OT for other dark matter 'fans'.

Eventually - after the wave has had time to propagate there and subject to an intensity that falls off as the inverse square law.

One thing to ponder is that to have a precise well defined frequency f, the photon must exist over a length of time t along its trajectory that is sufficient to enclose a respectable number of cycles to make df small. Otherwise the frequency becomes ill defined as in ultra short laser pulses. I stumbled upon this rather lovely review article whilst looking for an example (it even mentions regen optical amplifiers):

Ether theories went out with the ark. Michelson-Morley experiment showed there is no medium for electromagnetic waves beyond spacetime itself.

Although we can put experimental bounds on its size being at least

10000x smaller than a proton or neutron. Experimentalists are working to refine that further but it requires a lot of energy to see fine detail.

And HEP is like studying the workings of chronometers by smashing them together at ever greater speeds. But at least unlike astrophysicists the HEP guys can manipulate their experiments on Earth - we just have to take what we are given and look at it carefully from a distance with whatever tools we can muster. These days most wavebands are possible!

Like charges repel, unlike charges attract. It is one of the things that makes gravity different - matter and antimatter both attract each other through gravity and any electric charge they might have.

Merging gravity with all the other physical theories remains one of the most awkward problems for modern physics. It may be the weakest of the forces of nature but it certainly causes the most difficulties to GUTs.

Physics is just the best model of the universe we have at the present time.

It is always subject to revision when a new experiment demonstrates that the current theory makes an entirely wrong prediction. Designing such experiments to break the status quo is the stuff of Nobel Prizes.

--
Regards, 
Martin Brown

Martin Brown wrote

Thats is a very nice paper, did read it, and will have to read it a few more times, great find!

An electron that is a radiating sun (whatever radiates I do not know) does NOT falsify M&M, is in a way its own medium (ether).

Then you can start on positron, well maybe it radiates something opposite, and when electron and positron meet BANG??

It the greater view of things with stars and bangs(big) a radiating particle does not seem a strange thing to me. We just cannot look yet at things that small (size of electron?)

Yes.

Interesting new measurement and also a verification of M&M:

The original paper:

--
Reinhardt

Jeff Liebermann wrote

Mine is only 87 cm, you can mount it on the Motek, set the elevation (geostationary sats are all at the same elevation for you latitude, xdipo has a build in calculator, just enter your GPS coordinates, and the dish mount has an elevation scale, leave the mounting scews a bit lose, just wave it west to east, and see one sat after the other. Target one, look at the transport stream (transponder) and use for example 'medianfo' on it. Demo:

0) get some satellite signal 1) select PID 8192 (means all PIDs, the whole transponder) 2) press record, record for a second or 2, xdipo can do that, there are many programs, dvbstream (not by me) can do that too, see linuxtv.org for more. 3) press stop. recorded filename was q1

4) Run mediainfo q1 > what_I_wanted_to_know.txt then read the result in text file what_I_wanted_to_know.txt

------------ General ID : 453 Complete name : q1 Format : MPEG-TS File size : 71.8 MiB Duration : 17s 667ms Start time : UTC 2018-08-15 05:47:26 End time : UTC 2018-08-15 05:47:41 Overall bit rate : 34.1 Mbps Network name : ASTRA 1 Original network name : Astra Satellite Network 19,2'E Also, finding a single satellite doesn't really help much if

Yea, things are different here ;-)

Yep.

I have a raspberry pi running dump1090 most of the time, it forwards the data to an other raspberry pi running xgpspc via UDP:

1 plane top right. I get the data, speed, heading, then calculate the track and you see the planes move till the next data received in the right direction. Sometimes at the next datapoint, if the plane changed heading or speed in between, you see it jump or turn a bit. Actually it was meant to be incorporated in my drone, to avoid collisions, but the mil traffic here does not send position, and they are flying low here all the time. Building my own rader will maybe freak them out... You may be considered an enemy and get bombed, they bombed their own tower some years ago :-).

