Is there a tipping point with respect to "dark matter"?

[Michael Mozina]

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 085020.htm

This latest article has me wondering about the future of dark matter theory. When these results are combined with all the other falsifications of "popular" brands of SUSY theory at LHC, and these negative results are seen in context of the revelations of numerous stellar miscounts, the handwriting is on the wall. This has me wondering if there isn't an actual "tipping point" with respect to dark matter claims.

It's not like we haven't already spent *billions* of dollars looking for exotic stable forms of matter at LHC. We've looked and looked and looked some more at every energy spectrum we can test. It's not like we haven't already tried *numerous* other "dark matter" experiments either. We've done it all in fact, but all to no avail. It's also not as though the mainstreams baryonic mass estimates were ever shown to be accurate either, in fact quite the opposite has been shown to be true from numerous sources.

http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/v ... =3&t=15850

I really can't even imagine how many *other* ways one might go about trying to falsify dark matter theory. It's bitten the dust so many times in the lab in terms of it's inaccurate "predictions". I've simply lost count. The whole concept has since been shown to be directly related to their *poor baryonic galaxy mass estimates* too. There is nothing mysterious about it.

Every single "popular" brand of "dark matter" theory which could be "tested" at LHC, *failed miserably*. What else could we do to "disprove" the existence of something which has never been shown to actually exist in the first place?

There has to be some kind of logical tipping point where enough is enough. How much money shall we continue to waste on falsified WIMP models?

Axion theories did no better this year in terms of their failure of observational "tests". There's really nothing that has born empirical fruit, and nothing much to "test" for anymore. How long can this charade last anyway?

[oz93666]

I don't believe this error came about by chance ... There is a controlling group intentionally steering the direction of all institutions ... medical , legal , political ...and astrophysics , their intention is to suppress humanities progress on all levels .

Through the universities and science foundations they make sure those who support the gravity only view are employed and promoted , they define what is 'good' science'.

They will hang on to dark mater/energy as long as possible . And since they employ only the 'experts' who agree with this , I can't see these ideas fading away soon.

[Michael Mozina]

I don't believe this error came about by chance ... There is a controlling group intentionally steering the direction of all institutions ... medical , legal , political ...and astrophysics , their intention is to suppress humanities progress on all levels .

Through the universities and science foundations they make sure those who support the gravity only view are employed and promoted , they define what is 'good' science'.

They will hang on to dark mater/energy as long as possible . And since they employ only the 'experts' who agree with this , I can't see these ideas fading away soon.

Let's just suppose for a moment that LHC wraps up it's full range of experiments and they find nothing of interest as it relates to exotic stable forms of matter? Then what?

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/20 ... ven-t.html

The only "better" collider that I'm aware of is still in the design phase at the moment. It could easily be 2025 before they even start to build it, assuming the Chinese do actually go ahead and build it. Even assuming it eventually becomes operational, who knows if it will actually find anything unusual, let alone something capable of filling all the necessary requirements of "dark matter"?

Considering the heat that the mainstream is already taking on this subject, do astronomers really have the luxury of waiting around until something like 2030-2035(?) to run more experiments at higher energy states? Are they intending on twiddling their thumbs for an entire decade?

It's quite clear that the concept of "knowledge" does not actually apply to the field of cosmology. My cell phone and various antibiotics are clear demonstrations of "scientific knowledge" that is found in other branches of physics, but there's nothing even remotely like "knowledge" to be found in astronomy. 95 percent of LCDM claims amount to nothing more than placeholder terms for human ignorance, and the other 5 percent of their maths are based upon pure "pseudoscience" according to the author of MHD theory.

It seems to me that there is absolutely nothing to be "lost" by abandoning LCDM theory, and potentially everything to gain in terms of actual empirical knowledge. You'd think that astronomers would actually want real "knowledge" about our universe, but alas I don't see a lot of evidence of the existence of even a healthy scientific curiosity to be found in astronomy today.

The dark matter mantra in particular has been a complete bust in the lab. It's really the only one of the four supernatural components of LCDM that can be put to the test in the lab. Unfortunately for the mainstream, it's been a dismal failure, even after spending billions of dollars. Nothing.

2016 was a particularly devastating year for LCDM theory IMO. Several types of dark matter models were eliminated based on observation, and several more were falsified based on experiments. Meanwhile, dark energy is looking less like a "discovery" after last year, and more like an "interesting anomaly" based on a larger data set, and SN!A events do not even seem to be "standard" after all.

I really cannot imagine that LCDM proponents have the luxury of just ignoring the outcome of the LHC experiments, as well as ignoring all the problems with their baryonic mass estimates. That's quite a one-two punch. Some of them have to be wondering if it's time to jump ship.

[jacmac]

I think they are reluctant to abandon any falsified theory until they have a new one.
There seems to be an inability of saying "We don't know".
That is what happened to Halton Arp.
They saw his anomalies to their Z number equals distance theory but said:
We have a theory of everything, you don't, so we are sticking with ours.
It is always hard to prove a negative; that dark matter does not exist.
Jack

[Michael Mozina]

I think they are reluctant to abandon any falsified theory until they have a new one.
There seems to be an inability of saying "We don't know".
That is what happened to Halton Arp.
They saw his anomalies to their Z number equals distance theory but said:
We have a theory of everything, you don't, so we are sticking with ours.
It is always hard to prove a negative; that dark matter does not exist.
Jack

You're right that they certainly have an aversion to the term "I don't know". The validity of one theory doesn't technically rise or fall based upon the validity of any other theory. It should be scientifically possible to falsify LCDM without having a replacement in hand. Unfortunately however, human nature tends to require an alternative rather than embracing the dreaded reality of "I don't know".

The "space expansion" claim of LCDM, along with all of it's supernatural partners in crime (inflation/dark energy), are really beyond our ability to test in the lab, and it will always remain that way. The only part of LCDM that can be "tested" in a lab in a conventional manner, has been tested in the lab a number of times, and it's failed every single "test".

You're also right that it's hard (actually impossible) to prove a negative, but that's just it. They have the rules of evidence and science standing on it's head. They don't have any "evidence" to support their exotic matter claim. All they have is "proof" that their bayronic mass estimates of galaxies were a total joke in 2006.

The whole dark matter argument has become an exotic matter of the gaps argument that stems from their pure denial of all the revelations of their stellar miscounts since 2006.

In 2017, there's literally nothing left standing of the "dark matter" argument. Their horrifically flawed bayonic mass estimates in 2006 were their only real "discovery" in 2006, as numerous later studies have repeatedly demonstrated. If they had any doubt that the real problem is their pitiful mass estimation techniques, those negative LHC results speak volumes. Every SUSY theory they put forth bit the dust, and every other dark matter claim also went up in smoke last year. What's even left to "test" for in the lab?

The "dark matter" argument is really the only argument that can be tested conventionally and it has failed repeatedly. The problem is that they can't just replace "dark matter" with ordinary baryons, lest their entire nucleosynthesis claims go flying out the window. They really have no option other than to live in denial of the results of their own "tests" and to continue to peddle a claim that has a proven track record of absolute failure. How sad is that?

[comingfrom]

I was just listening to a report on the radio, in which a scientist involved in CERN and the pursuit for proof of dark matter was being interviewed (I didn't catch his name). I was surprised to hear him confessing that the evidence so far indicates that all their science wrong. But then he quickly ended by saying, since there are no viable alternate theories, the pursuit will continue. And further funds will be made available for upgrades to the Hadron Collider.

It was so obviously a propaganda piece justifying their expensive folly.

As to your question Michael...

Are they intending on twiddling their thumbs for an entire decade?

No.
They are intending to live luxuriously on grants until then, and beyond.

~Paul

[Webbman]

I was just listening to a report on the radio, in which a scientist involved in CERN and the pursuit for proof of dark matter was being interviewed (I didn't catch his name). I was surprised to hear him confessing that the evidence so far indicates that all their science wrong. But then he quickly ended by saying, since there are no viable alternate theories, the pursuit will continue. And further funds will be made available for upgrades to the Hadron Collider.

It was so obviously a propaganda piece justifying their expensive folly.

As to your question Michael...

Are they intending on twiddling their thumbs for an entire decade?

No.
They are intending to live luxuriously on grants until then, and beyond.

~Paul

a man who understands the machine. That's its secondary purpose though. Its primary purpose is to lead you astray wasting your time with junk that goes nowhere. Your wasting your talents trying to disprove such things.

[willendure]

This has me wondering if there isn't an actual "tipping point" with respect to dark matter claims.

There will be a tipping point. The thing with tipping points is that by their nature we can't predict when they will happen.

Someone sells an over-priced equity in the stock market one day, and things carry on as normal, buyers come forward to take the deal. Another day its the proverbial "straw that breaks the camels back" and it sets a chain reaction in motion that leads to a major crash.

[Michael Mozina]

Some of the underground experiments are already 2nd and 3rd generation "detectors" and yet they've found exactly nothing to substantiate any of their mathematical models. How many times can they continue to claim "Oh, just one more multi-million dollar spending spree and we *might* find it?"?

We've spent *billions* with a B at LHC playing whack-a-mole on their ever changing SUSY models. We've seen *nothing* that would imply additional forms of stable matter, absolutely *nothing*.

Sooner or later one has to wonder how much "faith" even they have in the concept of exotic matter. It's not like they haven't already tried their "best" models out, and yet those were all a *dismal* failure. So much for the usefulness of their almighty mathematical "predictions". What hypocrites. They only care about mathematical predictions when it suits them or it supports their model, and they turn right around and simply ignore all the math that falsifies their own model. They suffer from a bad case of confirmation bias, and a terminal case of hypocrite-itis.

[neilwilkes]

I don't believe this error came about by chance ... There is a controlling group intentionally steering the direction of all institutions ... medical , legal , political ...and astrophysics , their intention is to suppress humanities progress on all levels .

Through the universities and science foundations they make sure those who support the gravity only view are employed and promoted , they define what is 'good' science'.

They will hang on to dark mater/energy as long as possible . And since they employ only the 'experts' who agree with this , I can't see these ideas fading away soon.

Let's just suppose for a moment that LHC wraps up it's full range of experiments and they find nothing of interest as it relates to exotic stable forms of matter? Then what?

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/20 ... ven-t.html

The only "better" collider that I'm aware of is still in the design phase at the moment. It could easily be 2025 before they even start to build it, assuming the Chinese do actually go ahead and build it. Even assuming it eventually becomes operational, who knows if it will actually find anything unusual, let alone something capable of filling all the necessary requirements of "dark matter"?

Considering the heat that the mainstream is already taking on this subject, do astronomers really have the luxury of waiting around until something like 2030-2035(?) to run more experiments at higher energy states? Are they intending on twiddling their thumbs for an entire decade?

It's quite clear that the concept of "knowledge" does not actually apply to the field of cosmology. My cell phone and various antibiotics are clear demonstrations of "scientific knowledge" that is found in other branches of physics, but there's nothing even remotely like "knowledge" to be found in astronomy. 95 percent of LCDM claims amount to nothing more than placeholder terms for human ignorance, and the other 5 percent of their maths are based upon pure "pseudoscience" according to the author of MHD theory.

It seems to me that there is absolutely nothing to be "lost" by abandoning LCDM theory, and potentially everything to gain in terms of actual empirical knowledge. You'd think that astronomers would actually want real "knowledge" about our universe, but alas I don't see a lot of evidence of the existence of even a healthy scientific curiosity to be found in astronomy today.

The dark matter mantra in particular has been a complete bust in the lab. It's really the only one of the four supernatural components of LCDM that can be put to the test in the lab. Unfortunately for the mainstream, it's been a dismal failure, even after spending billions of dollars. Nothing.

2016 was a particularly devastating year for LCDM theory IMO. Several types of dark matter models were eliminated based on observation, and several more were falsified based on experiments. Meanwhile, dark energy is looking less like a "discovery" after last year, and more like an "interesting anomaly" based on a larger data set, and SN!A events do not even seem to be "standard" after all.

I really cannot imagine that LCDM proponents have the luxury of just ignoring the outcome of the LHC experiments, as well as ignoring all the problems with their baryonic mass estimates. That's quite a one-two punch. Some of them have to be wondering if it's time to jump ship.

Is it not written that you will never get a man to understand something his salary depends on him not understanding?

[kell1990]

The Electric Universe and the Plasma Cosmos need to hone itself into the fact that politics plays a large role in the way the money is distributed when it comes to research. Not only that, but reputation and the quality of research play a very important role in way that the message is delivered.

For example, recently the New York Times, following her obituary, which was glowing (perhaps deservedly so), featured an op-ed piece in which they said that the Nobel Prize Committee (could be) misogynist if they failed to award the Nobel Prize to Dr. Vera Rubin for her (non discovery) of dark matter.

The very strange thing is that her obituary specifically states that she did not discover "dark matter".

So there you have it: She should be awarded the Nobel Prize for something she didn't discover.

Incredible.

But there will still be money available for research coming from the federal government. And the Electric Universe/Plasma Cosmos should get as much of it as possible.

[Holger Isenberg]

As in EU the galaxy rotation curve is sometimes used to visualize the problems about dark matter: Do we have measurements of Galactic rotation not based on red shift? So far I can only find data derived from spectral line shift of H 656nm and H 21nm.

[willendure]

[JouniJokela]

^
I Reply,
"Along with getting rid of "Antimatter" and "Dark Matter", I've just recently discovered the existence of "Electric Matter", which appers to have behind all the effects in the Universe whatsoever".

-And I am not even Joking,

Though my name is a "JOKE"

Thus I believe the tipping point is right now. See thread "Electric Matter"

[Michael Mozina]

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/07/ ... omes-empty

https://phys.org/news/2017-02-green-nex ... =item-menu

Apparently we haven't reached the tipping point yet. In spite of finding absolutely *nothing* that even *hints* at any exotic forms of stable matter after spending *billions* of dollars at LHC, and even after last summer's failed LUX results, here we go again........more invisible snipe hunts start up again this winter!

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Astro ... o_999.html

Now of course just last year they found out that the million+ degree plasma halo surrounding each galaxy and our own galaxy rotates at the same speed as the rest of the galaxy, again *destroying* any need for exotic types of matter to even exist. Keep in mind that they didn't even know that cloud of plasma existed until 2012, and didn't know that it rotated at the same speed as the rest of the galaxy until last year. They recently discovered plasma and the location and movement of that plasma *matches* their dark matter mathematical models just *perfectly*. On top of all the *other* *failures* in their original baryonic mass estimates from 2006, and *in spite* of the fact that they found more mass since since 2012 than they even knew existed prior to 2012, and in spite of the fact that it rotates and locates itself right where their "dark matter" models predict, the mainstream remains in *pure denial* of any need to upgrade their 'baryonic mass estimates of galaxies"! Oh no. Instead we're spending more world public tax dollars on another song and dance denial routine to the tune of *millions* more wasted taxpayer dollars.

The LZ collaboration now has about 220 participating scientists and engineers who represent 38 institutions around the globe – with UK scientists, supported by the Science and Technology Facilities Council, representing about a quarter of the collaboration.

Henrique Araújo, from Imperial College London, said: "We are looking forward to seeing everything come together after a long period of design and planning."

The nature of dark matter, which physicists describe as the invisible component or 'missing mass' in the universe, has eluded scientists since its existence was deduced by Swiss astronomer Fritz Zwicky in 1933. The quest to find out what dark matter is made of, or whether it can be explained by tweaking the known laws of physics, is considered one of the most pressing questions in particle physics.

Evidently Fritz Zwicky, looking through some utterly *primitive* equipment single-handedly demonstrated the existence of exotic forms of matter because obviously his mass calculations were perfect, just as the mainstream baryonic mass estimates in 2006 were 'perfect FYI, good ol' Fritz Zwicky is the very same guy that supposedly positively ruled out all forms of inelastic scattering as having any tangible effects on cosmological photons in space, while presenting is *own* tired light model no less. What a sad and clear case of pure denial and another perfect example of confirmation bias.

It really sickens me to think that instead of putting 200+ people together as a team and replicating Birkeland's work with terellas, using modern day equipment, we're blowing our public wad on pure superstitious, supernatural nonsense, simply because the LCDM proponents have their huge egos stuffed way up their backside, and simply cannot admit to being "mistaken" about *anything* regardless of the outcome of *billions* of dollars worth of so called 'tests" of their claims.

If the very same individuals spent that very same money, in that very same facility on a series of empirical lab tested solar model experiments, they would forever change the history of solar physics and astronomy for all time. Instead they are chasing their own tails, wasting their own precious time on Earth, and wasting their careers chasing invisible superstitions. How sad.

Just in case you scientists end up wasting your entire "professional" careers, and you never live to see what an empirical "success" in the lab actually looks like, here's what it looks like:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m58-CfVrsN4