A simple test for the EU people. (2)

[Michael]

And a post of Michael's a while back reminded me of this article:

Particle physicists discover strongest ever evidence of dark matter | ExtremeTech

The odds that they found dark matter is not sure, it is about "3 sigma" which is not quite the 3.5 sigma of the article that Michael linked, but it is very close. Don't count dark matter out yet.

LUX dark-matter search comes up empty - physicsworld.com

That's old and stale news dude. If those early result had not just been a statistical fluke, LUX "should have" seen around 1600 hits. They saw none. So sorry your hope in exotic matter theory got dashed yet again.

 

[Seipai]

LUX dark-matter search comes up empty - physicsworld.com

That's old and stale news dude. If those early result had not just been a statistical fluke, LUX "should have" seen around 1600 hits. They saw none. So sorry your hope in exotic matter theory got dashed yet again.

Yes, I already dealt with this. Two separate experiments. One claims that they should have seen evidence that they were not set up for. Perhaps they would have, perhaps not.

Once again, you were going nuts over an experiment that was only 3.5 sigma, compared to this ones 3 sigma. They are fairly sure from the results in the Minnesota mine experiment, they are just not 5 sigma sure.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Yes, I already dealt with this. Two separate experiments. One claims that they should have seen evidence that they were not set up for. Perhaps they would have, perhaps not.

Once again, you were going nuts over an experiment that was only 3.5 sigma, compared to this ones 3 sigma. They are fairly sure from the results in the Minnesota mine experiment, they are just not 5 sigma sure.

That's funny, that's not what the scientists themselves think.

Another dark-matter sign from a Minnesota mine : Nature News Blog

"Two other possible detections from the CDMS search, reported in 2010, turned out to be indistinguishable from background collisions from other, non-WIMP, sources. The same may yet hold true for the latest findings...

“We do not believe this result rises to the level of a discovery, but it does call for further investigation,” said Kevin McCarthy, a CDMS team member from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge"

In other words it is time to ask for more funding.

Why do you misrepresent the actual facts?

"
The CDMS tries to get around that by shielding its detectors as much as possible and by precisely calculating the rate of expected collisions from other, background sources. The three possible WIMP events popped out of data in which 0.7 similar events would be expected from background, McCarthy said. Two of them occurred in the same detector.


He reported the signal at a 99.81% confidence level, or around three sigma in statistical language. “We favor the WIMP plus background hypothesis,” he said."

Of course they favor that hypothesis, their careers rely on it and so does future funding. So there is also a 99.81% confidence level that they are merely background noise, and 10 to 1 odds that's what they are and you will never hear of this again or they will finally come out and admit to it.


But then we find out the real actual statistical results.

http://cdms.berkeley.edu/CDMSII_Si_DM_Results.pdf

" We performed a profile likelihood analysis in which the background rates were treated as nuisance parameters and the WIMP mass and cross section were the parameters of interest. The highest likelihood is found for a WIMP mass of 8.6 GeV/c^2 and a WIMP-nucleon cross section of 1.9 10^41cm^2. The goodness-of-t test of this WIMP+background hypothesis results in a p-value of 68%, while the background-only hypothesis fits the data with a p-value of 4.5%. A profile likelihood ratio test including the event energies finds that the data favor the WIMP+background hypothesis over our background-only hypothesis with a p-value of 0.19%. Though this result favors a WIMP interpretation over the known-background-only hypothesis, we do not believe this result rises to the level of a discovery."

So the WIMP theory comes out .19% more favorable than just background, which is why they clearly state "we do not believe this result rises to the level of a discovery."

So you still have no discoveries of dark matter after 25 years of searching. And in 25 more years you will still have none. Fairie Dust can never be detected, because it is Fairie Dust.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

What is sad is that in science today a .19% probability over just background rises to the level of a press release and you can be sure a plea for more funding, since further investigations are clearly needed. I'd say a less than 1% probability calls for a declaration of a null result. But then they might not get that funding, so a <1% probability turns into a 99.81% confidence level. Man-o-man, the state of science today.

Correction: the state of astronomical so-called science.

 

[Seipai]

That's funny, that's not what the scientists themselves think.

