Lambda-CDM - EU/PC Theory - Confirmation Bias

Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Lambda-CDM - EU/PC Theory - Confirmation Bias

Unread postby querious » Sun Nov 12, 2017 8:52 am

comingfrom wrote:
querious wrote:
comingfrom wrote:
querious wrote:LOL, I'd love to see where the Mathis got C=kg/sec. Another mangling of terms to fit his agenda. Charge is actually
kg.5 * m * s-.5


The SI unit of charge, the coulomb, "is the quantity of electricity carried in 1 second by a current of 1 ampere".


The ampere is that constant current which, if maintained in two straight parallel conductors of infinite length, of negligible circular cross-section, and placed one metre apart in vacuum, would produce between these conductors a force equal to 2×10−7 newtons per metre of length.


One newton is the force needed to accelerate one kilogram of mass at the rate of one metre per second squared in direction of the applied force.


Quotes taken from Wikipedia.
Thank you, Querious.

You're missing the full Ampere defining equation, it's spelled out here....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_permeability#The_ampere_defines_vacuum_permeability

Looking at the above equation, the question becomes, how do we assign the magnetic constant and Coulomb their proper mechanical units? By studying the relationships listed in this section....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impedance_of_free_space#Relation_to_other_constants

. . hopefully you'll see that vacuum permittivity and permeability both have dimension 1/c.

A little dimensional analysis reveals Coulomb = kg.5 * m * s -.5
Thank you, Querious.
They have assigned no mass to their field particles, and they have assigned properties to the vacuum instead.
Is what I see.
And what you show me again.


Huh? I just showed you that any mass dimension is assigned to the charge(^2) (Coulomb) of the particle, and NOT to the vacuum properties.
querious
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

Re: Lambda-CDM - EU/PC Theory - Confirmation Bias

Unread postby Tom In Space » Sun Nov 12, 2017 9:32 am

Except they have little to none confirmation.. so it's just ideological bias really ;)
The Armchair Spaceman™️
User avatar
Tom In Space
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2017 8:59 am
Location: Scotland

Re: Lambda-CDM - EU/PC Theory - Confirmation Bias

Unread postby querious » Mon Nov 13, 2017 4:04 pm

querious wrote:
comingfrom wrote:
querious wrote:
comingfrom wrote:
querious wrote:LOL, I'd love to see where the Mathis got C=kg/sec. Another mangling of terms to fit his agenda. Charge is actually
kg.5 * m * s-.5


The SI unit of charge, the coulomb, "is the quantity of electricity carried in 1 second by a current of 1 ampere".


The ampere is that constant current which, if maintained in two straight parallel conductors of infinite length, of negligible circular cross-section, and placed one metre apart in vacuum, would produce between these conductors a force equal to 2×10−7 newtons per metre of length.


One newton is the force needed to accelerate one kilogram of mass at the rate of one metre per second squared in direction of the applied force.


Quotes taken from Wikipedia.
Thank you, Querious.

You're missing the full Ampere defining equation, it's spelled out here....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_permeability#The_ampere_defines_vacuum_permeability

Looking at the above equation, the question becomes, how do we assign the magnetic constant and Coulomb their proper mechanical units? By studying the relationships listed in this section....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impedance_of_free_space#Relation_to_other_constants

. . hopefully you'll see that vacuum permittivity and permeability both have dimension 1/c.

A little dimensional analysis reveals Coulomb = kg.5 * m * s -.5
Thank you, Querious.
They have assigned no mass to their field particles, and they have assigned properties to the vacuum instead.
Is what I see.
And what you show me again.


Huh? I just showed you that any mass dimension is assigned to the charge(^2) (Coulomb) of the particle, and NOT to the vacuum properties.


Comingfrom,
I jumped the gun on my response. You were right, they have assigned no mass dimension to the FIELD particles. I don't think there's a way to assign mechanical units to any single electrical unit.
querious
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

Re: Lambda-CDM - EU/PC Theory - Confirmation Bias

Unread postby seasmith » Mon Nov 13, 2017 5:37 pm

Querious wrote:
Comingfrom,
I jumped the gun on my response. You were right, they have assigned no mass dimension to the FIELD particles. I don't think there's a way to assign mechanical units to any single electrical unit.



Querious, you are getting the drift now. All the SI units eventually come down to a "charge" basis, and some as you've just illustrated, are themselves circular definitions. Now you probably also see why 'charge' is where Mathis begins his reasonings as well.
The remaining questions are to the essential nature of charge: is it fractal in expression, is it holographic in its persistence, is its quantification infinite, or is it also circular in its definition
and etc.
seasmith
 
Posts: 2730
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: Lambda-CDM - EU/PC Theory - Confirmation Bias

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Tue Nov 14, 2017 10:46 am

Tom In Space wrote:Except they have little to none confirmation.. so it's just ideological bias really ;)


True. :)
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1434
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

It's been a tough month for dark matter snipe hunts

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Thu Nov 16, 2017 2:10 am

https://phys.org/news/2017-11-dark-narrowed.html

These results are a thousand times more sensitive than previous ones and they are based on laboratory measurements rather than astronomical observations. This does not fundamentally rule out the existence of axions, but the scope of characteristics that these particles could have is now distinctly limited.

"The results essentially send physicists back to the drawing board in our hunt for dark matter."


It's been a rough month for the various dark matter snipe hunts. That's three major fails in less than 30 days. PandaX-II, Xenon-1T and now the nEDM Collaboration all came up empty.

But on the bright side, this experiment is supposedly 1000 times more sensitive than any astronomical "test" to date, so they're getting better and better at finding absolutely nothing. :)
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1434
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: It's been a tough month for dark matter snipe hunts

Unread postby Vortex_Model » Wed Nov 22, 2017 10:00 pm

Michael Mozina wrote:https://phys.org/news/2017-11-dark-narrowed.html

It's been a rough month for the various dark matter snipe hunts. That's three major fails in less than 30 days. PandaX-II, Xenon-1T and now the nEDM Collaboration all came up empty.

But on the bright side, this experiment is supposedly 1000 times more sensitive than any astronomical "test" to date, so they're getting better and better at finding absolutely nothing. :)


Funniest comment I've read in a long time.

Thanks!
Vortex_Model
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 10:30 am

Re: Lambda-CDM - EU/PC Theory - Confirmation Bias

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Sun Nov 26, 2017 7:20 pm

Found some jokes related to the dark matter problem:


Image
link


Image
link
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 843
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

They also underestimated the number of 'obese" stars.

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Sat Jan 06, 2018 12:40 am

http://www.astronomy.com/news/2018/01/m ... are-common
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases ... 010318.php

Co-author Hugues Sana from the University of Leuven in Belgium said: 'We have not only been surprised by the sheer number of massive stars, but also that their IMF is densely sampled up to 200 solar masses.' Until recently, the existence of stars up to 200 solar masses was highly disputed, and the study shows that a maximum birth mass of stars of 200-300 solar masses appears likely.


We must add another baryonic mass estimation problem to the growing heap of problems in the mainstream galaxy mass estimation techniques. On top of all their previous mass estimation technique problems, they've also been underestimating the number of 'obese' stars in various galaxies. After the revelations of the past decade, it's highly doubtful that any aspect of the mainstream's baryonic mass estimation techniques have ever been even remotely close to accurate.

In order for 'dark" matter to be required, we have to 'assume' that the baryonic mass estimates which were used in that 2006 bullet cluster study were accurate.

We now know that virtually every 'assumption' that they made in their baryonic mass estimation techniques that were used in 2006 was *wrong*, massively and horribly wrong.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1434
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Lambda-CDM - EU/PC Theory - Confirmation Bias

Unread postby AltClut » Sat Jan 06, 2018 2:22 am

saw this in New Scientist earlier
Image
AltClut
 
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2016 8:32 am

Re: Lambda-CDM - EU/PC Theory - Confirmation Bias

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Sat Jan 06, 2018 1:28 pm

AltClut wrote:saw this in New Scientist earlier
Image


Sounds about right..... :)

Ten years ago the mainstream was claiming they had "proof" of dark matter in that now infamous Bullet Cluster study, when in fact all they had 'proof' of is the fact that their galaxy baryonic mass estimation techniques were atrocious, full of massive problems, and virtually useless. *Lots* of later studies have confirmed the existence of *numerous* massive problems with their baryonic mass estimation techniques, including that last study of 'obese" stars which their primitive models did not account for in 2006.

Over the past decades, We've also spent tens of billions of dollars in the lab looking for any signs of exotic matter. Every exotic matter prediction was a total bust in the lab, but the predictions of the standard model were confirmed over and over and over again with incredible precision.

The exotic matter component of LCDM is the only one of the four metaphysical claims that really *could* be tested in a lab, and it's been a total disaster for the mainstream. Meanwhile the astrological, er, I mean astronomical evidence has been destroyed by evidence of massive and numerous problems with their baryonic mass estimates. LCDM is not falsifiable and it's not even a valid form of science. Someone tell it's proponents to get a clue already!

I have never seen a more blatant example of confirmation (actually ideological) bias. Any and all evidence which refutes their dark matter claims are simply swept under the run, instantly ignored, and their metaphysical dogma continues unabated. Nothing can falsify a pure "act of faith' in the unseen, in the lab. The LCMD model is a pure act of faith on the part of the believer, it's not a form of falsifiable science.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1434
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Lambda-CDM - EU/PC Theory - Confirmation Bias

Unread postby Lloyd » Sat Jan 06, 2018 10:42 pm

Michael, I left a message for you recently. Maybe you'll notice here, although this is a different message. David Noel has a model similar to yours, so if you aren't already familiar with his, here's a page from his site: http://www.aoi.com.au/Extracts/XT807.htm and his site is at http://www.aoi.com.au . I'll tell him about yours too.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4243
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Nope, no invisible axion snipes in the nucleus of galaxy M87

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Mon Jan 22, 2018 1:04 pm

https://phys.org/news/2018-01-bound-axions.html

The search did not find the signature of axions. It does, however, set an important new limit on the strength of the coupling between axions and photons, and is able to rule out a substantial fraction of the possible future experiments that might be undertaken to detect axions.


There's never been a logical way to falsify DM. It's the ultimate argument of the gaps claim, with ever shrinking gaps. There's also never been a bigger failure in the history of physics.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1434
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Lambda-CDM - EU/PC Theory - Confirmation Bias

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Sat Feb 03, 2018 10:24 am

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/new ... tter-model

In their study, Müller and his team argue that if coplanar alignments of dwarf galaxies are widespread, this would pose a worthy challenge to the LCDM model—which predicts a random distribution of dwarfs. Finding many coplanar arrangements would suggest, in short, our already limited understanding of dark matter is even more incomplete than previously appreciated.


http://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6375/534

They found that the satellites are distributed in a planar arrangement, and the members of the plane are orbiting in a coherent direction. This is inconsistent with more than 99% of comparable galaxies in simulations. Centaurus A, the Milky Way, and Andromeda all have highly statistically unlikely satellite systems. This observational evidence suggests that something is wrong with standard cosmological simulations.


After spending billions of dollars in the lab, not only has exotic matter theory failed every single experimental test, it also fails some important observational tests.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1434
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

The ever shrinking gaps of dark matter research.

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Thu Feb 15, 2018 11:59 am

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/The_s ... e_999.html

The results of the search turned out to be negative: no trace of the existence of axions with masses between 10-24 and 10-17 electronvolts were found (for comparison: the mass of an electron is more than half a million electronvolts). In addition, scientists managed to tighten the constraints imposed by theory on the interaction of axions with nucleons by 40 times. In the case of potential interactions with gluons, the restrictions have increased even more, more than one thousand-fold. So then, if axions do exist, in the current theoretical models they have fewer and fewer places to hide.


Is it just my optimistic imagination, or is this ever shrinking dark matter of the gaps argument falling apart at the seams now?

I've simply lost count of how many WIMP and axion "constraints" have been published over the past decade. It's bad enough that the dark matter hypothesis is an "exotic matter of the gaps" claim, but the gaps seem to shrink significantly every month or two.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1434
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests