Illuminating dark matter

[solrey]

Try this:

High Galactic Latitude Interstellar Neutral Hydrogen Structure and Associated (WMAP) High Frequency Continuum Emission (pdf)

Papers don't have to specifically mention EU for the conclusions to meet EU theories expectations.

cheers

[kiwi]

do the images taken of the m/wave background, and those of the gamma-ray background, (assuming that both sets of data are taken of the same overall area of space? or is the m/wave background an image looking away from our galaxys center?) ... ever get overlayed with each other? ... I noticed it was said from a link in the Galactic Bubbles thread that the gamma-ray burst mentioned in the same press release showed only normal output at visible levels, and in that case the burst was 168(?) times larger than ever recorded in the Y part of the spectrum, so if you did overlay various charts recording different parts of the spectrum taken of the same region, what would you expect to see?

[Nereid]

Try this:

High Galactic Latitude Interstellar Neutral Hydrogen Structure and Associated (WMAP) High Frequency Continuum Emission (pdf)

Papers don't have to specifically mention EU for the conclusions to meet EU theories expectations.

cheers

Thanks solrey.

Yes, of course you're right.

However, none of the material mentioned so far - by kiwi, Great Dog, D_Archer, neilwilkes, and now you - describes a match between (accounts for, explains, etc) WMAP data and EU expectations.

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

If I broaden the question to observational CMB data in general - from COBE, say, or ACBAR, or DASI, or QuaD, or ... - where can I find material which gives details of how the electric paradigm matches such data?

[Nereid]

do the images taken of the m/wave background, and those of the gamma-ray background, (assuming that both sets of data are taken of the same overall area of space? or is the m/wave background an image looking away from our galaxys center?) ... ever get overlayed with each other? ... I noticed it was said from a link in the Galactic Bubbles thread that the gamma-ray burst mentioned in the same press release showed only normal output at visible levels, and in that case the burst was 168(?) times larger than ever recorded in the Y part of the spectrum, so if you did overlay various charts recording different parts of the spectrum taken of the same region, what would you expect to see?

Hi kiwi,

I think you can produce an all-sky microwave/gamma-ray overlay yourself, using free apps found on the internet; I'll see if I can some, and post links to them later.

One of the things I expect you'd see, if you produced such overlays, is a coincidence of point sources that are bright in both the microwave and gamma ray parts of the electromagnetic spectrum, perhaps the nucleus of M87, and some blazars. Among other things, finding such coincidences would tell you that the CMB is behind (further from us) than these point sources, or that it is 'optically thin' (which means, roughly, that it is transparent, or nearly so), at least to microwaves.

[mharratsc]

Nereid said:

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.

Be fair, Nereid- part of the argument is simply showing that some 'mainstream' explanations are simply incorrect, yes?
It is in this way that the door opens for other explanations to even be considered- to first admit that your current 'understanding' is flawed to begin with- otherwise you wouldn't be willing to consider alternatives, wouldn't you agree?

[kiwi]

Hi kiwi,

I think you can produce an all-sky microwave/gamma-ray overlay yourself, using free apps found on the internet; I'll see if I can some, and post links to them later.

One of the things I expect you'd see, if you produced such overlays, is a coincidence of point sources that are bright in both the microwave and gamma ray parts of the electromagnetic spectrum, perhaps the nucleus of M87, and some blazars. Among other things, finding such coincidences would tell you that the CMB is behind (further from us) than these point sources, or that it is 'optically thin' (which means, roughly, that it is transparent, or nearly so), at least to microwaves.

thanks, seems likes there's less and less "room" for dark-matter when you consider the vibrating electric soup we obviously live in

there is an interesting thread here you might enjoy http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... f=6&t=3845

[Nereid]

Nereid said:

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.

Be fair, Nereid- part of the argument is simply showing that some 'mainstream' explanations are simply incorrect, yes?

Such arguments (if they can indeed be called that) are, of course, interesting.

However, they have nothing to do with the question(s) I am trying to get answers to.

It is in this way that the door opens for other explanations to even be considered- to first admit that your current 'understanding' is flawed to begin with- otherwise you wouldn't be willing to consider alternatives, wouldn't you agree?

No, I don't agree at all.

If you read even a tiny fraction of the relevant papers (or preprints), you'll quickly see that all kinds of alternatives are being proposed, and developed, all the time. In fact, one of the most interesting results in particle physics, in the last half century or so (neutrino oscillations), was preceded by many theoretical 'alternative' published papers.

