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

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

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Thu Jan 28, 2016 10:56 am

I just happened to drop by ISF (formerly JREF) for the first time in awhile to see what nonsense they are spewing at the moment, and I noticed a recent thread entitled "Electric Universe: has there ever been a scientific research program?"

In that thread, they seem to be insinuating that EU/PC ideas cannot or have not been "tested" in lab, or that the EU/PC community is not interested in real life experiments. The irony of course is that EU/PC theory began it's existence based upon a series of laboratory experiments by Birkeland, all of which produced many successful predictions which have since been confirmed by satellites in space. From his experiments in the lab, Birkeland successfully predicted the existence of Birkeland currents in aurora, both types of high speed charged particles flowing from the sun, discharges in the solar atmosphere, coronal loops, polar jets, etc. All of these predictions were directly related to a "research program", as were all the recent SAFIRE experiments. In fact, because EU/PC ideas are all based upon pure empirical physics, many if not all of the core tenets can (and already have) been tested in the lab, and they have produced successful results.

We would *love* to have the public financial resources to conduct additional experiments. I for one would love the scientific community to drop 10 million dollars to recreate Birkeland's experiments using modern equipment, but alas the mainstream keeps pouring all our public funds into big holes in the ground, only to simply ignore the outcome of their so called "research".

Lambda-CDM has been a *complete disaster* in the lab. Not only are they incapable of even empirically researching supernatural claims like "expanding space" in a lab, or "inflation" in a lab, their beloved dark matter of the gaps claims have been falsified in the lab in every single experiment they have conducted. The mainstream doesn't even care about the outcome of the "research" as it relates to their own belief systems. If they did, they would have abandoned their claims about exotic matter already. They spent billions of dollars "researching" their beloved and sacred SUSY theory at LHC, and not a single predicted "sparticle" showed it's ugly face. They poured tens of millions of dollars down several holes at LUX, PandaX, AMDx, electron roundness tests, etc and again, not a single prediction they made was worth the paper it was printed on. They came up entirely empty and they simply do not care about the outcome of such research in the first place!

The mainstream has no way to even "research" most of their claims in the lab, and the few claims that can be "tested" all got blown out of the water.

That whole ISF thread is a joke. Lambda-CDM proponents don't actually do any real "research" that can or ever has had any effect at all on their "beliefs". In spite of their spectacular string of failures to find "dark matter", they simply ignore any and all "tests" entirely. They still write insistently about "WIMPS" in spite of the lab results that falsified all the popular models. They still write about mythical axions too though AMDx saw nothing of the sort. Their beef with EU/PC theory is therefore a joke.

We would *love* to have the public funds to do some serious empirical research, but they're constantly wasting those precious funds conducting "research" that doesn't matter to them one iota, and burying their collective heads in the sand with respect to the results of that research.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1191
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 Jan 28, 2016 11:23 am

Well, since I've been virtually executed at ISF, I think I'll respond to JeanTate here instead and they're welcome to comment here if they dare:

JeanTate: Electric Universe: has there ever been a scientific research program?


Yes Jean. In fact EU/PC theory began it's life in a lab with the experiments conducted by Kristian Birkeland. Some of us would *love* to recreate those experiments using much more modern equipment and such, but alas all the public funds keep getting poured into holes in the ground to try to support Lambda-CDM, and all those null results are simply being ignored anyway. What a huge waste of effort, and what a great example of why Lambda-CDM cannot actually be falsified via direct experimentation.

It used to be, some years' ago, that Electric Universe (EU) proponents were many, and highly vocal. Look at the number of EU-related threads in the archives of ISF, for example.

These days, those proponents have retreated to Eejet-Tube vids, and unmoderated fora; even their fave forum today has little traffic.


Well, maybe the reason we're no longer as vocal of ISF has to the do with the fact that you folks could not handle us or handle reality, and therefore you banned most of us, including me. How ironic that you'd you whine about our silence when there has been a concerted effort to silence us publicly.

One thing has always baffled me about the EU, and its fanatics: an apparent, complete, lack of any research proposals.

For example, all over the internet you'll find people asking EU fans things like "if you had total control over all the world's leading astronomical facilities - telescopes etc - where would you point them?" or "given unlimited funds, what experiments, here on Earth, would you conduct?" Yet, aside from SAFIRE and perhaps Lerner's Focus Fusion, there are no answers!


Aside from SAFIRE and other experiments on plasma physics? FYI, SAFIRE didn't produce "null results", it produced many observations that were consistent with solar physical observations. Lerner (and many other folks) have conducted many experiments with plasma in the lab. Inelastic scattering experiments could also be conducted in the lab with actual public funding. Birkeland's work can also be recreated and no, SAFIRE didn't replicate Birkeland's whole range of experiments. There wasn't enough time or funding spent to conduct an exhaustive study on cathode configurations. Almost everything about EU/PC theory can and should be tested in a lab, but there isn't any public funding beings spent on it!

At least, none that I could find.


Jean, did you even bother to read Birkelands work with respect to his experiments? If not, why are looking for more empirical experiments if you're not even personally interested in the results of the experiments that have been done?

Which I find baffling.


You're baffled by a lack of current funding, or baffled because you haven't bothered to research anything actually done so far?

I mean, isn't there even one EU adherent who is curious enough to think about doing an experiment, or making an observation, to test EU ideas?


Of course. We are *all* interested in the SAFIRE experiments, the experiments done to recreate inelastic scattering in plasma, etc. The problem is that we don't have access to public funds!

It seems to me that it'd take just one such to vastly improve the EU's standing (assuming the results of such experiments or observations were consistent with "EU theory", whatever that is).


What do you figure those SAFIRE experiments were designed to do? Note that SAFIRE didn't even have the chance yet to replicate the full range of experiments that Birkeland did himself over 100 years ago. It takes serious money to build those types of experiments. LHC spent *billions* only to falsify every popular SUSY theory on the books. LUX, Pandax, AMDx ect, all spent *tens of millions of dollars* to find exactly nothing! When the mainstream *wastes* those kinds of financial resources, it *hurts* us.

Hence this thread: do any of you, dear readers, know of any published research projects/programs/experiments/observations, proposed by EU supporters (other than SAFIRE and Lerner's Focus Fusion)?


I'll tell you what Jean, just hand me 10 million dollars and I'll be happy to fix you right up. All I'd need are matching funds that have already been wasted at LUX and I promise you that I will find useful results related to solar physics that are directly related to Birkeland's cathode sun theories. Without such serious funding however, world class type research on these topics isn't possible.

I'd also love to conduct a series of tests related to various types of inelastic scattering that occur in plasma environments. Unlike the bogus claims about "space expansion" causing photon redshift, real life inelastic scattering processes can and have been empirically linked to photon redshift.

I'd also be willing to explore fusion processes in high energy discharges if I had the funds.

The sky is basically the limit with respect to experimenting with various EU/PC ideas, but alas our lunch keeps being eaten by the mainstream in terms of funding, and they keep ignoring their null results anyway, so their experiments are useless!

The hypocrisy of the mainstream knows no bounds. They take all the money from the public funds, they squander it in holes in the ground, and they ignore the results of those experiments anyway. If they don't find something, they simply spend more money finding even more "nothing". Lather, rinse, repeat. Then they have the sheer audacity to blame our community for not having the funds to do more research. Oy Vey!
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1191
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 » Thu Jan 28, 2016 11:33 am

The whole big bang idea comes from extrapolation: a line drawn through a set of data points.
The redshift versus the distance of a limited group of stars/galaxies, where the redshift is assumed to
be exclusively caused by speed. All additional evidence is indirect and depends on what model you are using.

We can compared it with someone who would lives in his house and observes the earth around him.
All he can see in the distance is the horizon.
So if he uses the extrapolation model, he would conclude that the earth is flat.
So the flat earth theory and the lambda cdm are similar in logic.

We see similar problems: if we get closer to the horizon we see a curvature. In the big bang, the "expansion" seems to go faster.
The big bang has more problems: quasars behave exceptional, we have old stars, huge impossible structures.
We can not even understand our own galaxy, and invoke a magical dark matter theory.
And just like the flat earth theory, the big bang has a magical beginning.

The source of the problem is similar:
extrapolation can only be used if all observations can be explained with it,
and if it can predict future observations.
If your extrapolation model does not do it, it is simply invalid.

The question is not if the model is wrong,
it is the question where the model is wrong.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 699
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

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

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Thu Jan 28, 2016 12:12 pm

jonesdave116: We should also remember, Jean, that scientific evidence against their ideas is summarily dismissed as being wrong.


You're clearly projecting your own failures upon our community:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15850

You folks simply ignored any and all results that do not jive with your preconceived belief in "dark" crap! You struck out at LHC, at LUX, at PandaX, and your baryonic mass estimates from 2006 were shown to be flawed in MANY ways. You simply handwave it all away!

It's nothing to do with science, for the most part.


Boloney. EU/PC theory is based upon pure empirical physics. Every aspect of our beliefs can be tested in the lab, unlike the mythical invisible sky deities of Lambda-CDM.

Take Peratt; came up with his hypothesis on galactic formation etc., and at least had the decency to propose how it would be falsified; i.e. the emission of synchrotron radiation, which we should have seen in various all-sky surveys. Never been seen.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchrotr ... _detection

Oh for goodness sake, at least *study history*! Synchrotron radiation from galaxies has been seen in various surveys since the 1950's! OMG! Why do ISF folks simply misstate historical fact?

I guess they figure that if they simply virtually execute all their heretics, they can then spew all sorts of erroneous and fallacious claims and nobody will be left standing to point out the actual facts. :(

EU then just find another fruitcake to say that the surveys are just seeing reflections of the oceans, or some such nonsense!
tl;dr?


Er, no, we actually observe the sychrotron radiation that you claim you can't see, and guess how first "predicted" it's existence and what cosmology theory first predicted it?

It's not science. It's a quasi-religious cult, based on mythology. Anything that doesn't fit their world view is dismissed a being wrong, purely on the basis that they must be right.


You're clearly projecting again. Your cult's little invisible sky mythology starts with four unique "acts of faith" in invisible sky deities that are more impotent on Earth than your average supernatural concept of "God". Any and all facts that blow your claims away are simply ignored, much like you folks just ignored all those baryonic mass estimates errors you made in 2006, and much like you folks ignored the fact that your claim about "standard candles" has since been falsified by later observations of SN1A events. You folks just ignore that stuff like any good cult.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1191
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 Jan 28, 2016 12:56 pm

Slings and Arrows:
Many of us can no longer post comments over at the Thunderbolts Forum since David Talbott went on his banning spree; anyone critical of EU theories will usually end up being censored (comments deleted) and banned.

I was told by Talbott (paraphrasing): "If you want to criticize EU theories, do it somewhere else -- you are permanently banned from this forum."


It's amazing (and depressing) to me how much various communities rely upon public execution of all heretical thinking. The irony is that there is actually more freedom of thought on scientific theories on various *religious websites* than you'll find anywhere else on the web.

FYI, you're welcome to ask all the questions you like about EU theory here, and I'll be happy to respond:

http://www.christianforums.com/forums/p ... ences.408/
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/ ... m.7930198/

One thing you won't get banned for at Christianforums are your opinions related to EU/PC theory or any other area of "science", and we all have the freedom to respond there to anything you might have to say.

The bottom line is that Lambda-CDM cannot and does not stand on it's own merits with respect to any laboratory tests ever performed. Quite the contrary. It's failed miserably at LHC. It's failed miserably at LUX. It fell flat on it's face at AMDX, and bit more dust in the electron roundness "tests". Dark matter theory is a complete disaster, particularly after all the revelations of the gross stellar miscounts being used in that ridiculously flawed 2006 lensing study.

On the other hand there hasn't been a time when EU/PC theory wasn't supported in the lab since Birkeland published his original work.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1191
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 Jan 28, 2016 1:58 pm

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/ ... m.7930198/

I'm pretty sure that the moderators at Thunderbolts would prefer to have a back and forth debate somewhere else, so I started the same thread at the link above for anyone that is interested in a direct debate on this topic. You're going to get creamed in a real time, online debate of this particular topic by the way. :)
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1191
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 » Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:42 pm

Link to that thread.
Ignoramuses.
Excuse me, but it's true. It is not good skepticism.

Thank you, Michael, for showing us.

I have spoken to Jean Tate before.

He has been told about Birkeland's work.
He doesn't accept any of Alfven's work that relates to EU theory. Said Alfven was in error.
He dismisses Perrat's work (as you showed).
To name a few.

His favorite hammer to hit EU people with is to insinuate we abhor research and experimentation.
Never mind that the EU community would love a slice of the R&D money for their R&D.

Since Van Allen in the '50s, NASA has been doing research in space for EU theory, if for no other reason but for practical purpose of exploring the feasibility of space flight for humans, at first. Van Allen and NASA discovered the Van Allen belts, and confirmed the Birkeland currents at the poles, through mapping the charged particles encountered in space. Since then NASA has never stopped collecting electrical related data in space.

They found the solar wind and confirmed the electrical nature of the Sun (for those who will receive the data).
They showed the Sun has an heliosphere, a kind of electrostatic bubble.

They can have NASA's public propaganda explanations.
The data belongs to our theory :D
~Paul
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 » Sat Jan 30, 2016 12:14 pm

If you're reading this, MM, thanks for the invitation, but no thanks.

One of my first, if not the first, post I would make in your forum would surely get me instantly, and permanently, banned (and the post deleted). Why? Because I'd be making a polite but firm claim that "the EU" is not pseudoscience, but anti-science.


http://www.christianforums.com/threads/ ... m.7930198/

Assuming you really want an actual debate on this topic, I've setup a thread at a neutral location so everyone can have their say. The first thing I'd like to see you explain is what purpose any of your so called "research" makes when you simply ignore the results you don't wish to deal with? You've turned the whole dark matter claim into an exotic matter of the gaps claim, with ever shrinking gaps.

The so called "constraints" are already so bad that you're having to "make up" a "second coming of inflation" to explain explain why the stuff isn't more abundant than "postdicted" in your model.

http://astronomynow.com/2016/01/16/new- ... rk-matter/

It looks like the mainstream has is moving the goalposts at will, and they don't care about null results in the first place, so what's the point of conducting "experiments" when you've got horrific case of confirmation bias?
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1191
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 Feb 03, 2016 11:43 am

IMO, this thread, as well as the original thread at ISF clearly demonstrates the irrational and hypocritical nature of EU/PC "haters".

EU/PC theory is based entirely upon empirical physics. There are no "dark" supernatural thingamabobs, or any supernatural "space expansion" claims to be found in EU/PC theory. Every single aspect of EU/PC theory can therefore be tested in the lab. No one single claim in EU/PC theory is based upon an affirming the consequent fallacy as is the case with mainstream theory, and all of it's core tenets are based upon real empirical cause/effect claims that can all be tested in the lab.

On the other hand, Lambda-CDM is based upon four supernatural and purely hypothetical constructs:

1) They claim that "space expansion" is a cause of photon redshift
2) They claim that exotic forms of dark matter are necessary to explain lensing/rotation patterns in space.
3) They claim that "dark energy" causes "space" to experience 'acceleration', which again leads to additional photon redshift.
4) They claim that "inflation did it" with respect to "space expansion"

Three of the four claims of Lambda-CDM all require "faith" in the very concept of "space expansion", and that claim is absolutely not reproducible in the lab, let alone demonstrated to be a real cause of photon redshift. There's no logical way to even create experiments to test that particular concept here on Earth. A full three quarters of the key claims of Lambda-CDM therefore defy empirical testing of any sort here on Earth.

The only one of the four cause/effect claims of Lambda-CDM that *can* be "tested" in a real lab is the concept of exotic matter. That testing has been ongoing now for nearly a full decade to the tune of *billions* of dollars, and it's produced absolutely zero evidence to support that assertion while falsifying every single one of their most "popular" concepts about dark matter.

The primary observation that is claimed to provide "evidence" of exotic matter is based upon the premise that the mainstream correctly estimated the amount of ordinary matter that was present in a 2006 lensing study, a premise which has since been shown to be *ridiculously false*. They botched even the stellar mass estimates by a whopping factor of between 3 and 20 depending on the size of the star and the type of galaxy.

The whole dark energy claim is based upon a now falsified premise too. Specifically they just "assumed" that all SN1A events are "standard candles". That has since been shown to be a flawed assumption too.

In short, all the laboratory "tests" that can be done, have already been done, and they all produced null results, results that they simply are disinterested in to start with.

To complain about the testing that has been done on EU/PC theory is to ignore every experiment ever performed by Birkeland, the SAFIRE team and everyone else in between for that matter.

Birkeland didn't experience "null results". He created a working model of his solar theory and using that working model he was able to produce a whole list of real life "predictions" that have since born fruit in satellite imagery of the sun. There's nothing about EU/PC theory that even falls into the 'untestable' category, and there hasn't been a day in over a 100 years that EU/PC theory didn't enjoy laboratory support.

The hypocrisy of the EU/PC "haters" knows no bounds. It's unbelievable to me that so called "skeptics" would try to whine about empirical testing as it relates to EU/PC theory. Talk about living in glass (supernatural) houses. What in the world gives them the right to complain about testing EU/PC theory when they consistently drain away all public funding, and they ignore all the null results of their own tests? It's pure hypocrisy on a stick, and denial at it's finest.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1191
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 » Thu Feb 04, 2016 4:02 pm

This shows their "research" program.

http://www.quantumdiaries.org/2016/02/0 ... theorists/


"CMS and ATLAS Collaborations both reported having found a few events that could possibly reveal the presence of a new particle decaying to two photons."

"The solutions proposed are incredibly diversified, the most recurrent ones being various versions of dark matter or supersymmetric, new gauge symmetries, Hidden Valley, Grand Unified Theory, extra or composite Higgs bosons and extra dimensions.

The rumour of a particle gives rise to 170 theoretical papers of nonsense.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 699
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

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

Unread postby Corpuscles » Thu Feb 04, 2016 5:19 pm

Hi Michael

Michael Mozina wrote:EU/PC theory is based entirely upon empirical physics.
1) They claim ....
2) They claim .....
3) They claim ........
4) They claim ........
Three of the four claims of Lambda-CDM all require "faith" in the very concept of "space expansion", and that claim is absolutely not reproducible in the lab, let alone demonstrated to be a real cause of photon redshift.



Maybe a blood pressure test / check up is due?

Chill out dude!

All you need to do, is find this big glass vacuum tube ( with connecting wires/plasma currents and power source) in the sky that produces thee the "lab" results and then you .....WIN!

THEN, all arguments will cease.

But .....which way does the "Cathode" (s) and the Anode (s) face?

How many "hypothetical" confused irrational models does it take to construct a "EU/PC" fantasy?

Is that specified in your bible ? Please quote book chapter and verse!

Kindest regards
Cheers
Corpuscles
 
Posts: 196
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 10:32 pm

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

Unread postby Webbman » Thu Feb 04, 2016 5:45 pm

Zyxzevn wrote:This shows their "research" program.

http://www.quantumdiaries.org/2016/02/0 ... theorists/


"CMS and ATLAS Collaborations both reported having found a few events that could possibly reveal the presence of a new particle decaying to two photons."

"The solutions proposed are incredibly diversified, the most recurrent ones being various versions of dark matter or supersymmetric, new gauge symmetries, Hidden Valley, Grand Unified Theory, extra or composite Higgs bosons and extra dimensions.

The rumour of a particle gives rise to 170 theoretical papers of nonsense.


Up to 62 now I guess, only a few more to go.
The secret to the universe is a rubber band.
Webbman
 
Posts: 362
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2014 10:49 am

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

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Fri Feb 05, 2016 11:17 am

Corpuscles wrote:Hi Michael

Michael Mozina wrote:EU/PC theory is based entirely upon empirical physics.
1) They claim ....
2) They claim .....
3) They claim ........
4) They claim ........
Three of the four claims of Lambda-CDM all require "faith" in the very concept of "space expansion", and that claim is absolutely not reproducible in the lab, let alone demonstrated to be a real cause of photon redshift.



Maybe a blood pressure test / check up is due?


Nah. I checked it last weekend, and it's still pretty low. :)

Chill out dude!


I'm as chill as ice, I'm just not gullible.

All you need to do, is find this big glass vacuum tube


You mean the vacuum between the sun and the Earth?

( with connecting wires/plasma currents and power source)


Why? Birkeland assumed that the sun was it's own power source, and that's the model I personally prefer.

THEN, all arguments will cease.


Unlikely. That's almost never the case in science actually.

But .....which way does the "Cathode" (s) and the Anode (s) face?


In Birkeland's model the surface of the sun acts as a cathode with respect to the heliosphere, whereas Jeurgen's model has the polarity reversed, and it requires external power.

How many "hypothetical" confused irrational models does it take to construct a "EU/PC" fantasy?


None. Birkeland and Juergen's can't both be correct of course, but neither of them is a "fantasy". They both work in the lab, unlike mainstream "Dark matter" claims.

Is that specified in your bible ? Please quote book chapter and verse!


It's rather amusing that you're comparing empirical physics to religion considering the fact that Lambda-CDM requires four unique "leaps of faith" in cause/effect claims that defy empirical laboratory support. Birkeland tested virtually every aspect of his cathode solar model, and SAFIRE checked out the core features of Jeurgen's model. Both ideas cannot be right, but at least both of them produced tangible results, unlike the DM nonsense to date.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1191
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 Rushthezeppelin » Mon Feb 08, 2016 6:10 am

Another blow to Lambda-CDM from within http://arxiv.org/pdf/1506.05124v3.pdf. Looks like the light gamma ray halo around the center of the galaxy might in fact be unresolved point sources below Fermi's actually detection threshold of point sources.
Rushthezeppelin
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2015 4:29 pm

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

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Mon Feb 08, 2016 11:39 am

Rushthezeppelin wrote:Another blow to Lambda-CDM from within http://arxiv.org/pdf/1506.05124v3.pdf. Looks like the light gamma ray halo around the center of the galaxy might in fact be unresolved point sources below Fermi's actually detection threshold of point sources.


Oh ya, and every star and every planet with an atmosphere is a point source of gamma rays. :)

Lambda-CDM is nothing more than 4 separate affirming the consequent fallacies on a stick. Gamma rays from space? Ignore all the more likely causes (aka electrical discharges from planets and suns) and claim "dark matter did it". Oy Vey.

It's pretty sad when you really think about it. We're wasting billions of dollars chasing invisible stuff around the universe instead of investing in real empirical experimentation with working empirical models that have already produced useful historical predictions.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1191
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Next

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest