[Kryptid]

I see that I called Robitaille Cahill by mistake in my previous post.

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

If it was true that scattering of photons from the oceans into the atmosphere resulted in a completely isotropic signal, then all telescopes everywhere should be able to see this signal because they all see the same sky. That would include the Herouni detector.

If it is argued that Herouni's detector can't detect the signal because it is too far from the ocean, then that would imply that the strength of the signal becomes weaker the further one is from the ocean. The satellites around Earth mapping the microwave background should therefore receive weaker signals when they are over land than when they are over the ocean and the maps they produce would reflect this. Land-based telescopes should also therefore see weaker signals when they are further from the oceans. That means that the South Pole Telescope (which is in the middle of Antarctica) should be seeing something quite different from AMiBA (which is on one of the Hawaiian islands).

The signal is independent of temperature variations on the globe, since the hydrogen bonding energy system is already fully occupied at earthly temperatures.

This is wrong because the strength of chemical bonds (and therefore their frequencies) does change with temperature. The more thermal energy there is in a material, the weaker the chemical bonds become. That is why sufficient heat can decompose substances. The strength (and therefore frequency) of hydrogen bonds is almost linearly correlated with temperature. Temperatures in ocean waters vary from around 272 kelvins in the Arctic Ocean to around 297 kelvins in very hot days off the coast of San Diego. That's a difference of approximately 9%, which would also represent a difference in hydrogen bond strength (and thus frequency) of a similar amount.

On the other hand, the temperature variations in the cosmic microwave background are around 0.001%. That's far smaller. So if the CMBR was caused by the oceans, those temperature variations should be much, much larger.

The strength of hydrogen bonds also varies over time as the distances between the water molecules change. Hydrogen bonds constantly form, strengthen, weaken and break in the liquid state. That would produce large frequency variations. It would be considerably more constant in ice.

Seeing as how this thread is eating up so much of my time when I have other things to do, I'm going to leave it at that.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

In any case Herouni has shown that the CMB is zero, it dont exist, its the Earth's oceans.

Have you some extraordinary evidence to go with that?In particular, can you explain why this sees the CMB, even though it's not even in orbit around the Earth?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilkinson_Microwave_Anisotropy_Probe
You really need to start reality checking your ideas.

WMAP did not measure the CMB, it measured the CMB differential.
https://creation.com/wmap-proof-of-big-bang-fails-normal-radiological-standards
How well do the claims stack up?
However, this year, an expert in radiology published two papers6,7 which prompted another8 in the journal Progress in Physics9 claiming that the analysis was flawed under standard radiological (analysis of radio waves) methodology. He argued that the maps contain no information of cosmological significance, certainly no information about the creation and history of the early universe.

WMAP was not equipped with an instrument that could measure the absolute intensity of any microwave signal it might encounter. Whereas COBE not only took a differential radiometer, it also took an absolute spectrometer—FIRAS. WMAP was only equipped with a differential radiometer, which could only measure the differences in the signals coming from any two parts of the sky. So the data can never specify the equivalent temperature of any particular region of the cosmos.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

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

If it was true that scattering of photons from the oceans into the atmosphere resulted in a completely isotropic signal, then all telescopes everywhere should be able to see this signal because they all see the same sky. That would include the Herouni detector.

It must be a matter of degree.

If it is argued that Herouni's detector can't detect the signal because it is too far from the ocean, then that would imply that the strength of the signal becomes weaker the further one is from the ocean. The satellites around Earth mapping the microwave background should therefore receive weaker signals when they are over land than when they are over the ocean and the maps they produce would reflect this. Land-based telescopes should also therefore see weaker signals when they are further from the oceans. That means that the South Pole Telescope (which is in the middle of Antarctica) should be seeing something quite different from AMiBA (which is on one of the Hawaiian islands).

If COBE is at 900 km & if the signal mostly diffracts over the edges of its horn then what COBE is directly over wouldnt matter much.
I havnt looked into BICEP & AMIBA.

The signal is independent of temperature variations on the globe, since the hydrogen bonding energy system is already fully occupied at earthly temperatures.

This is wrong because the strength of chemical bonds (and therefore their frequencies) does change with temperature. The more thermal energy there is in a material, the weaker the chemical bonds become. That is why sufficient heat can decompose substances. The strength (and therefore frequency) of hydrogen bonds is almost linearly correlated with temperature. Temperatures in ocean waters vary from around 272 kelvins in the Arctic Ocean to around 297 kelvins in very hot days off the coast of San Diego. That's a difference of approximately 9%, which would also represent a difference in hydrogen bond strength (and thus frequency) of a similar amount.

Robitaille says that COBE has gotten rid of bad frequencies & has calibrated out bad numbers at other frequencies (see below). He reckons the error aint 1 mK, it is 64 mK.
And the ocean's radiation comes from the surface which is EZ water.

On the other hand, the temperature variations in the cosmic microwave background are around 0.001%. That's far smaller. So if the CMBR was caused by the oceans, those temperature variations should be much, much larger.

See above.

The strength of hydrogen bonds also varies over time as the distances between the water molecules change. Hydrogen bonds constantly form, strengthen, weaken and break in the liquid state. That would produce large frequency variations. It would be considerably more constant in ice.

BICEP & KECK might be in a different boat what with being surrounded by ice. Ice of course aint EZ water, but the surface of ice might have some EZ water.

Seeing as how this thread is eating up so much of my time when I have other things to do, I'm going to leave it at that.

However we have covered a lot of ground. It made me have a closer look at Fresnel, & MMXs.

http://www.ptep-online.com/2009/PP-19-03.PDF
COBE: A Radiological Analysis  -- Pierre-Marie Robitaille – 2009. 
The COBE Far Infrared Absolute Spectrophotometer (FIRAS) operated from 30 to 3,000 GHz (1–95 cm1) and monitored, from polar orbit ( 900 km), the 3 K microwave background. Data released from FIRAS has been met with nearly universal admiration.  However, a thorough review of the literature reveals significant problems with  this instrument. FIRAS was designed to function as a differential radiometer, wherein  the sky signal could be nulled by the reference horn, Ical. The null point occurred at  an Ical temperature of 2.759 K. This was 34 mK above the reported sky temperature,  2.7250.001 K, a value where the null should ideally have formed. In addition, an  18 mK error existed between the thermometers in Ical, along with a drift in temperature  of 3 mK. A 5 mK error could be attributed to Xcal; while a 4 mK error was  found in the frequency scale. A direct treatment of all these systematic errors would lead to a 64 mK error bar in the microwave background temperature. The FIRAS team reported 1 mK, despite the presence of such systematic errors. But a 1 mK error does not properly reflect the experimental state of this spectrophotometer. In the end, all errors were essentially transferred into the calibration files, giving the appearance of better performance than actually obtained. The use of calibration procedures resultedincalculatedIcalemissivitiesexceeding1.3atthehigherfrequencies,whereas an emissivity of 1 constitutes the theoretical limit. While data from 30–60 GHz was once presented, these critical points are later dropped, without appropriate discussion, presumably because they reflect too much microwave power. Data obtained while the Earth was directly illuminating the sky antenna, was also discarded. From 300–660 GHz, initial FIRAS data had systematically growing residuals as frequencies increased. This suggested that the signal was falling too quickly in the Wien region of the spectrum. In later data releases, the residual errors no longer displayed such trends, as the systematic variations had now been absorbed in the calibration files. The FIRAS team also cited insufficient bolometer sensitivity, primarily attributed to detector noise, from 600–3,000 GHz. The FIRAS optical transfer function demonstrates that the instrument was not optimally functional beyond 1,200 GHz. The FIRAS team did not adequately characterize the FIRAS horn. Established practical antenna techniques strongly suggest that such a device cannot operate correctly over the frequency range proposed. Insufficient measurements were conducted on the ground to document antenna gain and field patterns as a full function of frequency and thereby determine performance. The effects of signal diffraction into FIRAS, while considering the Sun/Earth/RF shield, were neither measured nor appropriately computed. Attempts to establish antenna side lobe performance in space, at 1,500 GHz, are well outside the frequency range of interest for the microwave background (<600 GHz). Neglecting to fully evaluate FIRAS prior to the mission, the FIRAS team attempts to do so, on the ground, in highly limited fashion, with a duplicate Xcal, nearly 10 years after launch. All of these findings indicate that the satellite was not sufficiently tested and could be detecting signals from our planet. Diffraction of earthly signals into the FIRAS horn could explain the spectral frequency dependence first observed by the FIRAS team: namely, too much signal in the Jeans-Rayleigh region and not enough in the Wien region. Despite popular belief to the contrary, COBE has not proven that the microwave background originates from the universe and represents the remnants of creation.

[Bored chemist]

Read Robitaille Crothers Herouni. They explain that the horns do not exclude radiation from Earth's oceans. The only horn that managed to do that was the horn designed & built by Herouni, which was well away from any sea & was in a deep hollow on a high mountain. 

His mountain wasn't as high as my satellite.
Stop being silly, and answer the  question.
If this radiation is from the oceans, how come you can see if while in space pointing away from the Earth?
It was an interesting (if fanciful) idea before we had satellite measurements of the CMBR, but now we know it's wrong.

And teh fact that you can't see that says a lot about your ability to think logically.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

Cahill isnt an expanding Earthist. U might be confusing him with Miles Mathis.

Then what is this paper about? http://vixra.org/abs/1504.0126 He says in the abstract that the expanding Earth has been observed.

Thanx for that link. I dont remember that paper.  Its weird. It looks like Cahill has a gravity equation theory that indicates that there is a black hole inside Earth.  This ties in with his borehole anomaly stuff. And then as an add-on Cahill mentions that having a black hole could result in the creation of matter, inside Earth.  And then as an add-on mentions that such a creation of matter would lead to an expanding Earth.  This was i think in relation to an expanding Earth workshop at Erice in 2011. I think that this paper was just a sop.  Something-anything that might possibly support an expanding Earth. I dont know how Cahill jumps from his idea of a black hole in Earth to somehow that matter is made near or in a blackhole. This idea has no basis in any of his quantum foam stuff as far as i can see.
And i cant see how u can have a black hole in Earth. I believe that there can be dark matter in Earth.  But dark matter is not a proper black hole, DM simply doesnt much emit photons, it only emits dark photons (neutrinos). And it might block the passage of photons, but it wouldnt suck them in from distance.  And DM can be small or very small, but a BH cant.  Weird.

[Bored chemist]

And i cant see how u can have a black hole in Earth.

OK, so you have worked out that Cahill is talking nonsense.

That'sa good start.
Now, can you have another think about the CMBR?

If as some nut-job claims, it's emission from the Earth's oceans, how come it is still exactly the same when you are on a satellite, far from Earth, and have an antenna pointing away from the Earth and its oceans?

How come the intensity and spectrum  of that radiation remain very nearly the same no matter where you look?

[mad aetherist (OP)]

And i cant see how u can have a black hole in Earth.

OK, so you have worked out that Cahill is talking nonsense. That's a good start. Now, can you have another think about the CMBR? If as some nut-job claims, it's emission from the Earth's oceans, how come it is still exactly the same when you are on a satellite, far from Earth, and have an antenna pointing away from the Earth and its oceans?
How come the intensity and spectrum  of that radiation remain very nearly the same no matter where you look?

Firstly here below are some links to Robitaille's stuff & some of Crother's stuff, which answers your questions.
Later i will return & i will spell out the salient bits.

“The Theory of Heat Radiation ” Revisited: A Commentary on the Validity of Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Emission and Max Planck’s Claim of Universality -- Pierre-Marie Robitaille 1 and Stephen J. Crothers 2
http://www.ptep-online.com/2015/PP-41-04.PDF

Robitaille P.-M.
“Calibration of Microwave Reference Blackbodies and Targets for Use in Satellite Observations: An Analysis of Errors in Theoretical Outlooks and Testing Procedures”
http://www.ptep-online.com/2010/PP-22-01.PDF

“The Planck Satellite LFI and the Microwave Background: Importance of the 4K Reference Targets”
http://www.ptep-online.com/2010/PP-22-02.PDF

Water, Hydrogen Bonding, and the Microwave Background
http://www.ptep-online.com/2009/PP-17-L2.PDF

Global Warming and the Microwave Background
http://www.ptep-online.com/2009/PP-17-L3.PDF

COBE: A Radiological Analysis Pierre-Marie Robitaille
http://www.ptep-online.com/2009/PP-19-03.PDF

On the Nature of the Microwave Background at the Lagrange 2 Point.
http://www.ptep-online.com/2007/PP-11-11.PDF

COBE and WMAP: Signal Analysis by Fact or Fiction? by Stephen J. Crothers
http://www.rxiv.org/pdf/1101.0009v1.pdf

[Bored chemist]

Never mind citing his whole back catalog.
Answer the question.
How does a dish  that's nowhere near Earth and pointing away from it see the ocean?

