[mad aetherist (OP)]

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.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

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

[Bored chemist]

Why post the same dross again?
I already pointed out some of the more glaring errors.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

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?

[Bored chemist]

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.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

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.

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

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/

[Bored chemist]

If u do a youtube search for Herouni there is lots of other footage.

Yes.
And it all makes the same mistakes

[evan_au]

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/

[mad aetherist (OP)]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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?

[Bored chemist]

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.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

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.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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?

[mad aetherist (OP)]

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/

[The Spoon]

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?

[Bored chemist]

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?

[Bored chemist]

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)