Dark Matter.

[Michael]

They don't need a source if it is a property of space itself.

That sounds like a complete cop-out. You claim 'dark energy' accelerates an entire plasma universe, but you can't get it to accelerate a single electron in a lab? Notice a problem with your claim?

And don't say that space is nothingness. It has three dimensions, in case you hadn't noticed, and "nothing" doesn't have properties.

"Space" AFAIK is a made up "mystical' term that has nothing to do with GR theory since GR only describes 'spacetime' as a geometric curvature that is related to the concentration of mass/energy. What exactly (physical) is 'space', and how *physically* does it 'expand'?

They don't falsify anything; they just prove that a particular guess was wrong.

All four of your guesses were wrong, and all four of your mathematical 'predictions' got falsified outright. Your mathematical models are clearly a dime a useless dozen at this point. What good is your exotic matter claim if it makes no useful 'predictions'?

Even if they took your paper completely at face value, I doubt if they could really care less. They are not astronomers.

If by "astronomer", you mean purveyor of supernatural entities galore, no they're not "astronomers", but that's not who the EU/PC community is trying to reach.

 

[lesliedellow]

That sounds like a complete cop-out. You claim 'dark energy' accelerates an entire plasma universe, but you can't get it to accelerate a single electron in a lab? Notice a problem with your claim?

No. Zero point energy is not a new idea.

"Space" AFAIK is a made up "mystical' term that has nothing to do with GR theory since GR only describes 'spacetime' as a geometric curvature that is related to the concentration of mass/energy. What exactly (physical) is 'space', and how *physically* does it 'expand'?

There you are then. Not only does it have three dimensions, but, even according to you, it can be curved by the presence of mass. It expands when the things in it, not coupled by one of the four fundamental forces, move apart whilst maintaining their relative positions.

All four of your guesses were wrong

Firstly, they are not "my" guesses. Secondly, you keep going until all reasonable guesses have been exhausted. Even then, you don't reach for the first available crank theory.

If by "astronomer", you mean purveyor of supernatural entities galore, no they're not "astronomers", but that's not who the EU/PC community is trying to reach.

I am sure you know what an astronomer is. If you don't, you had better buy yourself a dictionary.

 

[Michael]

No. Zero point energy is not a new idea.

It's not really a rational idea however since discovering that neutrinos have mass/energy and pass through every experiment by the billions.

There you are then. Not only does it have three dimensions, but, even according to you, it can be curved by the presence of mass. It expands when the things in it, not coupled by one of the four fundamental forces, move apart whilst maintaining their relative positions.

While objects in motion stay in motion, and expansion of mass can occur in such a fashion, you've never demonstrated that space does magic expansion tricks, or that's it's necessary to explain a pattern of redshift.

Firstly, they are not "my" guesses. Secondly, you keep going until all reasonable guesses have been exhausted. Even then, you don't reach for the first available crank theory.

Wow. Somehow in your imagination, a pure form of empirical physics is a "crank theory", yet your supernatural whack-a-mole claim seems 'reasonable' to you somehow, even after *four straight failures* in the lab in four unique ways!

What exactly would it take for you to let go of your exotic matter claim? Since you 2006 study that claimed to have "proof" of 'dark matter' your galaxy mass estimation techniques were falsified *repeatedly*. Your mathematical models related to physical experiments also failed *repeatedly*. What exactly am I supposed to do, while you cannot locate any physical evidence to support your claims?

I am sure you know what an astronomer is. If you don't, you had better buy yourself a dictionary.

I'm sure I know they don't know much about what they are talking about. Not a single one of them can name the source for almost 70 percent of the theory. Another 25 percent of their claims have been falsified 4 times in the past 18 months. It's not just time for a new dictionary, it's time for a new theory that doesn't depend on 'magic'.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

They don't need a source if it is a property of space itself. And don't say that space is nothingness. It has three dimensions, in case you hadn't noticed, and "nothing" doesn't have that, or any other, properties.

Space has no dimensions. You can't measure it. Objects "within" that space have 3 dimensions, and distances to objects within space can be measured in 3 dimensions, but not space itself.

They don't falsify anything; they just prove that a particular guess was wrong.

So far every single guess about exotic matter claims.

Even if they took your paper completely at face value, I doubt if they could really care less. They are not astronomers.

And hence deal with real physics instead of Fairie Dust theories. Theories that have been falsified by those same physicists and engineers, who astronomers have perform their tests and experiments. Those same physicists and engineers that have to build those telescopes and probes, so understand the physics behind them better than do the astronomers. You can't build a machine to measure the wavelengths of x-rays, if you don't understand the physics behind them.

I expect those engineers and physicists know more about the universe astronomers study than the astronomers themselves, since they build all the devices that enable astronomers to sit and look.

 

[Michael]

I expect those engineers and physicists know more about the universe astronomers study than the astronomers themselves, since they build all the devices that enable astronomers to sit and look.

I agree with you wholeheartedly on that particular point.

 

[lesliedellow]

While objects in motion stay in motion, and expansion of mass can occur in such a fashion, you've never demonstrated that space does magic expansion tricks, or that's it's necessary to explain a pattern of redshift.

You must have forgotten one our previous debates, when you retreated so far as to say you had "no problem" with expanding space.

Wow. Somehow in your imagination, a pure form of empirical physics is a "crank theory"

There is nothing empirical about it when it is taken out of the "lab" and applied to an area in which Mr Alfven had no expertise.

What exactly would it take for you to let go of your exotic matter claim?

It will be "let go of" when the nature of dark matter is either discovered or all reasonable guesses have been exhausted.

I'm sure I know they don't know much about what they are talking about.

Indeed? And you do I suppose. Weren't you a computer programmer? - no, I must have been mistaken - you are an astrophysicist.

 

[Michael]

You must have forgotten one our previous debates, when you retreated so far as to say you had "no problem" with expanding space.

I have no problem with 'expanding spacetime', as in objects in motion staying in motion. I lack believe that 'space' does magic expansion tricks.

There is nothing empirical about it when it is taken out of the "lab" and applied to an area in which Mr Alfven had no expertise.

Considering the fact he wrote the book on plasma physics, and 99+ percent of the known universe is in the plasma state, your comment about any perceived lack of expertize on this subject is preposterous.

It will be "let go of" when the nature of dark matter is either discovered or all reasonable guesses have been exhausted.

How long might that take? Will I still be alive by then? Something like 8 years ago I got virtually executed at Physics Forums for even daring to suggest that exotic matter might not be found at LHC and other experiments and their galaxy mass estimates might be wrong instead. Shall I hang out for another 8 years even *after* their galaxy mass estimates went up in smoke? Shall I wait 28 more years? How long do you figure I have to wait for you to round up some real evidence of this stuff anyway?

Indeed? And you do I suppose. Weren't you a computer programmer? - no, I must have been mistaken - you are an astrophysicist.

I've spent the last 10 years debating them in cyberspace. JREF in particular was a real eye opener, particularly that discussion over magnetic reconnection in a 'vacuum'. That was an absolutely *amazing* and revealing conversation. Not one of their resident astrophysical hot shots bothered to even notice that plasma is not *optional* in the magnetic reconnection process over a period of *months*, not just days or weeks. How much can they *possibly* understand about plasma and plasma physics if they don't understand that much?

What do they actually know about the physics of the universe if they don't understand MDH theory and *basic* concepts like defining the rate of reconnection?

About the only "physics" they seem to 'understand' is what I would call 'dogmatic denial oriented physics', where they simply parrot the dogma over and over again and simply ignore the actual falsification process entirely. LUX has a peak sensitivity at around 30GEV. It found *nothing*. AMS-02 shows nothing like a cutoff anywhere near 30GEV as 'predicted' by SUSY theory. That doesn't however stop the astronomers from continuing to point at the sky and claiming WIMPS in the 30-35GEV range did it anyway. It's all one big circular feedback loop which is completely devoid of a falsification mechanism.