Le Plan Diabolique!

First, let me ‘splain this thing to children:

Old MacBigbang has a farm, EE-I-EE-I-O.
And on the farm he has a fraudster, EE-I-EE-I-O.
Cook data here, cook data there
Here a discovery, there a discovery, everywhere a discovery
Old MacBigbang has a farm, EE-I-EE-I-O.

Old MacBigbang has a farm, EE-I-EE-I-O.
And on the farm he has a scammer, EE-I-EE-I-O.
Spin data here, spin data there
Here a discovery, there a discovery, everywhere a discovery
Old MacBigbang has a farm, EE-I-EE-I-O.

Now children, all together:

Old MacBigbang has a farm, EE-I-EE-I-O.

And now for the adults:

[Click to enlarge]

Big Bang Cosmology: The Diabolic Plan

And now the ESA Planck Satellite folks say they are fixing to strengthen NASA discoveries.
Lordy Lordy!

OMG … another NASA satellite fraud?! …yikes…They gave the Shaw Prize for this?! …yeew…Princeton University was involved ?!…OMG…

OMG indeed! After NASA’s COBE Satellite fraud, are we looking at NASA’s WMAP Satellite fraud?

The COBE Satellite discovery – the greatest discovery in the history of man – involved clinching of the Big Bang Cosmology by measuring the spectrum of the relic heat radiation from the Bang. The discoverer, John Mather of NASA, Nobeled on this. This was an outright fraud.

The WMAP Satellite measured the distribution of the above relic heat in space, and gave further support to Big Bang Cosmology. Its principals – Charles Bennett of the Johns Hopkins University, David Spergel of Princeton University and Gary Hinshaw of NASA, have been heavily anointed.

These results have been entered into the Temple of Truth, and are considered beyond questioning.

Now a graduate student – poking around in the WMAP data – is reporting that the WMAP discovery is in serious question. His paper (co-authored by his Ph. D. Thesis advisor) has been reviewed thoroughly, and is being published – over the protestation of the WMAP discoverers. Here is an abstract of the paper.

The point of the above paper seems straightforward. The WMAP Team used Jupiter as a reference source and the Durham Team used a distant point source as a reference source. The latter team found that with their method, the discovery is weakened (i.e. the features in the anisotropy map become blurred). The WMAP Team made a counterpoint, but the Durham Team handily dispatched this.

When you are measuring something unknown and want a reference measurement against which to compare the unknown, you want the two to be as similar in as many respects as possible. This is both scientific common sense and hard science. As an example, when I was making radioastronomical observations, there was an antenna with a main beam and a slightly offset beam. The main beam looked at a quasar while the offset beam looked at the empty sky right next to it. So the two things being measured were in the same direction, were being looked at simultaneously and with the same beam width. We would not, for example, look at the quasar and then steer the antenna to some object like the Moon, and compare the two. This general philosophy was reinforced for me when I worked in the satellite communication industry and was concerned with antenna measurements. So, the point of the Durham Team seems to me to be a good one. If, in the radioastronomy example I have given, you consider the sky the unknown and the quasar the reference, you will have a situation similar to what the Durham Team suggests. The WMAP discovery – if it was genuine – should have survived the ‘Durham Test’.

Even in the best case scenario, we have to admit: The heat map is blurred to different degrees depending on what source you choose as your reference. So, even in the best case, the discovery goes back to Square One!

[I do not want to appear to be giving legitimacy to the Bennett discovery by discussing it. The scientific concepts of ‘heat’ and ‘temperature’ used in such studies were all dependent on Mather’s discovery being legit. It is not. So the universe does not have a frequency-specific heat map – this is utter rubbish. The Bennett discovery is rubbish – Durham or no Durham.

But rubbish is one thing, and fraud is another thing. The Durham paper raises the issue of fraud.]

Bennett et al have been paraded before the World as highly accomplished scientists. Therefore we can choose to rule out incompetence. Then we may be looking again at science fraud involving yet another NASA satellite – one closely linked to COBE, and one that came close on the heels of COBE.

COBE Satellite Team that made the fraudulent discovery of the 2.7 K Big Bang Blackbody spectrum. John Mather (extreme left), Charles Bennett (bearded) and Gary Hinshaw (in front of Bennett).

Most disturbingly, Charles Bennett and Gary Hinshaw were a party to the COBE Satellite fraud. It may be that they trundled all that “experience” from COBE right to WMAP.

How would this “rise” to the level of fraud? If these people are as top-notch as they are made out to be, they would have looked at the data many different ways. Surely the Durham point would have been one of the first considerations to have come up – many years ago. So may be the Bennett et al found that the Jupiter case is the only one that gives them a discovery. They reported this and deep-sixed the other cases. This is like an experimenter who reports only the best-looking run and discards everything else.

Or if they truly did just the Jupiter case and did not look at the data any other way, then the whole analysis was worthless. This is like saying: I just got what I wanted – and I don’t want to know anything more. I don’t want to queer this deal.

Of course, the Big Bang establishment will sanctimoniously rush to say: This is an internal scientific matter and should be debated within the scientific community, and not reported on the Internet! Yeah right! And when it suits them, they rush to NYT and PBS before their discovery has even cooled to room temperature! If you let these blighters have their uncouthly aggressive way, they will browbeat all dissent using their establishment might – as they have done in the past.

And if all their defenses fail, if they are not able to apply a Band-Aid on this as they have done in the past, the establishment will treat the Durham paper with benign neglect – and move on to further build on Big Bang Theory. We here are not looking at Dark Matter or Dark Energy, but Dark Science.

That, reader, is the crux of everything. This is the remedy:

To deal with the werewolf, you need a silver bullet aimed at the head.
To deal with Dracula, you need a stake driven through the heart.
To deal with the Big Bang Bogeyman, you need Uncle Sam aim at his pocketbook.

[Click to enlarge]

NASA WMAP Satellite fraud?
Charles Bennett, David Spergel, Gary Hinshaw
Tom Shanks, Utane Sawangwit
Fraud or incompetence – take your pick!

Also, do not forget the other study questioning the WMAP discovery!

Trash Big Bang Cosmology on your next garbage pick-up day!

A NOTE ADDED ON 1/10/11:

If all this is not enough, look at what else is coming at you!

[Click to enlarge]

Wfirst, Dark Energy, Saul Perlmutter, Alan P. Boss, National Academy of Sciences scam
The demise of Big Bang Cosmology should have given all these people serious pause
But no!
They are going to build up on this already sky-high mountain of garbage
Previously I have told you about scams that have already happened.
Here is one that is about to happen.
What time is it?
It is “Katie bar the door!” time!


Tags: , , ,

%d bloggers like this: