Betelgeuse says NO to dark matter ...

[BeAChooser]

https://www.universetoday.com/149809/as ... e-no-luck/

Astronomers Hoped to see Evidence of Dark Matter Particles Inside Betelgeuse. No Luck

January 25, 2021 by Paul M. Sutter

These results don’t rule out the existence of axions altogether. It just means that if they’re ultralight, then their ability to transform into photons and vice-versa has to be very small. In fact, these results using Betelgeuse alone provide constraints on this ease of transition that are three times greater than any laboratory experiment.

So we’ll keep on hunting.

As Michael says, no experiment is going to rule out dark matter in the eyes of mainstream astrophysics.

Because it’s not a science anymore.

It's a religion based solely on belief.

[Michael Mozina]

https://www.universetoday.com/149809/as ... e-no-luck/

Astronomers Hoped to see Evidence of Dark Matter Particles Inside Betelgeuse. No Luck

January 25, 2021 by Paul M. Sutter

These results don’t rule out the existence of axions altogether. It just means that if they’re ultralight, then their ability to transform into photons and vice-versa has to be very small. In fact, these results using Betelgeuse alone provide constraints on this ease of transition that are three times greater than any laboratory experiment.

So we’ll keep on hunting.

As Michael says, no experiment is going to rule out dark matter in the eyes of mainstream astrophysics.

Because it’s not a science anymore.

It's a religion based solely on belief.

What's even worse is the fact that it's an *internally self conflicted* belief. They can't even agree on a single Hubble constant figure because the Planck data gives them different results than SN1A data sets with over five sigma certainty no less. In short they "discovered' (5+ sigma) that their model is internally self conflicted and they don't have a clue how to fix it, even with 95 percent metaphysical fudge factor to work with. Even the fact that their beliefs and claims are internally self conflicted isn't enough to falsify their beliefs.

[BeAChooser]

What's even worse is the fact that it's an *internally self conflicted* belief. They can't even agree on a single Hubble constant figure because the Planck data gives them different results than SN1A data sets with over five sigma certainty no less. In short they "discovered' (5+ sigma) that their model is internally self conflicted and they don't have a clue how to fix it, even with 95 percent metaphysical fudge factor to work with. Even the fact that their beliefs and claims are internally self conflicted isn't enough to falsify their beliefs.

Yes, the mainstream astrophysics world is full of contradictions.

One group says DM must be super heavy.

Another says it must be super light.

Then you have groups drawing conclusions like this …

https://phys.org/news/2021-01-heavy-dar ... arrow.html

They are blind men examining parts of an elephant.

[Michael Mozina]

What's even worse is the fact that it's an *internally self conflicted* belief. They can't even agree on a single Hubble constant figure because the Planck data gives them different results than SN1A data sets with over five sigma certainty no less. In short they "discovered' (5+ sigma) that their model is internally self conflicted and they don't have a clue how to fix it, even with 95 percent metaphysical fudge factor to work with. Even the fact that their beliefs and claims are internally self conflicted isn't enough to falsify their beliefs.

Yes, the mainstream astrophysics world is full of contradictions.

One group says DM must be super heavy.

Another says it must be super light.

Then you have groups drawing conclusions like this …

https://phys.org/news/2021-01-heavy-dar ... arrow.html

They are blind men examining parts of an elephant.

My favorite line of that article was this comment:

Their findings—due to be published in Physics Letters B in March—radically narrow the range of potential masses for Dark Matter particles, and help to focus the search for future Dark Matter-hunters.

That's like claiming to have radically narrowed the search area for future Bigfoot hunters, or the Loch Ness monster hunters. Sheesh. They can't even keep their stories straight from one week to the next.

[dren]

That's like claiming to have radically narrowed the search area for future Bigfoot hunters, or the Loch Ness monster hunters. Sheesh. They can't even keep their stories straight from one week to the next.

I think you're on to something. Most pictures I've seen of Bigfoot and Nessy are dark.

Yeah, the range was narrowed a good bit, but it's still quite wide by around 10 orders. But even then, I thought the whole point of dark stuff was that you just fill in what you need the mass and quantity to be to explain what you can't otherwise with gravity. Narrowing the range might hurt the usefulness of dark stuff.

[D_Archer]

Astronomers Hoped to see Evidence of Dark Matter

What nescience is this, sure; you are allowed to hope, but it seems to be the rule with these fake astronomers... astronomy should be very simple, it only observing what you see and then writing it down, making it data... that is it.

Like Halton Arp did, just record the findings and publish them. You can muse afterwards what it all means....but you do not set out with hoping.

Hoping to find matter that does not exist by definition is nescience, i think they know and their "science" is just corrupt.... just about money... career...

Regards,
Daniel

ps. EU should study Betelgeuse more, the EU idea that indeed it is very large and scavenging electrons is also threadbare and not likely to be true...

[Earl Sinclair]

Talking about leaning toward confirmation bias!



Earl