The Bullet Cluster Fiasco And What It *Really* Demonstrates

[Michael Mozina]

To hear the mainstream tell the story, they still claim that the Bullet Cluster study is "the" definitive study of "dark matter" and they claim it offers "proof" (yes the erroneously used the term proof, not evidence) of dark matter, even to this day, in spite of the *numerous* errors which were later discovered in the mainstream baryonic mass estimation techniques since 2006.

About the only *actual* things that the Bullet Cluster study demonstrated is the fact that A) the mainstream baryonic mass estimation techniques were ridiculously flawed, which many later studies have repeatedly verified, and B) MOND theory is irrelevant. We know that there's more mass than the mainstream baryonic mass estimates based on light would suggest and we know that MOND theory is unnecessary.

Keep in mind that the so called "proof'' of dark matter from such studies are *entirely* predicated upon the accuracy of the baryonic mass estimation techniques which are based on brightness. The mainstream never actually found "proof" (or evidence) of dark matter. All they actually found was evidence that their baryonic mass estimation techniques are outrageously inaccurate as many later studies has demonstrated over and over and over again.

Since 2006, there have been numerous major revelations of a systematic problem with their flawed calculation of stellar masses that are present in various galaxies and galaxy clusters:

1) In 2008, they "discovered" that they've been underestimating the amount of scattering taking place in the IGM, and the universe is actually at least *twice as bright* as they *assumed*, leading to a significant *underestimation* of stellar mass:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/gall ... as-bright/

Keep in mind that their entire basis for the baryonic mass calculation of stellar masses relates back to galaxy brightness. They blew the brightness aspect by at least a factor of two on relatively *close* galaxies.

2) They "discovered" a year later in 2009 that they've been using a *flawed* method of 'guestimating" the number of smaller stars that cannot be directly observed at a distance, compared to the larger mass stars that we actually can observe at a distance. They underestimated stellar counts of stars the size of our sun by a factor of 4. and all of it was *ordinary baryonic material*! Note that both of these later "discoveries" are consistent with the fact that mainstream has been *grossly* underestimating the amount of stellar mass in various galaxies, mass which would indeed "pass on through" the collision process as the Bullet Cluster study suggests.

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

3) But that's just the tip of a iceberg in terms of the mainstream's baryonic mass estimation problems. The following year in 2010, they 'discovered" that they've been underestimating the most *common* sized star (dwarf stars) in various galaxies by a *whopping* factor of between 3 and 20 depending on the galaxy type. Again, they grossly and seriously underestimated the *normal baryonic material* that is present in galaxies. As with both previous cases, all of that underestimated mass is located in *stellar* mass which would certainly track with the center of the galaxies, and not to any colliding plasma in the Bullet Cluster study.

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

4) Two years later, in 2012, they 'discovered' more ordinary baryonic matter *surrounding* every galaxy that exist inside of the stars themselves. In fact they discovered more ordinary baryonic matter in 2012 than had been ''discovered' in all the stars combined. Quite tellingly, it's also located in a 'halo' which surrounds every galaxy just as mainstream 'dark matter' models predict. This matter isn't "dark" however, it's just been hiding in plain sight due to is unusually high temperature.

http://chandra.harvard.edu/blog/node/398

5) In 2014 they also "discovered" that they underestimated the number of stars found *between galaxies*, particularly galaxies undergoing a collision process like that Bullet Cluster study:

https://www.realclearscience.com/journa ... 08929.html

6) In 2017 astronomers found yet *another* "halo" of ordinary matter surrounding galaxies that they knew nothing about until just recently and again it forms a "halo" around the galaxies, just like their 'dark matter' models predicted. It's not dark however, it's ordinary hydrogen.

There's been at least *six* revelations of *serious* baryonic mass underestimation problems used in that 2006 lensing study that claimed to find 'proof' of exotic forms of matter. They didn't prove any such thing in 2006. All they *actually* "proved" was that their baryonic mass estimation techniques were *worthless* in 2006 as numerous major discoveries have since *verified*. Note also that their stellar mass underestimates, and that neutral hydrogen halo are congruent with their finding that most of the 'missing mass' which they called "dark matter' simply "passed on through" the collision process. Since stars are spread so far apart, they don't typically 'collide' in a galaxy collision, and therefore mass contained in stars, including all the stars they forgot to count, would indeed pass right on through that Bullet Cluster collision just as they observed in their lensing patterns.

The Bullet Cluster study was a complete *fiasco*. All it ever "proved" is that the mainstream baryonic mass estimation techniques weren't worth the paper they were printed on in 2006 as *lots* of later studies have since verified. When astronomers claim that the Bullet Cluster "proved" the existence of matter, they're living in pure denial of every later study which showed *numerous* baryonic mass estimation problems in their mass estimation techniques. Dark matter is a myth. It's not real. It doesn't exist.

Now you don't have to take my word for it either. All you have to do is look at every major "dark matter experiment" that's been performed over the last decade too. The dark matter hypotheses (plural) were complete and dismal failures at LHC, PandaX, Xenon-1T and every major dark matter experiment ever performed! Tens of *billions* of dollars have been invested in 'testing' non standard particle physics models, and every single one of them has been a complete and dismal failure.

The "predictive" track record of dark matter models is *abysmal* in scientific experimentation. It's obvious why too. There was never any need for dark matter to begin with, just a strong need to *fix* the broken baryonic mass estimation techniques of the mainstream model which has never been done to this very day!

[Michael Mozina]

FYI, here's the missing link to item number 6)

https://astronomy.com/news/2017/04/find ... rogen-halo

[danda]

excellent writeup, thanks! I'm glad you are calling BS on these guys.

[Michael Mozina]

excellent writeup, thanks! I'm glad you are calling BS on these guys.

The part that absolutely astounds me is the fact that there were no less than six major problems with the baryonic mass estimation techniques they've been using, and were using in 2006 which were later identified by "mainstream" astronomers no less, and yet no one has bothered to update the mass estimation techniques to this day. In short, they have their collective heads firmly buried in the sand. The LCDM model takes a serious dose of pure denial to keep it alive. Not only is there no evidence whatsoever to support "dark matter" claims, it's been failing highly important observations tests now for at least the last two decades, starting with their introduction of "dark energy" into the model, to the tune of 70 percent of the model!

Even with 95 percent metaphysical fudge factors to work with, it's still got a five plus sigma self conflict related to the Hubble constant. The SN1A and Planck estimates still do not jive. How sucky does any theory have to be to be composed of 95 percent metaphysical fudge factors, and *still* have a serious self conflict with respect to the rate of expansion?

To top it all off, the LCDM model has failed every 'evolutionary" concept that has ever been proposed. Distant galaxies are way too large and way too "mature" to fit within the LCDM timeline. Ditto for quasars, and ditto again with respect to finding any Population 3 stars (figure generation stars) in the distant universe. Every basic evolution idea has been a dismal failure in fact.

The part that frosts my cookies is the fact that they mainstream *still* tries to use that ridiculously flawed Bullet Cluster study as being some of it's "best" evidence of exotic matter, as though the various flaws in their mass estimation techniques weren't already documented and reported. It's the ultimate example of pure denial in astronomy today.

[Michael Mozina]

It's quite telling that the bullet cluster fiasco is still considered some of the "best" evidence of dark matter. There were at least *six* major problems found in the mass estimation techniques used in that 2006 study which caused the mainstream to *seriously* underestimate the baryonic mass in those clusters and those problems have *never* been addressed or dealt with.

In short the mainstream has simply buried they collective heads in the sand for almost 15 years now, and they refuse to lift a finger to *fix* their broken bayonic mass estimates based on brightness because it would devastate their model. Even the five sigma tension between the Hubble constant is a couple of years old now, and the mainstream still has no agreed upon explanation for it. It's like they're stuck in a pure denial routine with no way to resolve the problems lest the entire LCDM model bite the dust.

They just keep repeating falsified evidence of the past as their only 'support' for their model, and any all newer evidence that refutes their model is simply swept under the rug, or completely ignored. Distant galaxies and quasars in recent studies show *zero* signs of evolution over time. There are no first generation (population III) stars observed in the distant universe. Even with 95 percent metaphysical gap filler they can't get their Hubble constant figures derived from SN1A data and Planck data to agree properly. They whole LCDM is failing ever conceivable test there is, including it's complete lack of internal consistency as it relates to the Hubble constant. It's a total piece of falsified metaphysical junk and nobody has a clue how to fix it, so they just keep citing *ancient* (and now falsified too) evidence to try to support it.

Look at the results from LHC. They spent tens of *billions* of dollars testing their exotic matter models over the past two decades and not a single one of them passed a single test in a controlled laboratory experiment. Even the very concept of exotic matter is based on *now falsified* bayronic mass estimation techniques that are literally *riddled* with serious flaws.

The LCDM model is an embarrassment to science and astronomy. It's even worse than Ptolemy.

[crudebuster]

Perhaps we're seeing what Ptolemy model would achieve being fed with billions and billions of dollars.

[Michael Mozina]

Perhaps we're seeing what Ptolemy model would achieve being fed with billions and billions of dollars.

There's a bit of a symbiotic relationship between the fields of particle physics and cosmology this time around.

The next round of funding for the next big particle collider will depend on their ability to "sell" the concept to politicians and the public. If you read the proposal, "dark matter" features quite prominently in that sales pitch. Sure, they're still trying to figure out mass ranges of neutrinos, and learn more about the Higgs, but in order to justify the tens of billions of dollars in funding required to build a bigger collider, they need more than a desire to tie up a few loose ends in the standard particle physics model.

[Michael Mozina]

https://phys.org/news/2020-08-hubble-gi ... alaxy.html

Scientists were surprised to find that this tenuous, nearly invisible halo of diffuse plasma extends 1.3 million light-years from the galaxy—about halfway to our Milky Way—and as far as 2 million light-years in some directions. This means that Andromeda's halo is already bumping into the halo of our own galaxy.

The so called "dark matter" halo turns out to be nothing more than a *gigantic* halo of diffuse plasma that extends over a light year beyond the galaxy. The mainstream mass estimation techniques of galaxies have *never* been close to accurate. There's no evidence whatsoever that any of the "missing mass" is exotic in nature.

[Michael Mozina]

https://phys.org/news/2020-08-hubble-gi ... alaxy.html

Scientists were surprised to find that this tenuous, nearly invisible halo of diffuse plasma extends 1.3 million light-years from the galaxy—about halfway to our Milky Way—and as far as 2 million light-years in some directions. This means that Andromeda's halo is already bumping into the halo of our own galaxy.

The so called "dark matter" halo turns out to be nothing more than a *gigantic* halo of diffuse plasma that extends over a light year beyond the galaxy. The mainstream mass estimation techniques of galaxies have *never* been close to accurate. There's no evidence whatsoever that any of the "missing mass" is exotic in nature.

Er, that should have been over a *million* light years....