Michael Mozina wrote:
Thank you Higgsy for demonstrating my point perfectly. Pure unadulterated denial is the only thing that holds your metaphysical belief system together in 2019.
Show me exactly where in the 2006 paper the mass distribution methods are flawed. Point to the exact place and explain exactly why they are flawed with references to the primary literature.
I've already done that for you throughout this entire thread, but here you go:
Page 3, section 3: "Stellar masses are calculated from the I-band luminosity of all galaxies equal in brightness or fainter than the component BCG. The luminosities were converted into mass assuming (Kauﬀmann et al. 2003) M/LI = 2."
This formula is of course *highly* suspect after more recent revelations regarding their *huge* underestimation of small stars we can't see vs. large stars, not to mention the two different plasma/gas halos that have been found since 2006 around our own galaxy and presumably every galaxy., and the fact we underestimated the light output from galaxies by a factor of two due to excess scattering that is also not included in that baryonic mass calculation.
Read my lips: Cluster collision studies do not rely on and never mention estimates of numbers of stars or galaxies in the clusters. Got it yet?
It doesn't matter if they mention the actual number of stars in a galaxy or the numbers of galaxies in a cluster. The whole stellar mass estimates were/are based on *luminosity*, and a brightness formula that has been shown to be pointless and riddled with serious flaws in later studies. First and most importantly, smaller stars don't emit enough light to contribute anything to those luminosity figures, but they make up more mass than the larger stars that do contribute to luminosity. You botched those large/small star percentages by a whopping factor of between 3 and 20 times depending on the size of the star and the type of galaxy involved. Furthermore your method basically *ignores* the neutral gas halo that was found in 2017 which wouldn't interact in the collision in the first place due to is lack of density and charge. Even most of the hot plasma halo wouldn't directly collide or interact due to it's lack of density. That estimation method also underestimated the number of stars and their mass that is located between the galaxies in those clusters, and it ignores the fact that you've been underestimating the brightness/luminosity by a giant factor of two to start with!
That 2006 bullet cluster study only "proved"' that your M/L!=2 formula to calculate stellar and baryonic mass is ridiculously flawed and overly simplified to begin with.
Even the original study notes that the errors in estimating the baryonic mass in that study could be *huge*, even without the various revelation of stellar underestimates discovered since 2006.
The assumed mass-to-light ratio is highly uncertain (can vary between 0.5 and 3) and depends on the history of recent star formation of the galaxies in the apertures; however even in the case of an extreme deviation, the Xray plasma is still the dominant baryonic component in all of the apertures. The quoted errors are only the errors on measuring the luminosity and do not include the uncertainty in the assumed mass-to-light ratio.
Face it, you have *zero* evidence that your baryonic mass estimation techniques were worth the paper they were printed on in 2006, actually 2003, and in fact there is *ample* evidence that they were not ever accurate to begin with.
Your whole claim about the existence of non-luminous dark matter hinges upon your presumption that your baryonic mass estimation techniques were correct, and we now know for a fact that they were never correct and you've never corrected them either! Sheesh. You folks should be sued for false advertising. You have no evidence whatsoever that you can correctly estimate the amount of baryonic matter in a distant galaxy based strictly on a luminosity function, and we have ample evidence that you cannot!