Illuminating dark matter

[Grits]

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).

The problem here is that "dark matter" and "dark energy" are not even possibilities. if you intend to practice science. Science doesn't posit things that can't be observed or that aren't necessary to explain what we observe.

[Grits]

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.

After many reviews of the WMAP mission web site and the archive of their published results I concluded that no attempts appear to have been made by the WMAP research team to exclude potential sources for this microwave noise other than "big bang echo". The very notion of "big bang" is riotous on its face, relying on it as a cornerstone of your assumptions that lead to your conclusions is the mother of all #%?$.

EU models predict lots of microwave noise in the universe. We generate microwaves here on Earth with electric fields, not with "big bang" mechanics. That the universe is filled with microwave noise is a trivial consequence of the EU models. Keep in mind the CMBR was never in any way predicted by "big bang". It was inserted into "big bang" ad hoc after its discovery. By the way, the "CMBR" was first noticed in 1941. Its "temperature" was calculated at 2.4K (wow, look how close it was) by Andrew McKellar based on excitation of CN doublet lines, and observed in stellar lines by Walter Sydney Adams.

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

...umm...this web site?

[Nereid]

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, [...]

Hi Aristarchus,

As you no doubt know, I am quite new to this forum, so I do not yet know what is expected of Thunderbolts Forum members re acknowledgement ('I have read your post'), response ('here are some things I agree with/do not agree with/don't follow/etc'), timeliness (is an hour an expected response time? a day? a week? perhaps no expectations?), etc.

So, apologies for not responding to your post earlier, and apologies for the fact that I'm not going to respond to it right now either; however, I most certainly will respond in due course.

In the meantime, may I ask of you the same question(s) I've asked earlier? I'd be most interested in your answers!

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]

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? ...
[...]

Sorry kiwi, but I think you may have misunderstood my question ("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?" - I added the emphasis, also in your post).

The data are the data; they are simply records - in digital form - of the outputs of various instruments, transmitted to ground stations (on the surface of the Earth) in certain radio bands using certain encoding protocols. The WMAP team then processes that data, using a variety of approaches/techniques/software/etc, and produces data products of various kinds.

If you interpreted my question as being about the interpretation of the WMAP data, then my apologies for not being sufficiently clear; I hope that, in this post, I have clarified this apparent misunderstanding.

If so, would you mind answering my question? Can you please point me to at least one paper (or preprint) by Arp, in which he explicitly refers to/discusses/addresses/etc WMAP data?

[Nereid]

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).

The problem here is that "dark matter" and "dark energy" are not even possibilities.

Why not?

if you intend to practice science. Science doesn't posit things that can't be observed

What about Neptune (it was posited before it was observed)?

What about neutrinos (they were posited several decades before they were observed)?

What about neutrino oscillation (it was posited nearly half a century before it was observed)?

Why are you so (apparently) certain that we are not, now, in between the time when dark matter (to take one example) was posited and when it will be observed?

or that aren't necessary to explain what we observe.

I would like to explore what you have in mind here. However, I think it will take us way beyond the scope of this thread. Can you suggest where I should start a new thread, specifically for such a discussion?

In the meantime, may I ask you the same questions I just asked Aristarchus?

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?

Specifically, where on this website?

[kiwi]

Sorry kiwi, but I think you may have misunderstood my question, my apologies for not being sufficiently clear

apology accepted

[Aristarchus]

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

This was already answered in my previous post to you in reference to plasma cosmology found on page 742 in the link I provided:

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.

Peratt then directs us to a following past experiment for interpreting the WMAP data through the peer-reviewed paper linked below:

Self-similarity of plasma networking in a broad range of length scales: From laboratory to cosmic plasmas

In addition, you were already given source materials by me regarding counter evidence of what the WMAP data reveals and it being contrary to the standard model.

We can revisit those when you have time to respond, or simply reiterate them to keep the focus of the discussion, in any case, here's more:

Say goodbye to dark matter and energy?

However, graduate student Utane Sawangwit and Professor Tom Shanks from the University of Durham have published a paper in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society that describes how the way WMAP has been measuring the size of these ripples may be wrong. Consequently, because the size of the ripples depends on the composition of the Universe, this puts dark matter and dark energy – which supposedly make up 96 percent of the matter and energy in the Universe – into doubt.

The heart of the problem is found with the WMAP spacecraft itself, which officially has a ‘beam width’ of 12 arcminutes, but Sawangwit and Shanks have found that in fact it smears its observations by several degrees, which has the effect of making the ripples look bigger than they really are. To double check, they independently tested how large distant astrophysical radio objects appeared to WMAP compared to how they appear in radio telescopes, and saw the same smearing effect.

“It is still unanswered why the radio sources taken from the WMAP observations give a different profile to the ones the WMAP team are using to do their cosmology,” Shanks tells Astronomy Now. The WMAP science team have argued that what the Durham astronomers are seeing are statistical fluctuations called ‘Eddington bias’, but Shanks and Sawangwit respond by saying that independent checks of their radio sources by other surveys operating at different frequencies than WMAP also give the same results for the size of the radio objects.

[Nereid]

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.

I trust that my most recent post, in response to kiwi, clarifies things, with regard to data and interpretations (as I emphasised, above)?

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.

Thanks for this.

What Peratt is referring to is three (of 12) papers in that Seventh Special Issue, right?

On the Critical Ionization Velocity Effect in Interstellar Space and Possible Detection of Related Continuum Emission (Verschuur)

Skeletal Structures in the Images of Cosmic Dust Clouds and Solar System Planets (Rantsev-Kartinov, V.A.)

Electrodynamic Aggregation of Nanodust as a Source of Long-Lived Filaments in Laboratory Electric Discharges and Space (Kukushkin, A.B.)

[Nereid]

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.

I'm not sure how you arrived at these conclusions; here is the trail which lead to my post:

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?"

Nereid: "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."

Nereid: "Returning to this ... You can use SkyView to do just the sort of thing you asked about! As does Google Sky!!"

Are you suggesting that I should have replied to kiwi along the lines of 'you need to do your own homework'?

[Nereid]

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.

Again, interesting; again, nothing to do with the EU theory/electrical paradigm explaination/accounting of/matching of the WMAP (or other instrument/programme/mission) data.

(no need to respond to this post of mine, Aristarchus, I'm simply going through all those by you that I have not responded to)

[Nereid]

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

This was already answered in my previous post to you in reference to plasma cosmology found on page 742 in the link I provided:

Yes, you did; thanks.

Peratt then directs us to a following past experiment for interpreting the WMAP data through the peer-reviewed paper linked below:

Self-similarity of plasma networking in a broad range of length scales: From laboratory to cosmic plasmas

However, there is no material, by anyone other than Verschuur on an analysis of WMAP (or other instrument/mission/etc) data to show how well EU theory/the electrical paradigm actually matches (or synonyms) it, is there?

In addition, you were already given source materials by me regarding counter evidence of what the WMAP data reveals and it being contrary to the standard model.

We can revisit those when you have time to respond, or simply reiterate them to keep the focus of the discussion

Here, my preference would be to stick with the focus on the match (explanation, accounting for, etc) between WMAP (etc) data and EU theory (etc).

[Aristarchus]

However, there is no material, by anyone other than Verschuur on an analysis of WMAP (or other instrument/mission/etc) data to show how well EU theory/the electrical paradigm actually matches (or synonyms) it, is there?

You have now engaged several logical fallacies within that one statement from which I quoted you above: Appeal to Popularity, Burden of Proof, Circumstantial Ad Hominem, and, of course, Red Herring. In fact, as plasma cosmology suggests another avenue for interpretating the data from WMAP, I still provided scores of other peer-reviewed papers that are trying to correct and or understand the apparent errors in WMAP data as it correlates to the standard model, but you then state that has nothing to do with EU plasma cosmology model. Then, when the focus goes back to what Perratt has suggested for understanding the WMAP mapping, you stipulate, but that's only one. Anyone for a game of circular reasoning?

Even with that, you still got it wrong, because as I have provided links from ACG News - Hilton Ratcliffe: Wanderer at the Frontier the site is involved with numerous explorations of why the WMAP and CMB do not support the consensus standard model view of the universe.

I trust that my most recent post, in response to kiwi, clarifies things, with regard to data and interpretations (as I emphasised, above)?

No. I looked back at your past two posts, and found no explanation from you, but only a series of questions directed at kiwi, which are posed in the form of the "Burden of Proof." then you add links - again - with no explanation of the data. Thus, I have been the one that filled in the blanks using discussions going on within the standard model mainstream science that demonstrates that the errors in the WMAP have not been explained or corrected - and even those leave the suggestion that the standard model is in crisis, or at the very least, perhaps in trouble.

For example - here's another:

WMAP Space-Mission Survey of the Universe After the Big Bang Completed -Its Results Hint at a Far Stranger Cosmos

The same Durham team were also involved with international collaborators in another recent paper which suggested that an independent CMB check on the existence of dark energy might not be as “bullet-proof “ as previously thought.

If dark energy exists it causes the expansion of the Universe to accelerate at late times. CMB photons have to pass through giant superclusters of galaxies on their way to be detected by telescopes such as WMAP. Normally a CMB photon gets gravitationally blueshifted as it enters a cluster and redshifted as it leaves and the two effects cancel.

But if the cluster galaxies accelerate away from each other as the photon passes through then the cancellation is not exact and a trace is left in that slightly higher CMB temperatures should be observed in sightlines that pass near to galaxy superclusters.

Previously claims have been made that this “ISW “ signal is seen at high significance when CMB-galaxy correlations are studied. But in a powerful new sample of ~1 million luminous red galaxies from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey no such effect is seen and when this result is included, the significances of the previous detections reduce to the point where they are as consistent with a zero detection of dark energy as with the standard model prediction.

If the same null result is seen in the Southern Hemisphere using WMAP and PLANCK CMB data coupled with millions of galaxies to be found in new Southern Surveys such as the ESO VST ATLAS (PI T. Shanks) then again there will be a significant threat to the standard cosmological model in which dark energy plays a vital role.

The WMAP team, according to New Scientist isn't taking the challenge lighly. They claim that the radio sources observed by WMAP coincide with spots of the sky where the temperature is slightly higher, making the calibration inaccurate. "We're happy to defend WMAP," says team member Gary Hinshaw of NASA Goddard Space Flight Center.

According to their critics, to explain away theses potentially undermining errors, standard model and WMAP supporters have invented "dark energy" and "great attractors" so as to explain why a created universe did not spread out uniformly at the same speed and in the same spoke-like directions as predicted by theory.

Predications based on the Big Bang can account for less than 20% of the mass and density of the known, observable Hubble length universe. Nor can this theory explain gravity, the discordant data on red shifts, galaxy distribution, colliding galaxies, the abundance of hydrogen and helium, the existence of elementary particles, and why the movement of distant galaxies appears to be accelerating.

Critics of the standard model say that only the addition of ad hoc hypothetical appendages and parameters which are constantly adjusted have prevented the Big Bang theory from complete collapse.

Moving on ...

What Peratt is referring to is three (of 12) papers in that Seventh Special Issue, right?

No. What Peratt is obviously referring to in the passage that I quoted from him, is an independent study from, "A. B. Kukushkin and V. A. Rantsev-Kartinov of the Kurchatov Institute, Moscow" - as in independent study in the singular, not plural, which would lend credence to the (viz), "Verschuur's mappings show that galactic foreground HI structure is not random but part of a very long twisted filaments of cosmic scale." I provided a link to the study for you. Let's try it again, shall we?

