The WMAP Sources as described by 2003 foreground paper are the center point of this thread. This is in reply to Nereid, I am sorry for the delay, I took one year to reply this question.
================================================== ===============
[Ref...
SNP Gupta's ATM idea re the CMB

see post #14 dtd 24-Sept-2007, 05.40 am, by Nereid

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.

Nereid
================================================== ==============

How to explain them? What are they? 2008 WMAP sources paper & 2008 WMAP 5-yr data release ware taken to visualize the concepts. This paper is based on the philosophy of the Dynamic Universe Model of Cosmology. Here basically we argue that radiation is received in all frequency ranges from astronomical bodies from Radio, Far infrared, Quasars, QSOs, to Stars, Galaxies, and X-ray sources, such that they cover the Blackbody spectrum theoretically from one end to another. Large angular movements of WMAP in multiple of 22.5° start causing the thermal fluctuations, smaller angular movements near the radii of main-lobe gains will cause the maximum fluctuations and in very small angular movements systematic and measurement errors dominate the signals. In addition uneven Microwave dish gains from Main-lobes, Back-lobe and side-lobes cause the lot of errors in signals in Multipole moment maps. Calculation of Bigbang emitted radiation temperature using Vakradiation also given QORG catalog was used for showing the real astronomical bodies, which are in the vicinity of those WMAP sources given in 2003 year. Thus this paper fairly explains the Basic properties of CMB like Black body spectrum, WMAP sources, thermal fluctuations in multipole moment maps etc., with in the Physics framework, and with out using any Bigbang concepts.
Radiation from Bigbang was from about 13.7 billion years old. It is not from any stars, Galaxies, any Astronomical bodies, or even from Interstellar dust / Inter-Galaxial dust. Until today NONE of any instruments used from Penzias-Wilson to today’s WMAP radiometers; measured it from Earth or from any satellites outside Earths atmosphere; measured any Bigbang radiation. COBE and WMAP eliminated about 15% pixels of sky for foregrounds but not all astronomical bodies in sky. I will soon add a link for a full paper

__________________
=snp

I voted yes, but this being a "negative question" I might have had to answer no.

the CMB was created when the young universes turned optically thin and stars were not yet created. so what we are seeing is the radiation of a "primordial entity" which was optically thick up until that moment.

So, the CMB is not created by stars, it was created by the whole universe at that time, and stars did not exist yet.

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

Yes, radiation from Bigbang was from about 13.7 billion years old. It is not from any star

I voted "yes". We already know that the description given above is quite impossible, so it will be interesting to see how you think you can do it.

__________________
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

I voted Yes just because Tusenfem and Tim Thompson Speedfreak did.

Otherwise- I wouldn't have had Clue one what to pick

So I borrowed their smarts.
So if you three are wrong, I'm going to be Extra Grumpy for a Month
I'm teasing. CMB was not emitted by stars- If Stars emitted it- it would still be emitted by stars today.

Well i voted "didn't get your point" simply because i didn't! But i would certainly go with the mainstream and agree with you 4. Mainly because you are all smarter than me!

__________________
ooops..... wrong forum!!!

No
because I think, that CMBR is actually caused by the gravitational field of our sun, earth and our own galaxy.

Can you illustrate, in some sort of mathematical detail, why you think your idea is better than the standard model?

Sir,

It is direct question, you said yes. It is correct; Bigbang radiation is defined as the same. Definitely NOT from stars or Galaxies or any astronomical bodies, is it not?

__________________
=snp

Thank you sir...

__________________
=snp

Try to imagine a rotation around a timelike axis of an object, that moves together with the observer. The rotation can't be seen, because it is stationary (with the observer). Acceleration can be described as curvature of world lines and we twist this rotation by that. The more we twist it, it would wiggle and seen as radiation. That has two aspects: stability and rotation. The timelike behavior of such a pattern I call the 'mass term', because that is how a mass behaves. The rotation is the 'radiation term', because it is spacelike. If we follow such a pattern, it could be twisted and mass turns to radiation (or back) depending on the movement relative to the observer. The maximum would be, that this rotation is totally flipped to the side and we see only radiation and no more mass.
I have chosen this model, because it followed from the use of quaternions to describe spacetime intervals. This I found useful, because there is a connection of the formula of quaternion rotation to the position operator of quantum mechanics. It is actually the same idea, even though different symbols are used. I have written a kind of book about this, what is in google.docs presentation form till now. It contains no mathematical model, because I just have started to develop that, but I have found a few websites, where such models are shown. One is that of Doug Sweetser, who is member of this forum.
I just have started to read 'Spinors and Spacetime' by Penrose and Rindler. This method is, what I have in mind.
This is a mexican website called geom, that covers the topic quite well.

Nothing is impossible sir,

If we base our thinking on practicality and measurements of our instruments, then what we say would be practically correct and verifiable.

See Mather et al (1994) of COBE –FIRAS
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/bi...pJ...420..439M
Page 441, Section 5, Galaxy and Dipole data are deducted. In page 443 Section 7, frequency response of instrument can be seen, of course many places this response can be seen.

See Fixsen et al (1994) of COBE-FIRAS in
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/bi...pJ...420..457F
Section 4.4 , did the Deglitching, All bright sources (Glitchs) were removed. Why?

What do you say sir?

__________________
=snp

Yes
Yes is correct answer sir,

But any way we also think by our selves, for many situations…

__________________
=snp

Sir,

For me Time is time, & Mass is mass. Radiation comes from astronomical bodies at many frequencies (Electro magnetic Radiation) and is measured with radiometers on COBE, WMAP or by any ground/ parachute based instruments practically. Some total Curvature of universe may not be required here.

__________________
=snp

Bigbang produced radiation long back. This radiation is different from radiation from stars etc.
The answer is simple Yes...

{Now the problem is astronomical bodies like Sun, Earth, moon, stars, Galaxies, Milkyway, dust etc., also produces in the same Bigbang frequencies of Blackbody spectrum.

Till now no instrument has checked an area that is free from radiation from these bodies, is it not?, Please think !}

__________________
=snp

GR is a theory of gravity. That gravity curves space in the vicinity of a material body. As the sun is quite heavy, we could assume curved space around us, very small curvature but measurable.
We could see this behavior in the CMBR pictures, if our own galaxy wouldn't have been removed. The very fact, that we could see our galaxy in such a picture would rule out the big bang explanation, because our galaxy isn't supposed to exist at such a time.
But we could see the relation between gravitation and radiation in other observations, too, since we could measure x-rays in the center of galaxies.
To say 'time is time' is not in line with relativity, what made time an aspect of spacetime - as well as space.

Special theory of relativity says about gravitational bending of light, near Sun, stars etc., large masses. It is ok. Bending of light in strong gravitation is ok. GTR says space-time continuum, and space it self is curved. That confuses every one. In Dynamic Universe model of Cosmology, GTR is not required. No Bigbang singularity. It is based on non -uniform mass densities and mass about mass rotations. Uniform mass distribution of GTR is one of the main reasons of Bigbang singularity.

We can see clearly, no part of sky is an exact replica of another, for example.

I hope we are not going off topic. You can see in some other ATM threads, details about this Dynamic universe model.

Here what I am trying to say is that Bigbang is not required for producing CMB. Stars and other astronomical bodies are sufficient to produce CMB.

__________________
=snp

All I see here is a string of words. I see no comprehensible point by point mathematical comparison with the standard model. I will stay with the standard model for the time being.

What do you have against words? It is a usual standard form of transferring ideas - in this case from my imagination to yours. Pictures are a method, too. I personally like films or animations. You demand mathematics and a quantitative description. That's more than fair, but I have some, but no particular talent for that. So you must wait or develop that model yourself (and have to try to understand my idea first).

Nonsense. Anything that is not allowed by the laws of physics is absolutely impossible.
According to you the thermal CMB is the combined sum of the non-thermal emission from stars, galaxies & etc. This is not allowed by the laws of physics and therefore it is impossible.

Space is awash in radiation from all sources. If we want to see the CMB we have to remove the non-CMB foreground contamination. So, the foreground from the Galaxy is removed. Point sources are removed. They are all foreground and we want background. If you want to see the CMB you subtract everything from the total that you know is not CMB. What's left is the sum of what is CMB and everything that you don't know about, along with any uncertainties or errors in the foreground removal process.

You will notice perhaps that when cosmologists use the CMB they generally avoid the region masked out for the Milky Way just to avoid any residual error and uncertainty from the Galactic subtraction.

So the CMB is cleaned of all foreground sources, as best we can do it. It has nothing at all to do with starlight.

__________________
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

I never talk against laws of physics. Here impossible I mean about the tremendous work involved in removing the superstitions of people’s concepts.

__________________
=snp

OK lets define CMB, thermal and non-thermal, what are the physical properties…How they differ from each other, can you? In other words in what way Bigbang radiation differs from any other radiation????

__________________
=snp

I agree with thomheg

Einstein did no less

thought before the mathematics

So does Hawking.

But there's a big difference.

That difference is that BOTH men understood the mathematics Prior to thinking. They understood that the math was vital. ANd they constantly checked the math during their thinking.

the thing is that , when it comes to CMBs , a very , very , very, few galaxies are accounted for

meaning that , CMBs , are really a local observation

This post did not make any sense whatsoever.

Can you clarify it?

What do you mean by "Accounted for"?

How does your claim make the observation "local"?

I agree

yes the mathematics was vital

but the problem with mathematics is that it sometimes it forgets the practicality of its conclusions ( BH for example , on another thread )

hence the misunderstanding of the CMBs " picture " as representing the whole of the Universe , when in actual fact the info gathered is very local

If thermal and non-thermal CMB cannot be combined by laws of physics, why we have to separate them? They are different to each other already?

I will give two analogies…
The thermal and non thermal CMB are mixed like…
1. Mixed like sand and rice, we have to sieve them/ separate them

2. Like pure water in a bowl. Take out a spoon-full from any where from bowl,
define it as thermal, all the remaining is non-thermal…

__________________
=snp

I asked this question , oh , probably , a couple of yrs ago to a astronomy dept.

and they told me that there is only so many galaxies that could eliminate in the CMB accounting of CMBs

they couldn't account for the whole Universe , naturally enough

above

I think if I remember right its only about 10 galaxies from us , that we can eliminate the source of CMBs from

if not less either way its not very many