We had COBE, we almost had MAP, And we had WMAP. And Big Bang was confirmed.☻

The measures were made in radio waves.
 

The Digital Processing have for the main part consisted of:

Frequencies
in GHz

1. Integrating thousands of measures made in every pixel of the map and for all the used frequencies.

2. Eliminating the light coming from the Galaxy.

3. Eliminating the dipole generated by the movement of the satellite with regard to the CMB.

Some people assert that the quality obtained in thr CMB chart is as good as were the expectations.
Everything is there. The cosmological constants were measured with a remarkable precision, and the fluctuations in the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) indeed there, with a precision of 10^-5.

And everything would be fine in the best of all possible expanding worlds, if only this map had not reminded me of a digitally processed image of our galaxy, the Milky Way.

Source of the image: 2Mass

 
An attentive exam, of the image obtained by WMAP and the DP image of the Milky Way, shows some very similar big structures. Let us note that these two maps were not realized with the same system of projections, and that the image of the Galaxy does not cover the whole sky.

 
Discussion

1. These similarities are purely fortuitous.

Before excluding this hypothesis, it is advisable to examine the other possibilities.

2. The used radioelectric system  that was used could have some technical imperfections, for example :

1. The directional antennaes, containing a pair of elements directed at 180° with respect to each other, could be asymmetric. Or also, they could have secondary lobes allowing them to receive frequencies  from unknown sources. This is readily possible, as the required technical quality for measuring 10^-5  fluctuations is very difficult to realize. (I have some practical experience in this domain).

2. Amplifiers, filters, and heterodynes detectors would be sensitive to the infrared frequencies used by the 2MASS. This is in fact improbable, as respective wavebands are too different. And their physical properties are too different.

3. The digital Processing of the  WMAP data could be defective.

It seems quite unlikely; the used methods are very well known and very sure. The statistical methods were applied to thousands of measures realized on every pixel of the map. (Monte Carlo Method). We could naturally apply other algorithms, but there is a strong chance that it would change nothing in the final result.

4. Residual radiation stemming from the Galaxy would not have been eliminated correctly in the calculations.

Although the disruptive radiation stemming from the Milky Way is perfectly well known; they had already been measured during the COBE experiment, and the results had been used in the calculations of WMAP).
But we should not exclude completely this hypothesis. In fact certain radiation sources are far from stable. And weak variations of luminosity of some of the objects in the Galaxy could have occurred over time, thus perturbing the results of the calculations. These sources would just need to have variations of luminosity in the order of 10^-5! which would be almost undetectable by the usual methods of photometry.

5. If we eliminated from the CMB the light of the Galaxy, it is necessary, in any logic, to eliminate also the lights stemming from all the galaxies of the universe which make their rates in the effects parasites too.

It was not manifestly made. It is the most total silence on this subject which is nevertheless fundamental. We find, on this subject, no publication. This silence would explain for two reasons: there is no means to sort out and to eliminate these lights. To make this confession would be admit that all the works concerning the CMB are archi-false!

6. The presence in our galaxy of more or less homogeneous matter, (gas or dusts) would absorb slightly the  the CMB radiation.

The presence of this interstellar matter is a perfectly well-known fact. But then, one needs to demonstrate that it is this matter which is relevant to the observed fluctuations.

7. The existence of some as yet unidentified radiation, whose spectrum is very similar to that of the CMB which would disrupt the measurement of the CMB.

This possibility had not been foreseen in March, 2003, because it seemed very unlikely. But some observations, were made in April, 2003, with the ISO (Infrared Space Observatory) Satellite, and published in April 11, 2003 in Science «The cosmic infrared background: a fossil record of galaxy encounters » - D Elbaz and C.Cesarsky.
A summary of this article is available on the site of CEA-DAPNIA, under the title: "La mémoire fossile des rencontres de galaxies". There is a diagram in the article   the comparing the radiant curves of COBE and ISO.

It shows the curve of ISO approaching that of COBE, at the maximum of the curves. Thus, both radiations can very well interfere with the WMAP measurements.

8. The microwave 'echo' of the big bang may in fact have been modified or 'corrupted' as it passed through galaxy clusters on its way to the Earth.

This corruption would show only on small-sized fluctuations of the CMB. It would confirm that all the galaxies, ours in particular, and in general all galaxies clusters are sources of corruption for the CMB.
Then, MNRAS published on January 13th, 2004 a document which indeed seems to show this phenomenon: arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0306180 - Evidence for an Extended SZ Effect in WMAP Data A.D. Myers, T. Shanks, P.J. Outram, W.J. Frith, A.W. Wolfendale.

The correlations are summarized in the accessible figures below:	fig.1	fig.2	fig.3
For more informations, consult: Royal Astronomical Society Evidence for an Extended SZ Effect in WMAP Data Y. Sunyaev-Zeldovich Effect

9. According to physicists of the CERN, (D. J. Schwarz et al), errors would have been done during the WMAP data analysis.

The text reveals that (We cite): "The large-angle (low-ℓ) correlations of the Cosmic Microwave Background exhibit several statistically significant anomalies compared to the standard inflationary cosmology. We show that the quadrupole plane and the three octopole planes are far more aligned than previously thought (99.9% C.L.). Three of these planes are orthogonal to the ecliptic at 99.1% C.L., and the normals to these planes are aligned at 99.6% C.L. with the direction of the cosmological dipole and with the equinoxes. The remaining octopole plane is orthogonal to the supergalactic plane at 99.6% C.L".

In summary, it means that the CMB is, for the main part, a local phenomenon. Because it is : Correlated with the ecliptic plan, thus to the Solar system. Correlated with the galactic plan, thus to the Galaxy.

10. And finally, the coup de grace:
    An item published under the title "Un reflet trop parfait" in Ciel & Espace N° 427 December 2005, attracts our attention. It relates the observations and the computations, made by Richard Lieu and Jonathan Mittaz - University of Princeton (On the absence of gravitational lensing of the CMB), on the effects that the gravitational lenses, generated by clusters of galaxies, should have on the CMB.
    Their results are clear. Thus, on perfectly known gravitational lens (Abell 2218 among others) we should observe effects on the CMB on the order of 10%. In fact we find less than 3%. (Perhaps zero?)

Abell 2218 (Source HST)
Expected » 10 %)		Achieved < 3%)

The mass of Abell 2218 is pretty well known. Therefore it is relatively easy to predict its lensing effects on the CMB. The disagreement with the observations is blatant. We can explain it in variant ways:

1. The calculated mass of this cluster could be incorrect. (excessive quantity of black matter?)

2. The cosmological model should be revised. (General relativity? Big Bang? Black matter? CMB? etc.)

In fact the only reasonable, and simplest solution, would be to admit that The CMB appears, in the foreground of Abell 2218! And therefore that the CMB would not be cosmological at all.

11. And if you still had some doubts:

August 3rd, 2007 Lawrence Rudnick Shea Brown et Liliya R. Williams publishe the discovery of a region of the universe in which there is nothing, neither galaxies, nor even CMB.

The left image is extracted from the the CMB map.
That of the right-hand side corresponds to the same region investigated with the NVSS.
The explanation of the phenomenon, which is proposed to us by Lawrence Rudnick et al and resumed by "Astronomy Picture of the Day" ( NASA), would consist of the fact that this CMB region was not actually very cold nor little dense but light from the spot somehow became more cosmologically redshifted than normal along the way by a gravitationnal lens phenomenon (Sachs-Wolfe Effect).
To accept this explanation, the distribution of radio sources should not correspond to a lack of matter (NVSS) and also it would be necessary to observe a very marked gravitational lens effect, what manifestly is not the case.
Anyway it is to admit implicitly that it can exist abnormal redshifts such those which were put in evidence by W.M. Napier. From the point of view of the supporters of the Big Bang theory it is not acceptable because then it would be necessary to admit a Raman Effect in a rarefied gas (Creil Effect) that would validate Jacques Moret-Bailly's theory.

Why this phenomenon of abnormal redshift takes place here and not beside nor why it would be rightful to generalize it to all the fluctuations in the CMB?

The only possible explanation is clearly that the CMB is intrinsically connected to the presence of galaxies that is perfectly compatible with the Creil Effect.
Conclusion: There also we see that the CMB has nothing cosmological  but is a local phenomenon
But then, how explain the anisotropy, proved by COBE, revealing the 600 Km/s movement of the solar system with regard to the CMB?

The movements of the galaxies in the universe are aleatory. The Global CMB thus seems still to us. As a consequence if our galaxy has a self movement, then necessarily an anisotropie due to the Doppler effect is revealed. Let us note that our galaxy Specific CMB is not enough dense to mask the Global CMB.

More informations

Astronomers Find Enormous Hole in the Universe. CMBR Dipole: Speeding Through the Universe.

The standard theory says that:

1. The 2,7 K CMB is a black body radiation.

2. It is the residue of the light emitted after the Big Bang, when the material has become transparent to light.
   At that time the temperature of the matter was approximately 3000 K.
   One can compare this plasma with the photosphere of a red star of the same temperature, except that we compare only the MHD activities of the plasmas, and nothing else.

3. What we see today of the CMB is a "photography", perceived after 13 billion years, of this particular moment.

4. The observed fluctuations are at the cause of the matter becoming lumpy and forming galaxies, stars.

5. he Cosmological Constants calculated from the measures made with WMAP corresponds to the theory.

What the standard theory does not say, or says very discreetly.

• The amplitudes (1.10^-5) of these fluctuations are too weak by two orders of magnitude to be able to explain the formation of lumps. So, here also, one hypothesizes a mythical black matter, which no one has still found any slightest sample.

• The calculated Constants are rendered exact only by adjusting the parameters with respect to each other. And finally, there is always one which never succeeds in succeeds in being calculated correctly.

Questions

and

Hypotheses

• What was the density of the matter when the universe became transparent? The answer is simple, it was of order of 4 g/cm³. (Condition of transparency). Let us note that this value depends on physicists! (100 g/dm³, 10^-12 g/cm³, etc.)

• To simplify, it was a globally spherical universe, thus an expanding bubble of high density gas. In fact its density could not be homogeneous. There had to be a density gradient. The transparency thus probably propagated from the surface towards the nucleus of the bubble, and it took a lot of time. This means that all the values of density were true somewhere and at  some time !

• What was the radius of the universe at this moment? There is no obvious answer. We do not know the mass of the universe. We must therefore consider two hypotheses.

1. Either the universe was still small enough that all the elements of system can be considered as connected together (Homogeneity and isotropie).

2. Or this condition was not met

• In the first case we can legitimately consider that it behaved as a resonating chamber. We should then find periodic and stationary fluctuations in density as in a drum.

• In the second case, there cannot be periodic or standing waves. We would have at best random or chaotic fluctuations.

• What do we observe in fact? Do the WMAP images show periodic fluctuations? No!

• Are they random or even chaotic? Yes!

• Thus the elements of the universe were already disconnected and the speed of propagation of the density waves was too small to allow the formation of well characterized global standing waves.

• What are these chaotic waves physically? They are waves of pressure in an ionized and massive gas. (Acoustic waves).

• Consequently: One must necessarely associate waves of refractive index gradient to these density waves.

• Miracle! We have such a physical model in the sky : the Crab Nebula. But as this model corresponds to a small bubble, we therefore find standing waves, and waves of refractive index gradient propagating in the nebula.

• These refractive index gradient have therefore induced very important refractory effects. And these are effects that the CMB would keep in memory.

• Such refractory effects had to produce optical lens phenomena of great amplitudes. The CMB variations were "optically" magnified. Thus it is necessary to reduce their magnification in order to take into account a considerable swelling factor as yet undetermined.  (10⁸ as in the heart of the Crab nebula?)

Vibrations of the Cosmic Drumhead.
(According to J. P. Luminet)

The Trilogy of the Crab

1. The Snag of the Crab
2. Effect of Refringence in the Crab
3. A Wandering Snag in the Crab

(Source HST).

Magnifying power # 10⁸ of times ?

Source: University of Chicago - News Office

• If there were refractory effects, then the CMB light would be necessarily polarized according to the observed fluctuations. This is what the observations would show (University of Chicago)

(Source : NASA-WMAP)    New

In large-scale, the Polarisation of the CMB seems centred on our galaxy. It draws clearly the lines of force of a magnetic field, the one of the Milky Way.
Whatever say about it some people, this polarization does not need black matter to find an explanation.
Thus the CMB is a phenomenon associated to the milky way, and more generally to all galaxies. It is a purely local phenomenon.

1. Bibliography of WMAP Science Team Publications.

2. Foreground Polarization.

3. Polarization Analysis.

Conclusions :

1. There is no causality relation between the fluctuations in the CMB and the formation of the galaxies, neither in the standard model, nor moreover in any other model.

2. To call upon a hypothetical black matter does not justify itself.

3. New models of the formation of galaxies must be imagined.

4. The CMB has nothing of a primordial light.

Documents to be consulted

• A finite dodecahedral Universe. (Jean-Pierre Luminet)

• Vibrations of the Cosmic Drumhead. (Jean-Pierre Luminet).

• Giant galaxies of 1000 billion sun masses a billion years after Big Bang (z > 4) !

• Sphere_a_gradient_indice.pdfa(French)

5. In the Crab Trilogy:

1. The Snag of the Crab

2. Effect of Refringence in the Crab

3. A Wandering Snag in the Crab

6. Observational Cosmology: caveats and open questions in the standard model (Martín López-Corredoira - 06/01/2006)

7. Is the low-ℓ microwave background cosmic??

8. On the absence of gravitational lensing of the CMB

9. New Nine Year Results on the Oldest Light in the Universe

10. Beam profile sensitivity of the WMAP CMB power spectrum (U. Sawangwit & T. Shanks - Durham University, UK)

11.  New  A Cold Cosmic Mystery Solved. (Institute for Astronomy. University of Hawaii. Szapudi et al)

12.  New  CMB_&_Laniakea (French). Bernard Lempel - 5 Oct 2018