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 nick c » Thu Jul 28, 2016 7:33 am

Let's keep the discussion focused on the subject of the original post in this thread.
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2241
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

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

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Fri Jul 29, 2016 2:19 am

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... c&t=309932

I happened to notice today a new thread on dark matter over at ISF. I was kinda curious how the mainstream might try to pawn off this idea in light of recent lab results, and stellar miscount revelations over the past decade. A few of the comments caught my attention:

Jeantate wrote:What form CDM might take is quite unclear from the astronomical observations (there are hints); this leaves particle physicists salivating. Those who love SUSY (don't ask) favor WIMPs (weakly interacting massive particles), of the SUSY kind (of course);


http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/07/ ... omes-empty

Strike one. Bad year (and worse decade) for WIMP theory.

others look to axions (don't ask),


http://phys.org/news/2016-04-dark-axion ... icles.html

Strike two. Another failed "test" from this year too.

sterile neutrinos (do you really want to know?),


http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/new ... ws-a-blank

Strike three! It's been a tough year for "dark matter" theory, and a tough decade as well, not that anyone at ISF noticed. :)

and much more. Astrophysicists are less enamored by sexy particles, so some have proposed things as exotic as primordial black holes (PBH; e.g. there's a paper by a leading/Nobel-prize winning astrophysicist that the first merging-black-holes gravitational wave detection - you read about LIGO right? - is consistent with CDM being bazillions of ~tens-of-sols massive PBHs).


Now we've got a whole invisible universe to explore with an invisible universe detector that still hasn't tagged a LIGO "signal" to an actual/visual celestial event. :) This might be their "ideal" go to theory pretty soon. :) Of course they all have to be "naked", and "uncharged" BH mergers too. :)

Occasionally, you'll come across someone suggesting that the 'missing mass' could be ordinary matter that's just really hard to detect. Why most of these ideas are (quite) inconsistent with detailed observations of the CMB is hard to explain; it's not so difficult for things closer to home.


If you read through the opening post of this thread, you can understand why someone might suggest such a logical solution to the problem. :) Those early 2006 lensing studies and galaxy mass estimates were *shown* to be flawed in *numerous* ways. :) Ya, someone might notice those seriously botched stellar estimates alright. :)

For example, perhaps the missing mass is in the form of ginormous numbers of iron balls, with masses ranging from kg to almost Jupiter-mass? Well, if so, here on Earth we'd be hit, fairly often, by one of these balls, moving at several hundred km/sec. Something we'd have noticed


Since 2006, you folks did figure out that you've been under-counting the whole number of *stars* in various types of galaxies, from between 3 and 20 times depending on the size of the star and the type of galaxy. Then of course we found more mass in the form of million degree plasma around the galaxy in 2012 than had ever been known to us prior to 2012. Ooopsy-daisy.

How about a bazillion 'rogue planets' (technically, MACHOs, MAssive Compact Halo Object)? There'd not be so many that we'd surely have collided with one, or seen one pass though our solar system; however, several surveys using gravitational lensing have ruled them out, at least with a density sufficient to account for the missing mass, and at least in our own galaxy.

Some types (read, ranges of mass) of primordial black holes may still be in contention, but it's a pretty extreme proposal.

Lastly, gas composed of hydrogen molecules, not atoms, at a temperature of ~3K: this is very hard to detect, astronomically, and if it were to be what the missing mass is made up of, it'd be very diffuse. So how can this idea be ruled out? Let's see what other ISF readers of this thread have to say!


Note that hydrogen, and any other "normal" form of baryonic matter pretty much destroys their whole nucleosynthesis claims during the "bang", so none of that stuff is actually 'magical/invisible" enough to save LCDM theory. :)

Yep, pretty much as I thought. It time for the mainstream to round up the wagons, and bury their collective heads in the sand to the results and the terrible year and decade that it's been for "dark matter" theory. :)

Never mind those pesky negative lab results and failed observational "tests". They're still pretending to unsuspecting students like nothing has happened since 2006. Same denial based dark magic, different day.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1194
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 Aug 06, 2016 8:05 pm

http://backreaction.blogspot.nl/2016/08 ... -true.html

Now that the diphoton bump is gone, we’ve entered what has become known as the “nightmare scenario” for the LHC: The Higgs and nothing else. Many particle physicists thought of this as the worst possible outcome. It has left them without guidance, lost in a thicket of rapidly multiplying models. Without some new physics, they have nothing to work with that they haven’t already had for 50 years, no new input that can tell them in which direction to look for the ultimate goal of unification and/or quantum gravity.

That the LHC hasn’t seen evidence for new physics is to me a clear signal that we’ve been doing something wrong, that our experience from constructing the standard model is no longer a promising direction to continue. We’ve maneuvered ourselves into a dead end by relying on aesthetic guidance to decide which experiments are the most promising. I hope that this latest null result will send a clear message that you can’t trust the judgement of scientists whose future funding depends on their continued optimism.

Things can only get better.


It seems to me that things begin to get better the moment that the mainstream starts to embrace empirical physics, and electric fields in spacetime. This may be a "nightmare scenario" for LCDM proponents, and for some particle physicists, but it's welcome news to a cosmology community that bases it's beliefs upon pure empirical theory. It's actually another victory for EU/PC theory!
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1194
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

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

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Mon Aug 15, 2016 2:05 pm

http://phys.org/news/2016-08-icecube-st ... blank.html

Nope, no dark matter snipes were found in the form of sterile neutrinos either. :)

2016 hasn't been kind to LCDM theory. I wonder why that might be? :)

I'm afraid the numerous examples of confirmation bias with respect to LCDM theory have reached epic proportions. You'd think that sooner or later some of the mainstream would start to rebel against their own useless dogma that has failed to make any useful predictions with respect to exotic forms of matter, particularly in light of all the stellar miscounts associated with that ridiculously flawed 2006 lensing study on "dark matter".

It's been a decade now of one prediction failure after another related to exotic matter theory. It's also been a decade of revelations about the stellar miscounts that were used in that flawed 2006 lensing study. The final nail in the coffin IMO is the fact that the million degree plasma cloud they found in 2012 has been shown to be rotating just like 'dark matter' was expected to rotate. :)

There's really no logical justification for exotic matter theory, and not a hint of any need to extend the standard particle physics model has been seen at LHC to date.

If it looks like a falsified duck, and it quacks like falsified duck......
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1194
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Falsification

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Sun Sep 11, 2016 9:36 am

It seems to me that a complete lack of empirical support for "dark matter" will eventually trigger a process of "soul searching" on the part of LCDM theorists.

I'm sure that all LCDM theorists got into "science" to learn about the physics of the universe just like those of us in the EU/PC community. They want to "understand" what's going on in the universe as much as our community wishes to understand the physics of the universe. We aren't ultimately any different, other than our preference for empirical physics, and a few "opinions" about four of their basic claims, inflation, space expansion, dark energy and dark matter. Of those four supernatural claims contained in just *one* cosmology hypothesis, only really one of those claims, "dark matter", can even be "tested" in various empirical ways. Yet to this date every single such "test" has been negative, and it has falsified one of their mathematical models. All of their pretty maths bit the empirical dust in the lab, and in space in 2016. There's nothing left standing in terms of any real evidence of exotic forms of matter, not for WIMPS, not for axions, and not for sterile neutrinos.

Worse yet, the revelations of significant stellar and baryonic miscounts in that horrifically flawed 2006 lensing study are disastrous for mainstream claims about any "missing mass" necessarily being contained in any exotic form of matter.

IMO the crowning blow to exotic matter claims was the revelation that the plasma cloud which they only "discovered" in 2012, that contains more mass than all the stars in our galaxy, is also rotating around the galaxy, just like all "dark matter" models "predict". :)

Every single bit of evidence over the past decade has demonstrated that the mainstream baryonic mass estimates that were used in 2006 in that infamous lensing study were flawed beyond belief, and their 'dark matter predictions" have been utterly worthless in the lab.

After spending billions of dollars on an exotic matter snipe hunt to no avail, sooner or later something has to give. Mainstream astronomers cannot impede empirical scientific progress forever and feel good about themselves, particularly after the results of 2016. What a disastrous year for LCDM theory.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1194
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Falsification

Unread postby upriver » Sun Sep 11, 2016 7:34 pm

Michael Mozina wrote:It seems to me that a complete lack of empirical support for "dark matter" will eventually trigger a process of "soul searching" on the part of LCDM theorists.

I'm sure that all LCDM theorists got into "science" to learn about the physics of the universe just like those of us in the EU/PC community. They want to "understand" what's going on in the universe as much as our community wishes to understand the physics of the universe. We aren't ultimately any different, other than our preference for empirical physics, and a few "opinions" about four of their basic claims, inflation, space expansion, dark energy and dark matter. Of those four supernatural claims contained in just *one* cosmology hypothesis, only really one of those claims, "dark matter", can even be "tested" in various empirical ways. Yet to this date every single such "test" has been negative, and it has falsified one of their mathematical models. All of their pretty maths bit the empirical dust in the lab, and in space in 2016. There's nothing left standing in terms of any real evidence of exotic forms of matter, not for WIMPS, not for axions, and not for sterile neutrinos.

Worse yet, the revelations of significant stellar and baryonic miscounts in that horrifically flawed 2006 lensing study are disastrous for mainstream claims about any "missing mass" necessarily being contained in any exotic form of matter.

IMO the crowning blow to exotic matter claims was the revelation that the plasma cloud which they only "discovered" in 2012, that contains more mass than all the stars in our galaxy, is also rotating around the galaxy, just like all "dark matter" models "predict". :)

Every single bit of evidence over the past decade has demonstrated that the mainstream baryonic mass estimates that were used in 2006 in that infamous lensing study were flawed beyond belief, and their 'dark matter predictions" have been utterly worthless in the lab.

After spending billions of dollars on an exotic matter snipe hunt to no avail, sooner or later something has to give. Mainstream astronomers cannot impede empirical scientific progress forever and feel good about themselves, particularly after the results of 2016. What a disastrous year for LCDM theory.



What do you think the answer is?? Is it a different model of gravity like one that can support an iron sun, LeSagian, or is it a problem with plasma and distances?
The thing that I found the most interesting about galactic rotation curves is the one where the galaxy goes faster on the outer edge. Or really there is more red shift on the outer edge for some electrically related reason.

The "dark matter galaxy" is kind of laughable.... But what would the EU explanation be?
I'm not trying to change the subject but I am just wondering about context.
upriver
 
Posts: 542
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 7:17 pm

Re: Falsification

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Mon Sep 12, 2016 4:30 pm

upriver wrote:What do you think the answer is??


The answer is EU/PC theory of course. :)

Is it a different model of gravity like one that can support an iron sun, LeSagian, or is it a problem with plasma and distances?


IMO the infamous 2006 lensing study favored "missing mass" solutions to the lensing patterns rather than MOND type solutions. There has been ample evidence since 2006 that the baryonic mass estimates that were used in 2006 were *seriously* flawed in at least a half-dozen different ways.

FYI, I don't personally think that a mostly iron sun must necessarily have more mass than a mostly hydrogen sun. They can still both have the very same mass.

The thing that I found the most interesting about galactic rotation curves is the one where the galaxy goes faster on the outer edge. Or really there is more red shift on the outer edge for some electrically related reason.


IMO the revelation that the million degree plasma cloud around the galaxy rotates like the rest of the galaxy is pretty much the death sentence of exotic matter theory. Their models suggested a configuration of rotating matter that is not unlike what we observe in that million degree plasma cloud. The rotation patterns of the stars are influenced by that mass rotation of the whole plasma cloud.

The "dark matter galaxy" is kind of laughable.... But what would the EU explanation be?
I'm not trying to change the subject but I am just wondering about context.


I"d be inclined to believe that there is more "dust" between here and there than they "predict", and I suspect they underestimate entire stars, as well as the plasma between stars, just like they did in the 2006 study. They aren't really changinging their mass estimation techniques *in spite* of all those revelations of stellar miscounts in earlier studies. It's as though pure denial has set in, and nothing can change it. :(
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1194
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

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

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Thu Sep 29, 2016 3:18 pm

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... sions.html

For four months, team observed 21 bright radio sources from the revised Third Cambridge Catalogue, leading to the detection of ‘significant’ emissions for nine of them with the X-ray Telescope.

But, when using the spacecraft’s Ultraviolet/Optical Telescope, no sources could be found.

These new observations support earlier assumptions that the source of these emissions may be ‘heavily obscured’ active galaxies.


Yet somehow they're sure that their "dark matter" isn't just 'havily obscured' ordinary matter? Their whole belief sysetms is so full of holes, it resembles Swiss cheese. :)
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1194
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

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

Unread postby upriver » Thu Sep 29, 2016 7:29 pm

Michael Mozina wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3812697/Have-researchers-spotted-alien-signals-Mystery-unidentified-emissions.html

For four months, team observed 21 bright radio sources from the revised Third Cambridge Catalogue, leading to the detection of ‘significant’ emissions for nine of them with the X-ray Telescope.

But, when using the spacecraft’s Ultraviolet/Optical Telescope, no sources could be found.

These new observations support earlier assumptions that the source of these emissions may be ‘heavily obscured’ active galaxies.


Yet somehow they're sure that their "dark matter" isn't just 'havily obscured' ordinary matter? Their whole belief sysetms is so full of holes, it resembles Swiss cheese. :)


And does that imply that the x-ray sources are "heavily obscured"? and if it does are the x-ray sources more powerful than a speeding Seyfert when calculating the obscurity parameter??
upriver
 
Posts: 542
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 7:17 pm

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

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Fri Sep 30, 2016 11:47 am

It's pretty clear that the elemental composition of the plasma between here and the object in question will dictate how much light we observe on various wavelengths. Since the mainstream has such on oversimplified model, it's not prepared to deal with real world complexities like that. :)

By the way, here's another paper that supports the belief that the mainstream simply miscounts ordinary baryonic matter, and that rotation curves of galaxies is directly related to the baryonic mass layout of every galaxy.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.05917

Of the 150+ galaxies they looked at, not one of them showed any sign of exotic matter influences that dictate rotation curves. Instead they found exactly the opposite. Baryonic mass distribution is directly related to the speed and rotation patterns of all the galaxies at every single point. There is no evidence at all of exotic types of matter, just ample evidence that the mainstream's galaxy mass estimates are horrifically flawed as the last decade's worth of stellar miscount revelations also confirm.

IMO that 2012 finding that every galaxy is surrounded by a million degree plasma cloud that contains more mass than all the stars was pretty much the death blow to exotic matter theories. This years "discovery" that the whole plasma cloud rotates just like their "dark matter" models is the final nail in the coffin. They have 'found' way more baryonic mass since 2006 than they even knew about in 2006. Their primitive baryonic mass estimates are simply the problem. They simply aren't worth the paper they are printed on.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1194
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

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

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Wed Oct 26, 2016 8:43 am

Well, it's time to add another almost unbelievable revelation to the long list of results that have falsified LCDM theory over the past decade.

http://www.sciencealert.com/no-the-univ ... physicists

Since scientists first proposed dark energy, no one's gotten any closer to figuring out what it could actually be.

But now an international team of physicists from institutions say don't worry about it, because it probably doesn't even exist, and they've got a much bigger database of Type 1a supernovae to back them up.

By applying a different analytical model to the 740 Type Ia supernovae that have been identified so far, the team says they've been able to account for the subtle differences between them like never before.

They say the statistical techniques used by the original team were too simplistic, and were based on a model devised in the 1930s, which can't reliability be applied to the growing supernova dataset.

They also mention that the cosmic microwave background isn't directly affected by dark matter, so only serves as an "indirect" type of evidence.

"We analysed the latest catalogue of 740 Type Ia supernovae - over 10 times bigger than the original samples on which the discovery claim was based - and found that the evidence for accelerated expansion is, at most, what physicists call '3 sigma'," reports lead researcher, Subir Sarkar, from the University of Oxford.

"This is far short of the '5 sigma' standard required to claim a discovery of fundamental significance."

Instead of finding evidence to support the accelerated expansion of the Universe, Sarkar and his team say it looks like the Universe is expanding at a constant rate. If that's truly the case, it means we don't need dark energy to explain it.


Emphasis mine. Even in a "best case" analysis of this much more comprehensive data set, the *most* that anyone could hope for is a 3 sigma *possibility* that dark energy exists, not anywhere close to the five sigma *requirement* of a "discovery". So much for the 2011 Nobel Prize for the "discovery" of "dark energy".

There you have it. Now we have more than 10 times the previous data to work with, and we've looked at that data using a more sophisticated analysis applied to the data set, and it's entirely consistent with a constant rate of expansion.

Now we have ample evidence that the "cold dark matter" claims were based upon *flawed* baryonic mass estimates, and we have ample evidence that "dark energy" was never actually "discovered" at all. :)

Ooopsy?

One cannot help but wonder when this charade is finally going to end. Not only has the exotic dark matter claim of LCDM theory been falsified a dozen different ways, the dark energy claims have been blown away by more comprehensive data sets too. There's literally nothing left of their so called "evidence" to support either hypothetical concept, and between them they make up about 95 percent of their entire claim!

Now let's watch them just bury their collective heads in the sand and pretend that their "discovery" of dark energy is still a "discovery" simply because they already handed out the Nobel Prize and they don't give a rat's ass about "truth".

Make no mistake about it, LCDM is supernatural creation dogma on a stick that is completely *unsupported* by any real "evidence" and in fact it's *refuted* by every new study of the past decade!

I take some comfort in remembering that pure empirical physics always triumphs over supernatural dogma over the long haul. Whether it happens in my lifetime, who's to say, but one thing is for certain, I've lived to see the last decade, and it's been a complete disaster for LCDM theory. :)
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1194
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

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

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Thu Oct 27, 2016 8:55 am

JeanTate wrote:An EU zealot protested, over in Thunderdolts, to the effect that "a full and complete set of Birkeland type experiments" has been proposed for years.

I did a quick check, and apart from SAFIRE, found nothing of the sort. Sure you'll get lots of hits on phrases like "Birkeland experiment", but even a semi-rational, logical summary of what just such a set of them would entail (much less a complete set)? Um, no. Also no hint of any literature searches being done, to see what sort of experiments of this kind have been done, and results published, in the last century or so (see tusenfem's post upthread for some relevant background). Not even the kind of cherry picked ones EU acolytes are much in love with.

The EU, where science is verboten ...


LOL!

The mainstream has quite literally spent *billions* of dollars in a fruitless search for their mythical "dark" stuff. The last (far more complete) study on SN!A events calls the entire dark energy concept into question. In fact in a "best case" interpretation of the much more comprehensive SN!A data set, the very *most* that they could hope to claim is only a three sigma confidence, *far* short of the five sigma standard of evidence of a "discovery". The temporary and now debunked "bump" in the particle physics experiments enjoyed a higher level of confidence before more comprehensive data killed it.

The mainstream has spent *billions* of dollars alone on their mythical exotic matter snipe hunt, while *utterly ignoring* all the baryonic mass estimation problems with their 2006 "lensing" study. The whole LCDM theory has been "tested" over and over again, and it's *failed* every single conceivable test I can think of over the past decade in epic fashion.

When asked to spend a few "million" dollars to put Birkeland's whole series of experiments to the test in the lab, using more modern equipment, they ridicule the idea publicly. What a joke. The mainstream has been reduced to public name calling and to ridiculing working physical laboratory models, while ignoring every failed test of their own supernatural creation mythology.

How very sad.
Last edited by Michael Mozina on Thu Oct 27, 2016 9:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1194
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

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

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Thu Oct 27, 2016 9:15 am

The three most damning observations and "tests" of LCDM mythology so far in 2016 IMO:

http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/201 ... axy-s-halo

https://briankoberlein.com/2016/09/29/g ... rk-matter/

http://www.space.com/34503-universe-exp ... nergy.html

These three "tests" of their own claims demonstrate that 95 percent of LCDM theory is utterly *irrelevant* to cosmology theory or anything else. A simple Occam's razor argument completely and totally destroys LCDM theory. Neither exotic matter, *nor* exotic energy enjoys a *shred* of empirical support in 2016.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1194
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

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

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Thu Oct 27, 2016 9:36 am

FYI, the 'marginal" case for dark energy underscores and demonstrates the mainstream's bad habit of blatant confirmation bias.

We now have 10 times more SN1A data to work with, and the very *most* that the mainstream could hope to claim is three sigma confidence that the universe is accelerating. That's *way* short of the five sigma confidence that is required in physics to claim they've made a "discovery". Even the recent 750 GHZ "bump" in particle physics enjoyed a higher sigma confidence level before more complete and comprehensive data killed it off completely.

In classic "jump the shark" fashion however, the cosmology mainstream has already publicly claimed to have "discovered" "dark energy" based on a mere 1/10th of the current SN!A data set. Newer and vastly greater data sets show that it's not a "discovery" at all! Now what are they going to do? Will they ask for the Nobel Prize on "dark energy" back? Will they admit that they jumped the gun about claiming to have discovered dark energy and revise their theory yet again to eliminate dark energy? Will they do anything other than bury their collective heads in the sand some more and pretend it never happened just like they do with everything else the don't want to deal with?

Every single observation that LCDM fails is simply ignored and/or swept under the rug, including the dark energy fiasco. The mainstream has the worst case of confirmation bias in the entire history of physics. Every "test" over the past decade blows away their various supernatural claims, from the hemispheric variations that defy Guth's predictions of a "homogeneous" layout of matter due to inflation, to larger data sets which destroy dark energy discovery claims, to every "test" in the lab of exotic matter theory, to every single revelation of stellar and plasma under estimation problems that have been revealed. There's literally nothing left standing, yet the mainstream continues to ignore all of their many problems.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1194
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

The neverending dark matter snipe hunt.....

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Thu Dec 29, 2016 2:26 pm

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 085020.htm
https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.07289

By making use of more than six years of data gathered by the Fermi Large Area Telescope, the researchers found two different source classes contributing to the gamma-ray background. No traces of a contribution of dark matter particles were found in the analysis. The collaborative study was performed by an international group of researchers and is published in the latest edition of the journal Physical Review.
.......
To date, the Fermi telescope has not detected any conclusive indication of gamma-ray emission originating from dark-matter particles. Also, this latest study showed no indication of a signal associated with dark matter. Using their data, Fornasa and colleagues were even able to rule out some models of dark matter that would have produced a detectable signal.

'Our measurement complements other search campaigns that used gamma rays to look for dark matter and it confirms that there is little room left for dark matter induced gamma-ray emission in the isotropic gamma-ray background', says Fornasa.



Emphasis mine. If WIMP theory could be any "deader", this would do it. :)

It's unbelievable to me that WIMP theory is still being promoted as the likely source of "dark matter". Give me a break. WIMP theories have failed every observational and lab "test" they've ever been put to, including this one. Even more telling, their baryonic mass estimates have been shown to be ridiculously flawed.

It's very clear that the mainstream doesn't care how many "tests" their model fails. Denial is their only option yet again. If any of the four supernatural claims of LCDM are actually 'falsifiable". "dark matter" claims would certainly be at the very top the list in terms of the number of "tests" that have been run, yet not one of them worked as "predicted".

This is yet another example of why LCDM isn't actually a form of "science", it's a supernatural creation mythology run amuck, and nothing but dogma on a stick.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1194
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 2 guests