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

Nope, no axion snipes found in PKS 2155−304

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Mon Feb 26, 2018 2:54 pm

Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1663
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Dark matter predictions go up in flames (again).

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Thu Dec 27, 2018 12:47 pm

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/ele ... el-physics

It's hard to keep up with all the falsified predictions of "dark matter". In the most sensitive test to date, it turns out that contrary to various exotic/dark matter predictions, electrons are indeed "round". The standard particle physics model passed another very important "test" with flying colors, while exotic matter "predictions" from various models went up in flames yet again.

Mainstream astronomers definitely have a severe case of confirmation bias. No so called "test" can outright falsify exotic matter claims, so that whole field isn't even actual "science" in the first place. No matter how many so called "tests" DM fails, astronomers keep insisting that it must exist anyway. Cold dark matter isn't a field of science, it's pure (bad) faith based dogma.

“We’ve now surpassed what the LHC will be able to see,” DeMille says. “That’s really crossing a threshold for these experiments.”


So here we go again with a "dark matter of the gaps" claim that can no longer be falsified by LHC experiments......

Oy Vey.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1663
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

So what does it take anyway?

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Fri Dec 28, 2018 8:13 am

The more I think about this thread, the more depressed I get. I wonder now if it's even possible to get the mainstream to abandon their preference for metaphysical dogma, particularly after it's failed countless so called tests.

The standard particle physics model is by far *the* most successful model in the history of physics. It has passed every conceivable laboratory test imaginable, including the discovery of the Higgs Boson, numerous secondary decay predictions, high precision electron roundness tests, etc.

Meanwhile, exotic/dark matter claims and models have failed every single lab test they've tried, to the tune of billions of dollars worth of various failed experiments. It's also been demonstrated that the over-hyped bullet cluster estimates of ordinary matter were flawed in numerous ways, and the mainstream astronomy mass estimation techniques of galaxies have been shown repeatedly to be riddled with serious flaws galore.

There is simply no logical or rational basis for insisting on the existence of exotic matter at this point in time. Nothing related to exotic matter has held up to any sort of scientific scrutiny, yet here we are pouring good money after bad into untold numbers of exotic matter experiments with no end in sight.

What possible so called "test" could ever hope to falsify exotic matter claims at this point? If all the other failed test didn't matter to the mainstream, what difference will a dozen more failures or two dozen more failures make? Is there any rational way to get the mainstream to see the empirical light, and get them to abandon their reliance upon metaphysical nonsense?

This has been like watching a train wreck happen in slow motion. The mainstream seems intent on ignoring any and all data which is inconsistent with their metaphysical dogma, and there's no end in sight in terms of the public tax money they're willing to waste in order to justify and prop up their falsified dogma. It's just so depressing to see how much money has been wasted on utter nonsense, while experiments like SAFIRE and Birkeland's work languish in obscurity, hamstrung by a lack of serious funding.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1663
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: So what does it take anyway?

Unread postby BeAChooser » Fri Dec 28, 2018 2:23 pm

Michael Mozina wrote:I wonder now if it's even possible to get the mainstream to abandon their preference for metaphysical dogma, particularly after it's failed countless so called tests.


I can think of one way. Get a President in office who doesn't believe in the mainstream's dark matter etc gnomes and will cut off funding to all such gnome seeking programs ... much like Trump has been cutting off funding to global warming alarmist boondoggles. Outside of that, I don't see a way to change the mainstream cult's behavior either.
BeAChooser
 
Posts: 168
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2015 7:24 pm

Re: So what does it take anyway?

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Sat Dec 29, 2018 10:49 am

BeAChooser wrote:
Michael Mozina wrote:I wonder now if it's even possible to get the mainstream to abandon their preference for metaphysical dogma, particularly after it's failed countless so called tests.


I can think of one way. Get a President in office who doesn't believe in the mainstream's dark matter etc gnomes and will cut off funding to all such gnome seeking programs ... much like Trump has been cutting off funding to global warming alarmist boondoggles. Outside of that, I don't see a way to change the mainstream cult's behavior either.


I used to believe that scientists based their beliefs on evidence, logic and common sense. I see now that I was very naive. Unfortunately "group think", peer pressure and an irrational preference for metaphysics over empirical laboratory physics dominates the whole field of astronomy today.

Imagine for a moment just how backwards the field of medicine would be today if doctors still believed that 95 percent of human health and human disease was caused by invisible "evil invisible" forces which had never been seen in any lab on Earth, even with all our modern technology? Imagine further that such claims had failed billions of dollars worth of laboratory "tests", yet doctors continued to make the same irrational claims over and over again? That's exactly where we stand in astronomy today.

Literally 95+ percent of the mathematics that is used in astronomy is based on metaphysical nonsense, and most of the remaining 5 percent is based on pure "pseudoscience" according to the author of MHD theory. There's almost nothing empirically viable about any of it, save perhaps planetary exploration which seems to be the one and only aspect of astronomy today that is actually based on empirical physics. It's a truly sad state of affairs.

Meanwhile, *working* laboratory experiments like Birkeland's work, and SAFIRE experiments languish in obscurity, not even properly understood, or correctly portrayed by most mainstream astronomers.

I think the worst aspect is how unethically EU/PC models are portrayed by the mainstream on their various blogs and websites, and how such public misinformation is simply ignored and even encouraged by so called "professional" astronomers. It's simply disgraceful how unethical and completely ignorant they are.

It's hard to imagine how things might ever change considering the severe case of confirmation bias that runs rampantly through the whole field of astronomy today. They've literally spent tends of billions of dollars on failed laboratory tests of their erroneous beliefs, only to ignore all those negative results. It's simply pitiful.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1663
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: So what does it take anyway?

Unread postby BeAChooser » Sun Dec 30, 2018 3:47 pm

Michael Mozina wrote:Imagine for a moment just how backwards the field of medicine would be today if doctors still believed that 95 percent of human health and human disease was caused by invisible "evil invisible" forces which had never been seen in any lab on Earth, even with all our modern technology? Imagine further that such claims had failed billions of dollars worth of laboratory "tests", yet doctors continued to make the same irrational claims over and over again? That's exactly where we stand in astronomy today.


Yep.

Michael Mozina wrote:Literally 95+ percent of the mathematics that is used in astronomy is based on metaphysical nonsense, and most of the remaining 5 percent is based on pure "pseudoscience" according to the author of MHD theory. There's almost nothing empirically viable about any of it, save perhaps planetary exploration which seems to be the one and only aspect of astronomy today that is actually based on empirical physics. It's a truly sad state of affairs.


Yep.

Michael Mozina wrote:Meanwhile, *working* laboratory experiments like Birkeland's work, and SAFIRE experiments languish in obscurity, not even properly understood, or correctly portrayed by most mainstream astronomers.


Yep.

Michael Mozina wrote:I think the worst aspect is how unethically EU/PC models are portrayed by the mainstream on their various blogs and websites, and how such public misinformation is simply ignored and even encouraged by so called "professional" astronomers. It's simply disgraceful how unethical and completely ignorant they are.


Yep.

Michael Mozina wrote:It's hard to imagine how things might ever change considering the severe case of confirmation bias that runs rampantly through the whole field of astronomy today. They've literally spent tends of billions of dollars on failed laboratory tests of their erroneous beliefs, only to ignore all those negative results. It's simply pitiful.


Yep.

That about sums it up. The only way things will change is if a President comes along, takes away their toys, and makes them actually work for a living again. Outside of that, I see no change on the horizon unless some competing country sees that actually understanding the physics of the real universe might give them some competitive advantage.
BeAChooser
 
Posts: 168
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2015 7:24 pm

Absurd absuptions just got even more goofy.

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Mon Dec 31, 2018 12:48 am

I think this recent article on the location of "dark matter" is an absolute riot. It demonstrate the irrational assumptions that are made by the mainstream more elegantly than most articles:

https://phys.org/news/2018-12-faint-gal ... -dark.html

"The reason that intracluster light is such an excellent tracer of dark matter in a galaxy cluster is that both the dark matter and these stars forming the intracluster light are free-floating on the gravitational potential of the cluster itself—so they are following exactly the same gravity," said Mireia Montes of the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, who is co-author of the study. "We have found a new way to see the location where the dark matter should be, because you are tracing exactly the same gravitational potential. We can illuminate, with a very faint glow, the position of dark matter."


Keep in mind that we can only "see" light from the *largest* stars in the distant universe, and even then such large stars are rarely bright enough to generate actual point sources at a distance, rather we observe nothing but a faint glow at larger distances. If you read the first page of this thread, you'll find numerous studies over the past decade which have demonstrated that the mainstream has consistently and significantly underestimated the number of smaller stars we cannot see at a distance compared to the larger ones which leave a faint glow, and they've consistently underestimated the effects of scattering in space as well.

Now we see evidence that so called "dark matter" pretty much follows the faint glow of very ordinary stellar trails inside galaxy clusters. Rather than "assuming" that their ordinary mass estimation techniques need to be completely revamped and updated in light of all those stellar miscount problems, they instead "assume" that their baryonic mass estimates have been right in spite of such studies, and miraculously their mythical metaphysical matter follows the faith glow of ordinary stars in clusters. What a ridiculous assumption.

You'd think that all those failed lab tests of "dark matter", not to mention all those revelations related to their underestimation of ordinary matter in various galaxies would cause them to reevaluate their ordinary baryonic mass estimation techniques, but NOOOOOOOOOOOO! Instead they simply bury their collective heads in the sand and they pretend that their baryonic mass estimates are right, in spite of all the studies that refute that claim, and they assume that exotic forms of matter just so happen to align themselves with ordinary matter trails between the galaxies. Gah. What a metaphysical mess. They've effectively backed themselves into a metaphysical corner, and their only way to deal with it is pure denial, mixed with a countless misleading articles and papers like this one, all of which "assume" that their baryonic mass estimates aren't really the complete joke that they've been shown to be in numerous studies over the past decade. :(

There's simply no logical or rational way to get the mainstream to deal with their galaxies mass estimation problems,or to deal with all their failed dark matter lab tests. Pure denial is their only way to deal with the results of the past decade. :(
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1663
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Astronomers are simply delusional....

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Tue Jan 08, 2019 1:42 pm

https://phys.org/news/2019-01-galaxy-cl ... ticed.html

If you read the opening part of this thread, you'll find that astronomers have consistently been underestimating the number of whole stars in various galaxies, and grossly underestimating the plasma around galaxies, but apparently that's just the tip of the iceberg in terms of the mistakes that they've been making with respect to correctly estimating the amount of ordinary baryonic mass in galaxy clusters like the now infamous bullet clusterf*ck study.

It turns out that they've also been underestimating the number of entire galaxies and entire galaxy clusters too. :)

OMG!

The mainstream baryonic mass calculations based on light are a complete and total joke. They haven't a clue how to correctly estimate the mass in distant galaxies or galaxy clusters based on light. Their whole dark matter fiasco is directly related to their *numerous* baryonic mass estimation problems, not anything even remotely associated with exotic forms of matter. Holy Cow!. At least a dozen studies now confirm that they're been *ridiculously* underestimating the mass in galaxies and even underestimating the number of galaxies and even underestimating the number of entire galaxy clusters! There's no need for exotic matter to explain lensing data. There's just a huge need for astronomers to finally acknowledge their numerous and huge mistakes and to finally update their baryonic mass calculations based on light so they match what they observe in lensing studies.

Astronomy is stuck on a denial-go-round. They refuse to budge even a single percentage point in the galaxy baryonic mass estimation techniques even though they have numerous mainstream studies that show that their baryonic mass calculations based on light are horrifically and completely flawed in every conceivable way. They refuse to update the baryonic mass percentages however, only because changing the percentages even a tiny bit blows their nucleosynthesis "predictions" out of the water and the whole big bang model completely falls apart. They therefore bury their collective heads in the sand and pretend that all these massive errors that they've made in calculating ordinary matter in the universe do not have any effect at all on the percentage of exotic matter. It's just childish nonsense. Mainstream astronomers are completely and totally delusional.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1663
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

It's impossible to prove a negative.

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:42 am

This thread and the various articles and papers I've posed in this thread only emphasizes the scientific impossibility of disproving a hypothetical construct. There have been *at least* a dozen different and highly significant flaws found in the way astronomers calculated ordinary baryonic mass in that absurd bullet cluster study over the past decade. More importantly we've spent tens of billions of dollars on so called "tests" of exotic matter claims at LHC and numerous other expensive experiments, only to find exactly nothing to support exotic matter claims.

In any other branch of physics and science, we would simply acknowledge that there is zero empirical evidence to support the assertion of the existence of exotic forms of matter, and we've move on. In astronomy however, the name of the game is pure denial, and blatant deception. Astronomers simply deny any and all evidence that demonstrates that their mass estimation techniques based on light are useless and riddled with serious and numerous flaws. They simply ignore the fact that their exotic matter claims have failed every single lab test to date and have been shown to have no predictive value whatsoever. They simply bury their collective heads in the sand and pretend that none of these revelations matter in the least, and logic and common sense gets tossed right out the window.

Somehow they delude themselves into believing in a supernatural creation mythology which defies the laws of physics, and they hold belief in such nonsense without a *shred* of supporting evidence, in fact *in spite* of overwhelming evidence that their beliefs are just metaphysical garbage.

I'm sure that other areas of science have their flaws too, but astronomy is in a class by itself in terms of promoting pure metaphysical crap. There's absolutely zero evidence to suggest that the mainstream has any clue how to correctly estimate the mass of even our *own* galaxy, let alone distant galaxies and galaxy clusters. There's also *plenty* of empirical laboratory evidence to demonstrate that photons lose momentum to a plasma medium over distance and time too. There's absolutely nothing useful in term of "predictive value" that's associated with the LCDM model. In fact, the addition of "dark energy" was directly related to a completely *failed* prediction that the expansion of the universe would necessarily slow down over time if gravity dominates spacetime.

It's utterly disgusting to be able to so easily document and demonstrate the numerous and serious mistakes made in that now infamous bullet cluster paper which irrationally and unethically claimed to find 'proof" (yes they even used that unscientific term) of "dark matter". It's pitiful to keep spending billions of dollars on another dark matter snipe hunt when there is absolutely zero evidence to support the concept and in spite of the overwhelming success of the standard model of particle physics which has passed every conceivable lab test to date with flying colors.

Astronomy is in a sorry state and there's simply no logical or rational way for a course correction because their gigantic ego's forbid it. Instead of embracing reality, they run around making absurd videos where they constantly and blatantly misrepresent the beliefs and the meaning of the research conducted by Edwin Hubble, Albert Einstein, Hannes Alfven and everyone else in a completely dishonest effort to distort history. Meanwhile they flat out ignore every bit of evidence that destroys their claims. Not only is the vast majority of their beliefs (95 percent) based on metaphysical terms to describe human ignorance, even their math related to plasma physics is mostly based on pure pseudoscience according to the Nobel Prize winning author of MHD theory. Astronomers quite literally know absolutely *nothing* about our universe that is factually accurate, absolutely nothing. :(

The LHC has run every test on the standard particle physics model and the standard particle physics model has passed every single test with incredible precision. It's also tested numerous exotic matter claims and falsified every single exotic matter claim that it could ever hope to falsify. It's *the* most important particle physics program in the history of particle physics research, and the results speak for themselves. The particle physics fat lady has sung and she continues to sing. Exotic matter claims are a complete and utter failure.

Every important astronomy study of the past 12 years has demonstrated conclusively that the bullet cluster paper, along with all previous dark matter studies have been consistently and undeniably *riddled* with critical flaws and serious scientific errors. The mainstream is simply living in pure denial now about exotic matter, and there's no rational basis for the LCDM model.

I'm amazed they even have the gall to continue their absurd and unethical charade. Astronomers don't really care about physics and science. All they care about is protecting their financial gravy train and their sorry egos at all costs, science and real physics be damned. :(

If I sound bitter and angry, I am. I pity current astronomy students who are being systematically lied to, manipulated and led down the primrose path into metaphysical scientific oblivion. They don't deserve to be deceived like that. Their motives are pure, but their teachers are blind, deceitful and ignorant.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1663
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

The mainstream has no wiggle room

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Fri Jan 11, 2019 12:56 pm

In any ordinary scientific circumstance, all the different revelations about stellar miscounts, plasma underestimation, and even the underestimation of entire galaxies and galaxy clusters would result in *some* attempt to revamp the need for exotic forms of matter to explain simple galaxy rotation patterns and lensing patterns in space.

However, the mainstream has mathematically painted themselves into a corner and they are currently stuck between a rock and hard spot as it relates to their trumped up nucleosynthesis claims/predictions. If they attempt to change the percentages of exotic types of matter even a tiny little bit, their whole model goes to hell in a hand basket. That is directly related to the fact that their nucleosysnthesis estimates don't allow for even a few (even 10) percentage point change in exotic matter/energy calculations without the whole model blowing up.

As a result, they have no option other than to bury their collective heads in the sand and pretend that their baryonic mass calculations have been right for the past couple of decades, in spite of the fact that *numerous* published studies demonstrate exactly the opposite is true. The mainstream doesn't have a reliable way to calculate the amount of ordinary mass in a distant galaxy based on the light they emit. That's been demonstrated over and over and over again. They underestimated whole stars in galaxies by between 4 and 20 times depending on the size of the star and the type of galaxy. They underestimated the amount of plasma and gas surrounding the galaxies too. The underestimated the number and location of entire galaxy clusters in space for crying out loud! There's absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the mainstream mass estimation techniques based on light were ever correct, and there is plenty of evidence to demonstrate that such primitive calculations have *never* been accurate since as far back as Fritz Zwicky and including that fiasco bullet cluster study.

All this denial oriented behavior by the mainstream begins and ends with the fact that they've mathematically painted themselves into a corner. None of their computer models work if one changes the baryonic mass percentages even a few percentage points. Their whole model bites the dark dust the moment you try to fidget with it even a tiny little bit. As a result, none of the recent astronomical observations over the past decade matter to them, and none of the negative lab results matter to them one iota either. They're stuck on a denial-go-round without any way to make it stop other than to abandon the whole LCDM model entirely.

That's how we ended up with dark energy too. They *failed* in their prediction that the universe should be slowing down due to gravitational attraction, so to save their expansion model, they simply liberally added massive amounts of yet *another* metaphysical construct to prop up an otherwise falsified interpretation of the real cause of photon redshift.

Redshift isn't caused by "space expansion" in any controlled experiment. Space never expands in the lab in fact. It is however a documented fact that photons lose momentum as they traverse a plasma medium in the lab. It's irrational to simply "assume" that no amount of cosmological redshift is due to the same processes that we observe in plasma in the lab.

Expansion models are a complete and utter failure and exotic matter mathematical models have been falsified by the dozens at LHC and other such experiments. Dark matter is now the ultimate metaphysical 'snipe hunt". They'll continue to waste billions of dollars on that metaphysical boondoggle because there's no way to make their expansion models work without it.

Astronomers are simply ridiculous and childish.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1663
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: It's impossible to prove a negative.

Unread postby Higgsy » Fri Jan 11, 2019 6:21 pm

Michael Mozina wrote:
Every important astronomy study of the past 12 years has demonstrated conclusively that the bullet cluster paper, along with all previous dark matter studies have been consistently and undeniably *riddled* with critical flaws and serious scientific errors. The mainstream is simply living in pure denial now about exotic matter, and there's no rational basis for the LCDM model.

This is an example of the complete bollocks that you have been spouting in this and other tedious and prolix misrepresentations of the science in this thread. It is patently obvious that you haven't the faintest notion of the actual research which demonstrates why the Bullet cluster is regarded by physicists as one (amongst many) of the compelling pieces of evidence for the existence of non-interacting matter. If you think that the argument for such matter rests on counting stars, or galaxies or galaxy clusters, then not only are you wrong, but it is clear that you have not understood, or, more likely, not even read the relevant primary literature.

One of the clearest signs of a pseud is one who criticises science that they have failed to understand. It is the typical method of creationists, it is the typical method of anti-evolutionists, and it is your typical method. Over and over again.

The actual science never mentions star counts, galaxy counts, or galaxy cluster counts:
Clowe, Gonzalez and Markovitch, Weak-Lensing Mass Reconstruction of the Interacting Cluster 1E 0657–558: Direct Evidence for the Existence of Dark Matter, APJ 604, pp596 - 603, 2004
Clowe et al, A direct empirical proof of the existence of dark matter, APJ Letters 648/2, pp109 - 113, 2006
Bradac et al, Revealing the Properties of Dark Matter in the Merging Cluster MACS J0025.4–1222, APJ 687, p959, 2008
Paraficz et al, The Bullet cluster at its best: weighing stars, gas, and dark matter, A&A 594, A121, 2016
Every important astronomy study of the past 12 years has demonstrated conclusively that the bullet cluster paper, along with all previous dark matter studies have been consistently and undeniably *riddled* with critical flaws and serious scientific errors.
And yet it is obvious that you have never read the primary literature relating to the Bullet cluster and other colliding clusters, and you can't, in fact, point to a single critical flaw or error in the primary literature relating to these clusters. All you have is bluster, rhetoric and ignorance.
"Every single ion is going to start cooling off instantly as far as I know…If you're mixing kinetic energy in there somehow, you'll need to explain exactly how you're defining 'temperature'" - Mozina
Higgsy
 
Posts: 217
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 3:32 pm

Re: It's impossible to prove a negative.

Unread postby BeAChooser » Fri Jan 11, 2019 6:52 pm

Higgsy wrote: All you have is bluster, rhetoric and ignorance.


Speaking of which ... Higgsy, did you ever figure out how to explain all those helically wound plasma filaments astronomers see out there? With more being added every day. Just curious ....
BeAChooser
 
Posts: 168
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2015 7:24 pm

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

Unread postby Cargo » Fri Jan 11, 2019 7:33 pm

Higs has returned. All shudder in the quake of his non-interacting dark matter.
interstellar filaments conducted electricity having currents as high as 10 thousand billion amperes
Cargo
 
Posts: 268
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 7:02 pm

Re: It's impossible to prove a negative.

Unread postby Higgsy » Sat Jan 12, 2019 5:39 am

BeAChooser wrote:
Higgsy wrote: All you have is bluster, rhetoric and ignorance.


Speaking of which ... Higgsy, did you ever figure out how to explain all those helically wound plasma filaments astronomers see out there? With more being added every day. Just curious ....

Nah, you're just eyeballing random pictures provided by the astronomical community and making up stories. That's not how physics is done. When you have some quantified physics to discuss you can get back to me. Until then all you have is bluster, rhetoric and ignorance.
"Every single ion is going to start cooling off instantly as far as I know…If you're mixing kinetic energy in there somehow, you'll need to explain exactly how you're defining 'temperature'" - Mozina
Higgsy
 
Posts: 217
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 3:32 pm

Re: It's impossible to prove a negative.

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Sat Jan 12, 2019 11:00 am

Higgsy wrote:
Michael Mozina wrote:
Every important astronomy study of the past 12 years has demonstrated conclusively that the bullet cluster paper, along with all previous dark matter studies have been consistently and undeniably *riddled* with critical flaws and serious scientific errors. The mainstream is simply living in pure denial now about exotic matter, and there's no rational basis for the LCDM model.

This is an example of the complete bollocks that you have been spouting in this and other tedious and prolix misrepresentations of the science in this thread. It is patently obvious that you haven't the faintest notion of the actual research which demonstrates why the Bullet cluster is regarded by physicists as one (amongst many) of the compelling pieces of evidence for the existence of non-interacting matter.


Quite the opposite. The Bullet Clusterf*ck study proved conclusively that astronomers don't have the first *clue* how to correctly estimate the mass of a galaxy or a cluster based on light. At least a half dozen different studies since then have demonstrated that fact *repeatedly*.

If you think that the argument for such matter rests on counting stars, or galaxies or galaxy clusters, then not only are you wrong, but it is clear that you have not understood, or, more likely, not even read the relevant primary literature.


No, I know for a fact that you don't "count" stars because you can't see them all. You *underestimated* the number of stars in a galaxy or cluster based on a formula that was off by a factor of between 3 and 20 times! You also botched the mass of the plasma and gas surrounding each galaxy, as well as underestimating the number of stars that are located *between* galaxies in those clusters. In fact, it turns out that you can't even properly find entire *galaxy clusters* based on your light techniques because they aren't all as bright as you first *imagined*. Face it, your mass estimation techniques based on light are a joke, a ridiculous and obvious joke!

One of the clearest signs of a pseud is one who criticises science that they have failed to understand. It is the typical method of creationists, it is the typical method of anti-evolutionists, and it is your typical method. Over and over again.


Pure boloney. I've cited over a half dozen studies done since 2006 which blow your mass estimation techniques out of the water. You don't have the first clue how to properly estimate stars in a galaxy or even properly estimate whole galaxy clusters! You don't have to be a genius to notice how many mistakes you made in your mass estimation techniques. Oy Vey, what an epic fail.

The actual science never mentions star counts, galaxy counts, or galaxy cluster counts:


Utter nonsense! Many of the studies I originally posted to this thread absolutely positively *do* mention the number of stars and the underestimation problems in your models. You're living in pure denial.

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gale ... 90819.html

You underestimated the number of stars in galaxies by between 3 and 20 times based on the size of the star and the type of galaxy.

"What this paper is showing is that some of the standard assumptions that we've had - that the brightest stars tell you about the whole population of stars - this doesn't seem to work, at least not in a constant way," said Gerhardt R. Meurer, principal investigator on the study and a research scientist at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md.


Wake up and smell the coffee already. Your mass estimation techniques based on light are ridiculously and hopelessly flawed. That's all you "proved" in 2006. Even the use of the term "proof" was as unscientific as it gets. There is no "proof" in physics, just evidence, and there is ample evidence that your mass estimation techniques based on light were riddled with major mistakes.

https://www.foxnews.com/science/scienti ... in-the-sky

It's one of two studies being published online Wednesday in the journal Nature that focus on red dwarf stars, the most common stars in the universe. The study that offers the new estimate on stars is led by a Yale University astronomer. He calculates that there are far more red dwarfs than previously thought, and that inflates the total star count.


You only missed the correct number of stars in the visible universe by about 200 sextillion stars or so...... Sheesh!

Clowe, Gonzalez and Markovitch, Weak-Lensing Mass Reconstruction of the Interacting Cluster 1E 0657–558: Direct Evidence for the Existence of Dark Matter, APJ 604, pp596 - 603, 2004
Clowe et al, A direct empirical proof of the existence of dark matter, APJ Letters 648/2, pp109 - 113, 2006
Bradac et al, Revealing the Properties of Dark Matter in the Merging Cluster MACS J0025.4–1222, APJ 687, p959, 2008


There is no evidence of "dark matter", just ample evidence that your baryonic mass estimation techniques are a complete joke! All you know for a fact is that your mass estimation techniques based on light do not work right!

Paraficz et al, The Bullet cluster at its best: weighing stars, gas, and dark matter, A&A 594, A121, 2016


More pure BS from a group that hasn't a clue how to properly estimate the mass of a distant galaxy based on any light techniques. The lensing data *proves* that point conclusively. Your mass estimation techniques based on light are *riddled* with flaws. You underestimate the number of stars in the galaxies, the number of stars *between* the galaxies and the gas and plasma *inside* the galaxies too. You got *nothing* right, absolutely nothing. Show me that they changed the mass estimation techniques between 2006 and 2016 based on all the revelations of stellar miscounts, scattering and plasma found since 2006. Show us HIggsy where they took that new information into account in the latest paper. You can't and you wont because they still use the same pitiful formulas which are demonstrated to be false.

And yet it is obvious that you have never read the primary literature relating to the Bullet cluster and other colliding clusters, and you can't, in fact, point to a single critical flaw or error in the primary literature relating to these clusters. All you have is bluster, rhetoric and ignorance.


Boloney. I even cited the specific formula over at CF that was used to underestimate the number of stars in galaxies based on light alone in that original ridiculous study from 2006. Face it, you botched the baryonic mass estimates because you *assumed* that you could correctly estimate the number of small stars in galaxies based on the number of brighter ones. You underestimated the amount of scattering taking place which blocks the light from the larger stars. You underestimated the number of stars between galaxies. You underestimated the amount of gas and plasma around galaxies too In fact, you cant even properly see entire *clusters* based on light alone, certainly not in 2006!

There was *nothing* accurate about the formula you used to *estimate* the number of stars in galaxies, or the amount of plasma present either. Your mass estimation techniques based on light were falsified by the lensing technique to start with, and every serious study since then has demonstrated all the various flaws in your mass estimation techniques based on light. You screwed up royally.

All of what I just said is backed up by *billions* of dollars of so called "tests" of your exotic matter claims at LHC and lots of other empirical laboratory studies, all of which were *utter failures* at finding any type of exotic matter as you predicted. In fact the standard particle physics model has passed all of those same empirical tests with flying colors, demonstrating conclusively that your mass estimation techniques based on light alone are a hopeless mess. You're living in pure denial of the scientific facts!
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1663
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests