Is the dark matter hypothesis even falsifiable?

[Michael]

I concur .. Thanks for clearing that up RC!

I note that he also says: 'To plasma in interstellar space it should be applied with some care' ..(I'm yet to see any such 'care' being exercised by the EU (or TBolts) cult, when it comes to their interstellar delusions!)

It is your industry that fails to apply any care at all. Everywhere that you continue to use magnetic reconnection theory, Alfven used ordinary circuit theory and his double layer paper to explain the very same observations.

It's more than a tad ironic that you would compare an empirical physical cosmology model to a "cult" while you continue to peddle four different supernatural entities, none of which show up in the lab. Talk about pure projection. You entire belief system starts off with a miracle of *epic* proportions as your smaller than a proton mass/energy thingy miraculously escapes it's own event horizon.

Your entire cosmological belief system is not only based on pure dogma, it's based entirely upon *bad* faith based dogma which has failed every experimental test to date. Ever more telling is that your baryonic mass estimates have been repeatedly demonstrated to be riddled with serious errors. We've now blown tens of billions of tax payer dollars on your invisible matter snipe hunt at LHC, LUX, PandaX, Xenon-1T, etc, etc, ect, and you still have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that exotic forms of matter even exist.

Exotic matter isn't even necessary to explain galaxy rotation patterns in the first place!

New Paper Eliminates The Need For Dark Matter To Explain Galaxy Rotation Patterns

 

[RealityCheck01]

It is a lie....

A 6 years old lie which my list of published, peer reviewed papers mentioning MR in vacuum shows.
17 March 2012: PEER REVIEWED material that states plasma is OPTIONAL in MR
I was surprised 6 years ago to find any peer reviewed papers with MR in vacuum because they should cover advanced topics. MR in vacuum is a topic covered that would be covered in a few minutes in a course on plasma physics - look at short section in Somov's textbook before he goes onto MR in plasma.

A 6 years old lie that a diagram for MR in vacuum contains plasma. The diagram contains 2 parallel identical currents in a vacuum. MR happens halfway beaten the currents in vacuum. The proper physical replacement would be 2 wires not an insane replacement with plasma which has no currents passing thru it (just almost random movements of charge) and is a partially ionized gas that expands to fill a vacuum. A doubly insane replacement because the next step in the textbook is to displace the 2 parallel identical currents in a vacuum - try doing that to a plasma with no 2 parallel identical currents .
Somov: 4.4.2 Reconnection in a Vacuum followed by 4.4.3 Reconnection in a Plasma.
15 March 2012 Michael: Why would a section called "4.4.2 Reconnection in vacuum" be followed by a section called "4.4.3 Reconnection in plasma"?

 

[RealityCheck01]

Here's his speech from that conference where he presented his double layer paper which makes the entire concept obsolete:

The first sentence makes that statement a lie: "Since then I have stressed in a large number of papers the danger of using the frozen-in concept."

2 March 2018: It is a lie that Hannes Alfven stated that the "entire magnetic reconnection claim" is pseudoscience.

The real insanity of that lie is that this is a speech from 1986. It is one person's outdated opinion. Science has progressed science 1986!

This was addressed at ISF 7 years ago ! Start at tusenfems's 25th March 2011 post. Someone called Michael Mozina participated in that thread.

ETA: This is tusenfem, a working plasma physicist, commenting on that speech back on 30 March 2011: What Alfvén complained about was people using the frozen in concept on face value, without checking whether it was appropriate to use.

By 5 April 2011 some fundamental physics had been explained to Michael:

1. Circuit theory is a bigger approximation than MR theory.
2. Alfven's objection to MR theory was where it was being applied, not the theory itself.
3. There have been 30 years of progress since Alven's book. MR theory has advanced and is more widely applicable.

There was a quote from Alfven's 1981 book Cosmic Plasma saying basically the same thing and the advances in MR theory in the 37 years since that made the point moot. That lead to the question: Michael Mozina, Why are you ignoring over 30 years of advances in plasma physics? e.g. any modern plasma physics textbook containing magnetic reconnection.

6th April 2011: A list of the properties of solar flares that circuit theory cannot describe which is why it is rarely used even if Alfven wanted it to be 30 years ago.

6th April 2011: That was a keynote speech in a conference in 1986. That was his own personal (and now outdated) opinion.

22 April 2011 by W.D. Clinger: Alfvén uses that word only in section III.B., which warns against "the danger of using the frozen-in concept" and stresses "the difference between the real plasma and "a fictitious medium" called "the pseudo-plasma.

 

[RealityCheck01]

No, LCDM has failed *many* observational tests, four of them this month alone.

A lie that the LCDM models has failed four observational tests this month addressed in the appropriate thread.
An improved measurement of the Hubble constant supports the LCDM model !

Evidence for the formation of the earliest stars supports the LCDM model !

