Lambda-CDM - EU/PC Theory - Confirmation Bias

[Michael Mozina]

Your case for exotic matter is only as good as the accuracy of your ability to estimate the amount of baryonic matter in a given distant galaxy. We didn't even know the location of the majority of the baryonic mass of our own galaxy until 2012 and 2017 when we finally realized that our own galaxy was surrounded by a vast halo of hydrogen gas and hot plasma which is located exactly where your "dark matter" models insist it must be located. The fact of the matter is that your baryonic mass estimates are based on highly dubious assumptions and methods which have been repeatedly shown to be riddled with serious and numerous flaws since 2006.

There's nothing left standing over your argument about being able to determine stellar or baryonic mass of a distant galaxy based on luminosity. As a matter of fact, that 2006 study only "proved" (what a poor choice of words to use the term 'proof') that mainstream baryonic mass estimation techniques were seriously and hopelessly flawed. That's all the bullet cluster study ever "proved' and numerous later studies have verified that fact repeatedly.

If you had any serious doubts about that fact, you need look no further than the results from LHC, LUX, PandaX, etc, all of which failed to show even a hint of a problem with the standard particle physics model, *the* most successful particle physics model in the history of particle physics.

There's literally nothing left standing in terms of your exotic matter argument in 2019. We have now spent tens of billion of dollars "testing" the *non-standard* particle physics models that your so called "experts" believed were the most viable options, and they all failed miserably.

You quite literally can offer us *zero* reliable evidence to support your claim about the existence of exotic forms of matter or energy. All your claims are based entirely upon affirming the consequent fallacies that begin (and end) with the premise that your bayonic mass estimation techniques are reliable, and your interpretation of photon redshift is correct. If those "assumptions" are false, then so is your entire argument, and the baryonic mass estimate assumption has already been shown to be false in many recent studies.

There is absolutely no logical basis for clinging to a metaphysical creation mythology that is 95 percent placeholder terms for human ignorance, particularly now that the core tenets have been repeatedly shown to be false.

Wake up and smell the coffee already. It only hurts for a short while, and then the whole universe becomes open for empirical explanations that no longer hinge upon fruitless searches for exotic forms of matter and energy, and you're no longer hamstrung by metaphysical dogma.

Leave the dark side behind and allow yourself to see the light of empirical physics already.

[Aardwolf]

So you’ve described the status of a galaxy, but you haven’t even attempted to explain why a given particular mass of dark matter attracts exactly the right amount of ordinary matter so that the density and ratio (of ordinary matter to dark matter) equates so that the vast outer region of the galaxy rotates uniformly to create the observed flattened curves. Then it stops attracting any more matter and maintains the density and ratio for billions of years. Explain why?

What makes you think that a particularly tightly constrained stellar to DM ratio is needed to yield a flat rotation curve? In almost all spiral galaxies the DM halo dominates the total mass, and whether the ratio is 0.05 or 0.15, a roughly spherical halo will result in flat rotation curves. All you need is substantial mass away from the galactic centre. To the first order the ratio is given by the universal DM to baryonic matter ratio, recognising that stars and dust form only about 1% of the total mass and intergalactic hot gas forms about 10%. And since many star forming regions are found at the edge of galaxies, it seems that they don't stop growing.

So why is there always a dominance of dark matter? What stops the milky way from increasing the ratio of ordinary mater. They stop for no reason. If they don't stop they need to continue to attract the same ratio to maintain the same profile. Does a planet stop attracting mass when it gets to an upper limit and then reject any more matter? Why are there no 50:50 galaxies where there isn't enough dark matter to produce a flat rotation curve? We always see the small dark matter halos with small baryonic galaxies and the large halos with large baryonic galaxies, and it's a trick repeated billions of time over.

Clearly you don't see any logical problem with this. I'm not sure if it's wilful or naïve.

[Aardwolf]

Is that more or less sensational rubbish than;

A DIRECT EMPIRICAL PROOF of the existence of dark matter - Honestly guv, this is the bestest most proofiest paper even written by humans or gods. Go home now, you can all quit looking. We won the science.

Shut up about the title and read and try to understand the sodding paper. Which contains neither rhetoric nor exaggration. I know, I know, it has some big words in it and you'd rather stick to the popular press.

Bit touchy for someone who's supposed to know what they are talking about. You stated that using a fairly harmless simile like "thick as soup" is sensational even though clearly the article was talking relative to dispersed matter, and according to the masters of the sciencey stuff dark matter out masses ordinary matter 10:1 so "soup" seems fair to me. However the term "direct empirical proof" isn't sensational? It isn't direct nor is it proof of anything. Why would anyone read a paper when the title is clearly set up to mislead in the first place. It's a hack job for the gullibles and you fell for it.

PS. You may want to contact MIT and inform them the magazine they are running is garbage.

Not my problem bro, if you don't know how to distinguish between science ad sensationalism.

I couldn't care less but you rely on appealing to authority so I would have thought you would want MIT playing the right tune.

[Michael Mozina]

Is that more or less sensational rubbish than;

A DIRECT EMPIRICAL PROOF of the existence of dark matter - Honestly guv, this is the bestest most proofiest paper even written by humans or gods. Go home now, you can all quit looking. We won the science.

Shut up about the title and read and try to understand the sodding paper. Which contains neither rhetoric nor exaggration. I know, I know, it has some big words in it and you'd rather stick to the popular press.

Bit touchy for someone who's supposed to know what they are talking about. You stated that using a fairly harmless simile like "thick as soup" is sensational even though clearly the article was talking relative to dispersed matter, and according to the masters of the sciencey stuff dark matter out masses ordinary matter 10:1 so "soup" seems fair to me. However the term "direct empirical proof" isn't sensational? It isn't direct nor is it proof of anything. Why would anyone read a paper when the title is clearly set up to mislead in the first place. It's a hack job for the gullibles and you fell for it.

The fact that the mainstream even uses unscientific and misleading terms like "proof" and the fact that such irrational terms are included in published papers is absurd. There is no such thing as "proof" in physics, just "evidence" that is often weak evidence at best. The fact that the mainstream publications and editors even allow that kind of sensationalized trash to be published says volumes about their lack of objectivity and their lack of ethics. They don't care about scientific objectivity or "truth" anymore. They're trying to "sell" us a metaphysical pig-in-a-poke, and they will go to any lengths to do so, even if it means using unethical and misleading terminology to do it.

It's actually rather disgusting that such absurdly unscientific terminology slips through the publishing cracks. They don't even offer us a pretense about being objective or fair anymore. It's a sure sign of pure desperation.

It's been almost 13 years since they made that irrational and unethical claim about the Bullet Cluster data, and it's been destroyed by all of their own laboratory "tests", and by later astronomical observational studies too. Nobody has ever retracted that false statement however, and they never will retract it even though there is ample evidence that their mass estimation techniques based on luminosity were a completely unreliable way to determine ordinary mass. That now *infamous* Bullet Cluster paper has more holes in it than Swiss cheese. They only actually "proved" that their bayyonic mass estimation techniques were utterly worthless in 2006 as numerous later studies have repeatedly verified along with tens of billions of dollars worth of epic failure lab tests.

[BeAChooser]

you're just eyeballing random pictures provided by the astronomical community and making up stories.

The “random” comment I don’t mind since that’s in keeping with filaments being “unbiquitous” but you’re wrong about the “stories” part … or at least if I’m making up stories, they are non-fiction and attempts to understand using real physics, rather than the “stories” the mainstream community is creating (and you’re believing), which are closer to mythology or outright fantasy than anything else.

You showed me images that you interpreted as helically wound filaments.

Seems to me, Higgsy, that you claiming that you don’t see the helically wound filaments in this image

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... Nebula.jpg

only proves that you are either blind or stubbornly dishonest. That image clearly contains helically wound filaments in the upper right quadrant, if not elsewhere. Clear as day, as I said before.

And given your comment about the Veil Nebula image being from a Wikipedia page that “recites the standard explanation which is that they are not helically wound filaments (or filaments at all)”, I would say you are both naive and illiterate too. First, one should expect Wikipedia to recite the mainstream explanation since Wikipedia is mostly controlled by the mainstream, be it about astrophysics, global warming, or Clinton. And it wouldn’t be the first time that Wikipedia, citing the mainstream version, has gotten things wrong (ala global warming and the Clintons).

Second, the web page that came from (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_Nebula ) states: “When finely resolved, some parts of the image appear to be rope-like filaments.” So not only does it mention “filaments” but calls them “rope-like”, which brings to mind the helically wound construction of an ordinary rope. You must have also missed the statement that another name for part of the Veil Nebula is the “Filamentary Nebula”.

I realised you have nothing. So I come here for a laugh. But I get bored.

If I have “nothing”, then you should now have no problem explaining in a clear manner how that helically structured filament discussed above came to be … and do it without referencing gnomes.

You should also be able to explain the existence of the helically wound filaments that are quite obviously visible in the star forming filaments at the bottom of this image …

http://inspirehep.net/record/1255052/files/fig8.png

I find it hilarious that you said you don’t know what that is a picture of, yet almost as soon you wrote that, you cited a scientific article (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1312.6232.pdf) that contains a picture of that filament in the inset. That says it is a portion of the Herschel photographed B211/B213 filament in Taurus. And that article states that “filamentary structure is omnipresent in every cloud observed with Herschel, irrespective of its starforming content.” In fact, Philippe André, Principal Investigator for the Herschel Gould Belt Survey, who you later cited in your post as a good source, has written that “the greatest surprise was the ubiquity of filaments in these nearby clouds and their intimate connection with star formation.” Plus, I think I’ve pointed out on one or more occasions that the Herchel website at esa states (http://sci.esa.int/herschel/55942-hersc ... milky-way/ ) that “Observations with ESA's Herschel space observatory have revealed that our Galaxy is threaded with filamentary structures on every length scale. From nearby clouds hosting tangles of filaments a few light-years long to gigantic structures stretching hundreds of light-years across the Milky Way's spiral arms, they appear to be truly ubiquitous.”

And yet you still proclaim that I haven’t proven these filaments are ubiquitous?

What do you need as proof, Higgsy … a gnome from me … because you will readily one? Just saying …

Now, as far as their helical structure is concerned, it’s not just my eyes that conclude those are helically wound filaments in those images, Higgsy. Numerous MAINSTREAM scientific sources indicate the filaments in these clouds (and elsewhere) are twisting and intertwined. This 2018 paper (https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... on_content ), for example, states “most well-studied filaments in nearby clouds appear as curved and intertwined structures embedded in the larger molecular cloud material." And Andre, whose name you just dropped as a great *source* for all things filamentary in these clouds, in a 2017 paper titled “Interstellar filaments and star formation” (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 1317300901 ), wrote that a “filament may indeed be expected to develop a more complex system of intertwined fibers as the filament system grows in mass per unit length and its internal velocity dispersion increases.” And what does Wikipedia (which seems to be your other favorite source) say about the double helix construction of DNA? That it is “two intertwined helices” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helix). Intertwined mean helical, Higgsy.

I’d also like to point out that in Andre’s 2017 paper, he again acknowledged that “filaments are truly ubiquitous“ and “probably make up a dominant fraction of the dense gas in molecular clouds” (well, well, well), And the very first sentence of the Andre article you cited is an admission that “the physics controlling the earliest phases of star formation is not yet well understood.” Yet you immediately discard a reasonable alternative to the formation of filaments and star formation? How *scientific* …

The fact of the matter, as already pointed out, is that the presentation by Hacar (http://herschel.esac.esa.int/SFaxz2014/ ... HacarA.pdf ), who is part of the mainstream community, has a title page that shows a helically wound set of wires. You just ignored that observation because you cannot explain that. Instead, as a distraction, you regurgitated the part of the presentation that said filaments “are sonic-like structures naturally created as part of the turbulent cascade”. But there is no proof of that claim in that presentation. Or anywhere else I’ve found. It’s just a hypothesis that relies on a gnomes . I suggest those words are just tossed out as another convenient bit of handwaving by a mainstream *scientist* desperate to explain away the existence of problematic filaments. So they can keep their gnomes (and gravy train) alive a little longer.

Nor is there any proof that “Cores & Stars are formed from the fragmentation of only those gravitationally unstable (i.e. fertile) fibers” either. The claims are simply tossed out as if they are fact, just like the mainstream tosses out the claim that CO2 is the cause of any global warming. To me, the PC/EU alternative seems just as viable at this point and should be receiving equal research dollars since it seems to be just as “fertile” (to borrow Hacar’s unscientific term) an alternative as the mainstream’s various unproven gnomes. So we are again back at that heart of the problem. You can’t explain how the mainstream memes of gravity, turbulence, and dark matter actually form helically wound filaments. That’s why I asked you about that in first place, Higgsy. To watch you run, obfuscate, and outright lie, as you are now doing.

You are eyeballing pretty pictures and making up stories. How big are they? What is the plasma density? The charge separation, the magnetic field strenth, the electrical field strength, the current, the charge velocity, the temperature?

Some of that we might know more about now, if so much time and money hadn’t been wasted dreaming up and searching for gnomes. In fact, mainstream recognition that filaments are ubiquitous and important has only come in the last 10 years or so (even though the PC/EU community said they were decades and decades ago). And truth is that you’d know the answer to some of those questions you asked, if you’d read your own source. For example, star forming filaments are parsecs long, Higgsy. And there are even longer filaments out there. I hope you’ve heard of “bones” . Astronomers say there are hundreds of them along the arms of the Milky Way galaxy and many are a 100 or more parsecs in length. And there are even longer documented filaments between galaxies. Filaments are ubiquitous at all scales, Higgsy, and I suggest you accept that one of these days. Just saying …

What do these pretty pictures each signify?

A question which only shows you haven’t been paying attention.

 I don't do popular articles.

Yeah. Just Wikipedia.

 Simulations of turbulence often employ a spectrum of plane waves that are random in direction and phase. As is well known, the crossing of two planar shock wave fronts is a line - the filament (e.g.,Pudritz and Kevlahan,
2013)...Li et al. (2010) have shown that filaments are formed preferentially perpendicular to the
magnetic field lines in strongly magnetized turbulent clouds”

That’s another statement you just plagiarized from this: https://books.google.com/books?id=tQswB ... 13&f=false . In any case, it’s odd that few if any of these simulations discuss the formation of helical filaments during them.

Take the Pudritz and Kevlahan, reference for instance. It (https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/ ... b%3dpubmed ) mentions “gas” 53 times but “plasma” just once. Obviously, the authors paid no attention to the important characteristics of plasma. It doesn’t mention “electric” even once. Obviously, the authors paid no attention to the possibility (no, probablility) that electric currents were coarsing through those plasmas in those clouds. The authors admitted that they didn’t even “examine magnetic fields in detail”, even though they admitted that they are observed in the star forming “gas”. They decided that the filaments are “wrapped with a helical magnetic field” but don’t ask how the magnetic fields come to be in the first place … just as they don’t ask how the helically wound filaments that are observed come to be. For that matter, they don’t actually say where the “multiple shocks” that they require in these clouds to produce the filaments and THEN stars come from, either. Sure, they wave their hands in general but offer no specific source for the shocks in the clouds they study (like the Polaris Flare). Indeed, that source states that “the origin of the turbulence-like properties of the ISM over at least 11 orders of magnitude remains one of the central mysteries of astrophysical fluid dynamics.” It goes on to say that “In summary, astrophysical fluctuations of density and velocity appear to have some of the characteristics of fully developed turbulence, although it is difficult to reconcile this interpretation with the actual physical properties of the ISM.” You beginning to see the problem here, Higgsy? Without those gnomish shocks, your other gnomes can’t do anything at all.

