I am sensing that the view within the Big Bang Cosmology establishment now is this: So what if Mather’s discovery is a fraud? Let’s disassociate ourselves from him. Let us deep six the Cosmic Blackbody, slowly but steadily. But if push comes to shove, if people call us on it, we can still prove to all the suckers that Cosmic Blackbody is intact, and so we are fine.
This second line of defense is based on the data on the Cosmic Blackbody Spectrum they have obtained from other sources (independent of Mather’s COBE Satellite.) A composite of these data has been presented, for example, in the web site of the Smoot Cosmology Group, and is reproduced below.
Very impressive, isn’t it? Any reader would be moved to conclude: Boy they have tied this thing down real good! Mather’s fraud is Mather’s fraud. It does not have any effect on the continuation of the marvellous Big Bang Cosmology.
Well, go ahead and take a minute to admire the diagram. Then think!
Think in simple steps.
First, take away all the FIRAS data. Reason: Mather fraud.
Second, take away all the DMR data. Reason: We don’t know what the heck went on with the COBE Satellite. Something very seriously went wrong – this much is in plain evidence.
The FIRAS result from COBE is fraudulent. If the DMR result from COBE falls in line with this fraudulent result, what can you conclude about the latter?
Third, take away all the ground-based and the balloon data and the rocket data that help define the peak. Reason: The Big Bang Cosmology establishment itself convinced NASA very forcefully that such experiments are not conclusive in the frequency range where the peak of the Blackbody is, and hence they absolutely needed the money for the decisive COBE Satellite experiment to define the peak. They cannot now back away from this very strong scientific argument they themselves made.
The same comment also applied to the sounding rocket experiment.
The longer wavelength data – which may be less in question – do not define the Blackbody. If you leave out the data above the frequency of about 10 GHz – which is what is indicated – then there is nothing here that confirms a 2.7 K Blackbody.
So, we are left with two green “optical” crosses so far as defining the peak is concerned. I don’t know what this experiment is about, and I don’t need to. These data points do not amount to a rat’s hindquarters when it comes to confirming the Blackbody.
Once again I remind you: The whole triumph of the Big Bang Cosmolgy has been the experimental defining of the peak of the Blackbody curve by Mather. That’s the mound portion of the curve. If that has not been done, everything else is irrelevant.
Look at it this way: If the longer wavelength data (the rising portion below 10 GHz) is to be believed, it means that you have determined that you are on a certain slope. But you have no idea, if you continue up the slope, if it will stay the same or increase or decrease, and when. So there is no question of associating any Blackbody Temperature based only on this portion of the observation.
Here is how a colleague of Mather described the situation with respect to the non-Mather data:
Using ground or high-altitude balloon-based instruments, scientists had never been able to measure the blackbody spectrum – how the wavelengths of the radiation from the early universe were distributed. But now Mather's team, with its instrument called the Far Infrared Absolute Spectrometer high above the earth's offending atmosphere, had done so.
Finally, hear this from the horse’s mouth: Here is what John Mather himself has said emphatically about experiments that existed up until the instant he reported his Blackbody Spectrum:
[In a later post I have discussed how a more recent NASA rocket experiment on measuring cosmic microwave radiation caused the experimenters to be startled out of their skin! Apparently, the results gave the lie to previous measurements! So what are you to believe, whom are you to believe, and when are you to believe?]
Hence, the Mather fraud means Big Bang Cosmology fraud, the above diagram notwithstanding. This diagram will not survive close and competent scrutiny which it never faced. In each experiment, a whole bunch of crucial questions were shoved under the rug. Crucial qantitative scientific and technical hurdles were explained away with wordy text. If these experimenters faced any real accountability, they would have been found out a long time ago. For example, if their high precision measurement devices were somehow adapted to guide a missile, it would end up striking Bora Bora instead of Tora Bora for sure. In the end, the picture-perfect data points from these individual experiments were collected together in the above triumphal collective diagram to create a false synergy. This diagram is a sham.
One thing I have never understood about these papers is how you can talk up the scientific precision and talk away the scientific impediments of the experiment. Having done that, hey presto, you have confirmed the blackbody with mind-boggling numerical accuracy.
OMG … this is NASA science?! …yikes…This nobeled?! …yeew…greatest discovery ever?!…OMG…
Here is a real howler: In his discovery paper that nobeled, John Mather states that his badly out-of-specification antenna beam is not a concern, because – he says (yes, just words) – on an average it is in-spec! Honest, this is no joke. See here.
So, how does a NASA Scientist solve problems? This is how:
What? Equipment badly out of spec?!
कोई बात नहीं
Ikke noget problem!
δεν υπάρχει πρόβλημα!
Ei ole ongelma!
Nici o problemă!
Pas de problème
Daijoubu desu yo
I’ll average it right into spec!
And to boot, this will not only restore my original design accuracy, but as a bonus situation, this accuracy will be enhanced by a factor of 20.
I will usher in a new dawn of cosmology.
One great advantage of wordy scientific papers (well, the “rocket goo” may have affected the instrument… on the other hand….) is that they are very hard to assail scientifically. You cannot beat up a man who is wearing an inflated inner tube around his waist.
One thing you have to give the Big Bang Cosmology verifiers credit for: They have ushered in a new era of physics where numerical accuracy flows from jawboning.
The fact that all these experimenters failed to see through John Mather’s fraud is in itself unarguable proof that these people did not know what they were doing themselves with their own experiments.
Anyway, you can see how a huge amount of clever and well-crafted deception by a collective can end up in a picture-perfect “discovery.”
In retrospect it is not difficult to see what went down. A powerful scientific establishment backed by an eager-beaver Media, and with a poignant genius as their mascot, passed off garbage science as genius science. Editors and referees who were clueless when it came to satellite or balloon or rocket experiments provided the all-important “refereed publications” that legitimize the results. Once you had the refereed publications, the Nobel Prizes were practically in the bag. Who decided to give the Prizes? The very same establishment.
Indeed, one has to admit that the diagram above looks awfully impressive!
Actually, it is far too damn impressive. Have you never wondered how everything to do with Big Bang Cosmology turns out to be phenomenally correct, phenomenally precision – one right after the other? They got this theory curve they are out to corroborate, a curve that has a sharp bend to negotiate. And whoever does an experiment -however he does it, wherever he does it, whenever he does it, at whatever frequency he does it , at whatever bandwidth he uses, at whatever beamwidth he uses, with whatever angle he sweeps, whichever direction he looks in, whatever polarization he observes, whatever electromagnetic environment the observing equipment was itself in, whatever the other contributions to the observed radiation were, whatever detector he uses – puts a point smack on that curve with pinpoint precision. Or several points. Over nearly four decades of frequency!
It does not matter if they do the experiment
In a house
With a mouse
In a boat
With a goat
In a box
With a fox
In a train
In the rain
they always end up putting a point smack on the theory curve! Spot on! Knock me over with a feather!
Well, here’s an old African proverb that merits consideration: The hunter who always comes home with meat is a thief.
A NOTE ADDED ON 10 MARCH 2012:
Since writing the above post I have discovered more deception. The above diagram claims to presents experimental data on brightness vs. frequency. Actually, in some instances, this brightness is NOT the measured quantity! First, a ~ 3 K temperature was somehow arrived at. Then the brighness was back-calculated and placed on the above diagram. Of course if you come up with the ~3 K through some hanky panky, then the back-calculated brightnesses will fall on the displayed theory curve! I believe that the Smoot data, the Penzias & Wilson data and – in a roundabout way – the optical data are of this ilk.