[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/

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.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

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.

[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?

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?

[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/

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

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

[Bored chemist]

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?

[mad aetherist (OP)]

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.

[The Spoon]

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....

[Bored chemist]

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.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

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.

[Bored chemist]

So how come they kept getting the right answer,

Because it's the right answer.
What else would they get?

[mad aetherist (OP)]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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?