Cosmos - Neil deGrasse Tyson

[Michael]

Michael,

An 8-sigma detection is impressive. Anyone but the most pedantic literalist would consider 8-sigmas good enough to use the word proof.

You simply missed the entire point I'm afraid. The only way you can pick out a random number like 8 sigma out of thin air is to *assume* that your galaxy mass estimates are *flawless*, and you've found every ounce of ordinary matter in a given galaxy.

If you think that the study assumes that "stellar mass estimation techniques are *perfect* and *flawless* in every possible way", then you simply don't have the faintest idea of what you are talking about. Sorry to be blunt. But I want to make my position clear.

I'll be equally blunt: Yes I do know what I'm talking about. How in the *world* did you figure they accounted for the ordinary mass that they believed to be present in that 2006 lensing study?

I see no need to reply to the rest of your post.

To everyone else: If you are curious and want to read more about this, look up "Bullet cluster" on Wikipedia.

Wow! Talk about pure denial. I handed you three later studies (after 2006) which demonstrated that they utterly blew chucks at guestimating the amount of mass in the galaxy infrastructures. They didn't just miss it by a "little bit", they missed it by somewhere between 3 and 20 times depending on the size of the star and the type of galaxy! That's a *huge* underestimation of the amount of *bayronic* matter in the stellar infrastructure and that's *in addition to* all the plasma they found around our galaxy in 2012.

http://io9.com/5946052/milky-way-galaxy-is-dwarfed-by-its-massive-hot-gas-halo

You see no need to reply to those later studies that falsified your galaxy mass estimation techniques because you can't handle it. Who do you think you're kidding?

 

[Michael]

The acceleration of the universe would be falsified by radial velocity data indicating the contrary. This is precisely the data that falsified the previous idea of a non-accelerating universe.

Not only isn't it "accelerating", it's probably not even expanding:

[astro-ph/0509611] Evidence for a Non-Expanding Universe: Surface Brightness Data From HUDF

 

[Michael]

Michael,

An 8-sigma detection is impressive. Anyone but the most pedantic literalist would consider 8-sigmas good enough to use the word proof.

FYI, the 8 sigma number relates to this specific line:

An 8-sigma significance spatial offset of the center of the total mass from the center of the baryonic mass peaks cannot be explained with an alteration of the gravitational force law, and thus proves that the majority of the matter in the system is unseen.

I showed you why all that stellar matter was "unseen/unknown" in 2006 too, with three later studies in 2008,2009 and 2010. They didn't find "proof of dark matter". They found "proof that their stellar mass estimates stunk to high heaven", with 8 sigma confidence.

You're also not acknowledging a key issue related to claims about "dark matter", specifically that the mainstream has been *consistently* (since 2006) claiming that all that 'missing mass' (now found) was *necessarily* in some *non baryonic* form!

Dark Energy, Dark Matter - NASA Science

We are much more certain what dark matter is not than we are what it is. First, it is dark, meaning that it is not in the form of stars and planets that we see. Observations show that there is far too little visible matter in the Universe to make up the 27% required by the observations. Second, it is not in the form of dark clouds of normal matter, matter made up of particles called baryons. We know this because we would be able to detect baryonic clouds by their absorption of radiation passing through them. Third, dark matter is not antimatter, because we do not see the unique gamma rays that are produced when antimatter annihilates with matter.

You told me they were 'humble', yet they made claims about the nature and makeup of dark matter that cannot be justified by the evidence. They didn't know what that "dark matter" was made of or wasn't made of. They didn't know it wasn't in baryonic form either. They certainly didn't know that it didn't emit gamma rays either because they are constantly pointing at gamma rays from space and claiming that their exotic form of 'dark matter" did it! They didn't even find all that baryonic matter in the form of million degree plasma around our galaxy until 2012.

 

[Lollerskates]

Michael give it up. Scientists are lauded as the "Cardinals and bishops" of the institution of science. They have plenty of "clergy" that will fight tooth and nail to defend these "bishops." You as a perceived layperson despite your knowledge of physics. You go against the Standard Model; dont you recognize the hackneyed arguments of the "foot soldiers" of the institution of science?

I know you do, you just try more than I would.

 

[Michael]

Michael give it up. Scientists are lauded as the "Cardinals and bishops" of the institution of science. They have plenty of "clergy" that will fight tooth and nail to defend these "bishops." You as a perceived layperson despite your knowledge of physics. You go against the Standard Model; dont you recognize the hackneyed arguments of the "foot soldiers" of the institution of science?

I know you do, you just try more than I would.

I'm afraid that giving up just isn't in my nature, they'll just have to get used to me. Besides, physics (and time) are on my side.

 

[dysert]

I'm afraid that giving up just isn't in my nature, they'll just have to get used to me. Besides, physics (and time) are on my side.

No - don't give it up. The discussions help us non-scientific types learn how to separate the wheat from the chaff.

 

[Lollerskates]

I'm afraid that giving up just isn't in my nature, they'll just have to get used to me. Besides, physics (and time) are on my side.

You are a better man than me. In a few hours, I will have to deal with much more learned, albeit equally as dismissive people in academia as ones I have encountered on these forums. And, they really have no idea how corrupt academia is, or they are ignorant of it. MS-13 has nothing on academia.

 

[dcarrera]

Michael,

Repeating your assertions a lot will not make them true. I do not have the time to educate someone who does not accept corrections.

Incidentally, the amount of baryonic matter in the universe can be computed directly from the He/H ratio and Big Bang nucleosynthesis. The missing baryons problem is well known, and it has nothing to do with dark matter. You are looking at stuff that is either irrelevant, or related to missing baryons, and thinking that it proves something about dark matter.

The acceleration of the universe can be independently determined from at least three unrelated methods (RV data, BAOs and CMB), all peer-reviewed and massively-duplicated by different teams, different agencies, and different instruments built by different companies. You don't trump that with a cherry-picked single-author paper by a non-scientist uploaded to a site with no peer review.

To everyone: Look up "Eric Lerner" on Wikipedia for more information on the author.

You told me they were 'humble', yet they made claims about the nature and makeup of dark matter that cannot be justified by the evidence.

The very text you quoted clearly listed some of the evidence behind the claims being made. I don't know how much clearer it could have been.

 

[Michael]

Michael,

Repeating your assertions a lot will not make them true. I do not have the time to educate someone who does not accept corrections.

What "corrections" were those exactly? Your denial process related to the flaws in galaxy mass estimation techniques isn't really impressive from where I sit.

Incidentally, the amount of baryonic matter in the universe can be computed directly from the He/H ratio and Big Bang nucleosynthesis.

Translation: Your nucleosynthesis calculations don't work right without supernatural forms of matter.

The missing baryons problem is well known, and it has nothing to do with dark matter.

I hate to burst your bubble and all, but....

They already found those missing baryons in 2012 in the form of million degree plasma around the galaxy, and that is *in addition to* all those galaxy mass estimation problems related to their underestimates of stars.

NASA's Chandra Shows Milky Way is Surrounded by Halo of Hot Gas | NASA

You are looking at stuff that is either irrelevant, or related to missing baryons, and thinking that it proves something about dark matter.

You're basically in denial of the facts. The fact is that they *miscalculated* in terms of "guestimating" at the stellar infrastructures of various galaxies. They missed their guess at the number of stars in a given galaxy by between 3 and 20 depending on the size of the star and the type of galaxy.

The acceleration of the universe can be independently determined from at least three unrelated methods (RV data, BAOs and CMB), all peer-reviewed and massively-duplicated by different teams, different agencies, and different instruments built by different companies. You don't trump that with a cherry-picked single-author paper by a non-scientist uploaded to a site with no peer review.

The problem is that you have a significant credibility problem in terms of actually demonstrating your cause/effect claims. Both Doppler shift and inelastic scattering have a tangible effect on photon redshift, and plasma tends to generate signal broadening over time. Your claims about cause are all based on an affirming the consequent fallacy. You "claim" for instance that "space expansion" has some effect on a photon, but your claim is more impotent in the lab than any supernatural definition of "God". Why are you an atheist anyway?

The very text you quoted clearly listed some of the evidence behind the claims being made. I don't know how much clearer it could have been.

The so called "evidence" is entirely bogus, just like your claim of "proof" of exotic forms of dark matter in 2006. You're also basically ignoring the outcome of every so called "test" of dark matter in the lab. You struck out at LHC. You struck out again at LUX. You struck out again on AMS-02, and your stuck out a forth time in the electron roundness tests.

You're basically pulling supernatural invisible rabbits out of your hat and simply *ignoring* the falsification mechanisms entirely.

 

[mzungu]

They already found those missing baryons in 2012 in the form of million degree plasma around the galaxy, and that is *in addition to* all those galaxy mass estimation problems related to their underestimates of stars.

NASA's Chandra Shows Milky Way is Surrounded by Halo of Hot Gas | NASA

First you claim that plasma is NOT a hot gas and then you claim the missing baryons are in the form of million degree plasma Frankly speaking, EU theory lacks coherency!

 

[Michael]

First you claim that plasma is NOT a hot gas and then you claim the missing baryons are in the form of million degree plasma Frankly speaking, EU theory lacks coherency!

I beg your pardon? I used the proper term "plasma", whereas NASA did not. Don't blame *me* for NASA's mistakes.

 

[mzungu]

I beg your pardon? I used the proper term "plasma", whereas NASA did not. Don't blame *me* for NASA's mistakes.

I see; NASA are ignorant of proper scientific nomenclature whereas you a layman are not? Dear me, such vanity astounds me!

Are you claiming that in space there is no such thing as hot gas?

 

[Lollerskates]

Plasma is electrically separated subatomic particles. In other words: electrons separated from the nucleus. It can be hot (separation from kinetic energy bombardment,) or it can be "cold" - due to electromagnetic field separation. It is important, because it gives insight into why the outer shell of the sun's electron pressure reaches upwards to 1,000,000 degrees, but the core is only 5700 by Wiens's Law.

 

[Michael]

I see; NASA are ignorant of proper scientific nomenclature whereas you a layman are not? Dear me, such vanity astounds me!

Are you claiming that in space there is no such thing as hot gas?

Care to tell me which gasses and elements are not ionized *at all* at a million plus degrees?

 

[Michael]

Sorry but that is the way science works otherwise it would be inundated with all manner of superstitious beliefs, crackpot theories, etc.

I'm afraid it's too late for that. It's already chalk full of crackpot claims related to "space expansion" and exotic forms of matter. In fact Lambda-CDM is based on 95 percent "dark" superstition.

I keep telling you that science does not allow for the unfalsifiable

I didn't say that. It allows for space expansion claims doesn't it? How do I 'falsify" that claim?

and yet you keep insisting on including it

When? Nothing I've published even delves into Panentheism.

and then you wonder why the mainstream does not take your pet theory seriously?

When did Alfven's published theories suddenly become "my pet theory"? Why would I expect them to take a Nobel Prize winning author seriously anyway?

Michael, if as you say that EU is a theory that will overturn the mainstream theory then you are in for a Nobel prize;

Really? I get to personally take credit for all of Birkeland's work and Alfven's work?

so for the last time stop posting in CF and do what real scientists do: Write a paper, have it peer reviewed and go collect your Nobel Prize. Dear me

Are you still in pure denial of the fact that I've already published papers on the subject of astronomy? Really?

 

[Lollerskates]

Michael you are much better than me. I would never reveal my name, let alone show my publications on these forums. Most are already staunch scoffers, i would be afraid they would use my legal name and background to go even further. As you know, most scientists speak a computer language; i can get a volume of information from an IP address, and i am not even malicious. (I use a secure proxy.)

 

[Michael]

Michael you are much better than me. I would never reveal my name, let alone show my publications on these forums. Most are already staunch scoffers, i would be afraid they would use my legal name and background to go even further. As you know, most scientists speak a computer language; i can get a volume of information from an IP address, and i am not even malicious. (I use a secure proxy.)

I'm frankly not all that interesting IMO.

 

[Lollerskates]

I'm frankly not all that interesting IMO.

Well, most likely because you are actually a humble scientist. You are just for scientific transparency.

 

[dcarrera]

Are you still in pure denial of the fact that I've already published papers on the subject of astronomy? Really?

I had a quick look. I will try to give an objective commentary:

- You have 5 papers.
- Of those, 3 are published, 2 are not.
- The published papers are on the Sun. That counts as astronomy, but they are not on cosmology or galaxy formation.
- The papers are published in real journals, but they are not astronomy journals, and they appear to be journals that do not attract a lot of important research (judging by the small impact factors).
- Your three published papers have one citation each, all from you.

The papers appear to be part of a masters thesis or something like that. I will not comment much because I'm looking at the arXiv pre-prints, so it might not be fair. I might look at the published versions tomorrow when I'm back at the university.

 

[Michael]

I had a quick look. I will try to give an objective commentary:

- You have 5 papers.
- Of those, 3 are published, 2 are not.
- The published papers are on the Sun. That counts as astronomy, but they are not on cosmology or galaxy formation.
- The papers are published in real journals, but they are not astronomy journals, and they appear to be journals that do not attract a lot of important research (judging by the small impact factors).
- Your three published papers have one citation each, all from you.

The papers appear to be part of a masters thesis or something like that. I will not comment much because I'm looking at the arXiv pre-prints, so it might not be fair. I might look at the published versions tomorrow when I'm back at the university.

Hey cool! As I already explained to Lollerskates, I didn't claim to be all that interesting to start with, but I appreciate any feedback that you have to offer.