Shortly after the first release of the WMAP data three years ago, I made already the point that the angular power spectrum of the CMB fluctuations is at least partly due to a systematic error (see my webpage regarding the WMAP Data Analysis). This is in my opinion now confirmed by the latest data release: the difference between the 3- and 1-year maps shows residuals that have about the same amplitude as the second peak near 0.3 degree in the power spectrum. This is evident from Figs.3 and 9 in the Three Year Temperature Analysis (PDF file, 2.3 MB) which reveals a residual temperature fluctuation for the difference map of about ±20μK. Considering the circumstance that the difference map was smoothed with a 1 degree radius (which should have about halved the amplitude) this corresponds thus to the amplitude of the second peak (which is 50μK). The latter proves therefore to be due due to statistical fluctuations both in space and time which, as shown on my webpage, lead to an angular bias resulting in a residual signal at about 0.3 deg. Thomas
Dumb website. There is no reason to believe your criticism of WMAP data. You seem to be lacking in science fundamentals. For example your criticism of Bernoulli's Principle and aircraft aerodynamics was really stupid. Even your diagram of a "symmetric wing profile" was incorrect. A really simple experiment in a Venturi tube will show the drop in pressure of an airflow in a constricting channel. In a Venturi tube air moves from a high pressure area to a low pressure area. This pressure difference is what pushes on the air and makes it move. So the lowest pressure and the highest velocity occur at the throat of a constricted airflow. Archaic theories of airflow over a wing give this as a reason why low pressure occurs on the very top of a curved wing. The difference in pressure between the top and bottom surface of the wing results in a lift force. That's a really simple theory. I can't believe you have a Master of Science degree. Did you receive it in Pakistan or Afghanistan or something?
You don't need to believe it. You just need to follow scientific argument. The case is as clear as it possibly can be. Thomas
Thomas has the esteemed pleasure of having his website appear on crank.net, thanks to those here. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
From the abstract: "The WMAP observatory continues to operate flawlessly, and many results that are currently measured at 2-3 σ confidence, such as the apparent deviation from scale invariance, hints of a running spectral index, and the details of the reionization history, will be significantly clarified by additional years of data."
No, you are wrong. I have submitted my site myself way before you (and most others here) became member of this forum. So I am afraid, you can't claim the credit for this (if this is what you want). Thomas
So what. It does not address at all the point I have been making. The present data show already clearly enough that these are anything but what they expected. You just need to have a closer look at some of the published results in order to see that, as far as the CMB fluctuation is concerned, the data have not only a poor quality but are at least partially biased due to systematic errors. They apparently tried to make these look less obvious by for instance using a data 'smoothing' for the difference maps, but they are still obvious enough for anybody who is not blind. Thomas
There are two independent instances: I made my point originally on the basis of the first WMAP data release three years ago. The second release of (independent) data confirm my point as the 3 and 1-year 'maps' are not identical but show residuals of the same magnitude which one would expect from the flaw I mentioned. Thomas
You say you submitted your own website to www.crank.net before sciforums even existed, AND THEN your website was submitted to www.crank.net by people at sciforums. That's twice. Now that's what I call scientific confirmation!
If this is the only 'argument' you can bring up against the point I am making, it shows that a) you don't know the meaning of 'scientific confirmation' and b) you are lacking any scientific arguments in this context. Thomas
I meant an independent confirmation of your work. If you performed an analysis on two different data sets then each one of those would require independent corroboration before either could be said to be "confirmed".
