Cosmic acceleration rediscovered

George Dishman wrote in message
...

"greywolf42" wrote in message
...
George Dishman wrote in message
...
snip

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

Another pathetic lie. It is produced by electrons. There is more to
'all matter' than simply electrons.

But, unless we are discussing plasma or neutronium,
one generally assumes all matter contains electrons,

Pathetically disingenuous.

and since I later said:

snip
I have previously assumed
you meant the electrons in the metal of which the
antenna is made.

and you agree:

That is what I have repeatedly stated.

you should have realised that I was not suggesting
anything other than your own views. You seem
determined to make any sort of conversation as
unpleasant as possible.

If that was the case, you would not have felt the need to add the strawman
about radiation being produced by "all matter" (which includes bare protons,
neutrons, mesons .....). Nor would you have felt the need to quibble so
about it.


Keep in mind, during the rest of this post, that you are arguing against the
need to do a simple (yes/no)experimental test of whether the source of the
signal is external to the antenna ... because your theory states that the
source of the radiation is external to the antenna.

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.

The fact that one might consider it "difficult" is irrelevant to the
issue.
How difficult do you think it is to build a light structure of metal,
sufficient to block microwaves?

P&W could have stretched "chicken wire" mesh over the
aperture of the horn and perhaps, if nobody had
suggested the CMBR, they might have got round to doing
that.

But no one has -- at least since P&W.

Putting it in a proper screened room would have been
prohibitive.

LOL! Note that I just discussed building a sufficient screen around the
horn. This is simple.

The one I use is thick steel panels bolted
together every few inches with copper gasketing on all
joints and a concrete base to prevent gaps due to stress.
It's only about 12 feet square, 8 feet high and for
in-house (pre-test) use only as it doesn't meet test-house
standards, but moving it from one building to another a
few years ago cost over 200k.

Pathetically disingenuous. Such a heavy-duty apparatus is not needed for
microwaves at the P-W wavelengths.

You should also remember P&W weren't running a funded
experiment to find the CMBR, they were trying to get
rid of an annoying source of interference in another
project.

How does that excuse a sloppy experimental effort? How does that excuse the
entire physics community ignoring the issue, 40 years later?

The situation for COBE and WMAP is quite different as
these were funded and had to be tested.

But they weren't tested, either. That's the point.

I don't have
time to go through these myself but if you haven't
already read them, they might be useful.

I've read them-- they never did such a test, either. Which is what I
already told you.

I've given
a lot of references but they all relate to calibration
and testing so may help resolve some of the discussions
in the group about that aspect:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/bi...pJ...420..457F

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/ApJ.../38652/38652.h
tml


http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/np...2E470%2E%2E653
K&db_key=AST


http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/np...9%2E%2E168M&db
_key=INST


http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/np...9%2E%2E180S&db
_key=INST

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/bi...pJ...391..466B

All are from

http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/...bliography.cfm

Sorry, not a one addresses the issue. Why do you feel the need to randomly
throw out references that you haven't read? Do you feel that this
accomplishes anything?


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

That's not a *purpose*. This is how to obtain the second.

and
secondly to gather incoming radiation from a larger
aperture.

The shape of the antenna should reflect all the
incident signal into the feed,

If the signal comes from outside the antenna.

but if the impedance
isn't matched a fraction of that power will be
reflected back into space.

If the signal comes from outside the antenna.

There's no point having
a large dish or horn unless all the power it collects
reaches the receiver.

If the signal comes from outside the antenna.

Why do you feel that it is appropriate to simply ignore my prior responses,
and simply parrot the false statements that you've made before?

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

No, they would not produce a "signal", unless that signal had something
to read it.

What do you mean? The thing that "reads" the signal
is the first amplifier stage and specifically the
input impedance of the receiver. It cannot
differentiate between an external (cosmic) signal
coming down the cable and something generated in
the antenna or even in the feeder itself, the first
stage amplifies the sum of them all.

Not if the antenna has been disconnected.

or even
more since they are coupled directly to the receiver.

And any such signal is calibrated out of the device -- when they pull
the plug on the antenna.

In which case there would have been nothing
detected when the cable and antenna were
reconnected.

That is the point. There would be no signal if the antenna were isolated
from the cosmos -- IF the signal is of cosmic origin.

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

Did you have a point to make? ...

Two points. Imagine the insulation within the downfeed
cable is transparent. What you see looking into the end
is a metal central conductor and metal braid. Looking
from the feed point of the antenna, depending on the
geometry, you may see all metal or you may see some
air through the aperture. At most, the solid angle
covered by metal is the same as the cable or perhaps
it would be less.

I meant, did you have a *relevant* point?

The second point gets into an area where i'm not sure
of your view, it hasn't been covered that I've seen.
Imagine for a moment they covered the aperture with
the same metal sheet that covers the rest of the
inside of the horn. You now have the feed looking
into a cavity in which radiation from the electrons
is emitted from the metal surface. Now conventionally
that radiation would bounces around in the cavity

Radiation from *where*, conventionally?

with
some small absorption because the antenna works only
because it is a good reflector of the incoming signal.
However, you might suggest that, since the electrons
emit this radiation, they also absorb it.

No, I wouldn't suggest that. What is this focus on strawmen that you have?

That would
appear as a significant loss against the calculated
gain so I don't think that would be your view but
correct me if I'm wrong. Assuming the radiation is
just bouncing around, opening the aperture would
allow it to be radiated into free space so depress
the levels inside the horn compared to a closed cavity.

Did you have a *relevant* point?

The question then is where do you get your intensity
levels.

??? From the experiment.

It seems to me you at least have to find the
solid angle covered by the emitting material and
multiply by the electron brightness and then show
that matches the black body intensity.

Wrong, as usual. You are still fixated on external sources.

consider how much of the omni-directional
radiation from an electron in the metal would leave
through the aperture

... How would we know?

You would need to get the plans of the horn I guess
but showing your ideas can produce the observed
intensity is your task, not mine.

I meant, how would we know how much would leave, experimentally. You are
still fixated on standard theory.

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.

But the design is valid only for the theory under which it is performed.
And in this case, it is simply wrong.

So are you saying the metal in the antenna doesn't
reflect the incoming signal into the feed?

No.

I suspect
I am not understanding your point here, which bit
of antenna design theory are you saying is wrong?

I'm not disupting a single iota of antenna theory, for external sources.
Your strawmen are wasted.

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

Greg Hennessy wrote in message
...
In article ,
greywolf42 wrote:

Figure 2 of Molaro et al show their probability density function for
the Teff from the Value of N(CII*)/N(CII). There is essentially zero
probability below Teff of 6K, ruleing out the null hypothesis.

Strike one.

LOL! Figure 2 has nothing to do with the measurements (as I described
below -- and you snipped).

The text of figure 2 is:
Monte Carlo simulations of the probability density function of \te\,
for the value of $N$(\ion{C}{ii}$^\ast$)/$N$(\ion{C}{ii}) =
$3.8\times10^{-3}$. The mean value is \te\, = $12.1^{+1.7}_{-3.2}$ K
[the $\frac{1}{2}(1-p)$ and $\frac{1}{2}(1+p)$ quantiles were used to
estimate the uncertainty interval at $p = 0.95$]. The \tr from the
standard Big Bang cosmological model is marked with a vertical dashed
line.

Try translating your cut-and-pastes.

It is a calculation of the effective temperature given the observed
value of N(CII*)/N(CII). Given that the plot uses the measurements it
is a lie to claim it has nothing to do with the measurements.

LOL! But it *doesn't* have anything to do with measurements. Molaro admits
it. It's simply a bayesian, monte-carlo simulation. The "upper bound"
value of 14.6 K is tacked onto an arbitrary function.

For example, the "upper bound" calculation of the mass of a neutrino was
(for a while) equal to around 1 eV (IIRC). Tacking on a monte-carlo
simulation of the above sort would give a distribution. But it would not
be based on measurements at all.

It is standard to weight the set of measures by the inverse of their
variance when calculating a weighted mean. This is more of that pesky
Data Analysis 101 people keep reminding you of. The formulas for
calculating the weighted mean and the associated variances are given
in tons of places, one off the top of a google search is
http://rkb.home.cern.ch/rkb/AN16pp/node296.html.

But the formula on that page doesn't apply here.

Classic special plead.

That's not a special plead. It would be a proof-by-assertion, if I hadn't
explained why. But I *did* explain why. In fact, I explained why in the
*prior* post.

Molaro provides two data points and error values for those points.

No. Molaro provides two experimental values, with standard deviations for
those values. Individual data points *never* have "error values."

The
web page I referenced shows how to combine a set of data points into a
weighted mean. Hence the page does apply.

The page you referenced included some cautions -- which you ignored. (See
statement immediately below).

Note that the page begins with the statement:
"If are several independent unbiased measurements of a physical
quantity ....." And the second value is not an independent measurement.
It was "corrected". Twice. Based on the Model of Molaro.

The two measurements are one measurement from the VLT and one from
Keck.

You are incorrect. The "Keck" value has been "corrected" -- twice -- by
Molaro.

There are multiple velocity structures in the quasar, and the
different components will have different strengths. The measurements
are independant, even if scaling factors

Even if scaling factors "what?"


Did you happen to notice that the two values are
inconsistent? And are significantly farther apart than the claimed
standard deviations on each value?

The values are somewhat discrepant given their claimed standard
deviations.

5 to 6 standard deviations is a bit more than "somewhat" discrepant. Now,
what does your statistics 101 text say about discrepant results?

However underestimating errors is not uncommon.

It certainly should be. However, if you are trying to wriggle out by
claiming that one or the other (or both) simply underestimated their error,
then you are dead in the water anyway. For the claim of +- 0.08 is still
hogwash.

And they are .62 away from each other (2.26-1.64). Over 5 standard
deviations, either way. Did you notice? The above formulas cannot be
used with inconsistent results.

Classic special plead.

LOL! Again, if I had provided no support that would be a
proof-by-assertion, not a special plead. Did you ever take a logic course?
For future reference, a special plead would be something on the order of "(I
/ he /professionals) know better." Or "You don't understand."

The formulas can in fact be used with inconsistent results.

Hmmm. Not according to my statistics 101 book (Young, p 109):

"In using equations (14.13) and (14.16)*, one should keep in mind that the
variance associated with each x_i also provides a means of testing whether
the values are CONSISTENT in a statistical sense. Suppose, for example,
that on two different days one makes measurements on the melting temperature
of a certain alloy. One day's result yields the value 736 +- 1 C, and the
other day's result is 749 +- 2 C, where in each case the figures after the
+- sign are standard deviations. The difference is very much larger than
the standard deviations.** The difference is very much larger thatn the
standard deviation in either result; and the probability of this occurring
by chance is infinitesimally small. Thus we suspect that in one or both
determinations there is a SYSTEMATIC error. ..." [italics in original as
all caps in ASCII]

*{the ones you and Molaro and your website have used}
** {Serendipitously the same degree as in our specific case: six standard
deviations"}

In fact if
there were more data you could estimate the standard deviations from
the amount the data differed from each other.

Excuse me, but no "data" was actually provided in this paper. Only an
experimental value and a standard deviation.

And if you use a the weighted mean of 1.92+- 0.08 then the two values
are within about 4 sigma.

LOL! They are beyond 5 sigma of *each other*. The "mean" was not measured.

And if the sigma was about 0.12 instead of
0.08 for the weighted mean, the values would be consistent.

ROTFLMAO! But it isn't! And they aren't.

You've left out the assumption that the two values are consistent (not
more than 0.11 apart). But that's not the case, here.

No such assumption is needed. You pulled that out of your hat.

Nope. I pulled it out of a standard statistics 101 book. But I even went
so far as to provide you with an example, so that you could learn something:

Let's assume for the sake
of simple demonstration that the error bars are the result of two
measurements, each, in Molaro and P&W.

Why would I assume something dumb like that? The error bars came from
a fit to a single spectrum.

How many measurements were in that "single spectrum?"

Then we have four actual data points
taken (2 in Molaro, and 2 in P&W).

There do not in fact exist four actual data points, so your
calculation is trash.

LOL! Keep those eyes closed. Otherwise, you might learn something.

We know that the averaged value of those
two points in Molaro come to 2.26, and have a SD of 0.12.

We do not. That is not how Molaro came up with the error value.

How do you know? Molaro didn't tell us how he came up with the value.

{large, "invisible" snip made by Greg}

Looks like your reference page is in error.

{Another "invisible" snip of the major part of my comment made by Greg}

You make up numbers, find a contradiction, and conclude that the
reference page is in error?

You make an "invisible" snip, to make it look like my comment is referring
to something other than it is? Then perform *another* "invisible" snip on
my comment to make it mean something other than I stated?

Bye again troll......

{snip to the end}

Now why do you think that Molaro et al simply ignored the issue of the
"other" sources of energy, rather than dealing with it?

They did deal with it. Page three, paragraphs 3, 4, 5, and 6.

Hmmm. I presume you mean page L66?

They deal specifically with UV flux (paragraph 3), infrared photons from
dust (paragraph 4), particulate collisions (paragraph 5), and electron
collisions (paragraph 6).

None of those are "other" than UV, dust, or particulate collisions.

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

In article ,
greywolf42 wrote:
LOL! Figure 2 has nothing to do with the measurements (as I described
below -- and you snipped).

The text of figure 2 is:
Monte Carlo simulations of the probability density function of \te\,
for the value of $N$(\ion{C}{ii}$^\ast$)/$N$(\ion{C}{ii}) =
$3.8\times10^{-3}$. The mean value is \te\, = $12.1^{+1.7}_{-3.2}$ K
[the $\frac{1}{2}(1-p)$ and $\frac{1}{2}(1+p)$ quantiles were used to
estimate the uncertainty interval at $p = 0.95$]. The \tr from the
standard Big Bang cosmological model is marked with a vertical dashed
line.

Try translating your cut-and-pastes.

Well, since you had a copy of the paper I thought it would be obvious,
but if you insist "Monte Carlo simulations of the probability density
function of Teff for the value of N(CII*)/N(CII)= 3.8E-3.

It shows the probability of a the measured ratio being caused by a
range of values for Teff. Which proves you incorrect when you claimed
the figure had nothing to do with the measurments.

LOL! But it *doesn't* have anything to do with measurements.

Since if you change the ratio of N(CII*)/N(CII) the derived value of
Teff changes then it in fact has something to do with the
measurements.

Molaro provides two data points and error values for those points.

No. Molaro provides two experimental values, with standard deviations for
those values. Individual data points *never* have "error values."

Of course they can. Now if you try to obtain the error value by
examining several values and calculating a variance of the data points
and then a standard deviation, in that subset of possible ways to
determine error values you are correct, you can't have a standard
deviation for a individual data points, however if you calculate a
column density by a fit to a spectrum, then your fitting routine can
deliver a single column density and an error for that single column
density.

There are multiple velocity structures in the quasar, and the
different components will have different strengths. The measurements
are independant, even if scaling factors

Even if scaling factors "what?"

"are used".

5 to 6 standard deviations is a bit more than "somewhat" discrepant. Now,
what does your statistics 101 text say about discrepant results?

That scientists almost always underestimate the errors.

The two values differ by about 35%. Is it really worth arguing over?
Expecially since the the temperature depends on the log of ratio, not
the ratio. If we forget about the P&W data entirely, the calculated
value for Teff chages from about 12.1K to 10.2K. The value predicted
by the Standard Big Bang model is about 11 degrees anyway, so the
temperature inferred by the experiment is STILL consistent with the
SBB model.

Classic special plead.

LOL! Again, if I had provided no support that would be a
proof-by-assertion, not a special plead. Did you ever take a logic course?

Yes. Have you ever taken a science course?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading
Special pleading is a form of spurious argumentation. Special pleading
for a position in a dispute introduces favorable details or excludes
unfavorable details by alleging a need to apply additional
considerations without proper criticism of these considerations
themselves

You introduce the additional consideration that the values have to be
"consistent". They don't.

The formulas can in fact be used with inconsistent results.

Hmmm. Not according to my statistics 101 book (Young, p 109):

"In using equations (14.13) and (14.16)*, one should keep in mind that the
variance associated with each x_i also provides a means of testing whether
the values are CONSISTENT in a statistical sense.

What you quote (and the text I snipped for brevity does not contradict
my point) in no way claims that the formulas cannot be used with
inconsistent data.

Excuse me, but no "data" was actually provided in this paper. Only an
experimental value and a standard deviation.

We were provided with a measure of N(CII*) and an error value for that
datum, a measure of N(CII) and an error value for that datum, we were
provided with the redshift of the quasar (3.025) without an error
value, we were provided with a N(HI) density and the error value, the
abundance F(H2) and an error value for the datum, and a measured rate
of photo absorbtion beta.

Thus data was provided.

And if you use a the weighted mean of 1.92+- 0.08 then the two values
are within about 4 sigma.

LOL! They are beyond 5 sigma of *each other*. The "mean" was not measured.

Mean's aren't measured, means are calculated.

Let's assume for the sake
of simple demonstration that the error bars are the result of two
measurements, each, in Molaro and P&W.

Why would I assume something dumb like that? The error bars came from
a fit to a single spectrum.

How many measurements were in that "single spectrum?"

Measurements of what? Of N(CII*)? One.

We do not. That is not how Molaro came up with the error value.

How do you know? Molaro didn't tell us how he came up with the value.

I know how you measure a column density given a spectrum.

They deal specifically with UV flux (paragraph 3), infrared photons from
dust (paragraph 4), particulate collisions (paragraph 5), and electron
collisions (paragraph 6).

Yes, and you claimed they didn't deal with "other" sources of
energy. Those are other sources.

wrote in message
oups.com...
What you quoted from Ned is indeed meaningless.

One more time: I have produced the observed so called CMBR curve from
star light observed here and originated in an infinite and homogeneous
Universe.

snip

http://stolmarphysics.com/Ned1.htm

Try this link - my provider reorganised the pages, I have to update -
when I will have time??!!

That works, thanks. Now note that the green line misses
the red line completely to the right of the peak so you
have failed to reproduce the curve. We need no further
proof than your own graph. You asked me what errors I
had discovered, and though you found this one first, it
is typical, you claim success without first succeeding.

George

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 10:39:12 +0100, Bjoern Feuerbacher
wrote:

Paul Stowe wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 10:59:27 +0100, Bjoern Feuerbacher
wrote:


Paul Stowe wrote:

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 22:55:01 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:


[Snip...]

I've tried to talk about the an action that results in an
equilibrium thermal state. Thus the 'equation' above.

*What* exactly is supposed to be in equilibrium here? The
electrons?

And if there is a thermal equilibrium, then why does your
equation for the electron give only one definite frequency,
not a spectrum?

Why is there 'a temperature' for any black body spectrum?

So,

h¿
T = -- = ~2.8 °K
3k

And that the actual temperature of the CMBR is 2.73 K does
not bother youu?


P&W results were 2.8.

So what? Measurements have improved a lot so far.

That changed P&W measured value by ~3%. That's alot with today's
instrumentation. Something more is at play. But, again NOT
relevant to the specific question at hand!

As has been said, the devil is in the details
and the details are in the antenna.

Err, why then do different antennas get the same results?
(within the error margins)

You take a look & guess. I'm not interested in going into it here.
If you want to take this a copping out, fine...

[snip]

It's the old equal-partition rule, volia, a Maxwell-Boltzmann's black
body distribution.

1) The equal-partition rule does not lead automatically
to a black body spectrum.

In what case?

In a lot of cases. Essentially always when you don't have
a black body.

In every compressible particulate system I know of
it will.

Present evidence for this assertion, please.

Easy counterexample: stars are "compressible, particulate"
systems, which do *not* have a black body spectrum.

Stars are FAR from simple particulate systems.

If you want to quibble now that stars are not in a thermal
equilibrium, we are back to the point that you did not
establish so far *what* is in thermal equilibrium in *your*
model.

I f you want to claim that the electrons in the antenna
are in thermal equilibrium, with a temperature of 2.8 K,
then that is obviously wrong.

It's certainly NOT either. But the only real question is
whether or not the electrons in the antenna radiate, isn't
it? That's a scientific question which CAN be answered!

The only thing a valid scientific hypothesis must have is
a unique prediction that can be falsified. This meets that
criteria!

The particulate spacing puts an upper limit on the
partitioning.

Huh? What partitioning?

Never mind, you seem to have no idea of partitioning & the
concept of the UV catastrophe.

2) A Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution is *not* a black body
spectrum.

Try again.

I'm not going to be drawn into petty quibbling.

Pointing out that a Maxwell-Boltmann distribution is not
a black body spectrum is anything but "petty quibbling".

[snip]

And how would you manage to completely shut off any external
input? Did you miss the argument that even the walls of
an isolation chamber radiate in the microwave range? Even
if you cool them down to only a few Kelvin?


Are you arguing our point?

No.

It sure seems that way...

However, an isolation chamber immersed in liquid He @ 1° K
should suffice...

Liquid He has around 4 K, IIRC.

Then we have no superfluid He...


Thus debating the issue here isn't going to resolve the issue. An
actual test is necessary to determine this.

How do *you* explain that COBE and WMAP measured the *same*
angular distribution, if the radiation simply comes from the
antennas?

I started my comment in this thread with a single word, Both...

Do you mean your proposal that the signal is generated both
internal and external to the antenna? How, exactly, does
this explain my point above?

One can lead to information but cannot make'em think!

The above expression is either one of the most coincidental
relationships in the history of science,

There are many more, even more astonishing coincidences. One
deals in science with a large number of, well, numbers. It's
no big surprise that when one plays around with them a bit,
one finds some coincidences.

But we're not talking dimensionless numbers.

Right - I weren't, too.

We're talking dimensionful equalities.

Indeed.

Great now how about just a couple of the coincidences you know of
that meet this criteria. That is,

1. Are physically dimensioned
2. have NO arbitrary dimensionless factors

yet end up with a equation that matches something physically
observed. Like, for another SI example,

h
k = --
qc

Where q is elemental charge in the aforementioned semi-classical
model in which it has dimensions of kg/sec and k is Boltzmann's
constant.

As I said earlier, there ARE other nifty new relationships
that come out of this approach but are NOT directly relevant
to the issue being discussed here. Like for example, Wein's
displacement constant.

You probably mean Wien?

Yup. And I let my tongue overstep my brain. I recant this
statement.

OR, there is indeed a connection. Testing a CMBR detector
in isolation would be a definitive test that should tell the tale one
way or the other.

Why is the fact that COBE and WMAP measured the *same* angular
distribution not enough for showing that the signal does *not*
arise within the antenna?


And those variations exist in the FIFTH decimal place...

Indeed. Your point?

That's exactly the magnitude required for the fluctuations
in order to explain the formation of large-scale structure,

Hmmm, that rather funny (although technically true today) since
COBE was design to measure those 'expected' fluctuation @ the
third order of magnitude. Nothin' like going back and retrofitting
(plugging in another epicycle).

if you did not notice. It's also exactly the magnitude predicted
by some inflationary models, AFAIK.

See the comment just above.

Paul Stowe

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 16:31:19 GMT, Paul Stowe
wrote:

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 10:39:12 +0100, Bjoern Feuerbacher
wrote:

Paul Stowe wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 10:59:27 +0100, Bjoern Feuerbacher
wrote:


Paul Stowe wrote:

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 22:55:01 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:


[Snip...]

I've tried to talk about the an action that results in an
equilibrium thermal state. Thus the 'equation' above.

*What* exactly is supposed to be in equilibrium here? The
electrons?

And if there is a thermal equilibrium, then why does your
equation for the electron give only one definite frequency,
not a spectrum?

Why is there 'a temperature' for any black body spectrum?

So,

h¿
T = -- = ~2.8 °K
3k

And that the actual temperature of the CMBR is 2.73 K does
not bother youu?


P&W results were 2.8.

So what? Measurements have improved a lot so far.

That changed P&W measured value by ~3%. That's alot with today's
instrumentation. Something more is at play. But, again NOT
relevant to the specific question at hand!

As has been said, the devil is in the details
and the details are in the antenna.

Err, why then do different antennas get the same results?
(within the error margins)

You take a look & guess. I'm not interested in going into it here.
If you want to take this a copping out, fine...

[snip]

It's the old equal-partition rule, volia, a Maxwell-Boltzmann's black
body distribution.

1) The equal-partition rule does not lead automatically
to a black body spectrum.

In what case?

In a lot of cases. Essentially always when you don't have
a black body.

In every compressible particulate system I know of
it will.

Present evidence for this assertion, please.

Easy counterexample: stars are "compressible, particulate"
systems, which do *not* have a black body spectrum.

Stars are FAR from simple particulate systems.

If you want to quibble now that stars are not in a thermal
equilibrium, we are back to the point that you did not
establish so far *what* is in thermal equilibrium in *your*
model.

I f you want to claim that the electrons in the antenna
are in thermal equilibrium, with a temperature of 2.8 K,
then that is obviously wrong.

It's certainly NOT either. But the only real question is
whether or not the electrons in the antenna radiate, isn't
it? That's a scientific question which CAN be answered!

The only thing a valid scientific hypothesis must have is
a unique prediction that can be falsified. This meets that
criteria!

The particulate spacing puts an upper limit on the
partitioning.

Huh? What partitioning?

Never mind, you seem to have no idea of partitioning & the
concept of the UV catastrophe.

2) A Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution is *not* a black body
spectrum.

Try again.

I'm not going to be drawn into petty quibbling.

Pointing out that a Maxwell-Boltmann distribution is not
a black body spectrum is anything but "petty quibbling".

[snip]

And how would you manage to completely shut off any external
input? Did you miss the argument that even the walls of
an isolation chamber radiate in the microwave range? Even
if you cool them down to only a few Kelvin?


Are you arguing our point?

No.

It sure seems that way...

However, an isolation chamber immersed in liquid He @ 1° K
should suffice...

Liquid He has around 4 K, IIRC.

Then we have no superfluid He...


Thus debating the issue here isn't going to resolve the issue. An
actual test is necessary to determine this.

How do *you* explain that COBE and WMAP measured the *same*
angular distribution, if the radiation simply comes from the
antennas?

I started my comment in this thread with a single word, Both...

Do you mean your proposal that the signal is generated both
internal and external to the antenna? How, exactly, does
this explain my point above?

One can lead to information but cannot make'em think!

The above expression is either one of the most coincidental
relationships in the history of science,

There are many more, even more astonishing coincidences. One
deals in science with a large number of, well, numbers. It's
no big surprise that when one plays around with them a bit,
one finds some coincidences.

But we're not talking dimensionless numbers.

Right - I weren't, too.

We're talking dimensionful equalities.

Indeed.

Great now how about just a couple of the coincidences you know of
that meet this criteria. That is,

1. Are physically dimensioned
2. have NO arbitrary dimensionless factors

yet end up with a equation that matches something physically
observed. Like, for another SI example,

h
k = --
qc

Where q is elemental charge in the aforementioned semi-classical
model in which it has dimensions of kg/sec and k is Boltzmann's
constant.

As I said earlier, there ARE other nifty new relationships
that come out of this approach but are NOT directly relevant
to the issue being discussed here. Like for example, Wein's
displacement constant.

You probably mean Wien?

Yup. And I let my tongue overstep my brain. I recant this
statement.

OR, there is indeed a connection. Testing a CMBR detector
in isolation would be a definitive test that should tell the tale one
way or the other.

Why is the fact that COBE and WMAP measured the *same* angular
distribution not enough for showing that the signal does *not*
arise within the antenna?


And those variations exist in the FIFTH decimal place...

Indeed. Your point?

That's exactly the magnitude required for the fluctuations
in order to explain the formation of large-scale structure,

Hmmm, that rather funny (although technically true today) since
COBE was design to measure those 'expected' fluctuation @ the
third order of magnitude. Nothin' like going back and retrofitting
(plugging in another epicycle).

if you did not notice. It's also exactly the magnitude predicted
by some inflationary models, AFAIK.

See the comment just above.

Addendum: See

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...G29/TPScience/

Which would seem to support the local contribution hypothesis.

Paul Stowe

Paul Stowe wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 10:39:12 +0100, Bjoern Feuerbacher
wrote:


Paul Stowe wrote:

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 10:59:27 +0100, Bjoern Feuerbacher
wrote:



Paul Stowe wrote:


On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 22:55:01 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:


[Snip...]


I've tried to talk about the an action that results in an
equilibrium thermal state. Thus the 'equation' above.

*What* exactly is supposed to be in equilibrium here? The
electrons?

Care to answer that?


And if there is a thermal equilibrium, then why does your
equation for the electron give only one definite frequency,
not a spectrum?

And that?



Why is there 'a temperature' for any black body spectrum?

Because there you have a "gas" of *photons* which is in
thermal equilibrium, both with itself and with the surroundings
which "heat" it.




So,

h¿
T = -- = ~2.8 °K
3k

And that the actual temperature of the CMBR is 2.73 K does
not bother youu?


P&W results were 2.8.

So what? Measurements have improved a lot so far.


That changed P&W measured value by ~3%. That's alot with today's
instrumentation. Something more is at play. But, again NOT
relevant to the specific question at hand!

Err, and what is that "specific question", in your opinion?


As has been said, the devil is in the details
and the details are in the antenna.

Err, why then do different antennas get the same results?
(within the error margins)


You take a look & guess.
I'm not interested in going into it here.
If you want to take this a copping out, fine...

I merely point out that this is an argument against you.
Why do you choose to ignore it?



[snip]


It's the old equal-partition rule, volia, a Maxwell-Boltzmann's black
body distribution.

1) The equal-partition rule does not lead automatically
to a black body spectrum.

In what case?

In a lot of cases. Essentially always when you don't have
a black body.


In every compressible particulate system I know of
it will.

Present evidence for this assertion, please.

Easy counterexample: stars are "compressible, particulate"
systems, which do *not* have a black body spectrum.


Stars are FAR from simple particulate systems.

You said nothing about "simple" above. You said "every compressible
particulate system". Movement of goalposts noted.

BTW, do you consider an antenna to be a "simple" particulate
system?



If you want to quibble now that stars are not in a thermal
equilibrium, we are back to the point that you did not
establish so far *what* is in thermal equilibrium in *your*
model.

I f you want to claim that the electrons in the antenna
are in thermal equilibrium, with a temperature of 2.8 K,
then that is obviously wrong.


It's certainly NOT either.

Then what is it?


But the only real question is
whether or not the electrons in the antenna radiate, isn't
it?

I thought the question here is if the observations of the
CMBR can be explained by your proposed electron radiations.


That's a scientific question which CAN be answered!
The only thing a valid scientific hypothesis must have is
a unique prediction that can be falsified. This meets that
criteria!

Indeed. People have done experiments with electrons for
decades now. They are even routinely used for generating
microwave radiation (in microwave ovens etc.)

So, don't you think it would have been noticed if they
emitted radiation at 175.7 GHz all the time?




The particulate spacing puts an upper limit on the
partitioning.

Huh? What partitioning?


Never mind, you seem to have no idea of partitioning & the
concept of the UV catastrophe.

I know what the UV catastrophe is (was), but I still don't
understand what exactly you meant with "partitioning"
here.


[snip]



However, an isolation chamber immersed in liquid He @ 1° K
should suffice...

Liquid He has around 4 K, IIRC.


Then we have no superfluid He...

You talked about liquid He, not superfluid He.

Yet another attempt to move the goalposts.


Thus debating the issue here isn't going to resolve the issue. An
actual test is necessary to determine this.

How do *you* explain that COBE and WMAP measured the *same*
angular distribution, if the radiation simply comes from the
antennas?

I started my comment in this thread with a single word, Both...

Do you mean your proposal that the signal is generated both
internal and external to the antenna? How, exactly, does
this explain my point above?


One can lead to information but cannot make'em think!

Why don't you simply tell me?


The above expression is either one of the most coincidental
relationships in the history of science,

There are many more, even more astonishing coincidences. One
deals in science with a large number of, well, numbers. It's
no big surprise that when one plays around with them a bit,
one finds some coincidences.

But we're not talking dimensionless numbers.

Right - I weren't, too.


We're talking dimensionful equalities.

Indeed.


Great now how about just a couple of the coincidences you know of
that meet this criteria. That is,

1. Are physically dimensioned
2. have NO arbitrary dimensionless factors

yet end up with a equation that matches something physically
observed.

But your equation does *not* match what is physically observed.
2.8 K is not 2.73 K.


[snip]



OR, there is indeed a connection. Testing a CMBR detector
in isolation would be a definitive test that should tell the tale one
way or the other.

Why is the fact that COBE and WMAP measured the *same* angular
distribution not enough for showing that the signal does *not*
arise within the antenna?


And those variations exist in the FIFTH decimal place...

Indeed. Your point?

That's exactly the magnitude required for the fluctuations
in order to explain the formation of large-scale structure,


Hmmm, that rather funny (although technically true today) since
COBE was design to measure those 'expected' fluctuation @ the
third order of magnitude.

Yes. At that time, a rather different cosmological model
was at use - for starters, we did have not clue yet that
something like dark energy exists. Hence another magnitude
for the fluctuations was expected than what is actually
necessary to explain structure fluctuation in the universe.

Didn't you know all that, or are you conveniently ignoring
that?


Nothin' like going back and retrofitting
(plugging in another epicycle).

Dark energy has nothing to do with epicycles.

If you did not notice: the hypothesis of dark energy has
itself led to predictions which were observationally
confirmed.


if you did not notice. It's also exactly the magnitude predicted
by some inflationary models, AFAIK.


See the comment just above.

Dito.


Bye,
Bjoern

George Dishman wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
What you quoted from Ned is indeed meaningless.

One more time: I have produced the observed so called CMBR curve
from
star light observed here and originated in an infinite and
homogeneous
Universe.

snip

http://stolmarphysics.com/Ned1.htm

Try this link - my provider reorganised the pages, I have to update
-
when I will have time??!!

That works, thanks. Now note that the green line misses
the red line completely to the right of the peak so you
have failed to reproduce the curve. We need no further
proof than your own graph. You asked me what errors I
had discovered, and though you found this one first, it
is typical, you claim success without first succeeding.

George

Like the big bangological claim? No, there is a difference. I
did succeed - in reproducing the observed intensity curve!
Also, according to Ned - you just try to claim that the part of
so called "cosmic background" is a "black body", but what really
observed (when include the seen stars and galaxies) is what my
- and Ned's - curve shows! Much higher values on the right
from the peak! Ned even dedicated a paper to this...

The critical issue is the cut-off left from the peak. I claim
that it is caused by photon energy loss and closing of the sky
as per Olbers' paradox. Also, I can correctly calculate the
intensities from the density of galaxies, surface temperatures
of stars and surface areas of stars, considering the photon
energy loss rate found from the nuclear properties.

So - what errors?

Cheers!
Aladar
http://stolmarphysics.com

Paul Stowe wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 22:55:01 -0000, "George Dishman"

wrote:

"Paul Stowe" wrote in message
.. .

snip

But the antennas are not cavities, they are open horns.

If the antenna is not tuned to resonate at the desired frequency it
isn't useful.

This is a common misunderstanding. For simple antennas
such as a whip for example, the source impedance is
generally complex and the reactive part reduces the
signal into the receiver. To get maximum power transfer
you want to make it resistive and match the source
impedance to that of the receiver. At the resonant
frequency (1/4 wavelength for a whip) that happens
naturally, but at any other frequency you need to cancel
out the imaginary part by adding some tuning components.
When you are trying to tune in your favourite station, it
also gives a bit of selectivity by reducing the efficiency
of coupling the received power into the receiver either
side of the tuned frequency.

In this scientific context however, we are trying to
make a measurement over a broad band of frequencies and
the best result would be if all the signal power was
coupled into the receiver at all frequencies. Waveguides
and cables don't generally resonate but instead have a
cutoff frequency.

In the P&W case, the big horn acts like the mirror in a
telescope, simply reflecting the plane wavefront that
arrives through the aperture onto the feed point where
it will be matched to the downfeed. It isn't tuned, just
as you don't have to tune a telescope to the colour of
light you want to observe.

The shape & size of an antenna is important.

Yes, for beamforming, polarisation, collecting area, etc.
but not for a resonance in this case.

The dipole is also problematic. Notwithstanding the obvious flaw in
his
suggestion of Lorentz contraction as the mechanism, the angle
between
the direction of propagation from the electron to the feed point
and
the direction of flow of the aether past the electron also varies
with
the location of the electron in the antenna. You effectively have
to
integrate over the radiating surface and hence a variety of curves
are
again mixed when finding the total feed illumination.

This you'll have to take up with Barry. I have attempted to clarify
why I (and he) think that doing the control test for internal
emissions is/was important & necessary. If the theory is correct,
then the MB would be present even in a microwave detector antenna
system isolated from external inputs. One would have thought that
this control baseline would have been one of the first things done,
but, apparently not. However, since electrons are everywhere the
radiation would be also. It's just that the vast majority of the
contribution would be from local sources is such a senario, right?

Right, in particular it should arise in the material of
the front end transistors in the receiver as well as in
the downfeed so disconnecting the antenna should not have
removed the signal.

The other point to note is that the measurements were
differential and there are details of the black body
reference on the site (I don't have access at the moment).
The same hum should have been present in that channel and
in fact since the horn is open, the power received should
appear _negative_ if your theory were right since the
reference channel is fully enclosed.

Thus debating the issue here isn't going to resolve the issue. An
actual test is necessary to determine this.

True but before doing the test, it helps to know what you
are looking for, and at the moment I think your idea doesn't
match the known results.

The above expression is
either one of the most coincidental relationships in the history of
science, OR, there is indeed a connection. Testing a CMBR detector
in isolation would be a definitive test that should tell the tale
one
way or the other.

That or something equivalent, but since I don't have
access to the papers on test and calibration, I only
have your word that it wasn't done.

George