Lambda-CDM - Pure Confirmation Bias Run Amuck

[Michael]

This pretense about understanding the physics "better than" the original author continues with the work of Hannes Alfven. Three decades ago, the Nobel Prize winning author of MHD theory stood before a room full of plasma physicists and he gave a keynote speech. In that speech he called the concept of 'magnetic reconnection' a form of 'pseudoscience', a total of seven different times. To support his case, he presented his double layer paper, which was later published and peer reviewed, which did away with any need whatsoever for 'magnetic reconnection' to explain the particle collision processes that take place inside of any double layer, and all current carrying plasma. All of the transactions inside of the plasma layer can be explained with ordinary kinetic energy collisions, and particle flow patterns in current carrying plasma.

To this very day however, the mainstream continues to peddle their form of magnetic reconnection "pseudoscience' as the only possible way to explain high energy plasma events in *very light* plasma no less, in *spite* of the fact that ordinary electrical processes explain these same phenomenon in many labs on Earth. Naturally occurring lightning strikes in the Earth's atmosphere emit the same types of high energy photons as we observe in the atmosphere of the sun. Alfven and Birkeland used circuit theory and a solar generator to "explain" these events. Birkeland did it in a lab, and with math. Alfven did it with a lot more published and peer reviewed math.

The mainstream *shuns* the concept of circuit theory as it applies to high energy plasma events in space. They go *far* out of their way into the realm of "pseudoscience' to try to make their case, in spite of the fact that all of their 'lab experiments' begin and end with electricity, yet they call some of the transactions "magnetic reconnection". What they fail to note is that without the E field that drives those 'experiments' to begin with, most of them would be an instant fail, and the rest would simply never get started in the first place.

A *lot* of Alfven's work is published and peer reviewed material, and it explains the events in space quite nicely without all the supernatural melodrama.

If the mainstream did not listen to a published paper by a Nobel Prize winning physicist with respect to an area of his *direct expertise*, and for a whole century they have ignored the working models of Kristian Birkeland, what makes you think they'll give a darn about the esoteric opinions of some random programmer from Mt. Shasta California?

 

[Michael]

Here's the logical flaw in your position on this topic as it relates to the fourth supernatural construct of LCDM, specifically CDM:

All of the so called 'evidence' related to 'cold dark matter' is also directly related to the amount of 'ordinary mass' that we actually know about at the moment of the study.

For instance, in 2006, they used a "brightness" component, combined with a 'guestimation' process related to the number of large stars we can see, vs. small stars we cannot, and they "guestimated" the amount of ordinary baryonic matter that they "knew about" in 2006. Whatever extra mass that they needed to explain the lensing patterns they observed in the galaxy cluster collision process they called "dark matter".

In 2008 however, the first "flaw" in the baryonic mass calculation methodology of the 2006 paper was revealed. The dust and plasma between galaxies "scatters" and absorbs more light than originally believed. It turns out that half of the light that is emitted by various galaxies is lost and scattered and never reaches Earth. The various galaxies are actually twice as bright as first "believed" in 2006. So much for the validity of the brightness component of the baryonic mass calculations that were used in the 2006 paper on "dark matter".

The following few years we discovered that they've been *grossly* underestimating the number of smaller stars we cannot observe directly in distant galaxies, compared to the larger ones that emit enough light to reach Earth. They botched the stellar mass estimates of various galaxies and stars by a whopping factor of between 3 and 20 times, depending on the size of the star and the type of galaxy. It wasn't a "small" miscalculation, it was a *deal breaker* with respect to baryonic matter that was present in those various galaxies seen in that 2006 lensing study.

In 2012 all their "missing baryons" were found in the form of a million degree plasma cloud that surrounds every galaxy.

The final nail in the coffin came in 2014 when they found out that they've been significantly underestimating the number of stars *shared* between galaxies in a cluster, including colliding clusters as were studied in 2006.

When you look at all the published evidence, it all came from *mainstream* sources. I didn't write any of it, discover any of it, nor did I personally publish any of that material. The mainstream did it themselves, and you can read all about it anytime that you're interested in peer reviewed materials on this topic.

Now in terms of 'laboratory predictions' over the past decade, 'cold dark matter' has been an absolute disaster. The cold dark matter maths have been biting the dust right and left. The mythical maths are like a dime a dozen, and they've failed more times in the lab than I can count. Every single 'prediction' they have made about finding WIMPS or any other form of 'dark matter' have gone completely up in smoke at various experiments around the world over the past decade. It's been one disaster after another in terms of the 'predictive usefulness" of "cold dark matter" theory. In terms of predicting the outcome of actual lab experiments, it's been an utterly worthless theory.

What exactly does it take to "falsify" a claim about supernatural constructs anyway?

 

[RealityCheck01]

It's not an "unsupported" assertion since I cited *numerous* examples that related to dark matter claims, dark energy claims, and inflation claims. ...

I do not depute that you have *numerous* examples that related to dark matter claims, dark energy claims, and inflation claims. It is your fantasies about the science and its implications that are obvious to anyone who can read.
6 November 2014 Michael: Fantasies about visible matter observations and dark matter need evidence
After over 2 years of repetition these fantasies and the addition of lies in this thread makes these delusions: Dark matter: Observational evidence lists 9 lines of evidence which makes the evidence strong - like a rope is strong because of its many strands!
A later post contains the lie "There never was an evidence that dark matter exists". The evidence that dark matter exists was first collected in 1933 but at the time still could be visible matter!

In 1933, Swiss astrophysicist Fritz Zwicky, who studied galactic clusters while working at the California Institute of Technology, made a similar inference.[23][24][25] Zwicky applied the virial theorem to the Coma galaxy cluster and obtained evidence of unseen mass that he called dunkle Materie 'dark matter'. Zwicky estimated its mass based on the motions of galaxies near its edge and compared that to an estimate based on its brightness and number of galaxies. He estimated that the cluster had about 400 times more mass than was visually observable.

7 June 2016 Michael: Delusions about papers unrelated to dark matter and a lie about dark matter !

This is the paper Michael is obsessed with (ignoring other similar observations and even one that is a challenge to the nature of dark matter!):
A direct empirical proof of the existence of dark matter by Clowe et. al. (2006) which has had 963 citations. Unfortunate title that allows cranks to ignorantly whine about the word "proof" without trying to understand its contents.

These news reports do not menton dark matter or any impact on Clowe et.al. This may be because science reporters tend to have a brain cell or two about science.

1. Universe shines twice as bright (2008)
   That galaxies have visible light blocked by dust is well known by astronomers.
   That is why Clowe et.al. ignore visible light in their estimation of galaxy mass ! They use near infrared light (I-band) which is where the light absorbed by the dust ends up.
   

   Stellar masses are calculated from the I-band luminosity of all galaxies equal in brightness or fainter than the component BCG. The luminosities were converted into mass assuming (Kauffmann et al. 2003) M/LI = 2.

2. Galaxies Demand a Stellar Recount (2009)
   Clowe et all did not count stars to estimate the mass of galaxies.
3. Scientists Find 200 Sextillion More Stars in the Sky (2010)
   Clowe et all did not count stars to estimate the mass of galaxies.
4. Milky Way is Surrounded by Huge Halo of Hot Gas (2012)
   A halo of gas outside of the Milky Way does not add to the mass of the Milky way!
5. A Universe of Stars May Exist Outside Galaxies (2014)
   Stars outside of galaxies do not add to the mass of galaxies!

 

[RealityCheck01]

Apparently ....

Apparently fact less and ignorant posts are all you can write, Michael.
Dark matter: Observational evidence lists 9 lines of evidence which makes the evidence strong - like a rope is strong because of its many strands!
7 June 2016 Michael: Delusions about papers unrelated to dark matter and a lie about evidence for dark matter !

 

[RealityCheck01]

Maybe you should try actually dealing with the scientific problems in your claims for a change.

I know about the minor issues that do exist with the Lambda-CDM model and they are not:
7 June 2016 Michael: Delusions about papers unrelated to dark matter and a lie about evidence for dark matter !

 

[RealityCheck01]

The "ridiculous" and "grandiose" problems

The "ridiculous" and "grandiose" problems with your post start with the delusion that people had crystal balls at a the BICEP2 press conference to see that the paper was wrong and goes down hill from there !
The BICEP2 pre-print was announced and released in March 2016 in order to get peer review by every cosmologist in the world. The result was that a number of people pointed out problems in the original preprint which was updated. Then the Planck measurements (not peer review) showed that emission from dust was of the same order as the signal and could be attributed to the dust. The BICEP2 + Keck + Plank data combined set a limit on the scalar-to-tensor ratio of r < 0.12.

Ignorance of just "polarized photons" dies not overturn the real universe where gravitation waves in the early universe will polarize light in a specific and known way (B-modes). See Cosmic Microwave Background: What are B-modes? (written when BICEP2 was still valid).

The ignorance that empirical evidence is mathematics ! There is empirical evidence for inflation in your citation: Inflation: Observational status. Inflation also matches what we observe about the universe: Inflation: Motivations

You go on about the BICEP2 results not being peer reviewed and then cite Penrose's not peer reviewed opinion !

Except it is a lie that Planck data shows that the matter in the universe is not homogenous at large scales. That is determined by looking at matter e.g. galaxies. That the CMB (which is light) is not homogenous has been knonw since WMAP.

Arthur Eddington (28 December 1882 – 22 November 1944) died decades before the discovery of the CMB.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Why bother? I handed you at least a dozen peer reviewed papers to support my statements and I'll bet you didn't read even one of them.

That is a half-lie, Michael: You presented news reports and then stated fantasies that are now delusions after 2.5 years about the science the news reports contained.
7 June 2016 Michael: Delusions about papers unrelated to dark matter and a lie about evidence for dark matter !

 

[RealityCheck01]

Just as your dark matter claims

7 June 2016 Michael: Delusions about papers unrelated to dark matter and a lie about evidence for dark matter !
I may need the same thing for delusions about news reports on dark energy !
But here is what you are still not understanding:

Maybe you should read what you link to, Michael?
Dark energy has several lines of evidence as stated in your link with different "bases": Dark Energy: Evidence of existence
One line of evidence was the 1998 discovery was that the expansion of the universe was accelerating through as you note SN1A events.
There have been discoveries that improve the usage of SN1A as standard candles. Nothing in the news articles or press releases states that dark energy does not exist.
Cosmology Standard Candle not so Standard After All (2011) is about Cepheids, not SN1A!
Accelerating universe? Not so fast (2015)
Experiment attempts to snare a dark energy 'chameleon' (2015) was trying to detect one kind of hypothetical dark energy particle.

Nothing you have cited says dark energy does not exist.

 

[RealityCheck01]

In terms of photon redshift, Hubble himself came to believe that the photons lost momentum to the plasma medium on their way to Earth, and he embraced a static universe theory. This is backed up in the lab with evidence of numerous types of 'inelastic scattering' that can and do have a tangible effect on photons as they pass through the temperature and EM field gradients and the dust and plasmas of spacetime. It's not even as though there is only one type of inelastic scattering options to choose from, there are actually several, and several combo options to explore too.

An argument from authority with what looks like a lie until you produce evidence about Edwin Hubble supporting a tired light theory. He did not like the interpretation of increasing redshift with distance being an expanding universe. I suspect he supported just a Doppler redshift, i.e. galaxies rushing away from us as in a physical explosion

A delusion about easily debunked tired light theories.

The repeated ignorance that any redshift could be "inelastic scattering" raises it ugly head again from several years ago. Inelastic scattering has frequency dependencies that shift light a different amount for different frequencies. Compton scattering for example redshifts some light while blue shifting other light as you already know ! That is not we observe in the real universe.
Do you really want to resurrect that dead horse and have it added to my signature, Michael?

 

[Michael]

I do not depute that you have *numerous* examples that related to dark matter claims, dark energy claims, and inflation claims.

You don't really have much else you could say RC.

It is your fantasies

Is it even possible for you to *not* cheat at debate even once? Do you even know how a real science debate is supposed to work? You're supposed to *produce references* that support your claims RC, not cite yourself over an over and over again. You're supposed to discuss the *topic* not focus on personal attacks. The only "fantasy" going on here is your fantasy that you can simply cite your own clueless unpublished rants as a scientific reference!

about the science and its implications that are obvious to anyone who can read.

Anyone who can read those links can tell that your baryonic mass estimates in 2006 were utterly atrocious and they weren't worth the paper they were printed on in 2006. Furthermore they can read for themselves and see that your theories are *useless* at "predicting" anything useful in the lab.

Fantasies about visible matter observations and dark matter need evidence

The real "fantasy" is your "fantasy" about having any actual "evidence" to support "dark matter". All you ever had was evidence that your baryonic mass estimates were worthless in 2006, and your dark matter failures in the lab demonstrate that point quite nicely.

After over 2 years of repetition these fantasies and the addition of lies in this thread makes these delusions:

Gee, three loaded terms in a single sentence. Must you cheat in every single post RC? Do you even know how to debate any topic openly and fairly and without all the personal attack nonsense? Your decade's worth of lies and fantasies about "dark matter" are the only lies and fantasies RC.

There has never been any evidence at all that any forms of exotic matter were necessary to explain any of the "missing mass" observations from 1933 on. We've *never* known the real mass of a galaxy, not even our own galaxy, let alone distant galaxies. We're constantly finding satellite galaxies around our own galaxy, and we just found more baryonic mass around this galaxy in 2012 in the form of million degree plasma than all the mass found prior to 2012. You also botched the stellar mass estimates of that 2006 lensing study by a whopping factor of between 3 and 20! What a joke.

Dark matter: Observational evidence lists 9 lines of evidence which makes the evidence strong - like a rope is strong because of its many strands!

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but all those "lines" of evidence have been utterly destroyed by the events of the past decade, including claims about SN1A events, and Lyman-Alfa forest:

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/8...-could-change-theories-about-the-universe.htm

Ellis added that what makes the new discovery surprising is that the researchers were able to detect a Lyman-alpha line in a faint galaxy at an 8.68 redshift. He said that this corresponds to a period when the early universe should be filled with clouds capable of absorbing hydrogen.

According to LCDM theory, those Lyman-Alpha lines should not even be visible at all at that distance! Another epic *fail* of a "prediction" for LCDM theory.

Every single line of "evidence" has been a complete *disaster* including that Lyman-Alpha "prediction" that fell flat on it's face last year.

Most of your last post simply wasn't worth responding to, but a few points warrant setting the record straight....

A later post contains the lie "There never was an evidence that dark matter exists". The evidence that dark matter exists was first collected in 1933 but at the time still could be visible matter!

FYI, that's the Achilles heal of your claim and it always will be the Achilles heal of your claim. Any type of ordinary matter can and would explain galaxy rotation patterns and/or lensing data. Nothing "exotic" is necessary to explain any of those observations.

Clowe et all did not count stars to estimate the mass of galaxies.

Clowe "guestimated" the mass of galaxies based on a brightness formula that has since been shown to be *worthless*. He *estimated* the number of stars, and he *underestimated* them by a wide margin, specifically by a factor of between 3 and 20.

A halo of gas outside of the Milky Way does not add to the mass of the Milky way!

Baloney it does not add to the mass! It added more mass than they'd ever found!

Stars outside of galaxies do not add to the mass of galaxies!

They do however add to the total mass of the *galaxy clusters* that were studied in 2006 RC. They even blew the amount of mass *shared* by galaxies in galaxy clusters, just like the clusters that were studied in 2006. In short, they blew *every possible* aspect of their mass estimation process in 2006!

 

[Michael]

I know about the minor issues that do exist with the Lambda-CDM model and they are not:
7 June 2016 Michael: Delusions about papers unrelated to dark matter and a lie about evidence for dark matter !

What is it with you and citing yourself over and over and over again RC?

Do you have even the first clue how a real scientific debate is supposed to work? It involves supporting your claims with *published and peer reviewed* materials RC. It doesn't mean you stuff in the term "deluded" into your post as many times as possible and cite yourself ad-nasium.

