Even before you go to the issue of science fraud, there are fatal issues with regard to satellite measurement of the Cosmic Blackbody. Nothing here is sewn up, not by a long shot.

The idea of the 2.7 K Cosmic Blackbody Radiation underlying the Big Bang Cosmology has two important components to it:

(1). It is the result of a “cooling” due to the expansion of the universe starting from the Big Bang ; and

(2). It is not the conventional idea of blackbody radiation we are familiar with – radiation from matter by virtue of its temperature. The origin of the 2.7 K radiation is unconnected to the matter in the universe you see today.

Now, let us use some common sense. In the universe today, there are material accumulations of all types: galaxies, nebulae, interstellar medium and interstellar coulds and interstellar dust, stars, planets etc. They range in temperature from near absolute zero to many thousands of degrees. So, two results follow immediately:

(1). The radiation from all these sources must pretty much cover the entire observable spectrum (x-rays and gamma rays to low frequency radio waves), with the intensity varying from one region of the spectrum to another in a way unknown to us.

(2). According to the Big Bang Cosmolgy model, this spectrum also would have undergone a similar “cooling” over time like the 2.7 K blackbody, meaning that this spectrum would be ‘smeared out’ over and above what would be indicated by (1) above.

Moreover, some of these sources, when they absorb and emit radiation, may further smear out this spectrum.

So it is not surprising at all that Penzias and Wilson would have observed some excess radiation at some frequency. That by itself did not say anything about Big Bang Cosmology. There was no Nobel-worthy discovery here – not then, not now.

So, if you have a precision satellite that measures the 2.7 K spectrum in open space, it would also measure all these other components to the extent that they contribute to this region of the spectrum. The satellite cannot distinguish what part of the radiation originated from what source. One can make theories and models about the relative contributions, but we do not know what this contribution is.

Let us say that the 2.7 K spectrum as a function of the frequency is A(f) and this other component B(f). What the satellite would be measuring, symbolically, is C(f) = A(f) + B(f). Let us allow that the quantity C(f) has been measured with phenomenal precision. Now the question is: How do you obtain from this measurement the quantity A(f) with equal precision?

To sum up: Even if the measurement of C(f) were indeed perfect to, say, 0.001%, there is no way you can claim that you have obtained A(f) with this degree of accuracy. To claim this, you must measure B(f) separately to this very degree of accuracy. Not offer theories and models and assumptions and justifications, but actually measure B(f) to this degree of accuracy. Nor should one, for this purpose, make any prior assumption that A(f) is a blckbody. Nor can you, for this purpose, say that B(f) is negligible (that is, much less than 0.001% of A(f)). Certainly not when you speak at the same time of unknown dark matter, dark energy etc.

It is also a damn fool thing to say that, when the satellite looks in that particular direction, then it does not see B(f) at all, and so this is how we separate things out. Such an authoritative statement relies on two unproven assumptions: (a).  B(f) is not seen in that direction, and (b).  the satellite is not picking up B(f) from other directions.  Nobody can say that the former assumption is correct. The latter assumption requires that you accurately know the frequency-dependent beam pattern of the satellite-mounted antenna. There was no such data with COBE.

Numerical accuracy can arise only from measurement, and not from a clever combination of high satellite technology and sly oxdung artistry.

But if one were to fall back on theories and assumptions and such, I could point the reader to this: F. Hoyle and N. C. Wickramasingle published a paper in the seventies showing that the entire Big Bang Blackbody radiation could be explained by emission from electricall charged interstellar dust. Right or wrong, they demonstrated that there are many questions about sources of radiation in the universe.

The point here is this: You can make high precision measurements in space. You have then to reduce these numbers to the result you are seeking. In the process of this reduction, you may not make any hand-waving, hazy, questionable or ad hoc assumptions or approximations or modelings of the universe, and then claim to have preserved the accuracy of the measurement throughout.

So how are the oxdung artistes claiming that they have established once for all that there is a 2.726 K Cosmic Blackbody?

When they tell you that they have measured a supposed blackbody spectrum in space at this level of accuracy, they are in effect making a far greater claim: That they know the intensities and the directionalities of the electromagnetic radiation environment in the universe over this entire broad spectrum at this level of accuracy, or better. This is genuine, 100% Texas oxdung, being ladled over to you by the “finest minds”. The theory here is that if you incorporate this form of matter in elegant, finely printed scientific journals, then it is transmuted to gold.

The Big Bang Cosmologists have taken the expression “shading the truth” to a new height: The High Frontier.


Leave a reply relevant to the above post.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: