Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
So sorry your hope in exotic matter theory got dashed yet again.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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. 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.
Can you provide some examples of predictions -with numbers- made by the standard model which were later confirmed by observations.
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 .
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*!
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.
