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

[Michael Mozina]

The lack of any intelligent response over at ISF, or anywhere else on this topic says volumes IMO.

There's a *huge* empirical difference, and lab demonstrated difference between the empirical physical processes that EU/PC theory is based upon, and the *purely hypothetical* entities that make up Lambda-CDM.

With respect to any lab results we might study from history, Birkeland's lab results produced useful, reliable, and accurate "predictions" that have since been observed by satellites in space, including currents in the aurora, coronal heating, discharges in the solar atmosphere, coronal loops, polar jets, cathode rays from the sun, both types of high speed charged particles from the sun, etc.

To date not a single "dark matter" experiment has produced *squat* that actually supports their "cold dark matter" claims, even after spending *billions* of dollars. In fact all they did was falsify every "popular" mythical mathical make-believe model they came up with. Now they're playing the "cold dark matter of the gaps" argument in public and ignoring any and all methods of falsification of the idea. Worse yet, the *entire premise* that the concept of exotic matter was based upon has since been falsified. Those 2006 lensing studies were *terrible* in terms of correctly predicting the amount of ordinary baryonic matter on those galaxy clusters. They botched the stellar mass estimates alone by a whopping factor of between 3 and 20 times, and that's the just the beginning of their baryonic mass estimation errors.

There's no way on this Earth that Lambda-CDM proponents could or ever might win a real debate on the internet on this particular topic. They're whistling Dixie in the lab after billions of dollars spent, yet they're unwilling to do a 21'st century upgrade of Birkeland's work. Wow!

[BeAChooser]

Thanks for all your good work, Michael. I'm with you on all this and I see no intelligent counter replies. NOT ONE.

[Webbman]

It has a function, just not that. Same for any underground fortress that houses some bullshit science project.

[Michael Mozina]

JeanTate : One aspect that's relevant to this thread: every one of the 'founders' of 'the EU/PC', and the oft claimed 'current members of the EU/PC community' (such as Lerner and Peratt), were/are dead keen on empirical tests, experiments, etc to test their hypotheses, yet, with perhaps one exception (SAFIRE), there's zero evidence that any of the current EU leaders, or high profile posters in the TD forum, have the slightest interest in even thinking about tests!

What pure nonsense. There is nobody here that isn't interested in thinking about those tests, and all the *failures* of the "dark matter" tests too. You guys can't and won't deal with your own lab tests because you have a horrific case of confirmation bias, and negative results of your tests are therefore utterly and completely irrelevant. You don't spend five minutes thinking about those billions of dollars worth of failures.

We'd all love to see Birkeland's entire range of physical experiments put to the test in the lab, not just a subset of them as was done with SAFIRE. We're all waiting to see some of the results from SAFIRE too.

Much the same is true of 'mathematics': the papers by B, A, L, and P are often chockablock with equations and numbers, some pretty hairy ...

Yep, and none of the mainstream hotshots has ever found a single mathematical flaw in any of it. You can add Bruce to that list of maths that you folks cannot and will not deal with, accept, or find fault with.

yet no EU acolyte seems willing to do even the simplest of high school-based calculations, much less detailed simulations.

What a bunch of pure outright fabrication. Peratt took Alfven's ideas and he wrote a whole book on the topic, and put it into a computer simulation too. You folks ignored it, just like you ignored everything else. It's all a "personal attack" nonsense directed at the EU/PC community, and none of it true.

Although Scoles didn't explore this, I suspect a key reason why many EU supporters avoid the dreaded 'M' is because they are incapable of doing even simple BOTE calculations. And despite their curiosity and desire to keep learning, they have zero interest in, or intent to change that.

Unlike me, Jean has probably never read Peratt's book, and I'm sure that Jean will never find any flaw in any of Alfven's many published papers, or his book. It's not even a rational requirement to expect that every EU/PC proponent will necessarily be attracted to the concept based upon it's mathematical appeal or based upon a purely mathematical argument. It was Birkeland's *lab tests* that caught my attention. I then went out of my way to explore the mathematics behind it. This is purely a sleazy argument, from start to finish.

One consequence of this self-crippling mindset is the need for the moaning/special pleading/bleating you so often come across: 'all the money is going to mainstream research! If only a tiny part of it were dedicated to research into the EU!' Sometimes I want to scream, "guys, pencils and paper cost you ~nothing! The computers you write your excuses on have FREE software you can do quite detailed modeling, calculations, and simulations on/with! Get off your lazy ***** and start doing some real research!!"

OMG. Sometimes I wonder if the mainstream even understands the difference between mathematics and empirical physics.

Psssst Jean: We have Peratt's maths and Alfven's maths, and Birkeland's maths, and Bruce's maths, and lots of maths related to plasma physics that we would *love* to put the the empirical test in real labs. It's the lab part we're most interested in because Lambda-CDM mathematical models were *worthless* at finding anything useful in a lab. We want funding put into real empirically working ideas and concepts, not just poured into holes in the ground only to have you simply ignored the results you don't like!

[Michael Mozina]

JeanTate: Over in Thunderdolts there's indirect evidence that something like this has probably happened (no, I'm not going to provide links, or mention any particular EU acolyte(s)).

How childish and predictable. The primary "debate tactic" employed by the mainstream is an unending stream of personal attacks and personal insults. That fallacious debate tactic is about as unethical as it gets, and it's certainly a fear based mentality.

Here's what I mean: the observation that the redshifts of galaxies correlate well with distance is one of the key pieces of evidence in support of an expanding universe, per application of GR to the universe as a whole. "the EU" rejects this,

Pffft! This statement is easily demonstrated to be false based upon the fact that Alfven wrote his own "expansion" oriented paper that was based upon the interaction of matter with antimatter. His expansion claims simply didn't require all matter/energy to condense itself to a single "point" in spacetime, but it was certainly an expansion oriented theory, and published with Alfven's name on it. Do you folks do any real homework or do you just spew whatever you want as "fact"?

I personally also embrace the possibility of "object movement" as it relates to expansion concepts, and it's not entirely clear that "space expansion" is even necessary to explain ordinary time dilation processes in the first place:

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0601171

Having said that, I think it's simply "more likely" that with all the temperature and EM field gradients in the universe that photons simply experience a certain amount of inelastic scattering on their trip to Earth. Furthermore I observe strong observational evidence of pulse spreading in SN1A events. I'd tend to agree with Hubble that it's most likely caused by photons losing momentum to the medium through which they travel.

and some EU fans have proposed an alternative, "plasma redshift".

There are several mathematical options to choose from now actually, and they all deserve to be tested in a lab.

And some have gone further and proposed "pulse broadening" as an alternative explanation for the "time dilation" seen in the light curves of SNIa. A supposed plus for these are (claimed) "in the lab" experiments which show both.

That's the problem for you folks. There is a real empirical cause/effect link between photon redshift and *many* (not just one) form of inelastic scattering. Worse yet, pulse spreading is observed in everything from fiber optics, to any experiment with light passing through a physical medium of any sort. You've got two empirical strikes against you, and three if we include Chodorowski's solution via time dilation (not my personal favorite I must admit, but it's still better than your nonsense).

A simple application of the Occam's razor argument and your 4 mythical entities have to go, since none of them are even necessary in the first place and none of them enjoy a shred of empirical cause/effect justification.

However, chatter on this seems to have decreased lately.

It has? Hmmm. If so, it's probably a transitory lull since we routinely discuss various tired light proposals around here and we don't get all our information on this topic from one unpublished website by Ned Wright.

Perhaps the reason is that at least some of the more thoughtful EU proponents have done something like what ben m describes ... and come to the realization that these "plasma redshift" and "pulse broadening" explanations cannot possibly work, for the observed universe

Except Hubble believed that they'd work, and Arp did too, and everyone else that has put forth a mathematical model which you folks refuse to read or deal with. These ideas certainly work in the lab, so unless you believe that photons in spacetime magically weave and dodge their way around every EM field and temperature gradient in the entire universe, it's likely that all photons will experience some amount of loss of momentum to the spacetime medium.

(e.g. the density of the IPM, much less the inter-cluster medium, is so much ridiculously lower than any reported experimental test, and even if the effects are extrapolated to estimated ICM densities, they would be vanishingly small).

Ya, except we found out in 2008 that one of the key problems with your mass estimation techniques was the fact that more scattering was occurring in spacetime than you originally claimed, and you found out the universe is more cluttered than you first "guestimated".

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/news/archiv ... 439,en.php

Of course that was a relatively minor blow to CMD claims compared to how badly you folks botched the other stellar estimates of galaxies, the actual number of stars between galaxies shared in the cluster, and the fact you overlooked all that hot plasma surrounding every galaxy until 2012.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... =3&t=15850

Oooopsy! You folks botched not only the amount of scattering going on in the IGM, you botched every aspect of baryonic galaxy mass estimation that I can even think of.

Leaving the only EU fans who still talk about this as those who clearly cannot do any BOTE calculations anyway.

Yawn. Right back to the personal attack nonsense. It's worth noting that that none of them them have ever found a single mathematical flaw in any of Alfven's published papers, any of the work by Bruce or by Birkeland or any mathematical flaw in Peratt's entire book on this topic. All they care about is slandering *people* while they blatantly ignore all the key predictions that Birkeland nailed with respect to solar physics and Earth's atmospheric physics. Holy Cow, no wonder they can't figure out the heat source of the corona. They don't remember what a real working model looks like:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m58-CfV ... e=youtu.be

[Michael Mozina]

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/hubble/
http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Br ... /0/all/0/1
http://www.lyndonashmore.com/
http://lyndonashmore.com/photon_redshift_spread.htm
http://journals.aps.org/rmp/abstract/10 ... hys.78.591

FYI, these are some of my personal favorite mathematical models to date that are related to the photon redshift phenomenon. I'm sure that there are other mathematical models of which I am currently unaware as well, but these mathematical models all deserve some consideration and IMO warrant further "testing" in the lab too.

In fact, I'd personally entertain just about any redshift concept that is related to almost any type of inelastic scattering or quasiscattering, or some combination thereof. I'd say Compton scattering may not do it *alone*, but even it probably has *some* role in the overall processes at work in spacetime. Any empirically testable solution to the photon redshift enigma is better than handwaving in three different supernatural fudge factors stuffed into one big pantheon of untestable and unfalsifiable constructs. How do we get "space" to do magical expansion tricks in a lab in the first place? What control mechanism did you intend to use in such "experiments" in the lab?

[Michael Mozina]

Jeantate: There was some recent activity in the comments on the "Testing the Electric Universe" blog post, in Brian Koberlein's One Universe at a Time. Two recent commenters tried to defend "the EU", and there was more of the whinging (excuses) about how development of "the EU" (as a theory) was being hindered by lack of funds, etc.

Since Jeantate seems to wish to dig up this topic again at ISF, I suppose I'll respond here:

http://thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpBB3/v ... =3&t=15850

Every single one of those "lab tests" that you folks conducted on "dark matter" in the lab over the past decade, cost us taxpayers somewhere between billions of dollars with a B, and 10 or so *million* dollars, and then lather, rinse, and repreat the cycle, sucking up oodles of financial resources along the way. The mainstream has spent exactly *zero* dollars testing Birkeland's solar models with updated equipment (like SAFIRE) and then complain at individual tax payers when we complain about the way they are squandering our financial resources hand over fist! All the while, every "failed test in the lab, and in your mass calculations models" is simply ignored, and every single test is then "upgraded" and failures ensue again, ad nausium. The confirmation bias problem with LCDM proponents is simply off scale.

None of the three (new to that commentary) EU fans mentioned that it takes essentially zero $$, and not too much effort, to write a detailed description of possible tests, which could be done by limited time on the Hubble (say), or simply by using publicly available datasets such as SDSS. In replying to them, I concluded "Why has no fan of “the EU” ever done anything like this?"

But like every other such "test" that Alfven himself "predicted", including his prediction of synchrotron radiation around galaxy jets has simply been *ignored* by the mainstream for decades. How many similarities did Peratt find between his computer simulations and observations of space? Do you people even care?

The real problem however is the first order of business IMO would be to duplicate Birkeland's entire body of work, but alas that would require a significant investment of real research $$$.

I realize that you folks don't care one iota bout empirical lab tests, but we do, and most of those lab tests would require money, and I've outline several of them already.

I mean, the time it took SteveR (say) to write, edit, and post his whines was surely longer than the time it'd take him to outline a possible astronomical test of "the EU", using SDSS data!

As if you folks cared one iota about the outcome of those tests. Let's see you defend some of the links I've already provided for you in the confirmation bias thread. Don't let a ban here at Thunderbolts stop you from responding over at CRUS if you actually have anything useful to say:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/ ... k.7949365/

Oh, and I've been dipping into the TD forum every now and then, to see if someone there is revolutionary enough to at least suggest that such astronomical tests are not only possible but relatively straight-forward to do (or at least describe). Nothing, nada, zip.

Oh for crying out loud, get off your lazy backside and do it yourself. You folks are the so called "professionals". Stop *assuming* you have nothing to learn from the concept. Most of us have real day jobs, and most of us have already provided you with ideas that we would like to see tested (in real labs in my case) if you're actually interested in putting those specific ideas to the "test". I personally could simply not care less about your SDSS data sets. What I care about are *working lab models* like the kind that Birkeland created. You're still stuck in that "(simple) math is everything" mental headset that caused the mainstream to reject Birkeland's work in favor of Chapman's models for decades until satellites in space demonstrated that Birkeland was right about aurora. At the rate you're going, it will likely be another 100 years before you finally figure out that he was right about the heliosphere too!

Sheesh. What's the point in testing any of your claims when we now know that your claims about "missing mass" were completely related to your *bogus barionic mass calculations*, not exotic matter, and every single "prediction" you made in the lab was worthless, yet you bury your head in the sand to those results?

[Michael Mozina]

Oh, and I've been dipping into the TD forum every now and then, to see if someone there is revolutionary enough to at least suggest that such astronomical tests are not only possible but relatively straight-forward to do (or at least describe). Nothing, nada, zip.

http://www.plasma-universe.com/Plasma_cosmology
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-b ... 9d73312813

Anytime that your folks would like to stop misrepresenting EU/PC theory, you're welcome to read through some of Peratt's astronomical "tests" or any of the papers that Alfven published. There's nothing preventing you from mathematically studying the implications of their work.

Of course we're not just interested in the outcome of 'astronomical tests', but we're also interested in the "predictive usefulness" of the various ideas in the lab. Speaking of "Nothing, nada, zip", that's been the consistent result of your so called "tests" of dark matter theory in the lab to date. Nothing you "predicted" about DM was useful in the lab, not one single thing. You've spent billions of dollars on a supernatural snipe hunt that started with a *ridiculously flawed* baryonic galaxy mass estimation technique that was (ab)used in 2006. So much for the "predictive usefulness" of dark matter theory, and so much for any "evidence" to support it.

How about instead of blowing another 10 million on the next "dark matter" snipe hunt that we begin our EU/PC "tests" by recreating Birkeland's whole range of lab experiments with more updated 21st century equipment in terms of measuring particle flows, Langmuir probes, and spectroscopic equipment? What is there to lose from such a "test" that you haven't already tossed into one of your many holes in the ground and then found exactly nothing for your time and money?

[BeAChooser]

How about instead of blowing another 10 million on the next "dark matter" snipe hunt that we begin our EU/PC "tests" by recreating Birkeland's whole range of lab experiments with more updated 21st century equipment in terms of measuring particle flows, Langmuir probes, and spectroscopic equipment? What is there to lose from such a "test" that you haven't already tossed into one of your many holes in the ground and then found exactly nothing for your time and money?

Amen.

[Michael Mozina]

There were some responses to my ISF post, over in la-la-land (a.k.a. Thunderdolts), mostly just more excuses and bleating; it's crystal clear, by now, that a key reason why no EU acolyte has proposed even the sketchiest tests of "EU theory" is that they are, collectively, innumerate.

Yawn.

Ya know...

This is the same irrational personal attack nonsense that has kept astronomers in the dark ages for the past century or so. It's also exactly why Birkeland and his team knew far more about atmospheric solar physics than astronomers know to this day. It's also why the whole lot of them are utterly *incapable* of naming even so much as a single source of "dark energy", and its an example of pure hypocrisy on a stick as it relates to their own claims and "tests". They don't even care about the predictive usefulness of any mathematical model, nor do they have any interest in *working physical solutions* to any of their "mysteries".

The mainstream community *prides* (heavily prides mind you) themselves of their superior math skills, and they love to "pretend" that this issue alone makes them somehow "scientifically superior" and somehow "right" by default. The hypocrisy of course is that when they have actually used those high and mighty math skills to actually "predict" anything at all about "dark matter" in the lab, every single one of their high and mighty mathematical "prediction" that they made turned out to *worthless*. Not a single math formula related to SUSY theory produced anything useful at LHC, but did they abide by the outcome of their own 'tests", or did they judge their theory based on the outcome of the value of those "tests"? Of course not. The swept the negative results of all those dark matter "tests" right under the rug, and away they go again whipping up more mathematical models to falsify the by *dozen* in their "new tests".

So what actually is the value of those math skills when they have zero predictive usefulness, and their own mathematical "tests" have no actual value as it relates to really "testing" the validity of their claim?

Since the days of the Chapman/Birkeland debate and energy flows from the sun, the mainstream has preferred a "math only" approach to astronomy. They really don't give a damn about the lab, actual lab results, and they certainly don't give a damn about any negative results related to their own so called "tests" of their maths.

Instead they sit there pretending that Alfven didn't already publish *hundreds* of papers, that Birkieland didn't make any predictions for them to test, that Peratt never published anything, that Lerner never published anything, etc. They *pretend* that amateurs in cyberspace owe them homage to their superior math skills in spite of the fact they botched the stellar mass estimates in that 2006 lensing study by a whopping factor of between 3 and 20, and they've struck out every lab test of their "maths" for the past decade.

Wow. The arrogance, and the ignorance is simply off scale. They have no clue how to actually physically "explain" anything about 95 percent of their own claims. They have a two order of magnitude problem with convection (power source) of their own solar model, and yet apparently they have nothing better to do with their time than to bash empirical physics in cyberspace. It's really no wonder why we live in the dark ages of astronomy, and there is plenty of evidence that they are intent on keeping everyone in the dark for as long as humanly possible.

What is the value of LCDM maths and "predictions" when every single lab failure is utterly ignored? What value did those "maths" actually ever have in the first place? ? Has it actually helped them "explain" anything in the past decade?' Has it helped them "predict" anything useful?

[Michael Mozina]

And another point:
Three weeks ago I was at an AGU Chapman conference on "currents in geospace and beyond".
A week long presentations on all kinds of currents and electric fields in space plasmas!
Here is the link to the program: http://chapman.agu.org/spacecurrents/

It's more than a tad ironic that a "Chapman" conference is the mainstream's big "space current" conference. That's kinda like holding a "Hitler conference on Jewish Theology".

The second really ironic part is that they talk about a "century" of knowledge about this topic of currents in space, and they show a picture of Birkeland, but in over 100 years, they haven't bothered to sit down and recreate any of his actual lab experiments using modern instruments and modern measuring equipment.

I'm sure when they finally have to leave the dark ages, kicking and screaming all the way, they'll eventually try to rewrite history and claim "We knew it all along, which is why we it's called a Chapman conference".

This was a rather timely comment and timely set of questions from the website:

Two recent space missions, the Hinode satellite and the Solar Dynamics Observatory spacecraft, have provided new information on electrical currents at the level of the Sun’s photosphere, as well as high resolution X-ray and extreme-UV and X-ray images of solar activity powered by coronal currents.

There have also been tremendous advances in the capabilities of simulations to allow modeling of many of the relevant processes.

To build up a comprehensive picture, this Chapman conference will address electric currents in various space plasmas, including:

• Earth’s magnetosphere & ionosphere
• Planetary magnetospheres & ionospheres (other than Earth)
• Solar atmosphere and solar wind (including the heliospheric current sheet)

The main objective of this conference will be to develop a deeper understanding of the fundamental physics of electric currents in space plasmas and to give an up-to-date look on where research on currents stands: What are the new analysis methods? What do we know? What are unanswered questions? What else is needed to make progress?

All those high energy solar processes are made possible because of the electric field that exists between the surface of the sun and the heiliosphere as Birkeland demonstrated in a lab over 100 years ago. What's the likelihood of the mainstream making any real or tangible progress until and unless they start to recognize that fact?

Sheep!

What's "needed" is a real commitment to *empirical physics* and a preference for empirical physics over invisible sky mythology. What's *needed* are millions of dollars of real "tests" of Birkeland's models, and wiring options, and planeterella tests, with *different* shapes of sphere, and *different* configurations.

What we do *not* need however are billions of dollars of more "tests" of "dark matter". We already have the outcomes of those tests. Wake up and smell the empirical coffee already!

What's *needed* is for the mainstream to acknowledge the kinetic energy *source* of solar atmospheric, and interplanetary plasma physics, namely the electric field that powers it.

[Michael Mozina]

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.10 ... /2/96/meta

Dear JeanTate:

You make such a big and huge deal about the SDSS data sets and what "predictions" that we might make to support EU/PC ideas mathematically based on that data. This particular published paper based on SDSS data sets is another excellent, excellent, *excellent* example of a mathematical "test" of various cosmology models that "debunks" your utterly erroneous and fallacious claim that EU/PC theory in general, static universe theory specifically, or that tired light theory specifically lacks any type of mathematical support. That erroneous mainstream nonsense needs to go Jean. It's a convenient lie that you folks tell to unsuspecting children. Knock it off! More importantly, your personal belief that EU/PC community "owes" you something mathematically is really pretty laughable. The mainstream can't even actually "explain" ninety five percent of the universe, so if anyone *should* be doing this work, it's the mainstream.

Math isn't a problem, or the problem with EU/PC theory. Actual physics is your real problem Jeantate. None of your invisible stuff ever works in the lab, whereas Birkeland created a working model of an electric sun over a century ago and made predictions using that model which took *decades* to confirm with satellites in space.

Never in the past century was there ever a time when EU/PC theory did not enjoy mathematical or empirical support. Get over yourselves already. SDSS data sets have *already* been used to support EU/PC ideas and concepts Jean. What rock have you been hiding under?

[Michael Mozina]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... stcount=76

JeanTate: Now according to a member of "the EU/PC community", "every cause/effect claim that is associated with EU/PC theory has the potential of being tested in the lab under controlled conditions".

Wonderful! Let's see a proposal, by an EU fan, for a test in the lab, under controlled conditions, in which a simulation of photospheric lightning discharges produces electron neutrinos (and antineutrinos), muon neutrinos (and antineutrinos), and tau neutrinos (and antineutrinos). Given the wide range of "in the lab" neutrino experiments either planned, under way, or finished, I'm sure such a proposal would be warmly welcomed!

Well, since you asked....

Wal's comments and our multi-board conversations got me to thinking today about that very same topic. I have a few ideas and suggestions for you on trying to recreate various neutrino flavors here on Earth. Luckily we *already* create neutrinos here on Earth in a variety of empirical ways. I suggest we start there.

http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article ... trino-beam

Cute little movie by the way.

Keep in mind that I'm personally willing to entertain both a solid surface as well as any polarity you'd like to experiment with in a lab. Make sure we include all the elements based on Oliver Manuel's elemental composition models too. We need to test some sputtering options on a wide variety of materials. Apparently K40 might be interesting to play with in the lab:

https://grupo.us.es/gfnl/talks/2013/jim ... ea2013.pdf

I suggest we start with a solid sphere model too so we can simulate sputtering effects and use a variety of surface materials, polarity configurations, a variety of textures, sizes of spheres, a variety of magnetic field strengths, voltages, amperage, yada, yada, control mechanism, yada. Lets turn on the electricity and see what we can come up with in terms of neutrino output. What do you think?

It's no accident that Birkeland's experiments from 100 years ago are still as relevant today in the field of solar physics as they were 100 years ago. Birkeland figured out the kinetic energy heat source of the corona 100 years ago, and the mainstream still hasn't figured it out. I'll bet his sputtering surface model can even be adapted (or scaled another way) to emit neutrinos if you're willing to spend some big bucks to check it out.

I have an obvious suggestion JeanTate: Get off your professional butts and recreate Birkeland's empirical lab experiments using 21st century technology already!

Please don't use my tax money to dig another hole in the ground to look for exotic forms of matter that have to meet all your personal biased sky mythology requirements. In terms of particle physics, I'm quite fine with the money that is being spent at LHC. Lets see what they come up with LHC and shut down the rest of the "dark matter" experiments for just a year or two to invest in some working technology for a change. In the meantime put a little time, money and effort into doing some *empirical physics* for awhile. We've invested tens of millions of dollars to "test" hypothetical entities and all the results have been negative for close to a decade.

I don't want to put anyone out of work. Put the same 'dark matter' guys on the job, and use the same facilities to do the work for all I care.

How about we try something that we know will work in the lab? Even if we can't generate fusion or neutrinos, I'm sure we'll learn all kinds of things that are relevant to solar physics and plasma physics in general.

[Michael Mozina]

Wrong thread. Sorry.

[Michael Mozina]

But credit where it's due: of the tens of thousands of EU zealots, Zyxzevn is in a tiny minority, someone who proposed a test, and one which involves making a calculation.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... =3&t=15850

Of course the EU community is forced to ask itself what real value that the mainstream places on any actual mathematical models, particularly when the the mainstream has already falsified dozens of their dark matter mathematical models at LHC, Pandax, LUX, AMDX, etc. They simply don't care about their own failures when they apply to their own mathematical models, they only attempt to use such maths to falsify *other* cosmology models.

So much for the value of those "mathematical models/predictions".

The UE haters are a bunch of hypocrites when it comes to math and falsification. They only care about the validity of the "mathematical prediction" when it's about *another* model! When their own model fails any similar mathematical test, they simply sweep those results right under the rug. Do they even care that their convection speed predictions were falsified by SDO data, and they weren't even in the right ballpark? Do they use that as a falsification mechanism of their own solar model? Hell no!

Once again, a good illustration of the fact that, whatever the EU is, it is not science.

Except of course for the fact that unlike your claims of dark sky magic, EU theory actually *produces working models*.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m58-CfV ... e=youtu.be