Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 71

Thread: gravity waves and gravity speed.

  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ballarat Australia
    Posts
    5,806
    COBE and WMAP: Signal Analysis by Fact or Fiction? by Stephen J. Crothers

    Pierre-Marie Robitaille, a Professor of Radiology at Ohio State University, is an expert when
    it comes to instrumentation and signal analysis. It was Robitaille who conceived and directed
    the construction of the world's first 8 Tesla Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scanner
    [1,2]. In doing so, he nearly doubled the maximum field strength in MRI and gave birth to
    Ultra High Field Magnetic Resonance Imaging (UHFMRI). Robitaille’s scanner
    immediately revealed anatomical structures within the human brain that were previously
    never seen on human scans [3]. In recent years, Robitaille has applied his skills to
    astrophysics, and his findings are very significant.

    COBE and WMAP have been hailed by the astrophysical scientists as great triumphs in
    science, measuring the temperature of the Universe, the ~3K Cosmic Microwave Background
    (CMB) remnant of the Big Bang; a signal first detected by Penzias and Wilson [4] from the
    ground, in 1965. Stephen Hawking has dubbed this "the scientific discovery of the century, if
    not of all time" [5, 6].

    However, upon closer examination, the claim does not stand up; in
    fact, it has no valid basis in science, as Robitaille [7, 8] has revealed. According to Robitaille,
    COBE and WMAP have produced almost nothing of any scientific value. Moreover,
    Robitaille concludes that the CMB is not cosmic, but a signal produced by the oceans of the
    Earth: "Throughout the detection history of the microwave background, it remained puzzling
    that the Earth itself never provided interference with the measurements. Water, after all, acts
    as a powerful absorber of microwave radiation. This is well understood, both at sea aboard
    submarines, and at home within microwave ovens" [8]; "... if the Earth's oceans cannot
    interfere with these measurements, it is precisely because they are the primary source of the
    signal" [8].

    The COBE and WMAP teams model the Earth as a blackbody source of emission at ~ 280 K.
    But Robitaille points out that "since the oceans are not enclosed" [8] they do not satisfy the
    requirements for application of Kirchhoff's law of thermal emission, and so the emission
    profiles of the oceans "do not necessarily correspond to their true temperatures" [8]. By
    means of scattering in steady-state conditions, Robitaille argues: "Consequently, a
    mechanism for creating isotropy from an anisotropic ocean signal is indeed present for the
    oceanic ~3 K Earth Microwave Background" [9].

    Misapplication of Kirchhoff's law of thermal emission is far from the only major problem
    with both COBE and WMAP. Robitaille has shown that both projects are plagued by very
    serious problems with the performance of satellite onboard instruments and methods of signal
    processing. Aboard COBE is the Far
    Last edited by cushioncrawler; 04-03-2014 at 06:14 PM.

  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ballarat Australia
    Posts
    5,806
    From [11] courtesy of NASA and the COBE Science Working Group. Reproduced by permission of the AAS.

    "FIRAS was designed to function as a differential radiometer, wherein the sky signal could
    be nulled by the reference horn Ical" [8]. Signal from the sky horn is compared to signal
    provided by the reference horn. The FIRAS team reported a null point at 2.759 K, which is
    34 mK above the reported sky temperature, 2.725 ▒ 0.001 K. Null should ideally occur at the
    sky temperature. Owing to 18 mK error in the thermometers, ~ 3 mK temperature drift, 5 mK
    error in the sky horn Xcal, and 4 mK error in Ical, Robitaille determines an overall error bar
    of ~ 64 mK in the microwave background. Yet the FIRAS team reports only ~ 1 mK. Errors
    were evidently dumped into the calibration files. And as Robitaille observes, "a 1 mK error
    does not properly reflect the experimental state of the spectrometer" [8]. The FIRAS team's
    calibration procedures produced calculated Ical emissivities great than 1.3 at the higher
    frequencies; but the theoretical maximum for emissivity is 1.

    In their initial reports the FIRAS team included data for the frequency range 30 to 60 GHz,
    but these frequencies disappeared from later reports. According to Robitaille, diffraction of
    atmospheric photons over the FIRAS shield, which the FIRAS team never adequately tested
    on the ground, would increase microwave power at lower frequencies, and comparatively
    reduce microwave power at higher frequencies; bearing in mind that the frequencies of
    interest for the microwave background are < 600 GHz. Misgivings were expressed by a
    member of the FIRAS team: "Dave Wilkinson, the FRIAS team sceptic, argued effectively at
    numerous meetings that he did not believe that Ned" (Wright) "and Al" (Kogurt) "had proven
    that every systematic error in the data was negligible. Dave's worry was that emissions from
    the earth might be shining over and around the spacecraft's protective shield" [3,8]. Even so,
    Wilkinson never contemplated that the entire ~ 3 K signal has its origin in the oceans.

    On the balance of the evidence pre-flight testing of COBE's instruments was seriously
    compromised. Owing to the Challenger disaster, COBE could not be launched by space
    shuttle, and so the satellite underwent a major late stage redesign. John Mather, a principle
    investigator on FIRAS, reported: "Every pound was crucial as the engineers struggled to cut
    the spacecraft's weight from 10,594 pounds to at most 5,025 pounds and its launch diameter
    from 15 feet to 8 feet" [6, p. 195]. "Getting COBE into orbit was now Goddard's No. 1
    priority and one of NASA's top priorities in the absence of shuttle flights. In early 1987 NASA
    administrator Jim Fletcher visited Goddard and looked over the COBE hardware, then
    issued a press release stating that COBE was the centerpiece of the agency's recovery" [6,
    p.194-195].

    The FIRAS team did not examine "the interaction of the COBE shield with the FIRAS horn"
    Last edited by cushioncrawler; 04-03-2014 at 06:14 PM.

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ballarat Australia
    Posts
    5,806
    [8]; and the effects of earthshine were not "measured in preflight tests, only estimated from
    crude (by today's standards) calculations" [10]. Nor did the team conduct sufficient tests of
    FIRAS in the flight dewar, and testing of the assembled instrument was curtailed. No RF tests
    have been reported for side-lobe performance, sensitivity or diffraction on the ground for the
    fully assembled instrument. Some side-lobe testing was conducted on FIRAS whilst on the
    ground, at 118Ám, 10Ám, and 0.5Ám, but without its RF shield (figure 2), and some
    frequencies below 100 GHz were tested. However, only the 118Ám in figure 2 "is within the
    usable bandwidth of the instrument" [8]. But without the shield, this data is of little relevance.
    Fig. 2: Side-lobe response of FIRAS horn without the RF shield [18].

    Mather J.C., Toral M., Hemmati H., Heat trap with flare as multipole antenna,
    Appl. Optics, 1986 v. 25(16), 2826-2830. Reproduced from [18] with permission of Appl. Optics.
    Since the FIRAS team had little useful side-lobe performance data, they attempted to obtain it
    in flight, using the Moon assumed as a lambertian emitter at 1,500 GHz (Fig. 3). From this,
    Fixen et al. [11] concluded a maximum side-lobe response of "less -38 dB beyond 15o from
    the center of the beam" at 1,500 GHz. But the FIRAS team then compared this with data at
    ~90 GHz obtained on the ground without the RF shield. Furthermore, in-flight data for the
    lower frequencies where diffraction effects would be strongest are not reported, and no
    ground data seems to have been obtained at 1,500 GHz, with or without the RF shield in
    place.

    Fig. 3: Side-lobe response for FRIAS shield on ground at 3cm-1 (solid line) and in-flight with lunar source at 50 cm-1 (broken line).

    From [11] courtesy of NASA and the COBE Science Working Group. Reproduced by permission of the AAS.
    Over a period of 13 years the FIRAS team reported a reduction of error in the measured
    Last edited by cushioncrawler; 04-03-2014 at 06:15 PM.

  4. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ballarat Australia
    Posts
    5,806
    temperature of the microwave background, by almost two orders of magnitude, despite the
    existence of significant systematic errors (table 1).

    Table 1. Microwave background temperatures obtained by the COBE FIRAS team.
    Reproduced from [8] courtesy of Pierre-Marie Robitaille and Progress in Physics.

    Concerning the blackbody spectrum, Fixen and Mather remark [12]: “It is sometimes stated
    that this is the most perfect blackbody spectrum ever measured, but the measurement is
    actually the difference between the sky and the calibrator.” Robitaille [8] expresses the
    relationship thus:
    (Sky – Ical) – (Xcal – Ical) = (Sky – Xcal).

    It is clear from this that the effects of Ical and instrumental factors should be negligible: but
    that is not what the FIRAS team found. It is also clear that if Xcal matches the sky a null will
    result. Xcal is assumed an ideal blackbody spectrum and so the sky would also be an ideal
    blackbody spectrum in the event of a null. The FIRAS team assumed from the outset that the
    sky is as an ideal blackbody.

    Note that if the calibration obtained with Xcal in place is dominated by leakage of sky signal into the horn then a perfect blackbody spectrum would result because the sky would then be compared with itself. Robitaille has shown that it is
    most likely that there is significant sky leakage into the horn during calibration with Xcal.
    Robitaille relates most significantly that in actual fact FIRAS was unable to obtain proper
    nulls, despite the FIRAS team’s reports that they obtained “the most perfect blackbody
    spectrum ever measured”. Unable to obtain a proper null, the FIRAS team blames instrument
    problems and the calibrations, but never entertains the possibility that the sky, owing to
    diffraction over the RF shield of emissions originating from the Earth, is not behaving as a
    blackbody as they assume. The FIRAS team published interferograms for a final temperature
    of 2.725 ▒ 0.001 K with Ical set at 2.759 K. The published interferograms consists of three
    traces (Fig. 4). The top and bottom traces are not drawn to the same vertical scale as the
    Last edited by cushioncrawler; 04-03-2014 at 06:15 PM.

  5. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ballarat Australia
    Posts
    5,806
    middle trace: “A correction factor of 3-5 should be applied to place the upper and lower
    interferograms on scale with the center one” [8]. Furthermore, noise power analysis with this
    data reveals that “the FIRAS team is not maintaining a constant vertical amplification” [8]. In
    order to attempt to account for the data, the FIRAS team applies, ad hoc, a 4% reflectance to
    Ical.

    Fig. 4: Interferograms obtained in flight with FIRAS.

    From [13] courtesy of NASA and the COBE Science Working Group. Reproduced by permission of the AAS.
    The FIRAS team initially published spectra for 1-21 cm-1 [13], deviating from a blackbody by
    less than 1%. But in 1994 [14] a new set of data was published, indicating a deviation from
    blackbody by 0.03%. Then in 1996 it is reported that the “rms deviations are less than 50
    parts per million of the peak of the cosmic microwave background radiation” [15]. In 1999
    the deviations are reported as less than 0.01% [16]; and in 2002 the deviations become “50
    parts per million (PMM, rms) of the peak brightness of the CMBR spectrum, within the
    uncertainty of the measurement” [12]. But Robitaille observes that: “Using technology
    established in the 1970’s, the FIRAS team reported a spectral precision well beyond that
    commonly achievable today in the best radiometry laboratories in the world” [8].

    Robitaille also remarks that the blackbody trace published by the FIRAS team [15] “is
    unusually drawn, as the frequency axis is offset. This makes it less apparent that data is not
    being shown below 2 cm-1” [8]. After 1994, all data below 2cm-1 was omitted in FIRAS
    reports. Fixen et al. make the remark: “However, the measured emission is higher than
    predicted, particularly at the lowest frequencies” [11]; at the very frequencies at which
    diffraction of photons from Earth would be a maximum over the RF shield. In addition, all
    data when the Earth illuminated the instrument are rejected outright, thereby removing any
    effect of earthshine that might well assign the microwave background to the oceans.
    Furthermore, “In the end, the FIRAS team transfers the error from the spectrum of interest
    into the calibration file” ... “Using this approach it would be possible, in principle, to attain
    no deviations whatever from the perfect theoretical blackbody. Given enough degrees of
    freedom and computing power, errors begin to lose physical meaning. The calibration file
    became a repository for everything that did not work for FIRAS” [8].

    Both COBE and WMAP must deal with the presence of a microwave dipole, and a galactic
    foreground that is ~1000 times stronger than the signal sought. This is a dynamic range
    Last edited by cushioncrawler; 04-03-2014 at 06:15 PM.

  6. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ballarat Australia
    Posts
    5,806
    problem. As Robitaille advises [7], laboratory experience in medicine demonstrates that it is
    impossible to extract a signal ~1000 times smaller than the background without being able to
    affect the signal at its sources or without a priori knowledge of the source; neither of which
    are available to WMAP or COBE. George Smoot, the principal investigator for the COBE
    Differential Microwave Radiometers (DMR), relates that to extract the weak multipoles by
    data processing, which Smoot calls “wrinkles in the fabric of time” [5], required first the
    removal of the dipole, galactic foreground, and the quadrupole signals. Smoot puzzled over
    why the multipoles did not appear until the quadrupole was finally removed by data
    processing methods, since the raw data contained no systematic signal variations.

    Robitaille’s answer is simple: “when Smoot and his colleagues imposed a systematic removal of signal,
    they produced a systematic remnant. In essence, the act of removing the quadrupole created
    the multipoles and the associated systematic anisotropies” [8]. Smoot’s “wrinkles in the
    fabric of time” are nothing more than consistent residual ghost signals produced by his data
    processing. The appearance of such systematic ghost signals throughout an image when
    processing large contaminating signals is very well known in medical radiology. Robitaille
    advises that “Apparent anisotropy must not be generated by processing” [7,8].

    The foregoing far from exhausts the list of major problems with COBE. Robitaille gives
    detailed analyses of significant shortcomings in COBE’s bolometer performance, grid
    polarizer performance, emissivities of Xcal and Ical, signal leakage around Xcal, design of
    the FIRAS horn, antenna gain, determination of error bars on data, and the optical transfer
    function applied. Concerning the latter, Robitaille [8] makes the following points: (a) there is
    an unexplained and significant oscillation below ~ 20cm-1; (b) FIRAS detects only 1 photon
    in 10; (c) FIRAS is non-linear in operation; (d) when applied to data beyond ~ 30cm-1 there is
    a pronounced amplification of spectral noise, indicating that in this frequency range FIRAS is
    sub-optimal.

    WMAP
    WMAP does not measure absolute intensity of any microwave signal, but operates by
    measuring the difference between antennae. All data is therefore difference data. According
    to Robitaille: “WMAP images do not meet accepted standards in medical imaging research”
    [7]. WMAP samples at five frequencies: K  23GHz, Ka  33GHz, Q  41GHz, V  61GHz,
    W  94GHz. Claiming that the large galactic foreground signal can be removed, despite
    absence of access to signal source and a priori knowledge of it, the WMAP team produces
    Integrated Linear Combination (ILC) images, effectively assuming, without any scientific
    basis, that the foreground signal is frequency dependent and the sought after underlying
    anisotropy frequency independent. WMAP anisotropy maps are composites of 12 sectional
    images, 11 thereof in the galactic plane. Robitaille notes: “The WMAP team invokes
    completely different linear combinations of data to process adjacent regions of the galactic
    plane” [7]. Numerical coefficients used by the WMAP team to process each section of their
    final image, vary by as much as 100%. Robitaille objects that “The sole driving force for
    altering the weight of these coefficients lies in the need to zero the foreground. The selection
    of individual coefficients is without scientific basis, with the only apparent goal being the
    attainment of a null point” [7].

    Furthermore, the WMAP team arbitrarily weights the V-band [17, Table 5]. There is no scientific reason for preferring the V-band over any other band. To any chosen band there corresponds a particular set of ILC maps, and so different sets of
    cosmological constants would result depending upon the band emphasised; as products of
    data processing. Robitaille considers this clear evidence that “The requirement that the
    signals of interest are frequency independent cannot be met, and has certainly never been
    Last edited by cushioncrawler; 04-03-2014 at 06:16 PM.

  7. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ballarat Australia
    Posts
    5,806
    proven” [7], and “There is no single map of the anisotropy, since all maps are equally valid,
    provided coefficients sum to 1” [7] (which is precisely the condition set by the WMAP team).

    Consequently: “There is no unique solution and therefore each map is indistinguishable from
    noise. There are no findings relative to anisotropy, since there are no features in the maps
    which could guide astrophysics relative to the true solution” [7].

    The most important determinant of image quality is signal to noise. High signal to noise can
    permit some signal sacrifice to enhance contrast and resolution. Without high signal to noise,
    contrast and resolution will be poor. WMAP images have a maximum signal to noise that
    barely exceeds 1, and so “WMAP is unable to confirm that the ‘anisotropic signal’ observed
    at any given point is not noise. The act of attributing signal characteristics to noise does not
    in itself create signal” [7].

    In the absence of high signal to noise, the only indicative feature of images is reproducibility.
    However, as Robitaille points out, WMAP images cannot evidently be reproduced, since the
    WMAP team not only selectively weights the V-band, but varies all ILC coefficients from
    year to year, for the central region of its images, and also averages images for a 3-year data
    image which differs significantly from the first year image, and did not publish any images
    for years 2 and 3. Moreover, the WMAP team's difference images are between year 1 and the
    averaged 3 year, not between images year to year. Figure 5 depicts comparative images,
    wherein Robitaille draws attention to the fact that “the difference images are shown with
    reduced resolution contrary to established practices in imaging science” [7].

    Fig. 5
    From [19] courtesy of NASA and the WMAP Science Team. Reproduced by permission of the AAS.
    That WMAP and COBE have measured the temperature of the Universe is not substantiated
    by the facts.
    Last edited by cushioncrawler; 04-03-2014 at 06:16 PM.

  8. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ballarat Australia
    Posts
    5,806
    Sick-science beleevs that gravity travels at c. Real-science knows that gravity haz nearly zero aberration, koz gravity iz much faster than light, 20,000,000,000*c being a good starting point for serious analysis. Some of the confuzion iz due to definition -- gravitational radiation and gravitational waves being different things to different people, just for starters.

    Sick-science says inflatons pushed space&time outwards at superspeeds, much more than c, during the first 1/10^34sec of the (stupid) bigbang. Sick-science says that electrons appeared at 1/10^34 seconds (or 1/10^37), and that inflation and lower temperature allowed electrons and protons to combine and neutralize which allowed photons to moov more freely or something.
    Sick-science says that the speed of light woz c then and now, & c woz in addition to space&time's speed (this haz merit).
    However if the speed of gravity iz 20,000,000,000*c then gravity would hav allways been outside their little universe.

    If sick-science iz looking at a (suppozedly) 14,000,000,000 year old supernova, then if gravity travels at 20,000,000,000*c, any (stupid) gravity-waves from the supernova would hav left their universe (if leeving their universe iz possible) more than 13,999,999,999 years ago. And sick-science wonders why LUX karnt detect gravity-waves. Sick-science missed the bus by 13,999,999,999 years. If u espy a supernova then u hav allready missed its gravity-wave (besides, gravity-waves don't exist).

    LUX might pick up a supernova if it occurred less than a year ago, and if it woz a long long long way away. For example a supernova that started 1 hour ago, and woz 20,000,000,000 light-hours away (= 228,310 light-years away), might be detekted by LUX now, but a telescope would not detect the supernova for 228,310 years (minus 1hr). Not forgetting that Einstein didn't beleev in the bigbang (nor blackholes).

    Modern math haz shown that Frankeinsteinian math showing that gravity-waves travel at c iz based on the choice of reference frame -- and that sick-science haz simply and fraudulently chozen the reference frame that givs that happy rezult.
    mac.
    Last edited by cushioncrawler; 04-08-2014 at 09:12 PM.

  9. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ballarat Australia
    Posts
    5,806
    Miles haz some brilliant stuff re the mechanics of hiz photon charge-field. But Miles loves Einstein (but mac iz an Einstein atheist). And Miles iz agnostic re aether (but mac loves aether). Anyhow the charge-field and aether kan co-exist happyly and are sure to hav beautifull kids.
    mac.
    http://milesmathis.com/guth.pdf
    Last edited by cushioncrawler; 04-03-2014 at 06:23 PM.

  10. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ballarat Australia
    Posts
    5,806
    Higgs got a Nobel for Literature for the Higgs Particle. Who will get a Nobel for the Inflaton?????
    The following wikileaks article must be read uzing Stephen Hawking's computer-voice (ie in your own mind) for full effekt.
    mac.

    Inflaton
    From Wikileaks
    Not to be confused with Instanton.

    ...............According to inflation theory, the inflaton is a scalar field[1] that is responsible for cosmic inflation in the very early universe.[2][3] A quantized particle for this field is expected, similar to other quantum fields, called an inflaton. The field provides a mechanism by which a period of rapid expansion from 10−35 to 10−34 seconds after the initial expansion can be generated, forming the universe.

    The basic process of inflation consists of three steps:
    Prior to the expansion period, the inflaton field was at a higher-energy state.
    Random quantum fluctuations triggered a phase transition whereby the inflaton field released its potential energy as matter and radiation as it settled to its lowest-energy state.
    This action generated a repulsive force that drove the portion of the universe that is observable to us today to expand from approximately 10−50 metres in radius at 10−35 seconds to almost 1 metre in radius at 10−34 seconds.

    The inflaton field's lowest energy state may or may not be a zero energy state. This depends on the chosen potential energy density of the field.

    The term Inflaton is a crossover between the word "inflation" and the typical naming style of other quantum fields such as photon, gluon, boson and fermion.......................


    HAHAAAAHHHHHAAAAAAAA.... stop, this iz killing me, when I recover enuff I might google Instanton....HHAAAAHHHHAAHAHA
    mac.

    inflaton............. First found in tyres in 1905.
    instanton........... Uzed in advanced math.
    lateron.............. Uzed for homework.
    gluon................ Part B and Part A are mixed to fuze small bits to make large bits.
    stickon.............. Uzed for labelling other particles.
    sickon............... Found at zero g.
    sweaton............ Precursor for Nobel Prizes.
    fraudon............. See standard inflation model of cosmology.
    stupidon........... See standard particle model.
    Last edited by cushioncrawler; 04-08-2014 at 09:17 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •