0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 04/02/2019 10:04:22Quote from: Bored chemist on 04/02/2019 07:31:20Quote from: mad aetherist on 03/02/2019 21:10:17 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...
Quote from: Bored chemist on 04/02/2019 07:31:20Quote from: mad aetherist on 03/02/2019 21:10:17 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.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 03/02/2019 21:10:17 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.
So much good stuff in his videos.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 04/02/2019 20:26:29So much good stuff in his videos.If you like sci fi.
... (Australia)
https://www.facebook.com/stephen.crothers.7?epa=SEARCH_BOX
So, no actual science then?
Quote from: Bored chemist on 09/02/2019 00:42:35So, 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.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 09/02/2019 00:58:44Quote from: Bored chemist on 09/02/2019 00:42:35So, 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.
I look forward to your proof that this was conspiracy
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.
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
So, they quote the noise figure for their 'scope as 2.6KAnd then the pretend that you can use such an instrument to measure the CMBR which corresponds to a temperature of 2.7K
Quote from: mad aetherist on 12/02/2019 08:07:22English version of i think 1988 paper.http://elib.sci.am/2007_1/10_1_2007.pdfWell, let's have a look..."The Large Antenna of ROT is the new type [1]. Its Main mirror (54m) is fixedin ground and has hemispheric shape. Using aperture is 32m in diameter (surfaceusing factor 0,6). The spherical aberrations of Main mirror are recompensed byspecial shape of Secondary (Small) mirror"How new is that?Not veryi think it's a simplified version of one of these.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klevtsov%E2%80%93Cassegrain_telescopeAnd 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_Telescopefor a start.And what else do they say?Well there's this "The main advantages of ROT Antenna are the highest accuracy of mirrorsurfaces (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 2.6KAnd then the pretend that you can use such an instrument to measure the CMBR which corresponds to a temperature of 2.7KFat 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.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 12/02/2019 20:31:49So, they quote the noise figure for their 'scope as 2.6KAnd then the pretend that you can use such an instrument to measure the CMBR which corresponds to a temperature of 2.7KNice catch. That's like trying to measure the speed of a snail using a police radar gun.
Prof Pierre-Marie Robitaille -- re P Herouni's antenna & the Death of the Big Bang.