Kirchhoff’s Law Proven Invalid, The Implications Are Enormous

The KLTE talk is actually the second lecture Prof. Robitaille delivered at the EU conference; however, I think it makes more sense to watch that lecture before watching this one, where he relates why the cosmic background radiation measurements are meaningless.

a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist
Here is a screenshot from 38m23s into that video:


He's saying the two images on the left don't look the same. I watched the video in 1080 resolution and even if I took a screenshot at that resolution there are problems showing it on ATS, so I recommend looking at the video at that resolution at 28m23s.

They do have slight differences, but, they look pretty much the same to me, therefore I don't find his argument about how different they are very convincing. He then goes on to make an image showing a difference comparison, which is a technique I use myself in image comparisons (it's one of the features in a program I use for image analysis). While it does show some small differences in the images, what it actually shows is that they are way more similar than different.

So, based on this, I find his argument unconvincing. I could also point out other problems with his presentation, like he goes on and on and on about water and then finally admits that the WMAP orbit is at L2 where water isn't an issue, so why did he just waste most of the video talking about water? He wanted to whine about Penzias and Wilson and COBE but those technologies are 50 and 25 years old. WMAP and Planck satellites are the latest technology.

So do those two images on the left really look all that different to you?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

There should be no "minor" differences. That's the whole point he's making.

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.

As for WMAP, here's a nice paper for you:

www.cosmology.info...

I noticed you didn't talk about the dozen other issues he brings up during his lecture, like how it's possible to deduce background radiation from noise when the noise is a thousand fold greater signal and directly overlaps the background signal.

Or about how about commenting on the blackbody calculations that are incorrectly used because the universe is not enclosed in a perfectly absorbing space.

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.

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
a reply to: Arbitrageur

There should be no "minor" differences. That's the whole point he's making.

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.

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 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.

Or about how about commenting on the blackbody calculations that are incorrectly used because the universe is not enclosed in a perfectly absorbing space.

I already commented on that here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

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.

By the way I'm not discouraging anybody from watching the video. I found it interesting. Just not convincing.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

What's clear from his lecture is that the COBE and Penzias data is completely useless because of water, and the WMAP data is completely useless because of instrument error and background noise.

What's also clear is that the scientists who originally looked at the COBE and Penzias data completely ignored reflected microwaves from water in their analysis, which discredits far more than just their work on the background radiation. It demonstrates either gross negligence or willful ignorance, take your pick.

The bottom line is that the so-called background radiation maps have no scientific leg to stand on. They are meaningless propaganda.

My favorite quote from the newsletter I cited:

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.

Indeed.

How did the maps come so close to the LCDM models if they are so contaminated?

Obviously this happened because the means used to process the data create the expected result, rather than actually providing some meaningful interpretation.