hi boud, everyone
On Mon, 18 Apr 2003, boud wrote:
> >
> > > (So far there is no evidence for
> > > deviations from gaussianity).
> >
> > There were several COBE analyses such as Pando, Valls-Gabaud & Fang:
> >
> > http://de.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9810165
> >
> > that showed non-Gaussianity. Since the WMAP map looks similar to COBE
> > on large scales, i guess there should still be the same
non-Gaussianity.
> >
> > Do you know of an article that claims Pando et al were wrong?
>> I didn't read that paper, but I just rely, on the papers released
>> along with WMAP data (eg. astro-ph/0302223 and many references therein
>> among others the one of Pando 98) so maeybe I should write "so far
there
>> is no significant cosmological non-Gaussianity". And WMAP data are
found
>> to be consistent with assumption of Gaussian primordinal fluctuations.
>Don't believe everything you watch/read on/in CNN/BBC/ApJ/MNRAS/A&A/...
>In professional astronomy research articles, people often write sentences
>which sound good, but are vague, misleading and sometimes simply wrong.
>It's not because they want to be wrong, it's just that they don't have
>the time to do the analysis properly and they're under pressure to
publish
>and to conform.
>If you can find a WMAP analysis which shows that Pando et al 9810165 are
>wrong, that would be interesting.
there is a paper http://de.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9908070 where
non-Gaussianity in the COBE data is explained by the so called 'eclipse
effect'.
