Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: mad aetherist on 03/02/2019 11:12:55
-
Prof Pierre-Marie Robitaille -- re P Herouni's antenna & the Death of the Big Bang.
-
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pierre-Marie_Robitaille
-
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pierre-Marie_Robitaille
Robitaille is one of my heroes. I love his stuff re the liquid metallic Sun. His youtube sky scholar stuff is a must see.
This latest CMB finding from Armenia (ex Russia) confirms what he has been saying & confirms the stupidity of the silly BB.
-
Oops. I like to think that everything in science is connected, and a good model is internally consistent and not inconsistent with generally accepted scientific observations and data. If there is an inconsistency, a lot of them too, the integrity of the whole model is in question, and so my heros are still cowboys and astronauts, lol.
-
Oops. I like to think that everything in science is connected, and a good model is internally consistent and not inconsistent with generally accepted scientific observations and data. If there is an inconsistency, a lot of them too, the integrity of the whole model is in question, and so my heros are still cowboys and astronauts, lol.
No, a good model does not have to be internally consistent, but reality needs to be internally consistent. A model is a model because the reality is not known, or because the reality is know but does not help the derivation of answers.
But are u talking about some sort of model proposed by Robitaille?
My heroes are Aetherists & Atheists & Greenies.
-
No, a good model does not have to be internally consistent,
Seriously?
-
Oops. I like to think that everything in science is connected, and a good model is internally consistent and not inconsistent with generally accepted scientific observations and data. If there is an inconsistency, a lot of them too, the integrity of the whole model is in question, and so my heros are still cowboys and astronauts, lol.
No, a good model does not have to be internally consistent, but reality needs to be internally consistent. A model is a model because the reality is not known, or because the reality is know but does not help the derivation of answers.
But are u talking about some sort of model proposed by Robitaille?
My heroes are Aetherists & Atheists & Greenies.
So a funny thing happened on the way to the forum, lol.
When I saw Kryptid's post, saying "Seriously", I hastily read what he quoted, thinking I had misstated that line about a model needs to be internally consistent. So I posted a retraction, and set out to go back and correct my post where I thought I had said it wrong. That is when I saw that you had responded to my post already and you were the one that said a good model does not have to be internally consistent.
So in response to your logic saying reality has to be consistent, but a model, not so much, because reality is not known, another favorite saying of mine is that there is known science, and there are "as yet" unknowns, but my particular model attempts to fill the gaps where there are unknowns, with reasonable and responsible speculations. That is what do :P
-
No, a good model does not have to be internally consistent,
Seriously?
Yes. A model needs three rules. (1) It has to give good answers. (2) It has to give better answers than the other models. (3) It has to be unambiguous (which is already covered in (1) anyhow i guess.
A model can be any silly looking thing u want. If it is not internally consistent then u insert some wordage that covers the hole. Use a virtual particle in there somewhere if u like. Or insert something crazy like E=mcc.
-
No, a good model does not have to be internally consistent,
Seriously?
Yes. A model needs three rules. (1) It has to give good answers. (2) It has to give better answers than the other models. (3) It has to be unambiguous (which is already covered in (1) anyhow i guess.
A model can be any silly looking thing u want. If it is not internally consistent then u insert some wordage that covers the hole. Use a virtual particle in there somewhere if u like. Or insert something crazy like E=mcc.
I have fun trying to make my model connect to known science in every way possible, limited by my layman level understanding of things, and then I find fun in speculation while the scientific community works at getting to a consensus on what I speculated about, and with scientific credentials behind them. I am doing more than speculate when I make the observation that you are having fun finding unaccredited sources to piece together something that you know the serious science enthusiasts will rebel at.
Tell me I'm right.
-
No, a good model does not have to be internally consistent,
Seriously?
Yes. A model needs three rules. (1) It has to give good answers. (2) It has to give better answers than the other models. (3) It has to be unambiguous (which is already covered in (1) anyhow i guess.
A model can be any silly looking thing u want. If it is not internally consistent then u insert some wordage that covers the hole. Use a virtual particle in there somewhere if u like. Or insert something crazy like E=mcc.
I have fun trying to make my model connect to known science in every way possible, limited by my layman level understanding of things, and then I find fun in speculation while the scientific community works at getting to a consensus on what I speculated about, and with scientific credentials behind them. I am doing more than speculate when I make the observation that you are having fun finding unaccredited sources to piece together something that you know the serious science enthusiasts will rebel at. Tell me I'm right.
I wouldnt call Einsteinology serious science, it might be serious but it aint science. Me & other Aetherists are real science. For sure its fun finding new stuff, learning, obviously never stuff from the mainstream journals. Naturally there is lots of junk out there, but i think i can spot it ok. The New Theories section allows me to point out errors in Einsteinology, albeit using layman wordage. But i enjoy learning about the meaning of the Einsteinian canon & dogma, the history etc of the wars.
-
A model can be any silly looking thing u want.
That won't make it a good model.
If it is not internally consistent then u insert some wordage that covers the hole. Use a virtual particle in there somewhere if u like. Or insert something crazy like E=mcc.
Or insert aethons, photaenos and praethons...
-
A model can be any silly looking thing u want.
That won't make it a good model.
Yes there must be lots of possible models but naturally u adopt the best, the model that gives the best numbers. If it is not internally consistent then u insert some wordage that covers the hole. Use a virtual particle in there somewhere if u like. Or insert something crazy like E=mcc.
Or insert aethons, photaenos and praethons...
No aethons photaenos & praethons are posited as being real, not some kind of model -- they are the equivalent of electrons & protons (alltho electrons & protons might not exist, but aethons photaenos & praethons or some equivalent must exist).
Einsteinology is a strange theory here, it is the only theory where the essence is that a certain thing (aether) doesnt exist. How strange is that! Alltho to be fair Einstein merely said that aether was superfluous (or whatever the German is)(zoopernienderischdt i think).
SR & GR are merely mathland tricks that sometimes give a quick goodish number. There was no need to outlaw aether. Einsteinologist merely had to admit that aether was the reality, but posit that SR & GR are expeditious. I would be happy with that, not a bad idea. But the current crop of idiots insist that SR & GR are reality. No, SR & GR dont even qualify to be called models.
-
Yes
This contradicts your earlier post where you said that a good model doesn't have to be internally consistent.
No aethons photaenos & praethons are posited as being real
I underlined the key word there.
not some kind of model
You don't seem to know what a scientific model is then.
(alltho electrons & protons might not exist
Seriously?
but aethons photaenos & praethons or some equivalent must exist).
Only if you assume that your untested hypothesis is correct.
-
Yes
This contradicts your earlier post where you said that a good model doesn't have to be internally consistent.
I think the yes was yes that a silly model might not be a good model.
No aethons photaenos & praethons are posited as being real
I underlined the key word there.
Yes u either posit something or u dont.
not some kind of model
You don't seem to know what a scientific model is then.
If u show me one i will tell u whether i think it is a model. It will be real or a model or a mathtrick, or it can be a combination of real plus mathtrick, or a combination of real plus model, but it cant be a combination of model & mathtrick.
(alltho electrons & protons might not exist
Seriously?
Yes, there are articles on google about the likely truth of electrons etc.
but aethons photaenos & praethons or some equivalent must exist).
Only if you assume that your untested hypothesis is correct.
Aether is correct we know. I wouldnt be surprised if electrons & protons didnt exist, it wouldnt hurt, but there is no liklihood of aether & aethons not existing, praethons being less likely.
-
Yes u either posit something or u dont.
Positing something isn't sufficient to make it real.
If u show me one i will tell u whether i think it is a model. It will be real or a model or a mathtrick, or it can be a combination of real plus mathtrick, or a combination of real plus model, but it cant be a combination of model & mathtrick.
It doesn't matter whether or not you think something is a model. To quote Britannica: "Scientific modeling, the generation of a physical, conceptual, or mathematical representation of a real phenomenon that is difficult to observe directly." https://www.britannica.com/science/scientific-modeling
You by your own admission say that aethons and praethons might never be observed directly, so how is your hypothesis around them exempt from being called a model?
Yes, there are articles on google about the likely truth of electrons etc.
So? There are articles on Google about homeopathy and creationism, too.
Aether is correct we know.
Not if you ask the majority of people with the needed technology to test for its existence (cue impending "conspiracy" and "mafia" arguments...).
I wouldnt be surprised if electrons & protons didnt exist, it wouldnt hurt
If you don't think it would "hurt", then you don't know a whole lot about atomic and nuclear physics. You'd also have to chalk up all of the very precise measurements of the properties of protons and electrons down to a gigantic conspiracy (one much, much larger than the one needed for LIGO even).
but there is no liklihood of aether & aethons not existing, praethons being less likely.
Aether could exist in some form or another, but whether it is quantized into aethons is an open question.
-
Yes u either posit something or u dont.
Positing something isn't sufficient to make it real. Unless u posit u have nothing.If u show me one i will tell u whether i think it is a model. It will be real or a model or a mathtrick, or it can be a combination of real plus mathtrick, or a combination of real plus model, but it cant be a combination of model & mathtrick.
It doesn't matter whether or not you think something is a model. To quote Britannica: "Scientific modeling, the generation of a physical, conceptual, or mathematical representation of a real phenomenon that is difficult to observe directly." https://www.britannica.com/science/scientific-modeling You by your own admission say that aethons and praethons might never be observed directly, so how is your hypothesis around them exempt from being called a model?
Physical is real, conceptual is a model, mathematical is mathland. I am ok with that.
Aether has been observed because the aetherwind has been measured. That aether is made of aethons might not be testable but how can u possibly say that that conjecture is not scientific.
A model is something solid & mechanical & physical that is not meant to be reality but allows a way of getting goodish numbers. Reality might be ok & look perfectly good & convincing but might not help in getting good numbers. Yes, there are articles on google about the likely truth of electrons etc.
So? There are articles on Google about homeopathy and creationism, too.
Yes, & homeopathy in general is a lie & creationism is a faith story. Any intelligent person can soon see that. Aether is correct we know.
Not if you ask the majority of people with the needed technology to test for its existence (cue impending "conspiracy" and "mafia" arguments...).
Here i ask myself why i am arguing with u about possible or future tests & testing when i cant get any sense out of u re the existence & results of perfectly good existing tests.I wouldnt be surprised if electrons & protons didnt exist, it wouldnt hurt
If you don't think it would "hurt", then you don't know a whole lot about atomic and nuclear physics. You'd also have to chalk up all of the very precise measurements of the properties of protons and electrons down to a gigantic conspiracy (one much, much larger than the one needed for LIGO even).
No i wouldnt say that there was a conspiracy re the existence of electrons & protons. I am fairly happy with the science. I have never heard of any censorship of contrary theories in that area, or of the falsification or fudging of data. I suppose that there is the usual amount of cherry picking & rose-colored glasses -- thats par for the course. There might be bad logic etc, thats all ok, as long as its honest. I myself dont believe in a nucleus with orbiting electrons. but there is no liklihood of aether & aethons not existing, praethons being less likely.
Aether could exist in some form or another, but whether it is quantized into aethons is an open question.
Yes aether is a catchall term (hencely if something exists then aether exists). Whether aether is made of discrete little things worthy of a name is interesting but redundant, the answer aint ever likely to help scientific progress, so arguing about whether aethons exist or are possible or can be tested is a waste of time. But if aethons exist then praps an aethon is a quantized thing (if it is then it would be the quantization of the excitation of praether, which is made of praethons)(note that aethons are a process, praethons are a thing)(aethons can be annihilated, praethons cant), but i doubt that the quantization would be exactly of the kind found with say photons or electron spin etc.
-
Unless u posit u have nothing.
You need to do more than posit. You have to experiment.
Aether has been observed because the aetherwind has been measured.
Got any peer-reviewed publications to back that up? Last I heard, the Michelson-Morley experiments produced data that was inconclusive while significantly more sensitive, more recent experiments were unable to replicate the original findings.
That aether is made of aethons might not be testable but how can u possibly say that that conjecture is not scientific.
Because science, by definition, requires something to be testable.
Yes, & homeopathy in general is a lie & creationism is a faith story. Any intelligent person can soon see that.
So now you understand why saying "there are articles on Google about the likely truth of electrons" is a bad argument, right?
Here i ask myself why i am arguing with u about possible or future tests & testing when i cant get any sense out of u re the existence & results of perfectly good existing tests.
If experiments superior in quality and precision to the original Michelson-Morley experiments can't replicate the original results, I wouldn't call them "perfectly good existing tests."
No i wouldnt say that there was a conspiracy re the existence of electrons & protons.
Then all I can deduce is that you haven't looked very thoroughly into the science behind electrons and protons. Their masses and electric charges have been measured to very high precision. The internal structure of the proton has been investigated with scattering experiments and its charge radius has also been measured. We have technology that can detect single electrons and protons. You can't do these things with non-existent particles.
I myself dont believe in a nucleus with orbiting electrons.
To say that electrons "orbit" a nucleus isn't exactly correct anyway, but the structure of the atom is very well understood. We can measure the diameters of the electron cloud and the atomic nucleus (the nucleus is much, much smaller). We can measure the energy levels of individual electrons as well.
arguing about whether aethons exist or are possible or can be tested is a waste of time.
Only if you're interested in whether the idea is scientific or not.
-
I love his stuff re the liquid metallic Sun.
Then you are on the wrong web site.
-
I love his stuff re the liquid metallic Sun.
Then you are on the wrong web site.
I look forward to your critique of Robitaille's errors.
-
I love his stuff re the liquid metallic Sun.
Then you are on the wrong web site.
I look forward to your critique of Robitaille's errors.
Well, for a start he thinks the Sun's a metallic liquid...
-
I love his stuff re the liquid metallic Sun.
Then you are on the wrong web site.
I look forward to your critique of Robitaille's errors.
Well, for a start he thinks the Sun's a metallic liquid...
I think that his LMH theory for the Sun (as opposed to the standard gaseous hydrogen Sun) is the main reason why he has produced his sky scholar series of videos. No it was probly re the silly CMB & the silly BB that got him going. He is a genius. So much good stuff in his videos.
-
So much good stuff in his videos.
If you like sci fi.
-
So much good stuff in his videos.
If you like sci fi.
I like that term sci-fi. I hadnt seen it used like that, but its so good i dont know how i missed it myself. Of course Einstein's SR & GR could be said to belong in the fiction section of the library. But i think that Einstein would have been happy to simply use his SR & GR as they should be used, as a goodish mathtrick model to give goodish numbers very simply & easily. And if u want accurate numbers then u have to use the slightly more complex neoLorentz gamma etc (needing an estimate of the aetherwind kmps & deg). And we could all live happily ever after. And make much better science progress.
-
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!
I will keep you informed of developments, even if you decide to continue to keep me in the dark.
Yours faithfully, Steve Crothers (Australia)
-
https://www.facebook.com/stephen.crothers.7?epa=SEARCH_BOX
-
... (Australia)
https://www.facebook.com/stephen.crothers.7?epa=SEARCH_BOX
So, no actual science then?
-
So, no actual science then?
Lots of science. Lots of censorship. Imagine, going back & deleting the electronic record, & replacing the journal library hardcopy with a different paper to fill the censored pages. And then reinstating the original paper but in a different journal which is for technicians not scientists. The sh1t will hit the fan.
-
So, no actual science then?
Lots of science. Lots of censorship. Imagine, going back & deleting the electronic record, & replacing the journal library hardcopy with a different paper to fill the censored pages. And then reinstating the original paper but in a different journal which is for technicians not scientists. The sh1t will hit the fan.
I look forward to your proof that this was conspiracy, rather than cockup.
In any event, what you posted not actually science.
-
So, no actual science then?
Lots of science. Lots of censorship. Imagine, going back & deleting the electronic record, & replacing the journal library hardcopy with a different paper to fill the censored pages. And then reinstating the original paper but in a different journal which is for technicians not scientists. The sh1t will hit the fan.
I look forward to your proof that this was conspiracy, rather than cockup. In any event, what you posted not actually science.
Certainly a conspiracy, unless it was done by one person of his-her own volition. Re the science, i daresay that we will soon see an English translation of the full Armenian paper.
-
I look forward to your proof that this was conspiracy
So do I. I'm not holding my breath, though.
-
Certainly a conspiracy, unless it was done by one person of his-her own volition. Re the science, i daresay that we will soon see an English translation of the full Armenian paper.
I look forward to your proof that this was conspiracy, rather than cockup.
In any event, what you posted not actually science.
-
I look forward to your proof that this was conspiracy, rather than cockup.
Lots of censorship. Imagine, going back & deleting the electronic record, & replacing the journal library hardcopy with a different paper to fill the censored pages. And then reinstating the original paper but in a different journal which is for technicians not scientists. The sh1t will hit the fan.
-
Certainly a conspiracy, unless it was done by one person of his-her own volition.
I look forward to your proof that this was conspiracy, rather than cockup.
In any event, what you posted not actually science.
-
English version of i think 1988 paper.
http://elib.sci.am/2007_1/10_1_2007.pdf
-
English version of i think 1988 paper.
http://elib.sci.am/2007_1/10_1_2007.pdf
Well, let's have a look...
"The Large Antenna of ROT is the new type [1]. Its Main mirror (54m) is fixed
in ground and has hemispheric shape. Using aperture is 32m in diameter (surface
using factor 0,6). The spherical aberrations of Main mirror are recompensed by
special shape of Secondary (Small) mirror"
How new is that?
Not very
i think it's a simplified version of one of these.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klevtsov%E2%80%93Cassegrain_telescope
And what else does it have to say?
How about the table headed "The ROT Antenna Comparison with the World Other Largest Antennas "
Well, they are missing some.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lovell_Telescope
for a start.
And what else do they say?
Well there's this
"The main advantages of ROT Antenna are the highest accuracy of mirror
surfaces (50 micron), shortest wavelength (1mm) and very low level of Self Noises
(2,6 K), i.e. highest sensitivity. "
So, they quote the noise figure for their 'scope as 2.6K
And then the pretend that you can use such an instrument to measure the CMBR which corresponds to a temperature of 2.7K
Fat chance.
So, their claim that "So there is only one explanation, that Relict radiation is absent in Universe,
and it is that there never was any Big Bang in Universe."
is made by people who don't know about the real world, and don't understand that you can't use an insensitive telescope to measure complicated things.
They fail to address the big obvious problem.
If the CMBR is not due to to the Big Bang, then what did cause it?
I wonder if this document was "hidden" because it's embarrassing to the authors and their nation.
-
So, they quote the noise figure for their 'scope as 2.6K
And then the pretend that you can use such an instrument to measure the CMBR which corresponds to a temperature of 2.7K
Nice catch. That's like trying to measure the speed of a snail using a police radar gun.
-
English version of i think 1988 paper.
http://elib.sci.am/2007_1/10_1_2007.pdf
Well, let's have a look...
"The Large Antenna of ROT is the new type [1]. Its Main mirror (54m) is fixed
in ground and has hemispheric shape. Using aperture is 32m in diameter (surface
using factor 0,6). The spherical aberrations of Main mirror are recompensed by
special shape of Secondary (Small) mirror"
How new is that?
Not very
i think it's a simplified version of one of these.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klevtsov%E2%80%93Cassegrain_telescope
And what else does it have to say?
How about the table headed "The ROT Antenna Comparison with the World Other Largest Antennas "
Well, they are missing some.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lovell_Telescope
for a start.
And what else do they say?
Well there's this
"The main advantages of ROT Antenna are the highest accuracy of mirror
surfaces (50 micron), shortest wavelength (1mm) and very low level of Self Noises
(2,6 K), i.e. highest sensitivity. "
So, they quote the noise figure for their 'scope as 2.6K
And then the pretend that you can use such an instrument to measure the CMBR which corresponds to a temperature of 2.7K
Fat chance.
So, their claim that "So there is only one explanation, that Relict radiation is absent in Universe,
and it is that there never was any Big Bang in Universe."
is made by people who don't know about the real world, and don't understand that you can't use an insensitive telescope to measure complicated things.
They fail to address the big obvious problem.
If the CMBR is not due to to the Big Bang, then what did cause it?
I wonder if this document was "hidden" because it's embarrassing to the authors and their nation.
The Armenian noise was 2.6 K & they were looking for a nett CMB of 2.7 K (ie a reading of 5.3 K), but had a reading of 2.6 K (ie nett CMB = 0.0 K).
Robitaille says that the Armenian antenna is well away from the oceans & seas, & is in a hollow at high altitude which shields the antenna from the ocean's microwaves, & i think that the Armenian detector itself faces downish which gives extra shielding (not sure)(i aint a scientist).
Other's antennas i think had noise of say 2.8 K & had readings of say 5.5 K which they said showed a nett CMB of 2.7 K (but which Robitaille says is due to Earth's water, ie CMB is 0.0 K).
Why would Armenia's antenna be unsuitable for getting a reading of 5.3 K??
Are u suggesting that if someone came up with an antenna with zero K of antenna-noise then that would be totally useless?
-
So, they quote the noise figure for their 'scope as 2.6K
And then the pretend that you can use such an instrument to measure the CMBR which corresponds to a temperature of 2.7K
Nice catch. That's like trying to measure the speed of a snail using a police radar gun.
No, a radar gun would for a snail give a reading of 00 kmph. Radar guns usually read to the nearest 1 kmph. No problems here. But if u want to know the speed of the snail to 0.1 kmph then u would of course have to get a more sensitive gun.
But if the Armenian antenna is not sensitive enough then it would give a reading of say 1 K or 2 K or 3 K or 4 K or 5 K or 6 K. But it got 2.6 K.
-
The Armenian antenna might be given a new life.
https://www.mediamax.am/en/news/special-report/32323/?fbclid=IwAR1sgjK0UmnaZh4cnSrAoTf_Q2eRPyX2HLPlnK3_9l2ZM876aLR0bQfUq1k
-
Prof Pierre-Marie Robitaille -- re P Herouni's antenna & the Death of the Big Bang.
The Big Bang theory is simply a fairy tale that paradoxically postulates the extremely small, dense, and hot state of the primordial universe manifesting in its first few seconds, is now being seen in its time dilation image of being extremely large, sparse, and cooled state.
The primordial universe, can now be empirically observed in its primodial timeline at the edge of the vast observable universe, which is not at all an extremely small, dense, and hot little ball. These supra contradicting postulations are just being plain silly for reifying its mythology.
It's amazing such a myth is still being faithfully accepted, advocated, and advanced by the so called elites, and echoed to the rank and file levels.
It must be the extremely contagious power of the modern physics cult science that still manages to corrupt with its overwhelming obfuscations.
-
Prof Pierre-Marie Robitaille -- re P Herouni's antenna & the Death of the Big Bang.
The Big Bang theory is simply a fairy tale that paradoxically postulates the extremely small, dense, and hot state of the primordial universe manifesting in its first few seconds, is now being seen in its time dilation image of being extremely large, sparse, and cooled state.
The primordial universe, can now be empirically observed in its primodial timeline at the edge of the vast observable universe, which is not at all an extremely small, dense, and hot little ball. These supra contradicting postulations are just being plain silly for reifying its mythology.
It's amazing such a myth is still being faithfully accepted, advocated, and advanced by the so called elites, and echoed to the rank and file levels.
It must be the extremely contagious power of the modern physics cult science that still manages to corrupt with its overwhelming obfuscations.
Its a long list, ie of Einsteinian krapp, or neoEinsteinian (Alby wouldnt have swallowed much of it).
The bigbang, the expanding universe, CMB radiation, dark matter, dark energy, dark flow, singularity blackholes, quadrupolar gravity waves, SR, the constancy of c, that there is such a thing as time (& time dilation), GR, spacetime, gravity being the bending of spacetime, about a half of their particles including gravitons higgs etc etc, the list of dogma & canon goes on & on.
And the ignorance of &/or suppression of ............
(1) the Catt model of em radiation along conductors (there aint electron current along conductors), &
(2) the EZ phase of water, &
(3) the aether & the aetherwind, & Lorentz Relativity, &
(4) the real nature of em radiation (travelling at 5c), &
(5) the real nature of gravity (travelling at at least 20 billion c), &
(6) the liquid metallic hydrogen Sun, (it aint gaseous), &
(7) the neutrino is a doubled photon, &
(8 ) photons have mass, etc etc.
-
Here is some more on Herouni & the pseudo-CMB.
Robitaille -- Cosmic Microwave Background.
English version of i think 1988 paper.
http://elib.sci.am/2007_1/10_1_2007.pdf
Robitaille – The Herouni antenna.
A fading relic of the past. Herouni antenna.
Presentation re Herouni antenna.
https://events.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de/indico/event/80/material/1/3.pdf
-
Why post the same dross again?
I already pointed out some of the more glaring errors.
-
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1502.01589.pdf
Page 55.
Did Planck measure 2.72 K (microwave) at L2 at 1,500,000 km?
This is similar to COBE's 2.73 K at 950 km.
I thort Planck had instrument noise problems (or signal problems). Did Planck solve thems problems?
-
Did Planck measure 2.72 K (microwave) at L2 at 1,500,000 km?
Yes
I thort Planck had instrument noise problems (or signal problems). Did Planck solve thems problems?
The problems were a figment of your imagination and did not require solving.
-
Did Planck measure 2.72 K (microwave) at L2 at 1,500,000 km?
YesI thort Planck had instrument noise problems (or signal problems). Did Planck solve thems problems?
The problems were a figment of your imagination and did not require solving.
I will get back to u re the problems with Planck's 4 K reference calibration for their LFI. Dr R wrote a paper in 2010 saying that the 4 K reference suffered from conduction throo the steel fixing washers, making it more of a 00 K reference. I will get back to u re that. In the meantime i mention some truths re CMBR applicable to some or all of WMAP COBE PLANCK BICEP & Co.
(1) There was no bigbang, there is no expanding universe, there is no such thing as a gravitational wave.
(2) There is no mafiastein mechanism for how gravity can polarize etc photons or em radiation. Unless mafiasteinologists have quietly unified gravity & em while i had my back turned.
(3) How did they manage to isolate a CMBR signal 1000 times weaker than the noise & other signals.
(4) How did they identify & remove the signal from Milky Way dust.
(5) Why are they so sure that 95% of the universe doesnt affect the CMBR.
(6) Their signal (COBE) appeared when they removed the quadrupole -- ie their signal is manmade, an artifact.
(7) How come the maps are not reproducible. If their instruments etc are good to almost 0.000 001 K then the maps for the ten or so projects must look alike. But they cant even get maps within any one project to look alike.
(8 ) And their maps are based on certain rules of addition & subtraction & scaling etc where these rules are changed for every map.
(9) No calibration includes any allowance for signal from water.
(10) There has been no testing of Earthshine diffraction around shields, including side-lobe performance.
(11) Blackbody spectrum below 5mm has been hidden (because it is embarrassing).
(12) Their temperatures are fake, because they are not blackbody temps.
(13) How do they exclude the millions of point sources of signal (eg galaxies).
(14) They claim a 1 mK error bar when all possible known errors add to 64 mK.
(15) They claim a 5 sigma accuracy whilst having a 00 sigma for stupidity & ignorance & fakery.
-
I will get back to u re the problems with Planck's 4 K reference calibration for their LFI. Dr R wrote a paper in 2010 saying that the 4 K reference suffered from conduction throo the steel fixing washers, making it more of a 00 K reference.
OK, so your opening gambit is that chance conduction of heat through some poorly chosen washer meant that the experiment agreed with the previous one to three significant figures, even though, in reality, that "heat leak" would depend on the orientation of the satellite to the Sun.
Were you expecting to be taken seriously?
"(1) There was no bigbang, there is no expanding universe, there is no such thing as a gravitational wave."
That's three things.
However, "proof by loud assertion" won't convince any of us about either of them.
"(2) There is no mafiastein mechanism for how gravity can polarize etc photons or em radiation. "
I wasn't aware that anyone had suggested that there was.
However, in fact, there is a very obvious one.
A charged object in a (gravitational) orbit will produce em radiation polarised in the plane of the orbit.
"(3) How did they manage to isolate a CMBR signal 1000 times weaker than the noise & other signals."
The same way you can have a conversation in a noisy bar.
Recovery of signals with a S/N ratio less than 1 is quite common in science. The two most powerful techniques are filtering and averaging.
(4) How did they identify & remove the signal from Milky Way dust.
Among other things, they did this by pointing the dish away from the Milky Way.
Did you somehow think that was a problem?
"(5) Why are they so sure that 95% of the universe doesnt affect the CMBR."
Is that meant to be a "dark matter" reference?
If so the answer's pretty obvious.
The defining characteristic of dark matter is that it doesn't interact with em radiation. There's a hint in the name.
I got bored at this stage, so I stopped posting point by point rebuttals.
Suffice to say the rest of your points are equally wrong.
Go and learn some science.
-
Here is some more footage from Dr R & others, mentioning Herouni.
If u do a youtube search for Herouni there is lots of other footage.
Dr. P.M. Robitaille | OTF2019 | Revelations Through MRI
Radio-Optical Telescope 54 Paris Herouni
VARDANANK by Vardan Hovanessian N18 (Arm.Hist.-BIG ANTENA)Paris Herouni,1of 3./2001/
-
If u do a youtube search for Herouni there is lots of other footage.
Yes.
And it all makes the same mistakes
-
Robitaille's video pointed out that the Penzias telescope was near the water, and claimed that since Herouni's telescope was not (1700m altitude), the latter must be correct.
But the ALMA telescope is at 5000 m altitude, so it should be even more believable?
- Plus it uses the latest in cryogenic receiver design
- There are some noise figures published for this telescope, but it is nowhere near 1.6K
See: https://www.eso.org/public/australia/teles-instr/alma/receiver-bands/
-
Robitaille's video pointed out that the Penzias telescope was near the water, and claimed that since Herouni's telescope was not (1700m altitude), the latter must be correct.
But the ALMA telescope is at 5000 m altitude, so it should be even more believable?
- Plus it uses the latest in cryogenic receiver design
- There are some noise figures published for this telescope, but it is nowhere near 1.6K
See: https://www.eso.org/public/australia/teles-instr/alma/receiver-bands/
Very interesting. It looks like Band 5 targets water moreso than the others. If so then there must be some testing & calibration info out there somewhere (which would be a first)(Dr R didnt find any such testing or calibration in 55 years of this saga). In particular it would measure atmospheric water. It is hi up, but, so close to water (surrounded by ocean), it would suffer from ordinary (edge) diffraction from the ocean (lots of it), plus ordinary re-emission by the water in the atmosphere above (not much water, due to the hi elevation, but lots of re-emission due to the proximity of the surrounding ocean). So i wonder what exactly was its measurement of the CMBR, was it 2.73 K ? What was its noise level?
Band 5
Band 5 ALMA receiverBand 5 saw first light in 2016 (eso1645) and extended ALMA’s coverage to a new range of the electromagnetic spectrum, seeing radio waves with wavelengths between 1.4–1.8 millimetres. This is a particularly exciting band because it allows astronomers to detect faint signals of water in the nearby Universe.
The European ALMA Programme Scientist, Leonardo Testi, explains the significance of band 5: “The band 5 receivers make it much easier to detect water, a prerequisite for life as we know it, in our Solar System and in more distant regions of our galaxy and beyond. They also allow ALMA to search for ionised carbon in the primordial Universe.”
The high sensitivity and angular resolution of ALMA allows astronomers to make detailed studies of water in a wide range of objects, including forming and evolved stars, the interstellar medium, and regions close to supermassive black holes. With band 5, ALMA is able to detect the emission from ionised carbon from objects seen soon after the Big Bang, opening up the possibility of probing the earliest epoch of galaxy formation.
The band 5 receiver was developed by the Group for Advanced Receiver Development (GARD) at Onsala Space Observatory, Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden. The production of the 66 receivers for the ALMA observatory was done jointly by GARD and NOVA.
The crucial thing re the Herouni antenna is that the detector dish is inverted, plus it is well down below the rim of the main dish. Hencely direct (diffracted) ocean radiation is minimized. And direct atmospheric water radiation is minimized. And direct indirect ocean radiation re-radiation is minimized. However being spherical the minimization would i guess not be as good as if it were parabolic.
-
Robitaille's video pointed out that the Penzias telescope was near the water, and claimed that since Herouni's telescope was not (1700m altitude), the latter must be correct.
But the ALMA telescope is at 5000 m altitude, so it should be even more believable?
- Plus it uses the latest in cryogenic receiver design
- There are some noise figures published for this telescope, but it is nowhere near 1.6K
See: https://www.eso.org/public/australia/teles-instr/alma/receiver-bands/
That page lists noise temperatures, but those are not measurements of temperature.
Madeatherist has been studiously avoiding answering the killer question.
How does the Earth's ocean affect a satellite which is 15,000,000,000 metres from Earth and pointing away from it?
-
The crucial thing re the Herouni antenna is that the detector dish is inverted, plus it is well down below the rim of the main dish. Hencely direct (diffracted) ocean radiation is minimized. And direct atmospheric water radiation is minimized. And direct indirect ocean radiation re-radiation is minimized. However being spherical the minimization would i guess not be as good as if it were parabolic.
If that wasn't bollocks then the dishes used for satellite TV would have to be designed that way.
It's not hard to calculate the diffraction effects.
To a good approximation, the main beam's "width" is a cone with the angle (in radias) at the point equal to the ratio of the dish diameter to the wavelength.
They are using 12 metre (1200 cm) dishes.
In the middle of the CMBR the radiation has a wavelength near 10 cm
So the angular resolution is of the order of 10/1200
Roughly half a degree, or an area about the same size as the Moon.
We really can point that away from the Earth without any problems.
-
The crucial thing re the Herouni antenna is that the detector dish is inverted, plus it is well down below the rim of the main dish. Hencely direct (diffracted) ocean radiation is minimized. And direct atmospheric water radiation is minimized. And direct indirect ocean radiation re-radiation is minimized. However being spherical the minimization would i guess not be as good as if it were parabolic.
If that wasn't bollocks then the dishes used for satellite TV would have to be designed that way.
It's not hard to calculate the diffraction effects. To a good approximation, the main beam's "width" is a cone with the angle (in radias) at the point equal to the ratio of the dish diameter to the wavelength.
They are using 12 metre (1200 cm) dishes. In the middle of the CMBR the radiation has a wavelength near 10 cm
So the angular resolution is of the order of 10/1200 Roughly half a degree, or an area about the same size as the Moon. We really can point that away from the Earth without any problems.
I thort that they said that commonplace TV noise is CMBR (ie actually signal from the water in the atmosphere & oceans etc).
Wilkinson (the W in WMAP) was concerned that they had not properly investigated/tested/calibrated for diffraction at edges of shields before launch.
Anyhow dont antennas & horns have side-lobe problems (except praps for the Herouni dishes).
The Herouni dishes' self noise of 2.6 K went up to 8 K when measured/pointed up/over near a leg of the central dish support gantry, due to diffraction/reflexion off the leg's steelwork lattice.
And to minimize diffraction dont shields need corrugations.
Re aim, i doubt that WMAP COBE PLANCK & Co could change aim.
All that they could do is to ignore signals during bad periods. Which is what they did, ie when pointing too near Earth.
So, if ocean water aint a problem, why did they have to ignore signal when Earth was visible to their horns.
Why couldnt they calibrate/factor away/out Earthshine.
Or, using reverse logic, if Earthshine wasnt a big problem then that suggests that it didnt have a big effect because it was the main cause of the signal all along.
-
Robitaille's video pointed out that the Penzias telescope was near the water, and claimed that since Herouni's telescope was not (1700m altitude), the latter must be correct.
But the ALMA telescope is at 5000 m altitude, so it should be even more believable?
- Plus it uses the latest in cryogenic receiver design
- There are some noise figures published for this telescope, but it is nowhere near 1.6K
See: https://www.eso.org/public/australia/teles-instr/alma/receiver-bands/
That page lists noise temperatures, but those are not measurements of temperature.
Madeatherist has been studiously avoiding answering the killer question.
How does the Earth's ocean affect a satellite which is 15,000,000,000 metres from Earth and pointing away from it?
There must be a good reason why Planck's 2.72 K at 1,500,000 km at L2 is so close to COBE's 2.73 K at 950 km.
Dr R years ago anticipated that such a result might arise due to the 4 K reference for Planck's LFI being at 0.1 K due to conduction throo bolts & washers. In which case a true 0.1 K CMBR signal would be reported as being 2.73 K due to the false reference (together with the associated calibration based on 2.73 K equaling 4 K). In fact Dr R said that Planck's early reports of better than expected matching of the LFI & its 4 K reference might have been due to reference & CMBR being both nearly zero K.
I think that the reference would be at nearnuff 4 K but that due to conduction it would radiate as if at 0.1 K (i think that that is how it works).
Anyhow me & my team will be looking up Planck's bum with a microscope. I will be back.
-
There must be a good reason why Planck's 2.72 K at 1,500,000 km at L2 is so close to COBE's 2.73 K at 950 km.
Yes, there is.
They are both close because they are both good measurements of the right answer.
Madeatherist has been studiously avoiding answering the killer question.
How does the Earth's ocean affect a satellite which is 15,000,000,000 metres from Earth and pointing away from it?
-
Grote Reber the maker of the first radio telescope reckons that the big bang is rubbish.
ENDLESS, BOUNDLESS, STABLE UNIVERSE
Source: http://personal.nbnet.nb.ca/galaxy/G_Reber.html
GROTE REBER Honorary Research Follow CSIRO, Hobart
https://bazaarmodel.net/Onderwerpen/Endless-Boundless-Stable-Universe/
-
Grote Reber the maker of the first radio telescope reckons that the big bang is rubbish.
ENDLESS, BOUNDLESS, STABLE UNIVERSE
Source: http://personal.nbnet.nb.ca/galaxy/G_Reber.html
GROTE REBER Honorary Research Follow CSIRO, Hobart
https://bazaarmodel.net/Onderwerpen/Endless-Boundless-Stable-Universe/
So your argument is that because the maker of the first radio telescope reckons the big bang is rubbish it must be true? When his view is a minority view - this is what is known as confirmation bias. It also smacks of 'well he is a scientist (who has the same beliefs as me) so he must be right'.
Rupert Sheldrake 'was' a biochemist at Cambridge University. He now believes in morphic resonance and all sorts of paranormal phenomena. Would you favour his views because he is a 'scientist'. How about the Tunisian PhD student who submitted a thesis proposing that the earth is flat. Do you subscribe to his views?
-
Grote Reber the maker of the first radio telescope reckons that the big bang is rubbish.
How very embarrassing for him.
We have known that this idea
ENDLESS, BOUNDLESS, STABLE UNIVERSE
is wrong for centuries
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox
Why do you keep citing people who say stuff that's clearly wrong?
Also:
Madeatherist has been studiously avoiding answering the killer question.
How does the Earth's ocean affect a satellite which is 15,000,000,000 metres from Earth and pointing away from it?
-
I thort that they said that commonplace TV noise is CMBR (ie actually signal from the water in the atmosphere & oceans etc).
Yes, but you thought that because you don't understand reality.
Part of the noise you see on a TV set "between channels" is the CMBR.
And some isn't.
Of course the peak of the microwave background is in the microwave region of the spectrum.
And the (terrestrial) TV signals are not.
So your comparison makes no sense.
And fundamentally, you can't point a dish away from the Earth, and see the Earth.
Blaming side lobes won't help here.
(Not least because the strongest of them is about 20 fold weaker than the main lobe)
-
Grote Reber the maker of the first radio telescope reckons that the big bang is rubbish.
ENDLESS, BOUNDLESS, STABLE UNIVERSE
Source: http://personal.nbnet.nb.ca/galaxy/G_Reber.html
GROTE REBER Honorary Research Follow CSIRO, Hobart
https://bazaarmodel.net/Onderwerpen/Endless-Boundless-Stable-Universe/
So your argument is that because the maker of the first radio telescope reckons the big bang is rubbish it must be true? When his view is a minority view - this is what is known as confirmation bias. It also smacks of 'well he is a scientist (who has the same beliefs as me) so he must be right'.
Rupert Sheldrake 'was' a biochemist at Cambridge University. He now believes in morphic resonance and all sorts of paranormal phenomena. Would you favour his views because he is a 'scientist'. How about the Tunisian PhD student who submitted a thesis proposing that the earth is flat. Do you subscribe to his views?
Albert Einstein co-wrote a paper that the speed of light in vacuum is a constant & then a paper that bending of light in an accelerating chest is equivalent to bending due to gravity & now u adore him despite common sense.
-
Grote Reber the maker of the first radio telescope reckons that the big bang is rubbish.
How very embarrassing for him.We have known that this idea
ENDLESS, BOUNDLESS, STABLE UNIVERSE
is wrong for centurieshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox
Why do you keep citing people who say stuff that's clearly wrong?
Olber's Paradox is interesting. An infinite universe should be very bright & hot (due to photons & their photaenos).
Black holes could trap photons (& photaenos), especially thems that have traveled far. Here we need photons to be annihilated inside black holes, otherwise the black holes would themselves (eventually) be infinite.
Conrad Ranzan's Dynamic Steady State Universe provides such a mechanism, whereby aether & mass is created & annihilated inside cosmic cells. Here (all) mass annihilates aether, & black holes annihilate mass. We have an infinite number of steady state cosmic cells.
Ranzan also explains redshift as being due to a photon being stretched as it approaches mass & then stretched some more as it departs mass, as it travels throo the cosmos. This mechanism would affect Olber's Paradox, ie stretching might ultimately annihilate a photon, but this i think aint crucial.
U could say that Ranzan stretching is due to gravity, but that would not be true, the stretching is due to the same thing that causes gravity, it is due to the acceleration of the aether inflow into mass, ie it (& gravity) is due to the convergence of the aether inflow streamlines (not important).
My own praether theory best explains Ranzan's DSSU. Praether is a (sub quantum) thing, the fundamental essence. Aether is an excitation of praether. Photons are an excitation & annihilation of aether, propagating at c. Photaenos are/make em radiation. Photaenos are a part of every photon, & emanate from the central helical body of a photon (& propagating to infinity at praps 5c). All particles are confined photons. A confined photon annihilates aether moreso than does a free photon.
Hencely all quantum things are processes, which can be stopped (annihilation) or started (creation).
Olber's Paradox does not exist, because (very massive) black holes eventually annihilate all free photons & all confined photons (& their photaenos).
Free neutrinos (dark photons) consist of pairs of joined free photons (joined by sharing a common helical axis)(the em fields cancelling). Free neutrinos & confined neutrinos would too be annihilated in (very massive) black holes.
-
Grote Reber the maker of the first radio telescope reckons that the big bang is rubbish.
ENDLESS, BOUNDLESS, STABLE UNIVERSE
Source: http://personal.nbnet.nb.ca/galaxy/G_Reber.html
GROTE REBER Honorary Research Follow CSIRO, Hobart
https://bazaarmodel.net/Onderwerpen/Endless-Boundless-Stable-Universe/
So your argument is that because the maker of the first radio telescope reckons the big bang is rubbish it must be true? When his view is a minority view - this is what is known as confirmation bias. It also smacks of 'well he is a scientist (who has the same beliefs as me) so he must be right'.
Rupert Sheldrake 'was' a biochemist at Cambridge University. He now believes in morphic resonance and all sorts of paranormal phenomena. Would you favour his views because he is a 'scientist'. How about the Tunisian PhD student who submitted a thesis proposing that the earth is flat. Do you subscribe to his views?
Albert Einstein co-wrote a paper that the speed of light in vacuum is a constant & then a paper that bending of light in an accelerating chest is equivalent to bending due to gravity & now u adore him despite common sense.
A good old common sense. The kind that makes people believe the earth is flat because that is how it looks from ground level you mean?
-
Grote Reber the maker of the first radio telescope reckons that the big bang is rubbish.
ENDLESS, BOUNDLESS, STABLE UNIVERSE
Source: http://personal.nbnet.nb.ca/galaxy/G_Reber.html
GROTE REBER Honorary Research Follow CSIRO, Hobart
https://bazaarmodel.net/Onderwerpen/Endless-Boundless-Stable-Universe/
So your argument is that because the maker of the first radio telescope reckons the big bang is rubbish it must be true? When his view is a minority view - this is what is known as confirmation bias. It also smacks of 'well he is a scientist (who has the same beliefs as me) so he must be right'.
Rupert Sheldrake 'was' a biochemist at Cambridge University. He now believes in morphic resonance and all sorts of paranormal phenomena. Would you favour his views because he is a 'scientist'. How about the Tunisian PhD student who submitted a thesis proposing that the earth is flat. Do you subscribe to his views?
Albert Einstein co-wrote a paper that the speed of light in vacuum is a constant & then a paper that bending of light in an accelerating chest is equivalent to bending due to gravity & now u adore him despite common sense.
A good old common sense. The kind that makes people believe the earth is flat because that is how it looks from ground level you mean?
Yes common sense is very rare. In modern physics common sense is banned. Luckily for me i never suffered a university brain washing (re physics).
I have shown that, based on the thortX for bending in an accelerating chest, the bending near the Sun would be 0.13 arcsec at Earth's orbit & 00 arcsec at infinity. Based on common sense (& a couple of hours using Excel).
Based on a silly interpretation of Einstein's chest thortX the bending is 0.87 arcsec.
Based on the batshit crazy Einsteinian interpretation the bending is 1.75 arcsec.
-
Olber's Paradox does not exist, because (very massive) black holes eventually annihilate all free photons & all confined photons
No, that won't do.
Black holes glow.
Even if they didn't, if they absorb all the photons then they also absorb all the matter.
If all the matter ends up in black holes then the universe as we know it, isn't stable and, also, if it had existed forever as postulated, it would already have fallen into the hol;es.
We wouldn't be here.
You are plainly wrong.
-
Olber's Paradox does not exist, because (very massive) black holes eventually annihilate all free photons & all confined photons
No, that won't do.
Black holes glow.
Even if they didn't, if they absorb all the photons then they also absorb all the matter.
If all the matter ends up in black holes then the universe as we know it, isn't stable and, also, if it had existed forever as postulated, it would already have fallen into the holes. We wouldn't be here. You are plainly wrong.
In Ranzan's DSSU each 200 million light year cosmic cell has its own creation zone (the center of the cell) & annihilation zones (near edges), where aether is created (in the middle of nowhere) & annihilated (in all mass), & where mass (confined photons)(& free photons) are annihilated (in super massive black holes).
A continuous dynamic process. All things are eventually annihilated, mostly in their own home cell (ie for confined photons), & sometimes far away (ie for most free photons).
It adds up. There is no need for an Olber's Paradox. There is no need for a finite universe, no need for a big bang.
-
There is no need for a finite universe, no need for a big bang.
As long as you are prepared to believe the following fairy tales.
"each 200 million light year cosmic cell has its own creation zone "
" each 200 million light year cosmic cell has its own ... annihilation zones (near edges),"
"aether is created
" aether is ... annihilated "
" mass (confined photons)(& free photons) are annihilated (in super massive black holes)."
Just remember; there is absolutely no evidence for any of those ideas.
On the other hand, there is experimental evidence for the big bang.
I have shown that, based on the thortX for bending in an accelerating chest, the bending near the Sun would be 0.13 arcsec at Earth's orbit & 00 arcsec at infinity. Based on common sense (& a couple of hours using Excel).
Based on a silly interpretation of Einstein's chest thortX the bending is 0.87 arcsec.
Based on the batshit crazy Einsteinian interpretation the bending is 1.75 arcsec.
Yes.
And the experimental value is about 1.75 arcseconds.
You really should accept that, when reality and your thoughts don't agree, it isn't because reality has made a mistake.
-
There is no need for a finite universe, no need for a big bang.
As long as you are prepared to believe the following fairy tales.
"each 200 million light year cosmic cell has its own creation zone "
" each 200 million light year cosmic cell has its own ... annihilation zones (near edges),"
"aether is created
" aether is ... annihilated "
" mass (confined photons)(& free photons) are annihilated (in super massive black holes)."
Just remember; there is absolutely no evidence for any of those ideas.
On the other hand, there is experimental evidence for the big bang.
There is evidence of filaments & voids, ie cells (Ranzan & others).
Plus we have at Earth a background aetherwind, & a local aetherwind inflow (Cahill).I have shown that, based on the thortX for bending in an accelerating chest, the bending near the Sun would be 0.13 arcsec at Earth's orbit & 00 arcsec at infinity. Based on common sense (& a couple of hours using Excel).
Based on a silly interpretation of Einstein's chest thortX the bending is 0.87 arcsec.
Based on the batshit crazy Einsteinian interpretation the bending is 1.75 arcsec.
Yes.
And the experimental value is about 1.75 arcseconds.
You really should accept that, when reality and your thoughts don't agree, it isn't because reality has made a mistake.
U havnt understood what i said. I accept 1.75 arcsec, this was prooven in the optical by Hipparcos. But Einstein's chestian equivalence (& chestian bending etc) when properly analysed yields 0.13 arcsec of bending (measured at Earth's radius). The chestian thortX fails. Equivalence fails. Einstein fails.
[edit 26march2019][I am wrong, i got confused with a different calc based on aether inflow. For a proper elevator bending have a look at the following link]. https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75220.msg570891#msg570891
-
But Einstein's chestian equivalence (& chestian bending etc) when properly analysed
Or you got the maths wrong.
You have done that before (by a factor of a million or so).
Why should we imagine you have got the maths right here?
in particular, why should we think you got it right and everyone who has looked at it over the last hundred years or so got it wrong?
-
But Einstein's chestian equivalence (& chestian bending etc) when properly analysed
Or you got the maths wrong.
You have done that before (by a factor of a million or so).
Why should we imagine you have got the maths right here?
in particular, why should we think you got it right and everyone who has looked at it over the last hundred years or so got it wrong?
I got the bending of light in the accelerating chest right because i analysed it by following the photon, in the chest, & near the Sun. Everyone else followed the ray, & got it wrong.
I did find one author that agreed with the main thrust of my idea.
I have detailed most of this stuff in another thread here (i think). But i am happy to go throo it all again.
I havnt made a math mistake because i never use math. For all of my science stuff i use arithmetic, using Excel.
What i use is a simple equation or two, using many iterations. The issue then is the underlying logic, which is easy to see & follow, no knowledge of math needed.
However come to think of it i did use math for the tuning fork frequency stuff, but just a simple equation really, no calculus, so i would call it grade 7 or 8 math. We need a category tween arithmetic & math. Math is too big a term.
-
havnt made a math mistake because i never use math. For all of my science stuff i use arithmetic, using Excel.
So you don't think that arithmetic is part of mathematics? Wow. And you wonder why people don't take take you seriously....
-
However come to think of it i did use math for the tuning fork frequency stuff,
And you got it wrong, by a factor of about a million- like I said.
Renaming bits of mathematics is not going to address this.
You are claiming that you know more about science than everyone else- but you clearly don't understand it at even a basic level.
-
However come to think of it i did use math for the tuning fork frequency stuff,
And you got it wrong, by a factor of about a million- like I said.
Renaming bits of mathematics is not going to address this.
You are claiming that you know more about science than everyone else- but you clearly don't understand it at even a basic level.
Yes, i dont understand science at even a basic level, & yes, i do know more about science than everyone. Here i mean Einsteinology in the first instance, & real science in the second.
I explained that my factor for change in ticking of a macro clock will be found to be ok. We should not apply gamma to ticking dilation for macro clocks. We should apply gamma (ie Lorentz length contraction) to the critical dimension of that macro clock, & use this change in dimension in the basic equation for the frequency of that there macro clock.
This i reckon must apply to crystal tuning forks (critical dimension here is thickness), crystal rectangles (critical dimension here is length), crystal cylinders (Wolf), balance wheel tick-tocks (critical dimension here is probly dia as it affects moment of inertia), & pendulums (length), etc.
Lorentz ticking dilation (& its Einsteinian equivalent time dilation) might apply to micro-ticking, eg atomic clocks.
The two kinds of ticking dilation (macro & micro) will not i think apply at the same time, ie u dont get a double dose.
Hell this macro ticking dilation idea of mine is (along with four or five of my previous ideas) one of the best five or six ideas ever seen on this forum (however i havnt read every thread on this forum). Its so simple. Hell a grade 10 skoolkid could understand it. But probly not a brain-washed physics grad, especially if bored, especially if majoring in chemistry.
-
Yes, i dont understand science at even a basic level, & yes, i do know more about science than everyone. Here i mean Einsteinology in the first instance, & real science in the second.
Into which category do reflecting telescopes, radar dished and satellite TV antenna fall?
Because you plainly don't understand them.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 18/03/2019 19:14:31
Madeatherist has been studiously avoiding answering the killer question.
How does the Earth's ocean affect a satellite which is 15,000,000,000 metres from Earth and pointing away from it?
Fundamentally, you seem to have muddled some inconsistent nonsense you dreamed up, with science.
-
Yes, i dont understand science at even a basic level, & yes, i do know more about science than everyone. Here i mean Einsteinology in the first instance, & real science in the second.
Into which category do reflecting telescopes, radar dished and satellite TV antenna fall? Because you plainly don't understand them.
I dont understand basic real science including antennas. But when i say i know more than everyone i mean that i have a few simple novel ideas (plus ideas of others)(or based on) re the most important questions re physics, whereas i am surrounded by stupid standard ideas, mostly Einsteinian (eg that em radiation is photons & photons is em radiation).Madatherist has been studiously avoiding answering the killer question. How does the Earth's ocean affect a satellite which is 15,000,000,000 metres from Earth and pointing away from it?
Fundamentally, you seem to have muddled some inconsistent nonsense you dreamed up, with science.
At present the only possibility that i have is what Dr Robitaille said re the 4 K reference for the low frequency being a faux 4 K because of conduction due to the fixing, in which case they are comparing near zero K to near zero K when they think they are comparing CMBR K to 4 K.
But as i said i will have more to say re that Planck stuff later.
-
i have a few simple novel ideas
They may be simple, but they are wrong.
At present the only possibility that i have is what Dr Robitaille said re the 4 K reference for the low frequency being a faux 4 K because of conduction due to the fixing,
And I have explained why that does not make sense.
It is insanely unlikely that the heat leak would give exactly the right answer.
Even if it did then it's impossible for it not to change because the heat leak will vary.
So how come it kept on giving the right answer?
This isn't "einsteinian"- it's common sense.
And you don't have an answer.
-
They may be simple, but they are wrong.At present the only possibility that i have is what Dr Robitaille said re the 4 K reference for the low frequency being a faux 4 K because of conduction due to the fixing,
And I have explained why that does not make sense.
It is insanely unlikely that the heat leak would give exactly the right answer.
Even if it did then it's impossible for it not to change because the heat leak will vary.
So how come it kept on giving the right answer?
This isn't "einsteinian"- it's common sense. And you don't have an answer.
Mightbe they knew what the right answer was before during & after.
But i agree that the leak will vary, but i dont know how that might affect the apparent temp of the reference, which is supposed to be 4 K.
But let me turn your question around. How did they (Planck) know that their 4 K reference would give exactly the right answer. Even if it did then its impossible for it not to change because the heat leak will vary. So how come it kept giving the right answer.
Even if the 4 K reference worked exactly as designed it would vary. Because for it to get down to 4 K it relies on conduction into the shield. Thats how they designed it. If it worked as designed then the heat leak will vary. Its impossible for it (the 4 K) not to change. Yet Planck claim 2.725 K or something with an accuracy of 0.0001 K or something. So how come they kept getting the right answer, despite your quite true statement that the 4 K must vary.
-
So how come they kept getting the right answer,
Because it's the right answer.
What else would they get?
-
So how come they kept getting the right answer,
Because it's the right answer. What else would they get?
U said the 4 K reference must vary, thats why they couldnt have gotten the right answer, unless of course, they, they, cheated.
-
So how come they kept getting the right answer,
Because it's the right answer. What else would they get?
U said the 4 K reference must vary, thats why they couldnt have gotten the right answer, unless of course, they, they, cheated.
Does your house have thermostats?
-
So how come they kept getting the right answer,
Because it's the right answer. What else would they get?
U said the 4 K reference must vary, thats why they couldnt have gotten the right answer, unless of course, they, they, cheated.
Does your house have thermostats?
My house doesnt have thermostats. It doesnt have any air conditioning or ceiling fans. It doesnt have any electric or gas house heating. I have a cast iron wood-burning heater in the billiards room & a cast iron wood-burning stove in the kitchen (plus i do have electric cooking & electric hot water).
During 3 hot months cooling is by closing some blinds during the day & opening some windows at night.
During 5 cold months the cast iron wood heater burns in 1st gear during the day & on idle overnite. I might use 2rd or 3rd gear if i have visitors. My wood comes from my property plus from fallen trees on my neighbours property (that i look after when they are away)(which is all the time)(there have been so many fallen trees this year that i might not need any wood from my property).
On Planck the LFI 4 K reference used for calibration etc has no cooling or heating, all it has is i think conduction into the 4 K shield (i think). Hencely its 4 K must vary, as u quite rightly pointed out. Hencely the claimed 2.72 K & the claimed 0.0001 K accuracy smells fishy.
-
cooling is by closing some blinds during the day
OK, there's something (you, as it happens) that take action to maintain the temperature.
So, your assertion My house doesnt have thermostats.
is a misunderstanding.the LFI 4 K reference used for calibration etc has no cooling or heating,
Really?
-
I cant find the posting (i think it is in another thread) but i remember that bored chemist or someone else said that if the ocean was responsible for the CMBR then the CMBR should have a seasonal variation.
My thinking is that it is the Earth's atmosphere (ie the water in the atmosphere) that gives the CMBR signal, & the temperature of the upper atmosphere is i think not very variable. Anyhow here below is what Robitaille says............
Water, Hydrogen Bonding, and the Microwave Background -- Pierre-Marie Robitaille – 2009.
http://www.ptep-online.com/2009/PP-17-L2.PDF
In summary, the microwave background can be understood as follows: photons are being produced by the oceans and they are then scattered in the atmosphere such that a completely isotropic signal is observed [15]. The isotropy of the microwave background was first reported by Penzias and Wilson [21]. The signal is independent of temperature variations on the globe, since the hydrogen bonding energy system is already fully occupied at earthly temperatures. This explains why the microwave background is independent of seasonal changes [21]. Satellite data obtained by COBE strengthen the idea that the Earth does produce the microwave background [24, 25]. This hypothesis has not been refuted either by the three year [26] or five year WMAP findings.
I am not sure what this means....
.........the hydrogen bonding energy system is already fully occupied at earthly temperatures........
Praps someone here can explain.
In any case i reckon that the photons heating the water in the atmosphere mainly come from the Sun, not so much the oceans. And the Sun's radiation has very little seasonal variation. I dont see any need for an explanation involving some kind of saturation of the hydrogen bonding in the ocean or in the atmospheric water.
-
My thinking is that it is the Earth's atmosphere (ie the water in the atmosphere) that gives the CMBR signal, & the temperature of the upper atmosphere is i think not very variable.
It wasn't me who said it, but never mind.
You are right. The temperature of the upper atmosphere doesn't change very much
According to this
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1950.tb00338.x
the data indicate " indicate a diurnal temperature range of the order of 10 to 15° C."
Now that's a huge range compared to the variation of the CMBR.
But it gets worse.
Here's some data on the actual temperature
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_temperature
And it varies from about 190K to 280K
Yet you seem to be claiming that it's at 2.7K in order to emit the CMBR.
Can you explain why the data is roughly a hundredfold wrong?
I am not sure what this means....
.........the hydrogen bonding energy system is already fully occupied at earthly temperatures........
I can help with that.
It's meaningless.
But you still have to explain why you get exactly the same answer when you measure it in space, miles from Earth- and looking in the wrong direction, and so this is just insane.
Satellite data obtained by COBE strengthen the idea that the Earth does produce the microwave background [
.
-
And the Sun's radiation has very little seasonal variation.
Have you really not noticed that it gets cold in Winter and at night?
-
My thinking is that it is the Earth's atmosphere (ie the water in the atmosphere) that gives the CMBR signal, & the temperature of the upper atmosphere is i think not very variable.
It wasn't me who said it, but never mind.You are right. The temperature of the upper atmosphere doesn't change very much According to thishttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1950.tb00338.x
the data indicate " indicate a diurnal temperature range of the order of 10 to 15° C."Now that's a huge range compared to the variation of the CMBR. But it gets worse. Here's some data on the actual temperature
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_temperature And it varies from about 190K to 280K Yet you seem to be claiming that it's at 2.7K in order to emit the CMBR. Can you explain why the data is roughly a hundredfold wrong?
I am not sure what this means....
.........the hydrogen bonding energy system is already fully occupied at earthly temperatures........
I can help with that. It's meaningless. But you still have to explain why you get exactly the same answer when you measure it in space, miles from Earth- and looking in the wrong direction, and so this is just insane. Satellite data obtained by COBE strengthen the idea that the Earth does produce the microwave background [
.
The critical issue is the temp of the upper layers of EZ water. This will i think be just below the tropopause. The temps near ground & the temps in the dry air above the tropopause are irrelevant. The rubbish one reads re the large variation of temps very high up is of course coming from the same idiots who think that the Sun's corona is at 1 million deg when it is actually at about 5000 deg.
The same idiots who think that a block of ice is warmer when it is moving faster.
The hundredfold difference is explained by Robitaille. He explains that the hydrogen bonding strength is 80 to 240 times weaker than the hydroxyl bonding. Thusly EZ water emits at 300 K & 3 K.
I notice that the idiot-mafia still talk of interference from the atmosphere as being due to oxygen, ie no real progress here since Penzias & Wilson.
If the upper layers of EZ water suffer a diurnal true-temperature change of 1 K (eg 300 K drops to 299 K) then the apparent faux-temperature of say 3 K drops by only 1/80 K (ie 0.125 K)(in which case the 3K apparent faux-temperature at midday would drop to 2.875 K at night)(not a big drop), or praps the 3 K drops by as little as 1/240 K (ie 0.0042 K)(in which case the 3K drops to 2.9958 K at night)(a very small drop).
Hencely if the CMBR is due to EZ water in the atmosphere then there would not be a big daily or seasonal change in the apparent faux-temperature of 3 K.
-
I notice that the idiot-mafia still talk of interference from the atmosphere as being due to oxygen
Where?
Oxygen is a poor absorber in the IR / microwave regions of the em spectrum.
The hundredfold difference is explained by Robitaille. H
No, he doesn't explain it.
He spouts some tecnobabble and you fall for it because you don't know better.
The critical issue is the temp of the upper layers of EZ water. This will i think be just below the tropopause. T
Fine, but none of those have temperatures that are anywhere near 2.7K
So you are still wrong.
The rubbish one reads re the large variation of temps very high up is of course coming from the same idiots who think that the Sun's corona is at 1 million deg when it is actually at about 5000 deg.
Can you show your evidence and calculations for your 5000K claim?
Or are you posting made up stuff?
-
Ok further to #82 (Dr Robitaille's explanation) & #85 (my explanation) re the observed (by BICEP & WMAP & COBE & Planck) lack of daily or seasonal changes in the 2.725 K temperature of the CMBR, such changes being (says bored chemist) necessary if the CMBR is indeed merely an Earthly oceanic or atmospheric radiation (ie not cosmic). I reckon that it is atmospheric not oceanic. The small amount of EZ water in the atmosphere is nonetheless very efficient at absorbing & emitting in the infrared & far-infrared & the microwave.
My new explanation is that the EZ water (vapour) in the upper atmosphere reduces during the night (& winter), & the microwave radiation from the (hydrogen bonds in the) EZ water is emitted moreso by the EZ water found at lower altitudes, where the actual nighttime temperature might be the same as the daytime temperature at higher altitude (which is say 280 K). Here i am talking about EZ water below the tropopause (i dont think there is any EZ water above).
The nightly reduction of EZ water is because the thickness of the EZ layer inside water droplets increases when droplets absorb the Sun's infrared radiation (see at 6:10 in the youtube of G Pollack's -- Weather & EZ Water -- link
shown below). Absorption is at a max at 270 nanometres (ie in the infrared)(see 15:35 in video).
In addition EZ water at higher altitudes would be "lost" if it changed to ice during the night, ice does not contain EZ water, & ice (& snow) does not have a strong microwave emission.
Not forgetting that any change (eg 1 K) in the actual average temperature of the atmospheric EZ water (which is say 280 K) has only a 1/80 K or even 1/240 K effect on the apparent faux-temperature (which is say 2.725 K).
A ratio of 2.8 K / 280 K suggests a 1/100 K/K correspondence.
-
My new explanation is that the EZ water
No, that won't do.
You have to explain it in terms of real things, not fairy tales that we already proved were nonsense.
Also you keep saying stuff like "
any change (eg 1 K) in the actual average temperature of the atmospheric EZ water (which is say 280 K) has only a 1/80 K or even 1/240 K effect on the apparent faux-temperature (which is say 2.725 K).
You don't seem to understand that this "divide by 100 to get the right answer" is "faux".
Can you show us how you think temperatures are measured from microwave spectra?
-
I installed an <<brand removed>> a few years and no one problem to date. This was simple because my electrician was able to re-purpose the existing 240v circuit for my older electric water heater. This heater also needs a good ground to work properly as stated in the installation manual. From a supply perspective, I took special care to insure that our gas line was sufficient to handle a 100,000 BTU demand even when other appliances were running.
-
I installed an <<brand removed>> a few years and no one problem to date. This was simple because my electrician was able to re-purpose the existing 240v circuit for my older electric water heater. This heater also needs a good ground to work properly as stated in the installation manual. From a supply perspective, I took special care to insure that our gas line was sufficient to handle a 100,000 BTU demand even when other appliances were running.
Looking over your past posts, you are clearly only here to advertise. This thread isn't even about water heaters.
-
Our universe is mostly composed of hydrogen, which has a boiling point of around 10K. If most of the hydrogen of the universe was solid hydrogen ice crystals, cooled to 2.7K, we would get universal black body radiation, that looks like the cosmic background radiation. The 10K is based on standard earth surface conditions A vacuum will lower the measured boiling point of hydrogen.
The hydrogen will be everywhere due to the hydrogen abundance and the abundance of open space. One could also take into account the universal redshift of solid hydrogen black box radiation at any starting temperature.
First generation stars formed from hydrogen and helium, while second generation stars form from water. Once the star is ignited, heat and pressure will force hot hydrogen back into cold space. The hot hydrogen will go through the usual phase changes, with the liquid to solid hydrogen transition, also able to sub-cool below it's boiling point. Sub cooing is common to materials. The question becomes is there a semi-stable sub cooled solid hydrogen phase at 2.7K. If so it would also be a candidate for superconductivity which may helped the affect we see.
We also know that water is the most common molecule in the universe, due to hydrogen and oxygen being two of the top three atoms in the universe; plus helium. Previous discussions, early in this topic, mentioned hydrogen bonding in the earth's oceans and atmosphere adding note that can be mistaken for the CMBR. The universe also has hydrogen bonding anywhere there are/were stars that made water. If this water also makes noise it can also appears like the CMBR.
-
Our universe is mostly composed of hydrogen, which has a boiling point of around 10K.
At about 10^Pa pressure.
Actually, it varies with pressure over a range from about 13 to about 33 K.
If most of the hydrogen of the universe was solid hydrogen ice crystals, cooled to 2.7K, we would get universal black body radiation, that looks like the cosmic background radiation
No, it wouldn't.
Because of this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reststrahlen_effect
Though that's not the only problem Simplistically, there is a reason why they call it "black body" radiation and frozen hydrogen is by any sensible definition, white.
The other problem is that solid hydrogen, at 2.7K would evaporate in the vacuum of space.
You can have a look at this
https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/7110677
it will tell you how to calculate the variation of vapour pressure with temperature.
We also know that water is the most common molecule in the universe,
No, it's not.
H2 is much more common than H2O
Previous discussions, early in this topic, mentioned hydrogen bonding in the earth's oceans and atmosphere adding note that can be mistaken for the CMBR.
But those discussions were wrong.
They still are.
The question becomes is there a semi-stable sub cooled solid hydrogen phase at 2.7K.
No.
If anything, solid H2 at 2.7K in space would be superheated.
And it's an exceptionally good electrical insulator so this is tosh.
it would also be a candidate for superconductivity
which may helped the affect we see.
What effect do you mean?