Can WMAP be trusted?

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by kaneda, Apr 22, 2008.

  1. kaneda Actual Cynic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,334
    A man with almost 50 years in the business believes that the WMAP survey might be wrong. He has found HUNDREDS of close similarities with HI maps in our own galaxy and what is claimed by WMAP of the CMB.


    http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/C...e_Of_Radiation_In_Interstellar_Space_999.html


    Meanwhile we have a QSO with a redshift of z = 2.114 apparently interacting with interstellar gas with a redshift of just z = 0.022.


    http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0409215


    More nails in the coffin of the big bang IDEA.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Engulfed_Door Registered Member

    Messages:
    55
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    Is there anything better than a Space Daily article? Publications?

    And the 'apparently interacting' is pretty tenious. 8 citations in 4 years, some by the authors of the paper citing their previous work. Not really ground breaking stuff.

    Are those the best 'nails' you have?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. kaneda Actual Cynic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,334
    AlphaNumeric. A professional with almost fifty years in the business finds hundreds of close similarities in results in areas in our galaxy and the CMB and you don't think it strange?
     
  8. kaneda Actual Cynic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,334
    Engulfed Door. If you had nothing to say, why didn't you leave it at that? Oh, I see. another one on your post count.
     
  9. blobrana Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,214
    Hum,
    perhaps he/she is aware that this work has been disproved a while ago.
    Statistical analysis of the `correlations` show that they are illusions.
     
  10. Walter L. Wagner Cosmic Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,555
    "The new discovery, if confirmed, means that the structure superimposed on the cosmic microwave background is produced in the Milky Way and does not have a cosmic origin. Thus the cosmic microwave background signal from the early universe may be smoother than anyone expected, which raises new questions as to how structure ever emerged in the universe to create galaxies.

    Verschuur holds out the hope that bright young theorists will tackle this problem and that some members of a new generation of radio astronomers will focus on the Milky Way to study interstellar HI using the WMAP signals to target their research.

    The first inkling that a Milky Way component was still present in the WMAP all-sky image came while Verschuur was preparing illustrations for his new book on radio astronomy, The Invisible Universe, published in early 2007. He had available a color print of the all-sky image of the WMAP data and another of the HI data (integrated over all velocities frpm ­450 to 400 km/s) to the same scale.

    He couldn't hellp noticing intriguing similarities between structures in the two maps. That seemed to merit a closer look. At the time he had been working with the HI data as part of an unrelated project and had available HI maps at dozens of velocities that could quickly compared to details in the WMAP structure. Note that due to motion of the gas in space, the HI emission is observed over a wide range of velocities introduced by the Doppler effect, which shifts the observed frequency of the HI emission by slight amounts."

    Not a nail in the coffin of BB. Rather, if confirmed, a basis for recalling the Nobel Prizes awarded for the idea that the numerous minor anisotropies represented distant 'structure' rather than nearby 'imposition'. This might call into question the whole basis for determining the criteria of how the Nobel Prizes are awarded.
     
  11. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    Since when did you accept the "This person has lots of experience, knows a lot and publishes a lot, let's listen to them!" logic?
     
  12. Cazzo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,031

    Any other reputable scientists currently back this guys ideas ?
    What are the other nails in the Big Bangs coffin ?
     
  13. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    Kaneda considers his inability and unwillingness to understand space-time expansion models are a nail. Since if he cannot understand it, it must be wrong.
     
  14. kaneda Actual Cynic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,334
    A link would be good.
     
  15. kaneda Actual Cynic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,334

    Nothing to quote from a text book?
     
  16. kaneda Actual Cynic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,334

    I gave them extensively on physorg forums. AlphaNumeric and Nom (both moderators) had me kicked off the board for saying things they did not like. In AN's case, it was saying that all text books are not true from the first word to the last, so I got 3 warnings in 2 weeks. Fortunately he can't do that to his critics here. In NOM's case, it was pointing out that he was using another alias. He went psycho when Mike Adams did it months before so I should really have known better. Only 1 of the 5 warnings I got did I deserve.

    Branes in another universe are cretinous. A multiverse just moves the first cause back one step. Singularities are SF. Black holes are almost ultimately stable and do not inflate/expand. When matter first appeared it would have promptly collapsed back into a black hole since the average density was still far above what was needed. Inflation is crap. Dark energy is SF. Heavy elements would have been created more than light elements, if any elements were created as everything expands away from everything else. Lack of shadows on the CMB. Irregular red shifts which cannot be explained by expansion of which there are many. How does expansion move whole galaxies yet cannot overcome the slightest gravitational pull of some of the remotest clusters in our own local group? Walls of galaxies. Dark matter. The list goes on and on.
     
  17. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    Having trouble answering my question directly?

    I find it funny you still stick with the "OMG, you quote from books!" nonsense. You know who I am so you know I don't lie about my qualifications. Threads like this demonstrate I have a good grasp of complicated topics.

    But instead you cling to the desperate lie that I'm just copying and pasting things (perhaps with minor edits) from books or websites.

    Even if I were, what is your excuse for not knowing things things? You say my posts are pointless because everything I say can be found elsewhere but that doesn't excuse your ignorance of such things? You post a lot about the big bang but you don't even bother to try to understand space-time expansion and why the universe can 'escape it's own singularity' at the initial few moments after the BB.
    And your evidences I'm a moderator there? Abject paranoia and nothing else. I now have 3 warnings there. NOM isn't a moderator either. Resorting to unfounded paranoid lies again.

    I have never claimed that textbooks are infallable. I simply pointed out you didn't even know what they said so you created strawmen by saying "Mainstream physics say...." when it didn't and then attacking your strawmen.

    Obviously time has taught you nothing since then.

    You must make your parents so proud. Are you on antipsychotic medication or do you just think you don't need meds? After all, you're not paranoid if everyone really is against you!
     
  18. kaneda Actual Cynic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,334
    AlphaNumeric. All of your posts (other than insults) are quoting what is available on most internet sites for people too lazy to look for themselves or telling people that accepted science is right and that anyone who believes differently is wrong. ie: You are a waste of space on a debating forum since you have nothing new to say.

    People who know a field well are able to extrapolate and speculate on what they know and think of new ideas. I have never known you to do either.

    I have pointed out to you and others on physorg forum why the BB idea is wrong and I would think even you would know why singularities don't exist. But you don't. Initial expansion (inflation) is nonsense about areas of space expanding. I spent time trying to explain to you why a one dimensional string could not bend and it was totally beyond your ability to understand, so not particularly smart as you would like others to believe.

    People believed that you had something worth listening to until I pointed out that you hadn't and merely parroted accepted science (as you still do). With a month of showing this, I suddenly found myself with 3 warnings in 2 weeks (the same thing happened to Nick, for different reasons). I got no more for about a year. Why was that? As to NOM, he went ape when Mike Adams revealed he was also fivedoughnut (and like pupamancur and you, used multiple ID's to insult people on feedback). I did the same and a few days later was kicked off the board. Of course you would claim not to be a moderator Euler, sorry AlphaNumeric.

    Are you still attending university and studying for your doctorate by spending 90% of your time on science forums? What a giveaway.
     
  19. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    And yet I keep having to correct you.

    So why are you not familiar with stuff relating to what you talk about which is so widely available?

    Apathy? Stupidity? Dishonesty?

    Which is it?
    Actually, I have done that. But I'm also certain you wouldn't understand it even if I explained it. Do you read many scientific journals?
    Baseless paranoia and delusions.

    You once claimed you were the sole reason I posted outside of 'New theories'. Obviously you have a hard time believing the world doesn't revolve around you.

    Could it be the reasons you got warnings were you ticked people off? I told DavidD he was an idiot, I got a warning. That's how warnings work.

    But you still weave things like that into your paranoid conspiracy theories.
    Ah yes, the "You spend anywhere from 10 minutes to 6 hours online a day, how could you possibly have time for anything else!" line of logic.

    I guess by your logic, everyone on these forums who posts each day are unemployed and don't sleep. How else could they post regularly? Or perhaps we just have better time management.

    You once even denied I went on holiday! :rofl: Despite you not being on the forums and me mentioning it a few weeks before, then having a month long posting gap and then mentioning a few stories about my travels afterwards, you still claimed I lied. As if I'd have a reason to lie about that and not post for a month?!

    Paranoia and delusions really are a way of life for you, aren't they? Do you think I'm a moderator here too? BenTheMan and I have exchanged a few emails, we both do work in the same area. Ask him if he thinks I'm a postgrad working in string theory. Or do you think he's a sockpuppet of mine I set up years ago, knowing I'd one day be able to use him to trick you? Or Rpenner? Maybe he's another sock puppet of mine?

    Everyone, on every forum in the world, other than you is a sock puppet of mine. There's noone on Earth other than you and me. Everyone you walk by in the street, it's me in disguise. I'm your postman, your next door neighbour, your mother, your first love. And all so I can lie to you about the big bang! It's that big of a conspiracy!
     

Share This Page