Dark Matter.

[mzungu]

This just in from NASA: Fermi Data Tantalize With New Clues To Dark Matter | NASA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQZ0ElLgZ1c

 

[Michael]

Yawn. Never mind the fact that SUSY theory failed it's own "golden test" at LHC. Never mind the fact it failed again at LUX. Forget the fact it's prediction related to a cutoff in gamma rays was falsified by AMS-02. Forget the fact that it's predictions were falsified yet again in electron roundness tests too. Just bury your head in the sands of pure denial, and *point at the sky* and pretend your impotent on Earth invisible friend did it anyway. Absolutely *unbelievable*. In terms of pure denial of the scientific evidence to date, you're as bad as a YEC at this point.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Poor Michael. He still does not know the difference between failing a test and not the inability to find a theoretical particle.

He will probably be pushing his nonsense until the day he dies.

 

[mzungu]

Yawn. Never mind the fact that SUSY theory failed it's own "golden test" at LHC. Never mind the fact it failed again at LUX. Forget the fact it's prediction related to a cutoff in gamma rays was falsified by AMS-02. Forget the fact that it's predictions were falsified yet again in electron roundness tests too. Just bury your head in the sands of pure denial, and *point at the sky* and pretend your impotent on Earth invisible friend did it anyway. Absolutely *unbelievable*. In terms of pure denial of the scientific evidence to date, you're as bad as a YEC at this point.

Burning the midnight oil there Michael? My bets are on NASA; after all they give results whereas EU theorists only give us untangible hypotheses.

 

[Michael]

Poor Michael. He still does not know the difference between failing a test and not the inability to find a theoretical particle.

He will probably be pushing his nonsense until the day he dies.

As long as you're still peddling an exotic matter of the gaps claim *in spite of* the lab results, probably so.

 

[Michael]

Burning the midnight oil there Michael?

Ya. Too much coffee tonight I'm afraid.

My bets are on NASA; after all they give results whereas EU theorists only give us untangible hypotheses.

Be sure to let me know when anyone at NASA (or anywhere else) can name an actual source of "dark energy" or will commit to any actual energy state of dark matter, and show me some physical evidence that their claim isn't just another affirming the consequent fallacy like all the rest of their handwaves.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As long as you're still peddling an exotic matter of the gaps claim *in spite of* the lab results, probably so.

You keep forgetting that the "lab" of astronomy is the telescope and recently there has been evidence supporting dark matter.

 

[mzungu]

Ya. Too much coffee tonight I'm afraid.

I am having my first morning coffee sitting on my verandah overlooking the Indian Ocean. Ahhh Blisss!!!!

Be sure to let me know when anyone at NASA (or anywhere else) can name an actual source of "dark energy" or will commit to any actual energy state of dark matter, and show me some physical evidence that their claim isn't just another affirming the consequent fallacy like all the rest of their handwaves.

Sure! After all that is how science works.

 

[mzungu]

 

[Michael]

You keep forgetting that the "lab" of astronomy is the telescope and recently there has been evidence supporting dark matter.

No there is no evidence at all in your observations with telescopes. You're playing another "affirming the consequent fallacy with your invisible friend* game. It's no better than claiming that dark god did it.

Electrical discharges occur around *every* large body in this solar system with a thick atmosphere. They *naturally* produce gamma rays, x-rays and emit positrons, including right here in the Earth's atmosphere.

They could just take the "natural" solution, but *noooooooooo*! They simply point at the very same observations related to discharges in our own atmosphere and claim "dark god did it"! That's just pathetic IMO.

That CDM paper from 2006 was falsified 7 times in following 8 years.

 

[Michael]

I am having my first morning coffee sitting on my verandah overlooking the Indian Ocean. Ahhh Blisss!!!!

Ok, now I'm little envious. It's just plain "dark" here at the moment.

Sure! After all that is how science works.

Apparently so. All hail the infallible Guth.

 

[mzungu]

Ok, now I'm little envious. It's just plain "dark" here at the moment.

Have faith Michael. Newtonian Gravity guarantees that it will cease to be dark in the next few hours depending on your geographical position.

 

[Michael]

Have faith Michael. Newtonian Gravity guarantees that it will cease to be dark in the next few hours depending on your geographical position.

I probably deserved that.

 

[lesliedellow]

and show me some physical evidence that their claim isn't just another affirming the consequent fallacy like all the rest of their handwaves.

He still doesn't know the difference between physics and mathematics, it would seem.

In mathematics they jump on you from a very great height if you get an implication sign the wrong way round, but in every other area of life it is called gathering evidence and putting together a case.

 

[Michael]

He still doesn't know the difference between physics and mathematics, it would seem.

Sure I do. Mathematical models are those dime a dozen SUSY handwave claims that all went up in smoke at LHC, at LUX, at AMS-02 and the electron roundness experiments. *Physics* is related to what actually *works* in the lab.

 

[lesliedellow]

Sure I do. Mathematical models are those dime a dozen SUSY handwave claims that all went up in smoke at LHC, at LUX, at AMS-02 and the electron roundness experiments. *Physics* is related to what actually *works* in the lab.

I was referring to you forever harping on about "affirming the consequent fallacy". It is only a fallacy in formal logic.

If somebody's finger prints are found on a murder weapon, should the jury reject that as evidence that the person on trial is the murderer, because, after all, it doesn't directly imply that the defendant is the murderer?

 

[Michael]

I was referring to you forever harping on about "affirming the consequent fallacy". It is only a fallacy in formal logic.

If somebody's finger prints are found on a murder weapon, should the jury reject that as evidence that the person on trial is the murderer, because, after all, it doesn't directly imply that the defendant is the murderer?

The problem is that you're *instantly rejecting* every single possible human suspect in the murder case and claiming that "Casper the not so friendly dark ghost" did it.

There's absolutely no physical connection between redshift and 'space expansion' in the lab. It's all in your *head*. Likewise there are no demonstrated forms of exotic matter either. In fact, every so called *prediction* of CMD theory that has been tested so far has *failed* in truly *epic* fashion. It's failed four unique and different tests thus far.

 

[lesliedellow]

There's absolutely no physical connection between redshift and 'space expansion' in the lab. It's all in your *head*. Likewise there are no demonstrated forms of exotic matter either. In fact, every so called *prediction* of CMD theory that has been tested so far has *failed* in truly *epic* fashion. It's failed four unique and different tests thus far.

If you have really got it in for dark matter, why don't you try a mainstream alternative, such as MOND? - or would it be too excruciatingly boring, not to be part of a persecuted minority, fighting valiantly against the forces of darkness?

 

[Michael]

If you have really got it in for dark matter, why don't you try a mainstream alternative, such as MOND?

Well for starters because MHD theory works just as well and I prefer it over MOND theory. Secondly, it's pretty obvious they botched the galaxy mass estimates now too. Most importantly however, I prefer EU/PC theory over MOND theory because I doubt very much that gravity *alone* determines the movements and behaviors of a mostly plasma universe.

- or would it be too excruciatingly boring, not to be part of a persecuted minority, fighting valiantly against the forces of darkness?

I suppose I could play the role of persecuted victim with either theory, but EU/PC theory is just more fun to work with and it eats your GR centric universe for breakfast .

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Yawn. Never mind the fact that SUSY theory failed it's own "golden test" at LHC. Never mind the fact it failed again at LUX. Forget the fact it's prediction related to a cutoff in gamma rays was falsified by AMS-02. Forget the fact that it's predictions were falsified yet again in electron roundness tests too. Just bury your head in the sands of pure denial, and *point at the sky* and pretend your impotent on Earth invisible friend did it anyway. Absolutely *unbelievable*. In terms of pure denial of the scientific evidence to date, you're as bad as a YEC at this point.

Yes, let's also never mind the fact that gamma rays have NEVER been observed to be produced by gravitational sources, only electric fields.

Let's also never mind that it is a natural occurrence in plasma 99% of the universe.

Pinch (plasma physics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Pinches may also become unstable,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinch_(plasma_physics)#cite_note-11 and generate radiation across the electromagnetic spectrum, including radio waves, x-rayshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinch_(plasma_physics)#cite_note-12 and gamma rays,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinch_(plasma_physics)#cite_note-13 and also neutronshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinch_(plasma_physics)#cite_note-14 and synchrotron radiation."

But hey, you can be assured they will ignore all that plasma surrounding every galaxy in this theory, just like they ignored it in their mass estimates.

http://www.chjaa.org/2005/2005_5_1p57.pdf

The sad thing is we know of no way to produce gamma rays but electric fields and magnetic fields, but let's now apply it to electrically neutral Dark matter since all of our experimental results have falsified the model.

When every experiment you do falsifies your theory, you start relying on things far, far away that can never be tested to prove your theory.

They won't accept their own experimental evidence Michael, they sure aren't going to give up on their Fairie Dust.