[mharratsc]

Really? I hadn't heard anything about them then. I always seem to find more and more and more of the same old concepts in 'fresh new packaging'... but then again I cannot spend my whole day looking for new articles in physics or cosmology either. No fault but my own, I suppose. :\

I will say tho, that most of the articles that they produce for 'the masses' don't seem to intimate that there is any question whatsoever as to the veracity of the information that they put forth.

Exposure to such frequent confidence in their own hypotheses/theories makes one think that they leave absolutely no room for investigation at all.

Maybe it's just how I preceive it, I dunno.

[Nereid]

Really? I hadn't heard anything about them then. I always seem to find more and more and more of the same old concepts in 'fresh new packaging'... but then again I cannot spend my whole day looking for new articles in physics or cosmology either. No fault but my own, I suppose. :\

I will say tho, that most of the articles that they produce for 'the masses' don't seem to intimate that there is any question whatsoever as to the veracity of the information that they put forth.

Exposure to such frequent confidence in their own hypotheses/theories makes one think that they leave absolutely no room for investigation at all.

Maybe it's just how I preceive it, I dunno.

I think you might find reading papers published in relevant peer-reviewed journals quite an eye-opener then!

Especially if you dip into a wide range of topics.

Popular accounts sometimes give an accurate, balanced portrayal of the relevant science, but far more often they do not (IMHO); that's one reason why I try to check the actual papers that form the basis of any popular account. And as I found in this particular case (TPOD, university news item, actual scientific paper), not only are inaccuracies rife, but no Thunderbolts Forum member reading this thread seems to know what the connection between Shanks' comment and the WMAP data re-analysis reported in the paper actually is (nor does any such member seem to be able to point to anything more detailed than the few short sentences, with respect to how EU theory matches WMAP data).

[kiwi]

(nor does any such member seem to be able to point to anything more detailed than the few short sentences, with respect to how EU theory matches WMAP data).

maybe if they were given a fair share of scope/lab time, ... but you need to look no further than H Arp to see what happens when the paradigm is challenged

[Nereid]

(nor does any such member seem to be able to point to anything more detailed than the few short sentences, with respect to how EU theory matches WMAP data).

maybe if they were given a fair share of scope/lab time, ... but you need to look no further than H Arp to see what happens when the paradigm is challenged

I'm sorry kiwi, but I can't make head or tail of this post.

As far as I know, none of Arp's papers (published or just preprints) has anything to do with WMAP data (or even the CMB); can you point me to some please?

Nor has any proponent of EU/PC ideas ever suggested any observing programme or lab experiments that has anything to do with WMAP data (or even the CMB); can you point me to some such suggestions please?

The WMAP data is available for anyone who wants to to download and analyse in any way they want (that's what Shanks and his student did); have your yourself have difficulties obtaining the WMAP data?

(there's more, but that will do for now)

[Aristarchus]

As far as I know, none of Arp's papers (published or just preprints) has anything to do with WMAP data (or even the CMB); can you point me to some please?

Geoffrey Burbidge, who was a defender of Arp, saw many apparent problems with interpreting the CMB data as providing evidence for a Big Bang Theory.

The same can be said of interpretations of the so-called Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB). Because of its cool temperature, the BB modelers claim the CMB is conclusive evidence of cooling after a very hot beginning. However, the CMB could be due to a number of causes, including the burning of hydrogen.

Professor Burbidge points out that "none of this [elaborate theory] is necessary if we go back to the original observation of the 4He/H ratio and take the position that the observed ratio is the result of hydrogen burning in stars. Then of course, the whole of the mass must be baryonic" (Burbidge, 2006, p. 6). However, if solely baryonic, this would be fatal to BB models. Baryons are the family of composite particles made of three quarks and no anti-quarks. Baryonic matter is matter composed mostly of baryons (by mass), and includes nearly all matter that is typically associated with our known world, such as stars, planets, pets and people. Non-baryonic matter would include dark matter. BB models of nucleosynthesis require that in the beginning, equal amounts of baryons and antibaryons were produced. If the CMB was produced baryonically, then there was no big bang.

