A question; cosmic microwave background and our solar system

[UserName]

A lot of people on here are under the impression that the CMB is actually just radio transmissions from our own solar system. What is your evidence to back this up? I love the EU model, but like every model it does have its flaws. Where is the evidence that the CMB is just our solar system? Even though they have found galaxies using the CMB? This is my first post, so take it easy on me guys

[CTJG 1986]

Hmm, I was under the impression that the CMB is produced by the electromagnetic phenomena that exist throughout the universe, not just in the Solar System.

Locally produced doesn't mean it's produced only in our local Solar System, it means that rather than being produced by a single source(the 'Big Bang') in a certain finite amount and then being "spread" universally through expansion the CMB is produced from numerous sources at a constant rate dependent on the electrical activity taking place around stars, planets, comets, etc.

Discussion of the CMB in the local Solar System specifically I always thought was just an example used to explain that the CMB is not evenly spread universally as a "background" but rather sort of pocketed around stellar systems and other locals in which electrical activity is occurring and producing it.

I could certainly be wrong though, but that has always been how I understood the EU take on it and how it makes the most sense to me.

[nick c]

Locally produced doesn't mean it's produced only in our local Solar System, it means that rather than being produced by a single source(the 'Big Bang') in a certain finite amount and then being "spread" universally through expansion the CMB is produced from numerous sources at a constant rate dependent on the electrical activity taking place around stars, planets, comets, etc.

Yes, that is a good summary of the EU position. In fact, as can be seen from the holoscience article quoted below, Thornhill is saying that the CMB is an effect arising from galactic birkeland currents. "Local" in this sense refers to "within our galaxy."

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.

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=ep8d37ws

Nick

[solrey]

I think Thornhill is saying the CMB we detect is very local:

Nobel Prize for Big Bang is a Fizzer

The simplest answer, from the highly successful field of plasma cosmology, is that it represents the natural microwave radiation from electric current filaments in interstellar plasma local to the Sun. Radio astronomers have mapped the interstellar hydrogen filaments by using longer wavelength receivers. The dense thicket formed by those filaments produces a perfect fog of microwave radiation—as if we were located inside a microwave oven. Instead of the Cosmic Microwave Background, it is the Interstellar Microwave Background. That makes sense of the fact that the CMB is too smooth to account for the lumpiness of galaxies and galactic clusters in the universe. We cannot "see" them through the local microwave fog.

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.

Of course the implication would be that any given location within any galaxy would be immersed in a unique local pattern of microwave fog.

I think finding galaxies using the CMB is something like detecting a translucent "shadow" on our own local microwave fog.

cheers

[nick c]

I would say that local is a relative term. The original post on this thread seems to be interpreting local as meaning 'within the solar system.' But Wal is using 'local' in terms of our neighborhood within our particular spiral arm of the galaxy. As follows, I would assume the CMB is caused by the Birkeland Currents that are powering the Sun. This makes sense, since it seems logical that those galactic birkeland currents would be of a scale, (an assumption on my part, no quantitative support) orders of magnitude larger than the currents that are in operation within the Solar System, ie inside the heliosphere, from Sun to Earth or Jupiter to Io, for example.
Any thoughts?
I checked Scott's The Electric Sky and could not find a single reference to the subject.

Nick

[mharratsc]

Here's a very good paper regarding the topic that Steve Smith put a link to in his TPOD Plasmoids Refute Dark Matter Theory:

WMAP: A Radiological Analysis

It's a bit technical but not too bad to get through with a cup or two of coffee. Of note are the following:

Analysis of data from WMAP exposes several problems
which would not be proper in medical imaging. Experience
from NMR spectroscopy relative to biological samples
reveals that removal of a contaminating signal, which exceeds
the signal of interest by up to a factor of 1,000, requires
ability to control the sample at the source. This requirement
can never be met by the WMAP team. It is impossible
to remove this contamination and thereby “see beyond
the galaxy”.

Also...

In actuality, the WMAP team
must overcome virtually every hurdle known to imaging: foreground
contamination and powerful dynamic range issues,
low signal to noise, poor contrast, limited sample knowledge,
lack of reproducibility, and associated resolution issues. It is
clear that the generation of a given anisotropy map depends
strictly on the arbitrary weighting of component images.The
WMAP team attempts to establish a “most likely” anisotropy
map using mathematical tools, but they have no means of
verifying the validity of the solution. Another team could
easily produce its own map and, though it may be entirely
different, it would be equally valid.

And...

The WMAP satellite also highlights
that significant variability exists in the point sources
and in the galactic foreground. Relative to the Universe, the
findings imply isotropy over large scales, not anisotropy. 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

And finally, the author closes with a quote from Max Planck himself:

“The world is teeming with problems. Wherever man
looks, some new problems crops up to meet his eye —
in his home life as well as in his business or professional
activity, in the realm of economics as well as in
the field of technology, in the arts as well as in science.
And some problems are very stubborn; they just refuse
to let us in peace. Our agonizing thinking of them may
sometimes reach such a pitch that our thoughts haunt
us throughout the day, and even rob us of sleep at
night. And if by lucky chance we succeed in solving
a problem, we experience a sense of deliverance, and
rejoice over the enrichment of our knowledge. But it is
an entirely different story, and an experience annoying
as can be, to find after a long time spent in toil and
effort, that the problem which has been preying on
one’s mind is totally incapable of any solution at all.”

Sure changes the spin from the mainstream spin doctors on this stuff, doesn't it?

[solrey]

Excellent paper Mike!

Here's Verschuur's paper on the correlation of galactic HI regions to the WMAP data.

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

Spatial associations have been found between interstellar neutral hydrogen (HI) emission morphology and small-scale structure observed by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) in an area bounded by l = 60 & 180 deg, b = 30 & 70 deg, which was the primary target for this study. This area is marked by the presence of highly disturbed local HI and a preponderance of intermediate- and high-velocity gas. The HI distribution toward the brightest peaks in the WMAP Internal Linear Combination (ILC) map for this area is examined and by comparing with a second area on the sky it is demonstrated that the associations do not appear to be the result of chance coincidence. Close examination of several of the associations reveals important new properties of diffuse interstellar neutral hydrogen structure. In the case of high-velocity cloud MI, the HI and WMAP ILC morphologies are similar and an excess of soft X-ray emission and H-alpha emission have been reported for this feature. It is suggested that the small angular-scale, high frequency continuum emission observed by WMAP may be produced at the surfaces of HI features interacting one another, or at the interface between moving HI structures and regions of enhanced plasma density in the surrounding interstellar medium. It is possible that dust grains play a role in producing the emission. However, the primary purpose of this report is to draw attention to these apparent associations without offering an unambiguous explanation as to the relevant emission mechanism(s).

Here are the two maps in quesiton:


Map of galactic HI (click for larger view)


WMAP W Band microwave sky (click for larger view)


Here's a paper refuting Verschuur's results. Talk about spin.

Correlation between galactic HI and the Cosmic Microwave Background

We revisit the issue of a correlation between the atomic hydrogen gas in our local Galaxy and the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB), a detection of which has been claimed in some literature. We cross-correlate the 21-cm emission of Galactic atomic hydrogen as traced by the Leiden/Argentine/Bonn Galactic HI survey with the 3-year CMB data from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe. We consider a number of angular scales, masks, and HI velocity slices and find no statistically significant correlation.

Sounds like they found there was no correlation, right? Or will it go round in circles?

We consider 89 LAB maps in total, and 3 different masks. We further focus our attention on 3 different l-ranges: 2-200 to cover all the scales, 2-20 for large scales only, and 160-200 for near degree scales. We compute the χ2 values for all possible combinations of the 3masks, 3 WMAP bands, 89 LAB maps, and 3 l-ranges (using Xl , ∆Xl values determined for the same mask-band-map combination). In Figure 2 we plot an example cross-correlation result Xl , with 1-sigma contours returned from simulations and from Eqn (2). In Table I we consider how many of our χ2 values are higher than 95% of those from simulations, and we find a total of 112 cross-correlation results high at this level. By definition, from a total of 89 × 3 × 3 × 3 = 2403 different χ2 numbers, we expect approximately 120 of our results to be significant at this level. Our results are therefore consistent with the null hypothesis of no correlation between the WMAP and LAB maps.

As discussed, some chance correlation between the LAB and WMAP data is expected and we do not observe any more than usual. Further, demonstrated by the low effective number of independent results (74), the velocity slices are highly correlated. Therefore correlations with one slice will inevitable lead to correlations with a set of neighboring velocity slices. Supported by the random nature of the signal in Figure 3 we conclude that this particular set of significant χ2 values does not demonstrate a deviation from the norm, but rather it is a manifestation of one of the inevitable chance correlations.

Basically what they're saying is they ran a few thousand simulations and compared those results against the real WMAP microwave data and found 112 simulation results had some correlation with the real data. Statistics calculations say by random chance there should be around 120 correlated results. That leads them to conclude the real world correlations that Verschuur noted in detail are nothing more than a statistically inevitable chance correlation. Yeah, right. Nothing to see here folks, move along. What did Samuel Clemens say? Something like "Figures don't lie, but liars figure."

cheers

[mharratsc]

In the case of high-velocity cloud MI, the HI and WMAP ILC morphologies are similar and an excess of soft X-ray emission and H-alpha emission have been reported for this feature. It is suggested that the small angular-scale, high frequency continuum emission observed by WMAP may be produced at the surfaces of HI features interacting one another, or at the interface between moving HI structures and regions of enhanced plasma density in the surrounding interstellar medium.

So this means they are detecting soft x-rays and "small angular-scale,high frequency continuum emission (wha..?)" from the "surfaces of HI features interacting with one another and regions of enhance plasma density"... would that be read as "double layers"?

If so- couldn't we take the existing CMAP tools and start actually mapping out the 'cosmic power grid'? Or is that what the HI study is already doing? o.O

[kiwi]

Is the gamma-ray data (that which showed the "cosmic-bubbles" stretching from the GC) more stable and reliable to interpretation due to its frequency?

[Nereid]

There seems to be some inconsistency, even with a fairly liberal understanding of "local".

For example, in the TPOD cited, the CMB is local to our own galaxy (or just a bit beyond), but both Lerner and Peratt have published papers with explanations that the CMB is quite cosmic (though not as distant as ~10 billion light years) - they attribute the CMB to the net emission from a great many inter-galactic Birkeland currents.

Unfortunately, no EU/PC explanation of the CMB (that I have seen) claims to account for its observed blackbody SED (spectral energy distribution), much less its other features ...

[MrAmsterdam]

There seems to be some inconsistency, even with a fairly liberal understanding of "local".

For example, in the TPOD cited, the CMB is local to our own galaxy (or just a bit beyond), but both Lerner and Peratt have published papers with explanations that the CMB is quite cosmic (though not as distant as ~10 billion light years) - they attribute the CMB to the net emission from a great many inter-galactic Birkeland currents.

Unfortunately, no EU/PC explanation of the CMB (that I have seen) claims to account for its observed blackbody SED (spectral energy distribution), much less its other features ...

Be a bit more openminded then that please. First, this is NOT a gravity driven system you see on the picture. It is plasma you are seeing there. Next to heated plasma ;

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.

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=ep8d37ws

Instead of trying to explain one picture in a very narrow bandwith of the electomagnetic spectrum, look at the other frequencies. ESA's Planck sees tapestry of cold dust (or is it plasma?) http://thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpBB3/v ... f=3&t=3097 Same objects, different frequencies.

Second, since we have probes in space, we are comparing lab results (not only of plasma matter but also gasses and solids in form of dust) with the data of spectrometers in space. It seems to be a very dusty and cold environment. But that same medium seems to be light up in different EMF spectra. And before making this story too long; Planck's beautiful pictures can be recreated on a smaller scale in plasma labs. It would explain the magnetic fields too.

Cold plasma;

This is just old fashioned empiricism ; http://iopscience.iop.org/0295-5075/89/5/58001/

Spontaneous electron emission from a cold surface

or

The Plasma Crystal Experiment http://www.mpe.mpg.de/pke/index_e.html

The medium you are seeing there is not only heated plasma, but also cold dust plasma. Among others, one other part of the explanation would be that cold matter emitting electrons could introduce charged dust and ionised gas to the surrounding cold medium. I bet that those properties are not taken into the sourcecode of gravity driven simulations either.

[Siggy_G]

Does anyone know if there are corresponding exposures in visible light, so that one can compare the WMAP data with the same projection of the Milky way?

Initially, I would simply accocitate the WMAP image with scattered emissions from the Milky way, and secondary, other galaxies. Then again, I'm sure astrophysicists already know about the possible interpretation, so is there any comparative image?

There is also the possibility about WMAP data reflecting the energy states of heliospheric particles, but here I don't have the axial allignments of the Sun and galaxy at hand (at the moment). I believe this is what Wall Thornhill did elaborate on in his article "Our Misunderstood Sun".

[Nereid]

There seems to be some inconsistency, even with a fairly liberal understanding of "local".

For example, in the TPOD cited, the CMB is local to our own galaxy (or just a bit beyond), but both Lerner and Peratt have published papers with explanations that the CMB is quite cosmic (though not as distant as ~10 billion light years) - they attribute the CMB to the net emission from a great many inter-galactic Birkeland currents.

Unfortunately, no EU/PC explanation of the CMB (that I have seen) claims to account for its observed blackbody SED (spectral energy distribution), much less its other features ...

Be a bit more openminded then that please. First, this is NOT a gravity driven system you see on the picture. It is plasma you are seeing there. Next to heated plasma ;

Interesting comment, MrAmsterdam.

But I'm confused; what picture are you referring to (the first post in this thread, the 'original post', or OP, refers 'radio transmissions', and as such does not mean anything other than electromagnetic radiation in the radio region is being detected, coming from the sky). Where did 'a gravity driven system', 'plasma', and 'next to heated plasma' come from?

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.

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=ep8d37ws

Instead of trying to explain one picture in a very narrow bandwith of the electomagnetic spectrum, look at the other frequencies. ESA's Planck sees tapestry of cold dust (or is it plasma?) http://thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpBB3/v ... f=3&t=3097 Same objects, different frequencies.

Again, an interesting comment, but what does it have to do with what I wrote?

SED can be understood, at least approximately, as a graph, or chart: on the vertical axis you plot intensity (suitably defined), and the horizontal you plot wavelength (you could also plot frequency). A point on the graph (chart) is simply the observed intensity of the background electromagnetic radiation (from the whole sky) at a particular frequency. A blackbody SED is a particular functional form, or (crudely) shape of the line. Before COBE the SED of the CMB was poorly constrained; one of COBE's key results was the finding that the CMB's SED is a 2.73K blackbody and a dipole (to within the observational limits).

The blackbody SED (plus dipole) finding is completely independent of any ideas concerning what causes it; it is simply the reporting of what is observed.

Second, since we have probes in space, we are comparing lab results (not only of plasma matter but also gasses and solids in form of dust) with the data of spectrometers in space. It seems to be a very dusty and cold environment. But that same medium seems to be light up in different EMF spectra. And before making this story too long; Planck's beautiful pictures can be recreated on a smaller scale in plasma labs. It would explain the magnetic fields too.

Cold plasma;

This is just old fashioned empiricism ; http://iopscience.iop.org/0295-5075/89/5/58001/

Spontaneous electron emission from a cold surface

or

The Plasma Crystal Experiment http://www.mpe.mpg.de/pke/index_e.html

The medium you are seeing there is not only heated plasma, but also cold dust plasma. Among others, one other part of the explanation would be that cold matter emitting electrons could introduce charged dust and ionised gas to the surrounding cold medium. I bet that those properties are not taken into the sourcecode of gravity driven simulations either.

Again, interesting comments; however, also again, what does this have to do with what I wrote in my post?

One thing I was pointing out - which this post of yours does not seem to address - is that the TPOD you quoted from provides a quite different explanation for the observed CMB than what's in papers published by Anthony Peratt and Eric Lerner.

[MrAmsterdam]

Again, interesting comments; however, also again, what does this have to do with what I wrote in my post?

One thing I was pointing out - which this post of yours does not seem to address - is that the TPOD you quoted from provides a quite different explanation for the observed CMB than what's in papers published by Anthony Peratt and Eric Lerner.

You find my posts interesting, but not to the point? Ill take that as a compliment I guess....

Anyways, I was trying to show you that plasma phenomena play a major role. It seems that the galaxy has both hot and cold plasma phenomena. It also seems that those phenomena can be shown in labs, but on a smaller scale. It only seems logical to reason in plasma phenomena. Now, can you think of a plasma experiment that mimics the same properties as seen in spaceprobe data?

BTW the gentlemen with their interpretation seem to be have much more practical experience with plasma then I. So if you need to choose, between an explanation of a gentleman that reads a bit and gentlemen that have practical experience....I know who to listen too

Now, question to you. Where does your interest in the electric universe theory come from? Would you have any plasma experience or knowledge? What is your perspective on EU till now?

[Nereid]

[...]

Anyways, I was trying to show you that plasma phenomena play a major role. It seems that the galaxy has both hot and cold plasma phenomena. It also seems that those phenomena can be shown in labs, but on a smaller scale.

OK, I'm not really sure I understand what you have written, but that plasmas have been observed to exhibit certain behaviour, and that this behaviour may be a possible explanation for certain astronomical observations is, I think, entirely uncontroversial (I mean, who could possibly disagree with such a statement?).

It only seems logical to reason in plasma phenomena.

Here, however, I'm afraid you've lost me ...

Would you be kind enough to expand on this sentence please? Specifically, I'm having great difficulty grasping what 'logical to reason in [X] phenomena' means, no matter what X is ...

Now, can you think of a plasma experiment that mimics the same properties as seen in spaceprobe data?

No, I can't; can you provide me with one that you think can (or does)?

BTW the gentlemen with their interpretation seem to be have much more practical experience with plasma then I. So if you need to choose, between an explanation of a gentleman that reads a bit and gentlemen that have practical experience....I know who to listen too

Are you asking me to choose between the explanations published by Peratt (and Lerner) vs those by the author of the TPOD (Thornhill?)? After all, all I have done is point to a possible inconsistency between these two sets of (published) explanations ...