Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Lambda-CDM: What good is their so called "research" program?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Michael" data-source="post: 69203268" data-attributes="member: 627"><p>Jean, I'd still like to see you address my question. What value is there in terms of "testing" your claims empirically in the lab, only to ignore every null result on the planet? We all know that the baryonic mass estimates made in that 2006 lensing study wasn't worth the paper they were printed on. </p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15850" target="_blank">http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15850</a></p><p></p><p>You folks underestimated the number of entire stars and solar systems by a whopping factor of between 3 and 20 depending on the size of the star and the type of galaxy! Holy smokes! There was the vast majority of any "missing mass". Then in 2012 the other shoe fell when we found all your "missing baryons" at million degree temperatures surrounding the entire galaxy. You never noticed it because you were looking at the wrong (low energy) wavelengths. It was never 'dark matter', in fact it shows up quite nicely in the correct wavelengths for plasma at those temperatures. </p><p></p><p>There was never any need for exotic forms of matter to explain any lensing data. Ordinary plasma will and does suffice to explain it all. The only reason you're exploring any exotic forms of matter at this point in time is because you're stuck on a denial-go-round with respect to your botched baryonic mass estimates in 2006, and because of your confirmation bias with respect to Lambda-CDM. No amount of failures in the lab seem to matter. LHC didn't matter. LUX didn't matter, PandaX didn't matter, AMDx results didn't matter. Cresst-I and Cresst-II results didn't make any difference either. Every single team on the planet is sitting in the hole in the ground looking for something that was never necessary to explain lensing data from space, and isn't part of the standard physics model in the first place.</p><p></p><p>There have been so many strike outs in the lab now, they've begun to "spin" the headlines as they see fit:</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Bright sparks haven't shed any light on anything. That's apparently a "statement of faith" in something they failed to see when the blew money their first "experiment", and failed to see again when they blew more money on the second round of experiments, but they're sure hoping to see it next time, so give us more money!</p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/02/160201103551.htm" target="_blank">http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/02/160201103551.htm</a></p><p></p><p>Oy Vey. </p><p></p><p>What's the purpose of testing the various mathematical models to see of your claims had any merit if you won't even take no for an answer even after you blow out multiple mathematical models? What's the point of even spending more money on experiments that have no value or need in terms of explaining lensing data from space?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Michael, post: 69203268, member: 627"] Jean, I'd still like to see you address my question. What value is there in terms of "testing" your claims empirically in the lab, only to ignore every null result on the planet? We all know that the baryonic mass estimates made in that 2006 lensing study wasn't worth the paper they were printed on. [URL]http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15850[/URL] You folks underestimated the number of entire stars and solar systems by a whopping factor of between 3 and 20 depending on the size of the star and the type of galaxy! Holy smokes! There was the vast majority of any "missing mass". Then in 2012 the other shoe fell when we found all your "missing baryons" at million degree temperatures surrounding the entire galaxy. You never noticed it because you were looking at the wrong (low energy) wavelengths. It was never 'dark matter', in fact it shows up quite nicely in the correct wavelengths for plasma at those temperatures. There was never any need for exotic forms of matter to explain any lensing data. Ordinary plasma will and does suffice to explain it all. The only reason you're exploring any exotic forms of matter at this point in time is because you're stuck on a denial-go-round with respect to your botched baryonic mass estimates in 2006, and because of your confirmation bias with respect to Lambda-CDM. No amount of failures in the lab seem to matter. LHC didn't matter. LUX didn't matter, PandaX didn't matter, AMDx results didn't matter. Cresst-I and Cresst-II results didn't make any difference either. Every single team on the planet is sitting in the hole in the ground looking for something that was never necessary to explain lensing data from space, and isn't part of the standard physics model in the first place. There have been so many strike outs in the lab now, they've begun to "spin" the headlines as they see fit: Bright sparks haven't shed any light on anything. That's apparently a "statement of faith" in something they failed to see when the blew money their first "experiment", and failed to see again when they blew more money on the second round of experiments, but they're sure hoping to see it next time, so give us more money! [URL]http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/02/160201103551.htm[/URL] Oy Vey. What's the purpose of testing the various mathematical models to see of your claims had any merit if you won't even take no for an answer even after you blow out multiple mathematical models? What's the point of even spending more money on experiments that have no value or need in terms of explaining lensing data from space? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Lambda-CDM: What good is their so called "research" program?
Top
Bottom