Lambda-CDM: What good is their so called "research" program?

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

There's no way to falsify dark matter theory

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Mon Jul 24, 2017 8:57 am

https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.06655

Translation: Nope, we didn't find any dark matter snipes in Xenon-1T either!

What is even the point of the mainstream even having a "research" program when they don't give a damn about anything that contradicts their claims?

The dark matter fiasco has devolved into an exotic matter snipe hunt of the gaps. Not only have they struck out at LHC, LUX, PandaX, AMDx, Pico-60, Xenon-1T etc, they don't even care about those results. Instead they throw more money at the next LUX experiment, or the next Xenon experiment and they just close their eyes to every failure.

What is the point of them "testing' their model if they won't accept any type of falsification of the idea in the first place? Not only were their baryonic mass estimates from 2006 falsified a half dozen ways, they've stuck out in the lab more times than I can count off the top of my head.

Exotic matter theory is a pathetically useless and impotent theory, and what a pathetically useless testing methodology. Billions spent, nothing found, nothing changed. Totally pointless.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1251
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: There's no way to falsify dark matter theory

Unread postby BeAChooser » Tue Jul 25, 2017 9:31 pm

Michael Mozina wrote:Billions spent, nothing found, nothing changed. Totally pointless.


No, Michael, the point has been to prolong their prestigious careers and line their pockets.

In that regard, mission accomplished.
BeAChooser
 
Posts: 133
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2015 7:24 pm

Re: Lambda-CDM: What good is their so called "research" prog

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Sun Aug 20, 2017 1:10 pm

https://phys.org/news/2017-08-video-dar ... eplin.html

I love how the mainstream simply ignores their *numerous* failures of the past when they present their 'new' version of the very same experiment which already found absolutely "nothing". :) The LUX-LZ detector is presented as though no other experiment like it was ever done before, and all previous results are irrelevant. :)

What good is their so called "research programs" when "no" isn't an acceptable answer? Their "methodology amounts to: Test->ignore all negative results->lather->rinse->repeat.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1251
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Lambda-CDM: What good is their so called "research" prog

Unread postby Metryq » Sun Aug 20, 2017 1:24 pm

You're just not getting it, Michael. The scientific method demands that mistakes be repeatable!

Meanwhile, budgets must be expandable to keep up with the universe.
User avatar
Metryq
 
Posts: 432
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 3:31 am

Re: Lambda-CDM: What good is their so called "research" prog

Unread postby comingfrom » Wed Aug 23, 2017 8:11 am

lol

Meanwhile, budgets must be expandable to keep up with the universe.

And expand they will, until they shift into the red.
User avatar
comingfrom
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm
Location: NSW, Australia

Re: Lambda-CDM: What good is their so called "research" prog

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Thu Aug 24, 2017 4:30 pm

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... tcount=109

I still haven't seen anything from an Electric Universe fan that could be viewed as even the outline of a possible research program.


Then you haven't paid attention very well. :)

The first thing I'd spend money researching are the full body of Birkeland's terella experiments in the lab, complete with all the spectral data, and Langmuir probe data.

The second thing I'd be willing to research *in the lab* is this concept:

https://phys.org/news/2017-06-atomic-ma ... radox.html

Both of those experiments need to happen, but alas you keep blowing our public lunch money on invisible snipe hunts. LUX didn't find anything, so you just ignore those negative results and you build and fund "LUX-LZ"!

Empirical physical *experiments* are always preferable to mathematical models and computer models. What "works" on paper (and software) doesn't necessarily work in the real world. Just ask Chapman.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1251
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

There is no such thing as an actual "test" of DM

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Thu Nov 09, 2017 8:44 am

http://www.nature.com/news/dark-matter- ... E-20171109

There's really no point in claiming that the mainstream "tests" their own theory. They don't. They only accept *positive* results. All negative results, just like this one are simply ignored, swept under the rug, and used as an excuse to fund yet *another* failed experiment.

I've simply lost count now in terms of the number of failed "tests" of the LCDM model. They've wasted *billions* of dollars on this invisible snipe hunt, and we know for a fact that their bayronic mass estimates have been a *joke* all along. Article after article, paper after published paper has shown that there is zero supporting evidence for exostic forms of matter. The mainstream does not care about negative results in the least.

If ever there was a more glaring example of confirmation bias, DM is it. There's literally no way to falsify it and no legitimate supporting evidence in the first place.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1251
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Lambda-CDM: What good is their so called "research" prog

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Sun Nov 12, 2017 2:16 pm

Metryq wrote:You're just not getting it, Michael. The scientific method demands that mistakes be repeatable!

Meanwhile, budgets must be expandable to keep up with the universe.


:) The dark matter mistake does indeed appear to be infinitely repeatable, regardless of the expanding budgets. :)

I'd have to say that the DM issue is probably the single best example of why LCDM "tests" utterly irrelevant. They demonstrate conclusively that metaphysical LCDM dogma is impervious to any negative results of even billion dollar "tests" of the model. They'll probably never have the kind of budget they've enjoyed at LHC to "test' their various DM models. These million dollar "chump change" Xenon experiments are more easily justifiable than the massive budgets which are required to build colliders, probably because Congress has to approve billion dollar collider budgets.

I must say that after all the crap I took in 2006 after that now infamous Bullet Cluster study, its been rather gratifying to watch the *epic* failure of DM to materialize in any of these big money experiments. Even more revealing, and more gratifying are the numerous cosmology studies that have since undermined mainstream estimates of galaxy mass based on light. Their bullet cluster mass estimates based on light were shown to be utterly worthless, and shown to be seriously flawed in numerous different ways. A decade ago they were using that bullet cluster study, and the upcoming LHC experiments to bash us over the head on this issue, but now they've both become a huge embarrassment to DM proponents. It's poetic justice IMO.

The DM hypothesis is not only failing spectacularly in the lab, the mainstream mass estimates of galaxies based on light have been shown to be absurdly flawed over the past decade. It's been a really rough decade for "dark matter" proponents, and especially for SUSY proponents. Some SUSY proponents wasted their entire professional careers writing about SUSY models which have since been falsified by the LHC results. That has to be pretty humbling for SUSY proponents in particular. LHC results were not kind to them.

These various DM tests all demonstrate that LCDM is a form of unfalsifiable (bad) religion, akin to Scientology in terms of the sheer absurdity of it. It's devolved into a "dark matter of the gaps" religion. It's definitely not a form of science or physics because the LCDM model has spectacularly failed all of it's so called experimental 'tests' and nobody even cares. Their "faith' in supernatural forms of matter is unshaken, even while their so called "evidence" has utterly evaporated.

The real dilemma for DM proponents will happen in another five years or so when LUX-LZ, Xenon-NT and PandaX-III also fail to find anything, and they cumulatively push the WIMP interaction cross-section into the range of neutrinos. At that point they're petty much out of wiggle room and out of gaps to justify their search.

I suspect they'll just continue to ignore all the cosmological observations that undermine their claims, and they'll dream up new DM models to "test", only so they can ignore those negative results too. :(

It totally blows up the irony meter to see pseudo-skeptics like Tyson, Krauss, and Shermer publicly bash on religion while promoting their own faith based belief systems, which consistently fail all of their own billion and million dollar 'tests". Oy Vey. What huge public hypocrites.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1251
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Lambda-CDM: What good is their so called "research" prog

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Sun Nov 12, 2017 6:38 pm

I found out that most astronomy "scientists" uphold a failing model, because
they don't think that alternatives can exist.

First: It is a logical fallacy to uphold a failing model.

Second: It is arrogance to state that alternatives do not exist.

Third: Use strawman to do away with existing alternatives.

A good scientific strategy would be to investigate alternatives, and to
get more accurate data on how the galaxy works.
So even if there is no alternative, we can drop the "dark matter" hypothesis.

But what is really the EU alternative to galaxy rotation speeds?
Let me state an EU based theory:
The galaxy starts with a quasar. (See Halton Arp).
The quasar has the same charge as the centre of the galaxy, so it moves away.
The quasar might be formed by "quarks merging together" or maybe just common nuclear reactions.
The quasar's matter is both charged (possibly positive) and in a state of decay.
The opposite charge forms a small halo around the quasar. Maybe those are electrons.
The quasar creates a current towards the halo.
It also creates decaying matter.
The electric current connects the quasar with the interstellar plasma,
and moves some positive charged matter along with it.
It ejects matter into 2 opposite directions, while rotating.
The matter moves outside and into the rotation direction.
The charges causes matter to clump together, and the
currents ignite the nuclear reactions in first stars.
Stars also rotate around each other, due to currents and magnetic forces giving direction.
Older stars decay into planets.
The electric charge, the magnetism, the gravity and the electric currents keep the stars together,
giving them a faster speed than possible with just gravity alone.
When galaxies get very old, matter merges again in the centre and forms new quasars.

This explains the following observations:
1) galaxy formation,
2) quasars,
3) old age of stars on outside of galaxies,
4) formation of galaxy arms,
5) rotation of stars,
6) rotation of planets around stars,
7) rotation velocity,
8) the formation of stars and planets
9) galaxy halos, galaxy bulbs

But oh wait,
there is no invisible dark matter.
How sad.
This theory must be wrong.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 720
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: Lambda-CDM: What good is their so called "research" prog

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Mon Nov 13, 2017 12:34 pm

Zyxzevn wrote:I found out that most astronomy "scientists" uphold a failing model, because
they don't think that alternatives can exist.

First: It is a logical fallacy to uphold a failing model.

Second: It is arrogance to state that alternatives do not exist.

Third: Use strawman to do away with existing alternatives.

A good scientific strategy would be to investigate alternatives, and to
get more accurate data on how the galaxy works.
So even if there is no alternative, we can drop the "dark matter" hypothesis.

But what is really the EU alternative to galaxy rotation speeds?
Let me state an EU based theory:
The galaxy starts with a quasar. (See Halton Arp).
The quasar has the same charge as the centre of the galaxy, so it moves away.
The quasar might be formed by "quarks merging together" or maybe just common nuclear reactions.
The quasar's matter is both charged (possibly positive) and in a state of decay.
The opposite charge forms a small halo around the quasar. Maybe those are electrons.
The quasar creates a current towards the halo.
It also creates decaying matter.
The electric current connects the quasar with the interstellar plasma,
and moves some positive charged matter along with it.
It ejects matter into 2 opposite directions, while rotating.
The matter moves outside and into the rotation direction.
The charges causes matter to clump together, and the
currents ignite the nuclear reactions in first stars.
Stars also rotate around each other, due to currents and magnetic forces giving direction.
Older stars decay into planets.
The electric charge, the magnetism, the gravity and the electric currents keep the stars together,
giving them a faster speed than possible with just gravity alone.
When galaxies get very old, matter merges again in the centre and forms new quasars.

This explains the following observations:
1) galaxy formation,
2) quasars,
3) old age of stars on outside of galaxies,
4) formation of galaxy arms,
5) rotation of stars,
6) rotation of planets around stars,
7) rotation velocity,
8) the formation of stars and planets
9) galaxy halos, galaxy bulbs

But oh wait,
there is no invisible dark matter.
How sad.
This theory must be wrong.


You are absolutely right of course, but this is an "all or nothing" problem as it relates to the viability of their entire cosmology model, so it creates a huge dilemma for them.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15850

It would not even be necessary for the mainstream to embrace EU/PC theory just to replace exotic matter with ordinary matter in order to explain galaxy rotation patterns, and lensing patterns. In fact there is *overwhelming* evidence in 2017 that they botched those 2006 baryonic mass estimates in that Bullet Cluster study by huge amounts, starting with the fact that they underestimated the number of whole stars in those bullet cluster galaxies by a whopping factor of between 3 and 20 times. They "could" also simply note that those "halos" that they found of hot plasma in 2012, and the second halo of non-ionized hydrogen gas in 2017 are located right where their "dark matter" models predicted. In theory, they could simply replace exotic matter with ordinary gas and plasma to explain galaxy rotation patterns and still ignore EU/PC theory. They really have no evidence that their baryonic mass estimates were ever worth the paper they were printed on in 2006, in fact they have overwhelming evidence in 2017 that they were not worth the paper they were printed on in 2006.

Their real dilemma however comes from their claims about the CMB, and their nucleosynthesis predictions. They can't just replace exotic matter with ordinary matter in those various formulas and get the correct results. It would destroy both their nucleosynthesis predictions, and their "power spectrum" curve fit. Neither one works with ordinary matter so they're pretty much stuck between a rock and a hard place. If they admit that they screwed up in terms of their baryonic mass estimates, their entire BB model bites the dust. It's really an "all or nothing" issue for them, which is what creates such a huge dilemma. Admitting that there is no evidence of exotic matter is a catastrophic problem for them which is why they keep burying their heads in the sand to all the negative test results, and they keep throwing good money after bad at LUX, XENON-1T and PandaX experiments.

The part that really kills me however in terms of their rejection of EU/PC theory is their pitiful solar model. The standard solar model has technically been dead since 2012 when SDO measured convection to be only about 1 percent of their "predicted" value. Those convection predictions directly tie back to the magnetic field strengths they require to explain solar atmospheric activities, and "magnetic reconnection" events. They literally lost their power supply to explain high energy solar atmospheric events and they have no idea how to fix that problem, so they have never updated their model. Those SDO revelations of slow convection also destroys their claim about heavy elements like iron and nickel staying mixed together with very light elements like hydrogen and helium. Such a slow convection process would preclude the elements from staying mixed together as they claim. We should expect to see mass separation by elements at such slow convection speeds. They still can't explain the heat source of the solar corona, let alone *simulate* it in the lab as Birkeland did with electricity over a century ago.

EU/PC theory is destined to replace their nonsense, but that just makes them mad because they've invested themselves so heavily in trying to 'debunk' the whole concept for many decades now, and EU/PC theory just won't die. It makes them look bad now to do an about face and embrace EU/PC theory after trashing the idea online for decades.

Koberlein's bullshit blog entries about EU/PC theory demonstrate that some people in the mainstream are willing to flat out *lie* about EU/PC theory in order to try to kill it, and not a single mainstream astronomer has shown the intellectual integrity to set Koberlein straight for over three years now. They really aren't particularly "honest" as a group, and they aren't about to admit to screwing up with respect to exotic matter theories for fear of losing all credibility entirely.

They really are stuck between a dark rock and an exotic matter hard place, and their huge egos prevent them from admitting their mistakes. That's why they have to simply bury their collective heads in the sand with respect to the outcome of the LHC results in particular. They put all their eggs in the SUSY/WIMP basket prior to LHC, and LHC utterly and systematically destroyed their pretty mathematical models about WIMPS. It also showed that the standard particle physics model correctly predicts even the most exotic subatomic particle decay processes with stunning accuracy.

The real deal breaker for WIMP theory will come in about 5 years when LUX-LX, Xenon-NT and PandaX-3 push the WIMP interaction cross section with ordinary matter down into the realm of neutrino interactions, and that will leave them with no more gaps to surf. All hell will break loose at that point until they figure out how to rally around a different dark matter model. I don't think that will be easy either. Nothing else really works nearly as well as WIMPS. Axions are really too light and too hot to work properly, as are sterile neutrinos, so all their current computer models are still based on WIMP theory.

You're absolutely correct that it *should* be possible to falsify one claim without even having a replacement theory. An honest "I don't know" is a hell of a lot better than burying your heads in the sand and ignoring all the failed predictions of exotic matter. The problem for them is that if they give an honest answer, they have to admit that they don't really know anything at all about the universe that we live in because their entire theory collapses.

The major fear factor is directly related to EU/PC theory. I think they know in the back of their mind that empirical physics will triumph eventually, but they don't want to lose their professional prestige, let alone their funding. Were they to admit that they don't really know anything, it would destroy the whole funding processes in place at the moment, and everyone's job would be in jeopardy. Better in their opinions that they simply sweep all the lab failures of DM under the rug, as well as all the problems with their baryonic mass estimates.

It really is pointless to test their dogma because they absolutely refuse to abide by the outcome of any test that doesn't give them what they want. The so called "testing" process just creates the illusion of respectability and keeps them employed for a few more years.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1251
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Does "science" or truth even matter to the mainstream?

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Wed Nov 29, 2017 12:09 pm

The dark matter fiasco makes me wonder if astronomers actually even care about "science" or whether their motives are all about protecting their funding streams.

In terms of dollars spent, there has never been a more "tested" hypothesis in the history of physics which has failed so miserably in the lab. We quite literally spent *billions* of dollars at LHC and we found no hint of exotic forms of matter, and yet LHC found ample evidence to support the standard particle physics model. The standard model has passed every conceivable test to date at LHC. We have also invested many tens of millions of dollars on various dark matter models in other types of experiments, including Xenon-1T, LUX, PandaX, AMDX, nEDM, icecube, etc, all of which have utterly failed to find even a hint of any type of exotic forms of matter, let alone a form that would plug the holes of LCDM theory.

The so called cosmological "evidence" to support exotic matter have all been based on the premise that mainstream astronomers could properly calculate the amount of ordinary matter in various galaxies based on light, but over the past decade that assumption has been repeatedly undermined by numerous revelations of massive underestimation problems in their techniques.

There is literally *zero* evidence to support the existence of exotic matter, yet the mainstream continues to insist it must exist in spite of all evidence to the contrary. Nothing has changed, nothing has been updated, and no effort has been made to find alternative explanations for various observations in space.

Instead we seem to be stuck on a denial-go-round where no amount of 'testing' is capable of falsifying the claim, and no matter what the results of various tests, the metaphysical dogma continues unabated.

What's the point of applying the scientific method to the dark matter claim if it can never be falsified, and the results of tests don't matter to those who are making these claims? Is there any actual evidence to support dark matter which *cannot* be explained with ordinary matter, or which don't begin with a bad case of special pleading?

How can astronomers claim to be interested in "science" if they refuse to allow the LCDM model to actually be 'tested' in a way that allows it to be falsified? It appears as though there is far more interest in protecting the funding streams associated with current theory than there is any real interest in "science", or truth. What's the point of testing a model if you refuse to embrace the results of those tests?
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1251
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Evidently "facts" don't tend to convince people.....

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Wed Nov 29, 2017 12:48 pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... EWLY3mdk8E

This Youtube video describing a study about human beliefs tends to explain why the consistent failure of DM theory in the lab seems to have little or no effect on the outcome of the beliefs of it's proponents. It's evidently pretty common for contradictory "facts" to simply be ignored or rationalized away. This probably explains why DM proponents don't seem to care one iota about the outcome of their failed lab tests, or the fact that their baryonic mass estimates of various galaxies have been shown to be a complete joke.

The disconcerting part of the study is that it's hard to imagine what we even share in common with LCDM proponents. I guess we all seek "truth", but if 'facts don't matter', how is it even possible to find "truth"? I suppose that we all share an interest in astronomy, but in terms of basic beliefs there doesn't seem to be a lot of common ground between our two communities. Our community seems to be primarily interested in empirical solutions to observations in astronomy, and LCDM proponents seem to shun empirical physical solutions entirely. :(
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1251
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Does "science" or truth even matter to the mainstream?

Unread postby BeAChooser » Wed Nov 29, 2017 5:01 pm

Michael Mozina wrote:The dark matter fiasco makes me wonder if astronomers actually even care about "science" or whether their motives are all about protecting their funding streams.


Unfortunately, protecting funding is what it's all about. That can be the only explanation for ignoring the obvious.
BeAChooser
 
Posts: 133
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2015 7:24 pm

Previous

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest