Simple astronomic cut off experiment and absurdities of blackbody radiation concept

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by sorincosofret, Aug 4, 2011.

  1. sorincosofret Registered Senior Member

    Simple astronomic cut off experiment and absurdities of blackbody radiation concept

    It is a common practice to send a u.e.m in radio domain to a celestial body (Moon, Mercury etc.) and analyze the reflected wave on the surface of that specific body. The frequency of u.e.m must be in a certain frequency interval, called radio wave window, where Earth atmosphere do not absorb strongly.
    On the other hand, according to blackbody theory a body emits all the time u.e.m on a large field of frequencies, and with a maximum given by Wien law. In the case of Mercury, when its surface plunge from a 700 K during day to a 100 K during night, the maximum of its emission spectra switch from infrared to microwave. The infrared spectrum is redundant for the present experiment and we are interested only in the microwave region. The maximum predicted by Wien law falls at a 1,13THz, outside radio window. But, a signal at this frequency is not a problem to be counted by an instrument on an Earth satellite or a solar mission.
    Measuring such signal coming from Mercury when there is an elongation and further when there is an alignment with Earth planet, a certain pattern of the intensity of signal must be counted according to blackbody theory.
    In reality, a cooled body does not emit microwave or radio waves and there will be no signal from Mercury surface. In order to emits radio or microwave there are necessary some special conditions.
    As consequence the blackbody radiation concept and entire quantum mechanic theory can be discarded with a simple experiment of astronomy.
    The cost of experiment?! Quite nothing...
    There are a lot of Earth satellites with necessary instrumentation around Earth.
    But again who cares?!
    To paraphrase an old saying: Give me a single rational mind in the top level physicists and I will change the face of the physics.


    Sorin Cosofret
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    . . . and other absurdities.

    Yes, folks, you saw it first right here!
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Absurdity is his middle name.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Wow! this guy has the answer to any and every question in physics. If only he had the correct answers.....
  8. yaracuy Banned Banned


    So could you or others explain what is wrong with his opinion, instead just criticizing
  9. sorincosofret Registered Senior Member

    Yaracuy, they are not able to produce any evidence against me and this make them nervous....
    But I have time....and I have still ideas...
    Of course the oppinion of some folks doesn`t matter so much. The oppinion of official physicist is very important and it worth to remain in the hystory of physics...
    Here you have such oppinion ...

    Dr. Cosofret
    After conferring with our Science Advisor and other OSA Editors, they
    believe that the best people to contact would be Masud Mansuripur for
    the first two topics (angular momentum and electromagnetic pressure),
    and Russ Chipman for the (experimental) polarization issue. I hope
    this is helpful ......
    Joseph Richardson
    Optical Society of America, Peer Review Manager

    Dear Dr. Cosofret:
    I totally disagree with your proposals. As far as I know there is no
    difference between visible light and microwaves with regard to
    momentum, angular momentum, or polarization. Your ideas have no basis
    in electromagnetic theory and I will not support the conduct of any
    experiments to confirm or refute these predictions. .......
    Masud Mansuripur
    Professor and Chair of Optical Data Storage College of Optical
    Sciences The University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721

    As anyone may notice that actual science has become the property of
    some "intelligent personalities" and they decide what experiment is to
    be undertaken and what is politically correct in science.
  10. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Maybe they actually know something about physics.

    You don't appear to.
  11. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Even if your claims did contradict something of quantum mechanics, which they don't, quantum mechanics clearly has utility. The computer you're sat in front of right now was designed and built using quantum mechanics models, microchips wouldn't be possible without the understanding quantum mechanics has provided us.

    Hence saying the entire quantum mechanics theory can be discarded is clearly wrong.

    You haven't yet provided any evidence for your claims. And there's plenty of evidence for the accuracy of quantum mechanics, it is all around us in modern technology.

    I'm a PhD in physics and I say you're wrong. And if you want to go down that road are you a PhD in physics? I doubt it, given the nonsense you spout.

    So you ignore the opinions of non-physicists, saying its better to hear from actual physicists and when they say things you don't want to hear you complain about actual physicists.

    You clearly aren't interested in hearing anything other than what you already believe. That isn't science, don't delude yourself you're fighting the good fight. You're just an ignorant nut with an axe to grind.
  12. sorincosofret Registered Senior Member

    Have you followed a course in brain storming?
    The utility of a theory has nothing to do with its basement assumptions. You should know, at least as general information, that epicycles theory was utile for another 200 years after publication of Copernicus theory. Of course it was utile for high level scientists to prove their ability to complicate the reality… but finally it was discarded. The same thing happen now. A new epycicle theory must be discarded, and of course top level scientists are refusing to do it.
    As example, how can Mansud Mansuripur, chief of department at a US university, top level scientist with hundreds of paper published in well recognized journals, to perform an experiment against all his works made during his entire life.
    So the change will come not from US research but from undevelopped country, and I suppose soon US will have to deal with another major problem: it will loose the supremacy in the research as now is loosing the economic supremacy.

    The computer is a complex device and I do not enter in discussion here. Next post will be with quantum theory and a simpler and common device and you will see the absurdities of quantum theory.

    Entire quantum mechanic!?
    You are joking! Do you think I renounced to my official and bright carrier for destroying quantum mechanics?
    Not at all!? All actual physics and chemistry will be discarded….

    I have produced enough evidence for destroying actual physics and chemistry and every new post is new evidence.
    There are 5 books already published in English, and now there are other 4 books in working in Romanian. I switched off the English language, as far I suppose soon it will be more interesting to publish them in Chinese. You can visit elkadot site and you will see that about 300 cut off experiments or absurdities in actual mainstream science are posted.
    Coming back to the actual experiment it is necessary to make some simple measurements and to provide that I am wrong. Of course, no top scientist will be interested to do that because they will create a precedent …..

    What have you done for your Ph D? Please detail….
    Have you proposed a new idea? Have you developed a new concept?
    I don"t think so. There are no new ideas in physics in the last 50 years!
    I suppose you have participated to a grant where some public money are to be spent in order to report some research and to have some papers published in peer review journal.
    I have done my Ph D when my income was lower then 300 $ per month and working in an underdeveloped country where a contract of 1000 $ was a real success.
    So, my Ph D is not in ,,pure” physics, because at that time 3 of my books ( theory of gravitation,. Atomic structure, and relativity) were in working. No official body will ever grant you a Ph D with an idea that destroys the entire science. So I have made a applicative method for food analysis, something between physics, chemistry and mathematics.
    But if you really want to compare our activities, let’s compare the last 6 years, when I was working to a real research centre. Have you ever proposed a US or EPO patent?
    Howe many papers have you published in top level journals in the last 6 years?
    I will give you a link (or search the net after Cosofret nitrate patent), but I will post my entire CV after I will find your name and your fabulous researches…
    you have to add www and html for having the entire link

    All stupid juniors in physics are commenting my posts, instead of going and learn physics. I am posting only to have a proof in the future when someone will have to pay the bills. If official science can afford to spend billions on stupid things, it will be necessary to pay a expensive bill for a correct theory.

    If official science has something to say, it is better to orientate a satellite instrument and measure the microwave radiation coming from Mercury and after that we can discuss.
    I have nothing to discuss with Taliban’s of physics like Mansurippur, who doesn’t agree to perform an experiment having all instrumentation in the laboratory.
  13. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Yes, it does. If your assumptions directly and clearly contradict reality then the implications of the model will be questionable, to say the least.

    For instance, if I assume energy, momentum and angular momentum are not conserved then I can predict a great many nonsense things. If I assume they are conserved I am more likely to reflect reality since that is what reality tells us from observation.

    And Newtonian mechanics is known to be wrong but it has utility. I specifically didn't say 'right', I said 'utility'. There are very few models in science which are true with absolute accuracy. Pretty much everything in physics pre-1900 is known to be wrong in some way, on some level and yet we still teach it to students. That is because there is experience, understanding and knowledge to be gained from that, both in terms of the models' utilities and the understanding of scientific development.

    Yes, yes, it's a massive conspiracy....

    If I could prove relativity wrong tomorrow, with clear and undeniable evidence, I would do it. It would mean admitting my own PhD is utterly wrong but it would be a MASSIVE contribution to physics.

    The biggest contributions to science are when someone knocks over a pillar of science. When Einstein proved Newton wrong after 250 years it was MASSIVE. When he proved Euclidean geometry, more than 2000 years old, didn't apply to the real world, it was staggering.

    You're using the argument someone wouldn't disprove quantum theory as it would invalidate their previous work, as if their papers are so important to them. If they could do it and papers were important they'd realise that paper, the one which proves QT wrong, would get more citations than any paper in human history. It would be bigger than Einstein's 1905 paper. It would be bigger than Maxwell's EM work. It might even be bigger than Darwin's work. If your argument is people worrying about their research legacy then your argument is self refuting.

    I suppose nuts always aim high.

    Your posts are devoid of evidence, that is the problem.

    And how many pages of those books are published in reputable journals? How many passed peer review? Or are they all self published?

    You really don't understand science.

    A complete classification of non-isomorphic flux vacua structures for the isotropic [/tex](T^{2})^{3}[/tex] orbifold, proof of chiral symmetry gravity/guage duality for D3/D7 systems in a deformed \(AdS_{5}\times S^{5}\) background and hypothesised the U duality origin of the Kahler moduli modular invariance of flux compactifications on generalised twisted Calabi-Yau manifolds. Since then I've done other research but I'm bound by confidentiality agreements. Suffice to say some of that includes the application of quantum theory to real world problems.

    I have proposed new ideas, new approaches, new concepts, just in things you don't understand and don't like. I can't help it that you have been shunned by the academic community and now you have an axe to grind.

    It's not my fault you decided to waste your own time and money, when you had little of each, on deluding yourself about your abilities to take down mainstream science.

    I currently work for a 'real research centre'. As a result my work is the intellectual property of the company I work for but they do own various restrictions on things.

    3, all of them during my PhD.

    I couldn't care less about your CV. If you have evidence provide it. You whine about people here not having the physics knowledge to talk about things then when someone stands up to you you whine some more. And you've also ignored the comments of professors, whose qualifications in physics you can't argue with.

    Except that these 'stupid juniors in physics' reach the same conclusions as the professors and PhDs in physics. You said "The oppinion of official physicist is very important " and when they said what you didn't want to hear you've ignored them. It would seem regardless of papers published and letters after their name, everyone disagrees with you. And rather than you presenting evidence in this thread you're just ranting and whining about how 'every post is more evidence'. You whining about things isn't evidence you're right, it's evidence you're a whiner.

    Yes, science shouldn't spend money on stupid things. Unfortunately there's a lot of stupid people on the internet, many of them with stupid ideas about science. Can you provide evidence your idea isn't a stupid idea? If you can't then why should anyone spend any money on it?

    My research requires me to have access to paper, pens and a flat surface at which to work at. Occasionally I need a computer to crunch some numbers. Myself and people like me don't cost that much money, on the scale of things I'm pretty cheap as a researcher. And I produce results. You have to provide a good justification to have money spent on your research and you don't seen to have provided any in regards to your claims.

    Satellites are expensive, to use them costs money. Hence it isn't a matter of just flicking a switch, it is a matter of depriving actual researchers of valuable data they need for their work. I repeat, you have to provide a good justification to have money spent on your research and you don't seen to have provided any in regards to your claims.

Share This Page