrophysicists had established that very tiny variations in the CMB–as small as a hundred­-thousandth of a degree–would indicate an early universe diverse enough to have produced the current one."

"Smoot was in charge of a group of six instruments on COBE, called differential microwave radiometers, that looked for temperature variations called anisotropy in the CMB. Up above Earth, the orbiting COBE had unobstructed reception of the CMB in all directions. Smoot and his Berkeley team analyzed a year’s worth of these temperature measurements–millions–looking for anisotropy; when they seemed to find it, they worked to convince themselves that it wasn’t due to noise from the instruments on COBE."

"In 1992, Smoot announced that COBE had found hundred-thousandth- of-a-degree variations in the energy of the CMB. His map of these variations, showing roughly which patches in the early universe were slightly warmer and which were slightly colder, has been called the universe’s baby picture. “The amazing thing is, the universe is almost completely uniform,” he says. “It’s more uniform than a billiard ball.”

Smoot: "I used to be an outlaw, always going to the fringes of physics, trying strange things, being rebellious,” he reminisces."

"In a universe thought to be 96 percent mysterious dark matter and dark energy, there are plenty of new and strange territories to explore." (Does that sound like speculation?) :-)

What keeps George Smoot up at night?
"Smoot’s List
The eight cosmology questions that keep George Smoot up at night

1. Did inflation happen?How? (speculation?)

2. What is dark matter? (speculation?)

3. What is dark energy? (speculation?)

etc... :-)

Higgsy
Posts: 217
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 3:32 pm

Re: Albert Einstein and the speed of light

Post by Higgsy » Wed Mar 08, 2017 6:58 pm

sketch1946 wrote:Greetings
I agree, I mean I suspect that the CMB could better be explained by the Heliosheath/Heliopause interaction with charged particles in interstellar space...
I remember hearing about this surprise when an audible 3kHz signal was detected way out
past Jupiter...
a few years ago I read George Smoot's book 'Wrinkles in Time'...
where he describes the valiant efforts to find the much-needed anisotropy
of the CMB...

SNIP

Is there a natural alternative source for a 3 khz 'noise' that could be picked up by a radio interferometer in a satellite moving through Earth's magnetosphere?
Why yes! more than one...

From Voyagers 1 and 2:
"A radio source in the outer heliosphere has been detected by the plasma wave receivers on Voyagers 1 and 2. The radio emission is observed in the frequency range 2-3 kHz, and is above the local solar wind electron plasma frequency.... Possible sources include continuum radiation from Jupiter's distant magnetotail and radiation at the second harmonic of the plasma frequency at the heliopause."

"...The primary waves observed include occasional electron plasma oscillations and ion-acoustic waves..."

http://www-pw.physics.uiowa.edu/~dag/pu ... NATURE.pdf

"Sources in the Super Low and Extra Low Frequency bands (SLF and ELF) are mainly accidental or natural. For instance, electricity authorities have very long antennae, called power lines, that radiate at 50 or 60 Hz. This signal is picked up as 'hum' and is cursed by electrical engineers everywhere. A large natural source is the interaction of the solar wind with the ionosphere that produces low frequency currents (telluric currents) in the earth and oceans.....
http://www.animations.physics.unsw.edu. ... ctrum.html

"...At high latitudes, the motion of charged particles also creates a distinct radio signal, termed the polar chorus, with a characteristic frequency of 300 Hz to 2 kHz [Barr et al. 2000].
Polar chorus is associated with the solar wind, and the peak intensity is around 50 μ V m -1 as recorded from stations on the ground in Antarctica. It typically exhibits a diurnal variation [Salvati et al. 2000]. Telluric currents (and specifically GIC) were first documented in the 1840s with the invention of the telegraph. Buried telegraph lines are electrical conductors, and susceptible to electrical induction. Geomagnetically-induced currents caused interference during telegraph transmission, so that the telegraph needles hung frozen by the signals of the GIC. At first this phenomenon was attributed to
weather causes, but it was soon recognized that the hung needles coincided with the occurrence of aurora borealis and magnetic storms [Walker 1861]."