Burbidge then goes through a brief calculation that leads to black body radiation with temperature T~ 2.75°K, which is very close to the measured value of 2.726°K" the current temperature of the universe (see also Ibison, 2006). On this point, Burbidge (2006, p. 6) concludes that "This is either a pure coincidence, as it must be for those who believe in the big bang, or else it tells us that hydrogen burning was originally responsible for the CMB." Burbidge also calls attention to several estimates for the CMB which do not support the BB. A simple average of six such estimates made prior to the famed Penzias and Wilson measurement of 1965 yields ~3.1° K. In contrast, BB estimates by Gamow and collaborators ranged from 5 to 50° K (Assis and Neves, 1995; Peratt, 1995). Therefore, we have a number of close predictions that were entirely independent of the BB model. And yet, the typical scientific textbook account focuses entirely on Gamow’s BB "prediction" and the 1965 "confirmation" without reference to this history; the real story is far more complicated.

Cosmic Agnosticism, Revisited

Nor has any proponent of EU/PC ideas ever suggested any observing programme or lab experiments that has anything to do with WMAP data (or even the CMB); can you point me to some such suggestions please?

Yes. Anthony Peratt has.

Special Issue on Space and Cosmic Plasma

Verschuur's mappings show that galactic foreground HI structure is not random but part of a very long twisted filaments of cosmic scale. These form a "plasma forest" through which any observation of the microwave background must be capable of penetrating. For example, an all-sky survey of high-frequency radio continuum emission from observations of the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotrophy Probe (WMAP spacecraft should have no relationship to galactic HI filaments. However, Verchuur finds just such a relationship that, if validated, has far- reaching implications for the interpretation of WMAP data.

An independent verification of Veschuur's filaments comes from a totally independent study of the structure of the plasma universe. A. B. Kukushkin and V. A. Rantsev-Kartinov of the Kurchatov Institute, Moscow, report on very long filamentary plasm cylinders with unexpected longevity, which was observed in laboratory electrical discharges and in space.

[kiwi]

I'm sorry kiwi, but I can't make head or tail of this post.

As far as I know, none of Arp's papers (published or just preprints) has anything to do with WMAP data (or even the CMB); can you point me to some please?

considering Arps work dealt with the subject of the physical distance of objects,... and the accepted paradigm his results challenged (using red shift as a distance marker, and using that obervation as added padding to the BB theory) .... in the case of the CMB its interpretted as smooth background ...when the emissions are obviouly comi9ng from sources that are not only insome cases local to each othe, but also from widely varying distances... you cant have the anomilies shown by Arp and then data from another part of the spectrum to claim all is well,... you explain to me how his work can be ignored? ...

the comment really regarding Arp was made in a general way to show what happens in these close/shop fields of science you are defending

I think you might find reading papers published in relevant peer-reviewed journals quite an eye-opener then!

have you seen all the relevant peer reviewed material around that cosmologists ignore?.... exactly what you do? ....what a cheek you have suggesting Mike read "relevant" material from the mainstream, .... define "relevant" as regards your comment, because if the fact that electricity and Plasma are major contributing facets of our universe,.. IEEE papers alone should be stacked 50 deep on the astronomers desk-tops

[Nereid]

do the images taken of the m/wave background, and those of the gamma-ray background, (assuming that both sets of data are taken of the same overall area of space? or is the m/wave background an image looking away from our galaxys center?) ... ever get overlayed with each other? ... I noticed it was said from a link in the Galactic Bubbles thread that the gamma-ray burst mentioned in the same press release showed only normal output at visible levels, and in that case the burst was 168(?) times larger than ever recorded in the Y part of the spectrum, so if you did overlay various charts recording different parts of the spectrum taken of the same region, what would you expect to see?

Hi kiwi,

I think you can produce an all-sky microwave/gamma-ray overlay yourself, using free apps found on the internet; I'll see if I can some, and post links to them later.

One of the things I expect you'd see, if you produced such overlays, is a coincidence of point sources that are bright in both the microwave and gamma ray parts of the electromagnetic spectrum, perhaps the nucleus of M87, and some blazars. Among other things, finding such coincidences would tell you that the CMB is behind (further from us) than these point sources, or that it is 'optically thin' (which means, roughly, that it is transparent, or nearly so), at least to microwaves.

Returning to this ...

You can use SkyView to do just the sort of thing you asked about!

As does Google Sky!!

I'd be happy to help you create the specific image overlays you are interested in.

[Aristarchus]

Nereid,

Perhaps, I should give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you have not a chance to respond to my post, or that you have not had time to digest it, or you concede that plasma cosmology has responded with refutation to the WMAP based off experiments, or that those that follow the Halton Arp line a reasoning have submitted counter claims regarding the issue of the CMB. Incidently, you do realize that the The American Institute of Physics announced that it will recognize the Plasma Universe as an "official field" in physics. You can read about The American Institute of Physics membership and associations here or its awards and accolades here

I'd be happy to help you create the specific image overlays you are interested in.

What you need to do instead is demonstrate that you keep apprised of the literature and papers in the field of astrophysics and physics. Instead, you provide a link to something that plainly states for Non Astronomers and an even less specific page that leads those you're debating with to do your homework for you.

Here are two papers that question the assumptions in the WMAP:

Observations number correlation in WMAP data

Inhomogeneity of observation numbers used in WMAP mapmaking is emerged at different sky scales, which should generate systematic errors in WMAP temperature maps in a wide range of angular scale through the significant t-N correlation revealed in this work. To limit systematic artifacts, a large amount works have
been performed by the WMAP team. Due to the differential nature ofWMAP observations, it is a difficult task. As an example, though the effect of input transmission imbalance from radiometer nonidealities has been noticed, calibrated and modified by the WMAP team (Jarosik et al. 2003; Jarosik et al. 2007)


... The real accuracy of cosmology parameters is the most important issue for high precision cosmology. Systematical temperature errors and structured noise fluctuations existed in CMB maps will certainly distort the angular power spectrum and the best-fit cosmology parameters as well. It is obviously needed to further study
the errors inWMAP temperature and noise fluctuation maps caused by the observation inhomogeneity and imbalance. The systematic distortions detected by us in released WMAP maps come from the WMAP’s differential nature. The next CMB mission Planck is designed to measure the CMB anisotropy with completely different mode and expected to be unaffected by such kind of distortions.

Eq. 10 with a constant compensation factor to correct the effect of horn imbalance is just to
roughly estimate the average magnitude of differential imbalance distortion. What shown in Fig. 4 is only on the meaning of the average. More works have to be done to find a proper approach to modify the effect of imbalance differential observation to recover a corrected temperature map.

Exhibt B:

Too few spots in the cosmic microwave background

ABSTRACT: We investigate the abundance of large-scale hot and cold spots in the WMAP-5 temperature maps and find considerable discrepancies compared to Gaussian simulations based on the CDM best-fit model. Too few spots are present in the reliably observed cosmic microwave background (CMB) region, i.e., outside the foreground-contaminated parts excluded by the KQ75 mask. Even simulated maps created from the original WMAP-5 estimated multipoles contain more spots than visible in the measured CMB maps. A strong suppression of the lowest multipoles would lead to better agreement. The lack of spots is reflected in a low mean temperature fluctuation on scales of several degrees (4–8), which is only shared by less than 1% (0.16%–0.62%) of Gaussian CDM simulations. After removing the quadrupole, the probabilities change to 2.5%–8.0%. This shows the importance of the anomalously low quadrupole for the statistical significance of the missing spots. We also analyze a possible violation of Gaussianity or statistical isotropy (spots are distributed differently outside and inside the masked region).

Our analysis of Sec. IV.C shows that our results for cut-sky maps do not suggest non-Gaussianity or statistical anisotropy by themselves. They agree well with Gaussian fluctuations if one performs a modification of the lowest multipoles. In doing so, no fine-tuning of the C` is necessary in order to reconcile the spot abundances from Gaussian simulations and the observed CMB. It is sufficient to lower the first multipoles by a substantial amount. When studying local extrema in the temperature field, Hou et al. (2009) similarly found discrepancies that disappeared when excluding the first multipoles. We recall, however, that the C` and the assumption of Gaussianity completely fix the expected spot abundances. If both the extraction of the C`by WMAP-5 and our analysis of spot abundances are correct, our results may indicate non-Gaussianity or statistical anisotropy.

If the discrepancies are not caused by mere statistical coincidence or unknown secondary effects, we have to
leave open the question whether we see the consequence of non-Gaussianity or anisotropy, or whether our results strengthen the evidence for a severe lack of large-scale power. The first case would challenge fundamental assumptions,the second would make it difficult to understand the CMB maps on large scales within standard CDM cosmology. If the discrepancies between the C`, as determined by WMAP-5, and the spot abundances persist, this can be interpreted as a signal for non-Gaussian fluctuations.