Another dark-matter sign from a Minnesota mine : Nature News Blog

"Two other possible detections from the CDMS search, reported in 2010, turned out to be indistinguishable from background collisions from other, non-WIMP, sources. The same may yet hold true for the latest findings...

&#8220;We do not believe this result rises to the level of a discovery, but it does call for further investigation,&#8221; said Kevin McCarthy, a CDMS team member from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge"

In other words it is time to ask for more funding.

Why do you misrepresent the actual facts?

Once again you could not understand a simple article:

He reported the signal at a 99.81% confidence level, or around three sigma in statistical language. &#8220;We favor the WIMP plus background hypothesis,&#8221; he said.

They are "99.81%" sure. That seems to support my statement not yours. You misinterpreted what they said. They were being honest. There is enough doubt to say that this is not an official discovery. And I never claimed it was an official discovery. So how in any way did I misrepresent the article? If anyone did that would be you.

He reported the signal at a 99.81% confidence level, or around three sigma in statistical language. &#8220;We favor the WIMP plus background hypothesis,&#8221; he said."

Hey look! You just quoted the same line that I did.

Of course they favor that hypothesis, their careers rely on it and so does future funding. So there is also a 99.81% confidence level that they are merely background noise, and 10 to 1 odds that's what they are and you will never hear of this again or they will finally come out and admit to it.

No, you clearly do not understand the figures.

But then we find out the real actual statistical results.

http://cdms.berkeley.edu/CDMSII_Si_DM_Results.pdf

" We performed a profile likelihood analysis in which the background rates were treated as nuisance parameters and the WIMP mass and cross section were the parameters of interest. The highest likelihood is found for a WIMP mass of 8.6 GeV/c^2 and a WIMP-nucleon cross section of 1.9 10^41cm^2. The goodness-of-t test of this WIMP+background hypothesis results in a p-value of 68%, while the background-only hypothesis ts the data with a p-value of 4.5%. A profile likelihood ratio test including the event energies finds that the data favor the WIMP+background hypothesis over our background-only hypothesis with a p-value of 0.19%. Though this result favors a WIMP interpretation over the known-background-only hypothesis, we do not believe this result rises to the level of a discovery."

So the WIMP theory comes out .19% more favorable than just background, which is why they clearly state "we do not believe this result rises to the level of a discovery."

So you still have no discoveries of dark matter after 25 years of searching. And in 25 more years you will still have none. Fairie Dust can never be detected, because it is Fairie Dust.

No, just no. In fact I will add a for you. That is not what it says at all. The percentage of 0.19% is the probability of background alone. The 68% figure is a WIMP's only event. The most likely event, at over 99%, is a WIMP's plus background.

 

[Michael]

No, you clearly do not understand the figures.

Irony overload.

It is you that seems to fail to recognize the significance of the LUX results, and how they ultimately *falsified* the earlier "hints" of dark matter at those energy states. Had the *original* (the one's you keep prattling on about) been "real", not just a statistical anomaly, LUX "should have" seen around 1600 such events due to the *more sensitive* nature of the LUX equipment. They saw exactly *none*! LUX is *more* sensitive than the equipment used earlier in the year. Had the original results that you cited been real, LUX would have been able to verify that claim about 1600 times. Instead LUX saw exactly no such events, meaning the *earlier* claims were a "false positive" to begin with. There was never any validity to the earlier tests, they were simply a statistical anomaly related to the way neutrons can interact with in less sensitive earlier test.

Your so called "evidence of dark matter" was later falsified in *better* LUX tests. Get over it already.

 

[Seipai]

Irony overload.

It is you that seems to fail to recognize the significance of the LUX results, and how they ultimately *falsified* the earlier "hints" of dark matter at those energy states. Had the *original* (the one's you keep prattling on about) been "real", not just a statistical anomaly, LUX "should have" seen around 1600 such events due to the *more sensitive* nature of the LUX equipment. They saw exactly *none*! LUX is *more* sensitive than the equipment used earlier in the year. Had the original results that you cited been real, LUX would have been able to verify that claim about 1600 times. Instead LUX saw exactly no such events, meaning the *earlier* claims were a "false positive" to begin with. There was never any validity to the earlier tests, they were simply a statistical anomaly related to the way neutrons can interact with in less sensitive earlier test.

Your so called "evidence of dark matter" was later falsified in *better* LUX tests. Get over it already.

No, possibly better. The LUX may be better. I have not seen too much that supports their claim. Again, even if this is a false positive there is still far more supporting evidence for the standard model than there is for your debunked electric universe. Talk about pegging the irony meter.

The fact is that Justatruthseeker shot himself in the foot again by misinterpreting an article that he did not understand. Doesn't it worry you a bit that the only people who support you are creationists like Justatruthseeker?

 

[Michael]

No, possibly better. The LUX may be better. I have not seen too much that supports their claim.

That just demonstrates yet again that you have selective reading skills, and you pretty much *ignore* the information that you don't wish to deal with. From the article I just cited for you:

Earlier this year, the US-based CDMS dark-matter experiment &#8211; located deep underground in the Soudan Mine in northern Minnesota &#8211; reported the detection of three WIMPs with masses of about 8.6 GeV/c2. While this mass is much lower than most conventional theories predict, it seems to agree with somewhat weaker observations in several other experiments. The CDMS detection has a statistical significance of about 3&#963;: well below the gold standard of 5&#963;, which is considered a discovery in particle physics. As a result some physicists doubt the CDMS result, while others have tried to explain it by developing new theories of WIMPs. Expected 1600 events

However, the CDMS WIMPs should have produced more than 1600 events in LUX. No such signals were seen, making it much less likely that low-mass WIMPs exist.
"Those 'hints' &#8211; which were at best controversial &#8211; motivated several theories to explain them, which in turn can lend undue credence to those results," says Henrique Araújo who leads the LUX team at Imperial College London. "But LUX is by far the most sensitive instrument in this hunt, and our very clean data contradict that interpretation emphatically:.....

Emphasis mine. Had your original claims been valid to begin with, the LUX equipment would have registered around 1600 "verified positives". Instead it registered exactly none, meaning those three prior 'hits' were likely to simply be "false positives", and nothing more than a statical anomaly based on a very limited data set, and more primitive equipment!

Again, even if this is a false positive

It was!

there is still far more supporting evidence for the standard model than there is for your debunked electric universe.

Like? So far, something like 95 percent of your claims fail to show up in the lab, even more than that if we add inflation claims, "space expansion' claims to your list of non demonstrated supernatural claim list.

Talk about pegging the irony meter.

I'm afraid you broke the meter when you claimed there was no peer reviewed evidence to support EU/PC theory, and only had unpublished website links that had *absolutely nothing* to do with any of Alfven's published work in rebuttal.

Apparently you don't even want to deal with those LUX results at all. Who are you to be talking about how anyone interpreted or misinterpreted any data?

LUX crushed your claims outright. Get over it already.

 

[Seipai]

That just demonstrates yet again that you have selective reading skills, and you pretty much *ignore* the information that you don't wish to deal with. From the article I just cited for you:

Emphasis mine. Had your original claims been valid to begin with, the LUX equipment would have registered around 1600 "verified positives". Instead it registered exactly none, meaning those three prior 'hits' were likely to simply be "false positives", and nothing more than a statical anomaly based on a very limited data set, and more primitive equipment!


It was!

Like? So far, something like 95 percent of your claims fail to show up in the lab, even more than that if we add inflation claims, "space expansion' claims to your list of non demonstrated supernatural claim list.

I'm afraid you broke the meter when you claimed there was no peer reviewed evidence to support EU/PC theory, and only had unpublished website links that had *absolutely nothing* to do with any of Alfven's published work in rebuttal.

Apparently you don't even want to deal with those LUX results at all. Who are you to be talking about how anyone interpreted or misinterpreted any data?

LUX crushed your claims outright. Get over it already.

Spoken like the true blind follower of your religion. You keep forgetting the failures of EU which both outnumber and are of greater scope than any failures of the standard model.

When you honestly present evidence and what you actually believe we can debate it. So far the best you have been able to try to claim is the "Alfven did not predict that".

 

[Michael]

Spoken like the true blind follower of your religion.

Excuse me? You're the one that is forced to *outright ignore* the more sensitive LUX results, not me. You're the one "blindly following" a claim that entirely lacks any sort of empirical support of any of it's key claims *in spite* of the evidence from the lab!

You keep forgetting the failures of EU which both outnumber and are of greater scope than any failures of the standard model.

What a joke. Birkeland personally made more "valid predictions" about events in space 100 years ago using his cathode solar models than anything the mainstream has done since! Holy cow! It took the backwards mainstream nearly 60 years to verify his predictions about aurora. At the rate they are going, it will likely take the mainstream another 60 years to figure out that the sun is *electrical* in nature too!

When you honestly present evidence and what you actually believe we can debate it. So far the best you have been able to try to claim is the "Alfven did not predict that".

That's because it's true, and you don't have a single published rebuttal to any of his work and we both know it too. You're up a dark invisible creek without a single empirical or peer reviewed paddle to your name.

 

[Seipai]

Excuse me? You're the one that is forced to *outright ignore* the more sensitive LUX results, not me. You're the one "blindly following" a claim that entirely lacks any sort of empirical support of any of it's key claims *in spite* of the evidence from the lab!

What lab evidence? You know that the lab evidence does not support the observed red shift. And you keep forgetting that the "lab experiments" for astronomy are done with a telescope. Plus the standard model has predictive powers that far outstrips that of EU.

What a joke. Birkeland personally made more "valid predictions" about events in space 100 years ago using his cathode solar models than anything the mainstream has done since! Holy cow! It took the backwards mainstream nearly 60 years to verify his predictions about aurora. At the rate they are going, it will likely take the mainstream another 60 years to figure out that the sun is *electrical* in nature too!

Yes, he had very minor success. His model when applied to galaxies and beyond fails. Again, his model predicts, even if he didn't, a very spiky observable spectrum. From both local and distant events. Those are not observed. The lack of the correct spectrum of observed light ended his model. It ended it much worse than LUX ends the search for dark matter.

That's because it's true, and you don't have a single published rebuttal to any of his work and we both know it too. You're up a dark invisible creek without a single empirical or peer reviewed paddle to your name.

I don't need a "published rebuttal" for an idea that never caught on. I don't need a published rebuttal that you can't fly by flapping your arms. You have a standard to meet before you can demand a published rebuttal. You never accomplished that. And technically I have presented "published rebuttals". It is not my fault that you do not understand the meaning of the word "published".

 

[Riberra]

Plus the standard model has predictive powers that far outstrips that of EU.

Can you provide some examples of predictions -with numbers- made by the standard model which were later confirmed by observations.
For example, i remember that the prediction of the CMB made by the mainstream was betwen 30 and 50 degree Kelvin.While other non mainstream sources talked about 3 and 8 degree Kelvin for a quasi steady state but evolving Universe.The measured value is about 2.7 K

 

[Seipai]

Can you provide some example of predictions -with numbers- made by the mainstream which were later confirmed by observation.
For example i remember that the prediction of the CMB made by the the mainstream was betwen 30 and 50 degree Kelvin.While other non mainstream sources talked about 3 and 8 degree Kelvin for a "steady state" -but evolving- universe.The measured value is about 3.7 K

I will have to check into it a bit, but here is a start for you:

The Standard Model | CERN

Standard Model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Standard Model (SM) predicted the existence of the W and Z bosons, gluon, and the top and charm quarks before these particles were observed. Their predicted properties were experimentally confirmed with good precision.

 

[Seipai]

The Standard Model is of course not perfect. It will be changed. The problem with the EU is at best is has been found to be reactive and not predictive. Meaning it is of very little use. And what predictions that can be made with it have not been found in the real world. Ergo the claims of various EU people "that wasn't in Alfven's, or Birklends, or whoever's model, even if those predictions can be made from that model.

 

[Riberra]

I will have to check into it a bit, but here is a start for you:

The Standard Model | CERN

Standard Model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That is right and good for the Standard model of physics.
But what about the predictions with numbers made by the standard astrophysical model which i have provided you an example of failed prediction when the value predicted was compared with observation.

 

[Riberra]

The problem with the EU is at best is has been found to be reactive and not predictive. Meaning it is of very little use. And what predictions that can be made with it have not been found in the real world. Ergo the claims of various EU people "that wasn't in Alfven's, or Birklends, or whoever's model, even if those predictions can be made from that model.

One of the prediction made by the EU/PC model is that magnetic fields plays an important role in the formation of stars.Which was always decried as being crank .
Guess what, here the confirmation of Alfven and Peratt claims

Magnetic fields set stage for birth of new stars -- ScienceDaily

Journal Nature article publication peer reviewed.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7374/full/nature10551.html

Free peer reviewed paper at Arxiv.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.2745

 

[Michael]

What lab evidence?

Those three straight lab failures of exotic matter theory for starters.

You know that the lab evidence does not support the observed red shift.

Actually I know just the opposite. Unlike your impotent on Earth, magical space expanding invisible friends, inelastic scattering regularly occurs in labs on Earth which has a direct effect on photon redshift.

And you keep forgetting that the "lab experiments" for astronomy are done with a telescope.

Right, because every time we look with a microscope, nothing shows up!

Plus the standard model has predictive powers that far outstrips that of EU.

Pure baloney.

Yes, he had very minor success. His model when applied to galaxies and beyond fails.

How?

Again, his model predicts, even if he didn't, a very spiky observable spectrum. From both local and distant events. Those are not observed.

False. We observe gamma rays from the discharges in the solar atmosphere that Birkeland predicted, as well as from distant current carrying processes. You folks can't explain that "spikey" spectrum at all, which is why you keep trying to "explain" gamma rays and excess positron based on "dark/exotic matter" theories.

The lack of the correct spectrum of observed light ended his model. It ended it much worse than LUX ends the search for dark matter.

Pure nonsense. LUX *destroyed* previous claims to light WIMPS. It was *ugly*! Even the mainstream solar model took a huge hit over the past couple of years when they found out that their "predictions" related to convection were off by *two whole orders of magnitude*!

Weak solar convection &#8211; approximately 100 times slower than scientists had previously projected | Watts Up With That?

I don't need a "published rebuttal" for an idea that never caught on.

You do if you expect to have an *honest* scientific debate rather than simply handwaving at unrelated nonsense.

I don't need a published rebuttal that you can't fly by flapping your arms. You have a standard to meet before you can demand a published rebuttal. You never accomplished that. And technically I have presented "published rebuttals". It is not my fault that you do not understand the meaning of the word "published".

It is your fault that you took the low road instead of offering a peer reviewed rebuttal. Your handwavy stuff wasn't published. It's not even based on "peer reviewed work" in Clinger's case. Not a shred of it was related to Alfven's work. Who do you think your fooling anyway? You can't even cite a *specific* criticism of Alfven's work that includes the title of paper, and the page number that your criticism applies to. You're just *winging it* based on pure ignorance! Irrational behavior at it's ugliest.

 

[Michael]

That is right and good for the Standard model of physics.
But what about the predictions with numbers made by the standard astrophysical model which i have provided you an example of failed prediction when the value predicted was compared with observation.

You mean like this one?

Weak solar convection &#8211; approximately 100 times slower than scientists had previously projected | Watts Up With That?

They have a gigantic broom in their closet called "Dr. Denial". Whenever their "predictions" bite the bullet, just like those useless convection predictions, they immediately sweep the offending data under the rug, and never discuss it publicly again!

In fact, just watch Seipai ignore those convection failures.

 

[Seipai]

You mean like this one?

Weak solar convection – approximately 100 times slower than scientists had previously projected | Watts Up With That?

They have a gigantic broom in their closet called "Dr. Denial". Whenever their "predictions" bite the bullet, just like those useless convection predictions, they immediately sweep the offending data under the rug, and never discuss it publicly again!

In fact, just watch Seipai ignore those convection failures.

That is because it has nothing to do with the standard model. That is more of an actual MHD discussion and MHD has been and is used regularly for the surface of the Sun.

Michael likes to pretend that real physicists don't use MHD theory when they use it quite regularly. The problem is that they don't use it for his unobserved galactic claims.

 

[Riberra]

That is because it has nothing to do with the standard model. That is more of an actual MHD discussion and MHD has been and is used regularly for the surface of the Sun.

Michael likes to pretend that real physicists don't use MHD theory when they use it quite regularly. The problem is that they don't use it for his unobserved galactic claims.

The reason is that MHD works for dense plasma like the surface of the Sun.It is not useful for low density plasma.Alfven pointed this out to the mainstream astrophysics community but they ignored him.