"... In the oceans, different layers of water will be stratified by temperature and salinity, and each influences density. Both of these gradients influence electrical conductivity, and create variations in electric currents in the oceans [Chave and Luther 1990].
The signals are low-frequency (30 kHz to 300 kHz) or lower, typically..."
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... ithosphere

I wonder how the space craft which are moving through the earth's magnetosphere..., and making the CMB observations, could be immune from the interaction of the solar wind with the earth's magnetosphere, possibly directly causing radio noise, which in turn induces low frequency geomagnetically induced currents which are related to multiple electrical effects on and under the surface of the earth.. including charged telluric currents in the oceans... can simple shielding be enough to cut out all interference and false signals?

SNIP

"The Van Allen Probes EMFISIS Waves instruments detect electric and magnetic components of plasma waves and radio waves that range through frequencies that include those audible to humans."
Shows heaps of radio waves at 2-3kHz...
http://www-pw.physics.uiowa.edu/rbsp/audio/
Hello, first post here. Hoping to learn more about the EU and the evidence that favours it over the mainstream, so I'll mostly be asking questions.

So, in the post above, you refer to 3kHz signals, but I don't really understand what 3kHz has to do with the CMB. Can you help me understand the connection between 3kHz electromagnetic waves and the CMB?
"Every single ion is going to start cooling off instantly as far as I know…If you're mixing kinetic energy in there somehow, you'll need to explain exactly how you're defining 'temperature'" - Mozina

Higgsy
Posts: 217
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 3:32 pm

Re: Albert Einstein and the speed of light

Post by Higgsy » Wed Mar 08, 2017 7:09 pm

Zyxzevn wrote:
sketch1946 wrote:
So the picture of three different maps of the CMB are all different, they evolved... :-)
Image
Robitaille shows that the pictures are mixed. The Plank image uses data from the COBE.
This is like telling what the weather is by using information from inside your house. ("No wind and no sun today").
Can you help me understand what data Planck uses from COBE, and more about how that invalidates the Planck data? Thanks.
They also subtract one frequency-image from the other frequency-image, which enlarges the
noise. Effectively they are creating something from nothing. As someone who is educated in signal
processing, the mainstream astronomy clearly show a bad knowledge on noise reduction.
I think that's shocking. The whole thing about the CMB is that it is noise?

I'd like to read more about how they subtract one image from another and thus increase the noise. Can you point me at something on the internet that describes this in more detail?

Did the people who conducted these experiments ever publish anything about their signal processing?
Whatever the source of the CMB is, the picture already shows that it depends on where you
place your sensors. In that sense it debunks itself.
I'm also interested in how the location of the sensors determines the result. It would be good if you could expand on that please?
"Every single ion is going to start cooling off instantly as far as I know…If you're mixing kinetic energy in there somehow, you'll need to explain exactly how you're defining 'temperature'" - Mozina

willendure
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Albert Einstein and the speed of light

Post by willendure » Thu Mar 09, 2017 4:53 am

kiwi wrote:
Lol, and yet the same energy required to decelerate he solar wind as it took to accelerate it has never been accounted for. Since it would be in the microwave frequencies and no other microwave radiation has been detected.........
Why would anybody expect a thermal curve from what is essentially the deceleration of an e-current? .. The Laws of Thermal radiation state implicitly the setting and conditions from which it can be applied ... there is NO wriggle- room
The laminar flow of air over an airplanes wings turns to turbulent air further behind the plane as it passes. Ultimately the energy imparted into that air degenerates into heat.

I think we know that the bow shock at the heliosphere termination becomes turbulent. Is that how the smooth current degenerates into heat?

I'm still unsure what all of this has to do with "Albert Einstein and the speed of light"... :?

sketch1946
Posts: 191
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2017 7:56 pm

Re: Albert Einstein and the speed of light

Post by sketch1946 » Fri Mar 10, 2017 2:31 am

Hi will endure, (I admire a person who is a stayer... ) :-)
willendure wrote:I'm still unsure what all of this has to do with "Albert Einstein and the speed of light"... :?
What has the CMB to do with the speed of light, or the number '42'?

"When radio astronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson first spotted an unusual microwave signal by chance in 1965, they blamed it on birds. Pigeons were nesting inside their giant microwave horn at Bell Labs in New Jersey and had covered the interior with a “white dielectric material” (pigeon poo to you and me!)."

However, this pigeon shit has morphed into a much respected scientific dogma... :-)

So in my humble opinion, a believable interpretation of the CMB is vitally important to the speed of light story....

"The initial big bang doesn't appear as a white sky: "...has been cooled by the expansion of the Universe to just 2.725 degree above absolute zero – the lowest possible temperature – so it appears not as visible light but stretched out into short-wavelength radio waves, principally microwaves."

"if the wavelength of light doesn’t stretch as the Universe expands, the Cosmic Microwave Background cannot be explained, and hence the Big Bang would be wrong!"

(mmm, I'm not sure of that logic, but....)

"Fortunately, General Relativity passes this test with flying colors, and frequency/wavelength does change as the Universe expands, something we’ve directly measured in a variety of ways, including by measuring the temperature at different epochs in the Universe’s history."

Here the importance of the CMB to the discussion of what pigeon poop has to do with the speed of light becomes crystal clear...

Light according to Albert Einstein's hypothesis, has a constant speed in a vacuum..

If space isn't a vacuum, then redshifting of light and the CMB can be interpreted in various ways... gravitational, tired light, light's interaction with an intergalactic medium....

Then the so-called physical constants may not be constant after all:

Wun-Yi Shu: "Beginning with Dirac [7] in 1937, some physicists have speculated that several so-called physical constants may actually vary [6]. Theories for a varying speed of light (VSL) have been proposed independently by Petit [25; 26; 27] from 1988, Moffat [22] in 1993, and then Barrow [4] and Albrecht and Magueijo [1] in 1999 as an alternative way to cosmic inflation [2; 14; 20] of solving several cosmological puzzles such as the flatness and the horizon problems.."

"Since there are three fundamental physical dimensions, any cosmological model requires two constants to describe the relationship between them. Einstein took c and G as the two constants, whereas we assert that the two constants are κ, the factor relating to the conversion between time and length, and τ, the conversion factor between mass and length..."

"In Friedmann’s closed universe, which resulted from the constancy of the speed of light, the time span is a closed and bounded interval, from the big bang to the big crunch, while in ours the time span is an open interval, with neither beginning nor end..."
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1007.1750.pdf
(The Geometry of the Universe, Wun-Yi Shu, Institute of Statistics, National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan)

Dirac: "One field of work in which there has been too much speculation is cosmology. There are very few hard facts to go on, but theoretical workers have been busy constructing various models for the universe, based on any assumptions that they fancy."

"These models are probably all wrong. It is usually assumed that the laws of nature have always been the same as they are now. There is no justification for this."

"The laws may be changing, and in particular quantities which are considered to be constants of nature may be varying with cosmological time. Such variations would completely upset the model makers."

"Paul Dirac, ‘On methods in theoretical physics’, June 1968, Trieste"

"Physicists have for long entertained the possibility of a varying gravitational constant (e.g. the so-called Brans-Dicke theories), or a varying electron charge (and other coupling constants too)."

"Indeed with the advent of string theory these varying constants seem to be fashionable. In contrast, the constancy of the speed of light has remain sacred. "

"The reason is clear: the constancy of c is the pillar of special relativity.

And yet, the first varying constant theory I am aware of was Kelvin’s 1874 varying speed of light proposal. Some 30 years before relativity, a varying c did not shock anyone.

"A few years after relativity was proposed, however, Eddington would say ‘A variation in c is self-contradictory’, a statement smelling of religion...."
http://www.nat.vu.nl/~wimu/Varying-Cons ... gueijo.pdf

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest