Dark Matter

[Michael]

You keep pointing to blur caused by lack of resolution in the telescope as blur caused by plasma.

First you claimed they weren't blurred at all! Now you're trying to pass off inelastic scattering as a problem with the telescope?

Where are the lab experiments?

There are plenty of examples of Doppler shift in the lab, and you've never shown a need for anything *other than* Doppler shift and time dilation.

[astro-ph/0601171] Is space really expanding? A counterexample

Handwave away at it all you like, but you're 'space expansion' claim isn't necessary to start with.

 

[Michael]

Is this the same lab where plasma is incapable of producing a wavelength independent redshift?

Doppler shift does that all that time in the lab. Ever hear of Occam's razor?

Your magic plasma isn't showing up in the lab, it would appear.

The humorous part is watching you dance around the facts. In the *real* world, light interacts with plasma and it loses some of its momentum to that plasma as a result of inelastic scattering. Only in your mythical *magical universe* can photons weave and dodge their way around every temperature and EM field gradient in spacetime over billions of light years, and miraculously experience no scattering whatsoever. Talk about believing in miracles.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You keep pointing to blur caused by lack of resolution in the telescope as blur caused by plasma.



Where are the lab experiments?

You are claiming the Hubble can see to a distance of 13 billion light years, and that we can measure relative parallax to determine distance of around .0007.

Seems to me astronomers have no problem with the Hubble resolving power when it comes to claims of distance.

But considering the inverse square law of light, I would like you to prove the Hubble telescope can see anything at 13 billion light years?

Inverse-square law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

here is all the data on it.

https://www.spacetelescope.org/about/general/fact_sheet/

heres a page that will do the math for you.

N.A.A. Telescope Math Calculator

Show me your results when you are done, and we'll discuss them.

 

[Michael]

Quit ignoring what occurs around us on a daily basis, when your claims contradict everything known.
​

I'm afraid his denial-go-round routine won't allow him to do anything else.

 

[Michael]

What you are saying is that it is falsified, not based on faith. Those are two different things.

Your exotic matter claims *were* falsified three straight times in the past 18 months. Apparently however you have *faith* in exotic matter anyway! I'd just call it pure denial at this point. Your galaxy mass estimation models were *terrible* to begin with, and you have all the evidence in the world now to demonstrate that they were useless in the first place!

I know that plasma scatters light, blurs distant images, will be opaque at long distances, and produces a wavelength dependent redshift. All of these are inconsistent with the observed cosmological redshift.

Nope. So far all I've seen from you is a *limited* spectrum that showed wavelength independent redshift, and an x-ray study where 30 percent of the data didn't fit your claims at all.

 

[Michael]

The part that makes no sense to me is the fact that you cling to exotic matter claims even *after* finding out that you completely botched the mass estimates up and down the spectrum. You underestimated the mass of every type of star, from the very largest stars to very the smallest ones, *and* your exotic matter claims were falsified in the lab three different times in three different ways. What's it take to get you to finally embrace plasma physics anyway?

 

[Loudmouth]

Your exotic matter claims *were* falsified three straight times in the past 18 months.

That is quite a different story than you were telling before. You claimed they were based on faith. That is apparently not the case.

Apparently however you have *faith* in exotic matter anyway!

No, I disagree with you. There's a difference.

Nope. So far all I've seen from you is a *limited* spectrum that showed wavelength independent redshift, and an x-ray study where 30 percent of the data didn't fit your claims at all.

While the other 70% were dead on. Plasma completely fails in the lab.

 

[Loudmouth]

The part that makes no sense to me is the fact that you cling to exotic matter claims even *after* finding out that you completely botched the mass estimates up and down the spectrum.

No botching has happened, just as there are no mountains on the Sun. When you move out of the PU echo chamber out into the real world, perhaps you will have a clearer view of what is going on.

 

[Michael]

That is quite a different story than you were telling before. You claimed they were based on faith. That is apparently not the case.

You're in pure denial as far as I can tell, but you sure seem to have "faith" in the concept of exotic matter *in spite of* three straight strikes in the lab. Why put *any* faith in exotic matter?

No, I disagree with you. There's a difference.

Why do you disagree? Your models were shown to be flawed over the *entire* solar spectrum, and nothing supports the idea in the lab to date.

While the other 70% were dead on. Plasma completely fails in the lab.

So what if 70 percent were 'spot on'? A universe composed of of moving objects *and* scattering in plasma might explain *all* the data.

You can't even show that "space expansion' has any effect on any photon of any wavelength, yet you expect me to believe it has an effect on *all* of them! Get real.

[astro-ph/0601171] Is space really expanding? A counterexample

 

[Michael]

No botching has happened,

Pure denial. Since that lensing study in 2006, we discovered that you botched the mass estimates on the largest stars, you grossly underestimated the number of average sized suns by a whopping factor of 4, and kludged the dwarf star estimates by somewhere between a factor of 5 and 20!

just as there are no mountains on the Sun.

Pure deflection. You can't handle the topic at hand apparently.

When you move out of the PU echo chamber out into the real world, perhaps you will have a clearer view of what is going on.

When you move out of pure denial, perhaps you won't need to resort to such pitiful debate tactics.

 

[Loudmouth]

Pure denial. Since that lensing study in 2006, we discovered that you botched the mass estimates on the largest stars, you grossly underestimated the number of average sized suns by a whopping factor of 4, and kludged the dwarf star estimates by somewhere between a factor of 5 and 20!

And right back on the PU echo chamber.

When you move out of pure denial, perhaps you won't need to resort to such pitiful debate tactics.

Plasma wavelength independent redshift? Where is it?

 

[Michael]

And right back on the PU echo chamber.

You can't deal with the data that sunk your ship, so you lob a pathetic ad hom at a theory you don't even understand. Wow.

Plasma wavelength independent redshift? Where is it?

You've been given papers on several *theories* that describe such a process mathematically from several different authors. I've demonstrated that Doppler shift and time dilation would work as well. You've got exactly *zero* evidence that 'space' does any magical expansion tricks, or has any tangible effect on any photon of any wavelength. None, nada, zip.

About the best you can do is play the same broken record and handwave away at published work that sinks your ship:

[astro-ph/0601171] Is space really expanding? A counterexample

Go ahead, handwave away....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

And right back on the PU echo chamber.



Plasma wavelength independent redshift? Where is it?

And right back to the same ignoring the data without ever showing evidence to back your claims.

Where is the study of plasma using incoherent light? oh that's right, your astronomers have only used lasers which is coherent light, which as we know is never found in nature.

Coherence (physics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"In physics, coherence is an ideal property of waves that enables stationary (i.e. temporally and spatially constant) interference. It contains several distinct concepts, which are limit cases that never occur in reality but allow an understanding of the physics of waves, and has become a very important concept in quantum physics. More generally, coherence describes all properties of the correlation between physical quantities of a single wave, or between several waves or wave packets"

So now you use limiting cases that never occur in reality in an attempt to prove reality. So to disprove the evidence against you, you use experiments that never test for the validity of incoherent light, just light that will never occur in the universe.

Sort of like believing in DM when every experiment has falsified it. Oh that's right, you already do do that.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Sort of like your mantra of photon interactions with plasma require fuzyness, when we don't even observe that in experiments.

Big Bang Cosmology Meets an Astronomical Death

"At a distance of 100 meters, for example, it is everyday experience that light is transmitted through calm air without any noticeable angular dispersion and does not produce any visible fuzziness - even when images are observed through a telescope. The index of refraction of air (n=1.0003) shows that interactions or collisions of photons on air molecules are such that the photons are delayed by 3 centimeter in a trajectory of 100 meters, with respect to transmission in a vacuum (see Figure 1). Only that small delay of 3 cm can be explained by a large number of photon-molecule collisions.

MOST PHOTONS DO NOT UNDERGO ANGULAR DISPERSION WHEN THEY INTERACT WITH MOLECULES.

Light transmitted through air is slowed by its interaction with air molecules. In the same time, that light traverses 100 meters in a vacuum (a), it traverses only 99.97 meters in air (b). This is expressed in the index of refraction for air, 1.0003. Many photon-molecule interactions are required to explain such a long delay. Since an object seen at 100 meters is not fuzzy, one must conclude that these photon-molecule interactions do not lead to angular dispersion of most of the light, although this is still the common assumption. In fact, the photons must be reemitted from such interactions in the forward direction.​

A delay of 3 cm corresponds to about one billion the size of the atom. Therefore we can be sure that not only all photons had more than one interaction with air molecules, but that it must take on the order of one billion collisions to produce such a delay. The photons have undergone about one billion collisions with air molecules without any significant angular dispersion, because the image is not fuzzy. Photon-molecule collision without angular dispersion is an everyday experience that has been completely overlooked.
In space, where the gas density is lower by more than 20 orders of magnitude, the same phenomenon takes place. A photon undergoes about one interaction (due to the index of refraction, with no angular dispersion) per week.; Rayleigh scattering producing diffusion in all directions, is enormously less frequent just as in the atmosphere. Hence, almost all interactions of photons with gas molecules take place without any measurable angular dispersion."


Why do you ignore what occurs around you every day when plasma in space is 20 orders of magnitude less dense than air and so would scatter even less light???????

Order of magnitude - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

trilliardth sextillionth zepto- z 0.000,000,000,000,000,000,001 10−21 −21 is 21 orders of magnitude, so take one zero off.

 

[Michael]

Originally Posted by Michael

Really? How was Lambda-CDM changed by those three straight lab failures to produce any 'cold dark matter'? How did they deal with their errors related to stellar mass underestimation other than to simply *ignore* it? Why "test" their theory if they won't abide by any of the 'results' of those tests in the first place?​

Explain please?

Sorry I missed this earlier.

What I mean is that since that lensing study in 2006 that supposedly contained 'proof' of "missing mass", at least six piece of information have come out to "explain" what was missed in the standard model. All of it was in favor of ordinary plasma, and none of it was in favor of exotic forms of matter.

In 2008 we discovered that the universe is twice as bright as we imagined, meaning they underestimated either the mass and/or the number of the brightest stars in various galaxies. We know for a fact they underestimated the stellar infrastructure.

The following year we discovered that the mainstream mass estimation models for galaxies and the number of average sized stars like our own sun that we cannot directly observe in distant galaxies were seriously flawed. They were off by a whopping factor of 4! Again we *grossly* underestimated the mass of the stellar infrastructure. There were now two known flaws in the mainstream mass estimation models. Again, all of it was related to *stellar infrastructure*.

In 2010 we found out that the smallest and most common type of star, the dwarf stars were also miscounted by *at least* a factor of 5, maybe up to a factor of 20! Three straight demonstrations that the mainstream *grossly* underestimated the stellar infrastructure.

In 2012, we *finally* found the "missing bayronic matter" which the mainstream knew was out there, but couldn't locate until 2012. It wasn't found in ordinary 'dust' however, it was found in million degree plasma! We haven't even *talked* about the mass of the dust and non ionized particles that must also exist between stars. That dust still remains unaccounted for in any mass estimates.

We know from telescope "tests" that the mainstream mass estimation techniques related to normal baryonic matter were *seriously* flawed, along with these comments from NASA:

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.

It *was* in the form of stars! They *did* underestimate the amount of inelastic scattering taking place. It *was* found in "hot clouds" of bayrons that we couldn't detect when that false statement was first written. We did *finally* detect the absorption, but it took awhile. We *do* see all sorts of signs of matter and antimatter annihilation signatures from space. the mainstream is *constantly* trying to pass them off as emissions from 'dark matter" in fact.

Every single one of those claims has been *falsified* by later studies. NASA simply ignored it.

Worse yet, we've been busy in the lab looking for 'exotic matter', mostly because without it, Lambda-CDM cannot accurately fudge the nucleosynthesis numbers. Unfortunately while LHC was was very kind indeed to the standard particle physics model, and helped us find the Higgs Boson, it wasn't kind at all to exotic matter claims. In fact, LHC falsified SUSY's own 'golden test'!

Next came the LUX results, where they found exactly no events when they predicted/expected about 1600 events from WIMP theory. Strike two in the lab for exotic matter claims.

Then of course there were the electron roundness experiments. Exotic matter theories predicted that the electron wouldn't be round, rather it would be elongated. Unfortunately that 'prediction' of exotic matter theory was also falsified in the lab.

Three straight falsifications of mass estimation techniques, and three straight falsifications of exotic matter theory.

What's the mainstream done about it? Nothing! NASA never once updated that series of false claims about what they *knew it wasn't*. The mainstream still insists that 'exotic matter did it' only because they *need* a fudge factor for nucleosynthesis predictions. The whole thing has been falsified at least 6 different times in six different ways, yet they do absolutely *nothing* about it!

What is up with that?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Sorry I missed this earlier.

What I mean is that since that lensing study in 2006 that supposedly contained 'proof' of "missing mass", at least six piece of information have come out to "explain" what was missed in the standard model. All of it was in favor of ordinary plasma, and none of it was in favor of exotic forms of matter.

In 2008 we discovered that the universe is twice as bright as we imagined, meaning they underestimated either the mass and/or the number of the brightest stars in various galaxies. We know for a fact they underestimated the stellar infrastructure.

The following year we discovered that the mainstream mass estimation models for galaxies and the number of average sized stars like our own sun that we cannot directly observe in distant galaxies were seriously flawed. They were off by a whopping factor of 4! Again we *grossly* underestimated the mass of the stellar infrastructure. There were now two known flaws in the mainstream mass estimation models. Again, all of it was related to *stellar infrastructure*.

In 2010 we found out that the smallest and most common type of star, the dwarf stars were also miscounted by *at least* a factor of 5, maybe up to a factor of 20! Three straight demonstrations that the mainstream *grossly* underestimated the stellar infrastructure.

In 2012, we *finally* found the "missing bayronic matter" which the mainstream knew was out there, but couldn't locate until 2012. It wasn't found in ordinary 'dust' however, it was found in million degree plasma! We haven't even *talked* about the mass of the dust and non ionized particles that must also exist between stars. That dust still remains unaccounted for in any mass estimates.

We know from telescope "tests" that the mainstream mass estimation techniques related to normal baryonic matter were *seriously* flawed, along with these comments from NASA:

Dark Energy, Dark Matter - NASA Science
It *was* in the form of stars! They *did* underestimate the amount of inelastic scattering taking place. It *was* found in "hot clouds" of bayrons that we couldn't detect when that false statement was first written. We did *finally* detect the absorption, but it took awhile. We *do* see all sorts of signs of matter and antimatter annihilation signatures from space. the mainstream is *constantly* trying to pass them off as emissions from 'dark matter" in fact.

Every single one of those claims has been *falsified* by later studies. NASA simply ignored it.

Worse yet, we've been busy in the lab looking for 'exotic matter', mostly because without it, Lambda-CDM cannot accurately fudge the nucleosynthesis numbers. Unfortunately while LHC was was very kind indeed to the standard particle physics model, and helped us find the Higgs Boson, it wasn't kind at all to exotic matter claims. In fact, LHC falsified SUSY's own 'golden test'!

Next came the LUX results, where they found exactly no events when they predicted/expected about 1600 events from WIMP theory. Strike two in the lab for exotic matter claims.

Then of course there were the electron roundness experiments. Exotic matter theories predicted that the electron wouldn't be round, rather it would be elongated. Unfortunately that 'prediction' of exotic matter theory was also falsified in the lab.

Three straight falsifications of mass estimation techniques, and three straight falsifications of exotic matter theory.

What's the mainstream done about it? Nothing! NASA never once updated that series of false claims about what they *knew it wasn't*. The mainstream still insists that 'exotic matter did it' only because they *need* a fudge factor for nucleosynthesis predictions. The whole thing has been falsified at least 6 different times in six different ways, yet they do absolutely *nothing* about it!

What is up with that?

Because if they do not ignore it, they may have to stop and consider the effects of EM fields on plasma, Which leads naturally to a plasma cosmology and falsification of every single cosmological theory that they have. To admit that their mass estimates are off by orders of magnitude doesn't just falsify one single theory, but begins an avalanche that would end up falsifying every single theory about the universe that they currently hold. A concept they are incapable of dealing with. Their egos will not allow them to have been so completely wrong. So instead of hurting egos, they prefer to just ignore the problem in the hopes it will go away, or that sometime in the future they can invent a new Fairie Dust theory to make up for what has been falsified.


After all, when SUSY failed its golden test, they did not stop to consider that their theories may be wrong, instead they immediately began looking for "new physics" to explain away the problems. All the while leaving those falsified theories untouched and the standard model ignored. Ignored simply because it does not predict their exotic dark matter and instead predicts interaction by EM forces.

 

[Michael]

Because if they do not ignore it, they may have to stop and consider the effects of EM fields on plasma, Which leads naturally to a plasma cosmology and falsification of every single cosmological theory that they have. To admit that their mass estimates are off by orders of magnitude doesn't just falsify one single theory, but begins an avalanche that would end up falsifying every single theory about the universe that they currently hold. A concept they are incapable of dealing with. Their egos will not allow them to have been so completely wrong. So instead of hurting egos, they prefer to just ignore the problem in the hopes it will go away, or that sometime in the future they can invent a new Fairie Dust theory to make up for what has been falsified.

Pretty much! I'm already hearing rumors that "curvatons" are the next "big thing" in supernatural creation mythos dogma to save them from the Planck data set.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Pretty much! I'm already hearing rumors that "curvatons" are the next "big thing" in supernatural creation mythos dogma to save them from the Planck data set.

Ahh yes, the curvaton, a particle which mediates the scalar field in the early universe, but conveniently doesn't need to exist today. Another theory that can never be falsified, so am sure it will catch on and be considered another fact of nature like redshift and expanding space.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Pretty much! I'm already hearing rumors that "curvatons" are the next "big thing" in supernatural creation mythos dogma to save them from the Planck data set.

But, but, but, the plank data didn't falsify anything Michael, it simply showed that the data has been misinterpreted and that it is because other universes besides our own exist.

"Other Universes are Pulling on Our Universe" -- New Planck Data Triggers Controversy (Today's Most Popular)

Anything to keep their precious theories from falsification, as long as it does not require them to admit to electrical phenomenon in space. No, no, it's new physics that are needed (or another statistical program to fudge the data)

http://arxiv.org/abs/1312.3313