NASA’s own experiment strongly debunks the fraudulent discovery of John Mather, but scientists cover up:
Quite understandably, the World thinks that NASA’s physics today is at the same level of quality as NASA’s technology – the highest of hightech. The truth be told, there is a profound disconnect. The technology is first rate, the physics is fourth rate.
As to the technology, the real heavy lifting is done not by NASA, but by the private sector companies. NASA merely provides oversight – and this is often not of high quality. NASA Managers are often doddering idiots who do not have Clue One as to what it is they are evaluating. The aerospace industry, electronics indistry, satellite communication industry etc make NASA that great technological success it is today.
As to physics (including astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology), in the name of doing great science, great moneys are being poured down the drains of the outer space by inept and/or crafty individuals (the so-called “NASA Scientists”.) I have demonstrated this earlier very clearly with hard evidence. Here is yet one more demonstration with similar hard evidence. You should now begin to see an unmistakable pattern.
[There was that one time though that NASA decided to show the World that they can do the science and the engineering inhouse if only they want to. What project was this? One guess is all you need.]
In January 2009 NASA scientists and their academic collaborators announced an Earth-shaking discovery from a balloon-borne experiment called ARCADE. Basically, they reported two results:
A. The galactic microwave background radiation is 5 – 10 times more powerful than previously believed. This result surprised the scientific community out of their skin!
B. They once again confirmed their NASA colleague John Mather’s Nobel-winning Cosmic Blackbody Spectrum (CMB) using an instrument called FIRAS.
Here bogus science is being used to corroborate science fraud. The background papers here are so bad that I do not know where to begin. Let me just give a sample of how ‘hand-waving’ is used where solid numerical analysis and quantitative modeling are called for. They jawbone away the most crucial scientific evaluations, and then they insist on phenomenal accuracy of their result:
“Could the detected signal be in error? The thermal gradient in the ARCADE 2 calibrator is an obvious source of concern for systematic errors. However, the gradient is well sampled and the uncertainties associated with the calibrator thermal state are included in the ARCADE 2 uncertainties. Furthermore, the bulk of the gradient is concentrated at the tips of the cones. The skin depth for absorption within the calibrator is a function of frequency: the high frequency channels preferentially sample the tips and the outer surface of the absorber cones, while the 3 GHz channels samples the entire absorber volume….”
The sentence “the bulk of the gradient is concentrated at the tips of the cones” is as hilarious in a physics paper as Texasspeak would be in Jane Austen. But seriously, such loose talk which this class of papers is replete with, immediately tells you something about the level of science here.
A calibrator – especially one in a space experiment where you have no continued control – is your home truth, your anchor, your security blanket. If its properties are not tied down completely in stark numerical terms, if you have to use William F. Buckley-style linguistic flair to explain away scientific concerns about it, then you are not doing science. You should not have done this experiment in the first place. You ain’t got what it takes.
These “concerns” that now arise while writing up your paper were completely foreseeable and should have been considered while designing the experiement.
Here is another gem of fine logic. They are claiming to corroborate Mather’s fraudulent data, and then turning around and saying that Mather’s data support their results!
In the following are shown a summary of the ARCADE results and the telltale CMB Spectrum. The former is being said to corroborate the latter.
ARACADE results comparing the measurement data (red dots) with expectation (green dashed line), and with Mather’s Cosmic Blackbody Spectrum (black dashed line – enlarge to see.)
The Cosmic Blackbody Spectrum as verified by different experiments in different regions of frequency.
(Click to enlarge)
Now look at the ARACADE diagram. At around 3 GHz, it is said that the discrepancy between the expectation (the green dashed line) and the actual observation (red data point) is a most surprising factor of 5 – 10. This huge discrepancy is the Earth-shaking discovery!
Given this discrepancy scale, what is the discrepancy between the Mather result (black dashed line) and the ARCADE data (red dots) at the frequencies 30 GHz and 90 GHz – the frequencies where the two experiments can be reasonably compared?
[Do not go by the temperature scale on the ordinate of the ARCADE Diagram. This is a very deceptive presentation. It is completely ludicrous to say – as the ARACADE diagram and the associated text in the paper :
suggests – that space is characterized by a temperature that varies with frequency. I am beyond my wit’s end to understand how a multiple-author paper ladles up such physics oxdung.
Think only in terms of factors of discrepancy between Mather data and the ARCADE data. If a factor of 5 – 10 is an Earth-shaking discrepancy, how is the discrepancy between Mather and ARCADE a corroborating ‘agreement’?]
Get the picture?
Engineers have a joke about pecil-whipping the test data into spec. For NASA scientists, as I have shown you repeatedly, this fictional pencil-whipping is actual jawboning. And the spec is the Cosmic Blackbody. Whatever they do however they do whenever they do, everything ends up confirming the bogus 2.7 K Cosmic Blackbody.
If the ARACDE experimental numbers are good, then they most emphatically give the lie to the Mather discovery. And yet, the scientists are reporting a conclusion that is the exact opposite.
Incompetent editors and incompetent referees are letting such stuff into print, and then these acquire the force of ordained truth. What all this is proving is that we are smack in the middle of the Age of Fakery.
This also goes to show what a sham this vaunted peer review system – which has been held up as the one and the only gateway for an idea into the anointed sciencedom – is. This is also the same gateway you must pass if you wish to criticize anything that has already passed. Rest assured that you will be stopped by the security guards – guns drawn. What a gigantic farce!
But I will also give you the hardest possible evidence of NASA’s garbage science. Go to this paper (give the pdf time to download) and see how many NASA authors there are. This is the John Mather discovery paper on which he Nobeled. This is a thoroughly incompetent paper. Can you blame the Nobel Committee for assuming that with all these NASA scientists putting their names to it, the paper must be solid?
My purpose here has been only to get you started with the minimum of demonstration. Dig further, and you will see how individuals who do not know what they are doing are proposing, designing, and conducting multimillion dollar experiments, and reporting spectacular discoveries. Your tax dollars at work!