 

[Michael]

That is a half-lie, Michael:

You have consistently cheated in debate since day one. You're the only one telling lies, starting with that *whopper* of a lie about "actual electrical discharges are impossible" in plasma, as demonstrated by the fact that you are *Incapable* of citing an external reference to support that lie, and the fact you refuse to retract that lie. You have no right to lecture anyone about lying RC. You're the king of lying during debate, including that lie you told in the other thread about Birkeland not discussing the solar corona. You lie and you lie often in debate RC, and then you simply *project* your own sins on others.

You presented news reports

They all reference published papers RC. Didn't you notice that point?

and then stated fantasies that are now delusions

The fantasy was the claim about having "proof" of dark matter. The term "proof" isn't even really a scientific term and it should never have passed the peer review process in 2006. We now have *proof* that your mass estimation techniques were *flawed to the point of absurdity* in 2006. Your baryonic mass estimates in 2006 were fantasies and delusions.

Gee your use of language included the terms lies, delusions and fantasies. Who would have guessed that you had such a strong emotional need to use those same terms in every single post. Every single post is just another example of how badly you cheat at debate and how pitifully incapable you are of citing any reference outside of yourself.

 

[Michael]

7 June 2016

[URL='http://www.christianforums.com/thre...n-amuck.7949365/page-2#post-69714441'[/quote]

Apparently, since you site yourself in virtually every single post, we're just supposed to "assume" that even without any external references to support your statements, you alone are the sole decider of what is true and what is false. Published and peer reviewed materials do not matter to you, just yourself!

Michael: Delusions about papers unrelated to dark matter and a lie

Delusions, lie, personal attack, personal attack, personal attack. Your one big personal attack on a stick RC.

Nothing you have cited says dark energy does not exist.

The part you keep ignoring however is this: Nothing that you have cited *guarantees* that "dark energy" does exist! Your supernatural pantheon of invisible sky entities are more impotent on Earth than an average "supernatural" concept of God. At least God is reported to have a real effect on real humans on Earth, whereas your "dark energy" sky deity and your dark matter sky deity are a complete dud in the lab and in space. Worse yet you need *four* supernatural constructs to get the math right, and it *still* doesn't work right!

 

[Michael]

An argument from authority with what looks like a lie until you produce evidence about Edwin Hubble supporting a tired light theory.

http://www.science20.com/eternal_bl...d_not_believe_big_bang_associated_press-85962
https://ladailymirror.com/2011/12/31/hubble-no-evidence-of-big-bang-theory/

The only one telling lies again here is you RC (as usual). Hubble rejected expanding space interpretations of the photon redshift phenomenon in favor of a "tired light" explanation of that very same phenomenon.

 

[RealityCheck01]

http://www.science20.com/eternal_bl...d_not_believe_big_bang_associated_press-85962
https://ladailymirror.com/2011/12/31/hubble-no-evidence-of-big-bang-theory/

Usual insult followed by usual inability to understand what you read, Michael !
This is bloggers stating that Hubble did not believe in (a Big Bang) which I already know. What we have is a Dec. 31, 1941 AP release

Astronomer Edwin P. Hubble says that after a six-year study, evidence does not support what we now call the Big Bang theory, according to the Associated Press. “The universe probably is not exploding but is a quiet, peaceful place and possibly just about infinite in size.”

No tired light theory there.
A blogger links to a 1981 paper about a tired light theory shown to be wrong in the one and only citation of the paper.

 

[Michael]

Usual insult

You personally have no right to whine about insults. You're the undisputed king of personal insults RC. Every single one of your post typically contains *multiple* personal insults. Grow up already.

followed by usual inability to understand what you read,

I understood Dungey perfectly when he used the term "electrical discharge" with respect to solar flares RC. You apparently do not understand what you read which is why you cannot and will never provide us with any reference that ever claimed that "actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma". You made that up in your head, you didn't read it anywhere. You read Dungey's work and you got it wrong. You even ignored Bruce's work entirely.

This is bloggers stating that Hubble did not believe in (a Big Bang) which I already know. What we have is a Dec. 31, 1941 AP release

No tired light theory there.

Oh for crying out loud RC, his papers are available for you to read anytime you wish. Whether or not you believe that Hubble was right or wrong is utterly irrelevant to my point. The fact of the matter is that Hubble himself *rejected* the big bang concept, and he embrace a static universe theory. He preferred a tired light "explanation" of the photon redshift phenomenon.

Tired light/static universe theory is supported by many studies RC, including this one from 2014:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637X/781/2/96/meta

 

[Michael]

RC,

1. Where is your *external* reference to support your erroneous claim that "actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma" RC? Don't give me another link to yourself spewing nonsense. Put up a real published reference or retract your erroneous claim.

2. Since your own published reference (Priest) called your understanding of "magnetic reconnection" a "toy" and Priest claimed the "real' process involves plasma and plasma movement, and Somov's example *included* the transfer of magnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy just like the WIKI definition, where is your *real* published (not Clinger) reference to support your claim that plasma acceleration is irrelevant to the process that is called 'magnetic reconnection'? Don't site Somov again RC. We both know that his diagram *included* plasma, and plasma particle displacement. Don't cite Clinger either since his website isn't published and he admitted that he's never even bothered to read an actual textbook on MHD theory.

 

[RealityCheck01]

The example in

RC,...

Read my signature, Michael. Try to learn English - a vacuum is not plasma. Do not repeatedly post an image that states that your claim of plasma in the image is a lie (no plasma labeled in the image!).

Actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma, etc.
This is simply that electrical discharges that result from the breakdown of a insulating medium are impossible in plasma because plasma conducts!

You are the one who confirms that I am correct with deafening silence for almost 6 years:
7th December 2010: Where are Peratt's many pages of the physics and mathematics of electrical discharges?
11th October 2011: Peratt's definition of electrical discharge has no discharges in plasma example.
5th February 2011: Why does Peratt's page talk about aurora and lightning? (discharges in air - a dielectric medium that breaks down!)
26th September 2011: Where is the discussion of 'electrical discharges in plasma' in any textbook?

 

[Michael]

For anyone who's interested in Hubble's actual views on this topic, this PDF is pretty well written and it represent his options correctly and cites appropriate published references (those pesky papers that RC can never produce).

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0806.4481

 

[Michael]

The example in
Read my signature, Michael. Try to learn English - a vacuum is not plasma.

It's you that need to learn English RC:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_reconnection

Magnetic reconnection is a physical process in highly conducting plasmas in which the magnetic topology is rearranged and magnetic energy is converted to kinetic energy, thermal energy, and particle acceleration.

What do you find complicated about that explanation RC?

Somov's so called "vacuum" was A) inclusive of plasma in those x points you keep ignoring, and B) included the transfer of magnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy as demonstrated by the *movement* of those x points as a result of "reconnection".

Do not repeatedly post an image that states that your claim of plasma in the image is a lie (no plasma labeled in the image!).

The only lie is you pretending it doesn't include those plasma currents marked with an "x", and the movement of those plasma currents. You're only lying to yourself RC because everyone else can see those x points and they can see that they moved!

Actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma, etc.
This is simply that electrical discharges that result from the breakdown of a insulating medium are impossible in plasma because plasma conducts!

No matter how many times you repeat that same lie, it won't change the fact that you cannot and will not ever produce any published reference that supports your claim. Watch RC run yet again from that simple request.....

Run RC run.

You are the one who confirms that I am correct with deafening silence for almost 6 years:

The only one with deafening silence is you and your complete lack of any external reference that ever claimed that "actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma". You lied six year ago when you first made that erroneous claim, and you lied again about it today. We can all tell that you lied RC because you utterly refuse to support your erroneous claim with any published reference that actually agrees with you. Everyone can watch you run from that request RC.

Peratt's *definition* of electrical discharges in plasma is another perfect example of your inability to read English. By *definition* it's *possible* for electrical discharges to occur in plasma according to Peratt. Nowhere in that definition from his book did he *require* a breakdown of a dielectric. You read that *requirement* in there all on your own, just like you kludged Dungey's work, just like you handwaved at Bruce's papers, and just like you ignored Birkeland's explanation of the corona and it's relationship to electrical energy.

You are simply incapable of telling the truth or admitting your mistakes.