Dark Matter

[Justatruthseeker]

Again your dismissive tactic when a peer reviewed paper is presented.

Yes, SZ hand-waves away anything that does not agree with his dogmatic beliefs, while at the same time never presenting anything but denial.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Again, I don't have to.

This is not the man's specialty. I am not going to go through the hours of work necessary to debunk garbage that could not pass peer review. And peer review is only the first step to acceptance.

He has more peer reviewed papers than you have, and quite an impressive science background. What do you have?

So in your own words concerning your ideas - I am not going to go through the hours of work necessary to debunk garbage.

Which is your problem, your refusal to do actual research and instead rely on blogs and 23rd hand knowledge, while ignoring everything that does not fit your dogmatic beliefs system.

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/info/author.html

Developed a mass spectrometer that is still used today, so apparently he understood more about quantum mechanics than theorists that sit in offices all day and develop nothing useful but stacks of garbage.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I don't have to. The fact that he could not get any phyicist to accept it speaks volumes.

Yes, even people that can write peer reviewed papers can go crazy at times.

Why didn't he get that work peer reviewed? He probably knows that he is wrong.

Yes it does speak volumes. it speaks to peoples dogmatic attitudes about theory like you have. About peoples unwillingness to let go of theory proved incorrect in three straight lab experiments in just the last 18 months. It speaks volumes about peoples religious views that they call science. It speaks volumes about psuedoscientific attitudes.

But then again I am not the one that ignores 99% of the universe to keep a theory alive that requires 96% imaginary Fairie Dust. Talk about "faith" in the supernatural!!!!

 

[Michael]

Justa, how has the current model been "shown to be wrong"?

Besides those three straight failures in the lab, *and* all those botched mass estimates related to *normal* baryonic matter?

The failures of EU are legion, its successes, almost nonexistent. That is why physicists ignore it.

Birkeland knew and understood more about *solar* physics, *and* more about the basic physics of plasma that most astronomers do to this day! He created a *working model* of his theory, and with it he *successfully predicted* the existence of both types of high speed charged particles in solar wind, polar jets, electrical discharges in the solar atmosphere, coronal loops, cathode rays, and pretty much everything we observe today in modern solar satellite images of the sun.

To this day, the mainstream knows so very *little* about actual plasma physics, that the *entire crew* over at JREF didn't have the knowledge to correct the most *basic* of fundamental physics errors in your math hero's presentation over a period of *months*! That's how bad it actually is!

Considering the fact that 99+ percent of the known universe is in the plasma state, and virtually every gram of mass found since 2006 has been in the plasma state, it's *pitiful* that astronomers do not even understand basic circuit theory, and basic MHD theory. Holy cow! When an *amateur* spends more time actually *reading* and *studying* the relevant material than the *pros*, there is a *serious* problem!

Sorry, Birkeland made more successful predictions about solar physics and the basic workings of plasma than anyone else until Alfven. To this day your mainstream knows almost *nothing* about circuit theory, and how it applies to plasma. They dabble in what Alfven himself called "pseudoscience" and made obsolete with his double layer paper!

Your whole mainstream can't even correctly identify the first feature of plasma that Birkeland himself wrote about and explained, now called a "Birkeland current". Instead, they point at the sky and childishly say "Hey look, a "space slinky!"

Please, after those three straight strikes in the lab with the *only* part of Lambda-CDM theory that even *can* be tested in the lab, you have no right to lecture anyone about their "legendary failures"!

 

[Michael]

I don't have to. The fact that he could not get any phyicist to accept it speaks volumes.

Apparently your *entire* belief systems rests upon a "three for one" logical fallacy extravaganza.

You're basically pulling an appeal to authority fallacy, combined with an appeal to popularity fallacy.

The "hat trick" is the use of the term "any", as though *no other physicists in the entire world embrace PC/EU theory, which is of course not true. The whole thing is one circular feedback loop.

To this day your entire lot of mainstream "physicists" cannot come *close* to duplicating *any* of the *many* actual *successful predictions* that Birkeland made over 100 years ago, and they'll *absolutely* never do it without electricity.

 

[Michael]

Yes, SZ hand-waves away anything that does not agree with his dogmatic beliefs, while at the same time never presenting anything but denial.

Bingo!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Bingo!

Wrong, as usual.

I handwave arguments away that are handwaved in.

Show me some evidence that applies to the debate at hand and I will address it.

So far all you and yours has ever managed to do is to at best show some very questionable at best peer reviewed articles from very weak journals that never ever caught on.

Meanwhile you either misunderstand articles, the evidence from the bullet cluster for example, or you try to handwave it away yourself.

 

[Riberra]

Show me some evidence that applies to the debate at hand and I will address it.
....
the bullet cluster for example,

Then, you will surely appreciate these peer reviewed papers ...
[FONT=&quot]The dark matter hypothesis for the bullet cluster is contradicted by the cold dark matter[/FONT][FONT=&quot] model.[/FONT]][FONT=&quot]Mastropietro & Burkert (2008) have shown that an initial relative velocity of the two colliding clusters would need to be around 3000 km/s in order to explain the observed shock velocity, X-ray brightness ratio and morphology of the main and sub-cluster. However, Jounghun and Eiichiro (2010) have shown that such a high infall velocity is incompatible with the predictions of the cold dark matter [/FONT][FONT=&quot]ΛCDM[/FONT][FONT=&quot] model. The probability that such an event could occur is roughly[/FONT] 1 in 10 billion.[FONT=&quot]The lower velocity simulations of, for example Milosavljevic et. al. (2007) and Springel& Farrar (2007), that could be compatible with [/FONT][FONT=&quot]ΛCDM[/FONT][FONT=&quot], do not reproduce the weak lensing data of the Bullet cluster. What this means is that it is pretty much impossible that the lensing effect seen in the Bullet cluster can be due to dark matter, based on the cold dark matter models Jounghun and Eiichiro [/FONT]

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I still haven't seen any proof that gravity is causing the lensing. We do however know from experiments that light is deflected as it passes through a medium and interacts (the only experimental proof of light deflection we have), and since we now understand that all galaxies are surrounded by giant halos of plasma, the logical conclusion is that the lensing is caused by these halos of plasma.

The gravitational lensing theory on the other hand, wants a mass-less particle (photons) to be affected by particles of mass. Then to top it off, they want a particle that interacts rarely even with particles of mass to interact with a mass-less particle. This particle itself exhibits no EM radiation, yet all matter is composed of energy, E=mc^2.

Relativistic Deflection of Light Near the Sun Using Radio Signals and Visible Light

Lensing is NOT caused by gravity, but by interaction with plasma in the halos that surround stars and all galaxies.

 

[Michael]

Wrong, as usual.

I handwave arguments away that are handwaved in.

No. Actually you have a bad habit of handwaving out "peer reviewed" material on a whim, and typically based on a random unpublished website reference.

Show me some evidence that applies to the debate at hand and I will address it.

How about we start with all those "revelations" of stellar miscounts and the fact the galaxies were brighter than you 'estimated' in 2006? It's not exactly like we don't have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight since 2006 when they "guestimated" the mass around the galaxies themselves.

Guess what we learned since then? In 2008 it was revealed that the universe is actually *twice as bright* as we first 'guestimated'. More light is being deflected in the inelastic scattering processes taking place in the plasma and dust than you expected.

2008 | Universe shines twice as bright | University of St Andrews

You underestimated the the mass of the larger stars by something like 20% in that issue alone, even based on the *mainstream* position.

The next year we discovered that you completely botched the percentage of small stars to larger ones.

Galaxies Demand a Stellar Recount - NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory

You just "missed it" by a little, just a *factor of four*!

I've also watched the whole black hole debate go from the belief that only relatively few galaxies had black holes on them, to understand that most if not all of them probably do have them, and they've been consistently "surprised" by how big they are:

Gigantic Black Holes Just Got Even Bigger | Ultramassive Black Holes | Space.com

Now admittedly, they don't account for electrical activity, so they may actually be overestimating them a bit, but they're definitely bigger than we first assumed.

That's at *least* three different ways we know for a fact that the galaxy mass estimates were off in 2006, and we haven't even talked about all that million degree plasma they found in 2012.

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

There's more mass in that million degree plasma *alone* than all the stars in the entirely galaxy, and we haven't even talked about *cooler dust*!

Now admittedly, the mainstream knew it was missing about half the baryonic mass it assumed was there, so the finding of all that million degree hot plasma doesn't itself push them over budget. If however you add in those miscounts of stars, and the underestimation of the sizes of larger stars however, and start talking about non ionized *dust particles* in space, it's a whole other ballgame. They're actually *over* budget at this point.

So far all you and yours has ever managed to do is to at best show some very questionable at best peer reviewed articles from very weak journals that never ever caught on.

How about all those experiments at LHC and LUX and with electrons that falsified your claims? You're just going to bury your head in the sands of pure denial again?

Meanwhile you either misunderstand articles, the evidence from the bullet cluster for example, or you try to handwave it away yourself.

No I didn't. I read the paper several times. I explained how and why you underestimated the mass in that image too, based on *mainstream* published papers!

It's not my personal fault that the mainstream keeps *destroying* their own belief system on a regular basis. It's not my fault they overestimated the speed of convection either.

You have a bigger problem on your hands that just the EU/PC community. The revelations from the lab and from the mainstream itself haven't been exactly 'kind' to your beliefs, to say the least. Unless LHC comes up with something next year, we might me see a wholesale bailout from exotic matter theories. Then what? More denial? More "exotic matter of the gaps" claims anyway?

 

[Michael]

FYI, there's a "dirty little secret" in Lambda-CDM related to 'exotic matter'. It's not widely understood that their nucleosynthesis claims *require* a form of 'exotic' matter. It doesn't actually work out well if all the matter is *ordinary* baryonic matter, in fact it pretty much topples the whole mathematical house of cards.

There's a common misconception that the mainstream claim of 'dark matter' comes without strings, or claims. That's false. They cannot just be content with discovering only more ordinary baryonic matter. They *require* that "dark matter" be in an exotic form of matter that has never yet been seen on Earth, *despite* all those recent lab failures.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Apparently your *entire* belief systems rests upon a "three for one" logical fallacy extravaganza.

You're basically pulling an appeal to authority fallacy, combined with an appeal to popularity fallacy.

The "hat trick" is the use of the term "any", as though *no other physicists in the entire world embrace PC/EU theory, which is of course not true. The whole thing is one circular feedback loop.

To this day your entire lot of mainstream "physicists" cannot come *close* to duplicating *any* of the *many* actual *successful predictions* that Birkeland made over 100 years ago, and they'll *absolutely* never do it without electricity.

Yes, with his attitude we would still believe that the Milky-way was the only galaxy in existence, since all of astronomy once believed that, until a lone observation proved them all wrong. As a matter of fact every theory we currently have was born during that period of belief.

 

[Michael]

Yes, with his attitude we would still believe that the Milky-way was the only galaxy in existence, since all of astronomy once believed that, until a lone observation proved them all wrong. As a matter of fact every theory we currently have was born during that period of belief.

I still think of this particular timeframe as the "dark ages" of astronomy. The mainstream learned about GR theory, and now they insist on trying to describe the behaviors of a mostly plasma universe based on GR theory and *only* GR theory. It's like they have a myopic view of the cosmos, and one mathematical sledge hammer, and that's the only tool they have.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Nah, they don't want to learn anything about plasma Michael, they would prefer to stick their heads in the sand and pretend their theories aren't collapsing around their heads.

http://www.pma.caltech.edu/Courses/ph136/yr2006/0619.1.K.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farnsworth-Hirsch_Fusor

 

[Subduction Zone]

FYI, there's a "dirty little secret" in Lambda-CDM related to 'exotic matter'. It's not widely understood that their nucleosynthesis claims *require* a form of 'exotic' matter. It doesn't actually work out well if all the matter is *ordinary* baryonic matter, in fact it pretty much topples the whole mathematical house of cards.

There's a common misconception that the mainstream claim of 'dark matter' comes without strings, or claims. That's false. They cannot just be content with discovering only more ordinary baryonic matter. They *require* that "dark matter" be in an exotic form of matter that has never yet been seen on Earth, *despite* all those recent lab failures.

It is not really a secret. Nor is their belief a "house of cards".

Your so called theory is reactive at best and still fails on many observed phenomena that it has no explanation for.

For example the "dirty little secret" explains why we observe the relative proportions of hydrogen, helium, and lithium formed shortly after the Big Bang. It also explains the observed background radiation better than the EU does.

There are problems with the theory. But it is a much more functional theory than EU.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. Actually you have a bad habit of handwaving out "peer reviewed" material on a whim, and typically based on a random unpublished website reference.

How about we start with all those "revelations" of stellar miscounts and the fact the galaxies were brighter than you 'estimated' in 2006? It's not exactly like we don't have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight since 2006 when they "guestimated" the mass around the galaxies themselves.

Guess what we learned since then? In 2008 it was revealed that the universe is actually *twice as bright* as we first 'guestimated'. More light is being deflected in the inelastic scattering processes taking place in the plasma and dust than you expected.

2008 | Universe shines twice as bright | University of St Andrews

You underestimated the the mass of the larger stars by something like 20% in that issue alone, even based on the *mainstream* position.

The next year we discovered that you completely botched the percentage of small stars to larger ones.

Galaxies Demand a Stellar Recount - NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory

You just "missed it" by a little, just a *factor of four*!

I've also watched the whole black hole debate go from the belief that only relatively few galaxies had black holes on them, to understand that most if not all of them probably do have them, and they've been consistently "surprised" by how big they are:

Gigantic Black Holes Just Got Even Bigger | Ultramassive Black Holes | Space.com

Now admittedly, they don't account for electrical activity, so they may actually be overestimating them a bit, but they're definitely bigger than we first assumed.

That's at *least* three different ways we know for a fact that the galaxy mass estimates were off in 2006, and we haven't even talked about all that million degree plasma they found in 2012.

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

There's more mass in that million degree plasma *alone* than all the stars in the entirely galaxy, and we haven't even talked about *cooler dust*!

Now admittedly, the mainstream knew it was missing about half the baryonic mass it assumed was there, so the finding of all that million degree hot plasma doesn't itself push them over budget. If however you add in those miscounts of stars, and the underestimation of the sizes of larger stars however, and start talking about non ionized *dust particles* in space, it's a whole other ballgame. They're actually *over* budget at this point.

How about all those experiments at LHC and LUX and with electrons that falsified your claims? You're just going to bury your head in the sands of pure denial again?

No I didn't. I read the paper several times. I explained how and why you underestimated the mass in that image too, based on *mainstream* published papers!

It's not my personal fault that the mainstream keeps *destroying* their own belief system on a regular basis. It's not my fault they overestimated the speed of convection either.

You have a bigger problem on your hands that just the EU/PC community. The revelations from the lab and from the mainstream itself haven't been exactly 'kind' to your beliefs, to say the least. Unless LHC comes up with something next year, we might me see a wholesale bailout from exotic matter theories. Then what? More denial? More "exotic matter of the gaps" claims anyway?

Sorry Michael, too long didn't read.

If you are serious you won't blow up answers unnecessarily and answer honestly. That means don't break up my comments that do not need breaking up for a start. You complain about all of these "hater sites" and I see you bringing it on yourself.

 

[TheBear]

.......

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It is not really a secret. Nor is their belief a "house of cards".

Your so called theory is reactive at best and still fails on many observed phenomena that it has no explanation for.

Such as? Broad claims of denial are useless.

For example the "dirty little secret" explains why we observe the relative proportions of hydrogen, helium, and lithium formed shortly after the Big Bang. It also explains the observed background radiation better than the EU does.

There are problems with the theory. But it is a much more functional theory than EU.

And yet your theories on dark matter required by your theories to explain your dirty little secret have failed, so you are left with NO explanation for the observed levels.

We observe the relative proportions as far back as we can observe, because there was no Big Bang and that matter has always existed.

The background radiation is merely the temperature of the intergalactic medium.

The Origin of the 3 K Radiation

Quit ignoring half of physics to justify your Fairie Dust. And quit ignoring 99% of the universe as well.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We could start with this thread that explains some of EU's short comings:

Neutrino Dreaming: The Electric Universe Theory Debunked

 

[Michael]

We could start with this thread that explains some of EU's short comings:

Neutrino Dreaming: The Electric Universe Theory Debunked

So explain how that website relates to any of Alfvens work?