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 Michael Mozina » Sat Jan 12, 2019 11:16 am

Cargo wrote:Higs has returned. All shudder in the quake of his non-interacting dark matter.


Ya, non interacting in the lab too. :)

No only do all those astronomical studies show *numerous* flaws in their baryonic mass estimation techniques, their dark matter god has been a complete fail in the lab too. Tens of billions of dollars worth of so called 'tests" at LHC and everywhere else have failed to find even a hint of a problem in the standard particle physics model.

The DM argument has been reduced to a dark matter of the gaps claim and the gaps keep getting smaller by the day.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1663
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 Jan 12, 2019 11:19 am

HIggsy, show us *exactly* how and where the mass estimation techniques based on light which were used in the original 2006 bullet cluster study were updated in that 2016 paper that you cited. Show us exactly how and where in that more recent paper they took into account all the things that we've learned about your numerous mass estimation problems since 2006. Show us exactly how the mass estimation formulas were updated between 2006 and 2016, and show us how they took into account the various different studies that I cited in this thread. You can't and you won't and we both know it.

Next, explain to us why the standard particle physics model has passed tens of billions of dollars worth of tests with flying colors since 2006, at LHC and everywhere else, and explain to us why your dark matter deity has been such a complete and total failure in the lab for the last three decades? Tell us which *specific* non standard particle physics model you now support and why you currently support it.

Face it, you can't answer those questions and you won't answer any of them, at least not seriously. You've got no evidence whatsoever that your mass estimation techniques based on light were *ever* accurate in the first place and you've got no laboratory evidence to support the belief that there's any serious problem with the standard particle physics model. You're stuck on a denial-go-round of epic proportions.

Let's all watch how fast you run from these few simple questions........
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1663
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: It's impossible to prove a negative.

Unread postby BeAChooser » Sat Jan 12, 2019 10:42 pm

Higgsy wrote:Nah, you're just eyeballing random pictures provided by the astronomical community and making up stories.


I didn't make up any stories, Higgsy. You're being dishonest. I showed you images that were clearly helically wound filaments. In fact, many of the images I posted where identified in the mainstream sources from which I got them as being helical in nature. And obviously they were all made of plasma. You didn't even deny that before you ran from the forum last time. Because you'd have had to be blind to do so and that by itself would have made you a laughingstock. So instead you simply disappeared, after claiming that I hadn't proven they were "ubiquitous".

And whether they are ubiquitous (I'll get to that in a moment), can you explain how those structures came to be? And do it without resorting to what are essentially gnomes? How exactly does “shock” or any of the physical phenomena you believe in produce the helically wound filament seen in the upper right of this image, Higgsy?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... Nebula.jpg

It's a simple enough question that you should be able to answer IF you really understand the universe like you claim. If you can't answer this question and instead must resort to lies about what I've presented to you, it is telling.

Here's another example that I asked you about earlier from a presentation whose title page coincidently shows a helically wound set of wires ( http://herschel.esac.esa.int/SFaxz2014/ ... HacarA.pdf ) titled “Understanding the internal substructure of Herschel filaments)":

http://inspirehep.net/record/1273530/fi ... e_fig3.png

That image shows polarization vectors along a plasma filament where stars are forming. There is no question that filament is helically wound because it's clear as day in the optical images ...

http://inspirehep.net/record/1255052/files/fig8.png

... that I also already posted to you ... and in descriptions throughout the presentation. Again, I direct your attention to the bottom filament.  If you don’t see the characteristic spiraling double helix structure of Birkeland filaments, you’re downright blind.  If you don’t see the stars forming along those filaments, you’re downright blind.

Sooooo ... to me, the polarization vectors in the first graphic indicates electric currents are traveling down the filament and producing magnetic fields. How, pray tell, does wind, shock, gravity or turbulence do the same thing, Higgsy? Hmmmmmmmm? It's a quite reasonable question. Surely you can answer this. After all, you're sooooooo knowledgeable about the mainstream's theories and you have all those mainstream astrophysicists in your corner. Surely one of them can whisper the answer to my simple question in your ear. Hmmmmm?

And by the way, you seem to have forgotten that in one of our earlier exchanges, you wrote: "I have already said that I accept the existence of braided filaments, and I will go further and say that I expect that electromagnetic effects in the plasma contribute to the braiding, but you are yet to demonstrate that such braiding is ubiquitous or near-ubiquitous at all scales." So it seems to me that you have already admitted that the images I've presented show helically wound filaments and that electric currents play a role in their creation. The only issue is whether they are ubiquitous at all scales. And you seem to have forgotten some of the material I posted about that. For example ...

http://phys.org/news/2015-05-herschel-f ... milky.html
 
Herschel's hunt for filaments in the Milky Way
 
Observations with ESA's Herschel space observatory have revealed that our Galaxy is threaded with filamentary structures on every length scale. From nearby clouds hosting tangles of filaments a few light-years long to gigantic structures stretching hundreds of light-years across the Milky Way's spiral arms, they appear to be truly ubiquitous.


... snip ...


One of the key aspects that emerged from these observations is the presence of a filamentary network nearly everywhere in our Galaxy's interstellar medium. The picture that is emerging is that these structures are closely linked to the formation of stars.

... snip ...

One of the surveys performed with Herschel – the Gould Belt Survey – focussed on a giant ring of star-forming regions, all located no more than 1500 light-years away from the Sun. The vicinity of these clouds allowed astronomers to obtain exceptionally detailed images using Herschel, unearthing intricate webs of filaments in each region that they examined.
 
"The greatest surprise was the ubiquity of filaments in these nearby clouds and their intimate connection with star formation," explains Philippe André from CEA/IRFU, France, Principal Investigator for the Herschel Gould Belt Survey.

... snip ...


While most filaments are dotted with compact cores, suggesting that stars are readily taking shape in these dense 'fibres' of the interstellar medium, there are also regions that exhibit complex tangles of filaments but no signs of on-going star formation. A study of the most spectacular example of this phenomenon, the Polaris Flare, indicates that filaments must somehow precede the onset of star formation.

... snip ...

Another of Herschel's key findings is that the presence and abundance of filaments are not limited to our immediate neighbourhood. In fact, these structures appear everywhere also in the Herschel infrared Galactic Plane Survey (Hi-GAL), which scanned the distribution of the interstellar medium in the huge disc – about 100 000 light-years across – where most of the Milky Way's stars form and reside.

... snip ...

Large-scale filaments fragmenting into compact cores that later evolve into stars have been detected all across the Galactic Plane, even in its outermost, peripheral regions. As filaments grow more massive, the material within them contracts and forms smaller structures, preserving the filamentary pattern on all length scales.


Higgsy, again I point out that article not only says filaments are ubiquitous but "exhibit complex tangles", which when the images in the article are more closely examined turn out to be obviously helically wound. Do you really want to try denying that?
BeAChooser
 
Posts: 168
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2015 7:24 pm

Re: It's impossible to prove a negative.

Unread postby Aardwolf » Sun Jan 13, 2019 12:59 pm

Higgsy wrote:...non-interacting matter.
Apart from when it’s interacting with itself to form and maintain the perfect shape and quantity of mass so that the galaxy it surrounds forms a flat rotational curve. No more or less, just the perfect amount. A trick it can pull of billions of times over. Magical stuff this matter.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1289
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: It's impossible to prove a negative.

Unread postby Higgsy » Sun Jan 13, 2019 6:20 pm

Michael Mozina wrote:The Bullet Clusterf*ck study proved conclusively that astronomers don't have the first *clue* how to correctly estimate the mass of a galaxy or a cluster based on light. At least a half dozen different studies since then have demonstrated that fact *repeatedly*.

Balderdash. You are totally ignorant of the methods used to determine the mass distribution in the Bullet cluster. It does NOT entail counting or estimating the number of stars or the number of galaxies. Read that slowly and try to understand it, because if you don't, you're just going to continue making a complete arse of yourself.
You *underestimated* the number of stars in a galaxy or cluster based on a formula that was off by a factor of between 3 and 20 times! You also botched the mass of the plasma and gas surrounding each galaxy, as well as underestimating the number of stars that are located *between* galaxies in those clusters. In fact, it turns out that you can't even properly find entire *galaxy clusters* based on your light techniques because they aren't all as bright as you first *imagined*. Face it, your mass estimation techniques based on light are a joke, a ridiculous and obvious joke!
All of which, even if it's true and not ignorant rhetoric based on popular science articles rather than the actual reported science in published papers, is totally irrelevant to the physics of the Bullet cluster and other colliding clusters, which does not use counts or estimates of numbers of stars or galaxies to determine the mass distribution. Your problem is the misplaced arrogance with which you make stupid pronouncements having not read or understood the relevant papers. As you don't read the literature you just make an ugly display of your ignorance.

And furthermore, where physics is doing its job and refining knowledge, such as discovering the systematic basis for the variable IMF for LSB galaxies, you proclaim it as though you had personally made the correction for those stupid astronomers, when in fact, the work was done by astronomers, you're merely reading about it on Fox News for heaven's sake, and you wouldn't know how to calculate an IMF if it bit you in the bum.
Pure boloney. I've cited over a half dozen studies done since 2006 which blow your mass estimation techniques out of the water.
No you didn't. You haven't identified a single paper that is relevant to the cluster collision papers I cited above. You think you have, but that's because you haven't read or understood the sodding literature. Do try to catch up. They do not rely on counts or estimations of the number of stars or galaxies. Got it now? As I said, you rely on bluster, rhetoric and ignorance.

Come back to me when you've read the primary literature I cited and you understand how the Bullet Cluster and other collision studies are done. And never mention the number of stars and galaxies again in this context as the number is irrelevant.
"Every single ion is going to start cooling off instantly as far as I know…If you're mixing kinetic energy in there somehow, you'll need to explain exactly how you're defining 'temperature'" - Mozina
Higgsy
 
Posts: 217
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 3:32 pm

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

Unread postby Higgsy » Sun Jan 13, 2019 7:04 pm

Michael Mozina wrote:HIggsy, show us *exactly* how and where the mass estimation techniques based on light which were used in the original 2006 bullet cluster study were updated in that 2016 paper that you cited. Show us exactly how and where in that more recent paper they took into account all the things that we've learned about your numerous mass estimation problems since 2006.
There have been no problems identified with the mass distribution methods of the 2006 paper, so there is nothing to correct in 2016. You will whine about it, but that is because you haven't read or understood the papers that you are criticising, like most pseuds.
Show us exactly how the mass estimation formulas were updated between 2006 and 2016, and show us how they took into account the various different studies that I cited in this thread. You can't and you won't and we both know it.
Proof, if proof were needed that you haven't read the papers. Any studies that discuss methods of estimating the numbers of stars or galaxies are irrelevant to these papers.


Next, explain to us why the standard particle physics model has passed tens of billions of dollars worth of tests with flying colors since 2006, at LHC and everywhere else, and explain to us why your dark matter deity has been such a complete and total failure in the lab for the last three decades?
You mean, why hasn't dark matter been identified in the lab as yet? Well, the obvious answer is because it isn't one of the things that has been tested for so far. The astronomical evidence for the existence of non-interacting dark matter is extremely strong, and is based on multiple lines of evidence, so if we were to rule it out on the basis of not identifying it so far in the lab, we would be left with huge unexplainable discrepancies (unexplainable by any so far conceived non-Einsteinian model of gravity). So for the time being we go where the overwhelming evidence points.
Tell us which *specific* non standard particle physics model you now support and why you currently support it.
No. I don't have a front runner because I am not a theoretical physicist nor a particle physicist, and I don't have the knowledge to make an informed choice. Unlike you, I will not spout about things I don't understand.
"Every single ion is going to start cooling off instantly as far as I know…If you're mixing kinetic energy in there somehow, you'll need to explain exactly how you're defining 'temperature'" - Mozina
Higgsy
 
Posts: 217
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 3:32 pm

Re: It's impossible to prove a negative.

Unread postby Higgsy » Sun Jan 13, 2019 8:13 pm

BeAChooser wrote:
Higgsy wrote:Nah, you're just eyeballing random pictures provided by the astronomical community and making up stories.


I didn't make up any stories, Higgsy.
Sure you did.
I showed you images that were clearly helically wound filaments.
You showed me images that you interpreted as helically wound filaments. You were making up stories.
You didn't even deny that before you ran from the forum last time.
I came here originally because I was genuinely interested to see what you guys have. Then I realised you have nothing. So I come here for a laugh. But I get bored.
So instead you simply disappeared, after claiming that I hadn't proven they were "ubiquitous".
You haven't proven that they are ubiquitous, nor have you done any real quantitative physics with them. You are eyeballing pretty pictures and making up stories. How big are they? What is the plasma density? The charge separation, the magnetic field strenth, the electrical field strength, the current, the charge velocity, the temperature? What do these pretty pictures each signify? If I remember right, they weren't even of a single type of phenomenon. See for example, your first pretty picture below.

And whether they are ubiquitous (I'll get to that in a moment), can you explain how those structures came to be? And do it without resorting to what are essentially gnomes? How exactly does “shock” or any of the physical phenomena you believe in produce the helically wound filament seen in the upper right of this image, Higgsy?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... Nebula.jpg

Because in this case they are not helically wound filaments. The Wikipedia page from which you took the image also recites the standard explanation which is that they are not helically wound filaments (or filaments at all). I'm OK with that - what evidence have you that it is wrong?

Here's another example that I asked you about earlier from a presentation whose title page coincidently shows a helically wound set of wires ( http://herschel.esac.esa.int/SFaxz2014/ ... HacarA.pdf ) titled “Understanding the internal substructure of Herschel filaments)":


Hmm, that presentation explains that they are sonic-like structures naturally created as part of the turbulent cascade and Cores & Stars are formed from the fragmentation of only those gravitationally unstable (i.e. fertile) fibers. And reach that conclusion based on quantified physics including hydro simulations. I'm ok with that. Do you have any evidence that they are something different?
http://inspirehep.net/record/1273530/fi ... e_fig3.png

That image shows polarization vectors along a plasma filament where stars are forming. There is no question that filament is helically wound because it's clear as day in the optical images ...
See above for the fact that these filaments are sonic-like structures naturally created as part of the turbulent cascade and Cores & Stars are formed from the fragmentation of only those gravitationally unstable (i.e. fertile) fibers

http://inspirehep.net/record/1255052/files/fig8.png
... that I also already posted to you ... and in descriptions throughout the presentation. Again, I direct your attention to the bottom filament.  If you don’t see the characteristic spiraling double helix structure of Birkeland filaments, you’re downright blind.  If you don’t see the stars forming along those filaments, you’re downright blind.
There you go, looking at pretty pictures and making up stories. I don't even know what that is a picture of, and you sure as hell haven't posted any reason to think that this is associated in any way with Birkeland currents.
Sooooo ... to me, the polarization vectors in the first graphic indicates electric currents are traveling down the filament and producing magnetic fields.
Let me help you out. You are posting pretty pictures and making up stories. If you want to actually consider the physics, the first step might be to read the book chapter those images come from, and consider not just the images in isolation, but the chapter as a whole. Here it is: Andre et al, From Filamentary Networks to Dense Cores in Molecular Clouds: Toward a New Paradigm for Star Formation https://arxiv.org/pdf/1312.6232.pdf.
And by the way, you seem to have forgotten that in one of our earlier exchanges, you wrote: "I have already said that I accept the existence of braided filaments, and I will go further and say that I expect that electromagnetic effects in the plasma contribute to the braiding, but you are yet to demonstrate that such braiding is ubiquitous or near-ubiquitous at all scales." So it seems to me that you have already admitted that the images I've presented show helically wound filaments and that electric currents play a role in their creation.
Absolutely not. Some are not even filaments as we have seen. And I have never said that electricity plays a role in their creation. It might do, but you are yet to show that it does. See section 5.2 of the book chapter from which you took the last two images. (And I do accept the existence of braided filaments, but that doesn't change the fact that you are not doing physics, but eyeballing pictures and making up stories about them).

http://phys.org/news/2015-05-herschel-filaments-milky.html

 I don't do popular articles. Give me a reference to the published papers. However, I'll give you a bonus: here's what Andre, referenced twice in that popular article says about these structures: "Since the mid 1990s, simulations of supersonic turbulence have consistently shown that gas is rapidly compressed into a hierarchy of sheets and filaments (e.g., Porteret al.,1994; V ́azquez-Semadeni,1994; Padoan et al.,2001).
Furthermore, when gravity is added into turbulence simulations, the denser gas undergoes gravitational collapse to form stars (e.g. Ostriker et al.,1999; Ballesteros-Paredeset al.,1999; Klessen and Burkert,2000;Bonnell et al.,2003;MacLow and Klessen,2004; Tilley and Pudritz,2004; Krumholz et al.,2007). There are many sources of supersonic turbulent motions in the ISM out of which molecular clouds can arise, i.e., galactic spiral shocks in which most giant molecular clouds form, supernovae, stellar winds from massive stars, expanding HII regions, radiation pressure, cosmic ray streaming, Kelvin-Helmholtz and Rayleigh-Taylor instabilities, gravitational instabilities, and bipolar outflows from regions of star formation (Elmegreen and Scalo,2004)...Simulations of turbulence often employ a spectrum of plane waves that are random in direction and phase. As is well known, the crossing of two planar shock wave fronts is a line - the filament (e.g.,Pudritz and Kevlahan,
2013)...Li et al. (2010) have shown that filaments are formed preferentially perpendicular to the
magnetic field lines in strongly magnetized turbulent clouds"

There are loads of references in that quote that you can follow up. That's the way physics is done, quantitatively. What you do is to eyeball pretty pictures and make up stories. Now you know better.
"Every single ion is going to start cooling off instantly as far as I know…If you're mixing kinetic energy in there somehow, you'll need to explain exactly how you're defining 'temperature'" - Mozina
Higgsy
 
Posts: 217
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 3:32 pm

Re: It's impossible to prove a negative.

Unread postby Higgsy » Sun Jan 13, 2019 8:20 pm

Aardwolf wrote:
Higgsy wrote:...non-interacting matter.
Apart from when it’s interacting with itself to form and maintain the perfect shape and quantity of mass so that the galaxy it surrounds forms a flat rotational curve. No more or less, just the perfect amount. A trick it can pull of billions of times over. Magical stuff this matter.
Yeah non-interacting means that it interacts only gravitationally. That's what it means. Which you'd know if you had any real interest in the subject.

As for the flat rotation curves, I have no idea what point you are trying to make.
"Every single ion is going to start cooling off instantly as far as I know…If you're mixing kinetic energy in there somehow, you'll need to explain exactly how you're defining 'temperature'" - Mozina
Higgsy
 
Posts: 217
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 3:32 pm

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

Unread postby jacmac » Sun Jan 13, 2019 8:48 pm

Higgsy:
As for the flat rotation curves, I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

The flat rotation curve is why dark matter theory exists.
Anyone paying attention knows that.
You are ingenuous at best.
Give it a rest.
Jack
jacmac
 
Posts: 576
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 12:36 pm

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

Unread postby Higgsy » Mon Jan 14, 2019 3:10 am

jacmac wrote:Higgsy:
As for the flat rotation curves, I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

The flat rotation curve is why dark matter theory exists.
Anyone paying attention knows that.

Don't be stupid. I know what a flat rotation curve is. I simply don't know what point he is trying to make about it, and neither, it seems, do you. Unless you think standard gravitational and orbital theory is "magical".
"Every single ion is going to start cooling off instantly as far as I know…If you're mixing kinetic energy in there somehow, you'll need to explain exactly how you're defining 'temperature'" - Mozina
Higgsy
 
Posts: 217
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 3:32 pm

Re: It's impossible to prove a negative.

Unread postby Higgsy » Mon Jan 14, 2019 3:27 am

Michael Mozina wrote:Utter nonsense! Many of the studies I originally posted to this thread absolutely positively *do* mention the number of stars and the underestimation problems in your models. You're living in pure denial.

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gale ... 90819.html

And another thing: the paper on which that popular article was based (Meurer et al, Evidence for a Nonuniform Initial Mass Function in the Local Universe, ApL 695:765–780, 2009) has been cited 200 times by other papers! So much for your foolish claim that astronomers aren't taking previous work into account. However, the fact that the paper is irrelevant to the methods used in the colliding cluster studies is what has so far eluded you and has led you to make a nitwit of yourself repeatedly.

I am actually doing you a favour by helping you to stop making statements that prove in seconds to any physicist that you are a physics clown.
"Every single ion is going to start cooling off instantly as far as I know…If you're mixing kinetic energy in there somehow, you'll need to explain exactly how you're defining 'temperature'" - Mozina
Higgsy
 
Posts: 217
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 3:32 pm

Re: It's impossible to prove a negative.

Unread postby Aardwolf » Mon Jan 14, 2019 7:20 am

Higgsy wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:
Higgsy wrote:...non-interacting matter.
Apart from when it’s interacting with itself to form and maintain the perfect shape and quantity of mass so that the galaxy it surrounds forms a flat rotational curve. No more or less, just the perfect amount. A trick it can pull of billions of times over. Magical stuff this matter.
Yeah non-interacting means that it interacts only gravitationally. That's what it means. Which you'd know if you had any real interest in the subject.

As for the flat rotation curves, I have no idea what point you are trying to make.
My point is there is always exactly the right amount of dark matter, in exactly the right place, to create a flat rotational curve in a spiral galaxy. Why?
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1289
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

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

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Mon Jan 14, 2019 9:30 am

Higgsy wrote:
Michael Mozina wrote:HIggsy, show us *exactly* how and where the mass estimation techniques based on light which were used in the original 2006 bullet cluster study were updated in that 2016 paper that you cited. Show us exactly how and where in that more recent paper they took into account all the things that we've learned about your numerous mass estimation problems since 2006.
There have been no problems identified with the mass distribution methods of the 2006 paper, so there is nothing to correct in 2016.


Thank you Higgsy for demonstrating my point perfectly. Pure unadulterated denial is the only thing that holds your metaphysical belief system together in 2019. You grossly underestimated the scattering taking place, meaning those galaxy clusters are *at least* twice as bright as you originally thought. You grossly underestimated the number of stars the size of our own sun in those galaxy clusters by a whopping factor of 4. You grossly underestimated the number of red dwarfs in those galaxies by a factor of between 3 and 20 times. You grossly underestimated the number of stars *between* the galaxies too. You grossly underestimated the amount of hot plasma and cooler hydrogen gas in those clusters too. It's all documented in those links that I cited earlier in this thread. The only way for you to deal with that material is to *not* deal with that material by attempting to blame the messenger for your numerous failures. Gah. You proved my point perfectly. Denial is your only friend.


Proof, if proof were needed that you haven't read the papers. Any studies that discuss methods of estimating the numbers of stars or galaxies are irrelevant to these papers.


Sure. You didn't have a *clue* in 2006 about how many stars were in those galaxy clusters, or the amount of plasma round them, but you expect me to believe that you accurately accounted for all the baryonic mass in those clusters anyway. Sheesh. Talk about hard core denial. You're living in a fantasy universe that's held together with pure denial of scientific fact.

You mean, why hasn't dark matter been identified in the lab as yet? Well, the obvious answer is because it isn't one of the things that has been tested for so far. The astronomical evidence for the existence of non-interacting dark matter is extremely strong,


Horse manure. The evidence of non-interacting 'dark matter' is non existent! :) You just can't correctly estimate the amount of baryonic mass in distant galaxies. That what all the "evidence" suggests.

and is based on multiple lines of evidence,


More horse manure. It's all based on your irrational assertion that your baryonic mass estimates were correct, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary!

so if we were to rule it out on the basis of not identifying it so far in the lab, we would be left with huge unexplainable discrepancies (unexplainable by any so far conceived non-Einsteinian model of gravity).


More horse pucky. It's a *completely* explainable discrepancy, and later studies explained it perfectly. You simply botched the baryonic mass estimates as all those more recent (than 2006) studies so clearly demonstrated.

So for the time being we go where the overwhelming evidence points.


All the overwhelming evidence suggests that you are completely inept at identifying baryonic mass based on light, and you are in pure denial of the obvious and numerous problems in your baryonic mass calculations. That's what the overwhelming evidence suggests.

]No. I don't have a front runner because I am not a theoretical physicist nor a particle physicist, and I don't have the knowledge to make an informed choice. Unlike you, I will not spout about things I don't understand.


Apparently your high priests of metaphysics don't understand anything either because they've now spent tens of billions of dollars studying the "most likely" models, only to find exactly nothing. So much for their alleged 'expertise". Your entire belief system is held together by pure denial and an appeal to an authority fallacy that is utterly laughable considering their complete lack of success and their total ineptitude.

Thanks again for proving my point perfectly. You don't have a clue what you're even talking about.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1663
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

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

Unread postby Aardwolf » Mon Jan 14, 2019 10:38 am

Higgsy wrote:You mean, why hasn't dark matter been identified in the lab as yet? Well, the obvious answer is because it isn't one of the things that has been tested for so far.
Then what the f*** are these guys been spending money on then for the last 10 years? Is it a scam?

http://darkside.lngs.infn.it/

However they are probably wasting their time as there is not likely to be any found in the lab when it's missing from the whole solar system.
Astrophysicists believe that our galaxy must be filled with more dark matter than ordinary matter. Now astronomers say they can find no evidence of dark matter’s gravitational influence on the planets. What gives?
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/516681/the-incredible-dark-matter-mystery-why-astronomers-say-it-is-missing-in-action/

Although as we know this stuff is magic, and possibly sentient, it's probably just playing hide and seek.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1289
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: It's impossible to prove a negative.

Unread postby Higgsy » Mon Jan 14, 2019 10:41 am

Aardwolf wrote:My point is there is always exactly the right amount of dark matter, in exactly the right place, to create a flat rotational curve in a spiral galaxy. Why?
OK - that's a reasonable question. The first thing is that the rotation curves of spiral galaxies are not all exactly the same. They do vary from galaxy to galaxy. The term flat rotation curve doesn't mean that the rotational speed of stars in a galaxy is constant as a function of radial distance from the centre. What it does mean is that the function of rotational speed versus radial distance does not decline with distance as quickly as would be expected if the only mass in the galaxy is baryonic mass (comprising stars detected in a range of bands, and gas and dust detected in HI and so on), and the rotation curve of one galaxy to the next is not exactly the same. However, the rotation curve of stars in spiral galaxies can be explained if there is a substantial quantity of undetected mass surrounding the galaxy and interacting gravitationally with the stars and interstellar gas and dust. Lensing studies have confirmed that this mass lies in a roughly spherical shape around spiral galaxies and this quantitatively explains the flat rotation curve. The matter in the spherical halo lies in a sphere whereas the stars and gas lie more on a disc, because the former is collisionless whereas the latter averages its angular momentum to zero except aroungd the vector where it had residual angular momentum in the first place. Typically the total galaxy mass within the stellar radius is 90% in the halo, 8% in stars and 2% in gas and dust. So there is no magic involved - the halo is roughly spherical and that explains the flat rotation curve in the disk without having to be exact.
"Every single ion is going to start cooling off instantly as far as I know…If you're mixing kinetic energy in there somehow, you'll need to explain exactly how you're defining 'temperature'" - Mozina
Higgsy
 
Posts: 217
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 3:32 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Lims Tims and 4 guests