Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing.

[mzungu]

I wonder does Michael realise that finding formerly "missing" matter in ordinary stars and plasma in no way invalidates the current models of the universe. It just moves some of the matter whose effects we seem to be seeing from the "dark matter" placeholder category into a different classification.

The less someone knows about science the more cartoon physics rules his world.

 

[Cromulent]

The less someone knows about science the more cartoon physics rules his world.

Indeed, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Michael, I'm only going to bother responding to one of your points, I don't have time for the rest, they're all more than adequately debunked by professionals in multiple fields.

On your ludicrous claim that whatever is causing the mass effects observed in the universe is not allowed to emit photons because of the particular placeholder name it has been given:

It is dark outside right now. If I close the curtains in my room and turn off the light, it will be dark in here. That doesn't mean that nothing is emitting photons. If doesn't mean nothing is reflecting or diffusing or refracting photons. Those things are not the definition of the word.

What's next? Are you going to give out about people saying the sun can be approximated as a black body emitter in certain applications, even though it's actually very bright?!!

 

[mzungu]

Indeed, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Michael, I'm only going to bother responding to one of your points, I don't have time for the rest, they're all more than adequately debunked by professionals in multiple fields.

On your ludicrous claim that whatever is causing the mass effects observed in the universe is not allowed to emit photons because of the particular placeholder name it has been given:

It is dark outside right now. If I close the curtains in my room and turn off the light, it will be dark in here. That doesn't mean that nothing is emitting photons. If doesn't mean nothing is reflecting or diffusing or refracting photons. Those things are not the definition of the word.

What's next? Are you going to give out about people saying the sun can be approximated as a black body emitter in certain applications, even though it's actually very bright?!!

It is dark only for animals (including humans) that see only the visible spectrum of light. If one could see the whole spectrum of light then darkness would be something unknown to him.

 

[Michael]

Indeed, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Michael, I'm only going to bother responding to one of your points, I don't have time for the rest, they're all more than adequately debunked by professionals in multiple fields.

On your ludicrous claim that whatever is causing the mass effects observed in the universe is not allowed to emit photons because of the particular placeholder name it has been given:

It is dark outside right now. If I close the curtains in my room and turn off the light, it will be dark in here. That doesn't mean that nothing is emitting photons. If doesn't mean nothing is reflecting or diffusing or refracting photons. Those things are not the definition of the word.

What's next? Are you going to give out about people saying the sun can be approximated as a black body emitter in certain applications, even though it's actually very bright?!!

Dark Energy, Dark Matter - NASA Science

What Is Dark Matter?

By fitting a theoretical model of the composition of the Universe to the combined set of cosmological observations, scientists have come up with the composition that we described above, ~70% dark energy, ~25% dark matter, ~5% normal matter. What is dark matter?
We are much more certain what dark matter is not than we are what it is. First, it is dark, meaning that it is not in the form of stars and planets that we see. Observations show that there is far too little visible matter in the Universe to make up the 25% required by the observations. Second, it is not in the form of dark clouds of normal matter, matter made up of particles called baryons. We know this because we would be able to detect baryonic clouds by their absorption of radiation passing through them.

Were it not for the fact that NASA claimed it was *not* composed of ordinary matter in the form of stars and planets or typical plasma, I might buy your story. Since the mainstream has gone out of it's way to glamorize the now falsified WIMPS, and they continue to do so as recently as this month, your story rings a little hollow I'm afraid.

They are making a "statement of faith" about the nature of this stuff, the claim it's *not* ordinary stuff! In fact they claim specifically that this exotic matter doesn't interact with light! They claim we'd already have identified typical "baryonic" mass, and this dark stuff isn't composed of "normal' matter.

 

[Michael]

The less someone knows about science the more cartoon physics rules his world.

Sorry, but NASA is the one peddling cartoon physics, and making claims that are now demonstrated to be *false*, *false* falsified false!

Not only have simple SUSY theories been falsified at LHC, we have now found a bunch of new baryonic mass that the mainstream has never accounted for as they claimed. Their whole belief system is crumbling at this point, and nobody really knows what to do about it.

They keep sadly pointing at the sky at anything new they can find and claiming "SUSY particles did it", even though SUSY particles bit the dust at LHC and the Higgs was found at an energy state that precludes the need for SUSY theory entirely! Honestly, it's just sad watching the try to pass off this same falsified nonsense every time they see something new in space.

They'll try anything as long as it's not pure plasma physics and God forbid it should involve electricity in space!

 

[Michael]

NASA's Chandra shows Milky Way is surrounded by halo of hot gas
Astronomers find that Universe shines twice as bright | SpaceRef - Your Space Reference
NASA - Galaxies Demand a Stellar Recount

These are just a "few" of the many observations that have falsified mainstream theory over the past 4 years, and this doesn't even include the lab results.

 

[Tiberius]

So they call it "Dark" because they haven't been able to detect it. Where does that mean that it must be black?

Oh, do you have problems with black holes, since they apparently put out quite a bit of radiation? Do you whinge and say they shouldn't be called Black holes because they aren't black, and therefore astronomers should be sued for false advertising?

 

[Michael]

So they call it "Dark" because they haven't been able to detect it.

Dark matter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In astronomy and cosmology, dark matter is a type of matter hypothesized to account for a large part of the total mass in the universe. Dark matter cannot be seen directly with telescopes; evidently it neither emits nor absorbs light or other electromagnetic radiation at any significant level.

Evidently they lied.

The most widely accepted explanation for these phenomena is that dark matter exists and that it is most likely[3] composed of heavy particles that interact only through gravity and possibly the weak force; however, alternate explanations have been proposed, and there is not yet sufficient experimental evidence to determine which is correct. Many experiments to detect proposed dark matter particles through non-gravitational means are underway.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#cite_note-bertone_hooper_silk-4

Oh look, nobody updated the page based on LHC findings:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14680570

Gee, I wonder why?

 

[Tiberius]

Gee, that page that says they haven't been able to detect it sure contradicts my point that they hadn't detected it...

Oh wait...

 

[mzungu]

Sorry, but NASA is the one peddling cartoon physics, and making claims that are now demonstrated to be *false*, *false* falsified false!

So sayeth the man who insists that snakes talked and the Earth is flat and the sun orbits the Earth and whales are fish, bats are fowl, etc.

 

[Michael]

So sayeth the man who insists that snakes talked and the Earth is flat and the sun orbits the Earth and whales are fish, bats are fowl, etc.

Huh? You're clearly confusing my personal beliefs with your own strawman fantasies about talking snakes. I've honestly never seen anyone so emotionally attached to a talking snake as you seem to be.

I'd have sworn we already covered the book infallibility issue.

Sure, bash the messenger with completely made up nonsense that doesn't even apply to the messenger, but whatever you do, don't even think about questioning the mainstream dogma.

 

[Michael]

Gee, that page that says they haven't been able to detect it sure contradicts my point that they hadn't detected it...

Oh wait...

Dark matter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A small proportion of dark matter may be baryonic dark matter: astronomical bodies, such as massive compact halo objects, that are composed of ordinary matter but which emit little or no electromagnetic radiation. Study of nucleosynthesis in the Big Bang produces an upper bound on the amount of baryonic matter in the universe,[9] which indicates that the vast majority of dark matter in the universe cannot be baryons, and thus does not form atoms. It also cannot interact with ordinary matter via electromagnetic forces; in particular, dark matter particles do not carry any electric charge. The nonbaryonic dark matter includes neutrinos, and possibly hypothetical entities such as axions, or supersymmetric particles. Unlike baryonic dark matter, nonbaryonic dark matter does not contribute to the formation of the elements in the early universe ("Big Bang nucleosynthesis")[3] and so its presence is revealed only via its gravitational attraction. In addition, if the particles of which it is composed are supersymmetric, they can undergo annihilation interactions with themselves resulting in observable by-products such as photons and neutrinos ("indirect detection").[10]

Apparently you are blissfully unaware of the problems created in BB theory if you start to assume all matter is baryonic in nature. The mainstream theory goes to hell in a handbasket if all the matter is "normal" matter.

 

[mzungu]

Huh? You're clearly confusing my personal beliefs with your own strawman fantasies about talking snakes. I've honestly never seen anyone so emotionally attached to a talking snake as you seem to be.

I'd have sworn we already covered the book infallibility issue.

Sure, bash the messenger with completely made up nonsense that doesn't even apply to the messenger, but whatever you do, don't even think about questioning the mainstream dogma.

You claim NASA uses cartoon physics and have the gall to call my post strawman fantasies

You are essentially doing what every creationist does, and that is warp the facts to suit your interpretation of your religion. You of course are doing it by disguising your posts in such a way as to look scientific when in fact it is nothing more than creationist mumbo jumbo.

