It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I've seen lots of replicated experiments. There are always small differences. It's called "experimental error" and such error is often represented by things like "error bars". Demanding zero difference between experiments is just unbelievably ignorant, but I don't think he's quite that ignorant, I'm attributing that to your flawed interpretation.
originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
a reply to: Arbitrageur
There should be no "minor" differences. That's the whole point he's making.
I wasn't trying to imply that. I was just saying he spent a whole lot of time going on and on and on about water, and then he says water is not an issue with WMAP.
I love how you couch your language, making it seem like he attacked the WMAP data with the same arguments he used on the COBE data.
I already commented on that here:
Or about how about commenting on the blackbody calculations that are incorrectly used because the universe is not enclosed in a perfectly absorbing space.
By the way I'm not discouraging anybody from watching the video. I found it interesting. Just not convincing.
Readers should take the time to listen to the lecture themselves, and not rely on interpreters like Arbitrageur here, who willfully ignore the primary points of the lecture to suit their agenda.
So, from these papers, it seems that there are spurious temperature anisotropies that are comparable with the entire anisotropy found in the WMAP team’s maps. Therefore the entire analysis of cosmological parameters based on these maps is wrong. Indeed it seems very puzzling that an analysis that is so contaminated with errors should come up with parameters anywhere near those expected by LCDM models.