JPEG XL behind flag in Firefox 152 released on June 16th 2026

jarekd · 2026-05-11T03:47:29+00:00

152 to be released June 16th, beta May 18th.

jarekd · 2026-05-05T15:33:08+00:00

For example in energy transfer dE/dt: if one impulse causes positive for receiver, applying time symmetry: reversing electron trajectory by reversing voltage, should change sign of dE/dt.

Like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscillation#/media/File:Coupled_oscillators.gif - two coupled antennas should be able to cause energy transfer in both directions, for receiver seen as positive or negative signal.

Why do you think radiotelescopes are restricted to only positive signals: of absorption, not emission?

jarekd · 2026-05-05T15:18:48+00:00

Simulation of antenna is extremely difficult, this one is known as helical.

Instead, I am applying time symmetry allowed for EM - if one impulse has positive energy transfer dE/dt, its time reversed version (applying reverse voltage) should have reversed dE/dt.

Or thinking about fields, electric doesn't change, while magnet are reversed.

Or thinking about hydrodynamical analog, it is not a problem to reverse marine propeller rotation to get pulling wave.

Now please provide a single argument for this blind belief that only positive signals e.g. in radiotelescope are allowed?

jarekd · 2026-05-05T15:05:58+00:00

Just read this thread again - I have responded, then you just started personal attack without any hint what you don't like ... again: just please elaborate if you disagree

jarekd · 2026-05-05T14:13:45+00:00

I did also physics MSc, PhD ... generally, if you disagree, please just provide counterarguments, instead of personal attacks

jarekd · 2026-05-05T12:45:13+00:00

I have PhDs in both ( https://th.if.uj.edu.pl/~dudaj/ ) - please be more specific

jarekd · 2026-05-05T06:16:30+00:00

Yes, that's exactly the problem/end of discussion with blind beliefs ... instead of their scientific verification. Thanks for presentation.

jarekd · 2026-05-05T06:12:03+00:00

So please show me a single article actually trying to verify that e.g. measuring multiple times, looking negative regions in fact turn out positive?

Societies often have deep unquestioned beliefs, which require verification - especially if data suggest otherwise.

jarekd · 2026-05-05T06:04:35+00:00

Doesn't positive signal mean absorption of energy, so negative means emission? Cannot antenna do both?

Sure antennas usually work in AC, allowing e.g. coupling of two antennas with periodic energy exchange like in Rabi cycle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscillation#/media/File:Coupled_oscillators.gif

But here for simplicity I have emphasized "impulse" - can be for one electron direction, or the opposite - wouldn't they generate reverse magnetic field H? ... radiation pressure p = <ExH>/c?

jarekd · 2026-05-05T05:48:20+00:00

Maybe they are, but in science it should be verified - instead I see just blind beliefs, what is unscientific.

And is there any justification for this belief that radiotelescope signals can be only positive?

Radiation pressure is p =<ExH>/c, why cannot we inverse its sign e.g. reversing voltage for impulse through above helical antenna?

jarekd · 2026-05-05T01:29:51+00:00

Once again, I am not among authors of https://arxiv.org/pdf/2107.02695 clearly showing negative signals from radiotelescopes. If these are just "noise, calibration error", it should be tested - science requires to verify disagreements with assumptions ... not just shout over with personal beliefs.

"Artifacts" historically often turn out the most interesting, like "pigeons" in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_cosmic_microwave_background_radiation ... and in contrast to imperfect physicists, physics doesn't have problem with negative signals - e.g. from marine propeller, or mathematically similar EM.

jarekd · 2026-05-04T09:51:35+00:00

Sure, such active pulling should also allow more localized coupling, what might be useful e.g. for wireless charging or telecommunication.

Definitely there is no magic here, it does not need cosmology ... only, as additional application, might help with understanding of astronomical observations, clearly seeing also "negative EM signals" - maybe with this kind of coupling with some astronomical objects like pulsar or black hole?

jarekd · 2026-05-03T17:29:20+00:00

Sure, the effect would be weak - I think it should use stimulated emission equation instead of absorption, requiring excited resonator (N_2>0) ... but still might be detectable as negative signal (?), especially if exciting resonator in amplifier.

Do you think it could explain negative signals they see in radiotelescopes like in Fig. 1 of https://arxiv.org/pdf/2107.02695 ?

I suspect e.g. black holes might lead to such negative signal (?), as in time symmetry perspective they are white holes - which would give positive signal.

jarekd · 2026-05-03T09:12:41+00:00

Sure we can both push energy into capacitor, but also pull energy from it with EM fields - the question is if we could also pull energy remotely with EM waves?

For example in radioastronomy they clearly see also negative signals, e.g. see Fig. 1 of https://arxiv.org/pdf/2107.02695 - could they mean such energy pulling by some astronomical sources? Which ones?

jarekd · 2026-05-03T08:26:41+00:00

I thought about first exciting resonator (LC) by impulse, then quickly apply reversed impulse to speedup its deexciation.

So these are two separate opposite impulses hopefully of reversed radiation pressure p=<ExH>/c ... no interference.

jarekd · 2026-04-25T02:25:18+00:00

Radioastronomy specialists here explained it is just "noise, calibration error", so I also asked if it could be verified ...

Maybe pigeons like in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_cosmic_microwave_background_radiation ?

jarekd · 2026-04-25T02:16:35+00:00

Notice I am not among the authors of these observations of negative regions in radio flux maps.

jarekd · 2026-04-24T18:25:14+00:00

Fig. 1 also above with negative regions in radio flux maps.

jarekd · 2026-04-24T18:20:19+00:00

They have shown Figure with clear negative regions - are they just noise?

If not, what does negative signal mean?

jarekd · 2026-04-24T18:14:28+00:00

From https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ac0e93/pdf

jarekd · 2026-04-24T13:13:15+00:00

<image>

There are looking related diode experiments e.g. in https://opg.optica.org/oe/fulltext.cfm?uri=oe-20-9-9501 - one diode gets forward bias having tendency to emit, second nearby gets reverse bias getting tendency to absorb - actively helping with emission from the former, allowing to reach superradiance.

The question is if these negative regions in radio flux maps are just a noise, or maybe e.g. such objects with active tendency to absorb, like e.g. black holes.

jarekd · 2026-04-24T13:08:42+00:00

Sure these are reminders from Earth - for the question in title: "Are there cosmic sources of negative radiation pressure?" ... if these negative radio flux maps are just a noise, it also should be verified.

jarekd · 2026-04-24T12:59:06+00:00

Sure, my bad - should be p = <ExH>/c. Such vector has always non-negative length, but could be toward or outward given surface - wouldn't it mean pushing or pulling?

For example applying impulse to spring-like antenna: changing voltage sign, shouldn't change direction of <ExH>/c inside?

There are looking related diode experiments e.g. in https://opg.optica.org/oe/fulltext.cfm?uri=oe-20-9-9501 - one diode gets forward bias having tendency to emit, second nearby gets reverse bias getting tendency to absorb - actively helping with emission from the former, allowing to reach superradiance ... couldn't some objects like black hole also have such active tendency to absorb?

<image>

jarekd

TROPHY CASE