Now what does that source say about simulations.

“The formation of filaments in many of these simulations involves the oblique collisions of planar shock fronts that arise from the initial velocity field. The collision of two sheets (shock wave fronts) is a line. Thus, filaments represent the densest structures that supersonic turbulence, or, in our view, a collection of shock waves, can produce. It is therefore not surprising that dense cores would appear to form along filaments, as many simulations have shown.”

No mention of the helical winding of filaments in that, Higgsy.

“Another key aspect of the ‘turbulent fragmentation’ picture of structure formation is that it provides a natural explanation for the origin of angular momentum for cores, and hence for the origin of protostellar discs. Rotational energies are generally a small fraction of the gravitational energy of the system. The average value of the ratio of the rotational to gravitational energy is βrot ≃ 0.01, but its value spans several orders of magnitude: for both low-mass cores with a range 2×10−3 to 1.4 [59] and high-mass cores [60] in the range 4×10−4 to 7×10−2. While rotational energy is thus too low to play a significant role in the dynamics of the cores, it is significant in establishing the initial conditions for the formation of protostellar discs on much smaller scales (a few to several hundred astronomical units, AU). Angular momentum can arise as a consequence of the oblique collision of shock waves [54,61]. The range of spins of such cores can be quite broad, extending over several orders of magnitude. In simulations by Banerjee et al. [58], the angular momentum of this gas arises from the fact that the filament is clearly associated with the intersection of two sheets, which are presumably the shock fronts that are generated from the initial supersonic velocity field set up for the cloud. The large-scale flow along the filament has sufficient angular momentum that an accretion disc is built up.”

Ok, so they think they can explain the angular moment of the cloud that eventually forms a star. The PC/EU community can too … so how about we call that a draw. However, can the mainstream explain how the angular momentum from that cloud ends up mostly in the planets, and not the star? I asked you this question previously, Higgsy … and you RAN. So again, how does the mainstream explain that 99% of the angular momentum in our solar system is in the orbiting planets? How did it get out there, and not remain in the sun’s “gases”? What gnome are you going to offer us? Hmmmmm? Because as I already explained to you, the PC/EU community have a viable and detailed explanation … one based on ordinary physics … but unfortunately physics that you in the mainstream community MUST deny exists. So what’s your alternative? Hmmmmmm?

Next, the Pudritz and Kevlahan article talks about the intersections of the planar shocks and the “vortices” that produces. But vortices are not helical winding. Which is why the phrases “twist”, “Intertwined”, and “helical” are not to be found in the paper. What is evident in the photos that I’ve linked to you was simply ignored, Higgsy.

Here’s another recent paper on filaments, shock and turbulence, Higgsy: https://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~chfeder/pub ... aments.pdf . All the comments I made about the one above apply to this one too. The simulations don’t produce helically wound filaments … so they just ignore that characteristic of the filaments we see in the real world.

Here’s another paper (from 2016): https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.02601 . Not one word about the ubiquitous braided, twisted, intertwined, helical nature of filaments. Their big *discovery* is that the simulated filaments will align with the magnetic field … if they twiddle with enough of the dials in their model (like the “turbulent strain along the magnetic field”). Of course, the PC/EU community doesn't have to explain the alignment of the magnetic field with the filament since it’s a natural by product of Birkeland currents. Just saying …

You beginning to see the problem, Higgsy Or you still clueless?

I tell you what … maybe I missed a source that did not ignore the fine structure of the filaments that are observed … where the simulations produced those structures. Why don’t you point one out to us, since you are so knowledgable about them? Hmmmm?

[Michael Mozina]

There have been no problems identified with the mass distribution methods of the 2006 paper, so there is nothing to correct in 2016.

IMO this particular sentence tells the whole sad story of pure denial in a single sentence. Thanks for proving my point that pure denial is the only way that astronomers can *not* deal with any new information in the 21st century.

Astronomers spent untold billions of dollars on so called "tests" over the past decade and a half, but because they only confirm the validity of the standard particle physics model, you simply ignore the negative results. It's a classic demonstration of pure confirmation bias. You simply will not take "no" for an answer. Your metaphysical dogma lacks any sort of falsification mechanism because you simply refuse to abide by the outcome of your own useless tests.

Even worse however is the fact that your baryonic mass estimation techniques based on luminosity have been *repeatedly* shown to be worthless and riddled with critical and serious flaws. All those more recent papers demonstrate there is no reliable way to estimate the baryonic and stellar mass based on luminosity alone. You can't handle the fact that your methodology has been falsified many times now, so you simply pull the denial rabbit out of your hat and blame the messenger for your numerous and obvious failures. How very very sad.

You will whine about it, but that is because you haven't read or understood the papers that you are criticising, like most pseuds.

Oh, but I certainly do understand them, and I understand how they affect your baryonic estimates based on luminosity. You can't logically or rationally justify the baryonic mass estimates from that ridiculous bullet cluster paper, so you simply blame the messenger for your own shortcomings. You aren't fooling anyone here Higgsy, in fact you're only verifying everything that I said about your industry's heavy reliance upon pure denial and it's absurdly obvious confirmation bias problems.

No. I don't have a front runner because I am not a theoretical physicist nor a particle physicist, and I don't have the knowledge to make an informed choice. Unlike you, I will not spout about things I don't understand.

Pfft. You don't have any "knowledge" at all, just placeholder terms for human ignorance. You'll spout on boastfully about being able to accurately estimate the baryonic mass of distant galaxies when we know for fact that you cannot. You don't even have the first clue where to turn to next to even try to justify your assumption that the standard particle physics model is wrong. Your so called "experts" in theoretical particle physics have all been shown to wrong in the first place. They're "experts" on exotic matter, like astrologers are "experts" at predicting one's future based on a birthday. Toss in a little math and you'll believe anything apparently.

One doesn't even need to be an "expert" in particle physics to notice the dismal track record of your hypothetical "experts". One doesn't need to be an expert in astronomy to see what a piss poor job you've done at estimating baryonic mass based on luminosity either.

Thanks again Higgsy for demonstrating my point that you don't have a clue what your talking about. The only thing that holds your supernatural dogma together is pure denial, and a healthy dose of confirmation bias. You simply reject empirical physics at every turn, and you just make up this metaphysical crap as you go.

[Zyxzevn]

… so they just ignore that characteristic of the filaments we see in the real world...

This is the general trend that I see in astronomy.
Unlike normal physics that works in laboratory, astronomy neglects certain observations to
create oversimplified models of reality.

Then, to match observations that they can not ignore, they have to
add magical invisible stuff to the oversimplified models.
And they create models that are not even in line with normal physics.

Something that would not happen if they tested them in the laboratory in the first place.

But reality is far to complex for astronomers I guess.

[BeAChooser]

astronomy neglects certain observations to create oversimplified models of reality.

Then, to match observations that they can not ignore, they have to
add magical invisible stuff to the oversimplified models.
And they create models that are not even in line with normal physics.

Something that would not happen if they tested them in the laboratory in the first place.

But reality is far to complex for astronomers I guess.

Mainstream astrophysicists have trapped themselves with their gnomes. Their jobs and reputations now depend on the gnomes being true. If they were to now say "whoops, we were wrong", they'd lose both jobs and reputations (meaning no more jobs). And they know it. So they continue the charade, hoping that they at least will be able to milk the cow long enough to make it to retirement, when it will no longer matter to them.

[Michael Mozina]

Mainstream astrophysicists have trapped themselves with their gnomes. Their jobs and reputations now depend on the gnomes being true. If they were to now say "whoops, we were wrong", they'd lose both jobs and reputations (meaning no more jobs). And they know it. So they continue the charade, hoping that they at least will be able to milk the cow long enough to make it to retirement, when it will no longer matter to them.

Unfortunately I think you're exactly right on that point. The people who suffer the most are new astronomy students who really don't know any better, who are easily "duped" by their professors, and who must toe the party line, or risk flunking their classes and/or never getting offered a job position.

It's a vicious cycle that's been going on for some time now.

I really don't think astronomers give a damn about "truth" or science anymore. It's all about chasing the almighty buck, protecting their reputations, and protecting their sources of income.

Some day in the not too distant future astronomers will look back at these dark ages of astronomy and be utterly amazed at the complete ignorance of so called "professional" astronomers of today. Their dark magic will simply seem like a primitive metaphysical cult that was utterly devoid of scientific understanding.

[Higgsy]

Unfortunately I am tied up with some actual science over the next couple of weeks as a deadline looms and there are two papers to review, but I’ll be back as soon as poss. Until then, have fun, mes enfants.

[Michael Mozina]

Unfortunately I am tied up with some actual science over the next couple of weeks as a deadline looms and there are two papers to review, but I’ll be back as soon as poss. Until then, have fun, mes enfants.

If what you're doing has anything to do with inflation, space expansion, dark energy, dark matter or the LCDM model, it's not "actual science" that you're tied up with, it's metaphysical dogma on a stick that has you tied up in knots.

We both know that you don't have a shred of evidence to support your claim that the bullet cluster baryonic mass estimates were ever correct to begin with, or evidence to demonstrate that there is anything wrong with the standar particle physics model, and that's not about to change in the next two weeks, so by all means, take your time Higgsy. Maybe over the next couple of week they'll publish another paper that describes yet another major flaw in your luminosity based mass estimation techniques, and you can do your denial based song and dance routine about it too

[Michael Mozina]

I can't think of a more obvious example of pure denial in action than we've seen here in recent weeks. There is simply no reliable evidence whatsoever to suggest that the mainstream has ever been able to accurately estimate the amount of ordinary baryonic mass in *this* galaxy, let alone a distant galaxy based on luminosity, none whatsoever. Furthermore, billions of dollars worth of so called "tests" of exotic matter theories (plural) have turned up absolutely nothing to suggest that the standard particle physics model is wrong, in fact the standard particle physics model has passed every conceivable test to date with flying colors.

Instead of dealing that that information logically and rationally, HIggsy has tried to blame us/me for not somehow 'understanding' the fact that numerous studies have shown their baryonic mass estimation techniques based on luminosity to be riddled with serious flaws.

Higgsy has been a textbook example of confirmation bias and denial in action. There's no way to disprove a negative. I can't demonstrate that invisible unicorns don't exist. I can't demonstrate that gnomes don't exist. I can't demonstrate that dark junk doesn't exist in space either. The fact of the matter however is that there is simply no reliable evidence to support these claims, and they aren't falsifiable claims in the first place.

The LCDM model isn't even a "scientific" model, it's a metaphysical Frankenstein with useless math.

Even with all those revelations of stellar underestimates, plasma underestimates and failed laboratory 'tests" galore, the mainstream simply will not abandon their blind faith in metaphysics. It's just sad, and it prevents any real scientific progress from occurring.

[Michael Mozina]

https://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/ ... d-end.html

The Higgs was the last good prediction that particle physicists had. This prediction dates back to the 1960s and it was based on sound mathematics. In contrast to this, the current predictions for new particles at a larger collider – eg supersymmetric partner particles or dark matter particles – are not based on sound mathematics. These predictions are based on what is called an “argument from naturalness” and those arguments are little more than wishful thinking dressed in equations.

This is a pretty good article IMO about the state of particle physics research in 2019.

The fact of the matter is that SUSY particle physics models and other such non standard models are based entirely upon an "argument from naturalness" which really is nothing more than a metaphysical "wishful thinking" pig with pretty red mathematical lipstick, just as Sabine notes. At the very high energy states which are now required for further research, sparticles based on SUSY theory would cause more problems than they were intended to resolve from that same argument from naturalness. In short, that entire line of reasoning is definitely "wishful thinking" mostly due to the fact that everyone would like to keep their jobs.

An "end of the road" scenario with respect to particle physics models is both devastating to the livelihood of particle physicists, it's a also a deathblow to the LCDM model of cosmology. The hope that is preserved in wishful thinking may therefore seem attractive to particle physicists and astronomers alike, but it's still just wishful thinking none the less.

The whole concept of "dark matter", which is often used as the primary justification for continuing a search for a non-standard particle physics model is completely predicated on the presumption that the mainstream astronomical method of estimating baryonic mass of distant galaxies based on luminosity is accurate, when in fact there is now ample evidence in 2019 that such methods have *never* been accurate, or even in the ballpark for that matter.

There seems to be quite a bit of blow-back in the comment section of the article, including more wishful thinking that was posted by our friend JeanTate, but alas none it has any scientific merit whatsoever. There's been *zero* evidence found at LHC to suggest that there's any serious or real problem with the standard particle physics model, and there's ample evidence that astronomy claims about the existence of 'dark matter' are unfounded assertions which are also based on more "wishful thinking' about the accuracy of baryonic mass estimates based on luminosity.

Those baryonic mass estimation methods and techniques have been ripped to shreds over the past 12 years. They've found more mass in the form of ordinary plasma and dust in just the last 13 years than all the mass they'd found in the whole of human history prior to 2006 when that now infamous Bullet Cluster paper was written.

There's nothing wrong with the standard particle physics model, and almost everything has been shown to be wrong with cosmological baryonic mass estimation techniques that are based on luminosity. There's no reliable way to do such a thing in a "dusty" plasma universe.

Wishful thinking isn't going to change the laws of physics/nature, or generate any new evidence to support the conclusion that the standard particle physics model is incorrect. The fat lady has starting singing loudly at LHC, and she's singing the praises of the standard particle physics model. That's no problem at all for EU/PC theory, but it's a *huge* problem for the LCDM model.

This is another good article on the proposed FCC experiment by the way:

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019 ... er-physics

Virtually all of the justification for continuing further particle physics research centers around the concept of finding dark matter, yet the dark matter hypothesis is based on pitifully flawed baryonic mass estimation techniques which have already been blown out of the water.

Anyone who actually believes that the FCC would not cost considerably more than it's projected 22 billion dollar estimate didn't pay attention to the LHC construction process. I can think of *many* better ways to spend 50+ billion dollars on another dark matter snipe hunt. I'd much rather see them invest a hundred million dollars recreating Birkeland's whole range of lab experiments. I guarantee you that such experiments would transform astronomy as we know it, and they would have far more useful purposes outside of the lab than FCC could ever hope to have.

[JHL]

Astronomers spent untold billions of dollars on so called "tests" over the past decade...

You don't have any "knowledge" at all, just placeholder terms for human ignorance...

One doesn't even need to be an "expert" in particle physics...

Not to be pedantic, but surely you don't mean any of the three words in quotes - or virtually any word in quotes in your remarks in general - ironically or figuratively but literally, right? Unfortunately all those random quotes make it harder to divine your meaning. For example, astronomers have indeed spent untold billions of dollars on so called tests over the past decade, someone may have no knowledge at all, and one doesn't need to be an expert in particle physics and so on...

[Michael Mozina]

Not to be pedantic, but surely you don't mean any of the three words in quotes - or virtually any word in quotes in your remarks in general - ironically or figuratively but literally, right?

Bad habits die hard apparently. I guess I still try to use quotes to place emphasis on words or phrases the way I might try to emphasize them in ordinary speech. For instance, astronomers claim to test their model, but since they refuse to accept no as an answer to any of their so called tests, they really not much of a test at all. I guess I place the quotes around such terms to simply emphasize them. It's been suggested that I stop doing that since it tends to be confusing to the reader. Sorry about that.