Is the dark matter hypothesis even falsifiable?

[SelfSim]

Let's give Michael the benefit of the doubt.
We should allow him time to produce his paradigm changing paper that magic plasma doesn't cause scattering and how it will overturn quantum mechanics and classical physics.

You Sir, have the patience of a saint!

The magic of magic plasma is well .. err magic .. (and thus beyond the need for explanation), no?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You were given the answer long ago, but as I said in that post you wouldn't understand it if you read it and doubted you would read it. As apparently I was proven correct once again. As I said then magic expansion of nothing is not required as an explanation for cosmological redshift, just actual physics.

A New Non-Doppler Redshift

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Your ad hominem attacks are wasted as frankly I could care less what you think because personally I think your a burnt out bulb.

Which you avoided answering the question. Or did you just hope I wouldn't notice your avoidance? How is it your magic CMB avoids being affected by your magic expanding spacetime?

And magic expanding spacetime isn't needed to explain cosmological redshift. Not that you'll understand the paper or even read it.

A New Non-Doppler Redshift
​

That it shows a towards or away shift shows it is a local event. All radiation emitted beyond 600 parsecs is redshifted only. Only objects within our local group show Doppler shift towards the red or blue, everything else is systematically redshifted. Your own explanation is faulty at best and ignorant of what actually happens to all radiation coming from beyond 600 parsecs. They might fool you with that made up excuse, but the facts don't jive with the explanation.

"I told you" it will be revealed or accepted later that this "new" mass/energy stuff is just a way to keep from understanding (or admitting) that the non-local field interactions in the "space" medium entirely. Spooky action becomes QFT and topology.

Non-local topological fields plug in holes, and allows us to practice real math/science - where the emperical evidence is found first, THEN the theory is applied and vindicated. There is nothing new under the sun, which means we don't have to make up evidence to vindicate our mathematical or theoretical errors. It may take more time, or more fight against status quo, but it is worth it to do like original science, and find emperical evidence first before asserting something as real.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

And, again, there are particles called "crustal plasma" that exists as grains of spheroid "hard plasmons" with noticeable separation of charges. It is plasma, but it behaves like a Yukawa liquid.

It reads as "dust" and gas, but it is not; it is charged "crustal," and nano/pico particle plasma. (You would have to ignore the effects as negligible perturbations, but you cannot in reality).

 

[Michael]

You Sir, have the patience of a saint!

The magic of magic plasma is well .. err magic .. (and thus beyond the need for explanation), no?

I love how you folks have reality standing on it's head.

Plasma shows up in the lab. Every single 'property' that is assigned to it (including scattering potential) is directly related to what we've learned about it from the lab. We know that it behaves differently for instance when it's radiating at millions of degrees rather than say a few thousand degrees, and it responds to environmental factors like EM fields.

Compare and contrast that with your magical form of exotic matter. Not a single "property" that you've assigned to it (longevity, invisibility, ability to pass through other forms of matter) is related to anything that you've learned from controlled experimentation. Every single property is an ad-hoc assignment that is given to the magic matter in order to save *one otherwise falsified theory*. The invisibility property for instance is directly related to your now *falsified* belief that your galaxy baryonic mass estimates were accurate. They were never accurate. They still aren't accurate to this day, but at least we now now where *most* of the plasma of our own galaxy is located, and we just found it in 2012, six years *after* that lensing study related to *distant* galaxies.

The "magic" about your mythical form of matter is how it "perfectly" props up one otherwise falsified cosmology theory. It's a "miracle" fix for LCDM, and without it, LCMD is toast.

EU/PC theory could hypothetically incorporate other types of exotic matter if they were in fact ever found, but it's not *dependent* upon any such thing. On the other hand, LCMD is *entirely* dependent upon a particle that enjoys zero empirical laboratory support, even *after* spending billions of dollars/euros looking for such evidence.

When are you going to acknowledge that your dead dark horse is actually dead? We already have *ample* evidence to demonstrate that your bayonic mass estimates have been a joke, and we have ample "tests" of your claims in the lab, all of which came up negative. What more could anyone do to kill off a claim that never had any empirical lab tested credibility in the first place?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

"I told you" it will be revealed or accepted later that this "new" mass/energy stuff is just a way to keep from understanding (or admitting) that the non-local field interactions in the "space" medium entirely. Spooky action becomes QFT and topology.

Non-local topological fields plug in holes, and allows us to practice real math/science - where the emperical evidence is found first, THEN the theory is applied and vindicated. There is nothing new under the sun, which means we don't have to make up evidence to vindicate our mathematical or theoretical errors. It may take more time, or more fight against status quo, but it is worth it to do like original science, and find emperical evidence first before asserting something as real.

It will be accepted when as Max Plank put it the old generation dies out and a new one familiar with the theory come into power. Say another 10 years. By then people will be sick of Farie Dust.

The problem is they are making up evidence to plug their holes. 96%+ of it as a matter of fact.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

It will be accepted when as Max Plank put it the old generation dies out and a new one familiar with the theory come into power. Say another 10 years. By then people will be sick of Farie Dust.

And thus goes it...

Every generation, the layperson generation loses 50+ years of progress because of hubris and hauter within academia itself. They tend to think their political voice(s) hinder progress; in fact it is quite the opposite.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I love how you folks have reality standing on it's head.

Plasma shows up in the lab. Every single 'property' that is assigned to in (including scattering potential) is directly related to what we've learned about it from the lab. We know that it behaves differently for instance when it's radiating at millions of degrees rather than say a few thousand degrees, and it responds to environmental factors like EM fields.

Compare and contrast that with your magical form of exotic matter. Not a single "property" that you've assigned to it (longevity, invisibility, ability to pass through other forms of matter) is related to anything that you've learned from controlled experimentation. Every single property is an ad-hoc assignment that is given to the magic matter in order to save *one otherwise falsified theory*. The invisibility property for instance is directly related to your now *falsified* belief that your galaxy baryonic mass estimates were accurate. They were never accurate. They still aren't accurate to this day, but at least we now now where *most* of the plasma of our own galaxy is located, and we just found it in 2012, six years *after* that lensing study related to *distant* galaxies.

The "magic" about your mythical form of matter is how it "perfectly" props up one otherwise falsified cosmology theory. It's a "miracle" fix for LCDM, and without it, LCMD is toast.

EU/PC theory could hypothetically incorporate other types of exotic matter if they were in fact ever found, but it's not *dependent* upon any such thing. On the other hand, LCMD is *entirely* dependent upon a particle that enjoys zero empirical laboratory support, even *after* spending billions of dollars/euros looking for such evidence.

When are you going to acknowledge that your dead dark horse is actually dead? We already have *ample* evidence to demonstrate that your bayonic mass estimates have been a joke, and we have ample "tests" of your claims in the lab, all of which came up negative. What more could anyone do to kill off a claim that never had any empirical lab tested credibility in the first place?

I don't believe most of the matter has yet been found. If they can't see that *cough* dust that is 30 times denser coming into our solar system until they got a probe to measure it in-situ, I seriously doubt if they have even touched the tip of the iceberg 100's of thousands of light years distant.

 

[Michael]

I don't believe most of the matter has yet been found. If they can't see that *cough* dust that is 30 times denser coming into our solar system until they got a probe to measure it in-situ, I seriously doubt if they have even touched the tip of the iceberg 100's of thousands of light years distant.

I hear you. It's ironic IMO that every major mistake in LCDM is directly related to the mainstream's lack of accounting for inelastic scattering in plasma. It causes them to underestimate the mass of galaxies based upon brightness formulas, and it requires them to use three *other* supernatural constructs to explain redshift. One simple error on their part resulted in the creation of four supernatural ad-hoc 'fixes'.

Doh!

 

[Michael]

FYI, I think the mainstream's scattering problem started 100 years ago when they believed that space was mostly a 'vacuum'. Space is really not empty at all however. It's actually a very 'thin plasma' with photons and neutrinos passing through thin plasma, and therefore scattering will occur over distance.

The fact that the mainstream does not account for any amount of inelastic scattering in their cosmological redshift formulas is very revealing. It demonstrates the basic nature of their error. Only a magical form of plasma would *never* cause photon redshift/distance.

That's also why they cannot produce any images of crisp clear galaxies at very high redshift. Their error is *obvious*, and the fix is *obvious* too, but they simply refuse to embrace empirical physics or the results of actual laboratory experiments.

When their own models fail to produce useful predictions in the lab, they just keep changing the predictions and they continue surfing the ever shrinking gaps.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

And thus goes it...

Every generation, the layperson generation loses 50+ years of progress because of hubris and hauter within academia itself. They tend to think their political voice(s) hinder progress; in fact it is quite the opposite.

Agreed, it's NEVER been the majority that were correct, but the lone individual having to fight above the din to be heard.

History has shown us this over and over again. Every 50 years mindsets change and about every 150 to 200 years we have an entire paradigm shift.

I expect this shift in paradigms to occur within the next 10 to 20 years. Hopefully I'll still be alive to see it, it's inevitable.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I hear you. It's ironic IMO that every major mistake in LCDM is directly related to the mainstream's lack of accounting for inelastic scattering in plasma. It causes them to underestimate the mass of galaxies based upon brightness formulas, and it requires them to use three *other* supernatural constructs to explain redshift. One simple error on their part resulted in the creation of four supernatural ad-hoc 'fixes'.

Doh!

That's because when technology advanced and the z values kept increasing falsifying their belief in what cosmological redshift was, like DM they refused to let it die and added magic expanding nothing to keep their beliefs alive.

They can't admit their mass estimates are wrong. This would not only falsify DM theory but expansion theory which is intricately tied to the amount of DM to keep their magical expansion in check.

Get them to remove one false card and the entire house they have built with cards comes fluttering down.

Why do you think you can't get any of them to admit their mass estimates are flawed even though we have the emperical data which shows just that?

 

[sjastro]

The fact that you don't understand it doesn't mean that it's incomprehensible.



This is nothing but supernatural "dogma" that is inconsistent with the *raw* observations of microwave images, which is why you have to filter out all the emissions from our local sun and our local galaxy, and local galaxy cluster to even get anywhere *close* to getting a "smooth blackbody" type of image. Even then it has a whole bunch of bright and dark points associated with galaxies or a lack of galaxies because every galaxy is filled with a few hundred billion *light sources* for microwaves!



The "blackbody" aspect is best explained by Eddington's "prediction" of the background temperature of space. It's just the average temperature of the dust of space. So what? Every cosmology theory other than LCDM would have to include a background temperature that is caused by starlight and scattering.



At least I don't have a comprehension problem over something as simple as the neutrino predictions of solar models.. Your personal attack nonsense is directly related to your lack of any real argument that holds up to scrutiny.



When I was discussing movement, I wasn't limiting myself to the Earth's orbital movements. Our solar system is in motion, and so is our galaxy.



A measurable hemispheric variation in the CMB kills off inflation theory too, but that never stopped you from burying your head in the sand over *that* problem, or ignoring Guth's nonsense about homogeneity.



When are you going to accept the fact that it *does* cause scattering? Where is your "non-blurry" Z>10 galaxy images? How out of touch with real physics are you to believe that scattering will *not* happen in plasma?

Fine you haven’t explained why actual measurements show the CMB is a perfect blackbody, why your proposed background cannot be a blackbody, along with the usual diversions, deflections and word salad.

Given this is going nowhere and therefore pointless to continue I challenge you to produce a paper to explain the presence of plasma in the Bullet Cluster in the regions where gravitational lensing occurs but the plasma seems to be mysteriously absent in all wavelengths.

