Lambda-CDM - EU/PC Theory - Confirmation Bias

Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Gee, four dark matter matter articles on Physorg this month

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Tue Aug 22, 2017 12:49 pm

https://phys.org/news/2017-08-dark-ener ... urate.html
https://phys.org/news/2017-08-theory-dark.html
https://phys.org/news/2017-08-video-dar ... eplin.html
https://phys.org/news/2017-08-silent-dark.html

Wow. That's four different articles on phys.org on the topic of dark matter in just the first three weeks of this month. The mainstream must be getting worried about people starting to "lack belief" in exotic matter if they have to "hype/advertise" the exotic matter concept four times in three weeks.

It's rather amusing that they're still talking about January (null) results from Xenon-1T in late August. Don't they have anything new to report? Nah! :)

I also love how they call it the "dark energy survey", and they claim to use a "dark energy camera" so that they can advertise both dark energy and exotic matter based on photons which neither of them even emit. :) Oy Vey.

The mainstream lives in a mostly invisible universe which is populated by invisible "naked, uncharged black holes" which supposedly merge together and emit multiple solar masses of energy in invisible waves but they're "special" invisible objects (uncharged,naked), so they don't emit any detectable light.

It's invisible turtles all the way down I tell ya.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1197
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

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

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Tue Aug 22, 2017 1:17 pm

The best quote from the "new" dark matter model article:

The two physicists claim that the new mechanism they propose may be connected with the apparent imbalance between matter and antimatter in the cosmos and could leave an imprint which would be detected in future experiments on gravitational waves.


So they hope to find "evidence" of this new form of invisible matter, from invisible waves that come from invisible black holes. :) LOL!

It's definitely invisible turtles all the way down......
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1197
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

More dark matter hype....

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Sun Sep 17, 2017 11:19 am

https://phys.org/news/2017-09-dark_1.html

It would seem as though the mainstream is getting squeamish about having all it's eggs in the WIMP dark matter model basket. Evidently, part of the 'selling' of the exotic matter claim to the public will include "light" (warm/hot?) dark matter models, not just WIMP models.

So basically the mainstream is simply *ignoring* the *numerous* mathematical underestimation problems in that now infamous 2006 Bullet Cluster 'lensing' study. The mainstream botched the stellar mass estimates by a whopping factor of between 3 and 20 times, not to mention the fact that they underestimated the two different types of halos that surrounds all galaxies, and the number of stars *between* galaxies in those clusters.

Instead of just admitting that they botched the baryonic mass estimates, they're trying to play 'cover up' by pretending those gross underestimation problems never existed, and they just need to "extend" their search for exotic forms of matter to "address" all those WIMP snipe hunt failures. :( Yep, it's exotic matter turtles, all the way down.

Dark matter theory is the ultimate example of confirmation bias. No number of null results from the lab make any significant difference to the 'dogma', and even the gross baryonic mass estimations problems don't matter either. It's full steam ahead, and nothing can stop the dark matter gravy train.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1197
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: More dark matter hype....

Unread postby Roshi » Sun Sep 17, 2017 2:55 pm

Michael Mozina wrote:Dark matter theory is the ultimate example of confirmation bias. No number of null results from the lab make any significant difference to the 'dogma', and even the gross baryonic mass estimations problems don't matter either. It's full steam ahead, and nothing can stop the dark matter gravy train.


They will find it. The same way they found "gravitational waves" or the "Higgs bosson".
This does not even matter:
https://phys.org/news/2014-11-wasnt-higgs-particle.html
Last year CERN announced the finding of a new elementary particle, the Higgs particle. But maybe it wasn't the Higgs particle, maybe it just looks like it. And maybe it is not alone.

It's already "established science", with a Nobel prize, there to stay forever in the world of mainstream science, where there are only careers, egos and money.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_bos ... ent_status
Nobody can contradict them, who has another CERN or "gravity wave detector" to replicate their experiments?

Only when someone will create some useful device, that contradicts the mainstream science but works, and is worth $, and companies will produce and sell it because they do not care what physics laws it breaks if it works, will the mainstream change it's discourse. The internet is full of zero point energy devices that "work". Maybe one day one of them will really work, and be easy to build, and people will use them while the mainstream will be left in the dark ages.
Roshi
 
Posts: 129
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 9:35 am

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

Unread postby comingfrom » Tue Sep 19, 2017 3:53 am

A new paper on Lambda-CDM

Crack in the cosmological paradigm
by Eleonora Di Valentino
User avatar
comingfrom
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm
Location: NSW, Australia

Magic vs. physics

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Thu Sep 21, 2017 12:31 pm

In the real world of laboratory physics, photons lose momentum as they pass through a dusty plasma. Chen even showed a correlation between the amount of current and charged particles present and the amount of redshift. In the real world of physics, photons interact with a "medium" and transfer energy to it.

Only in the realm of LCDM "magic" do forms of mass (dark matter) not interact with photons. That's one of the key ways they use to try to tap dance around the redshift processes in plasma that the mainstream forgot to include in their models. Because they don't allow for even a *tiny* bit of redshift to be related to momentum loss of the photon, they also need magical forms of energy which nobody can explain, as well as the ever magical, never demonstrated "space expansion" genie. All of that metaphysical nonsense is necessitated by their *outright need* to deny the role of inelastic scattering in space.

The only reason that any of those magical ad hoc gap fillers are necessary is because they can't admit to their very simple, and their very obvious mistake as it relates to scattering. Photons are scattered by mass, and lose momentum to mass. Any missing mass is likely to be ordinary mass, not 'invisible' mass. The reason they grossly underestimated the mass of galaxies in the Bullet cluster fiasco study is because their models were wrong, and they underestimated the amount of loss of light due to scattering in the first place!

Dark matter in particular has been the single most expensively 'tested' theory in the history of physics, and it's been a complete dud in the lab. No other hypothesis has enjoyed so much financial support, and delivered so little tangible evidence, or so few 'successful predictions' related to the outcome of various experiments.

Meanwhile no model other than the standard particle physics model has been as 'tested', nor has been so successful at making useful laboratory predictions as the standard particle physics model.

It's time for the mainstream to wake up and smell the coffee. They've simply been underestimating the amount of scattering going on in space, and it is all caused by ordinary 'missing mass' that's all baryonic in nature.

The moment they wake up from their illusion about a lack of inelastic scattering in a dusty plasma "space", their whole jig is up.

IMO it's quite revealing that the only published paper that ever ruled out any type of inelastic scattering (Compton scattering only) as the full cause of photon redshift was written and published by Fritz Zwicky while he was trying to 'sell' his own 'tired light' theory. No other type of scattering has even been "tested" in published papers.

If you read Zwicky's paper, his argument amounts to 'it can't be Compton scattering because distant galaxies would be "blurry" and they aren't blurry. If however you look at various galaxies, they do of course become "blurrier" with distance.

In order to continue to perpetuate the 'space expansion is the cause of photon redshift' dogma, they have to 'pretend' that "space" is "pristine" with respect to a complete lack of inelastic scattering potential. That's not even a logical premise when you look at Hubble images which show huge 'clouds' of various dust spread throughout the universe.

The mainstream is just emotionally attached to "being right' with respect to the cause of photon redshift, so they basically have to live in pure denial of the lab results which consistently show that photons transfer some of their momentum to the plasma medium.

The tap dancing I hear on that issue over at Reddit is also rather amusing. All 'pseudoskeptics' are reduced to citing themselves as the one and only "sole authority" on all tired light theories, and not one can raise a single objection to Zwicky's own 'tired light' model. :) It's a lot like a Mexican tap dance around the physics of inelastic scattering in the "real" world lab experiments.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1197
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

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

Unread postby comingfrom » Fri Sep 22, 2017 12:02 am

You gotta have mass to have momentum, and they don't assign mass to the photon.
They deny the charge field any real physical presence.
I think that's where they are going wrong.

Miles Mathis shows us simply.

Instead of estimating the total photon energy in the ways they have, they should have estimated
it this way:

e = 1.602 x 10-19 C
1C = 2 x 10-7 kg/s (see definition of Ampere to find this number in the mainstream)
e = 3.204 x 10-26 kg/s

Those first two equations I took straight out of the old books. You can find the equations at Wikipedia.
They aren't any inventions of mine. I simply combined them to get the third equation. The third
equation doesn't look too revolutionary, until you remember that it means that if the electron has a
charge of e, it is emitting about 35,000 times its own mass every second, as charge. It also means the
proton is emitting about 19 times its own mass every second. If we give this charge to real photons
instead of to virtual photons, we have a simple way to estimate the total mass/energy of the photon
field. It is 19 times the atomic field, or 95% of the total mass/energy of the universe.

An ANALYSIS of DARK MATTER
User avatar
comingfrom
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm
Location: NSW, Australia

They found their missing baryons (yet agaiun)

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Thu Oct 12, 2017 9:16 am

https://phys.org/news/2017-10-teams-ast ... yonic.html

You have to wonder how many times the mainstream is going to find their missing baryons. Apparently they did it *again*. :) Not only did they find missing baryons in the form of underestimated stellar mass, they found them again in the million degree plasma halo around the galaxy, and a third time in a 'hydrogen gas" halo around our galaxy, but now they've found them a forth time *between* the galaxies, in their "dark matter" threads. :)

How many times do they need to find their missing baryons before they stop claiming they're missing, and when do they actually go "over budget"?

The whole basis for dark matter has been *obliterated* by the fact that they blew the stellar counts of those Bullet Cluster galaxy clusters by a whopping factor of between 3 and 20 times depending on the size of the star and the type of galaxy. Their claims about exotic forms of stable matter have also been blow out of the water by the fact LHC found *nothing* to suggest that there is anything wrong with the standard particle physics model in billions of dollars worth of 'tests"of that model and exotic models.

The mainstream's claims about exotic matter have been destroyed so many times now, it's not even funny.

What "missing baryons'?
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1197
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

PandaX II - Nope.......again......

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Tue Nov 07, 2017 1:47 am

In case you missed it:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1708.06917

Nope, no dark matter snipes found at PandaX-II in 2017 either.

No excess events were found above the expected background.


You have to wonder if there's any limit to the number of epic failures before governments around the world start pulling the plug on this ridiculous nonsense. LUX came up empty last year so they funded LUX-LZ. Xenon-1T came up empty earlier this year, but their funding for XENONnT continues unabated. PandaX and PandaX-II bit the dust, but PandaX-III is already in the works.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.08908
https://arxiv.org/abs/1708.07051

This ridiculous dark matter snipe hunt is definitely the single biggest failure in the history of physics and they keep throwing good public money after bad. Epic failure after epic failure after epic failure.

If they had spent even 1/10th of the money that they've wasted on DM on recreating Birkeland's whole range of solar and planetary experiments, they'd definitely be able to explain a simple electrical solar corona, and they probably would have unlocked all the mysteries of solar atmospheric physics by now. :) But no, just useless invisible snipe hunts, and pointless pseudoscience.

Child's Question: "Hey grandpa/grandma, what did you do for a living, and what great discoveries did you make?"
Answer: "I wasted my scientific talents. I spent my entire professional career working in hole in the ground and I found absolutely nothing! Aren't you proud of me?"

Wow, what a waste of scientist's lives and efforts. Exotic matter proponents are wasting their entire scientific careers on this invisible nonsense only because they're in pure denial of all the errors that they made with respect to estimating the mass of galaxies, and they refuse to take "no" for an answer in the lab. It's just so sad.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1197
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

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

Unread postby querious » Tue Nov 07, 2017 11:06 am

comingfrom wrote:Miles Mathis shows us simply.

Instead of estimating the total photon energy in the ways they have, they should have estimated
it this way:

e = 1.602 x 10-19 C
1C = 2 x 10-7 kg/s (see definition of Ampere to find this number in the mainstream)
e = 3.204 x 10-26 kg/s

Those first two equations I took straight out of the old books. You can find the equations at Wikipedia.
They aren't any inventions of mine.


LOL, I'd love to see where the Mathis got C=kg/sec. Another mangling of terms to fit his agenda. Charge is actually
kg.5 * m * s-.5
querious
 
Posts: 534
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

XENON-1T strikes out so they fund XenonNt! Oy Vey

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Thu Nov 09, 2017 8:48 am

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

The findings have left researchers struggling for answers. “We do not understand how the Universe works at a deeper and more profound level than most of us care to admit,” says Stacy McGaugh, an astrophysicist at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio.


No kidding Sherlock! :)

But we already knew that. :)

The saddest and most ironic quote from the article:

“I hope people will become even more open-minded,” says McGaugh, who has studied modified versions of gravity that negate the need for dark matter. However, Hooper stresses that the fading support for WIMPs does not weaken the case for dark matter, which he thinks will eventually be found. “I’m not worried about the never possibility, but it could be very, very difficult,” he says.


Open minded? It's hard to believe than anyone is being "open minded" while they reject the possibility of never finding the stuff, particularly when it's been repeatedly shown that their baryonic mass estimates of galaxies were *ridiculously flawed to start with*.

DM is the ultimate example of pure denial by the mainstream, and it demonstrates the pointlessness of their so called "tests". They don't care about the results in the first place, unless of course they happen to support their beliefs. This is a great example of pure denial, pure confirmation bias by the mainstream, and a complete waste of money and effort because they simply ignore all the results that don't jive with their preconceived ideas.

But hey, hope springs eternal. Just give them more money for Panda-III and Xenon-NT and maybe they'll do better next time....or not......

https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/1 ... 119.181302

The irony is that both the PandaX-II null results and the Xenon-1T null results were just in time for "dark matter day"! :o Two more dark matter tricks, and no treats. :)
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1197
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

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

Unread postby comingfrom » Fri Nov 10, 2017 5:00 pm

querious wrote:LOL, I'd love to see where the Mathis got C=kg/sec. Another mangling of terms to fit his agenda. Charge is actually
kg.5 * m * s-.5


The SI unit of charge, the coulomb, "is the quantity of electricity carried in 1 second by a current of 1 ampere".


The ampere is that constant current which, if maintained in two straight parallel conductors of infinite length, of negligible circular cross-section, and placed one metre apart in vacuum, would produce between these conductors a force equal to 2×10−7 newtons per metre of length.


One newton is the force needed to accelerate one kilogram of mass at the rate of one metre per second squared in direction of the applied force.


Quotes taken from Wikipedia.
User avatar
comingfrom
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm
Location: NSW, Australia

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

Unread postby querious » Fri Nov 10, 2017 11:01 pm

comingfrom wrote:
querious wrote:LOL, I'd love to see where the Mathis got C=kg/sec. Another mangling of terms to fit his agenda. Charge is actually
kg.5 * m * s-.5


The SI unit of charge, the coulomb, "is the quantity of electricity carried in 1 second by a current of 1 ampere".


The ampere is that constant current which, if maintained in two straight parallel conductors of infinite length, of negligible circular cross-section, and placed one metre apart in vacuum, would produce between these conductors a force equal to 2×10−7 newtons per metre of length.


One newton is the force needed to accelerate one kilogram of mass at the rate of one metre per second squared in direction of the applied force.


Quotes taken from Wikipedia.


You're missing the full Ampere defining equation, it's spelled out here....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_permeability#The_ampere_defines_vacuum_permeability

Looking at the above equation, the question becomes, how do we assign the magnetic constant and Coulomb their proper mechanical units? By studying the relationships listed in this section....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impedance_of_free_space#Relation_to_other_constants

. . hopefully you'll see that vacuum permittivity and permeability both have dimension 1/c.

A little dimensional analysis reveals Coulomb = kg.5 * m * s -.5
querious
 
Posts: 534
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

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

Unread postby Webbman » Sat Nov 11, 2017 6:09 am

all modern measures are now or will be linked to light speed so when light speed falls it will all fall with it.
The secret to the universe is a rubber band.
Webbman
 
Posts: 367
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2014 10:49 am

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

Unread postby comingfrom » Sat Nov 11, 2017 9:45 pm

querious wrote:
comingfrom wrote:
querious wrote:LOL, I'd love to see where the Mathis got C=kg/sec. Another mangling of terms to fit his agenda. Charge is actually
kg.5 * m * s-.5


The SI unit of charge, the coulomb, "is the quantity of electricity carried in 1 second by a current of 1 ampere".


The ampere is that constant current which, if maintained in two straight parallel conductors of infinite length, of negligible circular cross-section, and placed one metre apart in vacuum, would produce between these conductors a force equal to 2×10−7 newtons per metre of length.


One newton is the force needed to accelerate one kilogram of mass at the rate of one metre per second squared in direction of the applied force.


Quotes taken from Wikipedia.
Thank you, Querious.

You're missing the full Ampere defining equation, it's spelled out here....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_permeability#The_ampere_defines_vacuum_permeability

Looking at the above equation, the question becomes, how do we assign the magnetic constant and Coulomb their proper mechanical units? By studying the relationships listed in this section....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impedance_of_free_space#Relation_to_other_constants

. . hopefully you'll see that vacuum permittivity and permeability both have dimension 1/c.

A little dimensional analysis reveals Coulomb = kg.5 * m * s -.5
Thank you, Querious.
They have assigned no mass to their field particles, and they have assigned properties to the vacuum instead.
Is what I see.
And what you show me again.

They don't explain how a region of nothing [vacuum] could have permittivity and permeability.
To me, that is illogical. And unphysical.

And I haven't seen a reason why to believe the displacement current isn't a real current.
If free space is permitting or impeding the current, what is flowing?
And if you say electrons, I say, yes, that is what we can detect.
But are the electrons carried by a current,
or did free space just get more freer (more permitting) in one direction for them?

I grant they are measuring something, and it is important in the maths,
but it really does look like they are miss-assigning theory to me.
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 2 guests