Illuminating dark matter

[mharratsc]

Forgive me for butting in, but it really seems to me that most PC/EU proponents seem to consider the CMB to be in actuality the CMBN (Cosmic Microwave Background Noise)... it doesn't seem to have the same importance to the PC/EU model that it does for the standard model.

That being the case- it doesn't surprise me very much that anyone (from the Electric camp) has really put that much effort into making 'predictions' about it.

Of course it's entirely possible that I've misunderstood the point, as well. :\

[Nereid]

Aristarchus,

It would seem that I have, unfortunately, yet again failed to communicate with you, in the sense that you seem to have not understood what I wrote. As it is me who is trying to ask a question, the fault for that communication failure is entirely mine; once again, my apologies.

Given that failure, let me try something simpler.

Somewhere, earlier in this thread, I asked a second question.

That question was also on observations, also on what is referred to as the CMB, but by an earlier space-based mission, COBE.

The two key results the COBE team reported were (I'm going from memory here, but I'll check later):
* the CMB's SED is a 2.73K blackbody, with all relevant data points well within the estimated errors (or uncertainties)
* there is a ~some milli-K dipole as well.

Where - as in in what paper/document/on what webpage - can I find what you consider to be the best electric paradigm/EU theory account of these observations?

Which material (paper, document, etc) contains what you consider to be the best electric paradigm/EU theory account of these observations?

What, as best you understand it, is the electric paradigm/EU theory-based set of mechanisms/processes/etc that accounts for these observations?

[Nereid]

Forgive me for butting in, but it really seems to me that most PC/EU proponents seem to consider the CMB to be in actuality the CMBN (Cosmic Microwave Background Noise)... it doesn't seem to have the same importance to the PC/EU model that it does for the standard model.

That being the case- it doesn't surprise me very much that anyone (from the Electric camp) has really put that much effort into making 'predictions' about it.

Of course it's entirely possible that I've misunderstood the point, as well. :\

You may well be right; if so, what other TPOD do you consider presents a re-analysis of observations (that's how I found this particular one, by taking up your suggestion), one that is important?

[Aristarchus]

Where - as in in what paper/document/on what webpage - can I find what you consider to be the best electric paradigm/EU theory account of these observations?

Which material (paper, document, etc) contains what you consider to be the best electric paradigm/EU theory account of these observations?

What, as best you understand it, is the electric paradigm/EU theory-based set of mechanisms/processes/etc that accounts for these observations?

I can only surmise here that you're working on the assumption that any argument one chooses as being relevant/true/valid is one where the progenitor accepts as the premise of the argument. I have supplied more than enough links to establish that the COBE and WMAP have inherent problems in the data and algorithms investigated and posited by distinguished and respected physicists outside of plasma cosmology and the EU model. Even given that, why would the latter two rely on the premise for interpreting the COBE & WMAP data outside of the counter ones they already offered, and as highlighted by me with the above links I provided? That makes no sense.

[Nereid]

Actually, I'm going to try one more time, at least for part of this post ...

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.

I don't think they do.

For example, you posted links to only a few papers, which addressed only some aspects of the WMAP data and its processing.

Ironically, this is not coming from the EU/ plasma cosmology, but from those in the consensus establishment field of physics/astrophysics.

Here's a good example of why I think you misunderstood what I have been trying to say ... my question has nothing to do with who (persons) has written what, but rather with an account of data using a paradigm/approach/theory.

Further, with the exception of a Verschuur paper or two (with a co-author or not), none of the material you have cited presents anything to do with the electric paradigm/EU theory and what has been made available by the WMAP team (i.e. any data product whatsoever, not even the raw data).

Even those charged with the WMAP project have admitted that the errors need to be corrected.

It's not relevant to my question (which is about an account of WMAP data from EU theory), but I'm curious to know how you formed this opinion.

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.

Here's another example of what seems like a misunderstanding, and one that I am at a loss as to how you came to it.

May I ask what links to things like sky view I have referred to? I mean repeatedly?

And since all the answers to my #1 question seem to lack mentions of both WMAP data (at any level of processing) and the electric paradigm (except for the ones citing Verschuur), I don't understand why you say what was submitted is counter evidence. I mean, counter evidence to, or for, or of, what?

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

Here's another example of an apparent, extreme, misunderstanding.

My *question* isn't a presentation of evidence (it's just a question).

May I ask how you formed the impression that I was, or have been, or had intended to, present evidence?

[Aristarchus]

For example, you posted links to only a few papers, which addressed only some aspects of the WMAP data and its processing.

I posted papers that had the research therein lead those working with the WMAP data concede that they would further tweak the algorithm. I think you're under the misapprehension that you serve as a benchmark - but not for me. I do not chase arguments that are contrived. In information storage and retrieval there is a concept called relevancy and recall in a search query. At various stages of research one uses a large recall providing for a plethora of hits, and then narrows the scope of research based on queries that are more specific, under the assumption that less is more. This is a fundamental approach to research. You can attempt to insist on this numbers game, but I'm not buying into something that serves only to deflect from what was already posted and not addressed.

Further, with the exception of a Verschuur paper or two (with a co-author or not), none of the material you have cited presents anything to do with the electric paradigm/EU theory and what has been made available by the WMAP team (i.e. any data product whatsoever, not even the raw data).

We've been over this already <sigh>

I can only surmise here that you're working on the assumption that any argument one chooses as being relevant/true/valid is one where the progenitor accepts as the premise of the argument. I have supplied more than enough links to establish that the COBE and WMAP have inherent problems in the data and algorithms investigated and posited by distinguished and respected physicists outside of plasma cosmology and the EU model. Even given that, why would the latter two rely on the premise for interpreting the COBE & WMAP data outside of the counter ones they already offered, and as highlighted by me with the above links I provided? That makes no sense.

I'm really trying to be on my best behavior. Oh-boy.

[Nereid]

For example, you posted links to only a few papers, which addressed only some aspects of the WMAP data and its processing.

I posted papers that had the research therein lead those working with the WMAP data concede that they would further tweak the algorithm.

Thanks for this.

It seems that you did, indeed, rather badly misunderstand my question.

You see, the WMAP data goes through a great deal of processing, from its raw form. And the WMAP team have published many papers on what the various stages are, what they are intended to do, what checks they have applied, how they modified the processing (based on feedback from the community, such as some of the papers you have cited) over time, and what the various data products are.

Yet you write "they would further tweak the algorithm", singular. Aristarchus, the data processing includes dozens, probably hundreds, of algorithms. Some - such as the equivalents of CRC checks in the data stream from the spacecraft to the ground - you surely would agree do not need tweaking; others - such as those which are used to ensure consistency between the angular power spectrum outputs and the temperature anisotropy maps - you may be more interested in.

I think you're under the misapprehension that you serve as a benchmark - but not for me.

How did you reach such an absurd (to me) conclusion?

All I have done - and am continuing to do - is ask just one question (well, two), repeatedly.

I do not chase arguments that are contrived.

OK, that's good to know.

But what does it have to do with the question that I have been trying to good answers to? I mean, a question is not an argument, objectively, is it?

In information storage and retrieval there is a concept called relevancy and recall in a search query. At various stages of research one uses a large recall providing for a plethora of hits, and then narrows the scope of research based on queries that are more specific, under the assumption that less is more. This is a fundamental approach to research. You can attempt to insist on this numbers game, but I'm not buying into something that serves only to deflect from what was already posted and not addressed.

I really have no idea what this means; can you clarify it for me please?

Among other things, what is there to "address" with respect to an answer to a question?

Further, with the exception of a Verschuur paper or two (with a co-author or not), none of the material you have cited presents anything to do with the electric paradigm/EU theory and what has been made available by the WMAP team (i.e. any data product whatsoever, not even the raw data).

We've been over this already <sigh>

I fully appreciate that you, yourself, subjectively, feel that this is so.

Do you appreciate that I, myself, subjectively, feel it is not?

I can only surmise here that you're working on the assumption that any argument one chooses as being relevant/true/valid is one where the progenitor accepts as the premise of the argument.

I am working under no assumption other than that some TB Forum member reading my posts can answer my #1 question.

I do not understand why you think a question is an argument.

I have supplied more than enough links to establish that the COBE and WMAP have inherent problems in the data and algorithms investigated and posited by distinguished and respected physicists outside of plasma cosmology and the EU model.

I do not doubt, or dispute, for even one nanosecond that you think you have indeed done this.

However, I do not understand why you think that such links answer my #1 question.

Even given that, why would the latter two rely on the premise for interpreting the COBE & WMAP data outside of the counter ones they already offered, and as highlighted by me with the above links I provided?

I don't know why they would (or wouldn't); their motivations are, surely, not objective, are they?

All I know, so far, is that there appears to be no material which accounts for the WMAP (or COBE) data - even the raw data - in terms of the electrical paradigm (other than, as I have said, maybe a Verschuur paper or two).

If that is so, well, it is what it is, and I can think about asking some other questions.

I'm really trying to be on my best behavior. Oh-boy.

Thanks, that's good to know.

[Aristarchus]

Yet you write "they would further tweak the algorithm", singular. Aristarchus, the data processing includes dozens, probably hundreds, of algorithms.

Depends on what they're measuring, and, indeed, tweaking is a relevant term in this case. You deflect by using an array of questions that lack specifics and seek to distract from the initial posting of your question. For example:

The algorithm used to calibrate the time ordered data (TOD) is the same as was used for the five-year processing (Hinshaw et al. 2009). Calibration occurs in two steps. First an hourly absolute gain and baseline are determined. The absolute calibration is based on the CMB monopole temperature (Mather et al. 1999) and the velocity dependent dipole resulting from WMAP ’s orbit about the solar system barycenter. The calibration is performed iteratively, since removing the fixed sky signals arising from the barycentric CMB signal and foregrounds requires values of both the gain and baseline solutions. The only change made to this step of the calibration procedure is that the initial value for the barycentric CMB dipole signal has been updated to agree with the value determined from the five-year analysis.

http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/map ... esults.pdf

Seven-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP1)
Observations: Sky Maps, Systematic Errors, and Basic Results

Now, what is the specific point you're trying to make here. Of course, there is an involved process to understanding the data, but you merely mention the obvious that doesn't direct itself to the points being made. Tell you what, why don't you take another stab at your original question, and we'll go back through this thread and post its many manifestations.

Moving on ... here's more:

http://ivanik3.narod.ru/TO/1003.0001v1Zhao.pdf

As an informative exercise, we study how we could improve the fit assuming a cosmological source for the feature. One could shift the curve at 60 arc min to follow the “bump” more closely. Such a scale-dependent tweak of Map can not be realized by tuning the MG parameters in the parametrization XI. However, in the parametrization XII, one can achieve this by firstly increasing m, then lowering the growth rate on small scales (0 < 60 arc min), which can be effectively done by lowering 3. The resultant fit is shown in Fig. 8 as a red-dashed line,
which is almost identical to the best-fit 8-pixel model.

How did you reach such an absurd (to me) conclusion?

Three guesses, the first two don't count.

[mharratsc]

@ Nereid,

You had asked earlier about a re-interpretation of CMB data from an EU/PC perspective, if I understood your question correctly...?

I apologize if I'm incorrect in understanding your question, and also if the below information correctly answers it or not. However, for what it's worth, I did find some papers on the idea of Plasma Redshift, particulary the below paper may directly address the subject (judging from this abstract- I have not read the paper myself):

Surface Brightness Test and Plasma Redshift

Abstract:

The plasma redshift of photons in a hot sparse plasma follows from basic axioms of physics. It has no adjustable parameters (arXiv:astro-ph/0406437). Both the distance-redshift relation and the magnitude-redshift relation for supernovae and galaxies are well-defined functions of the average electron densities in intergalactic space. We have previously shown that the predictions of the magnitude-redshift relation in plasma- redshift cosmology match well the observed relations for the type Ia supernovae (SNe). No adjustable parameters such as the time variable ``dark energy'' and ``dark matter'' are needed. We have also shown that plasma redshift cosmology predicts well the intensity and black body spectrum of the cosmic microwave background (CMB). Plasma redshift explains also the spectrum below and above the 2.73 K black body CMB, and the X-ray background. In the following, we will show that the good observations and analyses of the relation between surface brightness and redshift for galaxies, as determined by Allan Sandage and Lori M. Lubin in 2001, are well predicted by the plasma redshift. All these relations are inconsistent with cosmic time dilation and the contemporary big-bang cosmology.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I hope this is relevant to your inquiry, Nereid- if not, I apologize in advance. I'm not very familiar with this subject, and found the above information at short notice. :\

[Nereid]

Aristarchus, mharratsc,

Thanks for your comments, and encouragement.

I will respond to your posts, but at a later time; I am working on a promised response to a good, lengthy post by jjohnson (in another thread), and I also need to do more work on understanding why I have, sometimes spectacularly, failed to communicate with several Thunderbolts Forum members (there's also a few other things that need my attention).

Thanks again.

[Lloyd]

* I'd like to see a WMAP image that shows any sky coordinates at all. I don't understand why they don't show such coordinates. At least I haven't found any WMAPs that show coordinates. And that makes no sense to me, why it wouldn't include coordinates of any kind.

[Lloyd]

* I haven't found a source for sky coordinates with WMAP or COBE maps yet, but someone says WMAP is space junk and has not been of any value to science; the WMAP team has been caught falsifying "data" to get what they want; so study this paper carefully:
Robitaille P.-M. WMAP: A Radiological Analysis
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/ ... -08-01.PDF
The COBE and Planck satellites are no better. Study these papers carefully:
Robitaille P.-M. COBE: A Radiological Analysis
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/ ... -19-03.PDF
Robitaille P.-M. Calibration of Microwave Reference Blackbodies and Targets for Use in Satellite Observations: An Analysis of Errors in Theoretical Outlooks and Testing Procedures
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/ ... -22-01.PDF
Robitaille P.-M. The Planck Satellite LFI and the Microwave Background: Importance of the 4K Reference Targets
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/ ... -22-02.PDF

[Nereid]

someone says WMAP is space junk and has not been of any value to science

No doubt that happens all the time; how did you conclude that what's in the documents (by Robitaille) that you provided links to is scientifically valid?

; the WMAP team has been caught falsifying "data" to get what they want

To claim falsification of data is an extremely serious charge in astronomy!

There's nothing in any of the papers you cited which constitutes such a claim (if there is, I must have missed it; can you point it out please?).

May I ask if it is you who is making this claim, not Robitaille?

For what it's worth, it seems that Robitaille is saying that the WMAP team's analysis, or interpretations, of the data is flawed (or something similar); if so, that's a pretty normal part of astronomy.

[Aardwolf]

WMAP is a space-based facility (or mission) whose design and purpose is to study the CMB.

So they already decided what they were looking for in the data.

...the data processing includes dozens, probably hundreds, of algorithms.

And after this processing they found it.


I'm not sure why anyone would want their theories to agree with anything that comes from this.

[Aardwolf]

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?

Becasue that assumption was due to the standard model failing when the rotation speed of galaxies was measured. In my opinion we should just accept the model is wrong, rather than infer the existence of undetectable exotic matter.