Cosmic acceleration rediscovered

George Dishman wrote:
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" wrote in message
...

George Dishman wrote:

e. & o.e. It's too late and I haven't time to check
this one.

"greywolf42" wrote in message
m...


George Dishman wrote in message
...

[snip]


And again you evade the real physics, the CMBR gives
us a way to test tired light theories and there is
nothing wrong with Ned's explanation of how it can be
used.

George, please be a bit more careful. As greywolf correctly
keeps pointing out, we can only test tired light theories
using the CMBR if we assume additionally that the CMBR
has an external source and does not simply originate in the
antenna.

For you and me, this is not an assumption, but a well-established
fact. But as long as he denies that fact, you should pay
attention to this.


I think I am but the thread has split so in one we
are considering the analysis assuming it is external
to the detector while in another series of posts we
are looking at his suggestion that it is internal.

Well, you are doing that. But apparently he is not aware
of that and keeps confusing that chain of argument with
others.

Perhaps starting entirely new threads for both topics
would be a good idea...


[snip]


Electron vortex noise from the aether. A local effect
due to electrons bound in hydrogen gas.


Now you claim the signal arises in the antenna so
apparently you think the COBE and WMAP antennas are
made of hydrogen gas.

LOL! I missed that gem.


It gets better, in another reply to you he just said:

"greywolf42" wrote in message
. ..

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message
...

Why is the spectrum that of a blackbody?

Because it arises from the motions of the corpuscles in the aether.


We have had "electrons bound in hydrogen gas", "all
matter" and now "corpuscles in the aether".

I.e., he can't make up his mind about an alternative
explanation for the data, but nevertheless he is 100%
sure that the accepted explanation is wrong...


Bye,
Bjoern

Joseph Lazio wrote in message
...
"g" == greywolf42 writes:

g Not one CMBR device -- to my knowledge -- has ever attempted an
g isolation test. That is, a test to determine whether the signal
g was actually produced "within" the antenna -- or whether it had an
g external source. For example, I know for a fact that Penzias and
g Wilson did not do this test. They *did* cut out the antenna
g connection.

Right, so in the case of the P&W horn antenna, that means that the
signal must be generated "upstream" of the input of the antenna
backend.

The antenna is a single unit. The "backend" is electronics.

g But they did not put their antenna in an isolation chamber.

I'm not sure if that was/is logistically possible.

LOL! The "impossibility" claim surfaces again!

"Logistically impossible" is a hilarious new term. Which simply means that
they didn't do it.

In any event, I'm
trying to figure out if one would expect a signal in such a case.
Given the shape of the P&W horn, would one expect a signal at the
backend.

The signal would have no dependence on shape ... unless the source is
external to the antenna.

To the extent that I understand your suggestion (and I am
not an RF engineer), it seems to me that the antenna would not radiate
into the backend but out its front.

The antenna itself (as a unit) is not radiating the EM fields.

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}

Joseph Lazio wrote in message
...
"g" == greywolf42 writes:

g Joseph Lazio wrote in message
g ...

[Regarding Reber's assertion that the CMB arises within radio telescopes.]

g One doesn't have to have a theory for the mechanism, in order to
g experimentally identify the difference between an internal signal
g and an external signal.

I just read the Penzias & Wilson (1965) paper and an associated
Penzias & Wilson (1965) paper. From that, my understanding is that
they did distinguish between an internal signal and an external
signal. Specifically, they were able to show that, whatever the
signal is, it must be entering through the antenna.

g A completely false assertion. Because your claim is based on the
g following distortion:

It is not generated within the electronics at the backend of the
antenna.

g ROTFLMAO! No one claimed that it was generated in the electronics
g that are attached to the antenna! The point is that it is
g generated by the electrons contained *IN* the antenna.

My statement may be false, but I made it in good faith based on my
reading of their papers.

Your "faith" interfered with your eyes or your mentation. Why not try
science, instead of Faith?

Moreover, your response doesn't address my
objections. Why are the electrons within the antenna itself special?

They aren't special.

Why don't the electrons in the backend generate emission by the same
mechanism?

They probably do. But they don't give rise to a signal in the mechanism.
That's the function of an antenna.

I also don't understand how this would explain observations of
the temperature of the CMBR in other galaxies

g Since we aren't in other galaxies, there are no such observations.
g Claims otherwise are based on circular logic.

I'm disinclined to believe proofs by assertion. In lieu of some
concrete statements based on papers cited to you, I stand by my
objection.

g How many observations have we done with detectors located in
g other galaxies?

Steve Carlip has now cited the paper twice.

So where did *you* get your information, Joseph?

Now could you please answer the question? Or don't you know (i.e. did you
actually read a reference, or are you just parrotting again) ? I'm really
looking forward to learning how we got a detector into another galaxy, and
got the signal back already.

nor how it would explain the SZ effect. (...)

g Quite simply, the claimed observation "SZ effect" is an artifact of
g circular theories and dedicated theorists. [...]

You haven't demonstrated to me either that you understand the S-Z
effect nor that you understand signal processing. Therefore, I
stand by objections.

g The classic special plead evasion.

g I don't have to demonstrate to you. If you can't address my
g specific comments about the effect and the signals, you have no
g scientific support for your position.

As far as I can tell, your only objection is that you claim that
COBE's result is below what you believe to be below its physical
resolution.

That is *an* objection that I have for claims made based on "results" that
are below the physical resolution of COBE and FIRAS instruments.

However, I've posted several other objections to the S-Z claims.

Others have already addressed how this is not the case,

Except all they did was to claim that it *is not the case.* They never
provided any backup.

it is well known that one can make specific kinds of measurements
below the resolution limit of an instrument,

Joseph, *why* do you keep repeating this silly statement? Many people make
such claims, but it is not valid science or statistics. You can easily show
me wrong, by directing me to a statistics treatise on how to perform
measurements below the resolution of the instrument used.

and COBE's measurements
aren't directly relevant to the S-Z effect. Feel free to try agin.

I never said they were.

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}

wrote in message
...
greywolf42 wrote:

[...]

Sure. Please provide the specific citation that you claim is an
observation of CMBR temperature in other galaxies, and I'll
point out the circularity.

I provided such a reference: Molaro et al., Astronomy & Astrophysics 381,
L64-L67 (2002). You responded that you hadn't read it.

Yes, I responded that I hadn't read it ... yet. I also stated: "Text not
yet available without membership. Will wait for the next library run."
That was on December 14th. And I haven't been to the library, yet.

However, my request was to Bjoern and Joseph. Who seem to have the habit of
parroting claims that they haven't checked themselves (see the past
exchanges on Zel'dovich and MTW -- where both Bjoern and Joseph claimed that
MTW is only a "summary" of Zel'dovich).

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...80ea678b332834

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...42e81e40a679dc

I was curious about the reference on which they are basing their claims,
this time. I don't want to have to make three separate trips to the library
on this issue.

Please provide the specific citations that *you* claim involve
circularity. You must have some ... surely you wouldn't claim
circularity without having a particular citation in mind,
would you?

Sure. But since the original claim is that temperature *was* measured, I
wanted to see if the Big Bangers even knew their own references.

My prior information was a reference to Ned Wright's site (Not surprisingly
another missive from Joseph and Bjoern.):
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...2777f9adb50416

But they hadn't read any other references. If Ned said it, it was good
enough for them.

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}

In article ,
greywolf42 wrote:
As far as I can tell, your only objection is that you claim that
COBE's result is below what you believe to be below its physical
resolution.

That is *an* objection that I have for claims made based on "results" that
are below the physical resolution of COBE and FIRAS instruments.

Since the instrument that took the data I referred to was the DMR, nto
the FIRAS, why do you think using hte FIRAS sensitivity (not
resolution) is valid?

it is well known that one can make specific kinds of measurements
below the resolution limit of an instrument,

Joseph, *why* do you keep repeating this silly statement? Many people make
such claims, but it is not valid science or statistics. You can easily show
me wrong, by directing me to a statistics treatise on how to perform
measurements below the resolution of the instrument used.

This is the problem with the incorrect terminology used by
greywolf. The issue is the sensitivity of the radiometer, not the
resolution. The resolution of the DMR is 7 degrees. The sensitivity is
dependant on the exposure time. And the one year and longer
measurements of the DMR have sensitivity limits in the microKelvin.

"greywolf42" wrote in message
...
Joseph Lazio wrote in message
...
"g" == greywolf42 writes:

g Joseph Lazio wrote in message
g ...

[Regarding Reber's assertion that the CMB arises within radio
telescopes.]

g One doesn't have to have a theory for the mechanism, in order to
g experimentally identify the difference between an internal signal
g and an external signal.

I just read the Penzias & Wilson (1965) paper and an associated
Penzias & Wilson (1965) paper. From that, my understanding is that
they did distinguish between an internal signal and an external
signal. Specifically, they were able to show that, whatever the
signal is, it must be entering through the antenna.

g A completely false assertion. Because your claim is based on the
g following distortion:

It is not generated within the electronics at the backend of the
antenna.

g ROTFLMAO! No one claimed that it was generated in the electronics
g that are attached to the antenna! ...

Actually you did, though indirectly. You said at
one time that this radiation was produced by _all_
matter, and that is consistent with what you say
again below.

g The point is that it is
g generated by the electrons contained *IN* the antenna.

In the second photograph you can see someone *IN* the
antenna.

http://www.bell-labs.com/user/apenzi...awfordhill.gif

Since you draw no distinction between this and the
spaceborne measurements, I have previously assumed
you meant the electrons in the metal of which the
antenna is made.

Incidentally, going back to your comments about
putting the system in a screened room, these give
an idea of the size of the antenna:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank...es/dp65co.html

http://store.aip.org//OA_MEDIA/esva/penzias_arno_c3.jpg

Dismantling that and taking it to a test house would
be entirely impractical even if such a facility
existed at the time.

My statement may be false, but I made it in good faith based on my
reading of their papers.

Your "faith" interfered with your eyes or your mentation. Why not try
science, instead of Faith?

Moreover, your response doesn't address my
objections. Why are the electrons within the antenna itself special?

They aren't special.

Why don't the electrons in the backend generate emission by the same
mechanism?

They probably do. But they don't give rise to a signal in the mechanism.
That's the function of an antenna.

That's not true. The purpose of the antenna is
twofold, firstly to match the impedance of free
space to that of the feed cables or waveguide and
secondly to gather incoming radiation from a larger
aperture.

The incoming radiation is converted to a measurable
signal on at the terminating impedance of the down-
feed which would be something like the base-emitter
resistance of the front-end transistors depending
on the technology used.

The point is that the electrons in the cable or
waveguide would produce signal just as much as
those in the material forming the antenna or even
more since they are coupled directly to the receiver.
Look again at the image of the inside of the horn
and consider how much of the omni-directional
radiation from an electron in the metal would leave
through the aperture.

http://www.bell-labs.com/user/apenzi...awfordhill.gif

Remember the design is to focus on a small part of
the sky so radiation that wasn't within a small angle
of the reflected ray at the same point will be rejected.

George

George Dishman wrote:

"When y_max is not infinitesimal, one gets a Rayleigh-
Jeans low frequency tail rising to a peak corresponding
approximately to a graybody with temperature e^(-ymax)T*,
a Wien high frequency tail corresponding approximately
to a graybody with temperature T*, and an I_f
proportional to f^-1 behavior between these two tails."

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/Stolmar_Errors.html

The term y_max refers to an practical limit Stolmar
included in his Basic program to limit the run time
and should be infinite. If you set T* to a temperature
equivalent to the spectrum of your electron radiation
you get a f^-1 curve from the peak to DC.

George

I have shown that the observed so called cosmic microwave
background radiation "blackbody curve" could be reconstructed
with photon energy loss with plausible stellar surface
temperatures and densities and surface areas if the
coverage of more distant galaxies is considered.

Indeed there are no errors in Stolmar physics!
Aladar
http://stolmarphysics.com

Hi Aladar,

Happy New Year!

wrote in message
oups.com...
snip

Indeed there are no errors in Stolmar physics!

There are none so blind ...

George

"g" == greywolf42 writes:

g Joseph Lazio wrote in message
g ...

g Not one CMBR device -- to my knowledge -- has ever attempted an
g isolation test. That is, a test to determine whether the signal
g was actually produced "within" the antenna -- or whether it had an
g external source. For example, I know for a fact that Penzias and
g Wilson did not do this test. They *did* cut out the antenna
g connection.
Right, so in the case of the P&W horn antenna, that means that the
signal must be generated "upstream" of the input of the antenna
backend.

g The antenna is a single unit. The "backend" is electronics.

I'm not sure of the point you are trying to make. I'm using standard
RF terminology.

In any event, I'm trying to figure out if one would expect a signal
in such a case. Given the shape of the P&W horn, would one expect
a signal at the backend.

g The signal would have no dependence on shape ... unless the source
g is external to the antenna.

Effectively it is. Only the surface of the antenna can radiate.

To the extent that I understand your suggestion (and I am not an RF
engineer), it seems to me that the antenna would not radiate into
the backend but out its front.

g The antenna itself (as a unit) is not radiating the EM fields.

So if the antenna is not radiating in the RF, what's the point of
putting it in an isolation chamber?

--
Lt. Lazio, HTML police | e-mail:
No means no, stop rape. | http://patriot.net/%7Ejlazio/
sci.astro FAQ at http://sciastro.astronomy.net/sci.astro.html

What do you mean?
What errors you discovered?

Cheers!
Aladar
http://stolmarphysics.com