Is the dark matter hypothesis even falsifiable?

[Michael]

Thunderbolts Forum • View topic - Lambda-CDM - EU/PC Theory - Confirmation Bias

When we look at the lab results and observations from space over the past decade, they really haven't been kind to 'dark matter' claims. Not only did LHC falsify pretty much every popular quantified exotic matter model, it turns out that astronomers have missed most of the mass of galaxies all along, including our own galaxy.

If any part of LCMD theory could be falsified in a standard empirical manner, it's the whole dark matter claim. It's black or white. Either there is laboratory evidence to support for it, or not, and the answer is "not".

There's also zero "observational' evidence (from space) to support exotic forms of matter since the mainstream has been shown to have been overlooking most of the mass of the universe all along as many studies since 2006 have demonstrated.

How would it even be possible to falsify exotic matter claims at this point? No mathematical models of exotic matter produced any useful predictions in the lab. How else would we falsify the whole concept if not by taking a look at it's miserable track record with respect to making any "useful predictions'? How else would we falsify it other than by acknowledging the numerous mistakes that were made in previous baryonic mass estimates of galaxies?

Both the observations from space and the lab results of the past decade have pulled the rug out from under the claim that 'exotic matter did it". How is it even possible to falsify CDM claims at this point since they've never been shown to have merit in the first place, certainly not in the lab?

 

[Radrook]

Funny how they don't really care if it is falsifiable or not as long as it doesn't involve a creator.

 

[durangodawood]

Funny how they don't really care if it is falsifiable or not as long as it doesn't involve a creator.

I think they expect to devise ways to falsify it some day.

Its a little silly to expect novel and difficult ideas to be made totally transparent overnight. These things take time.

 

[gideon123]

Wow - I didn't realize that astrophysics has become a ground for arguments about a Creator. I do appreciate that Stephen Hawking has his personal views - I don't follow the details of what he thinks. But surely any one theory, even a theory on a grand scale, should not be a basis for rejecting God.

As far as Dark Matter goes, I have never studied the deeper basis for the models. I do understand that there is a problem with predictions about the rate of expansion of galaxies and the Universe. Therefore, Dark Matter is a 'postulate' ... as yet there is no conclusive evidence - one way or the other. Personally, I think that what physicists call Dark Matter today - is actually missing terms (or relationships) in our understanding of space and time. I think that the whole concept of space and time will need to be re-vamped. When this is done successfully, the "missing component" ... sometimes called Dark Matter .. will probably be found. But I don't think it will be a hidden form of matter. More likely, a phenomenon that we do not yet understand.

Back to Science and God. Surely - we should be PRAYING for our fellow brothers and sisters in science. Many are lost in an academic world that substitutes 'academic accomplishments' for a real spiritual life. That is truly tragic. We need to pray for them!

Cheers,
Gideon

 

[Radrook]

I think they expect to devise ways to falsify it some day.

Its a little silly to expect novel and difficult ideas to be made totally transparent overnight. These things take time.

I know. So in the meantime it's best to keep claims of certainty restrained.

 

[durangodawood]

I know. So in the meantime it's best to keep claims of certainty restrained.

Far as I know there are zero claims of certainty re dark matter.

 

[lesliedellow]

Dark matter will continue as a hypothesis until it is either detected, or until real astrophysicists come up with a real alternative, which is verified and commands general support.

 

[Michael]

Dark matter will continue as a hypothesis until it is either detected, or until real astrophysicists come up with a real alternative, which is verified and commands general support.

The 'real alternative" is simple plasma. For crying out loud, they just found more mass in the form of million degree plasma in a "halo" around our own galaxy than all the mass they knew about prior to 2012. Only last year did they figure out that this plasma cloud rotates just like their "dark matter" models predicted.

There is *plenty* of recent (last decade) evidence that the mainstream's baryonic mass estimates of galaxies were never worth the paper they were printed on.

The only reason that they keep burying their collective heads in the sand with respect to that revelation is because if they acknowledged their numerous mass estimation problems, it would bring down the whole supernatural matter claim in a heartbeat. Therefore denial is the name of the game, and all NULL results from the lab are irrelevant to them.

Thunderbolts Forum • View topic - Lambda-CDM - EU/PC Theory - Confirmation Bias

 

[Michael]

Far as I know there are zero claims of certainty re dark matter.

As far as I know there is exactly *zero evidence* to support dark matter.

The last show I saw on TV about supermassive black holes in the early universe relied *heavily* on the existence of exotic matter to explain their large size in the supposedly 'early' universe. Furthermore, "ordinary" matter can't simply be used to replace their 'dark matter" without destroying their nucleosynthesis claims. They're stuck between a supernatural rock and a denial hard place with respect to all their NULL lab results and baryonic mass estimate errors.

Thunderbolts Forum • View topic - Lambda-CDM - EU/PC Theory - Confirmation Bias

 

[Michael]

I know. So in the meantime it's best to keep claims of certainty restrained.

It's never going to happen. They can't live without it.

 

[Michael]

Wow - I didn't realize that astrophysics has become a ground for arguments about a Creator.

In the sense that many astrophysicists are theists, it's not really grounds for an argument about a creator for everyone. There are however some "evangelical atheists" like Krauss and Tyson that tend to try to use BB theory as an argument against a creator. The hypocrisy factor in such cases tends to be completely off scale.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Funny how they don't really care if it is falsifiable or not as long as it doesn't involve a creator.

Actually they dont care what you present as long as it doesnt involve electricity. Because pure energy/mind/thought is what God is. But mankind will discover that for themselves one day as they delve deeper into the hidden things that make up everything. Romans 1:20

Then all their excuses will fade away one by one and they will be forced to contemplate the truth.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The 'real alternative" is simple plasma. For crying out loud, they just found more mass in the form of million degree plasma in a "halo" around our own galaxy than all the mass they knew about prior to 2012. Only last year did they figure out that this plasma cloud rotates just like their "dark matter" models predicted.

There is *plenty* of recent (last decade) evidence that the mainstream's baryonic mass estimates of galaxies were never worth the paper they were printed on.

The only reason that they keep burying their collective heads in the sand with respect to that revelation is because if they acknowledged their numerous mass estimation problems, it would bring down the whole supernatural matter claim in a heartbeat. Therefore denial is the name of the game, and all NULL results from the lab are irrelevant to them.

Thunderbolts Forum • View topic - Lambda-CDM - EU/PC Theory - Confirmation Bias

They are stuck. If they admit their mass estimates are flawed and start using the correct physics for the correct states of matter, then it becomes an issue far beyond mere DM. If DM theory is thrown out, then DE theory follows. As does the other 90% of their epicycles. They have gone so far down the rabbit hole into wonderland there is no longer a way back for them except to admit they were wrong about everything. And that sure isnt going to happen, so those Fairie Dust theories are here to stay for quite awhile. But dont worry, I am sure they will search random noise and through mathmagical algorithms find what they seek.

 

[lesliedellow]

The 'real alternative" is simple plasma.

The professionals would seem to disagree, so who should I believe - them or an amateur peddling his pet hobby horse?

I will give you a clue. If I needed a life saving operation, I would consult a surgeon, and not somebody who, having read a couple of medical text books, now thinks that he knows it all.

 

[Michael]

The professionals would seem to disagree, so who should I believe - them or an amateur peddling his pet hobby horse?

I think you should believe the results that you see with your own eyes from LHC, LUX, PandaX, AMDX, electron roundness 'tests", etc. What evidence do you have for exotic forms of matter?

I've got *tons* of evidence that demonstrates they their baryonic mass estimates prior to 2012 were a complete joke. Why ignore that data?

I will give you a clue. If I needed a life saving operation, I would consult a surgeon, and not somebody who, having read a couple of medical text books, now thinks that he knows it all.

If your surgeon told you that "dark voodoo" was 95 percent of your problem, or would you trust the person who has an empirical explanation and potential cure for your ailment?

 

[Michael]

They are stuck. If they admit their mass estimates are flawed and start using the correct physics for the correct states of matter, then it becomes an issue far beyond mere DM. If DM theory is thrown out, then DE theory follows. As does the other 90% of their epicycles. They have gone so far down the rabbit hole into wonderland there is no longer a way back for them except to admit they were wrong about everything. And that sure isnt going to happen, so those Fairie Dust theories are here to stay for quite awhile. But dont worry, I am sure they will search random noise and through mathmagical algorithms find what they seek.

You are absolutely right that they can't just replace exotic matter with ordinary plasma lest their nucleosynthesis claims die a horrible death, and their whole house of supernatural cards comes crashing to the ground.

Technically they already demonstrated with more data that they have less than 5 sigma evidence to support dark energy claims via SN1A events. That's the other denial process that nobody wants to discuss.

The problem for the mainstream is that even a *tiny* bit of inelastic scattering would eliminate any need at all for 'dark energy'.

Instead they want us to believe that all photons from space are *magic* photons that *never* lose momentum to the plasma medium, unlike photons in the lab.

 

[lesliedellow]

If your surgeon told you that "dark voodoo" was 95 percent of your problem, or would you trust the person who has an empirical explanation and potential cure for your ailment?

I would trust the person who, with 10 years of specialised education, and thirty years experience as a medic/surgeon, had every reason to know what he was talking about.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I know. So in the meantime it's best to keep claims of certainty restrained.

What claims of certainty?

 

[Radrook]

What claims of certainty?

For example, that there were only nine planets in our solar system.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

For example, that there were only nine planets in our solar system.

That was a statement of fact, not of certainty.
New facts can come in, necessitating a need for new statements of facts.

And even so, "planet" is a matter of labeling / categorising objects in space.

How is this related to my question about "what claims of certainty concerning dark matter models?"

(I didn't mention the italic part in my previous post, because I assumed it was rather obvious concerning the post I was responding to - apparantly that was a bit optimistic for me)