The Electromagnetic radiation in the frequency ranges of WMAP and others (CMB) comes from distant stars and Galaxies and all astronomical bodies. That is why we deviate our observation from all nearby known astronomical bodies. Then it is scattered, redistributed, become more uniform due to dust and Interstellar matter (ISM).
Our measuring instruments are not accurate. There is a lot of difference between a callimated telescope and dish antenna. The main beam of the telescope is so thin; it is as though as a thin straight wire. But for the dish the mainlobe is like a balloon. In addition there are minor lobes like sidelobes and backlobe, which contribute approximately 80% (Eighty percent) of the total radiation received from a highly efficient (say 99%) commercial or otherwise Dish antenna. This can be verified from any communications textbook or even from Internet. We use expensive computers to track Dish antenna errors????????

__________________
=snp

The Electromagnetic radiation in the frequency ranges of WMAP and others (CMB) comes from distant stars and Galaxies and all astronomical bodies. That is why we deviate our observation from all nearby known astronomical bodies. Then it is scattered, redistributed, become more uniform due to dust and Interstellar matter (ISM).
Our measuring instruments are not accurate. There is a lot of difference between a callimated telescope and dish antenna. The main beam of the telescope is so thin; it is as though as a thin straight wire. But for the dish the mainlobe is like a balloon. In addition there are minor lobes like sidelobes and backlobe, which contribute approximately 80% (Eighty percent) of the total radiation received from a highly efficient (say 99%) commercial or otherwise Dish antenna. This can be verified from any communications textbook or even from Internet. We use expensive computers to track Dish antenna errors????????

Hence the CMB contribution you are mentioning from Recombination phase is different from the measured radiation from a dish antenna, or there is no Bigbang explosion. Definitely, the existence of CMB is not an evidence for Bigbang.

Then why to worry about blue shifted or red shifted???

__________________
=snp

The Electromagnetic radiation in the frequency ranges of WMAP and others (CMB) comes from distant stars and Galaxies and all astronomical bodies. That is why we deviate our observation from all nearby known astronomical bodies. Then it is scattered, redistributed, become more uniform due to dust and Interstellar matter (ISM).
Our measuring instruments are not accurate. There is a lot of difference between a callimated telescope and dish antenna. The main beam of the telescope is so thin; it is as though as a thin straight wire. But for the dish the mainlobe is like a balloon. In addition there are minor lobes like sidelobes and backlobe, which contribute approximately 80% (Eighty percent) of the total radiation received from a highly efficient (say 99%) commercial or otherwise Dish antenna. This can be verified from any communications textbook or even from Internet. We use expensive computers to track Dish antenna errors????????

Hence the CMB contribution you are mentioning from Recombination phase is different from the measured radiation from a dish antenna, or there is no Bigbang explosion. Definitely, the existence of CMB is not an evidence for Bigbang.

__________________
=snp

The Electromagnetic radiation in the frequency ranges of WMAP and others (CMB) comes from distant stars and Galaxies and all astronomical bodies. That is why we deviate our observation from all nearby known astronomical bodies. Then it is scattered, redistributed, become more uniform due to dust and Interstellar matter (ISM).
Our measuring instruments are not accurate. There is a lot of difference between a callimated telescope and dish antenna. The main beam of the telescope is so thin; it is as though as a thin straight wire. But for the dish the mainlobe is like a balloon. In addition there are minor lobes like sidelobes and backlobe, which contribute approximately 80% (Eighty percent) of the total radiation received from a highly efficient (say 99%) commercial or otherwise Dish antenna. This can be verified from any communications textbook or even from Internet. We use expensive computers to track Dish antenna errors????????

Hence the CMB contribution you are mentioning from Recombination phase is different from the measured radiation from a dish antenna, or there is no Bigbang explosion. Definitely, the existence of CMB is not an evidence for Bigbang.

__________________
=snp

The Electromagnetic radiation in the frequency ranges of WMAP and others (CMB) comes from distant stars and Galaxies and all astronomical bodies. That is why we deviate our observation from all nearby known astronomical bodies. Then it is scattered, redistributed, become more uniform due to dust and Interstellar matter (ISM).
Our measuring instruments are not accurate. There is a lot of difference between a callimated telescope and dish antenna. The main beam of the telescope is so thin; it is as though as a thin straight wire. But for the dish the mainlobe is like a balloon. In addition there are minor lobes like sidelobes and backlobe, which contribute approximately 80% (Eighty percent) of the total radiation received from a highly efficient (say 99%) commercial or otherwise Dish antenna. This can be verified from any communications textbook or even from Internet. We use expensive computers to track Dish antenna errors????????

Hence the CMB contribution you are mentioning from Recombination phase is different from the measured radiation from a dish antenna, or there is no Bigbang explosion. Definitely, the existence of CMB is not an evidence for Bigbang.

__________________
=snp

The Electromagnetic radiation in the frequency ranges of WMAP and others (CMB) comes from distant stars and Galaxies and all astronomical bodies. That is why we deviate our observation from all nearby known astronomical bodies. Then it is scattered, redistributed, become more uniform due to dust and Interstellar matter (ISM).
Our measuring instruments are not accurate. There is a lot of difference between a callimated telescope and dish antenna. The main beam of the telescope is so thin; it is as though as a thin straight wire. But for the dish the mainlobe is like a balloon. In addition there are minor lobes like sidelobes and backlobe, which contribute approximately 80% (Eighty percent) of the total radiation received from a highly efficient (say 99%) commercial or otherwise Dish antenna. This can be verified from any communications textbook or even from Internet. We use expensive computers to track Dish antenna errors????????

Hence the CMB contribution you are mentioning from Recombination phase is different from the measured radiation from a dish antenna, or there is no Bigbang explosion. Definitely, the existence of CMB is not an evidence for Bigbang.

__________________
=snp

The Electromagnetic radiation in the frequency ranges of WMAP and others (CMB) comes from distant stars and Galaxies and all astronomical bodies. That is why we deviate our observation from all nearby known astronomical bodies. Then it is scattered, redistributed, become more uniform due to dust and Interstellar matter (ISM).
Our measuring instruments are not accurate. There is a lot of difference between a callimated telescope and dish antenna. The main beam of the telescope is so thin; it is as though as a thin straight wire. But for the dish the mainlobe is like a balloon. In addition there are minor lobes like sidelobes and backlobe, which contribute approximately 80% (Eighty percent) of the total radiation received from a highly efficient (say 99%) commercial or otherwise Dish antenna. This can be verified from any communications textbook or even from Internet. We use expensive computers to track Dish antenna errors????????

Hence the CMB contribution you are mentioning from Recombination phase is different from the measured radiation from a dish antenna, or there is no Bigbang explosion. Definitely, the existence of CMB is not an evidence for Bigbang.

__________________
=snp

Your argument belongs in the ATM forum, not Q&A. Could someone please move this thread?

The Electromagnetic radiation in the frequency ranges of WMAP and others (CMB) comes from distant stars and Galaxies and all astronomical bodies. That is why we deviate our observation from all nearby known astronomical bodies. Then it is scattered, redistributed, become more uniform due to dust and Interstellar matter (ISM).
Our measuring instruments are not accurate. There is a lot of difference between a callimated telescope and dish antenna. The main beam of the telescope is so thin; it is as though as a thin straight wire. But for the dish the mainlobe is like a balloon. In addition there are minor lobes like sidelobes and backlobe, which contribute approximately 80% (Eighty percent) of the total radiation received from a highly efficient (say 99%) commercial or otherwise Dish antenna. This can be verified from any communications textbook or even from Internet. We use expensive computers to track Dish antenna errors????????

Hence the CMB contribution you are mentioning from Recombination phase is different from the measured radiation from a dish antenna, or there is no Bigbang explosion. Definitely, the existence of CMB is not an evidence for Bigbang.

__________________
=snp

The Electromagnetic radiation in the frequency ranges of WMAP and others (CMB) comes from distant stars and Galaxies and all astronomical bodies. That is why we deviate our observation from all nearby known astronomical bodies. Then it is scattered, redistributed, become more uniform due to dust and Interstellar matter (ISM).
Our measuring instruments are not accurate. There is a lot of difference between a callimated telescope and dish antenna. The main beam of the telescope is so thin; it is as though as a thin straight wire. But for the dish the mainlobe is like a balloon. In addition there are minor lobes like sidelobes and backlobe, which contribute approximately 80% (Eighty percent) of the total radiation received from a highly efficient (say 99%) commercial or otherwise Dish antenna. This can be verified from any communications textbook or even from Internet. We use expensive computers to track Dish antenna errors????????

Hence the CMB contribution you are mentioning from Recombination phase is different from the measured radiation from a dish antenna, or there is no Bigbang explosion. Definitely, the existence of CMB is not an evidence for Bigbang.

__________________
=snp

You have posted this same post in several different threads at this point.

ETA: No I take that back. My double vision is caused by you having posted the same one three times here.

ETA Again: Nevermind I just scrolled up all the way in horror...

Respected sirs,

I am sorry. I thought it is relevant to many threads, and I posted them ignorantly. I did not know that rule. I hoped many people will read and I will get comments about this. It is a mistake and I promise you that I will not do it again.

Thanks for opening a new thread for me….

Warm regards

__________________
=snp

Please explain section 7 ("Extragalactic Sources") of the 2003 Bennett paper, "First Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Foreground Emission"; in particular, please explain the 208 extragalactic point sources Bennett reports were detected, including the ~5 which the WMAP team expected to be spurious.

You may download the paper, in PDF form (1.7 MB!) from here.

That's why you should always read the rules first. Heck, I was a member of the old BABB forum before the merger, and when the new rules were posted, I read them immediately.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

You are exactly correct sir. How will Bigbang explain them????

They are the evidences for this theory sir, not only these, but “ Great Cosmic Nothingness or Void” observed in physical space as well as in WMAP observations also probably cannot be explained by Bigbang based cosmological theories.

Here the explanation is simple.

“When the density of astronomical bodies in that area in that direction is very small or very high, such things happen. When direct radiation from that unknown source is high; such extragalactic sources will act as a Bright Point spot. Usually, such strong point sources of a known object like, planet , asteroid, or bright star, it will be avoided by a computer program. If the CMB is from Bigbang why should we avoid such sources.???

Similarly, when there are no sources in that direction, we will find a Great Cosmic Nothingness.”

__________________
=snp

I am sorry again sir, I didnot understand them fully...

__________________
=snp

It seems you are quoting something; if so, what?

I did not get your point sir,

__________________
=snp

Here is your post:The following part is enclosed in quotation marks:


They are the evidences for this theory sir, not only these, but “ Great Cosmic Nothingness or Void” observed in physical space as well as in WMAP observations also probably cannot be explained by Bigbang based cosmological theories.

Here the explanation is simple.

“When the density of astronomical bodies in that area in that direction is very small or very high, such things happen. When direct radiation from that unknown source is high; such extragalactic sources will act as a Bright Point spot. Usually, such strong point sources of a known object like, planet , asteroid, or bright star, it will be avoided by a computer program. If the CMB is from Bigbang why should we avoid such sources.???

Similarly, when there are no sources in that direction, we will find a Great Cosmic Nothingness.”

Normal practice, in English, is to use quotation marks when you are quoting from something, such as a book, or other publication, or when quoting what someone else said.

Are you quoting something? If so, what?

No sir,

I am not quoting any body. That is my explanation, which I kept in quotation marks. I am not referring any body. The explanation from this theory is like that. That way, I thought, there will be emphasis. I did not think it means a quotation from a book or some body. I am sorry for that.

I will give the reference for the ‘Great Nothingness’. It was in papers.

Thank you for your nice explanation,

__________________
=snp

The site on which that paper may be found (follow the link) also has papers reporting the Third Year WMAP results.

If you'd like to explore any particular paper, to learn how the LCDM cosmology models ('Bigbang') accounts for the observations, please start a thread in the Q&A section.

To close this point, I note that you make an implied claim, quite commonly found in threads in this ATM section, to the effect that 'BECAUSE {insert mainstream theory here} cannot account for {insert observations here}, THEREFORE {insert ATM idea here} MUST BE RIGHT!!!!!'

This is, I'm sure you'll agree, a pretty obvious, and silly, logical fallacy.Please show - quantitatively - that your cosmological idea can explain the 208 (± 5) points sources the WMAP team reports detecting.

May be I will start a Q&A thread later. Any way with this theory we can explain these phenomena. I will explain them for now.

__________________
=snp

Thank you, I FELL FOR IT SIR, you are exactly correct!

__________________
=snp

Can you please help me to get the RA and DEC coordinates for these 208 (+/- 5) point sources sir, so that I will work out quantitatively and show my results to you.

Thank you once again for such nice explanations sir

__________________
=snp

They are listed in Table 5 of the paper which I provided a link to in post #14 in this thread. Section 7 of that paper references Table 5.

THANKS A LOT ONCE AGAIN, I WILL REPLY ASAP
REGARDS

__________________
=snp

I have gone thro' the paper and table 5. I feel the first two columns headed by l and b are, coordinates. But some where it was written l is multipole...
They were not defined. I will take them as Galactic coordinates. Please tell me if I am wrong.

Regards

__________________
=snp

Yes, they are galactic coordinates.