Illuminating dark matter

[Cosmic Dick]

Listening to BBC radio 4 Friday night - 18th June, a news prog called "The World Tonight" at 22:00, normally a current affairs type prog and not normally given to science, but I heard an English professor mention that dark matter may not exist, and he mentioned errors in WMAP.

A quick look at TPOD for 18th, nice to see that you are ahead of the BBC.

I sent a link of that page to that BBC program and also to the science-based prog called "Material World", with a little note about the EU theory.

Lets see if EU theory gets a mention on the Beeb.

CD

[kiwi]

Is there a link to the discussion? ... thnx

[nick c]

hi kiwi,
the tpod:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2010/ ... minate.htm

the article:
http://www.dur.ac.uk/news/newsitem/?itemno=10230

[kiwi]

cheers Nick

[Nereid]

The Sawangwit and Shanks letter to the journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society that the Durham University news item seems to be referring to is "Beam profile sensitivity of the WMAP CMB power spectrum". Unfortunately the paper itself is behind a pay wall; fortunately v2 on arXiv is available for free, and it seems this is the same as the published paper.

The TPOD's summary of this is a little exaggerated, I think; it says "Recently, scientists from Durham University in Great Britain announced that the theories of dark matter and dark energy are most likely based on incorrect assumptions about WMAP observational analysis", followed by a quote from the press release. The published paper is a lot more qualified than that: the closest anything in the paper comes is the last bullet in the Discussion and Conclusions section: "The systematic errors on the WMAP Cl due to the beam may be much larger than previously expected and in turn, this means that the systematic error on the best fit cosmological model may also be larger. It will be interesting to see if a revised estimate of theWMAP beam profile then allows a simpler cosmological model to be fitted than {L}CDM." (I can't seem to reproduce the capital Greek lambda!)

The Acknowlegements contains a couple of interesting bits: "We acknowledge the use of NASA WMAP data. We thank G. Hinshaw and E. Wright for useful comments. We thank an anonymous referee for very useful suggestions and comments."

So, given how limited the conclusions are, in the published paper, where does the implication that it may "become less likely that dark energy and exotic dark matter particles dominate the Universe" come from? Does any Thunderbolts Forum member reading this know?

[kiwi]

where does the implication that it may "become less likely that dark energy and exotic dark matter particles dominate the Universe" come from?

"The systematic errors on the WMAP Cl due to the beam may be much larger than previously expected and in turn, this means that the systematic error on the best fit cosmological model may also be larger.

"Implication" leaves a lot of room .... so I could see that if the beams function is in question,... so then should be the results given by the data extrapolated from the beam,.... and in this case a reduction in final quantities.... or a deep-sixing of the whole apparatus altogether

plus I guess if it walks like a duck.....

[Nereid]

where does the implication that it may "become less likely that dark energy and exotic dark matter particles dominate the Universe" come from?

"The systematic errors on the WMAP Cl due to the beam may be much larger than previously expected and in turn, this means that the systematic error on the best fit cosmological model may also be larger.

"Implication" leaves a lot of room .... so I could see that if the beams function is in question,... so then should be the results given by the data extrapolated from the beam,.... and in this case a reduction in final quantities.... or a deep-sixing of the whole apparatus altogether

plus I guess if it walks like a duck.....

That's surely true of any result in physics or astronomy, and it's the sort of thing that's the subject of hundreds of papers. But some tweaking of an analysis of the raw data doesn't mean every conclusion ever drawn from such analyses is automatically wrong; you have to work it through. In this case, the actual paper doesn't do any re-analysis, in terms of how much cold dark matter and dark energy the universe has.

Hence my question - why "less likely"?

Why not "more likely" (perhaps a re-analysis using the beam profile in the paper would show that dark energy and exotic dark matter particles dominate the Universe even more)?

Why not "unlikely" (perhaps a re-analysis using the beam profile in the paper would show that dark energy and exotic dark matter particles dominate the Universe just as much as before)?

[D_Archer]

wrong data = wrong

http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/v ... f=3&t=2025

Nereid wrote: "why "less likely"?", the quote kiwi gave: "The systematic errors on the WMAP Cl due to the beam may be much larger than previously expected and in turn, this means that the systematic error on the best fit cosmological model may also be larger. [emphasis added by me]

The error is larger for the best fit model, ergo less likely they are right.

Regards,
Daniel

[neilwilkes]

And surely if the "best fit" model has larger errors and more problems than an alternate model, say the electrical paradigm, then does not occams razor say that the model with the fewer errors is most likely the right one?

Nature does things the easy way - not the complicated way.

[Nereid]

wrong data = wrong

http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/v ... f=3&t=2025

Nereid wrote: "why "less likely"?", the quote kiwi gave: "The systematic errors on the WMAP Cl due to the beam may be much larger than previously expected and in turn, this means that the systematic error on the best fit cosmological model may also be larger. [emphasis added by me]

The error is larger for the best fit model, ergo less likely they are right.

Regards,
Daniel

Good point.

However, however the TPOD says "become less likely that dark energy and exotic dark matter particles dominate the Universe", not that errors may be larger (larger errors may indicate the possibility of more dark energy and cold dark matter, not less).

[Nereid]

And surely if the "best fit" model has larger errors and more problems than an alternate model, say the electrical paradigm, then does not occams razor say that the model with the fewer errors is most likely the right one?

Nature does things the easy way - not the complicated way.

Yes it does.

Where is the very best material to be found, on the match of the WMAP data to the electrical paradigm?

Of course it's also possible that one experiment's results are a poor fit but dozens of others are very good; I think Occam's Razor doesn't cut very well in that case.

Wayne Hu's website gives several tutorials on the CMB, and the LAMBDA (Legacy Archive for Microwave Background Data Analysis) website has a list of both space-based and ground-based CMB experiments.

[kiwi]

Why not "more likely" (perhaps a re-analysis using the beam profile in the paper would show that dark energy and exotic dark matter particles dominate the Universe even more)?

I would think if the data that was expected was of an order much greater than that allowed for in the setting of the devices parameters, .. then that would show as an "overloading" of sorts? , and be apparent by that ...

Im only an interested bystander, ... but years ago was fortunate enough to be part of a project assisting a NASA proffesional gathering isotopic decay data in-situ in the wild,... the rigmorol and hoops that had to be jumped through before even having the experiment accepted was staggering,.... his most nervous moment was watching the first ticker-tape pour out figures,.... I thought his intense scrutiny of it was giving him the overall "results" ... but he explained that part of the process in the planning of the overall experiment was to produce a paper calculating the expected "readings" ..... and the whole project and possible extension thereof hinged on these early figures showing a correlation with the predictions.... he was much relieved as in that case they did, I came away with a much greater appreciation of how its done (science)

Why not "unlikely" (perhaps a re-analysis using the beam profile in the paper would show that dark energy and exotic dark matter particles dominate the Universe just as much as before)?

with 99% of the Universe known to be in the form of Plasma, where does the predicted DM and DE fit? ... by the cosmologists own admision it is undetectable? .... back to Schrodingers cat

Lastly ,... in spite of reading some of the comments of the various "Nereids" about the net,... I respect the fact you have come here and have the fortitude to defend your beliefs, .... thats what its all about

Cheers

[Nereid]

Why not "more likely" (perhaps a re-analysis using the beam profile in the paper would show that dark energy and exotic dark matter particles dominate the Universe even more)?

I would think if the data that was expected was of an order much greater than that allowed for in the setting of the devices parameters, .. then that would show as an "overloading" of sorts? , and be apparent by that ...

Im only an interested bystander, ... but years ago was fortunate enough to be part of a project assisting a NASA proffesional gathering isotopic decay data in-situ in the wild,... the rigmorol and hoops that had to be jumped through before even having the experiment accepted was staggering,.... his most nervous moment was watching the first ticker-tape pour out figures,.... I thought his intense scrutiny of it was giving him the overall "results" ... but he explained that part of the process in the planning of the overall experiment was to produce a paper calculating the expected "readings" ..... and the whole project and possible extension thereof hinged on these early figures showing a correlation with the predictions.... he was much relieved as in that case they did, I came away with a much greater appreciation of how its done (science)

An interesting experience no doubt.

Anyway, it would seem that no Thunderbolts Forum member reading this thread is able (to date) to answer my questions about the new analysis of WMAP data.

Why not "unlikely" (perhaps a re-analysis using the beam profile in the paper would show that dark energy and exotic dark matter particles dominate the Universe just as much as before)?

with 99% of the Universe known to be in the form of Plasma, where does the predicted DM and DE fit? ... by the cosmologists own admision it is undetectable? .... back to Schrodingers cat

Lastly ,... in spite of reading some of the comments of the various "Nereids" about the net,... I respect the fact you have come here and have the fortitude to defend your beliefs, .... thats what its all about

Cheers

Thanks for this.

Do you know where I can find the very best material on the match of the WMAP data to the electrical paradigm?

[The Great Dog]

Nobel Prize for Big Bang is a Fizzer

Cosmology in Crisis--Again!

WMAP: A Radiological Analysis

All of the cosmological constants which are presented by the WMAP team are devoid of true meaning, precisely because the images are so unreliable. Given the tremendous dynamic range problems, the inability to remove the galactic foreground, the possibility of generating galactic ghosts through "cleaning," the lack of signal to noise, the lack of reproducibility, the use of coefficients which fluctuate on a yearly basis, and the problem of monitoring results on a cosmological timescale, attempts to determine cosmological constants from such data fall well outside the bounds of proper image interpretation.

Also: COBE: A Radiological Analysis

[Nereid]

Nobel Prize for Big Bang is a Fizzer

Cosmology in Crisis--Again!

WMAP: A Radiological Analysis

All of the cosmological constants which are presented by the WMAP team are devoid of true meaning, precisely because the images are so unreliable. Given the tremendous dynamic range problems, the inability to remove the galactic foreground, the possibility of generating galactic ghosts through "cleaning," the lack of signal to noise, the lack of reproducibility, the use of coefficients which fluctuate on a yearly basis, and the problem of monitoring results on a cosmological timescale, attempts to determine cosmological constants from such data fall well outside the bounds of proper image interpretation.

Also: COBE: A Radiological Analysis

Thanks Great Dog.

May I ask what the second two have to do with the electric paradigm? As far as I could tell, neither mentions EU theory, the electric paradigm - or any similar expression - directly, and neither seems to even imply a connection with EU theory.

As far as I can tell, there are only two references to the electric paradigm's ability to account for (explain, match, etc) the WMAP data, as follows (emphasis added by me):

* in the first, "Ironically for the Nobel jury, the death notice for the Big Bang has been provided by the unprecedented accuracy of the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, or WMAP project, which was designed to map the CMB. Rather than "pinpoint when the first stars formed and provide new clues about events that transpired in the first trillionth of a second of the universe," the more detailed map matches the unique heated plasma signature of interactions between local interstellar hydrogen filaments."

* in the second, "The evidence2 is available that shows the “cosmic microwave background” (CMB) radiation is not “background” at all. It is a local radio “fog” from interacting Birkeland filaments within the Milky Way. The “cold spot” confirms that the “CMB” has no cosmological significance. It is commonsense that one hemisphere will be “colder” than the other, unless we just happen to be dead-center in the electric current stream of our arm of the Milky Way—an unlikely situation."
2 is this: "G. Verschuur, On the Critical Ionization Velocity Effect in Interstellar Space and Possible Detection of Related Continuum Emission, IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, Aug. 2007, Vol. 35, Issue 4, Part 1, pp.759-766."

Did I read these materials correctly? Or did I miss something which gives details of how the electric paradigm matches the WMAP data?