WMAP Data Analysis Flawed

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by tsmid, Nov 29, 2003.

  1. tsmid Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    368
    Please read my webpage http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/wmap.htm why in my opinion the widely published angular power spectrum of the microwave background anisotropy is nothing but an artefact of the data analysis.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. blobrana Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,214
    Hum,
    very interesting. I think that your calculations pose some disturbing questions.
    The main one being how NASA allowed an experiment to proceed with a -/+observational error that was possibly the same as the signal recieved...

    Does anyone know the COBE satellite configuration?
    I suspect that it was a single antenna.

    And i know that even ground based instruments can record (and put an upper-limit) on the CBR; so it may be that we are just dealing with the limitations of our current technology...
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Vortexx Skull & Bones Spokesman Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,242
    here is a reason: budgettary constraints
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,125
  8. tsmid Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    368
  9. tsmid Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    368
    Thanks. I submitted my site actually myself to crank.net in order to boost the traffic in the early stages (which worked very well). Any publicity is better than no publicity on the web and I am sure discerning readers will be able to see the qualitative difference between my arguments and those given on other 'crank sites' (this is not to say that I dismiss all of the dissident views on the web as irrelevant; most of them recognize that there is something wrong with established views, but do not quite manage to get it right themselves).
     
  10. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,125
    So, you don't mind that they consider your website's content pure nonsense?

    In my opinion, they are correct. Your arguments are no more right than other dissident views.
     
  11. tsmid Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    368
    Why would I value the opinion of ignorant and prejudiced people ? They did not substantiate their view in any way.

    So why do you think then that the arguments on my page http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/wmap.htm are nonsense ?
     
  12. Vortexx Skull & Bones Spokesman Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,242
    Crank.net looks like a place to drown unfavourable controversial ideas with the downright "real" loony stuff. Some of the sites are pretty hilarious I must say, but you will find some occaisional pearl in that cranky mud overthere.
     
  13. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,125
    Why would I value the opinion of ignorant and prejudiced people ? They did not substantiate their view in any way.

    The physics community need not substantiate your claims – that is your responsibility, and quite frankly, you have failed to do so, miserably.

    As far as ignorance and prejudice are concerned, that might be reserved for those who ignore experimental observations or are inclined to consider them suspicious.

    Nonetheless, most of your website is full of vacuous phrases randomly linked together – in other words, gibberish.
     
  14. Vortexx Skull & Bones Spokesman Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,242
  15. Canute Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,923
    tsmid

    Are there official objections to your calculations? Has anyone else raised this issue?
     

Share This Page