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

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

Unread postby JHL » Wed Jan 23, 2019 10:39 am

I think your elaboration and lucidity are exceptional, Michael. This being the public background record of what will eventually become a new paradigm, your work will occupy a prominent defining place. I always look forward to it.

(I emphasize the stunning effort undertaken by the EU community and hope to apply suitable emphasis where warranted. ;o)
JHL
 
Posts: 148
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2014 3:11 pm

Surpise - Another dark matter failure.

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Thu Jan 24, 2019 9:48 am

https://phys.org/news/2019-01-detector- ... -dark.html

We didn't find dark matter and we discovered that the DAMA/LIBRA measurements aren't consistent with the standard model for the dark matter halo," Carlin said.


The only experiment that ever claimed to find even a hint of dark matter has now been refuted by better measurements.

I shutter to think how much money has been wasted on these pointless and irrational dark matter snipe hunts. These aren't real scientific tests because they simply ignore all negative results. It is however an excellent example of the fact that they suffer from an acute case of confirmation bias. Every single time that they fail, they blatantly demonstrate their severe case of confirmation bias by ignoring the negative results, they build a "more sensitive" detector, and they fail again and again and again and again.

There's now 85+ years of overwhelming evidence to demonstrate the fact that astronomers don't have the first clue how to properly estimate the amount of ordinary matter in distant galaxies based on luminosity, and there is zero empirical evidence to suggest that the standard particle physics model is incorrect. What an absurd waste of public funding.

Astronomers don't care one iota about truth or science, they only care about collecting their paychecks and protecting their own fragile egos. LCDM proponents are not actual scientists, they are metaphysical cult peddlers who don't have a clue about actual science. Their motto is "Write a proposal, take the money, spend the money on useless and pointless experiments, ignore the results of those tests, lather, rinse, repeat."
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1679
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

More evidence that their luminosity techniques are flawed...

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Thu Jan 24, 2019 10:16 am

https://phys.org/news/2019-01-hubble-de ... eeper.html

After improving the process of combining several images, the group was able to recover a large quantity of light from the outer zones of the largest galaxies in the HUDF. Recovering this light emitted by the stars in these outer zones was equivalent to recovering the light from a complete galaxy ("smeared out" over the whole field) and this missing light shows that some galaxies have diameters almost twice as large as previously measured.


Emphasis mine. Translation: Astronomers have consistently underestimated the physical size and the ordinary mass of distant galaxies along with all the other glaring problems in their luminosity based mass estimation techniques. There's ample evidence recorded in this thread alone to demonstrate that astronomers have *never* accurately estimated the amount of ordinary mass in distant galaxies based on luminosity techniques.

I suggested to Higgsy that his couple week hiatus was likely to shed even more light on mainstream luminosity based mass estimation problems, and indeed that is the case. :) Oy Vey. What a ridiculous process.

There's probably been a dozen revelations demonstrating the numerous and serious problems in the mainstream's luminosity based mass estimation techniques over the past dozen years, and there's probably been more than a dozen documented lab failures related to dark matter "tests" over that same dozen year time frame. Enough is enough already.

There has never been any "dark matter" or any need for 'dark matter". The mainstream has *never* been able to accurately estimate ordinary mass in distant galaxies based on luminosity. The very concept is flawed from the start because it *assumes* that the universe is homogeneously "dusty" in all directions, and Hubble images demonstrate that simply isn't true to begin with! Astronomers are stuck on a denial-go-round of cosmic proportions. Their baryonic mass estimation techniques are a joke. Their lab results are irrelevant to them, and they refuse to even acknowledge the fact that their baryonic mass estimation techniques are the real problem. It's just absurd the lengths they go to in an effort to avoid dealing with the real problem. They're incapable of correctly estimating the amount of ordinary mass in distant galaxies based on luminosity. Period. They can't acknowledge even a *small* amount of error in their techniques, lest their entire cosmology model literally bite the dust.

Round and round they go on their denial-go-round, and where it stops, nobody knows.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1679
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

It's scientifically impossible to prove a negative.

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Thu Jan 24, 2019 11:14 am

Keep in mind that is scientifically and logically impossible to prove a negative. Nobody can prove that invisible unicorns do not exist, nor prove that monopoles do not exist. It's impossible to disprove any claim. It is therefore the scientific responsibility of the proponent of the idea to provide sufficient and reliable evidence to support their claim. It is not the responsibility of the skeptic to disprove any claim.

The best that any skeptic could ever hope to do is demonstrate that the null hypothesis has a better track record of predicting the outcome of ever more sensitive laboratory 'tests" of the claim which is certainly true in the case of exotic matter. Exotic matter models have failed every single laboratory test to date, including billions of dollars worth of tests at LHC, and many other multi-million dollar tests as well, whereas the null hypothesis has passed every single one of those very expensive tests with flying colors.

In a perfect scenario, a skeptic might also be able to demonstrate that there are serious errors in the so called "evidence" that has been presented to support the claim. That has also happened in this thread with respect to exotic matter claims which are entirely predicated upon the correct estimation of baryonic mass based on luminosity. Those luminosity mass estimation techniques have been repeatedly shown to be riddled with serious and numerous problems, problems which completely undermine the entire claim.

There's literally nothing more that can be asked of the skeptic than has been presented in this thread with respect to dark matter. Not only has the null hypothesis batted 1000 with respect to all controlled laboratory experiments over the last several decades, there is also ample observational evidence presented in this thread to demonstrate that the mainstream baryonic mass estimation techniques which are used to estimate the amount of ordinary mass in distant galaxies based upon their luminosity are riddled with important and serious flaws which completely undermine the evidence for exotic matter.

There's nothing more that any skeptic could ever hope to do than what has already been done. There's absolutely, positively zero laboratory support of exotic matter, and there is zero *valid* observational support of that concept which holds up to any serious scientific scrutiny.

The fact of the matter is that the mainstream has been completely incapable of correctly estimating the amount of ordinary mass of distant galaxies based on luminosity, and the null hypothesis has a 100 percent accurate track record of correctly predicting the outcome of every dark matter laboratory experiment over the past 30 years.

That's all any good skeptic requires to throw out the idea entirely.

Keep in mind that EU/PC theory is 100 percent consistent and compatible with the standard model of particle physics, the single most tested and successful model in the history of particle physics. EU/PC theory can also accommodate a static universe, an expanding universe or a contracting universe with ease. Even in the remote chance that new forms of matter and energy are eventually discovered, they can be accommodated in a modified model of EU/PC theory.

LCDM theory however is utterly and completely incompatible with the standard particle physics model, and it can *only* support an expansion interpretation of photon redshift. It can only support an expansion interpretation of photon redshift by relying upon 95 percent metaphysics and 5 percent "pseudoscience' according to the Nobel Prize winning author of MHD theory.

In terms of actual science, in comparison to EU/PC theory, there's nothing even remotely "better" about the LCDM model. The LCDM model is a metaphysical dinosaur that is doomed to fail and sure to end up on the trash heap of cosmology models. It has no ability to be modified even a tiny bit with respect to the percentages of exotic matter or exotic energy without completely falling apart. The LCDM model is a metaphysical house of cards that is destined to fall and nobody can stop that from happening. No amount of pure denial can change it's destiny.

It's time for mainstream astronomers to wake up and smell the coffee already. The LCDM model is the laughing stock of physics in 2019. It's scientifically untenable and complete incapable of holding up to serious scientific scrutiny as this thread so clearly demonstrates. It's completely unreliable in terms of predicting anything useful in laboratory experiments, and it's devoid of any real "knowledge" to start with. The vast majority of the LCDM model is nothing more than placeholder terms for human ignorance in the first place, so there's nothing to lose by throwing it away sooner rather than later, other than perhaps protecting a wee bit of pride and ego, but only temporarily at best.

Enough is enough already. It's time to pull off the metaphysical band-aids and embrace empirical physical explanations for astronomical observations. Nothing can save the LCDM model from going down in empirical flames and everyone will get burned by that inevitable process. It's better to cut one's losses sooner rather than later.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1679
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

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

Unread postby The Great Dog » Thu Jan 24, 2019 1:09 pm

There are no other dogs but The Great Dog
User avatar
The Great Dog
 
Posts: 246
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 4:58 pm

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

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Fri Jan 25, 2019 12:35 pm

The Great Dog wrote:Dark Matter Recreations Part One

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/ ... ations.htm

Dark Matter Recreations Part Two

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/ ... tions2.htm

TGD


Thanks for those links. From your first link:

The paper begins by asserting dark matter as a reality, without any doubt as to its existence. Siegel begins the paper by citing evidence in three key areas that support the existence of dark matter: First, cosmic microwave background (CMB) evidence; second, galactic power spectrum analyses; and third, galaxy cluster collision evidence.


This thread fully and completely addresses the galaxy cluster collision evidence (lensing vs luminosity mass estimation variation) which is completely dependent on the validity of the mainstream baryonic mass estimates based on luminosity. That luminosity methodology has repeatedly been shown to be riddled with serious flaws and numerous problems, so that bogus claim has already been dealt with.

As for the CMB, the existence of a CMB has no direct relationship to exotic forms of "dark matter". First of all, the universe has "backgrounds" in virtually every wavelength of light, from microwaves all the way up to x-rays and gamma rays. That is due to the fact that our sun and every sun in the universe emits various wavelengths and that light on various wavelengths get scattered by the dust and plasma of spacetime.

Here's a typical *unfiltered* microwave image of the universe:

https://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/ma ... p_2048.png

You'll notice that the unfiltered microwave images show clear hot regions that are associated with our galaxy and our local galaxy cluster. That's because every sun in the universe emits microwaves, including our sun:

http://solar.physics.montana.edu/YPOP/S ... owave.html

You'll notice that the background of this microwave solar image is very dark in comparison to the actual surface of the sun. That is because suns are the original emitters of all microwave energy in the universe and like all light from suns, it's scattered and absorbed by the dust and plasma of spacetime. It has absolutely nothing to do with a big bang, a surface of last scattering, or anything of the sort.

Only by filtering the hell out of the original microwave images is it possible to derive anything close to a "smooth" background, but such manipulation could be done to any background wavelength, including an x-ray background image. It's simply a data manipulation technique to remove the obvious foreground sources of microwaves, but even heavily filtered images still leave "bright areas" associated with distant galaxies and galaxy clusters. There's nothing particularly unique about microwaves. They all originate from suns.

In terms of the "background temperature" of spacetime, Eddington was able to correctly predict the background temperature of spacetime to within 1/2 of one degree of the correct background temperature on his very first attempt based on the scattering of starlight on the dust and plasma of spacetime. In contrast to Eddington's extreme accuracy, the first predictions of a background temperature of spacetime based on a big bang theory were off by more than a whole order of magnitude! It took *decades* of futzing with the numbers for big bangers to get any closer than Eddington got on this very first try.

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pr ... 2N3ASS.PDF

Note that a big bang can predict a background temperature (any temperature) *without* the need for any sort of exotic matter. Exotic matter is therefore utterly and completely optional and irrelevant in terms of predicting a background temperature of space. Perhaps exotic matter is required to get the *correct* temperature using the LCDM model of cosmology, but exotic matter is actually an optional component in a generic big bang theory and therefore a background temperature in and of itself does *not* require the existence of exotic matter. The erroneous claim that the CMB by itself is "evidence" of exotic matter is therefore totally bogus. There are many ways to achieve a background temperature from a "bang" theory without any type of exotic matter. The fact that their one particular bang model requires exotic matter to achieve that specific temperature is irrelevant. It can also be achieved without exotic matter simply by modifying other variables in a different bang theory. Even a static universe predicts a "background temperature" of spacetime based on scattering which is why Eddington predicted one, and he got it right the first time, whereas the first big bang attempts were utterly atrocious estimates.

The CMB by itself is *not* evidence of exotic matter. That's a completely false claim.

As for the "power spectrum" the second link addresses this issue quite nicely:

The determination of the ΛCDM parameters from the WMAP data is essentially a curve-fitting exercise with all the hazards that come with the use of complicated, highly parameterized mathematical models. Regardless, one key point is that redshift data is fundamental to the interpretation in the context of the standard model.


The power spectrum is actually one of the nooses around the neck of the LCDM model that prevents the mainstream from addressing their *numerous* errors in baryonic mass estimation based on luminosity. If they try to correct their errors and their need for dark matter by even something like 20 percent, the power spectrum and nucleosynthesis predictions fall completely apart. That's why they're stuck on their denial-go-round with respect to their errors related to estimating mass based on luminosity. They can't "fix" the luminosity problems without blowing out the rest of their model. The power spectrum data only works because they have spent an enormous amount of time fudging the number with metaphysics, or "curve fitting" the numbers with metaphysics. It doesn't prove a damn thing other than the fact they're now "stuck" with very specific amounts of metaphysical nonsense, lest their curve-fitting exercise fall apart. All the power spectrum amounts to is a curve fitting routine that now *requires* them to go into full and complete denial about the many problem in their mass estimate errors based on luminosity.

None of those three issues, lensing, CMB or power spectrum data actually support the existence of exotic forms of matter. They need to *assume* a dozen things about the data to even begin to try to support exotic matter based on those sets of data, starting with the assumption that redshift is related to "space expansion", a totally metaphysical claim to begin with.

None of that so called "evidence' of exotic matter holds up to any serious scrutiny. It's only evidence that their model so tightly manipulated that its' now stuck between a metaphysical rock and a hard place. It can't be modified much without destroying the whole thing.

None of that so called evidence excuses the fact that their laboratory predictions have been totally useless. Billions and billions spent searching for exotic matter and nothing was found. Period.

The LCDM model is *so* tightly constrained that it simply cannot deal with and cannot address any of the recent revelations over the last 12 years. It can't address the numerous luminosity mass calculation problems which have been identified in their baryonic mass calculation methodology, it has zero useful predictive value in the lab, and it can't be modified even a tiny little bit without blowing the whole model out of the water.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1679
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

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

Unread postby Cargo » Fri Jan 25, 2019 8:17 pm

There was a publication today, about an enhancement of the Hubble Deep Field survey. And taking one tiny, tiny slice of the sky, they have already found that the mass estimates were too low by a factor of 3. 3 Times too low. At least. And this during the assumed first few hundred million years after the big bang. Because Red Shift tells us the distance/age of course. lol.
interstellar filaments conducted electricity having currents as high as 10 thousand billion amperes
Cargo
 
Posts: 280
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 7:02 pm

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

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Fri Jan 25, 2019 8:19 pm

I can explain everything:

Image
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 989
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Down the dark matter rabbit hole they go....

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Mon Jan 28, 2019 4:58 pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... vQRTuW52GM

If you ever want to waste an hour just to see how far down the dark matter rabbit hole the mainstream has gone as of 2019, this video is very illuminating. A few things that you'll notice about the video is the absolute *certainty* they seem to have in the existence of exotic forms of matter, how tightly bound their model is to the cosmic microwave background, their certainty that the microwave background is due to a bang rather than Eddington's estimation of the average temperature of space based on the scattering of starlight, and how their model is absolutely dependent upon baryonic oscillation assumptions related to the LCDM model.

Around the three minute mark she puts up a background slide of the bullet cluster and starts talking about what they claim to "know" about dark matter. Not once does she mention the numerous number of lab failures of the DM models, the fact that mainstream luminosity estimates of baryonic matter have been repeatedly shown to be wrong, or anything even remotely suggesting any sort of healthy skepticism about anything related to the LCDM model. It's as though nothing but the CMB data is relevant to this issue, and her core assumption that the CMB can somehow be used to 'constrain' various properties of the DM models. It's absolutely amazing how certain they seem to be and how oblivious they are to anything *besides* their assumption of the cause of the CMB.

Keep in mind that dark matter is but *one* of the four metaphysical components of the LCMD model, so her assumptions amount to expecting to be able to put very tight constraints on invisible unicorns based on the other "known" effects of invisible faeries, gnomes and elves on the output of a flat screen television. :) This is all based on their certainty that the flat screen TV doesn't run on electricity too. :) Holy cow. They're simply oblivious to the various problems in their models and claims, and they really don't even care. It's so bizarre.

Suffice to say it's all speculative nonsense that is so far detached from reality and from empirical lab tested physics that it's not even funny.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1679
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

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

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Sun Feb 03, 2019 4:29 pm

https://www.space.com/43166-dark-energy ... asars.html
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=17249

Even though we have another thread going on this topic, I'd though I'd add this refutation of the LCDM dark energy model in this thread too since it directly refutes and undermines the scientific validity of the LCDM model.

Suffice to say that this new failed prediction of the LCDM model *should* cause the mainstream to reevaluate their entire assumption about the real cause of photon redshfit and to take a closer look at Hubble's *preferred* explanation of Hubble's Law (tired light/static universe).

Considering the serious confirmation bias problem in astronomy today however, In all likelihood this new informatoin will simply result in another metaphysical kludge to an already absurd set of assumptions about the actual cause of redshift in a plasma universe. Even though an entirely empirical solution to this problem exists, the mainstream will not and could not embrace empirical physics lest their prestige and funding go flying out the window.

Stay tuned for the next installment of "Moving the LCMD metaphysical goalposts" by the mainstream. :)
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1679
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

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

Unread postby neilwilkes » Wed Feb 06, 2019 10:54 am

Michael Mozina wrote:https://www.space.com/43166-dark-energy-increasing-time-quasars.html
http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/v ... =3&t=17249

Even though we have another thread going on this topic, I'd though I'd add this refutation of the LCDM dark energy model in this thread too since it directly refutes and undermines the scientific validity of the LCDM model.

Suffice to say that this new failed prediction of the LCDM model *should* cause the mainstream to reevaluate their entire assumption about the real cause of photon redshfit and to take a closer look at Hubble's *preferred* explanation of Hubble's Law (tired light/static universe).

Considering the serious confirmation bias problem in astronomy today however, In all likelihood this new informatoin will simply result in another metaphysical kludge to an already absurd set of assumptions about the actual cause of redshift in a plasma universe. Even though an entirely empirical solution to this problem exists, the mainstream will not and could not embrace empirical physics lest their prestige and funding go flying out the window.

Stay tuned for the next installment of "Moving the LCMD metaphysical goalposts" by the mainstream. :)


It's quotes like this that make me shake my head in disbelief too:
Quasars are fast-growing supermassive black holes at the hearts of galaxies.

Arp will be turning in his grave at statements like that.
You will never get a man to understand something his salary depends on him not understanding.
User avatar
neilwilkes
 
Posts: 345
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 4:30 am
Location: London, England

Dark matter theory steps in deap-3600 Canadian do-do

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Tue Feb 12, 2019 3:34 am

https://arxiv.org/abs/1902.04048

DEAP-3600 is a single-phase liquid argon (LAr) direct-detection dark matter experiment, operating 2 km underground at SNOLAB (Sudbury, Canada). The detector consists of 3279 kg of LAr contained in a spherical acrylic vessel. This paper reports on the analysis of a 758 tonne\cdot day exposure taken over a period of 231 live-days during the first year of operation. No candidate signal events are observed in the WIMP-search region of interest,....


Translation:

There'SNO dark matter at SNOLAB. Who would have guessed (besides everyone here)?

Bubble, bubble, more toil and trouble for dark matter theory in Canada:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1902.04031

Final results are reported from operation of the PICO-60 C3F8 dark matter detector, a bubble chamber filled with 52 kg of C3F8 located in the SNOLAB underground laboratory. The chamber was operated at thermodynamic thresholds as low as 1.2 keV without loss of stability. A new blind 1404-kg-day exposure at 2.45 keV threshold was acquired with approximately the same expected total background rate as the previous 1167-kg-day exposure at 3.3 keV. This increased exposure is enabled in part by a new optical tracking analysis to better identify events near detector walls, permitting a larger fiducial volume. These results set the most stringent direct-detection constraint to date on the WIMP-proton spin-dependent cross section at 2.5 × 10−41 cm2 for a 25 GeV WIMP, and improve on previous PICO results for 3-5 GeV WIMPs by an order of magnitude.


Translation (to Spanish): "PiCO de nada" yet again. I love how the results are never presented as a direct "failure" to detect dark matter, the results are always a presented as a successful "constraint" of dark matter. Spin, spin, spin,....lather, rinse, repeat.

It's just another dark matter Canadian catastrophe.

The Canadians blew all that money and they found exactly nothing again eh? Oh well, there's always the next 'new and improved" PICO de nada in the works. "Ya we blew it big time this time but give us more money so we can try, try again. We'll constrain the hell out of it next time."
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1679
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Strike three for dark matter this week.

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Tue Feb 12, 2019 3:56 am

Apparently dark matter isn't just shy around Canadians. XENON1T was a strikeout in Italy too. DM is evidently 0 for 3 this week and it's only early AM on Tuesday. :) Another tough week for dark matter proponents.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1902.03234

We report the first experimental results on spin-dependent elastic WIMP-nucleon scattering from the XENON1T dark matter search experiment. The analysis uses the full tonne-year exposure of XENON1T to constrain the spin-dependent proton-only and neutron-only cases. No significant signal excess is observed, and a profile likelihood ratio analysis is used to set exclusion limits on the WIMP-nucleon interactions. This includes the most stringent constraint to date on the WIMP-neutron cross section, with a minimum of 6.3×10−42 cm2 at 30 GeV/c2 and 90% confidence level. The results are compared with those from collider searches and used to exclude new parameter space in an isoscalar theory with an axial-vector mediator.


Another epic fail to find DM but hey, look at the bright side. it's the best 'constraint" ever! :)

Spin, spin, spin....lather, rinse, repeat.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1679
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

This has become a classic example of confirmation bias

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Tue Feb 12, 2019 10:43 am

After skimming through those last three papers on dark matter and reading through the quasar paper on dark energy, it's become very clear that this whole process has become a classic example of confirmation bias run amok. It's like the whole Ptolemaic scenario all over again. The excuses are getting ever more desperate with respect to DM, and the expansion interpretation of redshift has failed major test after major test for the last 20 years. Galaxies are more "mature" than they're supposed to be, they're larger than they're supposed to be. H-alpha lines are visible at distances never considered possible in the LCDM model. The addition of dark energy to a big bang model was a *gross* violation of known conservation of energy laws, and apparently even *that goofy change* won't work right at higher redshifts.

Evidently it doesn't matter one iota to the 'true believers" of the LCMD model how many so called "tests" the LCDM model fails, both in the lab and in space. It doesn't matter to them that their belief system is in direct conflict with known laws of physics. It doesn't matter to them that their model has zero useful predictive value. It doesn't matter to them that there are empirical alternatives to their belief system which do *not* violate those same laws of physics and which actually work in the lab. It does not matter to them that magnetism in plasma cannot exist in the absence of electrical current and electric fields. It doesn't matter to them that they've spent *tens of billions* of dollars and haven't produced a single piece of evidence to support their model. Scientific validity doesn't matter to them in the least.

Evidently the only things that matter to them is protecting their prestige and protecting their sources of income.

I can't even imagine how it's possible to fail more so called "tests" than the LCDM model has already failed. It's been a disaster and a half in terms of the number of tests it's failed, going all the way back to the introduction of "dark energy" to salvage the BB model and try to shield it from falsification. It's just failing one test after another after another with no end in sight.

There's no valid empirical evidence that the CMB has anything to do with a "bang" and plenty of empirical evidence to demonstrate that it's directly related to stellar output like every other "background" wavelength, and it's related to ordinary scattering processes in space. There's no valid empirical cause/effect evidence that a bang took place, that space expansion has some tangible effect on photons, that inflation ever existed, or that "dark energy" was anything other than a desperate metaphysical "hail Mary" play to try to save the big bang model from ordinary scientific falsification.

How many tests does a physics model have to fail before it's finally given it's last rights, put in a coffin and buried once and for all? I think only Ptolemy theory is a bigger embarrassment to astronomy than the LCDM model and I'm not even sure about that. Even Ptolemy theory didn't require *four* invisible metaphysical claims to prop it up, and it never failed so many observational and experimental "tests" before it was finally discarded.

This is like watching a physics train wreck in slow motion.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1679
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

ABRACADABRA - Another bust for dark matter detection

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Fri Mar 29, 2019 10:56 am

ABRACADABRA - Scientists fail to pull a magic axion rabbit out of their hat

https://www.computing.co.uk/ctg/news/30 ... -particles
https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/1 ... .99.052012

In case you needed even more reasons to lack belief in dark matter, the first run of the ABBRACADABRA experiment has found absolutely no evidence of axions.

In the first run of the experiment, scientists found no evidence of the elusive particle within the mass range of 0.31 to 8.3 nanoelectronvolts (equivalent to approximately one-quintillionth the mass of a proton).
These results suggest that axions either don't exist or they produce even smaller effect on electricity and magnetism, which the current apparatus failed to detect.


Ah, but of course it's very important (to their future employment) to throw good money after bad:

The team plans to continue running the experiment to detect even smaller and weaker axions.
"We're excited that we can now say, 'We have a way to look here, and we know how to do better!'," said Lindley Winslow, principal investigator of the study and an assistant professor at MIT.


Hope always springs eternal in the field of dark matter 'research'. Tens of billions spent on dark matter research, and nothing found. Lather, rinse repeat.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1679
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 2 guests