Cosmic Microwave Backround Radiation

  • 8 Replies
  • 3289 Views
Cosmic Microwave Backround Radiation
« on: April 22, 2012, 09:32:59 AM »
So, how does FET explain the CMBC? Where does this all come from?

?

OrbisNonSufficit

  • 3124
  • I love Gasoline.
Re: Cosmic Microwave Backround Radiation
« Reply #1 on: April 23, 2012, 04:12:10 PM »
This should get moved to Flat earth Q&A.  To answer your question i am not sure how they explain it or if they deny it needs explaining.

Re: Cosmic Microwave Backround Radiation
« Reply #2 on: April 24, 2012, 10:50:20 AM »
it is probably explained by the initial surge of the UA. It is a tremendous force.

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: Cosmic Microwave Backround Radiation
« Reply #3 on: April 24, 2012, 09:59:15 PM »
it is probably explained by the initial surge of the UA. It is a tremendous force.

You have already been educated in another thread as to how the UA has been disproved. Learn to absorb information.
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: Cosmic Microwave Backround Radiation
« Reply #4 on: April 24, 2012, 10:16:56 PM »
So, how does FET explain the CMBC? Where does this all come from?

What does this have to do with the shape of the earth?

Re: Cosmic Microwave Backround Radiation
« Reply #5 on: April 24, 2012, 10:59:30 PM »
So, how does FET explain the CMBC? Where does this all come from?

What does this have to do with the shape of the earth?
RET's Big Bang Theory predicts the more detailed CMBC. FET can't explain it at all. Simple--and no dragons were harmed in the collection of this data.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4806
Re: Cosmic Microwave Backround Radiation
« Reply #6 on: April 25, 2012, 02:17:35 AM »
http://www.aetherometry.com/Electronic_Publications/Science/abs-AS2v2B.php

The authors examine the microwave cosmic background radiation (CBR) - composed exclusively of LFOT photons - with aetherometric tools developed in the preceding reports, and the results demonstrate that, unlike what is held by the accepted neo-relativist interpretations of the CBR, its true mode lies - not at 7.35 cm and a frequency of 4.08GHz, but at 7.76 cm and a frequency of 3.861GHz. Still more disturbing is the fact that the conventionally accepted temperature distribution of the CBR blackbody is off by more than an order of magnitude with respect to the real and aetherometric temperature scale that is demanded by a Planckian quantization of the spectrum. The CBR temperature mode is found to lie between 0.1863 and 0.1853 degrees Kelvin. This fact alone is sufficient to dismantle any pretensions of (neo-)Relativity to actually and adequately understand the physical significance of the CBR and grasp the physical processes of its production - thus putting into serious doubt the validity of the so-called Big-Bang hypothesis.

But the results of the aetherometric analysis of the CBR blackbody cut still deeper into the Princeton Gnosis and its interpretation of the microwave CBR: a discrete set of LFOT photon bands is found to co-inhabit the near-smooth CBR distribution, and a microfunctional model is proposed for their manifestation as being indicative of the successive phase states of aether energy, as if these bands underlay the very changes in, and characteristics of, the known chemical phases of Matter. In accordance to this aetherometric model, the CBR photon mode is an indicator that most of the aether energy of the universe has a fluid lattice structure. Likewise, the limit discrete band of the CBR blackbody would suggest the existence of a limiting solid-state phase for the Aether lattice, below which all photon production would result simply from the harmonic decay of the kinetic energy of cosmological electrons.



http://www.spaceandmotion.com/cosmic-microwave-background-radiation.htm (one of the very best articles on the aether background radiation)


CT, please save your comments for somewhere else...you haven't done your homework, for the upteenth time...


AETHER/ETHER: EXISTENCE OF TELLURIC CURRENTS, BEST PROOFS:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1255899#msg1255899


CT, you really need to expand your scientific horizon, and learn what is going on...you have never heard of Walter Nernst, have you?

http://itis.volta.alessandria.it/episteme/ep3-17.htm (work of W. Nernst, mistakes of E. Hubble)

A. Einstein about W. Nernst:

"The late Walther Nernst was one of the the most eminent and interesting scientists with whom I came into contact. His scientific instinct was truly amazing - apart from a masterly acquaintance with a vast amount of facts that he could always readily bring to mind, he also possessed a rare command of methods and experimental findings which he excelled in ... As long as his egocentric weakness did not come into play, he demonstrated an objectivity that was seldom to be found, an infallible sense for the essential, and a genuine thirst for knowledge of the profound interrelations that exist in nature. This, along with an unusual creative productivity, formed the basis of the considerable influence that he exercised upon scientific life in the first thirty years of the century."



From Hubble:

' … redshifts are evidence either of an expanding universe or of some hitherto unknown principle of nature…”

Nernst's Interpretation

Hubble made two mistakes:

The first one lay in choosing to research an interpretation of redshift that was exclusively within the field of Einsteinian relativity.

The second lay in the hypothesis that his 'law' was 'clearly linear', thus ignoring a fact that is well-known to any physicist, even an amateur one, namely that for small z values (redshift) a straight line constitutes a good 'first approximation' of a logarithmic curve.
The Doppler effect, star aberration, and even the change of wavelength due to the Compton effect, can be explained by taking into consideration the aether field the existence of which was confirmed by many experiments made by Nikola Tesla (see also the Airy experiment).

The aether, by definition, is the light-carrying medium.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2012, 02:31:55 AM by levee »

Re: Cosmic Microwave Backround Radiation
« Reply #7 on: April 25, 2012, 03:15:25 AM »
http://www.aetherometry.com/Electronic_Publications/Science/abs-AS2v2B.php

The authors examine the microwave cosmic background radiation (CBR) - composed exclusively of LFOT photons - with aetherometric tools developed in the preceding reports, and the results demonstrate that, unlike what is held by the accepted neo-relativist interpretations of the CBR, its true mode lies - not at 7.35 cm and a frequency of 4.08GHz, but at 7.76 cm and a frequency of 3.861GHz. Still more disturbing is the fact that the conventionally accepted temperature distribution of the CBR blackbody is off by more than an order of magnitude with respect to the real and aetherometric temperature scale that is demanded by a Planckian quantization of the spectrum. The CBR temperature mode is found to lie between 0.1863 and 0.1853 degrees Kelvin. This fact alone is sufficient to dismantle any pretensions of (neo-)Relativity to actually and adequately understand the physical significance of the CBR and grasp the physical processes of its production - thus putting into serious doubt the validity of the so-called Big-Bang hypothesis.

But the results of the aetherometric analysis of the CBR blackbody cut still deeper into the Princeton Gnosis and its interpretation of the microwave CBR: a discrete set of LFOT photon bands is found to co-inhabit the near-smooth CBR distribution, and a microfunctional model is proposed for their manifestation as being indicative of the successive phase states of aether energy, as if these bands underlay the very changes in, and characteristics of, the known chemical phases of Matter. In accordance to this aetherometric model, the CBR photon mode is an indicator that most of the aether energy of the universe has a fluid lattice structure. Likewise, the limit discrete band of the CBR blackbody would suggest the existence of a limiting solid-state phase for the Aether lattice, below which all photon production would result simply from the harmonic decay of the kinetic energy of cosmological electrons.



http://www.spaceandmotion.com/cosmic-microwave-background-radiation.htm (one of the very best articles on the aether background radiation)


CT, please save your comments for somewhere else...you haven't done your homework, for the upteenth time...


AETHER/ETHER: EXISTENCE OF TELLURIC CURRENTS, BEST PROOFS:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1255899#msg1255899


CT, you really need to expand your scientific horizon, and learn what is going on...you have never heard of Walter Nernst, have you?

http://itis.volta.alessandria.it/episteme/ep3-17.htm (work of W. Nernst, mistakes of E. Hubble)

A. Einstein about W. Nernst:

"The late Walther Nernst was one of the the most eminent and interesting scientists with whom I came into contact. His scientific instinct was truly amazing - apart from a masterly acquaintance with a vast amount of facts that he could always readily bring to mind, he also possessed a rare command of methods and experimental findings which he excelled in ... As long as his egocentric weakness did not come into play, he demonstrated an objectivity that was seldom to be found, an infallible sense for the essential, and a genuine thirst for knowledge of the profound interrelations that exist in nature. This, along with an unusual creative productivity, formed the basis of the considerable influence that he exercised upon scientific life in the first thirty years of the century."



From Hubble:

' … redshifts are evidence either of an expanding universe or of some hitherto unknown principle of nature…”

Nernst's Interpretation

Hubble made two mistakes:

The first one lay in choosing to research an interpretation of redshift that was exclusively within the field of Einsteinian relativity.

The second lay in the hypothesis that his 'law' was 'clearly linear', thus ignoring a fact that is well-known to any physicist, even an amateur one, namely that for small z values (redshift) a straight line constitutes a good 'first approximation' of a logarithmic curve.
The Doppler effect, star aberration, and even the change of wavelength due to the Compton effect, can be explained by taking into consideration the aether field the existence of which was confirmed by many experiments made by Nikola Tesla (see also the Airy experiment).

The aether, by definition, is the light-carrying medium.
Again a wall of rambling text! Why can't you write a post with a thesis statement?

We're discussing how RET predicts the details emerging from the study of CMBR. You seem to want to derail the thread into a discussion of your pet fringe theory about aether. Please stay on topic.

Let's dispense with this nonsense quickly. When Wikipedia deletes a page, it is clear indication that the topic is worthless. See the deletion discussion:

Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Aetherometry_(second_nomination)
I decided to start this voting for deletion because of how having the aetherometry entry makes Wikipedia look bad. I think the entry should be deleted until literature about aetherometry appears in mainstream scientific publications, or until aetherometry becomes popular and known and can be found in reliable outside descriptions. Right now it just lowers Wikipedia reputation, at least in my surround.

Would you manage to leave this fringe theories out of your posts in the upper fora please? They're a serious distraction for the topic and you have consistently failed to produce honest and reliable documentation. Thanks.

*I am not a mod.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4806
Re: Cosmic Microwave Backround Radiation
« Reply #8 on: April 26, 2012, 01:35:22 AM »
Again, my comments in the other thread apply even more here...

Quote
CT, you are schooling yourself in senselessness; you can write messages in this way, but you will make the negation of logic a mental habit, which soon will become second nature to you, with every baseless accusation and switching contradiction you invent.


The ease with which you accept any crackpot theory or explanation, as long as it will satisfy your preconceived ideas, is something to behold.


The existence of telluric currents/ether has been documented with precise experiments: Dr. Bruce DePalma from MIT, G.B. Airy in the 19th century, Dayton Miller at the start of the 20th century, Dr. T. Henry Moray, and of course, Dr. Nikolai Kozyrev the most emiment physicist of the former Soviet Union.


Here is the documentation of these experiments:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1255899#msg1255899

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1231580#msg1231580

http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm


As an example, here is the extraordinary Spinning Ball experiment of Dr. Bruce DePalma.

Bruce DePalma graduated from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1958. He attended graduate school in Electrical Engineering and Physics at M.I.T. and Harvard University. At M.I.T. he was a lecturer in Photographic Science in the Laboratory of Dr. Harold Edgerton and directed 3-D color photographic research for Dr. Edwin Land of Polaroid Corporation. He commenced his work in Free Energy through his studies on the gyroscope and the nature of motion.

http://www.evert.de/eft907e.htm


Throwing Experiments
DePalma and his assistants were experts for photograph recording of high speed motions. In 1974 they studied parabolic curves of bodies thrown upward, using ball bearings and catapults. Ball bearings were put into rotation before start and also not-rotating likely objects were used for comparison. In 1977 these experiments were repeated by most precisely working equipment and Bruce DePalma published paper entitled ´Understanding the Dropping of the Spinning Ball Experiment´. His astonishment clearly is expressed, e.g. by this section:

Actually the experiment has two parts, the spinning ball going up, and the spinning ball falling. Since I would be rather thought a fool than misrepresent results of experiments I only attempted to analyze the portion of the experiment I thought I understood. Basically the spinning object going higher than the identical non-rotating control with the same initial velocity, and, then falling faster than the identical non-rotating control; present a dilemma which can only be resolved or understood -- on the basis of radically new concepts in physics -- concepts so radical that only the heretofore un-understood results of other experiments, (the elastic collision of a rotating and an identical non- rotating object, et al.), and new conceptions of physics growing out of the many discussions and correspondence pertaining to rotation, inertia, gravity, and motion in general.

A ball spinning at 27,000 RPM and a non-spinning ball were catapulted side-by-side with equal momentum and projection angle. In defiance of all who reject the ether as unrealistic, the spinning ball actually weighed less, and traveled higher than its non-spinning counterpart. Those who attribute this to an aerodynamic or atmospheric effect, please note that it works just as well in a vacuum. Also note, this effect has since been verified by other [enlightened] researchers. The decrease in weight of the spinning ball - anti-gravity - can
explain why the spinning object goes higher and falls faster than the identical non-rotating control. Current thinking is that there is no special interaction between rotation and gravity. The behavior of rotating objects is simply the addition of ether energy to whatever motion the rotating object is making.

Is this a harnessing of torsional ether waves by rotation? Both balls draw energy into themselves from an unseen source, but the rotating ball absorbs more of this ethereal energy than its counterpart - energy that would be manifest as gravity, moving down into the Earth. With a decrease in torsional ether above the ball, there is a slight decrease in gravity, the ball gets slightly lighter. Needless to say, this effect defies standard theories.





CT, do you understand where you are, and what is being debated here?

A ball spinning at 27,000 RPM and a non-spinning ball were catapulted side-by-side with equal momentum and projection angle. In defiance of all who reject the ether as unrealistic, the spinning ball actually weighed less, and traveled higher than its non-spinning counterpart.

Again, here is the comment of Dr. Bruce DePalma:

Basically the spinning object going higher than the identical non-rotating control with the same initial velocity, and, then falling faster than the identical non-rotating control; present a dilemma which can only be resolved or understood -- on the basis of radically new concepts in physics -- concepts so radical that only the heretofore un-understood results of other experiments, (the elastic collision of a rotating and an identical non- rotating object, et al.), and new conceptions of physics growing out of the many discussions and correspondence pertaining to rotation, inertia, gravity, and motion in general.

Is this a harnessing of torsional ether waves by rotation? Both balls draw energy into themselves from an unseen source, but the rotating ball absorbs more of this ethereal energy than its counterpart - energy that would be manifest as gravity, moving down into the Earth. With a decrease in torsional ether above the ball, there is a slight decrease in gravity, the ball gets slightly lighter. Needless to say, this effect defies standard theories.