I'm still trying to get my arms around this - To simplify.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Verschuur
The HI distribution toward the 33 brightest WMAP peaks in the Target Area is examined and it is demonstrated that the associations do not appear to be the result of chance coincidence. Furthermore, several important properties of diffuse interstellar neutral hydrogen structure have been identified that might otherwise have been overlooked if it were not for the fact that the continuum data focused attention on certain areas of the HI
sky.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Hinshaw
Based on the Monte Carlo simulations carried out for this ILC study, we estimate that residual Galactic removal errors in the three-year ILC map are less than 5 μK on angular scales greater than ~10o. But we caution that on maller scales, there is significant structure in the bias correction map that is still uncertain. On larger scales, we believe the three-year ILC map provides a reliable estimate of the CMB signal
|
As I understand the Hinshaw disclaimer; on the smallest scale, there is evidence of apparent structure, structure that they hoped to remove from the maps using filtering techniques, but they could not; and they do not understand the nature of this possible structure: There is evidence of contamination that we do not know how to handle.
Verschuur has identified possible local structure that has the potential to mask cosmological effects. I don't understand how/why the Hinshaw disclaimer addresses in any way the veracity of Verschuur's comparitive analysis. There is a possible correlation of bright colors in WMAP with rich clouds of H+ that were unknown at the time the data was first analysed. This has become an issue WMAP researchers must address. No?
Shouldn't the burden of proof be upon the scientist who is saying they are looking through the fog and seeing very distant events, rather than on the scientist who says there is a big cloud right where you are looking - are you sure you can see through it?