The previous two email correspondents I mentioned today are probably guilty of little more than over thinking a problem without researching what the answers are. This email is from a guy who has a career in medical physics behind him and one day decided that he was equipped to study advanced cosmology. Now it does happen – as the chemist who became the head of our department attests – but it hasn’t happened in this case. This is another crank out to peddle his claims.
To: Physics Students
From: Pierre-Marie Robitaille
Dear Physics Student,
Below you will find links to recently published papers in “Progress in
Physics”, a new physics journal (therefore – 4th tier). The first paper is entitled “WMAP: A Radiological Analysis”. It represents a full discussion of an abstract previously presented at an Ohio Section Meeting of the American Physical Society (http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/OSS06/Event/50397). This work analyzes the WMAP images based on accepted standards for image acquisition and processing. It demonstrates that it is not appropriate to evaluate cosmological parameters based on measurements from either WMAP or COBE.
In the second paper, evidence is presented for the reassigment of the CMB to the oceans of the Earth. This work demonstrates that the Earth cannot be modeled as a 285K source as the COBE team assumes. This is supported by a third paper authored by Dmitri Rabounski, a Russian theoretical physicist.
Indenpendent of your expertize, I ask that you take the time to examine these works. I thank you in advanced for your attention to this matter.
Pierre-Marie Robitaille, Ph.D.
Professor of Radiology and Chemical Physics
The Ohio State University
The original email was soon followed up by another.
Dear Member of the Physics Community,
I am writing to ask you to consider a 2 page paper published yesterday in Progress in Physics. The paper examines absorption and emission of microwave radiation in the Earth’s atmosphere under steady state conditions. It demonstrates that the CMB cannot have a cosmic origin.
I thank you in advance for your time,
Pierre-Marie Robitaille, Ph.D.
WMAP and COBE produce results that cannot be replicated. They are unable to remove the galactic signal from their data and in fact are measuring photons from the ocean, sent to them through Mie scattering and producing an apparent temperature of 3 Kelvin. This comes from a misunderstanding of the behaviour of blackbodies, which can only be solids. In his website, the author deifies Planck, vilifies Eddington and also suggests that the Sun is a glowing liquid. The author also uses the physics journal Progress in Physics to publish his work and presents at meetings such as this one of the American Physical Society. His website also makes clear his belief in a quasi-static universe.
To begin with, tackling head on the claims that COBE, WMAP et al produce results that are non reproducible. The Cosmic Microwave Background has been studied with several instruments since its initial discovery by Bell Laboratories – each have agreed fully with the others. It is there. The error induced by the removal of the galactic background matters only in – strangely enough – the vicinity of the centre of the galaxy, which does not fill the entire sky. Even here, many years of work have constrained the errors. We have now observed the Cosmic Microwave Background to such a high level of resolution that anisotropies – the uneven bits – have been revealed. These do not match anisotropies on the ocean. There are no waves or boats visible in the CMB. COBE and WMAP are also shielded from stray light from Earth. In addition, our many, many Earth observing satellites monitor radiation from the ocean. It is not the same as measured in the CMB or any of the other backgrounds. If it was, Bell laboratory would’ve been investigating coastal areas for disruption to their service.
Onto his core beliefs – that Kirchoff’s law has been taken too seriously by science. These people fail to understand the level of experimentation that goes into all this as well as good hard theoretical work. It was never simply taken for granted (it presently isn’t) that all bodies act as blackbodies, it is merely inferred from measurements that they do. It has been known since John Dalton’s time that gases act as blackbodies when it comes to the emission of light – much though this guy knows. Finally, there is the question of universality – that physical laws coming from blackbody research don’t hold throughout the universe, or even on the Earth. We’ve sent probes to other planets, measured their temperature and compared it to our knowledge of the blackbody emissions and greenhouse heat trapping of atmospheres (as well as other thermodynamic effects such as winds). The temperatures hold up not just globally but locally in terms of atmospheric models.
In addition, his belief in a quasi-static universe comes from his belief that science is based on incorrect blackbody physics. In fact, whether or not blackbody physics is correct, Hubble’s measurement of the expansion of the Universe is very much an entirely independent piece of science.
Progress in Physics is one of several internet sites where people who have failed to show the discipline required to publish in scientific journals come together to create a pretend journal. Their declaration of Scientific Human Rights is a charter for anyone to call themselves scientists irrespective of qualification and to publish their thoughts as if they had gone through the scientific process. Inevitably, they have not and the results are either purposely over complicated statements of the obvious shrouded in jargon to make it appear to be a deep understanding, replications of simple undergraduate tasks presented as new science or, as we have here, obviously wrong hypotheses masquerading as suppressed scientific truth. I remember one author of such a journal complaining he had been rejected on an article where he presented equations showing the Earth should be expanding “just” because satellite data proved him wrong…