Dark Matter

[Michael]

" However, we have very good evidence that the substantial majority of dark matter is something exotic, rather than ordinary matter that we can't see. This evidence comes from two independent sources -- the abundance of light elements from primordial nucleosynthesis, and temperature anisotropies in the cosmic microwave background. "--Sean Carroll
Cosmology Primer: The Dark Universe

IMO this quote bears repeating because of how misleading his statement actually is. A little "translation" is in order.

What Sean means by the first "line of evidence" is that their creation mythos won't work correctly without magic matter fudge factors. If only ordinary matter were involved in the magical bang creation mythos, it would not produce elements in various percentages that are consistent with observation. Since the dogma supersedes all actual "observation", the dogma is instead presented as "evidence" to support their claims anyway!

In short their theory is pathetically and hopelessly broken, and incapable of predicting anything related to nucleosythesis accurately without exotic fudge factor and never been seen on Earth forms of matter and energy.

The second so called "line of evidence" is again based upon *yet another* affirming the consequent fallacy and an appeal to *dogma* not actual observation. Dark matter has never been shown to produce any "temperature anisotropies" in any experiment on Earth. Since no cause effect relationships can be verified his claim is again nothing but another appeal to the dogma of the theory and not to an actual *observation* with demonstrated cause/effect relationships.

The whole claim of "evidence" is one gigantic circular feedback loop that amounts to an appeal to the dogma of the theory itself. They claimed that their galaxy mass estimation models were "right" when they were not right. They "made up for it" with magical and exotic forms of matter. When their show got "busted" in terms of their botched mass estimates and their negative lab results, they just sweep it all under the carpet, and repeat the same magical mantras from the same magical creation mythos, while still claiming to have "evidence" to support their nonsense!

Nevermind those failures in the lab, just point at the sky and appeal to the dogma anyway!

 

[Michael]

[FONT=&quot]What happens when an observation falsify the mathematical calculations in the mainstream model... simply ignore the contradicting data about the observation is the modus operandi.[/FONT]

Yep. That's their primary tactic of choice in fact.

 

[Michael]

Here's the circular feedback loop from Sean's first argument:

However, by looking to regions that have been relatively untouched by exploding stars, we can infer the primordial abundances of deuterium, helium, and lithium. These abundances depend sensitively on two things -- the amount of ordinary matter in the form of protons and neutrons, and the expansion rate of the universe when it was just a few seconds old. We obtain perfect agreement with observations if two things are true -- the amount of ordinary matter is much less than the total amount of matter we deduce in the current universe (thus providing evidence for dark matter), and the expansion rate is exactly as predicted by Einstein's theory of general relativity (thus assuring us that our best theories can be safely extrapolated back to early times)......

The fact that we do get good agreement, indicating that we understand the behavior of the universe when it was only a few seconds old, is one of the most profound achievements of modern science.

Cosmology Primer: The Early Universe

Emphasis mine. It's more than a tad ironic it's called "preposterous universe dot com". That's about right alright. The translation amounts to "Our nucleosynthesis models don't work right with only ordinary matter, so we have to add magical forms of matter to make it work right. The fact we need fudge factors is somehow a "profound achievement" of science, and it's proof positive that exotic matter did it!"

Apparently his argument amounts to "Our model won't work correctly without magic matter, therefore magic matter did it. The fact our theory *now requires* magical fudge factors is therefore not evidence that our theory is broken, it's actually evidence that magic matter did it"!

Oy Vey!

Not one single extraordinary claim related to Lambda-CDM can be verified in any lab, and no number of lab failures can or ever will make a dent in the dogma.

 

[Loudmouth]

IMO this quote bears repeating because of how misleading his statement actually is. A little "translation" is in order.

What Sean means by the first "line of evidence" is that their creation mythos won't work correctly without magic matter fudge factors.

Using ridicule to make the evidence go away isn't going to work.

The evidence is there. No need for faith.

 

[Loudmouth]

Oh, I had missed that one. Thanks!.

So let's take a trip down memory lane, and look at what we've learned over the past 8 years. They underestimated the brightness of galaxies and therefore they underestimated sizes of the largest stars. They also underestimated the number of smaller (our) sun sized stars by a whopping factor of 4, and apparently they underestimated the number of *even smaller* stars (than our own sun) by at least a factor of 5, and possibly up to a factor 20!

Ya, it's pretty much a given that they botched the stellar plasma estimates alright. It's therefore no *wonder* that they needed a bunch of exotic gap filler so that they could still pretend that their galaxy mass estimation models were perfect and flawless back in 2006.

Coming from someone who claims that there are mountains on the Sun, I think I will stick with the real scientists on this one.

"This collision has done exactly what we want — it’s swept out the ordinary matter from the clusters, displacing it with respect to the dark matter (and the galaxies, which act as collisionless particles for these purposes)."--Sean Carroll
http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2006/08/21/dark-matter-exists/

 

[UnderstandForgive]

IMO this quote bears repeating because of how misleading his statement actually is. A little "translation" is in order.

What Sean means by the first "line of evidence" is that their creation mythos won't work correctly without magic matter fudge factors. If only ordinary matter were involved in the magical bang creation mythos, it would not produce elements in various percentages that are consistent with observation. Since the dogma supersedes all actual "observation", the dogma is instead presented as "evidence" to support their claims anyway!

In short their theory is pathetically and hopelessly broken, and incapable of predicting anything related to nucleosythesis accurately without exotic fudge factor and never been seen on Earth forms of matter and energy.

The second so called "line of evidence" is again based upon *yet another* affirming the consequent fallacy and an appeal to *dogma* not actual observation. Dark matter has never been shown to produce any "temperature anisotropies" in any experiment on Earth. Since no cause effect relationships can be verified his claim is again nothing but another appeal to the dogma of the theory and not to an actual *observation* with demonstrated cause/effect relationships.

The whole claim of "evidence" is one gigantic circular feedback loop that amounts to an appeal to the dogma of the theory itself. They claimed that their galaxy mass estimation models were "right" when they were not right. They "made up for it" with magical and exotic forms of matter. When their show got "busted" in terms of their botched mass estimates and their negative lab results, they just sweep it all under the carpet, and repeat the same magical mantras from the same magical creation mythos, while still claiming to have "evidence" to support their nonsense!

Nevermind those failures in the lab, just point at the sky and appeal to the dogma anyway!

Once again it reminds me of that quote by Feynman "An idea should not be confirmed by the data that supposed it in the first place."

I don't understand the necessity of needing to introduce "Dark Matter". First of all does it interact with light, can you accelerate it by pushing on it. If the answer is no than it is not matter. The only thing that seems to suppose there might be matter is the disturbance of the gravitational field. I believe the evidence has to do with calculating galaxies which can not hold themselves together using current assumptions. There may be another explanation like for instance, if pi was a variable. That is to say, over longer distances the ratio between the circumference to the diameter is less than the approximate of 3.14 then things would seem to us to be further apart assuming pi is close to 3.14 from each other than they would be if you were to travel directly from one star to the other in that galaxy we are observing.

Perhaps it is not matter, but just an area of space where space-time is bent or curved. Perhaps gravity does not require matter. Or perhaps we do not understand gravity and space-time like we think we do. I believe there is a mystery that the gravity of voyager spacecraft is experiencing trying to leave the solar system is greater than what GR would suppose.

 

[UnderstandForgive]

Once again it reminds me of that quote by Feynman "An idea should not be confirmed by the data that supposed it in the first place."

I don't understand the necessity of needing to introduce "Dark Matter". First of all does it interact with light, can you accelerate it by pushing on it. If the answer is no than it is not matter. The only thing that seems to suppose there might be matter is the disturbance of the gravitational field. I believe the evidence has to do with calculating galaxies which can not hold themselves together using current assumptions. There may be another explanation like for instance, if pi was a variable. That is to say, over longer distances the ratio between the circumference to the diameter is less than the approximate of 3.14 then things would seem to us to be further apart assuming pi is close to 3.14 from each other than they would be if you were to travel directly from one star to the other in that galaxy we are observing.

Perhaps it is not matter, but just an area of space where space-time is bent or curved. Perhaps gravity does not require matter. Or perhaps we do not understand gravity and space-time like we think we do. I believe there is a mystery that the gravity of voyager spacecraft is experiencing trying to leave the solar system is greater than what GR would suppose.

After thinking about it more, what I wrote about variable pi does not make sense. And also the way we determine distance of galaxies (most of them) I think has more to do with red shift and less to do with angular diameter. Actually I am probably talking out my rear because I don't know much about the subject, I haven't studied it enough to be able to make an opinion worth sharing.

 

[Michael]

Using ridicule to make the evidence go away isn't going to work.

.......

Coming from someone.....

Oh the sweet irony. You'll note that all the evidence related to your stellar mass oversights did *not* come from me personally, it came from *mainstream* authors, in published and peer reviewed work. Likewise, I'm not the one that performed the tests at LHC, or falsified your claims at LUX, nor did I personally conduct those electron roundness experiments that falsified your mathematical models.

As *usual* you're resorting to *personal ridicule* to avoid *dealing with* the evidence presented. You're basically your own best counselor on this point too. Burying your head in the sand, and blaming me for your miserable string of failures won't make those results go away. They are public record for anyone to look at and review for themselves.

Furthermore your so called "experts" now have a proven track record of falsifying their own claims!

"This collision has done exactly what we want — it’s swept out the ordinary matter from the clusters, displacing it with respect to the dark matter (and the galaxies, which act as collisionless particles for these purposes)."--Sean Carroll
Dark Matter Exists | Sean Carroll

You're still in absolute denial of the findings of *very ordinary* mass in *very ordinary* stars since 2006. Your 'experts' *underestimated* the size of the largest stars that we can directly observe because they *failed to account* for the correct amount of inelastic scattering in 2006. They didn't figure that out until 2008. The following year they found out that they grossly underestimated the number of smaller stars the size of our own sun by a whopping factor of 4. The very next year we find out that they botched the smaller sized stars by up to a factor of 20, and *at least* a factor of 5! Last year your "experts" finally "found" more mass in the form of million degree plasma *surrounding* our galaxy than all the mass in the stars combined! Dust? How much dust does your theory even have room for anymore?

It's no great "mystery" why you needed so much "missing mass" in 2006, particularly around the stellar infrastructure. You botched virtually every aspect of galaxy mass estimates, up and down the spectrum, from the largest stars, to the smallest ones, and pretty much everything else for that matter. You theory *still* doesn't account for any *dust* that carries no charge! Holy cow. Its certainly no mystery why you needed so many fudge factors in 2006, particularly around the stellar infrastrutures.

Your emotional and public attachment to *dogma statements* from an otherwise *falsified* theory, are absurd. Your so called "evidence" of exotic matter amounts to a blatant admission that your own theory is utterly broken and it won't work without it!

Face it, nothing you 'predicted' has panned out in the lab. In fact it's been blown out of the water in the lab three straight times in the past 18 months. Nothing much *can* change until LHC comes online in 2015. It's going to be a long and miserable year for your falsified dogma package even in a *best case* scenario.

You're also bucking the odds now in terms of SUSY theory, and your exotic matter claims have become nothing more than an exotic matter of the gaps claim.

In terms of pure empirical evidence, your invisible sky deities are more impotent on Earth than any average concept of "God". At least God isn't portrayed (designed is more like it) to be completely impotent on Earth in most religions. God has a tangible effect on humans in most religions. We therefore at least have some *hope* (like Penrose) of someday providing evidence to support our theories based on pure empirical physics.

You don't even have *that much* hope as it relates to *most* of your impotent sky deities, and the only one that *could* be tested in the lab has been a complete failure.

Sure, blame the messenger because your dogma package includes 4 claims that defy empirical support.

How can you 'lack belief' in something that *might* be tested in a lab some day (like God), but buy into Guth's magic monopole killing, free lunch inflation nonsense?

Care to elaborate?

 

[Loudmouth]

Oh the sweet irony. You'll note that all the evidence related to your stellar mass oversights did *not* come from me personally, it came from *mainstream* authors, in published and peer reviewed work. Likewise, I'm not the one that performed the tests at LHC, or falsified your claims at LUX, nor did I personally conduct those electron roundness experiments that falsified your mathematical models.

As *usual* you're resorting to *personal ridicule* to avoid *dealing with* the evidence presented. You're basically your own best counselor on this point too. Burying your head in the sand, and blaming me for your miserable string of failures won't make those results go away. They are public record for anyone to look at and review for themselves.

Furthermore your so called "experts" now have a proven track record of falsifying their own claims!

You're still in absolute denial of the findings of *very ordinary* mass in *very ordinary* stars since 2006. Your 'experts' *underestimated* the size of the largest stars that we can directly observe because they *failed to account* for the correct amount of inelastic scattering in 2006. They didn't figure that out until 2008. The following year they found out that they grossly underestimated the number of smaller stars the size of our own sun by a whopping factor of 4. The very next year we find out that they botched the smaller sized stars by up to a factor of 20, and *at least* a factor of 5! Last year your "experts" finally "found" more mass in the form of million degree plasma *surrounding* our galaxy than all the mass in the stars combined! Dust? How much dust does your theory even have room for anymore?

It's no great "mystery" why you needed so much "missing mass" in 2006, particularly around the stellar infrastructure. You botched virtually every aspect of galaxy mass estimates, up and down the spectrum, from the largest stars, to the smallest ones, and pretty much everything else for that matter. You theory *still* doesn't account for any *dust* that carries no charge! Holy cow. Its certainly no mystery why you needed so many fudge factors in 2006, particularly around the stellar infrastrutures.

Your emotional and public attachment to *dogma statements* from an otherwise *falsified* theory, are absurd. Your so called "evidence" of exotic matter amounts to a blatant admission that your own theory is utterly broken and it won't work without it!

Face it, nothing you 'predicted' has panned out in the lab. In fact it's been blown out of the water in the lab three straight times in the past 18 months. Nothing much *can* change until LHC comes online in 2015. It's going to be a long and miserable year for your falsified dogma package even in a *best case* scenario.

You're also bucking the odds now in terms of SUSY theory, and your exotic matter claims have become nothing more than an exotic matter of the gaps claim.

In terms of pure empirical evidence, your invisible sky deities are more impotent on Earth than any average concept of "God". At least God isn't portrayed (designed is more like it) to be completely impotent on Earth in most religions. God has a tangible effect on humans in most religions. We therefore at least have some *hope* (like Penrose) of someday providing evidence to support our theories based on pure empirical physics.

You don't even have *that much* hope as it relates to *most* of your impotent sky deities, and the only one that *could* be tested in the lab has been a complete failure.

Sure, blame the messenger because your dogma package includes 4 claims that defy empirical support.

How can you 'lack belief' in something that *might* be tested in a lab some day (like God), but buy into Guth's magic monopole killing, free lunch inflation nonsense?

Care to elaborate?

Are scientists deriving their claims with respect to exotic dark matter from observations? Yes or no?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Here's the circular feedback loop from Sean's first argument:

Cosmology Primer: The Early Universe

Emphasis mine. It's more than a tad ironic it's called "preposterous universe dot com". That's about right alright. The translation amounts to "Our nucleosynthesis models don't work right with only ordinary matter, so we have to add magical forms of matter to make it work right. The fact we need fudge factors is somehow a "profound achievement" of science, and it's proof positive that exotic matter did it!"

Apparently his argument amounts to "Our model won't work correctly without magic matter, therefore magic matter did it. The fact our theory *now requires* magical fudge factors is therefore not evidence that our theory is broken, it's actually evidence that magic matter did it"!

Oy Vey!

Not one single extraordinary claim related to Lambda-CDM can be verified in any lab, and no number of lab failures can or ever will make a dent in the dogma.

And we are not talking small fudge factors, but 96%. That should have given them a clue in the first place.

Yes, a sad state of affairs, when dogma dominates science.

A Nobel Prize for the Dark Side | holoscience.com | The Electric Universe

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Using ridicule to make the evidence go away isn't going to work.

The evidence is there. No need for faith.

What evidence? Ignoring plasma and electric currents? You are correct, the evidence isn't going to go away no matter how you try to ridicule it or ignore it. All that plasma is here to stay.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Once again it reminds me of that quote by Feynman "An idea should not be confirmed by the data that supposed it in the first place."

I don't understand the necessity of needing to introduce "Dark Matter". First of all does it interact with light, can you accelerate it by pushing on it. If the answer is no than it is not matter. The only thing that seems to suppose there might be matter is the disturbance of the gravitational field. I believe the evidence has to do with calculating galaxies which can not hold themselves together using current assumptions. There may be another explanation like for instance, if pi was a variable. That is to say, over longer distances the ratio between the circumference to the diameter is less than the approximate of 3.14 then things would seem to us to be further apart assuming pi is close to 3.14 from each other than they would be if you were to travel directly from one star to the other in that galaxy we are observing.

Perhaps it is not matter, but just an area of space where space-time is bent or curved. Perhaps gravity does not require matter. Or perhaps we do not understand gravity and space-time like we think we do. I believe there is a mystery that the gravity of voyager spacecraft is experiencing trying to leave the solar system is greater than what GR would suppose.

Or if astronomers just stopped ignoring the electrical force, which is 39 powers stronger than gravity (that is 10 billion, billion, billion, billion, billion times stronger), in plasma (which makes up 99% of the universe). Instead they base their calculations on 1% of the universe, and then wonder why they need 96% Fairie Dust to make their math fit a semblance of reality. It is NOT a gravity dominated universe, but a plasma one, and plasma responds strongly to the EM force, not gravity.

Their very own science admits to this, yet they continually ignore real science for pseudoscience.

Plasma (physics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The presence of a non-negligible number of charge carriers makes the plasma electrically conductive so that it responds strongly to electromagnetic fields. Plasma, therefore, has properties quite unlike those of solids, liquids, or gases and is considered a distinct state of matter. "

But they treat it as nothing more than a hot gas, and then require 96% Fairie Dust to make up for the 99% they treated as a hot gas, instead of the distinct state of matter that it is. A state of matter that "has properties quite unlike those of solids, liquids, or gases."

Who in their right mind would support such a psuedoscientific belief? A belief in direct opposition to everything known about science.

The mystery of the voyager probes is quite simple in the electrical universe we live in.

The Pioneer Anomaly | thunderbolts.info

This effect is NOT just confined to the voyager probes as they imply, but to at least 4 others, all not in bound orbits, and all crossing sharply across the ecliptic (which includes the voyager probes flight paths)

NASA Baffled by Unexplained Force Acting on Space Probes | Space.com

So far the MESSENGER craft is the only one not confirmed, but its path did not pass sharply across the ecliptic, so did not experience a sharp voltage differential.

 

[Michael]

Are scientists deriving their claims with respect to exotic dark matter from observations? Yes or no?

Not exclusively, no. Apparently they simply observe that their models won't work right mathematically within the laws of physics as we know them, so they simply "made up" whatever exotic matter and energy they wanted to "fudge their numbers". That's not exactly "impressive" considering the fact they need 95% metaphysical fudge factor, not even counting inflation. Real physics has been relegated to a *token* status in Lambda-CDM. It's mostly made of "magic".

Considering your three straight failures in the lab, don't you think it might be time to explore some alternative cosmology theories, specifically ones that *don't* require magical forms of matter and energy?

 

[NGC 6712]

Good to see the naive about physics crowd are still going strong. And I see, since I last posted much on here, there is a new convert to the crowd.

Anyone posting about the Pioneer Anomaly in regard to this is just grasping at straws. It is not a plasma dominated universe and has not been for a very long time.

 

[Michael]

Good to see the naive about physics crowd are still going strong.

Yep, there going strong alright. In just the past 18 months they've falsified their own ridiculous claims three different ways.

BBC News - Popular physics theory running out of hiding places
LUX dark-matter search comes up empty - physicsworld.com
'Perfect' Electron Roundness Bruises Supersymmetry : Discovery News

Strike three!

And I see, since I last posted much on here, there is a new convert to the crowd.

Get used to it. It's going to be a long and difficult decade for magical creation mythologies.

Anyone posting about the Pioneer Anomaly in regard to this is just grasping at straws.

Fortunately nobody did that in reference to dark matter.

It is not a plasma dominated universe and has not been for a very long time.

Yes, it is, and will be dominated by plasma physics for all eternity. The sooner you accept that fact, the better.

You'll note that since the 2006 lensing study, we've "discovered" that your galaxy mass estimates weren't worth the paper they were printed on in terms of estimating the amount of mass in the stars of a galaxy. Its therefore no great mystery as to why you needed all that metaphysical gap filler.

 

[Loudmouth]

Not exclusively, no. Apparently they simply observe that their models won't work right mathematically within the laws of physics as we know them, so they simply "made up" whatever exotic matter and energy they wanted to "fudge their numbers".

That's not the way I see it. Exotic dark matter has always been a hypothesis, not an unassailable faith based belief. Scientists proposed the hypothesis because they had limited observations that were consistent with exotic dark matter. They are continuing to test this hypothesis.

How is this faith?

Considering your three straight failures in the lab, don't you think it might be time to explore some alternative cosmology theories, specifically ones that *don't* require magical forms of matter and energy?

The problem is that you are proposing magical plasma that does not blur images, produces redshifts that are wavelength independent, and are transparent to light. All three of those are lab failures for plasma.

 

[Loudmouth]

What evidence? Ignoring plasma and electric currents? You are correct, the evidence isn't going to go away no matter how you try to ridicule it or ignore it. All that plasma is here to stay.

Justa, learn more about the science you keep pushing, then get back to us.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Justa, learn more about the science you keep pushing, then get back to us.

You just need to learn science period. You still have not justified your excuse for treating plasma like a hot gas when you will find no scientific explanation of it that does not tell you it is a distinct state of matter and does not behave like solids, liquids or gasses. So just why is it again you treat it as nothing more than a hot gas?????? What, you can't justify your Fairie Dust theories when you treat it like the distinct state of matter it is? I'd say you need to study up some and stop ignoring 99% of the universe in favor of things you have never once observed or detected.

 

[Loudmouth]

You just need to learn science period. You still have not justified your excuse for treating plasma like a hot gas when you will find no scientific explanation of it that does not tell you it is a distinct state of matter and does not behave like solids, liquids or gasses. So just why is it again you treat it as nothing more than a hot gas?????? What, you can't justify your Fairie Dust theories when you treat it like the distinct state of matter it is? I'd say you need to study up some and stop ignoring 99% of the universe in favor of things you have never once observed or detected.

Your needle is stuck on the same track.

 

[Michael]

Your needle is stuck on the same track.

At least it's not a invisible "dark" track that keeps failing to show up in the lab, like your stuck track.