"Thou shalt not bear false witness" is the one cardinal sin all creationist sites are guilty of.

NASA has given mankind much in scientific progress; what is your contribution?

 

[Michael]

You claim NASA uses cartoon physics and have the gall to call my post strawman fantasies

Yep. I'm not claiming any book to be infallible, whereas NASA is actually claiming on their website that dark matter is not made of "normal" matter. They evidently didn't get the memo about simple SUSY theories biting the dust at LHC.

You are essentially doing what every creationist does, and that is warp the facts to suit your interpretation of your religion. You of course are doing it by disguising your posts in such a way as to look scientific when in fact it is nothing more than creationist mumbo jumbo.

Baloney. Not only is it irrational to be claiming something that cannot by definition emit photons, emits photons, I even provided you with no less than five empirical (published) alternatives to choose from to explain cosmic redshift, including Compton redshift, Stark redshift, the Wolf effect, Chen's plasma redshift and the movement of objects. Any or all of these empirically documented causes of redshift "could" have (and must have) some effect on redshifted photons.

Dark energy and inflation however are bigger duds in the lab than your average concept of "God".

"Thou shalt not bear false witness" is the one cardinal sin all creationist sites are guilty of.

Ya, and when NASA identifies a known source of "dark energy", or quits claiming that "WIMPS did it", let me know. Until then, they are guilty as hell.

NASA has given mankind much in scientific progress; what is your contribution?

arXiv.org Search

What's yours?

 

[Tiberius]

Dark matter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Apparently you are blissfully unaware of the problems created in BB theory if you start to assume all matter is baryonic in nature. The mainstream theory goes to hell in a handbasket if all the matter is "normal" matter.

And your point is... what?

Did I say anything about baryons? Have scientists said that dark matter MUST be baryons?

 

[Michael]

And your point is... what?

Did I say anything about baryons?

My point is that you're blissfully naive if you think they can just get rid of the "non-baryonic" components of their theory, and have the rest of the math work properly. It's not like that. All their delicate calculations related to elemental formation and the power spectrum computations related to the CMBR are heavily dependent upon "magic matter" to make them work correctly. They can't just claim "normal matter is responsible for what we observe", and not have it ruin massive parts of their claims. One of the key problems with a mathematical model that depends on magic matter, is you can't remove the magic from the matter and achieve the same results.

The reason they can't and won't budge from their original magical matter figures is that it messes up massive parts of their entire theory if they do so. Better they just sweep all the empirical evidence of plasma redshift right under the carpet by calling it a "dark energy camera", and better that they just "pretend" that their galaxy mass estimation techniques were not just falsified by new technology over the past 5 years.

 

[Michael]

Cue the drum roll......

Big science, big pressure, big misconduct? Study finds increase in fraud in research journals - OrlandoSentinel.com

 

[Cromulent]

"In astronomy and cosmology, dark matter is a type of matter hypothesized to account for a large part of the total mass in the universe. Dark matter cannot be seen directly with telescopes; evidently it neither emits nor absorbs light or other electromagnetic radiation at any significant level."

So in other words, it could emit, absorb or scatter light, just not to the degree at which we can detect most of it with our current technology.

So pretty much exactly what we've been saying all along.

 

[Tiberius]

Cue the drum roll......

Big science, big pressure, big misconduct? Study finds increase in fraud in research journals - OrlandoSentinel.com

So in the entire arena of scientific papers, there is a fraud rate of less than one percent - and yet you expect us to believe that this justifies dismissing ALL papers that show evidence for the Big Bang?

Please. This reeks of desperation.

 

[Tiberius]

My point is that you're blissfully naive if you think they can just get rid of the "non-baryonic" components of their theory, and have the rest of the math work properly. It's not like that. All their delicate calculations related to elemental formation and the power spectrum computations related to the CMBR are heavily dependent upon "magic matter" to make them work correctly. They can't just claim "normal matter is responsible for what we observe", and not have it ruin massive parts of their claims. One of the key problems with a mathematical model that depends on magic matter, is you can't remove the magic from the matter and achieve the same results.

The reason they can't and won't budge from their original magical matter figures is that it messes up massive parts of their entire theory if they do so. Better they just sweep all the empirical evidence of plasma redshift right under the carpet by calling it a "dark energy camera", and better that they just "pretend" that their galaxy mass estimation techniques were not just falsified by new technology over the past 5 years.

Please explain this in detail in your own words to show that it is both true and understood by you.