Self-similarity of plasma networking in a broad range of length scales: From laboratory to cosmic plasmas
A. B. Kukushkin and V. A. Rantsev-Kartinova)
INF RRC Kurchatov Institute, Moscow 123182, Russia
~Presented on 8 June 1998

[kiwi]

...but only a series of questions directed at kiwi, which are posed in the form of the "Burden of Proof."

most here with a geniune "interest" and no real expertise in any of the specific fields in the EU or mainstream scenario are happy enough to watch from the sidelines .... I cant help myself but get involved in spite of the fact Im well out of my technical depth,... and in a case like this thread I leave myself wide open to the "crown-prosecutor" type cross-examination from Nereid,...... thanks Aristarchus for seeing it for what it is from my perspective, I will refrain from here on in as my input will only serve to slow this all down,.... I remind myself of the old saying...

"if we were meant to say more than we hear,... we would have two mouths and only one ear"

[Nereid]

However, there is no material, by anyone other than Verschuur on an analysis of WMAP (or other instrument/mission/etc) data to show how well EU theory/the electrical paradigm actually matches (or synonyms) it, is there?

You have now engaged several logical fallacies within that one statement from which I quoted you above: Appeal to Popularity, Burden of Proof, Circumstantial Ad Hominem, and, of course, Red Herring. In fact, as plasma cosmology suggests another avenue for interpretating the data from WMAP, I still provided scores of other peer-reviewed papers that are trying to correct and or understand the apparent errors in WMAP data as it correlates to the standard model, but you then state that has nothing to do with EU plasma cosmology model. Then, when the focus goes back to what Perratt has suggested for understanding the WMAP mapping, you stipulate, but that's only one. Anyone for a game of circular reasoning?

Actually, I think you may have misunderstood what I've been posting, perhaps because you did not start with my initial post in this thread; if so, then the fault is entirely mine for not being sufficiently clear, apologies.

And, rather than try to repeat the steps that lead to this apparent misunderstanding, I'll start from the beginning.

WMAP is a space-based facility (or mission) whose design and purpose is to study the CMB. As such it consists of a number of detectors and support hardware and software. The outputs of the detectors are transmitted to tracking stations on the Earth, and processed by the WMAP team, who subsequently make these outputs - in the form of data - available to everyone, for free (this is a somewhat simplified summary; note that the data products are many, and include what is essentially the raw data).

My Number One question was, and still is, what is the very best material, available on the internet (preferrably), which gives details of the match between the WMAP data and electrical paradigm/EU theory/PC models/etc?

By 'match' I mean an explanation of, or an accounting of, or similar. While I do not want to constrain such an answer, the sort of thing I was expecting was something like this:
* in EU theory, the temperature anisotropies in the CMB are due to Birkeland currents in the inner Milky Way halo
* the spectrum and intensity (i.e. the SED, spectral energy distribution) of microwave emission from such currents is {insert derivations etc here, showing the dependency on things like electron density, magnetic field strength and direction}
* for a facility such as WMAP, the microwave emission would appear as temperature anisotropies {insert derivations etc here}
* from {the above}, the temperature anisotropies expected from a set of Birkeland currents in the Milky Way's inner halo is {insert map/graphs/table/etc}, for currents with these parameters {insert parameters such as electron density and magnetic field}
* here is the match between the above model and the WMAP data {insert name of WMAP data product here, and reference to WMAP webpage}: {insert details of match here}.

Unfortunately, so far I have not found any such material; in fact, with a few exceptions, what has been posted so far, in this thread in response to my question, looks very much like a false dichotomy (crudely, "here are 1001 ways in which my understanding of LCDM cosmological models do not match the WMAP data; because those models seem to fail so badly, the electric paradigm provides a better match").

Moving on ...

What Peratt is referring to is three (of 12) papers in that Seventh Special Issue, right?

No. What Peratt is obviously referring to in the passage that I quoted from him, is an independent study from, "A. B. Kukushkin and V. A. Rantsev-Kartinov of the Kurchatov Institute, Moscow" - as in independent study in the singular, not plural, which would lend credence to the (viz), "Verschuur's mappings show that galactic foreground HI structure is not random but part of a very long twisted filaments of cosmic scale." I provided a link to the study for you. Let's try it again, shall we?

Self-similarity of plasma networking in a broad range of length scales: From laboratory to cosmic plasmas
A. B. Kukushkin and V. A. Rantsev-Kartinova)
INF RRC Kurchatov Institute, Moscow 123182, Russia
~Presented on 8 June 1998

So, to be clear, there is no material - that you know of - which does more than just 'lend credence to'?

For example, nothing which shows that the sorts of results found in these independent studies can produce the temperature anisotropies in the WMAP data which Verschuur refers to, when realistic values for the parameters of the Birkeland currents (etc) are used; and nothing which can produce the sorts of features in the HI data which Verschuur refers to.

[Aristarchus]

WMAP is a space-based facility (or mission) whose design and purpose is to study the CMB. As such it consists of a number of detectors and support hardware and software. The outputs of the detectors are transmitted to tracking stations on the Earth, and processed by the WMAP team, who subsequently make these outputs - in the form of data - available to everyone, for free (this is a somewhat simplified summary; note that the data products are many, and include what is essentially the raw data).

There is no need to reieterate your above point here, since the peer-reviewed papers I already posted cover this issue, and then they go on to explain the problems with the algorithm being used in the WMAP and how the data from the detectors are being extrapolated wrongly, which is producing a non-Gaussian set of information. Ironically, this is not coming from the EU/ plasma cosmology, but from those in the consensus establishment field of physics/astrophysics. Even those charged with the WMAP project have admitted that the errors need to be corrected. Thus, repeatedly referring your fellow posters to links such as sky view only serves as deflection, since it is proffered at the expense of ignoring what your fellow posters have submitted as counter evidence.

For example, the following from the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society:

Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (MNRAS) is one of the world's leading scientific journals in astronomy and astrophysics. It has been in continuous existence since 1827 and publishes peer-reviewed letters and papers reporting original research in relevant fields. Despite the name, the journal is neither monthly nor does it carry the notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.

Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. (2010, July 14). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 15:23, November 29, 2010, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =373455922

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/090 ... 0075v1.pdf

Observation number correlation inWMAP data

A remarkable similarity between the large-scale non-Gaussian pattern of cosmic microwave background (CMB) temperatures obtained by Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) mission and the distribution feature of observation numbers is noted. Motivated from such a similarity, in this work we check the WMAP data for the correlation between pixel temperature t and observation number N. Systematic effect of imbalance differential observation and significant t-N correlation in magnitude, distribution non-Gaussianity and north-south asymmetry are found. Our results indicate that, for precision cosmology study based on WMAP observations, the observation effect on released WMAP temperature maps has to be further carefully studied.

Here's more:

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~huterer/ ... map123.pdf

Uncorrelated universe: Statistical anisotropy and the vanishing angular correlation function
in WMAP years 1–3

The large-angle (low-‘) correlations of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) as reported by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) after their first year of observations exhibited statistically significant anomalies compared to the predictions of the standard inflationary big-bang model. We suggested then that these implied the presence of a solar system foreground, a systematic correlated with solar system geometry, or both. We reexamine these anomalies for the data from the first three years of WMAP’s operation. We show that, despite the identification by the WMAP team of a systematic correlated with the equinoxes and the ecliptic, the anomalies in the first-year internal linear combination (ILC) map persist in the three-year ILC map, in all-but-one case at similar statistical significance. The three-year ILC quadrupole and octopole therefore remain inconsistent with statistical isotropy—they are correlated with each other (99.6% C.L.), and there are statistically significant correlations with local geometry, especially that of the solar system. The angular two-point correlation function at scales >60 deg in the regions outside the (kp0) galactic cut, where it is most reliably determined, is approximately zero in all wavebands and is even more discrepant with the best-fit CDM inflationary model than in the first-year data—99.97% C.L. for the new ILC map. The full-sky ILC map, on the other hand, has a nonvanishing angular two-point correlation function, apparently driven by the region inside the cut, but which does not agree better with CDM. The role of the newly-identified low-‘systematics is more puzzling than reassuring.

It's your prerogative not to address this issue, however, it does relate directly to what you have been submitting as evidence.

Unfortunately, so far I have not found any such material; in fact, with a few exceptions, what has been posted so far, in this thread in response to my question, looks very much like a false dichotomy (crudely, "here are 1001 ways in which my understanding of LCDM cosmological models do not match the WMAP data; because those models seem to fail so badly, the electric paradigm provides a better match").

If you are going to apply a definition of a "false dichotomy" then it would behoove you to consider the questions being raised in the peer reviewed papers that I linked and quoted, which stipulate that an alternative might be in the offering as opposed to the standard model. This does not mean that these papers are suggesting in favor of either the EU model or plasma cosmology, but for you not to demonstrate accepting an alternative, exposes, instead you, as not comporting beyond a mere false dichotomy. Your only defense appears to be generalizing and invalidily simplifying the EU/plasma cosmology, followed up by, "you're being misunderstood," which really means you won't direct yourself to the specifics in the papers that I provided, and instead play a cat & mouse game of rephrasing your same questions, which, has thus far, taken on various forms.

For the record, a more exact accounting of the plasma cosmology paper is given by Eric Lerner below:

An overview of plasma cosmology

The predictions of the Big bang theory for the abundance of 4He, 7Li and D are more than 7 from the data for any assumed density of baryons. In contrast, the predictions of the plasma alternative have held up remarkably well. Plasma filamentation theory allows the prediction of the mass of condensed objects formed as a function of density. This leads to predictions of the formation of large numbers of intermediate mass stars during the formations of galaxies. These stars produce and emit to the environment large amounts of 4He, but very little C, N and O. In addition cosmic rays from these stars can produce by collisions with ambient H and him the observed
amounts of D and 7Li. The observed preferred direction in the background anisotropy completely contradicts
Big Bang assumptions. The plasma alternative views the energy for the CBR as provided by the radiation released by
early generations of stars in the course of producing the observed 4He. The energy is thermalized and isotropized by a thicket of dense, magnetically confined plasma filaments that pervade the intergalactic medium. The model can explain the observed anisotropies in the CBR and this alignment with the Local Supercluster.

a new extremely dense, high energy state of baryonic and leptonic particles develops in the core of galaxies. It is related to a local phase transition in the aether quantum liquid at the location of the galaxy core. After a certain critical mass (or energy) is exceeded, the particles lose their properties as massive and stable topological objects of the quantum liquid. They evaporate and the superdense core of the galaxy becomes instable towards the ejection low energy particles and hydrogen out of the dense region in jets.

Consequently, a connection between macroscopic and microscopic evolution processes of matter is also present on the level of galaxies. The acceptance of an aether-like contiuum beyond the level of particles, introduced already by Paul Dirac, leads to an natural explanation of the redshift of distant galaxies as result of non-linear optics. No expansion of space an no big bang is necessary. The universe is infinite and a rich variety of evolutionary processes are present on all length scales of matter.

So, to be clear, there is no material - that you know of - which does more than just 'lend credence to'?

For example, nothing which shows that the sorts of results found in these independent studies can produce the temperature anisotropies in the WMAP data which Verschuur refers to, when realistic values for the parameters of the Birkeland currents (etc) are used; and nothing which can produce the sorts of features in the HI data which Verschuur refers to.

In the words of William Blake, "When I tell any truth it is not for the sake of convincing those who do not know it, but for the sake of defending those who do."

Otherwise, Peratt has offered something in line with following a different criterion for understanding WMAP, but you are correct in that he hasn't hog-tied those charged with interpreting data from WMAP project and made any demands for change at gun point.