[Bored chemist]

I had a look at the last of those papers.
This "The assignment of a 2.725 K temperature to the Penzias and Wilson signal constitutes a violation of Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Emission [30, 31]. The proper assignment of thermal temperatures requires, according to Kirchhoff [31], equilibrium with an enclosure [30]. This is a condition which cannot be met by the
universe. Therefore, the absolute magnitude of the temperature should be considered erroneous;"
is factually incorrect

This " Not a single artifact has been reported over the
entire frequency range [8] which could be attributed to
an earthly signal of oceanic origin. At the same time,
it is well established that water is a powerful absorber
of microwave radiation. Consequently, it is reasonable
to expect that the oceans cannot be microwave silent
relative to this problem;"
 is baloney.
Of course you don't see stuff from the Earth or the ocean- you point the antenna at the sky.


You are going to have to come up with something much better than that

[mad aetherist (OP)]

I had a look at the last of those papers. This
"The assignment of a 2.725 K temperature to the Penzias and Wilson signal constitutes a violation of Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Emission [30, 31]. The proper assignment of thermal temperatures requires, according to Kirchhoff [31], equilibrium with an enclosure [30]. This is a condition which cannot be met by the universe. Therefore, the absolute magnitude of the temperature should be considered erroneous;"
is factually incorrect.

No it sounds correct to me.  Its a bit like the science mafia's silly million deg temp assigned to the Sun's corona when it is more like 5000 deg.

This " Not a single artifact has been reported over the entire frequency range [8] which could be attributed to an earthly signal of oceanic origin. At the same time, it is well established that water is a powerful absorber of microwave radiation. Consequently, it is reasonable to expect that the oceans cannot be microwave silent relative to this problem;"
 is baloney.  Of course you don't see stuff from the Earth or the ocean- you point the antenna at the sky. You are going to have to come up with something much better than that. 

Robitaille's paper has tons of wordage re the diffraction of Earth's atmospheric radiation over the COBE shields.  I had a slow re-read of -- COBE: A Radiological Analysis.  http://www.ptep-online.com/2009/PP-19-03.PDF  What a wonderfull work, 39 pages full of info.   I could quote the best bits, except that these would themselves fill 10 pages.  But here below is a part of 2.2.5......

The testing of the COBE FIRAS antenna pattern was inadequate. Proper tests were never performed to document the interaction of the FIRAS horn with the Sun/Earth/RFI shield. Furthermore, the team conducted no computational modeling of the horn-shield interaction as a function of frequency. This type of documentation would have been central in establishing the reliability of the FIRAS findings. Without it, the FIRAS team did not eliminate the possibility that the Earth itself is producing the microwave background. The RF shield on COBE could accomplish little more than prevent terrestrial/solar photons, in the visible or near-infrared range, from directly illuminating the dewar which contains FIRAS. The central issue for the Sun/Earth shield appears to be the conservation of helium in the dewar, not the elimination of RF interference [87]. The shield is not corrugated [81, p.657– 659] and has no special edges to prevent diffraction in the far infrared. Given that the FIRAS horn is broadband, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to build a good RF shield for such a device. The FIRAS team has not established that an adequate shield was constructed to prevent RF interference from the Earth. The Sun/Earth shield simply prevents direct heating of the dewar, by visible or near infrared light [87]. They comment:
 “a large external conical shield protects the cryostat and instruments from direct radiation from the Sun and the Earth. The Sun never illuminates the instruments or cryostat, but the COBE orbit inclination combined with the inclination of the Earth’s equator to the ecliptic do allow the Earth limb to rise a few degrees above the plane of the instrument and sunshade apertures during about one-sixth of the orbit for one-fourth of the year. During this period, the sky horn could not be cooled to 2.7 K because of the Earth limb heating” [42].
Nowhere, in the COBE literature, is the RF performance of the “sunshade” analyzed.

[Bored chemist]

No it sounds correct to me. 

Yes, but your judgement is known to be poor, and this

The proper assignment of thermal temperatures requires, according to Kirchhoff [31], equilibrium with an enclosure [30].

is still factually incorrect.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

No it sounds correct to me.

Yes, but your judgement is known to be poor, and this

The proper assignment of thermal temperatures requires, according to Kirchhoff [31], equilibrium with an enclosure [30].

is still factually incorrect.

I think that u cant have blackbody unless there is radiative equilibrium (not conductive equilibrium).  And u find such equilibrium inside a box that has perfect insulation (such a box doesnt exist)(ie equilibrium doesnt exist). 
Or u can get close to equilibrium & proper blackbody if u have a good blackbody (that doesnt havtabe in a box). 
But the supposed CMBR was they say somehow made by hydrogen atoms -- an impossibility -- an atom cant emit that kind of radiation, it takes a lattice to do that (praps hydrogen gas could do it).  And gases & liquids cant act black (except for EZ water when in an atomic shockwave). 

Unless u have equilibrium then the supposed temps are not temps at all, the real temps are something else (probly colder).  For example the Sun's corona they say is up near a million K, whilst we know it is more like 5000 K.
Re the 2.73 K CMBR, firstly this doesnt exist, it is Earthshine. Secondly any such temp, eg 1.73 K, will not be true unless from a blackbody, which it wont be. Thirdly the CBR will be one day found to be say 0.1 K, when they find a way of removing Earthshine, & as i say, the 0.1 K will not be the true temp anyhow, the true temp will be lower than that (koz it aint from a blackbody).

[Bored chemist]

I think that u cant have blackbody unless there is radiative equilibrium

You may wish to discuss this view with some burned toast.

Let us know if you plan to learn some science any time.

[Bored chemist]

But the supposed CMBR was they say somehow made by hydrogen atoms -- an impossibility -- an atom cant emit that kind of radiation,

Yes it can.

it takes a lattice to do that (praps hydrogen gas could do it). 

No it doesn't.

And gases & liquids cant act black

Yes they do.

(except for EZ water

That's a myth.

Re the 2.73 K CMBR, firstly this doesnt exist, it is Earthshine.

Repeating this does not stop it being false.

Unless u have equilibrium then the supposed temps are not temps at all,

Non-equilibrium temperatures are still temperatures.

For example the Sun's corona they say is up near a million K, whilst we know it is more like 5000 K.

No, the evidence shows it's about a million degrees.

Thirdly the CBR will be one day found to be say 0.1 K,

How?
That would require the evidence to change.

when they find a way of removing Earthshine,

They did.
They now measure it from space.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

Thirdly the CBR will be one day found to be say 0.1 K,

How? That would require the evidence to change.

when they find a way of removing Earthshine,

They did. They now measure it from space.

COBE was in a 900 km orbit, & thusly suffered Earthshine.  The newer ones (is it Planck?) are out at L2 at 1,500,000 km, & here if careful they can avoid Earthshine (& avoid Earthshine reflexion from the Moon), & at L2 km they measured i think 0.01 K (i havnt read the reports)(it might have been 0.1 K).

[mad aetherist (OP)]

Its worth another look at Herouni's stuff & CMB stuff.

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]

at L2 km they measured i think 0.01 K (i havnt read the reports)(it might have been 0.1 K).

When you read them you will
be doing science and
discover that you are wrong.

Hurry up + do it.

[Kryptid]

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1502.01589.pdf

Page 55.

[Bored chemist]

For the benefit of those who are blind because they will not see:
"Our results are in very good agreement with the 2013 analysis of the Planck nominal-mission temperature data, but with increased precision."
and "we find
T0 = 2.722 ± 0.027 K Planck TT+lowP+BAO, (83a)
T0 = 2.718 ± 0.021 K Planck TT, TE, EE+lowP+BAO, (83b)
and similar results are obtained with recfast. This is in excellent agreement with the COBE/FIRAS measurement, T0 =
2.7255±0.0006 K "

But we hardly needed to look up the data.
If this new observation had given a value anything like 0.1K it would have been massive news.
People would be on national news and people would be talking about Nobel prizes.

COBE was in a 900 km orbit, & thusly suffered Earthshine.

That makes as little sense as saying that, even though it is underground, my cellar suffers from sunshine.

You just point the antenna away from Earth; it's not complicated.
Antennae are known to be directional- that's why you have to line up your dish to get satellite telly. Nothing in the videos you cited can change that fact, can it?

L2 km they measured i think 0.01 K (i havnt read the reports)(it might have been 0.1 K).

Let's just think about what you said there;
"i havnt read the reports" "they measured i think 0.01 K "

So, even though you accept that you haven't seen the data, you "imagined" a figure of 0.01K and thought that was a good enough justification to post it here.

Do you see why we are laughing at you?

[mad aetherist (OP)]

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1502.01589.pdf

Page 55.

I will answer this in my Herouni thread.