Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[ben m]

FYI, IMO these are valid "rebuttals" to his work. My question then to you becomes this: If you're so willing to "tweak" all the variables of metaphysical sky entities, why in the universe would you be unwilling to "tweak" the parameters and variables of a tired light theory until it "fits" the same data too?

We tried. It can not be done; people have been trying for eighty years and it just doesn't work. No one has EVER found a set of EU/PC tweaks that matches even ONE of the precision cosmology observables.

The only way you know a paradigm works is that you ACTUALLY find a solution after a finite number of tweaks. You don't settle for an infinite number of tweaks ("one tweak per data point" is the point of no return) and you certainly don't settle for a vague hope that a future, uncounted number of tweaks will actually work.

This is why I keep asking: where's the EU/PC theory that works AT ALL? Start by showing me that it works, for most or all of the standard datasets at the same time. AFTER THAT we can argue about who has worse or less-physical hypothetical, unobserved entities.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Plasma Redshift Cosmology Fails II

He says his equations are "more accurate" because they include the effect of a dielectric constant and magnetic permeability. I say his equations are just plain wrong because they violate the second law of thermodynamics, which takes a lot of explaining as far as I am concerned.

I'll bite. How does it violate the 2nd law?

Evidently you overlooked that I have already answered that question, in the paragraphs immediately following the one you chose to quote.

Quite regardless of the details of the interaction, these criteria must be satisfied by any all and theories or hypotheses which include interactions between photons & charged particles: If the energy of the photon is greater than the energy of the charged particle, then any transfer of energy must always be from the more energetic photon to the less energetic particle (a redshift of the photon and a heating of the plasma). If the energy of the photon is less than the energy of the charged particle, then any transfer of energy must always be from the more energetic particle to the less energetic photon (a blueshift of the photon and a cooling of the plasma). Brynjolfsson's "cosmology" produces only redshifts, never blueshifts, yet it is based on the interaction between the photons & charged particles (i.e., "plasma redshift"). Therefore, his cosmology is impossible on the grounds of fundamental physics and an examination of the mathematical details is unnecessary (although I point out post 4593 by ben_m, which demonstrates that the details of his physics are also wrong, further bad news for Brynjolfsson). The reason for Brynjolfsson's fundamental error certainly appears to lie in his desire to use a dielectric constant and magnetic permeability for the plasma that are not justified by physics.

Brynjolfsson's plasma redshift cosmology requires all photons to always lose energy (always redshift) and never gain energy (never blueshift). It violates the second law of thermodynamics, as described above, and therefore stands falsified.

Brynjolfsson's cosmology requires energy to always transfer from the lower energy photon to the higher energy charged particle and that is a direct violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Communicating in Clear Language

That is, to put it bluntly, a damn lie. I worked at the periphery of the old COBE project as a system manager, and although I have worked closely with many scientists on the WMAP project, I have not worked on that project myself. Nevertheless, I am quite familiar with the foreground subtraction process, and the intelligence & honesty of the people who work on the projects, both of which in them I place far above and beyond the equivalent of yours.

Why is it that you folks constantly feel compelled to "attack the messenger"? WTF? I simply noted that you intentionally and methodically "subtracted out" every single solitary point source in the image and THEN you folks claim it's a "blackbody background".

What you actually said was this:

Ya, because he wasn't trying to "subtract out" all the foreground effects, all the solar emission patterns etc. [...] Again Tim, you simply ignore the fact that your "foreground subtraction" process takes out all the point sources and all you're then left with are the EMISSIONS from plasma that fill space and absorb and emit these wavelengths. [...] That's why you have such a strong emotional need to "subtract out" everything that doesn't "fit" with your ideas about where that light originates, starting with every sun and galaxy you can find.

As I read those words, you are explicitly accusing the entire community of CMB scientists of deliberately & dishonestly manipulating the data to produce the result they want, based on prejudice not science. The language is clear enough, and I label that accusation a damn lie. If you in fact intended to make that accusation, then I will not back down from my response.

I am not "attacking the messenger", I am responding to your accusation that I and my fellow scientists deliberately falsify our results to achieve a preconceived result. If in fact you did not intend to make such an accusation, then I will retract my own. However, you have the bad habit of being in such a hurry to pound out the maximum number of posts in the minimum amount of time that your language is often sloppy and hard to follow. If you don't want to be falsely accused of saying what you did not mean to say, then pay more attention to what you do say and that won't happen.

 

[Michael Mozina]

What you actually said was this:

As I read those words, you are explicitly accusing the entire community of CMB scientists of deliberately

Deliberately, yes.

& dishonestly

Dishonestly, no. You're confusing method with intent. I am not. There's an honest desire behind the process IMO, not a dishonest one. They want to know if the background emissions are relatively uniform. They are. So what?

You seem to be ignoring the fact that "scattering" is also expected in virtually every single cosmology theory. In fact pretty much every relatively "homogenous layout of matter" cosmology theory would predict the exact same effect. You have no evidence whatsoever that any of it is related to a "surface of last scattering". In fact we can see from the original images that suns are the primary emitters of this specific wavelength of light and almost any theory of cosmology predicts 'scattering happens" Tim.

You unfairly accused me of things that I am not guilty of Tim. I don't suppose an apology is likely?

 

[Michael Mozina]

We tried. It can not be done; people have been trying for eighty years and it just doesn't work. No one has EVER found a set of EU/PC tweaks that matches even ONE of the precision cosmology observables.

That claim (even one precision observable) isn't consistent with ANY of Ari's papers ben. Even if you wish to rule out some of his ideas, you could never, ever, ever hope to rule out EVERY POSSIBLE tired light theory under the sun. At best case you might "prefer" a movement oriented approach to solving some of these issues (as I actually do), but there is no logical way to rule out a static universe. It will always and forever remain a "possibility" even if you personally reject all of Ari's concepts.

FYI, you didn't find a "solution" either. The fact your invisible friends help you "fit" a few observables is actually rather irrelevant. Of course they do. They couldn't do otherwise, or you would have "tweaked" them already.

IMO you're putting *WAY* too much emphasis on a few "nice fits" with invisible buddies doing all the heavy lifting in the math formulas. It's a nice religion ben, but it's a hell of a poor substitute for a lack of creativity on your part as it relates to empirical physics.

While I'm sure there is a logical reason for the redshift phenomenon, it certainly has nothing to do with magic energy, dark invisible voodoo energy, or God energy. None of these things have a tangible effect on matter ben. Dark energy doesn't have any effect on anything either. It's a "gap filler" in your "understanding" of the redshift phenomenon, nothing more, nothing less.

This is why I keep asking: where's the EU/PC theory that works AT ALL? Start by showing me that it works, for most or all of the standard datasets at the same time. AFTER THAT we can argue about who has worse or less-physical hypothetical, unobserved entities.

Even Alfven had a primitive "bang" theory. Ari's tired light theory doesn't even require any sort of moment whatsoever. I'm sure some combination of a tired light and/or a movement of matter concept would suffice, but there is only one known macroscopic force of nature that might explain the acceleration of plasma. It isn't "dark". It's composed of LIGHT in fact.

 

[ben m]

That claim (even one precision observable) isn't consistent with ANY of Ari's papers ben. *Even if you wish to rule out some of his ideas, you could never, ever, ever hope to rule out EVERY POSSIBLE tired light theory under the sun.

First:

Welcome to science. *You can never prove a theory is true; the best you can ever do is say that (a) the theory is predictive and (b) you haven't found an alternative. * Sure, someday we might find a tired-light theory that just so happens to predict exactly the same observables as LCDM. * Likewise, we might find an aether theory that magically looks like GR, a hidden-variables theory that amazingly lines up to look just like QM, and a totally non-quark-like fundamental particle that "fakes" all of the observations we thought were evidence for QCD. * *That's science.

Your rejection of LCDM in the *hope* that someday another theory will replace it? * That's not science. * That's nonsense. **

Second: boy, this is a change of tune for you. * And a welcome one.

LCDM does predict and describe the data with a few free parameters.

No existing, published EU/PC theory describes the data *no matter how many free parameters they have tried*. **

You *hope*, but have no evidence, that a future EU/PC theory, with an as-yet-unknown number of. free parameters and invented god-knows-what, *might* be able to explain/predict the data. **

Fine with me. *Keep hoping, and stop insulting the scientists who have been working on the actually-successful hypothesis instead of waiting around for your daydream. **

 

[ben m]

Ari's theory, minus the mistakes, predicts *no redshift at all* for light passing through a diffuse plasma.

You want a combination of Ari's theory, plus some movement, that gives you the observed redshift? FIne. Start with LCDM. Then add nothing at all, which is what Ari would have predicted if he'd done the plasma physics right. That works just fine.

 

[Michael Mozina]

First:

Welcome to science. *You can never prove a theory is true; the best you can ever do is say that (a) the theory is predictive and (b) you haven't found an alternative.

First you'd have to convince me that your theory is actually "predictive" in the first place. I watched you stuff the standard BB theory full of dark energy just a couple of decades ago because it DID NOT correctly predict "acceleration". Secondly, I don't have to have an alternative to reject your theory.

* Sure, someday we might find a tired-light theory that just so happens to predict exactly the same observables as LCDM.

I've already shown you one that predicts many of those same observables ben.

* Likewise, we might find an aether theory that magically looks like GR, a hidden-variables theory that amazingly lines up to look just like QM, and a totally non-quark-like fundamental particle that "fakes" all of the observations we thought were evidence for QCD. * *That's science.

It (fortunately) also happens to be irrelevant to this particular thread.

Your rejection of LCDM in the *hope* that someday another theory will replace it? * That's not science. * That's nonsense. **

It's your hope too ben! You don't know what "dark energy" is. You can't tell me where it comes from. You can't answer any questions related to it's origin or why it "grows" in strength over time and volume changes. You've essentially offered NOTHING of substantive value in terms of a "real" scientific explanation.

In fact Guth's "negative pressure vacuum" is a physically impossible, eternally magic vacuum with properties that are UNLIKE anything that exists in nature ben. You've got mythical needs in that vacuum energy ben. Care to address these issues in real experiments? When asked to produce a vacuum with a "negative pressure", your side hands me a SECOND OBJECT and claims that it's a "negative pressure vacuum"! Holy cow.

I love how just blithely ignore the major damn breaches in your own theory while complaining about few water leaks in alternative theories.

Second: boy, this is a change of tune for you. * And a welcome one.

LCDM does predict and describe the data with a few free parameters.

"PREDICT" MY *SS. You POSTDICTED a fit using "dark energy" *AFTER* you *DISCOVERED* (didn't predict) that the universe was evidently accelerating, not slowing down as was *PREDICTED* in earlier BB theories! This whole claim about PREDICTIVE power is pure BS IMO, in fact it's called "false advertizing" in the public sector.

No existing, published EU/PC theory describes the data *no matter how many free parameters they have tried*. **

Maybe not to your personal liking it hasn't. It's already "close enough" from my perspective to abandon creation mythology, and phophetic forms of cosmology forever.

You *hope*, but have no evidence, that a future EU/PC theory, with an as-yet-unknown number of. free parameters and invented god-knows-what, *might* be able to explain/predict the data. **

In the sense that do indeed "have faith" that there is an actual empirical solution to the redshift phenomenon, you're right. I don't need to know EXACTLY what it is, I just have to have some good ideas on how to go about it. I think Ari and Alfven and Peratt have already provided that and much more. They've come up with all sorts of creative ways to address the problem, none of which rely upon "invisible" stuff.

Fine with me. *Keep hoping, and stop insulting the scientists who have been working on the actually-successful hypothesis instead of waiting around for your daydream. **

I think you're "daydreaming" if you think you've "solved" anything, or been "successful" based on math with invisible friends. You've got a nice mythical dark religion going ben, but it's devoid of any actual empirical support as surely as any religion. In fact it's BY DESIGN doomed to be FOREVER devoid of actual empirical support because we can never get to anywhere we might actually empirically measure or control dark energy.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Ari's theory, minus the mistakes, predicts *no redshift at all* for light passing through a diffuse plasma.

Ya, and that's probably it's "big flaw" in the final analysis. It probably takes nothing more than distance and light plasma to cause the bulk of the redshift. I also personally think that Ari missed the boat in terms of gravitational redshift.

You want a combination of Ari's theory, plus some movement, that gives you the observed redshift? FIne. Start with LCDM. Then add nothing at all, which is what Ari would have predicted if he'd done the plasma physics right. That works just fine.

Until we can both adequately explain the CAUSE of any lambda and agree that it's not expanding "faster than light", I doubt you'd be satisfied with anything I might agree to.

It think the basic problem ben is that tired light alternative will always be a viable alternative to a movement oriented approach to explaining the redshift phenomenon and you sure cannot show me "space expansion" in the lab. Without it you're either stuck with admitting it's a kinematic effect of time dilatation, not "space expansion", or it's an effect of photons losing their energy over distance (tired light), or both.

 

[ben m]

That claim (even one precision observable) isn't consistent with ANY of Ari's papers ben. Even if you wish to rule out some of his ideas, you could never, ever, ever hope to rule out EVERY POSSIBLE tired light theory under the sun.

I didn't ask for "every tired light theory under the Sun". I asked for one non-LCDM theory that agrees with the data I specified.

Your answer was Ari's theory. Now you're backing off?

FYI, you didn't find a "solution" either. The fact your invisible friends help you "fit" a few observables is actually rather irrelevant. Of course they do. They couldn't do otherwise, or you would have "tweaked" them already.

I repeat my question:

So answer the question: under the hypothesis (which may be true or approximately true or false) that a hypothetical Universe were to contain 73% "vacuum energy", and 22% dark matter, and 5% baryons, all of which are hypothesized to obey the GR equations, calculate the CMB/CMBpol/SNe/LyA/etc. observables.

(This is called a "hypothesis". Get used to it.)

True or false? Do calculations of the CMB/CMBpol/LSS/etc. in the hypothetical Universe look like, or look different than, the data in the real one? I await your answer.

I have one hypothesis which really, honestly, as verified a thousand times over, agrees with the data.

You have zero hypotheses which agree with the data.

Even Alfven had a primitive "bang" theory. Ari's tired light theory doesn't even require any sort of moment whatsoever.

Ari's light theory, done correctly (minus the mistake) predicts no redshift at all. The data shows large redshifts. Ari's tired light "doesn't require any movement" to explain a universe with no redshift. It doesn't explain our universe at all.

 

[GeeMack]

It think the basic problem ben is that tired light alternative will always be a viable alternative to a movement oriented approach to explaining the redshift phenomenon and you sure cannot show me "space expansion" in the lab. Without it you're either stuck with admitting it's a kinematic effect of time dilatation, not "space expansion", or it's an effect of photons losing their energy over distance (tired light), or both.

That nonsense has been tried and failed so many times it can't be an accident. It's willful ignorance for sure. And dishonesty. But really, if anyone is stupid enough to think it's a valid argument, make a star in a lab, or a galaxy, or a planet, or an 8.5 earthquake, or an EF5 tornado. See how stupid?

​

 

[ben m]

double post

 

[Tim Thompson]

Plasma Redshift Cosmology Fails III

In fact pretty much every relatively "homogenous layout of matter" cosmology theory would predict the exact same effect. You have no evidence whatsoever that any of it is related to a "surface of last scattering". In fact we can see from the original images that suns are the primary emitters of this specific wavelength of light and almost any theory of cosmology predicts 'scattering happens" Tim.

To begin with, photons scattering off of a plasma can produce a thermal spectral energy distribution (SED) for the photons only if the plasma is extremely dense (e.g., a stellar interior, where the particle densities are on the order of 10²⁵ particles per cubic centimeter; that's about 100 gm/cm³ mass density, typical for the sun), which makes the photon mean free path very short and the collision frequency between photons & particles very high. However, in the average interstellar medium, while you might get 10⁵/cm³ in a dense (and primarily neutral) molecular cloud, the far more common and far more sparse interstellar plasma will sport something like 10^-4/cm³, and the even more sparse intergalactic medium, you might be as dense as 10^-7/cm³. There is simply no way in creation you will ever get a thermal SED from photons scattering in such a sparse plasma. So your hand-wavy arguments about scattering have a lot more to do with wishful thinking than it does physics. Furthermore, to make matters even worse for you, the CMB not only has a thermal SED everywhere on the sky (or so it appears, even allowing for problems in removing the Milky Way foreground), but it has the same temperature everywhere on the sky, within about +/- 0.001 Kelvins. A scattering explanation for those two simultaneous facts will require you to wave your arms around so vigorously that you will fly away.

Plasma as it exists in the interstellar & intergalactic medium that we see today cannot possibly be the causative agent for the nearly isothermal CMB that we see today. However, an extremely dense & nearly isothermal cosmic plasma (as required by all big bang cosmologies), will serve as a causative agent for the CMB that we observe today, through the scattering process. That fact is a consistency between big bang cosmologies & observation, and consistency between observation & hypothesis or theory is the very heart & soul of science.

LCDM satisfies the heart & soul of science by being consistent with observation throughout it's implications. Furthermore, LCDM cosmology does not violate any known law of physics. Those two facts clearly make LCDM cosmology science, not "woo". In fact, there is no other hypothesis presented by anyone, you included, which is as consistent with observations as is standard LCDM cosmology.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that "scattering" is also expected in virtually every single cosmology theory.

As you can see, I am not ignoring scattering at all. I have in fact considered it carefully, and did so decades ago. Scattering, as an explanation for the CMB, is dismissed on the grounds of physics. You, however, are in the habit of consistently ignoring physics whenever it suits your prejudice to do so, and you are doing that right now, by tossing around the word "scattering" without having the foggiest notion of what the physical implications of scattering are.

While I'm sure there is a logical reason for the redshift phenomenon, it certainly has nothing to do with magic energy, dark invisible voodoo energy, or God energy.

So we all agree that you have no explanation to offer.

How do you know that the cosmological redshift is not caused by an expansion of the universe?
How do you know that an acceleration of the expansion of the universe is not caused by a scalar field?

My response is that you don't know at all, you simply believe. Furthermore, your belief is based purely on prejudice, with no basis in science at all. And that is the fatal flaw in everything you say & do on this and other threads. You always retreat to religion, while accusing others of doing just that instead. You always appeal to prejudice, while accusing others of doing just that instead. You always fail because you always ignore physics when it does not suit your own personal prejudice.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Expanding Laboratories

... and you sure cannot show me "space expansion" in the lab.

This point is irrelevant. That fact that you keep demanding a laboratory demonstration is a fatal flaw to your arguments because it is anti-empirical and anti-scientific.

 

[tusenfem]

Ya, and that's probably it's "big flaw" in the final analysis. It probably takes nothing more than distance and light plasma to cause the bulk of the redshift. I also personally think that Ari missed the boat in terms of gravitational redshift.

What the frak is light plasma?

 

[tusenfem]

Plasma as it exists in the interstellar & intergalactic medium that we see today cannot possibly be the causative agent for the nearly isothermal CMB that we see today. However, an extremely dense & nearly isothermal cosmic plasma (as required by all big bang cosmologies), will serve as a causative agent for the CMB that we observe today, through the scattering process. That fact is a consistency between big bang cosmologies & observation, and consistency between observation & hypothesis or theory is the very heart & soul of science.

Ofcourse the problem here is that MM does not believe in optically thick plasmas in LTE generating a BB spectrum (like in the Sun).

 

[tusenfem]

... and you sure cannot show me "space expansion" in the lab.

MM, when are you finally going to show your CNO cycle in the laboratory? Why on Earth did you write a paper on that when you have no empirical laboratory proven evidence for any of that stuff? Was it a slip of the mind or supervisor pressure from Oliver Manuel?

 

[Reality Check]

Ari's theory fails to match yet another observation of the real universe

It's now "insane" to accuse folks of "doing their job" as they see it? What's with you guys anyway?

That is not what you said.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina
You either didn't read his work about supernova light curves or your simply ignored it. There is no "blackbody spectrum" in the CMB as we can observe in RAW (unprocessed) images. There's only a 'blackbody spectrum" after you PROCESS the image to get it to look like a blackbody spectrum! Holy cow!

(emphasis added)
As stated that is an insult that implies that the blackbody spectrum was faked. That is insane without evidence.

If you mean that after scientists subtracted the foreground microwaves (along with various other processing) that the background microwaves have a blackbody spectrum then that is what happened !
That is what the science states: The CMB has the most perfect blackbody spectrum ever detected.

Yes, and they remove every other star and galaxy and every other "point source" that doesn't fit the "black body" concept. Yes, we know. We are then left with "background radiation" that is a direct result of scattering in plasmas. So what?

Your ignorance remains: They removed foreground sources of microwaves regardless of their spectrum.
That left the background sources of microwaves which happens to rule out any cause that involves tired light because it is not matched by any tired light theory (see below)

It seems as though your basic argument against Ari's work (along with Tim's basic argument as well) is that BECAUSE IT'S A NEW TYPE OF SCATTERING effect that he is proposing....

No: the NEW TYPE OF SCATTERING effect he is proposing is just one reason that his 'plasma redshift' is ruled out:

1. No tweaking allows tired light theories to not blur distant objects .
2. No tweaking allows tired light theories to predict the observed time dilation of high redshift supernova light curves.
3. Extreme tweaking can produce a blackbody spectrum but this leads to a real problem: Errors in Tired Light Cosmology
   

   The FIRAS data limit this prefactor to 1.00001+/-0.00005, which requires that the CMB come from redshifts less than 0.00005, or distances less than 0.25 Mpc. This is less than the distance to the Andromeda Galaxy M31, and we know the Universe is transparent well beyond this distance. In fact, since millimeter wave emission is observed to come from galaxies at redshifts of 4.7 or higher, the tired light model fails this test by 100,000 standard deviations.

   (emphasis added)
   
4. The tired light model fails the Tolman surface brightness test.
5. Tired light theories siuch as plasma redshift fail completely to produce the the power spectrum of the cosmic microwave background radiation temperature anisotropy.

Expanding on point 3: The FIRAS data shows that the CMB is an almost perfect blackbody spectrum. In fact to get any error bars you have to plot the 400 sigma limits, otherwise the errors are hidden by the theoretical fit.

So how far through Ari's plasma do microwaves that have a perfect blackbody spectrum have to travel before they no longer fit the FIRAS data?
​

The answer is less than 0.25 Mpc, i.e. less than the distance to the Andromeda Galaxy. But we know that the CMB has fluctuations that have a correlation with the large scale structure of the universe. That means that the CMB radiation has traveled through large z's (billions of light years). Thus Ari's theory fails to match yet another observation of the real universe.

 

[Reality Check]

Ya, and that's probably it's "big flaw" in the final analysis.

No: the big flaws in the plasma redshift theory are

1. The mathematical mistake in his paper that means that his redshift does not exist.
2. The physics mistake in his paper where he assumes that his effect will only cause redshift thus violkating the second law of thermodynamics.
3. The fundemental flaw that all tired light theorys are wrong (Ari's theory fails to match yet another observation of the real universe!):
   1. Blurs distant objects.
   2. Fails to predict the observed time dilation of high redshift supernova light curves.
   3. Can produce a blackbody spectrum only if emitted locally but local space is transparent to microwaves (in fact galaxies can be detected emitting microwaves out to z=4.7 - definitely not local!).
   4. Fails the Tolman surface brightness test.
   5. Can produce a blackbody spectrum only if emitted locally but the CMB shows effects from large scale structures in the universe.

It probably takes nothing more than distance and light plasma to cause the bulk of the redshift.

You are still wrong (se above).

I also personally think that Ari missed the boat in terms of gravitational redshift.

This speculation has problems.
Firstly it puts the Earth at the center of the universe.
Next it requires that the universe get more dense with distance from the Earth. This is not observed.

Until we can both adequately explain the CAUSE of any lambda and agree that it's not expanding "faster than light", I doubt you'd be satisfied with anything I might agree to.

We have adequte explantions for lambda. The problem is that you refuse to try to understand them.
The universe can be expanding faster than light so we will never agree on that because that is not what teh phycis says.

It think the basic problem ben is that tired light alternative will always be a viable alternative to a movement oriented approach to explaining the redshift phenomenon...

The basic problem clearly is that you are obsessing on tired light alternatives in spite of the evidence that they do not match the real universe.
The reason seems to be that you have a personal belief that the Lambda-CDM model is wrong. This is based on your ignorance of the model and science, e.g. your delusion that everything has to be replicated in a lab.
This delusion leads to the stupid conclusion that stars do not exist !

 

[ben m]

A few more comments about "foregrounds". If you point a telescope anywhere on the sky away from the plane of the Galaxy, and DO NOT subtract any foregrounds, the spectrum simply is a blackbody spectrum to a precision of a few parts in 10,000. End of story. The famous FIRAS plot you see from COBE (http://xkcd.com/54/) is data straight from the sky, with nothing whatsoever subtracted.

Different spots on clear parts of the sky (i.e. away from the Milky Way disk) have different blackbody spectra spanning about 1 part in 10000. (2.7 +/- 0.0005 K). COBE saw this with no background subtraction whatsoever.

Why do we do background subtraction? Because we're trying to measure the CMB spatial distribution (not the blackbody-ness) *very precisely*. Something like the Crab pulsar is obviously not the CMB, but it still puts radio waves into your telescope. If you know what the Crab looks like on its own (and we do) you can either skip that part of the sky ("masking") or subtract its (small) contribution in order to see the position-distribution of the CMB in the direction of the Crab.

Finally, isn't it interesting that the Milky Way disk itself is not a blackbody? It's all sorts of messy synchrotron radiation---which is what you expected from a hot plasma with magnetic fields. With all the EU/PC talk about "thin hot plasmas" emitting blackbody radiation, here's a modern thin hot plasma and it ain't emitting no blackbody radiation.

To recap:

a) The CMB is quite obviously a blackbody; no subtraction is required. LCDM (and big bang theories generally) predicted this. EU/PC, according to you, hasn't even accepted that it's true, much less predicted or explained this.

b) The CMB is quite obviously uniform at 1/10000 over the vast majority of the sky. No subtraction is required. LCDM (and big bang theories generally) predicted this. EU/PC, according to you, hasn't even accepted that it's true.

c) The CMB's small temperature variations (at less than 1/10000) are visible everywhere (with no subtraction) everywhere other than the narrow strip of the Milky Way. LCDM (and big bang theories generally) predicted this in general; the details of the variations favor LCDM 73/23/5) in particular over OTHER big bang theories. EU/PC has nothing whatsoever at this level of detail.

d) The only thing that is "subtracted" in CMB studies are *identifiable* local synchrotron sources---the Crab Pulsar, specific synchrotron-emitting structures in the Milky Way bulge, etc. This allows you (reliably, reproducibly) to push the spatial-distribution measurements down to 1 part in 10^6 or better.) (I.e., maybe there's a spot on the sky where COBE reported a temperature of 2.70 K. WMAP looks at that spot and sees 2.7001K, but knows (from other radio bands) that there's a synchrotron cloud right there which is expected to contribute 0.00005K. So they subtract the synchrotron tail and report that the CMB temperature is 2.70005.) As usual, EU/PC doesn't know or care about the FIRST digit of that number ... but they complain out of ignorance about how we obtained the SIXTH digit? Give me a break.