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

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

Unread postby kell1990 » Sun Jul 03, 2016 2:42 pm

[quote="kell1990"
'..."In the immortal words of the late Nobel laureate Richard Feinman"

Apologies for the double post and for misspelling Richard Feynman's last name.
kell1990
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2016 10:54 am

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

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Tue Jul 05, 2016 3:57 pm

In our next blatant demonstration of pure mainstream confirmation bias, and their bad habit of simply sweeping all their failed "tests" of their theory under the carpet, I offer you the following evidence:

In May of this year, IceCube basically ruled out all previous anomalies to date as being related to sterile neutrinos. By the very next month however, the mainstream has already developed a huge case of "test amnesia". By June, the following month, they've already swept those Icecube findings under the rug, and they've gone back to using *older* (and now falsified) studies as a justification for their new round of 'experimental tests' of "sterile neutrino theory". Oy Vey. It's a never ending waste of public funds to 'test' any features of mainstream theory. Their own results shoot their claims in the foot, so they simply double down and spend more money on the same failed nonsense.

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/ ... k.7955077/

May 13, 2016
Previous sightings ruled out

According to the IceCube collaboration, these results do not rule out sterile neutrinos completely, but they do exclude much of the parameter space in which they could exist. In particular, the results exclude, with a confidence level of approximately 99%, the allowed parameter space for several experiments that had observed anomalies in neutrino oscillations, which had been interpreted as possible signs of sterile neutrinos.


http://phys.org/news/2016-07-wings-icar ... trino.html

The Short Baseline Neutrino (SBN) programme

The SBN programme has been approved after, in the past decades, the Liquid Scintillator Neutrino Detector (LSND) and MiniBooNE experiments obtained, some unexpected results, showing tensions with the standard model of particle physics in which there are only three types ('flavours') of neutrinos. Indeed, LSND reported hints of the existence of a fourth type of neutrino; MiniBooNE, which used the same beam line at Fermilab that will be used for the SBN programme, found an excess of low-energy particles events. Some theories ascribe this apparently strange neutrino behaviour to the presence of a fourth, sterile, neutrino flavour. The suite of experiments of the SBN programme are meant to cast light on this mystery.


Talk about a blatant example of confirmation bias. They simply *ignore* and and all results which refute their claims, and they go right back to spewing older information which they happen to "like". Lovely.

What good are the mainstream's "tests" when they simply ignore the results that disagree with their "predictions", and they don't like, and instead they just cherry pick from the (older) results that they happened to "like". Why bother doing "tests" at all if you refuse to accept any results that you happen to disagree with?
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1197
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 » Wed Oct 26, 2016 10:08 am

I noticed that JeanTate recently dug up an old thread on EU/PC theory over at ISF which I thought I'd respond to. It's rather amusing timing, particularly after their last "dark energy" fiasco.

No don't get excited, no one has posted even the faintest hint of a scientific research program, based on (or testing) the "Electric Universe". At least, not that I've noticed, in the last few months.


We've been proposing a full and complete set of Birkeland type of experiments for years Jean. Don't blame us because you won't do the *basics* before requiring more of us, while *utterly ignoring* the negative results of your own "tests" of your own claims. Talk about pure hypocrisy Jean. That really takes the cake.

However, lamare has posted "An exceptionally elegant "Theory of Everything"", over in the Thunderdolts forum. It quickly got shunted to the "New Insights and Mad Ideas" section, despite the fact that it looks to outsider me like a genuine "Electric Universe" theory (it hits so many of the EU "sweet spots"). I guess that as lamare is not an official "electric theorist", the idea doesn't merit official endorsement.


I've seen the work and commented on it. It's an interesting idea, but how it get classified around here should be irrelevant to you. It does require a modification to Maxwell's basic equations, so it's probably a "New insight" by anyone's classification. Who cares which forum it's discussed in? The threads tend to overlap in terms of content around here anyway.

You might have thought that something like this, so apparently near and dear to so many EU fanatics' hearts, would motivate some to consider testing it using astronomical data, to see if - for example - it could produce the Hubble redshift-distance relationship, or a ~3K CMB.


Which is exactly why I *do* like the idea, even though I haven't fully checked it out yet.

Doesn't seem to have happened (yet?)


In my experience, "yet" is the operative word around here. Most ideas take some time and discussion to work out, and lots of odd ideas get discussed around here, including cathode sun theories. :)

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15850&start=45

Your recent dark energy "tests" were conducted using a data set that was more than 10 times greater than the original set of data to support "dark energy". It used more modern analysis techniques, and found results that were entirely consistent with a constantly expanding universe that is devoid of "dark energy".

Even in a "best case" (for acceleration) interpretation of the larger data set, the most you might hope for is a three sigma "hint" of "dark energy". That's *way* short of the five sigma confidence figure to call it a "discovery" in the first place! Are you going to do the right thing now and take back those Nobel Prizes you handed out too quickly in 2011. or do you intend to bury your head in the sand again?
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1197
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 » Wed Oct 26, 2016 11:31 am

I found this response in a thread about this topic on ISF:

"jaydeehess": Dogmatism is more of a religion and faith thing. In science it is more commonly a resistance to fully accept extraordinary changes to 'standard' models (using the term for cosmology, but it is applicable to all science) UNTIL extraordinary evidence has been compiled. In the case of this particular thread topic, such extraordinary evidence is exactly what is being called for as a result of a study suggesting that the standard model may not be as confirmed as previously thought. Note that this is not saying that the standard model is incorrect. It says that statistically, the standard model's backbone evidence is not quite as solid as previously calculated.

Science detractors would have great difficulty comprehending this.


It seems to me that the "dogma" of LCDM theory is only supported with 3 sigma confidence as it relates 70 percent of their entire theory. As the author notes, "extraordinary" claims require extraordinary evidence. In this case however, even in a "best" (pro) interpretation scenario, the evidence to support "dark energy" is about 3 sigma confidence, far less than the 5+ sigma confidence that is normally required to be a "discovery" in physics. There has never been "extraordinary" evidence to support the "extraordinary" claim about the existence of dark energy. It was an extraordinary claim, with only "ordinary" evidence to begin with, specifically 3 sigma confidence at best case. They have the whole standard of evidence standing on it's head now. They expect "extraordinary" evidence to overturn an extraordinary claim that was never supported with extraordinary evidence in the first place.

The "dogmatism" of LCDM theory begins with the claim itself. LCDM theory never had extraordinary evidence to support any of it's four unique extraordinary components, not for dark matter, not for dark energy, not for inflation, not even for the claim of "space expansion". The whole thing is dogmatism on a stick, and any resistance to their dogma is met with more dogmatism. :)
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1197
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 » Thu Oct 27, 2016 10:01 am

FYI, I missed Jean's references to Bridgman and Koberlein back in June. What a joke. Neither Koberlein or Bridgman even understand the *basics* about various EU/PC solar theories.

Koberlein *blatantly misrepresented* the neutrino predictions of Wal's solar model. I've since read Wal's book too, and I know for a fact he used the same model as Scott in terms of atmospheric fusion processes.

A whole year later I'm *still* waiting for the next hilarious and ridiculous installment of Brigman's three mythical solar models that Birkeland supposedly supported. He didn't even get the particle flow diagram correct in Birkeland's cathode model for crying out loud!

Those are your two "best" public references against EU/PC theory? Give me a break. They can't even handle a public debate on the topic which is why they hide behind their own blogs and ban anyone and everyone that points out their ignorance.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1197
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 Oct 30, 2016 11:54 am

JeanTate wrote:Quick update: no proposals for novel tests of "the EU", here or elsewhere.

I've been reading up on Birkeland and his experiments; fascinating stuff!

However, I cannot fathom why today's EU acolytes are so enamored with the terrella experiments he did. After all, based on what we know today - about the interplanetary medium/solar wind, corona, etc - the physical conditions (density, temperature, composition, etc) inside his terrellae bear no resemblance to the reality of the inner solar system, do they? This is not to fault Birkeland; nothing was known about the IPM (etc) at the time.

More: I haven't found anything - anything at all! - by EU enthusiasts or anyone else on attempts to show how plasma scaling relationships can get Birkeland's experiments to within even an order of magnitude (or three) of reality.

Ditto SAFIRE (more on this later).

Is it truly just about pretty pictures?


I see that JeanTate posted the message above over at ISF. No Jean, it's not just about pretty pictures, it's about *working models* and empirical physics, things that you apparently care *nothing* about!

Birkeland's model isn't interesting because it's capable of producing "pretty pictures" although it certainly does produce them. It's interesting because using his *working model* Birkeland was able to *correctly predict* the content and directional flow and the high speed nature of the solar wind, cathode rays from the sun, polar "jets", high temperature electrical discharges in the solar atmosphere and host of other *observations* that have now been confirmed by satellites in space, including SDO, ACE, etc.

Compare and contrast that to you complete *inability* to do the same thing in the lab from a sphere using your precious pseudoscience "magnetic reconnection", certainly not without using *constant electrical current* to sustain the process.

It's utterly amazing to me how little emphasis or importance the mainstream places on *working models* that produce *real lab results*. Unlike your mythical space expansion god, your mythical dark energy deity, your mythical dark matter potatoes, and your magical "inflation" genie, electrical current actually *works* in the lab and it has real effects on real photons and real particles of matter. It produces all the aforementioned "predictions" that Birkeland was able to make using his model.

If you want to find out if it scales well, *do the damn lab work* and quit wasting my tax dollars on your invisible magical snipe hunts.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1197
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 Oct 30, 2016 12:03 pm

jonesdave116 wrote:Certainly not! It's also about ego. They get more recognition within the (admittedly small) EU community, than they would ever get in the real world of science.
Having a bunch of scientifically illiterate followers is better than having none at all.


Speaking of illiterate followers, not one single "follower" LCDM theory can name so much as a single source of "dark energy", and not one of them has a mathematical model that has born any fruits in *billions* of dollars worth of 'tests' of their claims. How much more *ignorant* could anyone be than 95 percent ignorance, and 5 percent pseudoscience according to the author of MHD theory?

The "ego" aspect is definitely and directly related to the mainstream and their behaviors. Their collective egos are so epic in scale, they simply cannot and will not allow for any dissent without all the personal attack nonsense.

If Bridgman and Koberlein are any indication of your understanding of EU/PC theory, it's obvious that you're distaste for EU/PC theory has nothing to do with actual EU/PC theory, it's just a function of your own ignorance.

Psst: Birkeland predicted that *both* types of charged particles would come from the sun, not just electrons. Thornhill's book contains the statements that directly refute Koberlein's erroneous claim that *no* neutrinos come for the sun too. If you folks can be so ignorant of even the *basics* of EU/PC theory, it's no wonder that you don't like it. Your own ignorance and ego get in your way from even *correctly understanding* it!
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1197
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 Oct 30, 2016 12:26 pm

Gah! Apparently I didn't go to the last page,and I responded to some pretty old posts. :) Oh well, I'll just leave the response here anyway. :)
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1197
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 willendure » Thu Feb 02, 2017 7:58 am

willendure
 
Posts: 533
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

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

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Thu Feb 02, 2017 10:28 am

willendure wrote:Under rug to hide it under:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-38841577


OMG, not this nonsense again! This claim was already debunked *years* ago!

https://arxiv.org/abs/1408.1699

Apparently the mainstream goes bananas over a quite ordinary potassium and/or Chlorine emission line! BICEP2 demonstrated they can't tell "inflation" from ordinary dust, and they can't tell an *ordinary* emission lines from Potassium and Chlorine from their invisible exotic matter sky deity either.

The problem with the mainstream's entire process is that they have to pretend that they have eliminated all other potential "natural" causes of some observation so that they can then stuff in their exotic supernatural thingamabob to somehow save the day. You'd think after the BICEP2 fiasco, and all the other falsifications they've had for WIMPS and Axions claims over the past year that they'd "cool their jets" for awhile, but alas, no, here we go again.........

They're going bananas over Potassium and Chlorine emission lines again. :(

Here's the blatant denial process that lies at the heart of it this irrational claim:

He said that the signal might be due to a hypothetical particle known as the sterile neutrino, which would decay into an X-ray photon and a normal neutrino. But he stressed the need for more data to "confirm or reject the dark matter hypothesis".


https://phys.org/news/2016-08-icecube-s ... blank.html

In an effort to fill in the blanks of the Standard Model of particle physics, science has been conducting a diligent search for a hypothesized particle known as the "sterile neutrino."

Now, with the latest results from an icy particle detector at the South Pole, scientists are almost certain that there is no such particle.


So they basically just go into pure denial about the results of ICECUBE from *just last year* mind you, and then they *PRETEND* that they didn't previously already falsify their own claimed source of the emissions. They also have to pretend that ordinary Potassium and Chlorine atoms don't emit these same lines. Sheesh. This is so pathetic. They keep pointing at the sky and making stuff up, and they simply ignore their own falsification process *entirely*! LCDM proponents have the worst case of confirmation bias in the entire history of physics.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1197
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 willendure » Thu Feb 02, 2017 3:31 pm

Michael Mozina wrote:They're going bananas over Potassium and Chlorine emission lines again. :(


That's funny, because bananas are good source of potassium. :lol:
willendure
 
Posts: 533
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Sulfur too:

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Fri Feb 03, 2017 9:56 am

https://phys.org/news/2016-09-mysteriou ... -dark.html

FYI, that particular wavelength in question could also be related to Sulfur, not just Potassium and Chlorine.

I think Carbon can also emit light close to that wavelength as well.

There's at least three, maybe four different "ordinary" explanations for that signal. We've also run "tests" of the 'sterile neutrino" concept at ICECUBE, and all but eliminated the possibility of such an animal.

Every part of LCMD theory is based upon *claiming* that they can absolutely, positively rule out all other potential "natural" explanations, therefore supernatural stuff did it.

BICEP2 was a *perfect* example of the weakness of this "everything else is eliminated" argument. The BICEP2 team of nearly 1000 "scientists" claimed to have over 5 sigma confidence that they had positively ruled out all other potential "natural' causes of polarized photon patterns, therefore the great inflation genie did it. It turns out however, that the mainstream cannot even tell the difference between inflation and ordinary dust patterns. Their "sigma" numbers are entirely *fabricated* to suit their needs on a whim. They aren't real numbers, they're simply gaming the system to suit themselves.

LIGO is another dishonest example of that "sigma" manipulation routine in action. The LIGO team originally received a *VETO* on their original signal. They later chose to override that VETO, they then intentionally lied in their published paper by falsely claiming there was no veto within an hour of the signal, and they claimed it couldn't possibly be anything but a gravity wave. Those actions of omitting any information about the original VETO and claiming that there was no VETO literally crosses the line into the realm of gross professional misconduct. Whatever trumped up confidence numbers they came up with were pure nonsense. If they really had actual "confidence" in the results, they would have openly discussed that original VETO and explained why they subjectively chose to override the VETO. Since they didn't do that, we can only assume they really weren't that confident to start with, hence the unethical cover up of that original VETO.

When they did a much larger SN!A study, the "likelihood' of acceleration and "dark energy" drops to around 3 sigma, two full sigma short of an actual "discovery" in physics.

They claimed to find "proof" of dark matter in 2006, yet every study since then has demonstrated that their baryonic mass estimates used in 2006 were horrifically flawed. They simply ignored it all.

All of the recent so called "discoveries" in astronomy are based upon "fudging the numbers" of these studies to suit themselves, particularly as it relates to the likelihood of it being a "natural" cause. That's the common inherent weakness among all their claims.

They supposedly "tested" their ideas about sterile neutrinos in big money studies like ICECUBE, and then they turn right around and simply *ignore* the negative results whenever they feel like it. The amount of confirmation bias going on in LCMD circles is completely off scale. There isn't even any attempt to "falsify" any concept. They are only interested in *verifying* their preconceived ideas, and any data set which conflicts with their supernatural dogma is simply ignored and swept under the rug instantly. That ICECUBE study just came out last year, and here they are early this year simply pretending that it didn't happen.

The mainstream even outright *lies* to the public, just like they lied about that VETO at LIGO. They quite literally make up their own "alternative facts" and lie at will to suit themselves. They keep coming out with these various "positive" claims to the public without ever once bothering to mention any of the criticisms of their claims. This type of behavior borders on outright fraud IMO.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1197
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Sulfur too:

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Fri Feb 03, 2017 10:28 am

Michael Mozina wrote:.. They keep coming out with these various "positive" claims to the public without ever once bothering to mention any of the criticisms of their claims. This type of behavior borders on outright fraud IMO.


Why do most scientists not see any fraud?

Do they have a religious-like devotion?
Do they not see that scientists are usually biased?
Do they want to avoid open questions?
Do they trust too much the observation-challenged scientists ("sceptics") that are negative towards alternative models?
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 700
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: Sulfur too:

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Fri Feb 03, 2017 3:06 pm

Zyxzevn wrote:
Michael Mozina wrote:.. They keep coming out with these various "positive" claims to the public without ever once bothering to mention any of the criticisms of their claims. This type of behavior borders on outright fraud IMO.


Why do most scientists not see any fraud?


In the specific case of the LIGO VETO fiasco, I don't think most people or scientists even know that there ever was a VETO. Unless you happened to have read *a completely different publication*, a "peer reviewer" of the original LIGO "discovery" papers would never have known about it. I think it's *still* a relatively unknown problem because nobody has even discussed it publicly. The peer reviewed paper specifically claimed that there was no VETO within something like an hour around the time of the signal. In reality however, the VETO took place almost instantly, and they had to *override* it to continue their investigation. That was *never* mentioned in the published paper, not once. Instead we got "alternative facts", AKA outright fabrications about there being *no* VETO.

In the case of the rest of their dark sky nonsense, I think you have to be on this side of the aisle, or at least be LCMD "atheists" to see the consistent pattern of confirmation bias that is going on. For the "believer" in LCDM theory, it probably seems "ok". For any skeptic however, the lack of falsification potential is simply pathetic.

Do they have a religious-like devotion?


Yes, without any doubt whatsoever. They have an unwavering devotion to their own beliefs that causes them to simply outright lie about competing theories in the case of Tom Bridgman and Brian Koberlein. Sara Scholes skirts that edge in her own way too. The rest of the "attack dogs" are cowardly hiding behind anonymous labels. They are intent on "protecting the flock" from us evil purveyors of empirical physics, and the EU/PC community in particular. I know this for a fact because I naively walked into the middle of ongoing war the moment I innocently embraced Birkeland's solar model, and started discussing it on the internet. I fully expected the "rigid surface" concept to be "skeptically received" and hotly debated, but I really didn't expect the electrical aspects to have been so hotly rejected by mainstream scientists. That part was simply irrational IMO. Only something like steady, consistent current could sustain plasma at millions of degrees and cause that kind of filamenatary behavior. Birkeland even built working models of electric spheres (plural) in his lab. Their resistance to embracing electric fields with respect to coronal loops is simply irrational nonsense.

Do they not see that scientists are usually biased?


I believe that they think that they are *not* biased, but we're being biased beyond belief. Nevermind the fact that our solar theories *can* be tested in the lab, they refuse to even consider them. Who's biased? How come they have to sweep every single one of their failed "test" right under the rug all the time?

Do they want to avoid open questions?


Especially if you're a skeptic, and definitely avoid any question about that LIGO veto by anyone. :)

Obviously nobody wants to talk about that LIGO veto, or answer any questions about it, or why they didn't discuss the VETO in the paper, why they said it *didn't* happen, etc. Nobody wants to discuss their dark matter fiasco at LHC, or their BICEP2 fiasco, or their other "leaps of faith" that went thud. It's like it all never happened, and they haven't ever actually failed any test with their model. Definitely Don't ask them any *difficult* questions, either. They *really* hate that.

The mainstream simply isn't used to anyone being 'skeptical' toward their claims. They've mostly taught their dark magic voodoo in a classroom situation where you either toe-the-party-line, or you fail the class.

They are not used to someone questioning them skeptically when they don't have leverage over them. That's why they have to resort to all the ad-homs in debate, and they have to ban all dissenters. That's why Cosmoquest has an "against the mainstream" forum where they hold regular witch hunts and forbid the discussion of heresy. :)

Do they trust too much the observation-challenged scientists ("sceptics") that are negative towards alternative models?


I think they perceive us as mathematically challenged dissenters who simply don't know what they're talking about. They see math as "king" and EU/PC simply doesn't allow them to do enough 'fake math' with "fake entities" to suit them.

They claim that math is king, but.....

Never mind of course that Clinger could never provide me with a mathematical description of a non zero "rate" of reconnection in a vacuum. For all their mathematical ego, they couldn't come up with a single measly formula between them, or admit their mistake. To me that told the whole story. They're blatant hypocrites. Even when you hand them the mathematical formulas that they ask for, or you show them to be wrong mathematically (no formula), they pretend those problems do not exist. Even when you personally show them that they are wrong mathematically, even something as blatant as a critical missing math formula, their ego prevents them from acknowledging their gross incompetence.

If their "math" was really valuable to them in the first place, then all those "failed tests" last year and over the past decade would have actually made some difference in their beliefs. Since it doesn't, their ego over mathematics is simply an irrational self defense mechanism that is based on pure denial (like that missing reconnection math).

I'd say that the mainstream is definitely "plasma physics-challenged" particularly as it relates to solar physics. How anyone can look at all those million degree coronal loops in the solar atmosphere and not realize it's an electrically driven process is utterly beyond me. A single "magnetic line" doesn't heat up anything just sitting there. Only a sustained current flowing through the plasma would sustain plasma at millions of degrees for days on end. How they miss those million degree neon signs is beyond me frankly.

In fact, it wasn't really that Clinger was "mathematically challenged" so much as he was plasma physics challenged. That goes right back to their mathematical ego, and the fact Clinger was so arrogant that he never bothered to sit down and read a textbook on MHD theory before pretending to be an "expert" on the topic. :)

I think they're all plasma physics challenged too. Nobody at ISF/JREF set poor Clinger straight. For *months* poor confused Clinger painted himself into a corner, and nobody pointed out to him that he needed *plasma* to get a transfer of field energy into particle kinetic energy. Holy cow! How plasma physics challenged can they get?

They may have good math skills, and even good observation skills, but what they lack in understanding about plasma could fill volumes, and the vast majority of the universe is in a plasma state. That's their real problem in nutshell IMO.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1197
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 comingfrom » Wed Feb 22, 2017 8:00 pm

I'm so glad I met all you guys, and can now see clearly when they are groping in the dark, for their dark matter.
Like in that BBC article (linked above)...

They found more X-ray photons with a particular energy than would be expected if they were produced only by familiar processes.

Those photons could in fact have been generated by the decay of dark matter particles, say the researchers.
So, because they found something unexpected, it "could" support their pet notion.
It "could" be proof of their theory.

And those photons "could" have been generated by the decay of dark matter particles?

Can Dark Matter particles even decay?
Far as I know, they haven't even defined what their Dark Matter particles are yet, and certainly haven't found any, so it seems a great leap of faith, and a great jump to conclusion, to claim to have found a product of Dark Matter particles decaying.

A couple of years ago, if I had read that article then, I would have attributed my not understanding it to my ignorance of physics.
I didn't know there were alternative theories, and smart people who who were skeptical of the things they feed us.
But now I have no doubt, that what we are observing are men drowning in their false theories, and clutching for straws.
Now I can see right through articles like that one, and the truth sticks out like proverbial dog's balls.

However, we still have little idea about what dark matter actually is.
If you have little idea about something, then is it wise to jump to conclusions?

Detection of x-rays is their indicator of a Black Hole too.
But a slight change in the mix of x-ray wavelengths is now an indication of Dark Matter?
Now I have to wonder if my dentist's x-ray machine is powered by a Black Hole, or by decaying Dark Matter.
Or could there be some other process of generating x-rays?

Many thanks to all you EU theorists, and the Thunderbolts group.
I feel greatly indebted.
~Paul
User avatar
comingfrom
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm
Location: NSW, Australia

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron