Dark Matter

[Michael]

That's not the way I see it.

Of course not, but that is what they did. They fudged the numbers with "magic".

Exotic dark matter has always been a hypothesis, not an unassailable faith based belief.

If that were actually so, those last three falsification processes at LHC, at LUX and in the electron experiments should have done the trick. Since you now turned it into an exotic matter of the gaps argument, it's become your "religion".

Scientists proposed the hypothesis because they had limited observations that were consistent with exotic dark matter. They are continuing to test this hypothesis.

What's the point of *testing* it when you *never* abide by the results of your failed tests? It's not like LHC saw even a single "sparticle", and it's not like that electron roundness experiments worked out in your favor. Suppose LHC finishes up it's range of tests and there's still nothing? Are you going to abandon the claim?

How is this faith?

After those three straight strikes in the lab, and the discovery that you blew your normal solar mass estimates in three different ways, what else can you call it? It's certainly not "empirical physics'.

The problem is that you are proposing magical plasma that does not blur images,

Nope, I'm proposing *normal* plasma that sometimes *does* blur lots of images depending on the conditions.

produces redshifts that are wavelength independent,

You never actually demonstrated that claim to be true beyond a limited wavelength range. In fact your own x-ray paper showed that nearly 1/3 of the data set *didn't match your prediction*!

and are transparent to light. All three of those are lab failures for plasma.

Plasma can't "fail". It has physical properties that can be *measured*, including the the ability to cause inelastic scattering. It emits gamma rays in our own atmosphere, unlike your WIMPS.

Get real. 99+ percent of the known universe is in the plasma state. Plasma physics is the *only* way you're going to be able to accurately model it. GR alone isn't going to cut it, and that's why you need so much supernatural gap filler in the first place.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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?

It is faith because you have observed in the past 8 years, enough matter in the form of plasma to do away with the mass problem, but you refuse to accept all this mass, and have not even attempted to revise your dark matter estimates based upon all this extra mass. It is like ignoring water in the ocean, and then imagining some undetectable substance instead that allows fish to move about, seemingly in contradiction to gravity.

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.

Only you think plasma is magical. Plasma physicists just know it is electrical in nature, as well as is light. You are the one requiring magic. You want an electrically inert medium to affect a mass-less photon by gravity. Under your theory of spacetime, a particle MUST possess energy in order to bend spacetime. You want a neutron to be electrically neutral, but we detect it by its interactions with other particles through the EM radiation given off.

https://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/lanl/lib-www/la-pubs/00326408.pdf

But you want dark matter to interact with particles, but not give off any EM radiation. You want to violate all of E=mc^2 just so you can keep your Fairie Dust theories.

Is not oxygen transparent to light? And it is more dense than any plasma cloud in space. They are not blurred, because your theory of redshift is incorrect and they are not at the vast distances you believe them to be.

Redshift has been explained to you. Consistent with every single observation, including the 708 galaxies and quasars you have no explanation for at all, or the binary stars, or the K-term, or the different redshift in absorption and emission profiles, or the multiple redshift observed from pairs of quasars and in some instances from the same object itself.

A New Non-Doppler Redshift

We have NEVER tested plasma with incoherent light, only with coherent laser beams. Incoherent light and coherent light are not even similar. yet even with coherent light it is indisputable that it is an electron density phenomenon in plasma. That is a direct lie about all three being failures in plasma laboratory testing, since stars and galaxies do not emit coherent light, but incoherent light, and only coherent light has been used.

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 you use a process that never occurs in nature, and then say lookie see. Pseudoscience.

 

[Michael]

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.

The thing that just blows my mind is that he "lacks belief" in God, presumably over a perceived lack of physical evidence, yet he clings to *four* supernatural claims that do not show up in a lab, and three of them *cannot* show up in a lab. I don't get it. How can he 'hold faith' in four supernatural constructs, and reject a perfectly *empirical* concept of a living universe?

There doesn't seem to be any rhyme nor reason to his choice of when to 'hold belief' in some idea, and when not to.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The thing that just blows my mind is that he "lacks belief" in God, presumably over a perceived lack of physical evidence, yet he clings to *four* supernatural claims that do not show up in a lab, and three of them *cannot* show up in a lab. I don't get it. How can he 'hold faith' in four supernatural constructs, and reject a perfectly *empirical* concept of a living universe?

There doesn't seem to be any rhyme nor reason to his choice of when to 'hold belief' in some idea, and when not to.

Because it is easier to be told what to believe, then to actually think for oneself. His priests have told him what to believe, and no amount of science will dissuade him from the conviction that his religion is the correct one.

That is the difference between a believer and a zealot. For example, I have no "religion" just belief that God exists. I have no belief that one specific religion is any more correct than any other. A zealot has no doubt whatsoever that his religion, and only his, is the correct one. And will never be persuaded it may contain errors, even when confronted with actual facts.

What is dark matter? They have not the faintest clue, but can assure you with no doubt whatsoever it exists, despite the fact every experiment has falsified that belief. Dark energy? Who knows, but it must exists because they can not entertain the possibility that their theories may be wrong. Spacetime? A nothing bent by something that then tells something how to move. Can never be detected, never measured, never studied, but their faith is absolute, even when it violates cause and affect.

And all their beliefs require only one thing. Ignoring what 99% of the universe is composed of. They will never be able to justify why they ignore 99% of the universe and continue to have faith in things not seen. And will then have the nerve to call it science, instead of the religion that it is.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Yes, and no blurring at all. if they say so.

http://hubblesite.org/hubble_discoveries/10th/photos/graphics/slide34high.jpg

http://www.spacetelescope.org/static/archives/images/screen/opo9918f.jpg

http://www.redorbit.com/media/uploads/2005/09/47414fbc8eac899545c6db48ebfb47d81.jpg

http://media-3.web.britannica.com/eb-media/53/21253-004-6FA80AA6.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/40/UZC_J224030.2+032131.jpg

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/.a/6a00d8341bf7f753ef019b017c22f2970b-pi

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, and no blurring at all. if they say so.

http://hubblesite.org/hubble_discoveries/10th/photos/graphics/slide34high.jpg

http://www.spacetelescope.org/static/archives/images/screen/opo9918f.jpg

http://www.redorbit.com/media/uploads/2005/09/47414fbc8eac899545c6db48ebfb47d81.jpg

http://media-3.web.britannica.com/eb-media/53/21253-004-6FA80AA6.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/40/UZC_J224030.2+032131.jpg

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/.a/6a00d8341bf7f753ef019b017c22f2970b-pi

You are conflating an unclear image brought about by the limits of various telescopes with the scattering that would cause much more severe "blurring". Your model predicts blurring that is not observed. Another obvious failure of your beliefs. There is a reason it is called "Compton Scattering".

 

[CabVet]

Because it is easier to be told what to believe, then to actually think for oneself. His priests have told him what to believe, and no amount of science will dissuade him from the conviction that his religion is the correct one.

 

[Michael]

You are conflating an unclear image brought about by the limits of various telescopes with the scattering that would cause much more severe "blurring".

How do you even know that all types of inelastic scattering would cause "more" blurring in the first place, and how do we determine how much blurring is "typical"?

Your model predicts blurring that is not observed.

I does indeed predict *some* blurring and indeed we see *some* blurring.

Another obvious failure of your beliefs. There is a reason it is called "Compton Scattering".

How about every other type of inelastic scattering, and various combinations of moving objects *and* inelastic scattering? How did you rule out all those possible combinations and permutations again? I don't suppose you have any published papers with *exhaustive* studies of *various* types of inelastic scattering do you?

Nah, this is probably another one of those "Trust me, I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night" claims, isn't it?

 

[Michael]

Because it is easier to be told what to believe, then to actually think for oneself.

I think you hit the nail on the head.

Atheists in particular tend to still need a surrogate source of "truthiness", so "scientists" tend to become their "high priest" of truthiness. Whereas they'll often require *empirical physical* evidence of "God" that cannot be explained *any other possible way*, they'll take nearly any old dogged eared supernatural claim, so long as it comes with the label "science" slapped to it's side.

You'd think however after falsifying your own galaxy stellar mass estimation models in three separate ways, and falsifying your exotic matter claims three times in the lab, you'd start to entertain some other possible options.

Instead there seems to be "circle up the wagons" mentality and doubling down on the supernatural claims.

I suppose supernatural dogma of Gutheology can't really be falsified in any lab on Earth, nor falsified by the failures of their now falsified galaxy mass estimation models, nor falsified by *any* actual observation or "test". It's pretty much "facts be damned, our sacred dogma did it"!

 

[DogmaHunter]

What is dark matter? They have not the faintest clue, but can assure you with no doubt whatsoever it exists, despite the fact every experiment has falsified that belief.

Dark matter is not any specific theory. It's a place holder name for a phenomena that demonstrably exists, but is not understood.

Ideas are brought forward about it and tested. These are the ideas that are being falsified. The presence of "dark matter" is not a hypothesis. It's an observable fact.

Consider the days before Newton. Gravity was a fact then as well. It was just not understood. I don't know what placeholder name they used for it, but it doesn't matter.

What matters is that the phenomena demonstrably existed, but was not understood.

Dark matter (and energy) are in the exact same boat. Don't let the names "matter" and "energy" fool you.

Dark energy? Who knows, but it must exists because they can not entertain the possibility that their theories may be wrong

See above, same story. SOMETHING there demonstrably exists because we can observe the effects. We don't know what it is. It must be given a name so that when someone refers to it, others know what they mean. You might just as well call these phenomena "tommy and timmy" instead of "dark energy and matter".

Its presence is a fact.
Its nature is not understood / known.

. Spacetime? A nothing bent by something that then tells something how to move. Can never be detected, never measured, never studied, but their faith is absolute, even when it violates cause and affect.

1. cause and effect only applies within space-time
2. the origins of the universe are unkown

And all their beliefs require only one thing. Ignoring what 99% of the universe is composed of.

Can you be a bit more specific? What is this 99% that is being ignored in your opinion?

 

[DogmaHunter]

I think you hit the nail on the head.

Atheists in particular tend to still need a surrogate source of "truthiness", so "scientists" tend to become their "high priest" of truthiness.

Science, not scientists. Science as a process of discovery. It's also all tentative based on the data available. So be careful with that word "truth".

Whereas they'll often require *empirical physical* evidence of "God" that cannot be explained *any other possible way*, they'll take nearly any old dogged eared supernatural claim, so long as it comes with the label "science" slapped to it's side.

There are no supernatural shenanigans in science, no matter how many times you repeat it or misrepresent certain scientific fields.

You'd think however after falsifying your own galaxy stellar mass estimation models in three separate ways, and falsifying your exotic matter claims three times in the lab, you'd start to entertain some other possible options.

And they do. You being ill-informed about these subjects or the scientific process in general doesn't change reality.

I suppose supernatural dogma of Gutheology can't really be falsified in any lab on Earth, nor falsified by the failures of their now falsified galaxy mass estimation models, nor falsified by *any* actual observation or "test". It's pretty much "facts be damned, our sacred dogma did it"!

I've seen you mention this word several times now. I decided to google it once and the only thing I can find are religious things concerning theology. It doesn't seem to be connected to science in any way.

Can you briefly explain what this term is about and what exactly you are referring to?

 

[Michael]

Science, not scientists. Science as a process of discovery. It's also all tentative based on the data available. So be careful with that word "truth".

Ok.

There are no supernatural shenanigans in science, no matter how many times you repeat it or misrepresent certain scientific fields.

False. Some things show up in the lab 'naturally'. Other claims are *supernatural* claims that *do not show up in the lab*. Dark energy for instance was 'custom created' to 'fill in the gaps' of one specific cosmology theory. Outside of that one otherwise falsified theory, it serves no other empirical purpose.

Compare and contrast that with EM fields. We use them in everything.

And they do. You being ill-informed about these subjects or the scientific process in general doesn't change reality.

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?

I've seen you mention this word several times now. I decided to google it once and the only thing I can find are religious things concerning theology. It doesn't seem to be connected to science in any way.

Can you briefly explain what this term is about and what exactly you are referring to?

I'm talking about the way some people 'practice' their science. Some are quite open and honest and allow for ambiguity and public debate and public criticism. Others feel the need to 'shelter the flock' from dissenting beliefs, and they pretty much rationalize away every failure, just like those three straight strikes against 'cold dark matter' theory.

 

[NGC 6712]

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?

 

[Michael]

Dark matter is not any specific theory. It's a place holder name for a phenomena that demonstrably exists, but is not understood.

Yes and no. It's now associated with 'exotic' brands of matter rather than 'ordinary' matter.

Ideas are brought forward about it and tested. These are the ideas that are being falsified. The presence of "dark matter" is not a hypothesis. It's an observable fact.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7804978/#post65032612

"Missing mass" was an "observable fact". We now have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, so we now know *how and why* the underestimated the stellar infrastructure. Not one single ounce of the matter that they found in the past decade was 'exotic' in nature.

Consider the days before Newton. Gravity was a fact then as well. It was just not understood. I don't know what placeholder name they used for it, but it doesn't matter.

Dark Energy, Dark Matter - NASA Science

It matters when they *claim* to know that it's *not* made of ordinary matter, only to find out that *it was* made of ordinary matter, and they don't fix the website, and they continue to spew the same falsified claims. Then it matters.

What matters is that the phenomena demonstrably existed, but was not understood.

Dark matter (and energy) are in the exact same boat. Don't let the names "matter" and "energy" fool you.

Actually they're not in the same boat in the sense that that there was (in 2006) in fact evidence of "missing mass', much of which has since been found in ordinary plasma.

Dark energy however was pure ad hoc gap filler from start to finish. Most of the "energy" they haven't "discovered yet' is in ordinary EM fields, particularly the electric field.

See above, same story. SOMETHING there demonstrably exists because we can observe the effects. We don't know what it is. It must be given a name so that when someone refers to it, others know what they mean. You might just as well call these phenomena "tommy and timmy" instead of "dark energy and matter".

The term 'missing mass' would have been sufficient in the first place, and the term 'dark energy' (as well as the whole concept) was "created on the fly" to save one otherwise falsified interpretation of the redshift phenomenon from *instant falsification*. In short they *cheated* rather than let their own claims be falsified by the data. They do that often actually.

Its presence is a fact.

Absolutely false. It's presence is *assumed* in the 'dogma'. You can't even tell me where to get any 'dark energy' let alone explain a way to 'control' it. Compare and contrast that to EM fields that show up in the lab an in consumer goods.

Its nature is not understood / known.

So really, 95 percent of their goofy theory is "not understood", even by them! Why then should I worry about that nonsense, or waste my time on it, particularly after those three straight disasters in the lab?

1. cause and effect only applies within space-time

Ok, I'll bite. What's *isn't* within 'space-time'?

2. the origins of the universe are unkown

Origins? How do you even know it *had* an origin in the first place? As far as I know energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it can only changed forms. AFAIK, some form of energy has existed eternally.

Can you be a bit more specific? What is this 99% that is being ignored in your opinion?

Plasma physics for starters. 99+ percent of the universe is in the plasma state, but the mainstream treats it as a *gas*, not a plasma with respect to all their galaxy rotation models. They *assume* that gravity is the only relevant force of nature, even though EM fields have a tangible effect on plasma.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You are conflating an unclear image brought about by the limits of various telescopes with the scattering that would cause much more severe "blurring". Your model predicts blurring that is not observed. Another obvious failure of your beliefs. There is a reason it is called "Compton Scattering".

My model predicts no blurring, anymore than yours does. And explains all the discrepancies yours can not. I don't think you understand my model at all. Nor do I think you have even read it, or you would know how false your statement was.

A New Non-Doppler Redshift

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Dark matter is not any specific theory. It's a place holder name for a phenomena that demonstrably exists, but is not understood.

Agreed, electrical currents in plasma, plasma that they treat as an ordinary gas, when their own science says it isn't.

Ideas are brought forward about it and tested. These are the ideas that are being falsified. The presence of "dark matter" is not a hypothesis. It's an observable fact.

It is an observable fact that some force is occurring which they do not understand, not that exotic particles are the cause. Since the electrical force is 10^39 powers stronger than gravity, a small electric current could easily explain the observations. Electric currents that have been observed everywhere we have ever sent a probe.

Consider the days before Newton. Gravity was a fact then as well. It was just not understood. I don't know what placeholder name they used for it, but it doesn't matter.

What matters is that the phenomena demonstrably existed, but was not understood.

Dark matter (and energy) are in the exact same boat. Don't let the names "matter" and "energy" fool you.

They don't fool me. They are merely manifestations of the EM force, which astronomers ignore in space, despite the fact that it is observed and measured every single place we have sent a probe and tested for it.

See above, same story. SOMETHING there demonstrably exists because we can observe the effects. We don't know what it is. It must be given a name so that when someone refers to it, others know what they mean. You might just as well call these phenomena "tommy and timmy" instead of "dark energy and matter".

Its presence is a fact.
Its nature is not understood / known.



1. cause and effect only applies within space-time
2. the origins of the universe are unkown



Can you be a bit more specific? What is this 99% that is being ignored in your opinion?

the 99% being ignored is plasma. You can't treat it like an ordinary gas when their own science proclaims it behaves nothing like them, but that is precisely what they do.

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."

And plasma has been found exactly where their DM theories predict, in quantities vast enough to explain the missing mass, even if one continues to ignore the electrical force.

Colossal Gas Cloud Discovered Around Milky Way | Space.com

And they have severely underestimated the mass everywhere, but refuse to update their DM theories to account for all this new mass discovered in the last 8 years.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/12/01/scientists-sextillion-stars/

New View: Universe Suddenly Twice as Bright | Space.com

NASA - Galaxies Demand a Stellar Recount

But instead of looking into all this plasma found as a possible cause, they continue to ignore it, continue to spend billions searching for a particle that has failed every single lab test, along with the theory they use to explain it.

BBC News - Popular physics theory running out of hiding places

It took 4 negative results to falsify ether theories, DM has failed about a dozen. Why isn't it held to the same standards of evidence?

Edit: And we should point out that the inconsistency they speak of in the standard model is simply it does not predict exotic dark matter. Yet it has passed every single test and was even confirmed by accident when trying to prove Supersymmetry. But of course if they paused to consider that plasma responds strongly to EM fields, and EM fields are everywhere in space, they might realize there was no need for all that Fairie Dust in the first place.

 

[Loudmouth]

It is faith because you have observed in the past 8 years, enough matter in the form of plasma to do away with the mass problem, but you refuse to accept all this mass, and have not even attempted to revise your dark matter estimates based upon all this extra mass. It is like ignoring water in the ocean, and then imagining some undetectable substance instead that allows fish to move about, seemingly in contradiction to gravity.

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

Only you think plasma is magical.

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.

 

[Loudmouth]

I does indeed predict *some* blurring and indeed we see *some* blurring.

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

How about every other type of inelastic scattering, and various combinations of moving objects *and* inelastic scattering? How did you rule out all those possible combinations and permutations again?

Where are the lab experiments?

 

[Loudmouth]

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

Is this the same lab where plasma is incapable of producing a wavelength independent redshift? Your magic plasma isn't showing up in the lab, it would appear.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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




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.

Indeed they are not inconsistent.

A New Non-Doppler Redshift


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."



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