I am sorry I missed writing 6000 micro Kelvin squared. If that is the only difference between your url and WMAP url, then how will you represent in your graph the negative temperature differences expressed in micro Kelvin squared values.

For your information, the peak negative value (-3756.2) at multipole ell=944. Mathematically (61.29i) is it? It is (+61.29i) or (-61.29i)? I am poor in math. Can you please help me?

By the way what is the meaning of negative temperature differences expressed in micro Kelvin squared values in WMAP data? Why such things occur in Physics?

Please refer: WMAP results At

http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/data/map...m_5yr_v3p1.txt

In your graph the MAP values are represented by black-dots. The dots in the region of angular scale 0.5 to 0.2 degrees ( multipole vales ell= 400 to 950 approx), have peaks higher than first peak. In the other words see WMAP results at

http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/data/map...m_5yr_v3p1.txt

The first peak at ell = 215 is 6673.733 which is lower than the other peaks at ell= 937,897,& 903; which are 7135,7977 & 8074 micro Kelvin squared

Question is why these values are higher than first peak?

__________________
=snp

See my post # 85, which cosmological model refers to your question only.
HERE I REPRODUCED IT IN FULL. READ IT AGAIN

__________________
=snp

No sir, Not wrong, you are biased by Bigbang requirements…

WMAP measured, Other instruments measured. I only read what you write…

Which CMB? Measured or Bigbang predicted?, what is that total energy? It is of all stars and Galaxies?
Did any body measure Planck SED Bigbang predicted CMB till today?
No, here it is the combined radiation from stars and galaxies including Sun and planets etc. Not by Removing this patch here and removing that patch there and finally make a hatch-patch.

__________________
=snp

Yes sir., I will do...

__________________
=snp

Sir,

Thank you for your excellent post. I can understand how much valuable time you have spent on that despite of your busy schedules.

I am also requesting you not to get offended by my erratic behavior and the way I post. I am sorry. My vocabulary is less and my English language understanding and usage are also may not be proper.

I am also requesting you to please note that the help given by you is very high and boosted my inner strength. Your understanding about the present CMB science is really commendable and praiseworthy.

Thanking you sir
Warm regards

__________________
=snp

This post is for TIM THOMPSON sir,

__________________
=snp

From my own personal studies with the universe I theorize that the cosmic microwave background or CMB was created by a star in some gargantuan galaxy that still spins in the outer reaches of space beyond the CMB. Though this star would have been entirely beyond our scale of concept it would have adhered to scaled scientific laws according to octave theory and at its death it would've collapsed into a blackhole. What we see as the CMB would be the visible inner shell of this blackhole and the contents inside - the products of physics and relativity.

The light being compacted into this blackhole would've been hyper-accelerated in all directions, compacting and shrinking based on universal laws, octave & infinite matter theory until the threshold of gravity (the limited space within the octave of compaction) inacted a hyper-pressure system (the collision and rebound of all matter within the blackhole) pushing a wave of matter back outward in all directions. These two systems of outer blackhole gravity and inner threshold pressure would eventually create the vacuum of space that we currently reside in today.

The inner-threshold-pressure system would eventually help push the bits and pieces contained in the CMB outward creating both a pocket of what appears to be empty space inside the CMB and jets of dark matter out of the polar ends of the blackhole, while the outer-blackhole-gravity would continue to force large dust clouds of protons, nuetrons and electrons through the empty void of space created by the inner-threshold-pressure system causing the protons, neutrons and electrons to interact as the outer-gravity and inner-pressure systems vibrate against each other. Eventually atoms of hydrogen are formed and the rest is pretty well known stuff until the miniture stars (which are massive in scale to us) inside the blackhole collapse and form other blackholes taking in matter and light creating new pockets of space while generating dark matter to fill and help expand existing space.

Some of these processes discussed are happening so fast they are virtually simultaneous and are naturally influencing each other. This theory is based on my theories of octaves & infinite matter, which deal with the questions of the scaling (shrinking and expansion) of space. Feel free to ask any questions and point out any flaws. I'm in the business of finding and refining truth and I need everybody and everythings opinion and testimony to do so. So criticism is welcome.

__________________
Albohrt

To test the hypothesis, you please find out what are the properties of CMB in your proposition and please check physically

__________________
=snp

Lets see what they have done to check side lobes…

__________________
=snp

There were three / four similar terms used in technical literature in the field of Radiation heat transfer and allied fields. They have same physical units, but have different physical contexts and meanings. Now the question comes which one to use. People will get confused with the term’s usual meaning. That’s why a new word “Vakradiation” coined.

__________________
=snp

At the magnitudes you're talking about, a star that size would collapse into a black hole but expand again shortly thereafter exponentially.
Essentially, the further that massive star collapsed, passing the threshold of black hole- The greater the extreme concentration would push back against gravity, eventually overwhelming it.
It would do something like a reverse implosion and go from being a black hole to being a white hole.
There is another problem.
It would need to be a wandering star- one that essentially moves almost everywhere within the blackbody spectrum posing as a white hole.
It is very good with octaves in theory.

It is very difficult to make observations of this former black hole now turned white hole since it travels significantly. Oftentimes it remains masked by dark matter.

However, observation is possible and clicking this link here will enable you to view the star in it's current location.

can this be split out into it's own thread?

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Neptune- The original Dark Matter.

The author feels that this technique of deliberately lying will actually make it easier for you to learn the ideas. - Donald Knuth

I want we should observe and measure radiation in the universe. See the radiation pattern how it comes. By putting the Planck’s law SED as the precondition, we will go nowhere. People did these searches resulted in vain, already. That’s why I did not bother about SED.

In other words Planck’s law SED is a bias, while we try to search different radiations for our understanding the universe. We are searching the universe with the particular search parameters only. That often leads to partiality and favoritism towards a particular theory.

I will elaborate this point with an example. It is like searching a Lincoln Penny minted in 1830, in everybody’s pocket. Some may not have change; some might have kept it in the house or at some other place. Others may have different currencies like pounds, rupees, euros or yen with them. But seeing different types of pennies some other places does not mean such penny exists. Please think in the unbiased way such penny may not exist at all and such penny may not have been minted at all.

What I am requesting you is to remove your preconceived notion about Planck’s law SED. Think in a unbiased manner.

__________________
=snp

Sir,
There are two ways of explaining physical phenomena. Say falling of an apple on Newton’s head...
1. Try to find a reason for that incidence.
2. We already have theory and try to fit there.

I am trying the first one. We saw a physical phenomenon called Radiation in the space. Lets call it measured CMB. Now what are all the physical reasons for that happening?
a) Radiation from astronomical bodies. b) Averaging done by lobes of Dish antenna. etc.
.
What are the other physical properties of that physical phenomenon? Frequency spectrum it covers, almost uniform temperature of that radiation etc. Observed frequency spectrum is not bound by Planck’s law SED. Lobes, Interstellar Dust scattering, Distribution of stars and Galaxies etc., are reasons for uniformity and fog like anisotropy.

You are trying the second one. You trying to measure CMB predicted by Bigbang theory. You are measuring the radiation from stars and Galaxies ( 85% of sky) after eliminating the bright ones and Milkyway disk. Compensating for synchrotron radiations, free-free radiations, dust scattering, sidelobes gains etc., and say we achieved 98% to99% of Planck’s Law SED of a Blackbody at that temperature. But your basic measurement it self is wrong.

so...

I did not say you did not compensate for sidelobe gains. What I said was this physical phenomena with its observed properties, can be explained without using Bigbang theory. There I used those physical properties of dish

__________________
=snp

This is inaccurate at just about every turn.

We specifically were LOOKING for what theory predicted- The CMB.
We didn't look up at the sky one day and see it and wonder what it was...
Next, you seem to have ignored Tim Thompson's explanations about the Thermal background.

Can you focus on that particular bit for now- until everyone is satisfied they are understood?
Then work your way over to the next facet...

ok
ok
ok, The approximation will get Close enogh results, you said above
ok
I gave my comment for this
In my paper I took each star having seperate temperature depending on its type, see it again...
Ok

__________________
=snp

I am not calculating total pwer. I am calculating the power in that half degree cone in that direction. You are not measured SED for all stars. Did you have any catalog for that...
I am not bothered for Planck's law SED. That Blackbody spectrum you will get only after lots of manipulations. I am seeing for the spectrum powers in that WMAP spectrum only. That is our measuring instrument.

I am not working for Bigbang, some how to prove its predicted balckbody CBM radiation. I am seeing theoritically what WMAP measures.
See the post no 106. You have already accepted that the error introduced by such approximation is very less. There is no catalog that gives SED's for millions of stars. We have to approximate a little.

You avoided SUN, Moon, Planets, Earth, bright stars etc thro' computer calculations

__________________
=snp

Correct, that what I am saying, you can see it clearly...
Where, in the spectrums of Stars and Galaxies and eleminating un-necessary portions!
Every day sky change dynamically.
See posts 106 and 107. Hope that will satisfy you. If not please ask me.
Thank you for the Good wish. If you have any further questions please let me know.

__________________
=snp

You haven't answered Anything snp.gupta.
You said, "Ok, ok ok"
And then expressed further doubts as to whether or not the measured CMB is from stars, planets, moons, etc.

That misconception appears to be at the root of your misunderstanding. No, the Planck Law spectrum is directly measured on the sky with no manipulations. It is the directly measured SED of the cosmic background. See Mather, et al., 1990 for a description of the observations; you can follow the links to gif images or a PDF copy of the paper. The data and best fit Planck Law SED are illustrated in figure 1. The observations are made at high galactic latitude, 65 to 76 degrees, and at galactic longitudes well removed from the center direction of the Milky Way, 112 to 231 degrees. There the Galactic foreground is negligible and we can see the CMB directly. Only the all sky maps require foreground removal.

We actually see and directly measure a Planck Law SED. None of the sources you have mentioned, either alone or in combination, will produce a single temperature Planck Law SED, which is why your entire argument to this point is irrelevant. In the absence of an ability to explain a directly observed Planck Law SED no theory is acceptable. So far only the family of theories we call Big Bang Cosmology (BBC) actually requires that there be a CMB and that it have the Planck Law SED that is actually measured. Other cosmologies (i.e., the QSSC of Hoyle & Narlikar) can produce Planck Law SED's, but in those cases it is the exception, whereas in BBC it is the rule. So the direct observation of a Planck Law SED on the sky is an important indication that BBC is correct, and you are wrong.

Mather, et al., 1990 describes the preliminary measurement, based on only 9 hours of data. It sets the Planck Law temperature of the CMB to 2.735 +/- 0.06 Kelvins. A more complete report from COBE FIRAS, based on a larger data set, and improved instrument calibration is found in Mather, et al., 1994. Here the Planck Law temperature is found to be 2.726 +/- 0.01 Kelvins. Finally, in a detailed study of the FIRAS instrument calibration, Mather, et al., 1999, produce the final CMB temperature from COBE: 2.725 +/- 0.001 Kelvins. You see that in these three papers the temperature does not change significantly, but the uncertainties do, from 0.06 to 0.01 to 0.001 Kelvins.

Yes. The Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) Data Release 6 catalogs 287,071 detailed stellar spectra, as well as 790,860 galaxies. But the full data base includes 5-band photometry from 3551 to 8931 Angstroms for 287,000,000 objects, the large majority of those being stars no doubt. That range of wavelengths extends from the ultraviolet to the near infrared, and includes the entire range where stars would be expected to be brightest. There are other observational databases. But stellar atmospheres are well enough understood for the purposes of this discussion to rely on model databases, such as The 1993 Kurucz Stellar Atmospheres Atlas at the Space Telescope Science Institute. Believe it or not, we astronomers actually know what stars look like.

__________________
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell

Is it really? Since you know that it is wrong, then I presume that you are in a good position to answer a few simple questions.
1) Can you describe the instruments that make the measurements?
2) Can you describe the methodology & process by which the measurements are made?
3) Referring to your answers from the two previous questions, will you explain, in as much detail as you can, why the basic measurements are wrong?

__________________
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell

Sir,

Please see my post #12, why deglitching done?

__________________
=snp

Sir,

Please see my post #91 and explain it first please...

__________________
=snp

Sloan SDSS is not an all sky survey, if they are planning for all sky, they may take next 10 to 15 years, and we have to wait….

It is a good work sir, for detailed work on my paper such work is needed...

__________________
=snp

These are facts sir, my work is also based on facts, and error will be much less.

Oh! You mean to say stars, planets, moons, etc., does not produce any radiation in the WMAP frequency bands….

__________________
=snp

No. I will not answer either question yet for the simple reason that you are now avoiding the main issue and I don't want to be distracted by irrelevancies. Both of your questions refer to the sky maps, but I am referring to the measurement of the Planck Law SED, which is not the same thing. Stick to one issue at a time to avoid confusion. I will deal with the maps after we have dealt with the Planck Law SED.

Remember, you are the one who is making the positive assertion:
I have provided a direct counter example to disprove your assertion:
Now you can ignore this, or you can deal with it. But I am not going to answer any other questions, or deal with any other topic, until we have dispensed with this one. Either it is or it is not a fact that the Planck Law SED is directly measured. You say it is not a fact. I say it is a fact, and I have provided the source. You can refute the source, or accept that you are in error, or you can ignore it completely. It is now up to you to respond.

__________________
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell

Sir,

Please don’t get angry. Basically I am a poor man. I am not rich or powerful to enforce my ideas on you. Nor I am interested in forcing. You are working for science and its development. I can only suggest you to consider some points to change your thinking for betterment. What I can say is that these points are logically and analytically true.

I also beg to state again that my English is also poor like me. Some of my expressions may make you feel angry. I am sorry. When I said ‘manipulations’, I did not mean any harm to any body, any work or institution. I mean about the general thinking and basic measurement methodology. There is fever or passion to prove Bigbang among the scientific community. You have to listen what other people say also.

Now coming to your post…

No sir, same thing I am telling, if you cannot explain, I will explain them in my own way…
Okay, I will do, I am also doing the same…

Tim:
Remember, you are the one who is making the positive assertion:
Correct, You are measuring the radiation from stars and Galaxies ( 85% of sky) after eliminating the bright ones and Milkyway disk. Compensating for synchrotron radiations, free-free radiations, dust scattering, sidelobes gains etc., are some of the
manipulations…


Tim:
I have provided a direct counter example to disprove your assertion:

That paper was too short, 4 pages only. A detailed paper by the same author, in 1994; I quoted the example in my post no #12 for my point of view.


Probably you are not getting my point. What went wrong? I will explain here. How you are measuring radiation-using COBE-FIRAS; You are taking measurements in wide frequency range unlike WMAP. But WMAP view cone radius is small. It is about 1 degree; COBE has this radius higher it is about 4 degrees. Both the cases you can check the respective data sheets for exact values. COBE has higher pixel size, ie, number of pixels are high in WMAP. These are basic data of Instruments. OK till now?

Now tell me:
1. How many individual stars, Galaxies and other point sources you have calculated and deducted from EACH pixel?

2. You mean to say that there are no stars, Galaxies and other point sources in that particular pixel in which you are taking measurement. In case of WMAP you have already taken out 15% of sky pixels for various reasons. I did not remember the data for COBE.

3. In your calculation; you made this correction based Planck’s SED of each star or any other energy distribution? What is the calculation error?

4. Now please tell me how you have identified each star, Galaxy or other point source using the beam width radius of COBE or WMAP?

5. Your calculations are based using what geometry? What curvature? Do you have
details like temperature, radius, type, distance etc for all the point sources?

6. These are some of my questions shall I ask you more? Now you please tell me how you are directly measuring the Planck’s Law based SED using COBE or WMAP as your measuring instrument and how you are eliminating radiation from stars, Galaxies and other point sources?

Now you say what you want to say…what I said is a fact or not?

__________________
=snp

I can see and read quite well without the boldface type. How can a paper be "too short"? If it says all that it needs to say, then it is long enough, even if its just one page. Let us see what it has to say.

"The FIRAS is cooled to 1.5 K by a liquid helium cryostat similar to that used in the Infrared Astronomical Satellite (IRAS). The FIRAS is a rapid-scan polarizing Michelson interferometer similar to earlier balloon and rocket instruments (Woody, et al., 1975; Woody and Richards, 1981; Gush 1981), but with several improvements. ... The instrument is a symmetrical four-port device. The modulated power appearing at either output port is proportional to the Fourier transform of the difference spectrum between the two input ports. One input port receives power from the sky through a compound parabolic concentrator which defines a 7 degree beam on the sky. This sky horn has a smoothly flared aperture to reduce diffractive sidelobes over a wide frequency range (Mather, Toral and Hammati 1986). The second input port views a temperature controlled internal blackbody calibrator through a reference horn which is closely matched to the sky horn. Both outputs of the interferometer are used, with each output divided into a high frequency (> 20 cm^-1) and a low frequency channel using dichroic beam splitters. The data for this Letter come from the more sensitive of the two low frequency channels."
Mather, et al., 1990, page L37-L38

FIRAS is an interferometer. It does not simply look at the sky and measure it. Rather, it looks at the sky and at the internal calibrator, simultaneously, and measures the difference between them. But the internal calibrator is a blackbody of known temperature. So, if the sky is also a blackbody, and if the internal calibrator is set to the same blackbody temperature as the sky, the difference between them will be zero (because both are (Planck Law) black bodies at the same temperature). Observations are made by adjusting the temperature on the calibrator blackbody to minimize the difference between the sky and the calibrator. If the difference becomes zero, then you know that the sky is in fact a blackbody. If the difference becomes almost zero, then you know that the sky is almost a blackbody, while the departure of the difference from zero tells you how far the sky is from being a blackbody. There is also a moveable external blackbody, shaped like a trumpet mute, which can be moved to fill the sky horn. This makes it possible to measure both the difference between the internal calibrator and the sky and the difference between the internal calibrator and the external calibrator. Now, the difference between those two difference measurements reveals any unwanted instrumental bias, which can then be removed from the data. It all makes for a clean observation of the sky, especially when we go to the trouble of calibrating the instruments on the ground before launch, so we know beforehand how they behave in considerable detail.

All of your analysis of sidelobes is based on the erroneous idea that the CMB is measured with a large, single dish antenna that is not designed to reduce sidelobe gain. But FIRAS is not only specifically designed to eliminate most of the side lobe gain that you rely on, it is also an interferometer, so the difference measurements it makes eliminate all of the remaining sidelobe effects by simply nulling them out. So your sidelobe discussion does not reflect the facts of how the observations are actually made.

Note from the following quote that I erroneously said that Mather, et al., 1990, had used 9 hours of data, when it was in fact 9 minutes of data.

"The sky data reported in this Letter were taken in 9 minutes, using the short stroke length and slow scan speed, along the arc (l,b) = (112,65) to (231,79), with the center of the arc at (l,b) = (137,79). The data were taken while the spacecraft was outside known regions of high trapped particle fluxes. The interferograms were averaged together after eliminating recognizable spikes caused by cosmic ray impacts on the detectors. Residuals from the subtraction of these spike are not a major contributor to the uncertainties in the derived spectra. The details of procedure for processing interferograms are embodied in a carefully tested set of computer programs which will be documented in a future publication."
Mather, et al., 1990, page L38.

Note that (l,b) are galactic coordinates and the numbers are in degrees. The high galactic latitude guarantees that foreground emission from the Milky Way, and from stars, which are clearly more numerous close to the Galactic plane, will be minimized. Not entirely eliminated simply minimized. But any stars or galaxies or Galactic foreground will reveal themselves via a deviation of the sky from a single temperature blackbody, and that will reveal itself in the difference measurements as an offset from zero difference between the calibrator and the sky. FIRAS was designed as an interferometer specifically to make it sensitive to small offsets from zero, so it is tailor made, as they say, to detect the presence of confusing sources. What was the result?

"Since the data show a good null both when the FIRAS is looking at the external calibrator and at the sky, one can determine from the interferograms alone that the spectrum of the sky is close to a blackbody, regardless of the details of the data reduction and calibration"
Mather, et al., 1990, page L39.

The authors adopt a conservative estimate for deviation from a blackbody as 1% of the peak flux. Just looking at figure 2, where the temperature data are plotted, you can easily see that 1% is considerably larger than the internal error from the data, and is made that large in order to account for systematic effects in the instruments themselves.

So it's like I said it was. We know that the spectrum of the sky is a Planck Law blackbody within the generous limits of +/- 1%. No confusion from stars, galaxies or dust can be that close to a blackbody. But it does not matter, because the fact that the interferometer was able to make a good null tells us right off the bat that there is very little in the way of confusion sources there anyway.

The paper shows the blackbody spectrum in figure 1, and reports a preliminary temperature 2.735 +/- 0.06 Kelvins. Offsets from the zero difference are less than 0.02 Kelvins in all of the data.

In the later paper, Mather, et al., 1994, they are dealing with all sky data, where the foreground confusion in many places, especially near the plane of the Milky Way, is not negligible. They also want to decrease the size of the uncertainty from the temperature reported in 1990. So, naturally, they want to remove the foreground confusion. And how do we know if we are doing it right?

Remember, thanks to Mather, et al., 1990, we already know that there is a single temperature blackbody background. It stands to reason that if all those data are cleaned of known, non-blackbody sources, then the result should be closer to a blackbody after subtraction than it was before subtraction. If you know ahead of time that you have a distorted blackbody, and you remove non-blackbody effects, and then get something that looks even less like a blackbody, then you know you have done something wrong. That does not happen. The results look more like a blackbody, with a better determined temperature than before. We can see that process work on parts of the sky where we can see the blackbody spectrum free of foreground interference (Mather, et al., 1990), and so we have confidence that it works elsewhere on the sky.

So we are back to the two main points. First, like I said, we see a Planck Law, blackbody spectrum directly on they sky, without any of the subtractions or adjustments that you speak of. Second, the instrument used to measure the CMB on COBE and WMAP has no sidelobes, so it is not possible for the CMB to be a sidelobe effect.

__________________
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell

In my previous post , I could not put a message box as you did in your previous post. I just wrote’ Tim:’ , and to further avoid confusion, I started writing using the bold face. My know ledge is limited in using the PC and all, that is the problem
The other paper is much more elaborate and detailed. Also it was by the same author. He covers these points and more.. .

Please note it is 7 degree beam, and sky is with stars and Galaxies and other astronomical bodies

Quote:

... This sky horn has a smoothly flared aperture to reduce diffractive sidelobes over a wide frequency range (Mather, Toral and Hammati 1986). The second input port views a temperature controlled internal blackbody calibrator through a reference horn which is closely matched to the sky horn. Both outputs of the interferometer are used, with each output divided into a high frequency (> 20 cm-1) and a low frequency channel using dichroic beam splitters. The data for this Letter come from the more sensitive of the two low frequency channels." Mather, et al., 1990, page L37-L38

It works on frequency spectrum, not on temperature

They say frequency and you are saying them as temperature
In my paper, there are many other points other than sidelobes. Mainly Radaition from astro-bodies. You say, FIRAS sidelobe gain is ZERO, is it? What about the 7 degree beam, how you have eliminated the stars and other asro-bodies?

All sky scanning needs more than 1 year data, 9 min or 9 hours is too less.
You have not eliminated Stars...
that is your feeling only star radiation still comes
You have not eliminated star etc., radiation, you are measuring the same in the name of sky and say it is from Bigbang ????????
Your both points are wrong, methodology is wrong, Conclusions are wrong, please I request you to think cool...

warm regards

__________________
=snp

snp.Gupta, have you tried doing any sensitivity analysis? Take two thermal sources, one at say 6000 K, and another at 2.7 K. Create a composite radiance curve by linearly adding the two blackbody curves due to the two sources. Now find the mixing ratio which leads to the low temperature source dominating the spectral profile in the microwave region. What is that ratio, and does it look like a plausible fill factor for the fraction of sky covered by stars?