Simply asserting that doesn't make it so. What does Thunderbolts say the telescopes are measuring then in the microwave range of frequencies?
How the GW myth is perpetuated
- Thread starter Walter
- Start date
Simply asserting that doesn't make it so. What does Thunderbolts say the telescopes are measuring then in the microwave range of frequencies?
The foreground.
Dr. Pierre-Marie Robitaille: Sun on Trial | EU2014
Posted on June 3, 2014 by sschirott
For nearly 150 years despite the lack of observational evidence, the Sun has been considered to be a ball of gaseous material. Such a postulate rests on mathematical arguments. Nonetheless, observations, not mathematics, properly determine the phases of matter. In … Continue reading →
...there's that alternative reality again. I'm being serious, what is being measured at great disatnces in the microwave range of frequencies? If 'the foreground' is your alternative reality, then it's time for me to say good night!
Pierre-Marie Robitaille, PhD is a Professor of Radiology at The Ohio State University, with a joint appointment in Chemical Physics. He initially trained as a spectroscopist and has wide ranging knowledge of instrumentation in the radio and microwave bands. A recognized expert in image acquisition and analysis, Professor Robitaille was responsible for doubling the world record in Magnetic Resonance Imaging in 1998. In 2000, he turned his attention to thermodynamics and astrophysics, demonstrating that the universality advanced in Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Emission is invalid. He has published extensively on the microwave background, highlighting that this signal arises from water on the Earth and has no relationship to cosmology and has recently published a paper on the Liquid Metallic Hydrogen Solar Model (LMHSM).
Which scientists are we to believe is my question? Whose PHD is to trusted?
Goodnight.
Dr. Pierre-Marie Robitaille: The Cosmic Microwave Background | EU2014
Posted on April 25, 2014 by sschirott
Ever since Penzias and Wilson discovered that the Earth was surrounded by microwave energy, astronomers have been quick to postulate that the apparent ~3K signal represented the signature of the Big Bang. Yet long ago, Gustav Kirchhoff insisted that the setting of temperatures, using the laws of thermal emission, required enclosure. Clearly, the Big Bang can never meet this requirement. In this presentation, it is demonstrated that the microwave fields, which surround the earth and have excited distant molecules, can be generated by the hydrogen bond within water in the condensed state. A review of the COBE and WMAP are presented, revealing that the microwave anisotropy maps have no scientific validity. The data lack both signal to noise and reproducibility. Furthermore, the PLANCK satellite findings is discussed. These data provide unambiguous evidence that powerful microwave fields do not exist at L2. Penzias and Wilson measured water on Earth. The correct assignment of this signal is vital to better understanding our own planet.
Pierre-Marie Robitaille, PhD is a Professor of Radiology at The Ohio State University, with a joint appointment in Chemical Physics. He initially trained as a spectroscopist and has wide ranging knowledge of instrumentation in the radio and microwave bands. A recognized expert in image acquisition and analysis, Professor Robitaille was responsible for doubling the world record in Magnetic Resonance Imaging in 1998. In 2000, he turned his attention to thermodynamics and astrophysics, demonstrating that the universality advanced in Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Emission is invalid. He has published extensively on the microwave background, highlighting that this signal arises from water on the Earth and has no relationship to cosmology and has recently published a paper on the Liquid Metallic Hydrogen Solar Model (LMHSM).
very entertaining lectures
Which scientists are we to believe is my question? Whose PHD is to trusted?
Goodnight.
Dr. Pierre-Marie Robitaille: The Cosmic Microwave Background | EU2014
Posted on April 25, 2014 by sschirott
Ever since Penzias and Wilson discovered that the Earth was surrounded by microwave energy, astronomers have been quick to postulate that the apparent ~3K signal represented the signature of the Big Bang. Yet long ago, Gustav Kirchhoff insisted that the setting of temperatures, using the laws of thermal emission, required enclosure. Clearly, the Big Bang can never meet this requirement. In this presentation, it is demonstrated that the microwave fields, which surround the earth and have excited distant molecules, can be generated by the hydrogen bond within water in the condensed state. A review of the COBE and WMAP are presented, revealing that the microwave anisotropy maps have no scientific validity. The data lack both signal to noise and reproducibility. Furthermore, the PLANCK satellite findings is discussed. These data provide unambiguous evidence that powerful microwave fields do not exist at L2. Penzias and Wilson measured water on Earth. The correct assignment of this signal is vital to better understanding our own planet.
Pierre-Marie Robitaille, PhD is a Professor of Radiology at The Ohio State University, with a joint appointment in Chemical Physics. He initially trained as a spectroscopist and has wide ranging knowledge of instrumentation in the radio and microwave bands. A recognized expert in image acquisition and analysis, Professor Robitaille was responsible for doubling the world record in Magnetic Resonance Imaging in 1998. In 2000, he turned his attention to thermodynamics and astrophysics, demonstrating that the universality advanced in Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Emission is invalid. He has published extensively on the microwave background, highlighting that this signal arises from water on the Earth and has no relationship to cosmology and has recently published a paper on the Liquid Metallic Hydrogen Solar Model (LMHSM).
very entertaining lectures
Well before diving into this, I have to say first of all that it's ironic for you of all people to give a rat's @ss about whether or not someone has a PhD. If the process of science framed by politics is as flawed as you say it is, then you should trust your own understanding of what you're posting. And second, thanks for actually giving an answer. You're one of the better skeptics that at least isn't afraid to put something out there.
Well, I find it helps to read the source material. You could try that, and do a little bit of research yourself. Might take longer than your cut and pastes though
So the synopsis of the paper is, because astrophysicists don't meet the standards for medical imaging, even though the cosmic microwave background emerges from two independent datasets, it surely then must be a product of something happening on Earth, (no evidence presented for that) and further all cosmological investigations using the satellites are statistically insignificant (also, no hypothesis tested). To call that anything short of an article of faith would be disingenuous.
So what is the relevance of contamination in biological image sampling compared to the contamination in cosmological image sampling? Not addressed. That's like me complaining about failure analysis used by rocket scientists on an engine component because they didn't use the censoring conventions I use with survival curves in an efficacy experiment with lethal end points. Different problems, different methods for handling them. Not all are appropriate for a given application...
And for irony, he objects to the blackbody temperatures because he claims Kirchoff's and Planck's Law (oh double irony beav, he referred to the Planck Constant!) requires that the emitting sample is sufficiently like graphite or soot. It actually does not. That's ironic, because the blackbody radiation given off by the cosmic microwave background, is better than the curve you get if you examine graphite or soot. It's by far the best blackbody curve we can observe. Just google "perfect blackbody spectrum", and doa bit of reading, see what pops up. Spoiler alert, it's the cosmic microwave background.
But kudos for following someone who brings the creation of the universe back to Earth. You're so retro with your geocentric universe. :lol:
Now, why don't you tell me what you think of this paper of his Beav?
Well before diving into this, I have to say first of all that it's ironic for you of all people to give a rat's @ss about whether or not someone has a PhD. If the process of science framed by politics is as flawed as you say it is, then you should trust your own understanding of what you're posting. And second, thanks for actually giving an answer. You're one of the better skeptics that at least isn't afraid to put something out there.
Well, I find it helps to read the source material. You could try that, and do a little bit of research yourself. Might take longer than your cut and pastes though
So the synopsis of the paper is, because astrophysicists don't meet the standards for medical imaging, even though the cosmic microwave background emerges from two independent datasets, it surely then must be a product of something happening on Earth, (no evidence presented for that) and further all cosmological investigations using the satellites are statistically insignificant (also, no hypothesis tested). To call that anything short of an article of faith would be disingenuous.
So what is the relevance of contamination in biological image sampling compared to the contamination in cosmological image sampling? Not addressed. That's like me complaining about failure analysis used by rocket scientists on an engine component because they didn't use the censoring conventions I use with survival curves in an efficacy experiment with lethal end points. Different problems, different methods for handling them. Not all are appropriate for a given application...
And for irony, he objects to the blackbody temperatures because he claims Kirchoff's and Planck's Law (oh double irony beav, he referred to the Planck Constant!) requires that the emitting sample is sufficiently like graphite or soot. It actually does not. That's ironic, because the blackbody radiation given off by the cosmic microwave background, is better than the curve you get if you examine graphite or soot. It's by far the best blackbody curve we can observe. Just google "perfect blackbody spectrum", and doa bit of reading, see what pops up. Spoiler alert, it's the cosmic microwave background.
But kudos for following someone who brings the creation of the universe back to Earth. You're so retro with your geocentric universe. :lol:
Now, why don't you tell me what you think of this paper of his Beav?
I will certainly get back two U. I am just a poor chicken farmer suffering a curiosity about the fabric of the onionverse.
Nobody is immune from being a crank. He's a radiology professor, which could explain why he get's the physics on Black body spectrum so wrong.
Recognized expert by whom? No, an appeal to authority does not carry that much weight with me, and again, I find it very ironic that it does with you. That's almost like referring to a consensus without examining the details.
For shame, beav.
You present an interesting question," then you should trust your own understanding of what you're posting", My cut and paste approach after all this time certainly can't be misunderstood as expertise in any subject, but that does not invalidate the trust I have in my understanding. As you know your own understanding is a sum of all that's come before you so to suggest I isolate and contain my thoughts to a personal box and exclude my superiors is a recipe for error. It is also impossible.
You make other points of interest "creation of the universe" followed by "back to earth" followed by "geocentric universe", creationism is hard to avoid for the human mind ain't it? Are you arguing that the mind of humanity is not centered on earth? Since we are confined physically to earth how is a mistake to consider a geocentric universe as a valid argument in an infinite universe with no recognizable form of containment? The materialist school manically searches for physical material centers but it's not matter that defines humanity it is mind.
Enough dodging your post, I confess and admit I can't do the math and won't.
Last edited:
There are no experts in here...the irony I'm driving at though is that when you make posts critical about peer review, about vested interests, about the consensus, it's really no different in the end than what you just did. You posted an article that is popular amongst a group of people and trusted that someone knew what they were talking about. I'm certainly no expert, but I'm very good at checking sources.
I think that asking about the relevance of nuclear medicine conventions to satellite imaging of the cosmos is a fair question, and should be answered before attacking data for not using that convention. I think a reviewer of his paper should have asked for that. Maybe he has a very good answer, but he hasn't stated it. That, would make his paper much stronger.
Enough dodging your post, I confess and admit I can't do the math and won't.
A for effort.
I trust my intuition, I know that's akin to consulting chicken guts but It's all I got. Thus far in life its worked and I have no other options.
Always fun to talk with you, thanks.
Always fun to talk with you, thanks.
It is a fair question and upon further reading it seems the only difference between the two fields is scale.
Hardly, but it's certainly one of them. Surely you can think of some of your own differences. For instance, a magnetic imager in a hospital is not peering around planets, and stars.
Some more questions upon further reading, how exactly does a microwave curve around and follow a trajectory opposite to the vector it originally was emitted/propagated at from the ocean? That is the only way it could have entered the FIRAS spectrophotomoeter, which is pointed away from Earth. Line of sight...it matters.
Supposing he could give an acceptable answer for that, if the cosmic microwave background is contamination from the ocean, why does the CMB signal of 2.7K show up when measuring from the Lagrange points? If it is moving like he said, and it's random, then two things would be expected. First, the 2.7 K signal would not be so reliably produced every time. Second, measuring from a distance further out would reduce the contamination, and the signal would be smaller still. Except it isn't. Measuring from the Lagrange points yields the same signal. If the radiation from the ocean is moving about as Robitaille says, this two things would not be possible. But it should have been obvious beforehand, energy radiated from an object propagates by line of sight...
My final comment on this, microwaves are used for point to point communication. Microwaves have big advantages over lower energy frequencies like radiowaves, one being the amount of information they can carry. However one downside is that the receiver and transmitter have to be pointing at one another. Tower to tower, tower to satellite, they all have to be aligned precisely, or their utility for communication is destroyed.
Microwaves just don't behave the way Robitaille says they do. Ever seen an x-ray machine pointed away from the tissue it's being used to produce images of? :lol:
You should watch his two lectures I believe I left links. You suggested a clip to me a few days ago that I havn't found.
A brain is very much like space in construction believe it or not.
Smoots results are not reproduceable, that's fatal.
Dr. Pierre Latour: Engineering Earth’s Thermostat with CO2 | EU2014
Posted on May 6, 2014 by sschirott
In Dr. Latour’s presentation, physics, chemistry, mathematics, engineering, economics, history and ethics are deployed to identify the barriers to designing the thermostat to control Earth’s atmospheric temperature by adjusting its CO2 input. He explains that Earth’s temperature is a chemical process system. Review of control system engineering of Earth’s thermostat with anthropogenic CO2 in 1997 proved it will never work because it is an unmeasurable, unobservable and uncontrollable system. CO2 does not affect temperature; temperature affects CO2. There are no greenhouse gases in physics. CO2 is not a pollutant; it is green plant food. He goes on to explain that people have beliefs and knowledge. Knowledge of nature is discovered by the scientific method: theory in the language of nature (mathematics), prediction and verification. Such discoveries are held to be true until falsified. Dr. Latour offers claims supported by credible evidence, settled science and warrants how one can know that they are true. Sound engineering requires no less.
Dr. Pierre Latour is a Chemical Engineer, Vice-Chairman, Principia-Scientific International and consultant for identifying, capturing and sustaining measurable benefits from process control, IT and CIM in the HPI by proper determination of operating conditions and the financial benefit of dynamic performance to support licensing solutions based on value-added, shared-risk shared-reward (SR2) business alliances. Justified and installed advanced process control on most oil refinery and petrochemical processes for 62 clients worldwide since 1966. Greenhouse Gas Theory skeptic: CO2 induced global warming and climate change. In addition, Dr. Latour is the Vice President of business development, marketing, engineering, projects and consulting at AspenTech, Dynamic Matrix Control Corp, Setpoint and Biles & Assoc. Chairman of Setpoint Japan and cofounded the last three firms. Further, he is an engineer at Shell Oil and DuPont; Captain, US Army and Apollo Program Simulation Branch Manager, NASA MSC, Houston. CONTROL Magazine Engineer of the Year 1999 and Purdue University Outstanding Chemical Engineer 2007. Authored 87 publications, Cimfuels editor for Fuels. PE TX & CA. Latour holds BS, ChE, VaTech, MS & PhD, ChE, Purdue University.
www.principia-scientific.org
Last edited:
A lecture full of numbers and real hardware, crushes the CO2 theory to death. CO2 for dummys.
"There are no green house gases in physics."
"There are no green house gases in physics."
Just how far does your denial go though? Do you deny that greenhouse gases are opaque to IR? You've come full circle again. I can give you the test procedure to figure this out at home. So long as you can get a canister of N2, Alka Seltzer tablets, pop bottles, some pressure relief valves, and thermometers, the greenhouse effect can be demonstrated experimentally without needing fancy laboratory equipment. As a bonus the experiment uses the sun, so no foolish denier can tell you that you ignored the sun when you demonstrate the greenhouse effect to be true.
But it's already been done in labs. As early as 1859.
Oh, and the video clip was a lecture given by Richard Alley
Richard Alley: "The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Climate History" - YouTube
Logically that should be the end of this thread. That man is a licensed Engineer not some fuzzy headed scientist.
Logically that should be the end of this thread.
Only in your alternative reality, which we've already established.
I just talking about you.
An Engineer has spoken, the thread is closed.
Well that Engineer has thousands of believers who've paid him millions and millions of dollars to design controls for billion dollar projects, and they all work to specs. Smoot and company make interpretive unreproduceable modern art.
I'm forced to go with the guy who builds working models everyday.
An Engineer has spoken, the thread is closed.
Only in your alternative reality, which we've already established.
Well that Engineer has thousands of believers who've paid him millions and millions of dollars to design controls for billion dollar projects, and they all work to specs. Smoot and company make interpretive unreproduceable modern art.
I'm forced to go with the guy who builds working models everyday.
"Science is essentially and irrefutably so, the pursuit and enhancement of alternatives to contemporary realities." Dr Glass Beaker PHD