Redshift, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, etc., etc.

[Justatruthseeker]

Ya, virtual witch hunts are a bit of a drag. It's funny that their own theory wouldn't hold up to any scrutiny in that same forum. They failed so badly they had to change the rules and close all threads after 30 days! LOL!

Should of seen mine. They point me to references when I ask a question, so when they asked one I pointed to my references, but suddenly what was good for them, wasn't good enough for me.

Not one of them provided any scientific literature, even if every post of mine did. Yet I was the one making "claims".

And after about the third time I showed them in the science where their claims were wrong - suddenly the thread is closed. Gotta love em.

I'd challenge any one of them to come over here where the moderator isn't going to step in and protect them. They are just too scared to debate in an equal forum without the deck being stacked in their favor, because they know they have no real science to stand on.

I've called them on it several times - and yet none of them are here - imagine that.

What shows their pseudo-science is that one can not even question mainstream theory in the main threads. Any post that calls into question their pseudo-science is automatically moved to against the mainstream so people don't see it.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Well let's see how they've done over the past decade:

A) Their galaxy mass estimates that they erroneously used in that 2006 "dark matter" lensing study were shown to be utterly and completely worthless. They botched the stellar mass estimates by 3-20 times!
B) Their Bicep2 fiasco last year was *hysterical*. Their grandiose inflation claims turned to dust in *months*.
C) They struck out with exotic matter at LUX, LHC, PandaX, and the electron roundness "tests" of their claims.
D) Dark energy claims were falsified by a larger data set study, *and* their entire basis for their claim was also falsified since SN1A events come in *at least* two flavors, not one.
E) Planck revealed hemispheric differences that *defy* inflation theory.

In five straight ways over the past decade they falsified every single claim that the mainstream ever made about dark matter, dark energy and inflation. They've been a bit like the Keystone Cops over the past decade.

Note that your blind faith in their supernatural "dark" dieties doesn't jive well with the fact that not a single one of them can name so much as a single source of dark energy, even after a whole *decade* of online debates about it. Worse for your blind faith routine, that last study with a larger data set *refutes* their original claims about any need for dark energy to start with!

[sarcasm]Sure, they're real *dark experts* alright.[/sarcasm]

That's the Ostrich theory at work Michael. Stick their head in the sand so no opposing evidence is heard or needs to be considered.

They don't want to hear any evidence, unless it can be twisted to fit into what they already believe. Data is now judged according to the theory - instead of the theory being judged according to the data.

 

[Michael]

That's the Ostrich theory at work Michael. Stick their head in the sand so no opposing evidence is heard or needs to be considered.

They don't want to hear any evidence, unless it can be twisted to fit into what they already believe. Data is now judged according to the theory - instead of the theory being judged according to the data.

After that last paper that was based upon a larger data set of SN1A events, that effectively eliminates the need for "dark energy", one starts to wonder when the cookie is finally going to crumble. It's been a *horrific* last few years for Lambda-CDM. Their dark matter claims fell apart, both from the revelations about their flawed stellar mass estimates, and from their numerous failures in the lab. Last year they made grandiose public proclamations about inflation, only to have those ridiculous claims turn to dust in mere months, and Planck shows hemispheric differences that defy inflation's key predictions! This year we find out that "dark energy" was a myth all along, a mere "statistical anomaly" that was the bad result of using a very limited set of data, and it was based upon a premise that was later falsified. SN1A events aren't even *equal* to begin with! Talk about Nobel Prizes built upon quicksand! Wow!

I'm not sure what else even *could* go wrong for Lambda-CDM at this point. Dark matter claims bit the dust, dark energy faded to nothing, and inflation did the *impossible* by *not* creating a homogenous universe after all. Is there anything left?

It's really been an incredibly bad decade for Lambda-CDM. I'm actually daring to wonder if it's actually possible to leave the "dark ages" of astronomy behind in my lifetime after that series of SNIA revelations. Lambda-CDM has really become a supernatural falsified joke, and the laughing stock of empirical physics.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

After that last paper that was based upon a larger data set of SN1A events, that effectively eliminates the need for "dark energy", one starts to wonder when the cookie is finally going to crumble. It's been a *horrific* last few years for Lambda-CDM. Their dark matter claims fell apart, both from the revelations about their flawed stellar mass estimates, and from their numerous failures in the lab. Last year they made grandiose public proclamations about inflation, only to have those ridiculous claims turn to dust in mere months, and Planck shows hemispheric differences that defy inflation's key predictions! This year we find out that "dark energy" was a myth all along, a mere "statistical anomaly" that was the bad result of using a very limited set of data, and it was based upon a premise that was later falsified. SN1A events aren't even *equal* to begin with! Talk about Nobel Prizes built upon quicksand! Wow!

I'm not sure what else even *could* go wrong for Lambda-CDM at this point. Dark matter claims bit the dust, dark energy faded to nothing, and inflation did the *impossible* by *not* creating a homogenous universe after all. Is there anything left?

It's really been an incredibly bad decade for Lambda-CDM. I'm actually daring to wonder if it's actually possible to leave the "dark ages" of astronomy behind in my lifetime after that series of SNIA revelations. Lambda-CDM has really become a supernatural falsified joke, and the laughing stock of empirical physics.

Well let's see, in my lifetime? Maybe not total acceptance, but I give it 5 years before it all begins to fall apart. Unless they give up the Fairie Dust and accept plasma physics, there really isn't much hope for understanding anything beyond our solar system. It's not the physics that prevents them, but refusal to accept that gravitational theories only apply to the behavior of matter with equal numbers of bound electrons and protons. Matter with a low overall electrical charge per particle. Planetary systems. Until they accept that, the 2nd biggest hurdle of all, we'll have to accept all the Fairie Dust. They want gravity to dominate when it only applies to about 5% of the matter in the entire universe.

Unless they finally accept that gravity is an EM force (the biggest hurdle) and then we can finally apply electrodynamics to 100% of the universe instead of just 95% of it.

 

[[serious]]

My point was quite clear - stop treating it as a force if it is not a force. Stop talking about it as a force if it is not a force. Either it is a force or it isn't. Which is it?

I mean, we could get all lost in the weeds hashing out how it's one of the 4 fundamental forces, but not a force in the newtonian sense, but can also be used to refer to weight, which can be treated as a force proper...


But it really doesn't matter.

My point was that charge has the same relationship to energy that lift (a force proper) does. Namely, the product of it and another variable is directly proportional to energy. You keep trying to deflect attention from your original silly statement, but you keep just reminding people of the original silly statement then adding more silly statements (like that particles do not experience acceleration due to gravity) which then make you position look even sillier.

 

[Michael]

Unless they finally accept that gravity is an EM force (the biggest hurdle) and then we can finally apply electrodynamics to 100% of the universe instead of just 95% of it.

I personally think that there is a danger in trying to do 'too much, too fast' as it relates to the gravity issue. Even by the mainstream's standards, gravity is merely a 'bit player' with "dark energy" supposedly defying gravity and causing acceleration, and where 'space expansion' effectively defyies the conservation of energy laws on a moment by moment basis. Even their beloved Lambda-CDM relegates gravity to a small role in the whole process.

I agree with you that some day a theory of everything will probably tie gravity and EM fields into two facets of the same EM process. On the other hand, I'm not personally willing to commit to one specific TOE at the moment. I'm fine with treating gravity as a geometric curvature in GR, so long as they leave out all the supernatural nonsense.

In terms of changing the tide, I think the "short term" strategy has to be focused on demonstrating the superiority of empirical physics over the 'faerie dust' mythology that they teach to unsuspecting college students, and that they popularize on TV.

It does seem like such a fundamental shift will probably take more than 5 years, but maybe less than 25, and I hope to ride the wave of grace and stick around planet Earth for awhile. I'd love to see empirical physics triumph over their supernatural Frankenstein of a cosmology theory in my lifetime, but alas, the mainstream does seem to have it's head firmly buried in the supernatural sand, and no amount of failed "tests" of any of their claims seems to matter to them one iota. I haven't seen a real "victory" for the Lambda-CDM model in almost a decade. Every improvement in technology takes us one step closer to empirical physics, and one step away from their magnetic supernatural mythology. Sooner or later they will have to wake up to the electrical nature of the universe around us, the electrical currents that power the aurora, that power every aurora around every planet with an atmosphere, and which power the coronal loops in the solar atmosphere as Birkeland demonstrated over 100 years ago in the lab.

At the moment they seem frightened and afraid to move like deer caught in the headlights, and they seem hopelessly stuck in the dark ages of astronomy.

When oh when will they see the electrical light?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I mean, we could get all lost in the weeds hashing out how it's one of the 4 fundamental forces, but not a force in the newtonian sense, but can also be used to refer to weight, which can be treated as a force proper...

No, in the Newton sense it is a force - and in every aspect of it it's description it is a force - except when you want it to be bending, expanding nothing, then suddenly it's not a force at all. Wouldn't accept an aether so they bent empty space instead. Weight is a useless concept without two forces acting together. In space by oneself - one feels no weight. Weight is a two body equation and requires a two body force solution. Which is why all one body solutions lead to singularities - errors in the math.

But it really doesn't matter.

Oh yes it does - this is why there is no quantum theory of gravity - and if the Higg's pans out - then gravity is at the quantum level where only quantum electrodynamics forces have been shown to apply.

It matters quite a lot whether it is a force or magical bending nothing.

My point was that charge has the same relationship to energy that lift (a force proper) does. Namely, the product of it and another variable is directly proportional to energy.

No it's not - charge is the basic unit, it's not a product of anything but built up energy. Every subatomic particle has a rest energy which is it's base electric charge. You do understand E=mc^2, correct? There is no if about this, no maybe, no but, but.....

If you "lift (a force proper)" an object within the electric and magnetic fields - it builds kinetic energy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy

"In physics, the kinetic energy of an object is the energy that it possesses due to its motion. It is defined as the work needed to accelerate a body of a given mass from rest to its stated velocity. Having gained this energy during its acceleration, the body maintains this kinetic energy unless its speed changes...."

And releases that energy upon impact or slowing down.

"...The same amount of work is done by the body in decelerating from its current speed to a state of rest."

When an object "falls" - is accelerated in the electric and magnetic fields - it gains energy from interaction with those fields. But not magically, the energy was already there - contained within those EM fields - which all particles emit - except Fairie Dust particles of course (insert dark matter, etc., etc.)

Charge is the manifestation of energy in particles of physical matter. If there is no electric charge - there is no particle.

 

[[serious]]

Charge is the manifestation of energy in particles of physical matter. If there is no electric charge - there is no particle.

yeah? so neutrinos dont exist?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

yeah? so neutrinos dont exist?

That claim is the same as the neutron being electrically neutral. Utterly worthless. You just can't measure it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron

"The Standard Model of particle physics predicts a tiny separation of positive and negative charge within the neutron leading to a permanent electric dipole moment. The predicted value is, however, well below the current sensitivity of experiments."

So tell me why I should expect to be able to measure the electric dipole moment of the nuetrino when we can't even yet measure the neutron? Neutrinos more than likely exist and if they do, they have an electric dipole moment, just below the current sensitivity of experiments.

I'm simply asking you to accept what is believed when that same theory has met every test, unlike some which can't even pass the first one.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/supersymmetry-fails-test-forcing-physics-seek-new-idea/

 

[[serious]]

That claim is the same as the neutron being electrically neutral. Utterly worthless. You just can't measure it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron

"The Standard Model of particle physics predicts a tiny separation of positive and negative charge within the neutron leading to a permanent electric dipole moment. The predicted value is, however, well below the current sensitivity of experiments."

So tell me why I should expect to be able to measure the electric dipole moment of the nuetrino when we can't even yet measure the neutron? Neutrinos more than likely exist and if they do, they have an electric dipole moment, just below the current sensitivity of experiments.

I'm simply asking you to accept what is believed when that same theory has met every test, unlike some which can't even pass the first one.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/supersymmetry-fails-test-forcing-physics-seek-new-idea/

I really shouldn't have to say this, but Neutrino != Neutron

Let's recap:
1. The electronvolt is not a unit of charge
2. Particles are subject to gravity
3. Neutrons are not neutrinos

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I really shouldn't have to say this, but Neutrino != Neutron

Let's recap:
1. The electronvolt is not a unit of charge

Nope, it's just the unit charge is made up of is all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronvolt
"In physics, the electronvolt (symbol eV; also written electron volt) is a unit of energy equal to approximately 160 zeptojoules (symbol zJ) or 1.6×10−19 joules (symbol J)....

By mass–energy equivalence, the electronvolt is also a unit of mass."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_charge
"Electric charge is the physical property of matter that causes it to experience a force when placed in an electromagnetic field....and in chemistry it is common to use the elementary charge (e) as a unit."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_charge
"The elementary charge, usually denoted as e or sometimes q, is the electric charge carried by a single proton, or equivalently, the negation (opposite) of the electric charge carried by a single electron."

Don't try to tell people what you clearly do not understand.

2. Particles are subject to gravity

Particles with a low charge are subject to gravity.

Oil Drop Experiments.

3. Neutrons are not neutrinos

No they are not - and are as neutral as the neutron is - which since it has a predicted electric dipole moment, is despite your calling it neutral, not neutral in any sense of the word. You may say the neutron has "balanced" positive and negative charge and reacts equally to all other nearby charges, no matter how slight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino
"The neutrino has half-integer spin (ħ⁄2) and is therefore a fermion. Neutrinos interact primarily through the weak force."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroweak_interaction
"In particle physics, the electroweak interaction is the unified description of two of the four known fundamental interactions of nature: electromagnetism and the weak interaction."

So yes, let's recap.

1. The electronvolt is the fundamental unit of charge itself.
2. Gravity only affects particles with equal positive and negative charge. Hence I need not place my coffee pot below the outlet for that charge to flow "downhill." And oil drops with excess negative charge could care less about gravity.
3. Did you think they were? Did you think my pointing out the limits of our technology in measuring those small quantities was equating sameness?

 

[[serious]]

e != eV

if you actually read the stuff you link to, you would know what that v means and how it relates to the equations i posted earlier.

just because they sound kinda similar to you doesn't mean they are the same thing.

 

[[serious]]

oh, and if according to you all particles have a charge/dipole moment, and things with a charge/dipole moment arent affected by gravity, why arent i floating right now?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

oh, and if according to you all particles have a charge/dipole moment, and things with a charge/dipole moment arent affected by gravity, why arent i floating right now?

Because you didn't actually read a word I said, but only what you wanted to hear.

2. Gravity only affects particles with equal positive and negative charge. Hence I need not place my coffee pot below the outlet for that charge to flow "downhill." And oil drops with excess negative charge could care less about gravity.

Are you composed of particles that are not bound together in equal numbers of positive and negative charges? You know: solids, liquids and gasses.

You aren't floating because you don't have a high charge in relation to the earth. But let's zap you with the same amount of charge per electron those oil mist drops received and see what happens. For every electron in your body. Then come tell me if you floated.

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16463.short

Or just increase the earth's voltage in a given area, and it'll work through the electromagnetic fields without increasing the charge of the electrons.

http://www.instructables.com/id/Electromagnetic-Floater/

Someday maybe it will click for you.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Hey Michael, another one for everyone to ignore.

http://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/press/...e-findings-set-to-rewrite-scientific-theories

“However, how this acceleration process actually works is very hard to study on Earth in laboratories, or using computer simulations.

Not really. Just if you expect 95% of the universe to behave like the state of matter it isn't. And refuse to use anything but gravitational theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_accelerator

http://www.plasma-universe.com/Galaxy_formation

 

[Michael]

Hey Michael, another one for everyone to ignore.

http://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/press/...e-findings-set-to-rewrite-scientific-theories

“However, how this acceleration process actually works is very hard to study on Earth in laboratories, or using computer simulations.

Not really. Just if you expect 95% of the universe to behave like the state of matter it isn't. And refuse to use anything but gravitational theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_accelerator

http://www.plasma-universe.com/Galaxy_formation

I think it's amazing that their models do not predict the presence of polarized light. They really don't understand plasma physics very well.

I'd also caution you in terms of not going too far in the opposite direction with respect to gravity. While the mainstream tends to use gravity like a sledge hammer, and they tend to see everything through the rose colored glasses of gravity, the EU/PC community tends to attempt to do away with gravity entirely, or they immediately try to explain gravity as an EM field effect. In the end that may proven to be true of course, but it's not necessarily helpful to take things to the opposite extreme IMO. I think it's fine to use GR and gravity to explain the things that gravity explains best, namely the orbits of planets in a solar system, and it's influence on galaxy rotation patterns, and galaxy cluster formations. I don't think gravity explains solar flares or aurora, or other very "electrically driven" processes even inside our solar system, but it does serve a purpose in astronomy. Whether we agree on a theory or everything, I think you'd agree that we all experience gravity. Likewise we all know that electricity exists on planet Earth. How those two things apply to other bodies in space remains under debate, but both gravity and EM fields show up in experiments on Earth. Whatever gravity might be, it's effect on me while sitting in this chair is pretty undeniable.

 

[[serious]]

Because you didn't actually read a word I said, but only what you wanted to hear.

2. Gravity only affects particles with equal positive and negative charge. Hence I need not place my coffee pot below the outlet for that charge to flow "downhill." And oil drops with excess negative charge could care less about gravity.

Are you composed of particles that are not bound together in equal numbers of positive and negative charges? You know: solids, liquids and gasses.

You aren't floating because you don't have a high charge in relation to the earth. But let's zap you with the same amount of charge per electron those oil mist drops received and see what happens. For every electron in your body. Then come tell me if you floated.

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16463.short

Or just increase the earth's voltage in a given area, and it'll work through the electromagnetic fields without increasing the charge of the electrons.

http://www.instructables.com/id/Electromagnetic-Floater/

Someday maybe it will click for you.

ah, so what you got from the oil drop experiment is electric charge is a form of antigravity. you sure you didn't get something about the quantum nature of charge? I'll give you a mulligan on this one if you want

 

[TheBarrd]

The thing to remember about science is that nothing is written in stone. What is science "fact" today may change tomorrow...depending on what new data may be discovered.

 

[Michael]

ah, so what you got from the oil drop experiment is electric charge is a form of antigravity. you sure you didn't get something about the quantum nature of charge? I'll give you a mulligan on this one if you want

For what it's worth, as it relates to treating gravity as a geometric curvature, I personally think that he should have taken you up on your generous offer. I'd offer you the same Mulligan terms on the whole Lambda-CDM idea too at this point if you'd just agree to embrace empirical physics.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No, within each of the two supernovae groups, redshift still works. And you can tell the two groups apart.

And that's the exact same line of bull they told us when they were all the exact same type - and redshift worked. Lol.

So now we find they are not the same type - that redshift varies between the two groups, but in the assumption of redshift we'll claim the two groups just happen to magically be sorted at different distances. Maybe like electromagnetism does????

No, of course not. It would be foolish to consider electromagnetic forces in a universe where electromagnetic forces enable us to detect everything.