...data

There is a significant zero-point offset between and MAXIMA-1. To rectify this, one must choose an arbitrary scaling factor (Hanany et al. 2000maxima). I have therefore refrained from combining the two data sets. It is the shape of the power spectrum, and not its normalization, which is important here. The two data sets are consistent in this respect.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

...peak

In McGaugh (1999mypred) I described the baryonic models as having the second peak completely suppressed, with the third peak appearing to be the second. This is not correct. Such a situation can occur, but only for baryon-to-photon ratios greater than allowed by big bang nucleosynthesis. The second peak discussed there and here is indeed the second (rarefaction) peak. The difference between and purely baryonic models is in the amplitude of this peak.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

...which

A small neutrino mass $m_{\nu} \lesssim 1$ eV is also admissible.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

...effects

Assuming a₀ is constant.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.