tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post116713271046526800..comments2023-09-27T07:44:19.769-04:00Comments on Sabine Hossenfelder: Backreaction: Anomalous Alignments in the Cosmic Microwave BackgroundSabine Hossenfelderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comBlogger64125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-61735884469787626132015-10-28T11:15:22.370-04:002015-10-28T11:15:22.370-04:00@LucyM,
Yes,....the 2009 ESA Planck Probe confirm...@LucyM,<br /><br />Yes,....the 2009 ESA Planck Probe confirmed these alignments! They are cosmological in origin and these alignments are specific to the earths equator (dipole) and the ecliptic plane (quadrupole). The probability of this being random is .03%Ron Ehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02723142107443994147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-84899130777308056582015-03-25T14:07:31.144-04:002015-03-25T14:07:31.144-04:00Hello if anyone is there. I was just wondering if ...Hello if anyone is there. I was just wondering if there were any developments since 2007 on the alignments? Thank you.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17852247942652368610noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-37102363374426653802007-09-07T02:18:00.000-04:002007-09-07T02:18:00.000-04:00http://snipurl.com/cmbcomparePrint the latter two ...http://snipurl.com/cmbcompare<BR/><BR/>Print the latter two of the three CMB pics. Plot out the Solar dipole with that depicted in the CMB... they are close but don't match up. That fact that the Solar dipole intersects features of the Cosmic multipole is coincidence. Further, if you print, you can see that features from the dipolar plumes turn up in the next resolution, which would truly make Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-87729626060254099142007-01-15T11:26:00.000-05:002007-01-15T11:26:00.000-05:00Hi,
I just posted a response to this discussion
...Hi,<br /><br />I just posted a response to this discussion <br /><a href="http://globalpioneering.com/wp02/cosmogonic-mythology/">on my blog</a>. Please take a look.<br /><br />Thanks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-1168388128533580672007-01-09T19:15:00.000-05:002007-01-09T19:15:00.000-05:00Bee said: I'd appreciate if you'd report elsewhere...Bee said: I'd appreciate if you'd report elsewhere, not here. Thanks,<BR/><BR/>Ok. No problem. Sorry I must have misunderstood you. You and Stefan are welcome to comment on my blog. Your comments have been helpful to me. As I said there I am looking for evaluation by people who know much more than I do on these topics.<BR/><BR/>Bee also said: <BR/>Since you are the one talking about it, I'd ask Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-1168348515998872622007-01-09T08:15:00.000-05:002007-01-09T08:15:00.000-05:00Hi Anonymous,I'd appreciate if you'd report elsewh...Hi Anonymous,<BR/><BR/>I'd appreciate if you'd report elsewhere, not here. Thanks,<BR/><BR/>B.Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-1168313235316599732007-01-08T22:27:00.000-05:002007-01-08T22:27:00.000-05:00Bee wrote: "I have no idea why you think so, but i...Bee wrote: "I have no idea why you think so, but if this is what you are convinced of then you should start with examining some cases that support your conspiracy theory."<BR/><BR/>Hello,<BR/><BR/>Thanks. I will do this, and I'll report here with some specific cases. But now I am back to work after a long vacation and I was just reading your comments about cosmology in order to reply to those Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-1168279729708586882007-01-08T13:08:00.000-05:002007-01-08T13:08:00.000-05:00With respect to the dust foreground "contamination...With respect to the dust foreground "contamination" role in the CMB anomalies.<BR/><BR/>I think that there must be few dust astronomers working on the zodiacal dust cloud at microwave wavelengths. Most of the zody dust astronomers (of whom I'm aware) work at infrared or visible wavelengths. The one dust astronomer I know working at trying various dust interplanetary cloud models, in order to see Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-1168129181850501902007-01-06T19:19:00.000-05:002007-01-06T19:19:00.000-05:00Hi Pioneer,I've had a look at your blog. You are w...Hi Pioneer,<BR/><BR/>I've had a look at your blog. You are writing <I>And if more people let me know what they think I believe this would be a nicer blog.</I>. I think your blog would be more useful if you'd follow your own advises. You are raising various claims about 'doctors' who have allegedly 'corrupted physics' and turned it in to a non-science, claims that are not supported by any evidenceSabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-1168121740609008912007-01-06T17:15:00.000-05:002007-01-06T17:15:00.000-05:00Dear Bee and Stefan, I thank you once again for be...Dear Bee and Stefan, <BR/><BR/>I thank you once again for being kind and replying to my comments. I like your blog. I don’t want to name names but when you compare Backreaction to other so-called physics blogs yours stands out. I like the tone, the sense of humor and the serious pieces as well. <BR/><BR/>I am heeding your warning that most of your readers would be offended by my rant about Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-1167738048230138982007-01-02T06:40:00.000-05:002007-01-02T06:40:00.000-05:00Hi Anonymous,to what Stefan said I want to add I s...Hi Anonymous,<BR/><BR/>to what Stefan said I want to add I strongly have the impression you are not even trying to understand what we say, because you are completely convinced cosmologists are stupid. I have no idea why you write below your <A HREF="http://www.flickr.com/photos/73067828@N00/340853600/" REL="nofollow">'figure'</A> <I>Cosmologists assume that their measurements in the observable Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-1167707830367244872007-01-01T22:17:00.000-05:002007-01-01T22:17:00.000-05:00Hi anonymous = pioneer2,so, you are indeed associa...Hi anonymous = pioneer2,<BR/><BR/><BR/>so, you are indeed associated with <A HREF="http://globalpioneering.com/wp02/" REL="nofollow">this blog</A>, you say? The <A HREF="http://globalpioneering.com/wp02/?page_id=48" REL="nofollow">Disclaimer</A> and <A HREF="http://globalpioneering.com/wp02/?page_id=42" REL="nofollow">The Cause</A> pages are meant as a joke, I guess? It should be clear that thesestefanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09495628046446378453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-1167703897334871622007-01-01T21:11:00.000-05:002007-01-01T21:11:00.000-05:00Again, to summarize what I tried to convey and to ...Again, to summarize what I tried to convey and to answer your question<BR/><BR/><I>I assume that you agree that it is not possible for us humans to know how the sequence of numbers continue in the unknown region. Do you agree with that?</I><BR/><BR/>It is not possible to know the exact sequence of numbers. However, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that the sequence goes on beyond the horizon stefanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09495628046446378453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-1167702500192905702007-01-01T20:48:00.000-05:002007-01-01T20:48:00.000-05:00Hi Anonymous = Pioneer2,again, I am not a cosmolog...Hi Anonymous = Pioneer2,<BR/><BR/>again, I am not a cosmologist, but I guess most cosmologists would agree that you grossly misrepresent their concepts if you equate <BR/><BR/><I>universe = observable universe = everything that exist</I><BR/><BR/>If you use this equation and end up with strange results, you shouldn't blame the cosmologists!<BR/><BR/>The common usage of words and concepts in stefanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09495628046446378453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-1167693655483931142007-01-01T18:20:00.000-05:002007-01-01T18:20:00.000-05:00Hi Bee,Thanks once again for taking the time to re...Hi Bee,<BR/><BR/>Thanks once again for taking the time to reply. Thanks also for the reference to Smolin's book. I'll check it out.<BR/><BR/><I>The statement that our universe (= the part that we observe) does expand can very well be made without knowing what happens in the whole multiverse (to the biggest part of which we are not causally connected to).</I><BR/><BR/>I am unable to understand Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-1167603711828448212006-12-31T17:21:00.000-05:002006-12-31T17:21:00.000-05:00Dear Anonymous,yes, sorry, I mixed up your DS1 and...Dear Anonymous,<BR/><BR/>yes, sorry, I mixed up your DS1 and DS2, the correction you made is what I meant.<BR/><BR/><I>I believe that if what you wrote is correct cosmology as this word is understood today would not exist. If we don't know R how is it possible to deduce the existence of, for instance, the expansion of the universe, from an observations of the motion of galaxies?</I><BR/><BR/>As Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-1167602073671883022006-12-31T16:54:00.000-05:002006-12-31T16:54:00.000-05:00Dear BeeThanks for your answer. You write that “by...Dear Bee<BR/><BR/>Thanks for your answer. You write that “by definition DB1 is larger than DB2.” Do you mean the opposite? Because in my terminology DB2 = the entire universe and DB1 = CMBR.<BR/><BR/>Would it be correct to rephrase what you wrote as: "By definition if DB2 is larger than DB1, DB2 without DB1 is the part of the sample that we can't observe, then there's no way to tell how large theAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-1167523896745671652006-12-30T19:11:00.000-05:002006-12-30T19:11:00.000-05:00WMAP has produced a new, more detailed picture of ...<A HREF="http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_ig/060917/CMB_ILC_PolMap75.jpg" REL="nofollow"> WMAP has produced a new, more detailed picture of the infant universe. Colors indicate "warmer" (red) and "cooler" (blue) spots. The white bars show the "polarization" direction of the oldest light. This new information helps to pinpoint when the first stars formed and provides new clues about events that PlatoHagelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00849253658526056393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-1167523659881974422006-12-30T19:07:00.000-05:002006-12-30T19:07:00.000-05:00Amara:You probably meant something more esoteric p...Amara:<I>You probably meant something more esoteric put I prefer to not follow that thread further.</I><BR/><BR/>Nothing like that. Just the stars place in the timeline. How far back? The geometrics of the collapse, and jet development. Greater then 30 solar masses and how far back can this be of use? The energy as a value(standard candle?)<BR/><BR/><I>As an aside, I notice at your blog that you PlatoHagelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00849253658526056393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-1167514581284269672006-12-30T16:36:00.000-05:002006-12-30T16:36:00.000-05:00Dear Plato: Wolf-Rayet stars are dust producers, b...Dear Plato: Wolf-Rayet stars are dust producers, but not as important dust producers as other stars. See the Table: "Specifics of Dust Input to the Interstellar Medium" <A HREF="http://www.amara.com/ftpstuff/dustevolve.txt" REL="nofollow">here</A>. You probably meant something more esoteric put I prefer to not follow that thread further.<BR/><BR/>As an aside, I notice at your blog that you have aAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-1167485683589237692006-12-30T08:34:00.000-05:002006-12-30T08:34:00.000-05:00Dear anonymous,where do you think physics research...Dear anonymous,<BR/><BR/><I>where do you think physics research lies? In data analysis? In the interpretation of the data? And where does the science lie?</I><BR/><BR/>You need to understand what your data is. You need to analyze it and extract the information you want. Then you can interpret it. I'd call it science if it helps you to understand nature better, potentially pointing into the Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-1167480632118111812006-12-30T07:10:00.000-05:002006-12-30T07:10:00.000-05:00Arun and Bee and Stefan: I'll try to add something...Arun and Bee and Stefan: I'll try to add something more about what signature the foreground interplanetary dust cloud might be giving, once I am back in my office next week. Happy New Year... (and thanks for the stimulating conversation!)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-1167473474836141152006-12-30T05:11:00.000-05:002006-12-30T05:11:00.000-05:00Hi Bee, thanks. I meant what do you think about CN...Hi Bee, thanks. I meant what do you think about CNS, will you let us know?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-1167441744425251182006-12-29T20:22:00.000-05:002006-12-29T20:22:00.000-05:00Dear Stefan,Thanks for your reply. Come to think o...Dear Stefan,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for your reply. Come to think of it I think you are right this seems about semantics. Although I am not that clear what semantics means. <BR/><BR/>To clarify what the problem was I broke down the elements this way: 1. Database (the normal points collected by NASA) 2. Title of database (CMBR) 3. Data analysis 4. Representation of data analysis as computer graphics 4. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-1167399834655262912006-12-29T08:43:00.000-05:002006-12-29T08:43:00.000-05:00Sometimes seeing the abstract for what it can conv...Sometimes seeing <A HREF="http://eskesthai.blogspot.com/2006/12/wolf-rayet-star.html" REL="nofollow">the abstract</A> for what it can convey is just as important as what lies between the measure from that early universe to now?PlatoHagelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00849253658526056393noreply@blogger.com