Eddington and the CMB - Dismantling the mysticism

[Michael Mozina]

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/new ... background

Since the mainstream makes such a "big deal" about the so called ''cosmic microwave background", I think it's well worth a discussion on this topic for anyone not familiar with the history of the CMB:

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pr ... 2N3ASS.PDF

First of all, the CMB is ultimately nothing more than the "average temperature of dust" in the universe. It doesn't come from a mythical surface of last scattering, it comes from *dust* and from stars and from basic scattering processes in general.

The universe has *lots* of backgrounds, from the microwave all the way up to the x-ray spectrum and everywhere else in between. The reason for that is obvious, namely every sun emits virtually every wavelength in the spectrum and that light from every sun gets scattered around over time and distance. The universe has an 'x-ray spectrum too'.

https://phys.org/news/2012-03-mysteriou ... ctrum.html

One thing you'll notice immediately about almost all *raw* (unprocessed) background images is that we can clearly see the layout of our own galaxy which shows up as a bright line in the images because every sun in our own galaxy is emitting those wavelengths. Here's what our own sun looks like in microwaves. You'll note it's much "brighter" than the background of space because it's a point source of all wavelengths.

http://solar.physics.montana.edu/ypop/S ... owave.html

There's nothing particularly 'special' or unusual about the microwave images, or the microwave background. As Eddington expected, we observe that the *dust* particle emissions from our own galaxy are much brighter than regions that do not contain as much dust. The dust "halo" is huge compared to the galaxy stellar region too. It's just as Eddington predicted in terms of this specific emission temperature is related to dust emissions from starlight scattering processes.

Not only does our own galaxy emit these wavelengths and the dust scatter them around, *every* galaxy in the universe does exactly the same thing, and the IGM also tends to scatter them around as well.

The mainstream makes a really "big deal" about stripping out all the foreground effects and then noting how 'smooth' it is. So what? It's only relatively homogeneous because they stripped out all the non homogeneous contamination from our galaxy and local galaxies in our cluster. They're still left with a 'dotted' pattern in the image that is directly related to the the location and concentration of various dusty galaxy clusters. There are "voids" where few stars exist, and there are brighter areas where galaxies are concentrated.

The cosmic microwave background is clearly related to stellar output and dust emissions from scattering, just as Eddington predicted. The raw images match his predictions *perfectly* because we can even see the dust patterns of our own galaxy as we would expect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryon_ac ... cillations

The mainstream also makes a 'big deal" about how their model matches the BAO, baryon acoustic oscillation pattern, but they can only "match" such a pattern using a very *specific* and highly contrived amount of 'dark (special) matter'. In other words, it doesn't match anything at all without including 5 times more fudge factor than real mass. If you simply begin with a relatively homogeneous layout of matter, you don't need any of that nonsense, or those fudge factors. Their match to the BAO is no "claim to fame", it's a noose around their neck that requires them to remain enslaved to exotic matter theory forever.

[Zyxzevn]

I would like to add Robitaille's denunking of Kirchhoff's law.
What is Kirchhoff's law? Blackbody and Cavity Radiation
Is Kirchhoff's law true? The experiment!

This clearly shows that Kirchhoff did an oversimplification and overgeneralization of the emission
properties of matter. His law only works for graphite-like substances.

The cause of this error was due to the theory-only approach of Krichhoff. To match his equation,
the experiments needed to be fiddled with. An approach that we also see in modern astronomy.

This simply means that the "perfect black body radiation" that many scientists claim is
in the cosmic microwave background, does not have a direct relationship with temperature,
because the radiation does not come from a graphite body.
If valid, the radiation-curve should have a different shape.
But I also suspect that the data has been fiddled with to match this "perfect" curve.

I doubt that we see this "perfect" curve in the CMB as recorded by the Plank satellite.

[kiwi]

Hi Michael

First of all, the CMB is ultimately nothing more than the "average temperature of dust" in the universe.

I dont think dust particles are capable of producing the Monopole, the particles being way to small, and incapable of giving the spectral shape observed, it cant account for the low frequency side especially of it from what Ive read. Astronomers have tried to use the dust emmission idea to account for part of the Galactic spectrum, but they know it cannot account for the Monopole.I think its game over for them

Zyxzevn

I would like to add Robitaille's denunking of Kirchhoff's law.

I think his work is a killer blow to the mainstream, yet even around here the mention of his name seems to elicit a stony silence, thanks for your supporting post

[kiwi]

Hi Michael

Below are the papers relevant to the CMB debate from Dr Robitaille's position.

Water, Hydrogen Bonding, and the Microwave Background

Authors: Pierre-Marie Robitaille

In this work, the properties of the water are briefly revisited. Though liquid water has a fleeting structure, it displays an astonishingly stable network of hydrogen bonds. Thus, even as a liquid, water possesses a local lattice with short range order. The presence of hydroxyl (O-H) and hydrogen (H-OH2) bonds within water, indicate that it can simultaneously maintain two separate energy systems. These can be viewed as two very different temperatures. The analysis presented uses results from vibrational spectroscopy, extracting the force constant for the hydrogen bonded dimer. By idealizing this species as a simple diatomic structure, it is shown that hydrogen bonds within water should be able to produce thermal spectra in the far infrared and microwave regions of the electromagnetic spectrum. This simple analysis reveals that the oceans have a physical mechanism at their disposal, which is capable of generating the microwave background.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1310.0129v1.pdf

Global Warming and the Microwave Background

Authors: Pierre-Marie Robitaille

In the work, the importance of assigning the microwave background to the Earth is addressed while emphasizing the consequences for global climate change. Climate models can only produce meaningful forecasts when they consider the real magnitude of all radiative processes. The oceans and continents both contribute to terrestrial emissions. However, the extent of oceanic radiation, particularly in the microwave region, raises concerns. This is not only since the globe is covered with water, but because the oceans themselves are likely to be weaker emitters than currently believed. Should the microwave background truly be generated by the oceans of the Earth, our planet would be a much less efficient emitter of radiation in this region of the electromagnetic spectrum. Furthermore, the oceans would appear unable to increase their emissions in the microwave in response to temperature elevation, as predicted by Stefan’s law. The results are significant relative to the modeling of global warming.http://vixra.org/pdf/1310.0128v1.pdf

COBE: A Radiological Analysis

Authors: Pierre-Marie Robitaille

The COBE Far Infrared Absolute Spectrophotometer (FIRAS) operated from ~30 to ~3,000 GHz (1–95 cm-1) and monitored, from polar orbit (~900 km), the ~3 K microwave background. Data released from FIRAS has been met with nearly universal admiration. However, a thorough review of the literature reveals significant problems with this instrument. FIRAS was designed to function as a differential radiometer, wherein the sky signal could be nulled by the reference horn, Ical. The null point occurred at an Ical temperature of 2.759 K. This was 34 mK above the reported sky temperature, 2.725 0.001 K, a value where the null should ideally have formed. In addition, an 18 mK error existed between the thermometers in Ical, along with a drift in temperature of ~3 mK. A 5 mK error could be attributed to Xcal; while a 4 mK error was found in the frequency scale. A direct treatment of all these systematic errors would lead to a ~64 mK error bar in the microwave background temperature. The FIRAS team reported ~1 mK, despite the presence of such systematic errors. But a 1 mK error does not properly reflect the experimental state of this spectrophotometer. In the end, all errors were essentially transferred into the calibration files, giving the appearance of better performance than actually obtained. The use of calibration procedures resulted in calculated Ical emissivities exceeding 1.3 at the higher frequencies, whereas an emissivity of 1 constitutes the theoretical limit. While data from 30–60 GHz was once presented, these critical points are later dropped, without appropriate discussion, presumably because they reflect too much microwave power. Data obtained while the Earth was directly illuminating the sky antenna, was also discarded. From 300–660 GHz, initial FIRAS data had systematically growing residuals as frequencies increased. This suggested that the signal was falling too quickly in the Wien region of the spectrum. In later data releases, the residual errors no longer displayed such trends, as the systematic variations had now been absorbed in the calibration files. The FIRAS team also cited insufficient bolometer sensitivity, primarily attributed to detector noise, from 600–3,000 GHz. The FIRAS optical transfer function demonstrates that the instrument was not optimally functional beyond 1,200 GHz. The FIRAS team did not adequately characterize the FIRAS horn. Established practical antenna techniques strongly suggest that such a device cannot operate correctly over the frequency range proposed. Insufficient measurements were conducted on the ground to document antenna gain and field patterns as a full function of frequency and thereby determine performance. The effects of signal diffraction into FIRAS, while considering the Sun/Earth/RF shield, were neither measured nor appropriately computed. Attempts to establish antenna side lobe performance in space, at 1,500 GHz, are well outside the frequency range of interest for the microwave background (<600 GHz). Neglecting to fully evaluate FIRAS prior to the mission, the FIRAS team attempts to do so, on the ground, in highly limited fashion, with a duplicate Xcal, nearly 10 years after launch. All of these findings indicate that the satellite was not sufficiently tested and could be detecting signals from our planet. Diffraction of earthly signals into the FIRAS horn could explain the spectral frequency dependence first observed by the FIRAS team: namely, too much signal in the Jeans-Rayleigh region and not enough in the Wien region. Despite popular belief to the contrary, COBE has not proven that the microwave background originates from the universe and represents the remnants of creation.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1310.0125v1.pdf

Calibration of Microwave Reference Blackbodies and Targets for Use in Satellite Observations: An Analysis of Errors in Theoretical Outlooks and Testing Procedures

Authors: Pierre-Marie Robitaille

Microwave reference blackbodies and targets play a key role in astrophysical and geophysical studies. The emissivity of these devices is usually inferred from return-loss experiments which may introduce at least 10 separate types of calibration errors. The origin of these inaccuracies depends on test conditions and on the nature of each target. The most overlooked errors are related to the geometry adapted in constructing reference loads and to the effects of conduction or convection. Target shape and design can create an imbalance in the probabilities of absorption and emission. This leads to loss of radiative equilibrium, despite the presence of a thermodynamic steady state. Heat losses or gains, through conduction and convection, compensate for this unexpected physical condition. The improper calibration of blackbodies and targets has implications, not only in global climate monitoring, but also relative to evaluating the microwave backgroun
http://vixra.org/pdf/1310.0124v1.pdf

The Planck Satellite LFI and the Microwave Background: Importance of the 4 K Reference Targets

Authors: Pierre-Marie Robitaille

Armed with ~4K reference targets, the Planck satellite low frequency instrument (LFI) is intended to map the microwave anisotropies of the sky from the second Lagrange point, L2. Recently, the complete design and pre-flight testing of these ~4K targets has been published (Valenziano L. et al., JINST 4, 2009, T12006). The receiver chain of the LFI is based on a pseudo-correlation architecture. Consequently, the presence of a ~3K microwave background signal at L2 can be established, if the ~4K reference targets function as intended. Conversely, demonstration that the targets are unable to provide the desired emission implies that the ~3K signal cannot exist, at this location. Careful study reveals that only the second scenario can be valid. This analysis thereby provides firm evidence that the monopole of the microwave background, as initially detected by Penzias and Wilson, is being produced by the Earth itself.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1310.0123v1.pdf

WMAP: A Radiological Analysis

Authors: Pierre-Marie Robitaille

In this work, results obtained by the WMAP satellite are analyzed by invoking established practices for signal acquisition and processing in nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Dynamic range, image reconstruction, signal to noise, resolution, contrast, and reproducibility are specifically discussed. WMAP images do not meet accepted standards in medical imaging research. WMAP images are obtained by attempting to remove a galactic foreground contamination which is 1,000 times more intense than the desired signal. Unlike water suppression in biological NMR, this is accomplished without the ability to affect the signal at the source and without a priori knowledge. Resulting WMAP images have an exceedingly low signal to noise (maximum 1–2) and are heavily governed by data processing. Final WMAP internal linear combination (ILC) images are made from 12 section images. Each of these, in turn, is processed using a separate linear combination of data. The WMAP team extracts cosmological implications from their data, while ignoring that the ILC coefficients do not remain constant from year to year. In contrast to standard practices in medicine, difference images utilized to test reproducibility are presented at substantially reduced resolution. ILC images are not presented for year two and three. Rather, year-1 data is signal averaged in a combined 3-year data set. Proper tests of reproducibility require viewing separate yearly ILC images. Fluctuations in the WMAP images arise from the inability to remove the galactic foreground, and in the significant yearly variations in the foreground itself. Variations in the map outside the galactic plane are significant, preventing any cosmological analysis due to yearly changes. This occurs despite the masking of more than 300 image locations. It will be advanced that any “signal” observed by WMAP is the result of foreground effects, not only from our galaxy, but indeed yearly variations from every galaxy in the Universe. Contrary to published analysis, the argument suggests there are only questionable findings in the anisotropy images, other than those related to image processing, yearly galactic variability, and point sources. Concerns are also raised relative to the validity of assigning brightness temperatures in this setting.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1310.0121v1.pdf

On the Origins of the CMB: Insight from the COBE, WMAP, and Relikt-1 Satellites

Authors: Pierre-Marie Robitaille

The powerful “Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB)” signal currently associated with the origins of the Universe is examined from a historical perspective and relative to the experimental context in which it was measured. Results from the COBE satellite are reviewed, with particular emphasis on the systematic error observed in determining the CMB temperature. The nature of the microwave signal emanating from the oceans is also discussed. From this analysis, it is demonstrated that it is improper for the COBE team to model the Earth as a 285K blackbody source. The assignment of temperatures to objects that fail to meet the requirements set forth in Kirchhoff’s law constitutes a serious overextension of the laws of thermal emission. Using this evidence, and the general rule that powerful signals are associated with proximal sources, the CMB monopole signal is reassigned to the oceans. In turn, through the analysis of COBE, WMAP, and Relikt-1 data, the dipole signal is attributed to motion through a much weaker microwave field present both at the position of the Earth and at the second Lagrange point.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1310.0120v1.pdf

On the Earth Microwave Background: Absorption and Scattering by the Atmosphere

Authors: Pierre-Marie Robitaille

The absorption and scattering of microwave radiation by the atmosphere of the Earth is considered under a steady state scenario. Using this approach, it is demonstrated that the microwave background could not have a cosmological origin. Scientific observations in the microwave region are explained by considering an oceanic source, combined with both Rayleigh and Mie scattering in the atmosphere in the absence of net absorption. Importantly, at high frequencies, Mie scattering occurs primarily with forward propagation. This helps to explain the lack of high frequency microwave background signals when radio antennae are positioned on the Earth’s surface.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1310.0118v1.pdf

On the Nature of the Microwave Background at the Lagrange 2 Point. Part I

Authors: Pierre-Marie Robitaille

In this work, the nature of the microwave background is discussed. It is advanced that the 2.725 K monopole signal, first detected by Penzias and Wilson, originates from the Earth and therefore cannot be detected at the Lagrange 2 point (L2). Results obtained by the COBE, Relikt-1, and WMAP satellites are briefly reviewed. Attention is also placed on the upcoming PLANCK mission, with particular emphasis on the low frequency instrument (LFI). Since the LFI on PLANCK can operate both in absolute mode and in difference mode, this instrument should be able to unequivocally resolve any question relative to the origin of the 2.725K monopole signal. The monopole will be discovered to originate from the Earth and not from the Cosmos. This will have implications relative to the overall performance of the PLANCK satellite, in particular, and for the future of astrophysics, in general.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1310.0116v1.pdf

The Earth Microwave Background (EMB), Atmospheric Scattering and the Generation of Isotropy

Authors: Pierre-Marie Robitaille

In this work, the presence of substantial microwave power in the atmosphere of the Earth is discussed. It is advanced that this atmospheric microwave power constitutes pools of scattered photons initially produced, at least in substantial part, by the ~3K microwave background. The existence of these microwave pools of photons can serve to explain how the Earth, as an anisotropic source, is able to produce an Earth Microwave Background (EMB) at ~3K which is isotropic.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1310.0114v1.pdf

[Michael Mozina]

Particularly after you look at the raw microwave images, it's hard to miss the fact that not only does the galaxy light up brightly as a result of all the stellar emissions, but the dust around the galaxy also clearly shows up in the image. If there was any doubt that Eddington was correct about the temperature of the dust around the galaxy, the raw images demonstrate it *perfectly*. The mainstream has to "filter out" all those foreground emissions related to our own galaxy, and local cluster, just to be able to look at the overall emission pattern of the universe itself.

The bright spots in the "cleaned" images are clearly related to distant galaxy clusters, and the dark areas are where few galaxies reside.

The way you *know* that the mainstream is full of it with respect to the remaining light being related to a "surface of last scattering" is because of the silly nonsense they go through to explain the "brightness" of the galaxy cluster regions. Instead of just acknowledging that that every star in those galaxy clusters emits microwaves like our own sun, they pull a magic scattering rabbit out of their hat.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunyaev%E ... ich_effect

The *one* time they incorporate any "scattering" influences into their calculations is the one place it's absolutely not relevant to begin with! Every sun emits microwaves, so the 'background' light isn't being 'given a boost" by anything, the brightness is directly related to the microwave output of the stars in those areas!

Their whole belief system is whack-a-doodle through and through. There's nothing even logical about picking out *one* background wavelength and making it "oh so special" to begin with. Eddington *nailed* the correct temperature of dust from starlight to within 1/2 of degree on his first try without even knowing that other galaxies were involved.

In contrast, the first "big bang prediction" (only real "prediction") was around 50 degrees! It was off by over an entire order of magnitude! There's no great "predictive" value related to their "temperature" figure to start with, and every "fit" they've made has been *postdicted*, not "predicted".

They make a really big deal about how "smooth" it is, but that's only because they *make it that way to start with*, by removing all the foreground contamination to start with, otherwise it wouldn't be "smooth" at all. Scattering happens in space, and the universe is relatively homogeneous. The x-ray background is "smooth" too if you remove all the local point source "bright spots" too.

They also tend to make a *huge* deal over their BAO figure, but that baryonic "match" they came up with turns their exotic matter claims into a noose around their neck. That need for exotic matter to get a "fit" is exactly why they have to bury their collective heads in the sand with respect to all their lab failures on exotic matter, and with respect to all the *huge* mistakes they've been making with respect to "guestimating" the baryonic mass of galaxies based on light.

In short, there's absolutely nothing "special" about the microwave background. It ultimately represents the scattering of starlight on the dust of spacetime, and the average temperature of that dust. So what? Eddington himself "predicted" that number to within 1/2 of one degree. It's no big deal.

It's only a 'big deal' to the mainstream because they've hung their entire theory on that one EM range. To *any* other cosmology theory, it's simply no big deal.

The other obvious way that you can tell just how out to lunch the mainstream is with respect to that one wavelength range is the fact that 200+ authors of BICEP2 couldn't tell the different between local galaxy 'dust patterns' from a five+ sigma 'discovery' of evidence of inflation and gravitational waves. BICEP2 literally "bit the dust" because they "assumed" the patterns of polarized light they saw were related to a mythical 'surface of last scattering', rather than just being related to *ordinary dust particle patterns* as Eddington himself predicted.

Anytime the mainstream claims that that the CMB somehow supports their metaphysical "surface of last scattering" claims, just cite this thread for them. They're totally full of it (dust).

[Zyxzevn]

.. they pull a magic scattering rabbit out of their hat.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunyaev%E ... ich_effect

It looks like this "inverse Compton Scattering" is the inverse of physics as well.
Nice Magic Rabbit

[kiwi]

Hi Michael

Code: Select all

In short, there's absolutely nothing "special" about the microwave background. 

I am of the opinion there is absolutely "everything" special about the MS claims relating to the CMB .... the equipment/hardware used on the satellites has been shown to be pretty much "space-junk" ... incapable of performing to the relevant standards, but that is not a swipe at the engineers involved, who are obviously very talented individuals.

And of course any assigning of Temperature by Eddington or any one else using Kirchoff/Plancks Laws of BBR as they have stood thus far is a violation in itself.

Where (as Dr Robataille has asked many times) is the Earths/Oceans MW profile accounted for in the analysis?

[Michael Mozina]

Hi Michael

Code: Select all

In short, there's absolutely nothing "special" about the microwave background. 

I am of the opinion there is absolutely "everything" special about the MS claims relating to the CMB .... the equipment/hardware used on the satellites has been shown to be pretty much "space-junk" ... incapable of performing to the relevant standards, but that is not a swipe at the engineers involved, who are obviously very talented individuals.

And of course any assigning of Temperature by Eddington or any one else using Kirchoff/Plancks Laws of BBR as they have stood thus far is a violation in itself.

Where (as Dr Robataille has asked many times) is the Earths/Oceans MW profile accounted for in the analysis?

I completely disagree with your position on the "space-junk" concept. In fact I would argue the exact opposite is true. The hardware itself is simply *magnificent* and the engineering that went into them is absolutely awesome to behold. The results of the images speak for themselves. I love the raw data that all these systems provide for us here on Earth. The problem has nothing to do with the hardware or the engineers that built and launched and maintain the equipment. It has everything to do with the "theorists" that tend to butcher the meaning of the data to start with.

Those are beautiful images of the universe in the microwave wavelengths, and I appreciate the engineering achievement required to produce them as much as anyone. The satellites in space are a really spectacular engineering achievement and the images they provide make scientific "progress" possible, and inevitable. The images are great. The "interpretation" by the mainstream is just terrible, and unworthy of the engineering effort that went into producing these images in the first place.

[kiwi]

Hi Michael

I completely disagree with your position on the "space-junk" concept. In fact I would argue the exact opposite is true. The hardware itself is simply *magnificent* and the engineering that went into them is absolutely awesome to behold. The results of the images speak for themselves

I feel like you ... talking to Higgsy about "Planet" Ligo

How you read that data posted above and still mantain your position on this is beyond me ... a real head scratcher ... you think bolting the 4k reference loads to the spacecrafts Heat shield and allowing conduction into the process is a feat of fantastic engineering? ( just a quick example) Have you actually read any of the material I posted? If so please state where Robataille has got it wrong.

Those anisotrophy Maps are garbage, have you followed the processing path taken to get those (cough) "images" ? They break damn near every rule in the book that governs image aquisition ... unless they get to manipulate their "source" (the Universe in their case) you CANNOT invert temperature as they have done. In MRI that IS possible because they DO control the sample/source. The list goes on and on .

dissapointed

[comingfrom]

I read the data posted above, and what didn't become clear to me was how they managed to photograph the oceans when the camera was pointed to another source (the Universe) away from Earth.
I'm not dismissing Robitaille, he seems to know what he is talking about, but technically it is over my head.
Yet a very thought provoking read.
Paul

[Zyxzevn]

..how they managed to photograph the oceans when the camera was pointed to another source (the Universe) away from Earth.

The "camera" is an antenna. An antenna receives radiation from different directions.
To ensure that you only get radiation from one direction, the antenna must be protected
on all other sides.
This protection is not present in this antenna.

In the design the scientists screwed up, probably because they did not expect radiation to come from so nearby.

[kiwi]

Hi Paul

I read the data posted above, and what didn't become clear to me was how they managed to photograph the oceans when the camera was pointed to another source (the Universe) away from Earth.
I'm not dismissing Robitaille, he seems to know what he is talking about, but technically it is over my head.
Yet a very thought provoking read.
Paul

Zyxzevn addressed your first comment pretty well, the detected signal's are spill-over from the Oceanic emmissions, and not from the Cosmos, the quite in depth analysis of the hardware is provided speciffically to show that the instrument (sattelite) involved was not correctly designed nor engineered to provide the necessary safe-guards to prevent this "pollution" spill-over.

You are not alone in struggling with the complex issues involved, here is a video from the 2014 EU conf in Albequerke NM where Dr Robataille outlined his case.If you think that he appears a little "out of sorts" at times during the presentation it is because both he and Steve Crothers were knocked over with food poisoning just 24 hours earlier, he was unable even to leave his room the night before his first lecture. I met him and Steve Crothers at the Conf and got to hang out with them for the duration. He took the time to explain to me in terms I could understand what the issues were,and has since been able to answer any other querys I put to him, he is a most courteous and intelligent individual, which is probably why OSU offered him at age 28 a one million dollar salary and then built him a lab to his specs. Nice work if you can get it right?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8ijbu3bSqI&t=1358s

Personally it takes me many readings to grasp this material, but if a common or garden Joe blow like me can get an understanding then you certainly can also

Cheers

[comingfrom]

Thank you Kiwi.
That helped.
Paul

[Zyxzevn]

Thanks for linking to the video again kiwi.
I really had to watch it again after a few years.

Problems with MBR analysis

Robitaille shows some major errors in the analysis of the data:
1) noise (foreground) level relative to signal (black body background) is much too large.
2) images are substracted from each other, not added, so this causes an reduction of the signal and
increase of the noise.
3) most, if not all of the signal is likely to come from earth, this source is just ignored.
4) the raw data matches with a null-hypothesis, not with a consistent background radiation signal.
5) the "signal" varies per measurement and this variation is removed with artificially chosen parameters.
6) the real data (outside Earth's influence) only shows point sources, no background radiation at all.
7) the analysis produces negative temperatures which are impossible in this area of science.

I fully agree with this analysis, based on the data that he showed.

All this shows very bad science by the astronomers.
But this can happen in an environment where have to publish or perish, and
where most people are upgraded students specialized in only one area.

Black body - observations

There is also the matter of the "perfect black body radiation", which Robataille does not go into much.
He states that large bodies water can produce radio-waves, just like they can absorb it.
And with bad data-analysis this might data be converted to match the model.

The water spectrum:

See this page

The water spectrum variates with frequency, and does not follow a black body spectrum.
(As most materials do not). It goes from 1 to 4000 cm.

The "black body spectrum" as described by the COBE team shows a very different frequency range.
From 2 to 22 cm. This might match certain frequency lines of water, but is hard to determine.
What is clear, is that it is possible that certain regions of the water spectrum might give such a match.

For me it seems that the COBE team has manipulated the data in such a way to match the theory
that they fully believe in. They probably used artificially chosen parameters to produce such
a "perfect" curve.

Of course, this "perfect black body curve" is not present in the raw Plank data at all.
So its source must be from Earth.
Or the Sun, if the Plank-satellite is only pointing away from the sun.
In this case we may consider the electrical radiation from the solar wind and such.

This needs more research, but I am afraid that the scientists involved were too biased and
too stressed to actually see the reality of their data.

Black body - theory

The theory of the production of a black-body radiation is flawed too.
The theoretical black body of the universe is shifted to match a certain red-shift,
so we have two variables: temperature (the curve) and time (redshift).
With those two variables you can match quite a lot of curves.

The major problem is that only certain types of solid matter
can actually produce such a black-body radiation-curve.
You can see above that water does not produce such a curve,
but water might match partially with a non-red-shifted curve.
Hydrogen, which is the first element in the universe, does not produce
this curve either. All gasses produce bands that relate to their electrical bands.

The first matter in the universe, according to the big bang, is ionized matter that
collapsed into normal matter, namely hydrogen.
Collapsing ionized matter produces radiation, depending on the degree of ionization,
which again depends on the electrical circumstances.
But it does not produce a black-body curve either.
I think that they produce small bands of radiation, just like gasses.

My conclusion: there is no way that collapsing ionized matter can produce a black body radiation.
So this whole idea is based upon nonsense.

[Webbman]

-black
-dark
-there but doesn't interact
-is transient so doesn't last
-cant be measured directly

clues for the observant.