 

[sjastro]

Your ad hominem attacks are wasted as frankly I could care less what you think because personally I think your a burnt out bulb.

Which you avoided answering the question. Or did you just hope I wouldn't notice your avoidance? How is it your magic CMB avoids being affected by your magic expanding spacetime?

I answered it but you didn’t understand it which seems to be the norm.

And magic expanding spacetime isn't needed to explain cosmological redshift. Not that you'll understand the paper or even read it.

A New Non-Doppler Redshift​

You state that redshift is caused by plasma since the Universe is 99.9% plasma, and then provide a link which completely contradicts the idea as it states the medium for redshift is neutral hydrogen gas.

It says it all for your level of understanding.

Obviously you are in no position to spot weaknesses in the paper, such as the disparity between Thomson and Compton scattering and how it is impossible to bridge the two by incorporating Bremsstrahlung radiation. The scattering cross section is near zero as the number density of particles in intergalactic space is a billion times less than the very best laboratory vacuums which make Bremsstrahlung radiation extremely unlikely
.
Why does the author think Cosmological shift is a Doppler shift?

The paper came out in 1988 before the anisotropic nature of the CMB was known which the paper would not be able to explain.

That it shows a towards or away shift shows it is a local event. All radiation emitted beyond 600 parsecs is redshifted only. Only objects within our local group show Doppler shift towards the red or blue, everything else is systematically redshifted. Your own explanation is faulty at best and ignorant of what actually happens to all radiation coming from beyond 600 parsecs. They might fool you with that made up excuse, but the facts don't jive with the explanation.

As I stated previously the Andromeda galaxy is blueshifted but is at a distance of 778,000 parsecs.
So much for your radiation emitted beyond 600 parsecs being redshifted nonsense.

 

[sjastro]

Go actually read his papers and you'll find the math.

And now you are being dishonest.
If you knew the maths existed you would have no hesitation in producing it as a rebuttal.

you don't believe that for a minute. Every gravitational calculation gives the wrong answer until you fudge it with magic matter.

And Newtons laws fail miserably when applied to plasma 99.9% of the universe. So miserably they want to modify it instead of just using the correct physics.

You said it perfectly "planetary motions" non ionized matter .1% of the universe. Now apply the correct physics to the other 99.9%.

How interesting the orbital elements of binary stars are remarkably compliant to Newton’s laws and make a complete mockery of your assertion.
The subject of Celestial Mechanics goes beyond the Solar System and is largely based on Newtonian physics.

 

[sjastro]

What is ironic is your sad attempt to avoid the question. Explain how your dust estimates which were 30 times off doesn't cause scattering?

What's ironic is if you even half way comprehended quantum mechanics and electrodynamic theory you would have the very answer you seek in why plasma doesn't scatter isotropically and why your "dust" isn't scattering the light either. Not that I hold out any hope for your comprehension of the difference between ionized particles, charged particles and "dust".

The fact you don't understand that electrons with a high energy emit photons in the "forward" direction just tells me you don't understand much of anything when it comes to quantum mechanics and electrodynamic theory.

But is ad hominem attacks all you have? I think it is, I don't think you understand much of anything to be honest. All you can do is parrot your high priests of magic matter.

Who are you trying to kid.
Your question was not a question at all but a patronizing and insulting post and got the response it deserved.

For someone who apparently doesn’t know the difference between neutral hydrogen gas and plasma, post links without even the vaguest understanding of the subject matter and makes random comments that I am not going to waste my time responding to, is in no position on lecturing me on a lack of understanding of QE and electrodynamics.

 

[sjastro]

Let's get back to your people's magic CMB dipole.

I'll repeat since you all ignored it the first time because you had no answer.

All radiation beyond 600 parsecs is systematically shifted to the red end of the spectrum. Only local objects show both red and blue shift due to the Doppler effect.

Since the CMB has a dipole shift it has to be local in origin, since it too is not systematically shifted to the red end of the spectrum.

Not one single source of energy beyond 600 parsecs shows anything but a redshift. Nor can we perceive any difference due to our motion towards or away from them.

Since you claim we can see differences due to our motion, it only confirms the CMB is a local source.

I'll even give you a hint. It's very close and has entirely the motion of only the earth around the sun. The cause has already falsified every theoretical model of the heliosphere.

But again this would require a basic understanding of quantum mechanics and electrodynamic theory to grasp.

\Facepalm.
Let me repeat again your notion that redshift always occurs over a 600 parsec distance is refuted by the blueshift of the Andromeda galaxy at 778,000 parsecs.

To put this in perspective a 600 parsec radius around the Earth is within the confines of our galaxy and many stars outside this radius are blueshifted because their proper motions take them in a general direction towards the observer.

Where on “Earth” do you come up with these ridiculous ideas?

You don’t seem to comprehend a very simple point. If our galaxy is moving towards a point in space then everything in the galaxy’s frame of reference is moving towards that point including an orbiting Earth.

If the CMB is local there is no “constant” dipole as any point on the CMB is redshifted (blueshifted) at any given time only to end up blueshifted (redshifted) six months later due to the Earth’s orbit.

The fluctuations turn out to be small as the dominant mechanism is the galaxy moving at 600 km/s relative to a CMB which is outside the galaxy’s frame of reference.
When orbital fluctuations are subtracted out, the Earth and the galaxy are moving to a specific point relative to the CMB and away from the CMB in the opposite direction.
This is the CMB dipole.

If the CMB is local there would no dipole after the subtracting the orbital fluctuations.
Here is NASA’s simplified explanation.

APOD: 2014 June 15 - CMB Dipole: Speeding Through the Universe

 

[Radrook]

I don't believe most of the matter has yet been found. If they can't see that *cough* dust that is 30 times denser coming into our solar system until they got a probe to measure it in-situ, I seriously doubt if they have even touched the tip of the iceberg 100's of thousands of light years distant.

Why is the dust 1000 times denser when coming into our solar system?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

FYI, I think the mainstream's scattering problem started 100 years ago when they believed that space was mostly a 'vacuum'. Space is really not empty at all however. It's actually a very 'thin plasma' with photons and neutrinos passing through thin plasma, and therefore scattering will occur over distance.

The fact that the mainstream does not account for any amount of inelastic scattering in their cosmological redshift formulas is very revealing. It demonstrates the basic nature of their error. Only a magical form of plasma would *never* cause photon redshift/distance.

That's also why they cannot produce any images of crisp clear galaxies at very high redshift. Their error is *obvious*, and the fix is *obvious* too, but they simply refuse to embrace empirical physics or the results of actual laboratory experiments.

When their own models fail to produce useful predictions in the lab, they just keep changing the predictions and they continue surfing the ever shrinking gaps.

Actually before that. It started with Sydney Chapman and his incorrect believe space was empty and therefore electric currents couldn't travel through space.

Because he convinced the rest and they spent 40 years rideculing Kristian Birkeland until technology advanced and a probe was sent up confirming Birkelands theory and falsifying Chapman's.

The problem is Chapman then adopted Birkelands theory as his own and started adding Fairie Dust to a theory he never understood in the first place.

The mindset has been ingrained so long they still like Chapman can't understand it.

Now they finally admit to those currents they are detecting everywhere they send a probe, but in their skewed mindset it just doesn't do anything.

You saw I am sure the problem when they even refused to accept emperical science of what causes magnetic fields. They have been brainwashed so long they can see yet still are blind.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Who are you trying to kid.
Your question was not a question at all but a patronizing and insulting post and got the response it deserved.

For someone who apparently doesn’t know the difference between neutral hydrogen gas and plasma, post links without even the vaguest understanding of the subject matter and makes random comments that I am not going to waste my time responding to, is in no position on lecturing me on a lack of understanding of QE and electrodynamics.

Just say you have no answer and don't understand. Ad hominem attacks are for those with no science to back up their position.