Yes, marine traffic too:

This coast guard detector uses a special database to alert you.. They seems to swap AIS mmsi sometimes bit tricky. I got the worldwide mmsi database, it does a search for each MMSI and displays what it is in real time. Website is old, got loads of programs that I need to upload and update now, maybe in the winter time :-) Just finished an other cool one to protect my (raspberry) webite, it automatically adds bad actors to the iptables firewall, now doing a test run, many bad actors have a go every day.

I build a small lightning detector many years ago, consists of a small ferrite rod and some comparator (PIC). It is not that sensiteve, if it signals a lightning strike it is close. Used it as alert me to disconnect my antennas. My long-wave receiver (Tecsun) is much more senstve, you hear the cracking noises all the time if there is lightning.

PS

Actually what I did here was a bit different I had already added the Astra 1 19E transponder parameters from kingofsat.net into xdipo, selected it in the xdipo browser with middle mouse, and then you can move the dish for maximum pitch of the test tone in xdipo. One swing, right on, fix screws, ready.

10 seconds, use bluetooth headset from PC audio. Last time that was needed was after a huge storm some year ago when it blew the dish a bit off-center, fixed the screws a bit more after that.

Now there are 2 LNBs, different bands, one extra taped against the other... Tape has stayed in one piece all year...

Was also doing some weather sat reception tests at 137.xxx MHz, with a slim-jim antenna.

From my own help file: ~# cat how_display_commands_weathersat.txt

-------------------- #cat noaa_15_137.62_MHz_5_weather.wav | aplay -r 44.1k -f S16_LE -t raw -c 1 #cat a2.wav | aplay -r 60k -f S16_LE -t raw -c 1 #cat a2.wav | aplay -r 60k -f S16_LE -t raw -c 1

# record weathersat as mp3 /root/compile/pantel/rtl-sdr/librtlsdr-0.5.3/build/src/rtl_fm -d 0 -F 9 -M fm -E deemp -f 137912500 -s 44.1k -r 44.1k -l 0 | \ lame -r -s 44.1 --bitwidth 16 -m m - - | \ tee -a /mnt/sda5/video/movies/satellite/noaa_15_137.62_MHz_4_weather.mp3 | \ mpg123 -

# record weather sat as wave -E wav not supported in my rtl_fm ###/root/compile/pantel/rtl-sdr/librtlsdr-0.5.3/build/src/rtl_fm -g 49.6 -d 0 -F 9 -M fm -E wav -E deemp -f 137912500 -s 60k -l 0 /mnt/sda5/video/movies/satellite/a3.wav # will be raw file at 60 kbps /root/compile/pantel/rtl-sdr/librtlsdr-0.5.3/build/src/rtl_fm -g 49.6 -d 0 -F 9 -M fm -E wav -E deemp -f 137912500 -s 60k -l 0 /mnt/sda5/video/movies/satellite/a3.wav

# test if signal in mp3 xine noaa_15_137.62_MHz__weather.mp3

##cat a2.wav | aplay -r 60k -f S16_LE -t raw -c 1 ##cat a2.wav | sox -t raw -r 60k -e signed-integer -b 16 -c 1 - aq1.wav rate 11025

# make 11025 file from mp3 mpg123 -r 11025 -w sig2.wav noaa_15_137.62_MHz_2_weather.mp3

# check start signal again xine sig2.wav

# extract signal part, times in seconds, use wcalc wavcut -if sig2.wav -bt 24000 -et 24480 -of sig2_cut.wav xine sig2_cut.wav

# backup cp sig2_cut.wav sig2_cut.BAK.wav

atpdec sig2_cut.wav xv sig2_cut-1.png

--------------------- using atpdec as decoder on noaa15 and noaa18 sats, waiting for a pass... result:

Noisy, slim-jim (a piece of TV lint) as indoor sat antenna is not good enough.

Not into a large high 137 MHz antenna atm. There are better weather pictures on geostationary sats, but I think you need a subscription for those, not in hacking mood today.

The slim-jim antenna will work much better when out on the ocean for example, with free view to the horizon.

I use the 'predict' program to find a usable pass: Orbit Calendar For NOAA-15 Date Time El Az Phase LatN LonW Range Orbit -----------------------------------------------------------------

Wed 15Aug18 16:52:58 0 147 236 29 338 3293 5354 * Wed 15Aug18 16:54:36 7 145 240 34 340 2648 5354 * Wed 15Aug18 16:56:13 15 140 245 40 341 2023 5354 * Wed 15Aug18 16:57:48 28 132 249 46 343 1465 5354 * Wed 15Aug18 16:59:15 46 110 252 51 345 1074 5354 * Wed 15Aug18 17:00:25 55 66 255 55 348 956 5354 * q1.gpl # gnuplot q1.gpl

# Only use 44100 samples/s then xpequ fft shows right values

/root/compile/pantel/rtl-sdr/librtlsdr-0.5.3/build/src/rtl_fm -d $device_nr -F 9 -M fm -f 430125000 -p $correction -s 44.1k -r 44.1k -l $squelch | \ sox -t raw -r 44.1k -e signed-integer -b 16 -c 1 - -t raw - sinc 250-4k | \ sox -t raw -r 44.1k -e signed-integer -b 16 -c 1 - -t raw - sinc -t 40 1020-980 | \ sox -t raw -r 44.1k -e signed-integer -b 16 -c 1 - -t raw - sinc -t 60 1290-1220 | \ sox -t raw -r 44.1k -e signed-integer -b 16 -c 1 - -t raw - sinc -t 60 1500-1400 | \ sox -t raw -r 44.1k -e signed-integer -b 16 -c 1 - -t raw - sinc -t 60 1680-1620 | \ sox -t raw -r 44.1k -e signed-integer -b 16 -c 1 - -t raw - sinc -t 60 1880-1820 | \ sox -t raw -r 44.1k -e signed-integer -b 16 -c 1 - -t raw - sinc -t 60 2080-2020 | \ sox -t raw -r 44.1k -e signed-integer -b 16 -c 1 - -t raw - sinc -t 60 2280-2220 | \ sox -t raw -r 44.1k -e signed-integer -b 16 -c 1 - -t raw - sinc -t 60 2480-2420 | \ sox -t raw -r 44.1k -e signed-integer -b 16 -c 1 - -t raw - sinc -t 60 2680-2620 | \ sox -t raw -r 44.1k -e signed-integer -b 16 -c 1 - -t raw - sinc -t 60 2880-2820 | \ /root/compile/pantel/xpequ/xpequ -i - -z 44100 -c 1 -b 16 -o - -s | \ lame -r -s 44.1 --bitwidth 16 -m m - - | \ tee -a /mnt/sda1/video/nbfm_430125000_pi2nos_$serial_number.mp3 | \ mpg123 -

xpequ I wrote, on my site, latest version audio AGC (no more whispering) and spectrum display, equalizer.

It is interesting that removing significant parts of the middle audio spectrum does not kill intelligibility.

Anyways, so much for a change from squirrels :-)

I wrote

One thing that is related to that link between gravity and whatever, is that in a model where electrons and for sure some other particles 'radiate' the Le Sage model of gravity naturally appears. Many many years ago I wrote a simulation to see if that Le Sage model would work for some bodies in space. It worked, but question is 'where do those particles originate and how do they interact?' Some radiating particles would perhaps be a source.

I always liked Le Sage, as it is so simple, and predicts some interesting things:

's_theory_of_gravitation

E. failed, did hang on to dogma 'fields' almost like simulations (note to self remove that, no I won't) , nature is always simple.

From epicycles (overly complex mathematical crap) to circular motion of planets around the sun, simplification, we need to change viewpoints some times.

There is a lot of epicycles like stuff in physics. Sometimes I see it in 'tronix too.

But you should be aware that for every complex problem there is a simple wrong answer and populist politicians exploit this for their own ends.

The rules well be simple but the behaviour of complex systems can still be very complex. Conway's game of life for instance is Turing complete.

ITYM ellipses. The conservation laws for angular momentum and energy pretty much dictate the physics for the two body problem exactly.

The three body problem is not analytically soluble except in a handful of limiting cases. VSOP was the original semianalytical solution for the solar system dynamics and has only been surpassed by JPLs direct numerical integration code comparatively recently.

Epicycles were the Fourier series of their day and served the same purpose. They might have been "wrong" but they worked better than you might think at least for planets in orbits with low eccentricity.

If you want truly accurate positions for the solar system bodies you have to include terms for the effect of each one on every other - although the positions of Jupiter and Saturn have most effect on the solar system barycentre. The geocentric position of the Moon is so difficult to compute that until recently scope makers didn't even try.

There was an error in the generation of >9 FORTRAN continuation cards that only came to light with the discovery of a pulsar that got a bit too close to Jupiter and the light time path delays were wrong.

--
Regards, 
Martin Brown

Epicycles weren't wrong in the sense that they failed to describe planetary motion. In fact it worked pretty well. The wrongness comes from the fact that the model contained lots of arbitrary parameters that could only be determined by measurement and that it gave no insight in the underlying physics. The standard model of physics has that same problem today. We need another Newton.

Jeroen Belleman

Newton's model of gravitation included instantaneous action at a distance of the inverse square law force (otherwise the planets would all spiral inwards). He didn't like that.

I don't disagree that the standard model isn't the final solution - and we need somethingbetter but there may never be one. If you look at the universe at higher and higher energies and so finer and finer spatial resolutions then new physics may be there waiting to be found.

It is always dangerous to claim that we have "solved" physics. What we have is a good approximation to nature always subject to revision.

What is certain is that any new theory will contain our present theories as a weak field limiting case since they do fit the experimental data very well even if they are not entirely satisfying.

HEP has always looked a bit like stamp or butterfly collecting to me.

String theory looks like a very elegant solution to a problem that as yet hasn't been found. My money is on something coming from Clifford algebras or some other symmetry and symmetry breaking based theory eventually giving us the tools to merge all forces of nature.

It is most annoying that gravity refuses to merge with all the rest.

--
Regards, 
Martin Brown

Actually, we need another Tycho Brahe. He made the remarkably precise measurements that Kepler crunched down into ellipses, and Newton eventually explained.

The standard model is inconveniently precise in fitting what we are currently measuring.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Hmm I recall a Feynman lecture where he uses that as an example. (See references 60 and 61 in wiki article.)

George H.

Hmm, well this thread starts with a new measurement, but people mostly want to try and fit that into the 'old' Lamda-CDM model. I hoping for the next Einstein.

George H.

Yes, I watched that, but he makes it too easy to reject (earth would slow down in orbit). But that goes for particles that act, are of the sort, in his own words, like 'stones'.

I have read the F. did spend considerable time working on Le Sage theory, finally rejecting it.

But now for emitting particles making up the earth and sun, the dynamics would be very different.

Same for MOND, and there is an other issue with that, any 10 year old that looks at pictures of galaxies can see those stars are _not_ in orbit around the center 'black hole' (that really is emitting a lot of stuff). The whole thing looks more like what you see around a garden sprinkler,

2a flattened center 2 arms, spitting out star forming material when rotating at the same time: It is possible that the whole galaxy is coupled in some way (electro-magnetically or by other particle properties, just one big spinning disc, then teh outer stars would also move faster than Newton predicts. What dark matter? Nothing. That would then also explain why MOND breaks down on a larger scale with galaxy clusters.

There are other theories,

I did follow a lecture on youtube from that guy, but till today have no clue what he was on about. He did admit he could be wrong, so that is a plus to study it further,

Unlike Feynman who was.. just too simple rejecting a Le Sage type gravity.

George Herold wrote

I do not want to stir things up, but I am still of the opinion that 'photon' is just a mathematical concept. I need to see (work out) the 'classical' solution.

To refer back to Feynman, without a view of what happens the math has no meaning to me. I once looked at string theory, looked up the math needed, realized I had to read up on things, but the whole idea is looking at things from a perspective that does not seem right, so rejected it, consider it a waste of time.

So not sure my opinion about fish-sicks is any help to anybody, but worked for me over the years.

I need some stuff, shopping list: replicator transporter tractorbeam novabomb warpdrive and maybe a new E4000 tuner, will scope it today to see what is going on with it.

Replicator would be especially nice, for good pizzas. So they have work to do!

On Sunday, August 19, 2018 at 6:29:14 PM UTC+10, snipped-for-privacy@nospam.org wro te:

on' is just a mathematical concept.

It's concept that can be manipulated as mathematical device. Saying that it is "just" mathematical concept is a loaded choice of words.

You need to go back to Einstein's 1905 paper. The photon is a discrete chun k of energy with the energy is proportional to frequency of the light embod ied in the photon, so if the photon isn't energetic enough, it can't knock and electron out of the photo-cathode of your photomultiplier tube.

Planck had had the basic idea that radiant energy had to be quantised, but Einstein demonstrated that it was a bit more than just a mathematical devic e.

If the wavelength of the light is too long, the photons don't have enough e nergy to knock an electron lose.

ig

in that mechanical example too.

Amplitude is quantised - which doesn't happen with waves on the ocean.

Rodney Loudon was a professor of physics at the University of Essex when he wrote the article back in 1976. The UK government wouldn't have been much interested in making the results freely available to some citizen of the Ne therlands.

The Institute of Physics wouldn't have got any money from the university or the author, so they covered the cost of printing the journal by getting pe ople to buy it.

Since then open publication has become more popular - if you can get the ar ticle over the web there's no real need to print the journal. Sadly you sti ll have to pay the editors who send the papers out for refereeing, and the journals typically charge the authors quite a lot of money if they want the ir papers published with open access.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Now imagine this ball in the ocean (the electron), connected with a thin wire to a pole (the atom), moving up and down with the waves.... In our PMTs, ONLY when the wire is broken and the ball is knocked lose by the waves, do physicists cry 'Photon detected'. It says nothing about the waves, .... a large ocean of ripples of different amplitude and frequency everywhere.

Einstein's 'photon', that is where the wave particle duality comes from. Photon is no particle, it only is a measure of the interface of the wave with our gross matter. Now the whole of current physics plays with these detectors, 'statistics' are done, trillions are spend on building huge collections of these detectors, math is getting more and more complicated, kids are brainwashed in schools with wave particle duality. And nothing has come out of CERN and similar ever since WW2, ever since Einstein was declared God the ultimate truth. NOTHING of his theories is worth a shit.

The 2 slit experiment that is so simple from the wave perspective is mystified to get those Einstein reciting either frauds or idiots payed. Note that if you make the energy low enough only occasionally will an electron be knocked lose and a dot on the 'screen if you want' be detected. There is a certain amount of energy needed to knock the ball lose, have it fly to a detector / screen whatever, given time the complete interference picture will build. NOTHING to do with a particle nature of light! It is the particle nature of the detector! WHY do they not see that?

So how do we measure the waves with our gross matter (atoms and electrons)? Even Planck himself warned about all the conclusions drawn from his experiments. He was not the only one. One would almost think that some force is hiding things, hiding some technology. Measure, a free floating electron will move with the waves I think. We can detect its influence all over the universe.

We need a different detector, for lower frequency waves an electron beam of low energy is modulated in direction by the EM, AFAIK not 'quantized' have it hit 2 anodes, you get a difference signal. Same idea in a CRT, those are very sensitive to earth magnetic field, my idea of a detector. Have not tried it, but playing with Vidicon tubes in the past showed me how sensitive such a system can be to low amplitude low frequency fields (up to DC). Possibly waves from messages send by alien civilization that are redshifted all the way back to low frequency can be detected that way,

Anyways, with a physics based on the illusion of 'wave particle duality' right now there is nothing to be expected.

Break the dogma, do that experiment that shows new horizons and breaks the current fraud. Like so many times in the past were old ideas where, often for political reasons, remember Einstein was Jewish and after WW2 everything Jewish was per definition right we need to leave the political bias behind and do some real science. All you PMT users and all your math and all your experimental setup are void.

If not leaving those behind, then humanity is doomed.

Move on, old saying: The Emperor has no clothes'.

with our gross matter.

Sure, But it acts as if the waves come in chunks with a specific quantum of energy.

are done, trillions are spend on building huge collections of these detect ors, math is getting more and more complicated, kids are brainwashed in sch ools with wave particle duality.

They get exposed to ideas that work. That falls a long way short of brain-w ashing.

instein was declared God the ultimate truth.

Not exactly what happened. Einstein said "God doesn't play dice" and people stopped taking him seriously at that point.

And CERN and similar found us quarks and really did sort out the zoo of sub

-atomic particles, which pretty much all happened after WW2.

So much for your grasp of modern physics.

ified to get those Einstein reciting either frauds or idiots payed.

Bohr said "shut up and calculate". Wave-particle duality is bizarre, but it works.

ectron be knocked lose and a dot on the 'screen if you want' be detected.

it fly to a detector / screen whatever, given time

e of the detector!

Because it isn't true.

)?

iments.

Planck thought up quantisation to get around the ultraviolet catastrophe.

He didn't like the solution, but it did work, and he did publish Einsteins photoelectric paper without even sending it out for refereeing.

Mach didn't even believe in atoms... there were plenty of people who were s low on the uptake.

--
Bill Soman, Sydney

Don't hold back Jan, tell us how you feel. :^) Quantum mechanics is a very successful theory in that it fits the data. Nothing else does as well; we have observed two slit interference with electrons and other 'particles'. Bells theorem,

is not something I claim to understand deeply, but you can take the data on a table top and verify it. "Spukhafte fernwirkung" is the way the world works.. like it or not.

George H.

George Herold wrote

The simple fact that you assign 'spooky effect at a distance' to it should trigger the feeling that something is missing in that world view.

Earth was flat for a long time, anybody could see it, else one would fall off, or if glued hang from down under upside down.

You are so right, proven over and over again, with the same instruments from the same POV:

Wonder if they have the slightest clue really. If you look deeper from a philosophical POV, there is no free will, and everything is unfolding in a specific way, so what's the problem? People like to think they have a free will, world looks complicated to them, but all they are and all they do is part of a natural flow of things from how far back? Does the above link that describes that experiment with light from galaxies not show this? The idea from a free will (free Willy?) has been debugged long ago, subconscious, we are just a vector of evolution CT scans have shown you already decided before you were thinking you made the decision, you, your experiments, it all unfolds.

I am well aware of Bell's theorem, was first confronted with that in 1982 reading about Alain Aspect's experiment. It only shows Einstein was wrong. But you need a mechanism.

This I posted some time ago: I like this old joke:

3 scientist end up in the madhouse after their last experiment failed. After many years of treatment the Doctor decides that maybe they should be released back into society, and decides to test them to see of they are ready. He calls them in his office and asks the first one: "How much is 2 x 5?" "November" replied the first one. "Sorry, the Doctor said, you will have to stay a little bit longer." He asked the second one, "how much is 3 x 9?" "August" replied the second one "No", the Doctor said, "you will have to stay a bit longer too." Then he asked the third one: "How much is 4 x 3?" "12" the third one replied. "Good" the doctor said, "you are cured, you can leave." As he guided the third one out the door of the madhouse, he had a suspicion.. asked "How did you arrive at that result '12'?" "Simple" the third one replied, "I took November and multiplied it by August."

And there, my friend is the current state of your 'science'. kwantuums.

And, BTW, if I have a pair of shoes, and ship one to some other place on earth (for simplicity) then INSTANTLY when the receiver looks and sees a left shoe, he/she/it knows I have a right shoe.

I want a mechanism. Not the same silly song over and over again.