 

[Michael]

A 6 years old lie which my list of published, peer reviewed papers mentioning MR in vacuum shows.

It is a lie that any of those cited papers *excludes* plasma or plasma particle acceleration. You won't cite a specific page number or paragraph from any them which actually makes such a claim.

17 March 2012: PEER REVIEWED material that states plasma is OPTIONAL in MR

That's a flat out lie, just like your "no neutrino" nonsense was a flat out lie. Priest actually called your understanding a "toy" and explained that the "real" process required plasma. Cite the page number and paragraph RC.

I was surprised 6 years ago to find any peer reviewed papers with MR in vacuum because they should cover advanced topics.

You lie when you claim to have found any peer reviewed papers that *do* support your bogus nonsense, and you can't and won't produce a math formula to express a non-zero rate of reconnection without plasma. It's no even possible.

MR in vacuum is a topic covered that would be covered in a few minutes in a course on plasma physics

Psst: Those all include "plasma" in a *non empty* vacuum. Somov's vacuum isn't empty RC, it's got plasma and plasma particle acceleration.

- look at short section in Somov's textbook before he goes onto MR in plasma.

The first example *also* has a non empty vacuum containing plasma and plasma particle movement. He just adds *more* plasma in the second section.

A 6 years old lie that a diagram for MR in vacuum contains plasma.

It's a lie that it doesn't.

Currents are composed of *moving plasma* and there is *displacement* of the current filaments! You're lying.

The diagram contains 2 parallel identical currents in a vacuum.

Ya, and two parallel currents that move are two moving plasma filaments.

MR happens halfway beaten the currents in vacuum.

No, the field topology changes *everywhere*, and the "reconnection" happens when the filaments *move closer together* as that field energy is transferred into particle kinetic energy just like WIKI article describes!

You don't even understand *basic* EM field theory! Magnetic fields form a complete and full 3 dimensional *continuum*, not little tiny non existent "lines". Oy Vey. You really have no idea what you're talking about.

The proper physical replacement would be 2 wires not an insane replacement with plasma

Your insane addition of "wires" where none exist is ridiculous. Wires would not even *move* in the first place! Your lying again. There are no "wires" listed in a book on plasma physics.

which has no currents passing thru it

There is current passing through the vacuum in the form of two plasma filaments, like we find in any ordinary plasma ball. The filaments move closer together as a result of 'reconnection" when field energy is transferred into particle kinetic energy.

(just almost random movements of charge) and is a partially ionized gas that expands to fill a vacuum.

False. The current cause "Birkeland currents" to form two filaments, and the field around the current *pinches* the plasma together like any ordinary plasma ball. It doesn't "spread out". You're lying again.

A doubly insane replacement because the next step in the textbook is to displace the 2 parallel identical currents in a vacuum

That "displacement* (which is missing your your *empty* vacuum*) is what is known as "magnetic reconnection" where the field energy gets transferred into particle kinetic energy. There would be no displacement in "wires" in the first place!

- try doing that to a plasma with no 2 parallel identical currents .

That's your problem, not mine because Somov's vacuum isn't empty like your vacuum, and it has two parallel currents of *plasma*.

Somov: 4.4.2 Reconnection in a Vacuum followed by 4.4.3 Reconnection in a Plasma.
15 March 2012 Michael: Why would a section called "4.4.2 Reconnection in vacuum" be followed by a section called "4.4.3 Reconnection in plasma"?

4.4.2 is the *most simple* version, whereas 4.4.3 has an effect on *more plasma*, not just the two current channels. Oy Vey. You really don't even know how to tell the truth, and you keep trying to turn plasma currents into *wires* when wires would not even move in the first place! Stop lying.

 

[Michael]

The first sentence makes that statement a lie: "Since then I have stressed in a large number of papers the danger of using the frozen-in concept."

Ya, you turned what was supposed to be an oversimplified *teaching tool" into metaphysical dogma! You're not telling the truth because Alfven published *hundreds* of papers on circuit theory and his double layer paper, and no papers on 'magnetic reconnection'. Everywhere you're trying to use it, he used circuit theory instead.

2 March 2018: It is a lie that Hannes Alfven stated that the "entire magnetic reconnection claim" is pseudoscience.

Its a lie that he didn't. He called it pseudoscience 7 times in the same speech and claimed that his double layer paper put nails in it's coffin. Show us a paper where he mathematically express "magnetic reconnection" RC. I can cite dozens using circuit theory.

The real insanity of that lie is that this is a speech from 1986. It is one person's outdated opinion. Science has progressed science 1986!

The real insanity is that you can't even show it where it's actually "progressed" in the first place. It was "progressed" in 1986 as he explained in the speech, but it was still pseudoscience then, and it's still pseudoscience now. You can't even generate and sustain a full sphere corona based on "magnetic reconnection" in a lab, whereas Birkland simulated a hot sustained corona over a century ago based on circuit theory.

This was addressed at ISF 7 years ago ! Start at tusenfems's 25th March 2011 post. Someone called Michael Mozina participated in that thread.

Pfft. Not a single one you came up with a formula to describe a non-zero rate of reconnection in your ridiculous vacuum contraption, and not one of you knows the physical difference between ordinary magnetic flux in a vacuum, and the process of converting magnetic field energy into particle acceleration known as "magnetic reconnection".

ETA: This is tusenfem, a working plasma physicist, commenting on that speech back on 30 March 2011: What Alfvén complained about was people using the frozen in concept on face value, without checking whether it was appropriate to use.

Alfven *never* used it, and tusenfem didn't come up with your missing math assignment *either*. So much for his "expertise" on this topic.

By 5 April 2011 some fundamental physics had been explained to Michael:

1. Circuit theory is a bigger approximation than MR theory.

But both approaches require *plasma*! MR isn't capable of sustained million degree plasma for hours on end.

1. Alfven's objection to MR theory was where it was being applied, not the theory itself.

False. He objected to the concept as 'pseudoscience' and he used circuit theory *everywhere* that MR is currently used.

1. There have been 30 years of progress since Alven's book. MR theory has advanced and is more widely applicable.

False. There's been thirty years of more dogma, none of which can produce and sustain a full sphere corona in a lab.

There was a quote from Alfven's 1981 book Cosmic Plasma saying basically the same thing and the advances in MR theory in the 37 years since that made the point moot. That lead to the question: Michael Mozina, Why are you ignoring over 30 years of advances in plasma physics? e.g. any modern plasma physics textbook containing magnetic reconnection.

I'm ignoring 30 years of *never* producing a full sphere corona using MR theory in a lab. What "advancement"?

6th April 2011: A list of the properties of solar flares that circuit theory cannot describe which is why it is rarely used even if Alfven wanted it to be 30 years ago.

False. Alfven used circuit theory to describe solar flares and your models leave out the full circuit energy which is why they do not work in a lab to create and sustain hot plasma for indefinite timelines. You can't even show me a lab test that generates high temperature plasma for more than a second or so, and even then it uses *electricity* created the magnetic field energy which is released when the field topology changes.

6th April 2011: That was a keynote speech in a conference in 1986. That was his own personal (and now outdated) opinion.

And 30 years later you still can't generate and sustain a hot corona, something that has been done with circuit theory for a whole century.

22 April 2011 by W.D. Clinger: Alfvén uses that word only in section III.B., which warns against "the danger of using the frozen-in concept" and stresses "the difference between the real plasma and "a fictitious medium" called "the pseudo-plasma.

You and Clinger *failed* to produce your missing math. Where is it?

Not only did he "warn against it", he called it pseudoscience, and he used circuit theory *instead* of MR theory.

 

[Michael]

A lie that the LCDM models has failed four observational tests this month addressed in the appropriate thread.

It's a lie that it didn't fail multiple predictions last month as I'll point out in those threads.

 

[Michael]

You're intentionally *hijacking* this thread on dark matter with your gish-gallop related to a completely different topic. Knock it off or I'll report you.

*This* thread is about the unfalsifiable nature of your supernatural dark matter claim, not about anything else. You don't want anyone to focus on the fact that it's scientifically impossible to falsify the DM claim, which makes the dark matter hypothesis pure pseudoscience.

Stop hijacking this thread with your gish-gallop RC. If you want to discuss other topics, do it in the correct thread.

 

[RealityCheck01]

You're intentionally *hijacking* ....

You are the one who brought up MR in vacuum in this thread so I pointed out in this thread that it is a many year old delusion that an example of 2 parallel equal currents in vacuum has plasma and a lie that there is no peer reviewed papers about MR in vacuum.

But back to the topic:
The topic is ignorance about science. The expectation is that scientific theories make testable, falsifiable predictions. Predictions for dark matter as particles are testable and falsifiable. In fact, some predictions have been falsified! For example, there is the cusp problem and the dwarf galaxy problem.

To "falsify" dark matter is almost impossible because there are multiple lines of evidence that dark matter exists. Every one of that's lines of evidence would have to be shown to be in error. For example, the calculation that galaxy clusters need dark matter to explain their dynamics would need Newtonian mechanics to be invalidated (the viral theorem).

 

[Michael]

You are the one who brought up MR in vacuum in this thread so I pointed out in this thread that it is a many year old delusion that an example of 2 parallel equal currents in vacuum has plasma and a lie that there is no peer reviewed papers about MR in vacuum.

It's completely false and untrue that you have quoted any published paper that doesn't include plasma and plasma particle acceleration. You have never done so.

But back to the topic:
The topic is ignorance about science.

That is another blatantly false statement. The topic of this thread is *dark matter* RC, not your profound ignorance of science. It's about the fact that your dark matter hypothesis is *unfalsifiable pseudoscience*.

The expectation is that scientific theories make testable, falsifiable predictions.

You hypothesis *failed* all those so called "predictions" however, but like a pseudoscientific zombie, it never dies a natural scientific death.

Predictions for dark matter as particles are testable and falsifiable.

They've all been falsified too! Why is your hypothesis still standing?

In fact, some predictions have been falsified! For example, there is the cusp problem and the dwarf galaxy problem.

And there were all those other falsified laboratory experiments as well, but like any good form of pseudoscience, no amount of failed "tests" have any effect on your pseudoscientific nonsense. The dogma lives on in spite of *numerous* failed tests.

To "falsify" dark matter is almost impossible because there are multiple lines of evidence that dark matter exists.

False. There are *no remaining* lines of evidence that even support your nonsense, and it's *entirely* impossible to falsify the dark matter hypohesis because you keep moving the goalposts and changing the properties of dark matter on a whim.

Every one of that's lines of evidence would have to be shown to be in error.

And they have been shown to be in error. You underestimated whole stars in that bullet cluster study by a factor of between 3 and 20 times, and you missed those two "halos" of hot plasma and cool gas when calculating rotation properties of galaxies.

NASA - Galaxies Demand a Stellar Recount
Scientists Find 200 Sextillion More Stars in the Sky

For example, the calculation that galaxy clusters need dark matter to explain their dynamics would need Newtonian mechanics to be invalidated (the viral theorem).

False. All that needs to be done is show that you forgot to include some ordinary matter which you simply overlooked, and that's extremely easy to do:

Milky Way is Surrounded by Huge Halo of Hot Gas | ChandraBlog | Fresh Chandra News
Milky Way: Hydrogen halo lifts the veil of our galactic home: Astronomers find missing mass in the hydrogen halo that surrounds our home galaxy

Your models predict a "halo" of missing mass around galaxies, and two such halos of *ordinary baryonic matter* have been found in just the last five years. The gas halo was found only in the *last year*!

 

[Nihilist Virus]

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?

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.

Made it through these three quotes, and couldn't take it any longer. The ignorance is reaching a critical mass.


A hypothesis is what we consider falsifiable. A hypothesis is a proposed explanation.

Dark matter is NOT a hypothesis. We KNOW there is mass which is unaccounted for because there is more gravity than we can account for.

Dark matter's existence is an OBSERVATION, *not* a hypothesis. Therefore, it is not falsifiable. Data itself is not falsifiable. Explanations of the data is what's falsifiable.

 

[Michael]

Made it through these three quotes, and couldn't take it any longer. The ignorance is reaching a critical mass.


A hypothesis is what we consider falsifiable. A hypothesis is a proposed explanation.

Dark matter is NOT a hypothesis. We KNOW there is mass which is unaccounted for because there is more gravity than we can account for.

Dark matter's existence is an OBSERVATION, *not* a hypothesis. Therefore, it is not falsifiable. Data itself is not falsifiable.

Correction: The existence of *additional mass* is an 'observation'. That's all we actually "know" too.

Over the past few decades however, the term "dark matter" has become synonymous with *exotic* types of mass, not just ordinary baryonic forms of matter. That's what LHC "tested", LUX "tested", PandaX "tested", Xenon1T "tested", etc. All those 'tests' were failures.

Explanations of the data is what's falsifiable.

In the case of exotic matter claims, how is the exotic matter hypothesis falsifiable? Not a single experiment related to exotic forms of non-baryonic matter passed any so called "test". Furthermore we've found *numerous* problems with the baryonic mass estimates which are based on light in the mainstream calculations:

2008 | Universe shines twice as bright | University of St Andrews
NASA - Galaxies Demand a Stellar Recount
Scientists Find 200 Sextillion More Stars in the Sky
Milky Way is Surrounded by Huge Halo of Hot Gas | ChandraBlog | Fresh Chandra News
A Universe of Stars May Exist Outside Galaxies | RealClearScience
Milky Way: Hydrogen halo lifts the veil of our galactic home: Astronomers find missing mass in the hydrogen halo that surrounds our home galaxy

Not only have we "tested" numerous models of exotic matter, we've demonstrated *repeatedly* that the baryonic mass estimates used in astronomy are *ridiculously* wrong!

If that's not enough "evidence" to falsify the concept of exotic matter, what is it going to take?

I'd be inclined to agree with you in the sense that various explanations for missing mass could "hypothetically" be falsified. However, there are numerous possible invisible exotic matter snipes to look for, and there is already *ample* evidence that the mainstream baryonic mass estimates have been the real problem all along, yet the exotic matter snipe hunts continue unabated. How would we go about falsifying an infinite potential number of exotic matter models?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Correction: The existence of *additional mass* is an 'observation'. That's all we actually "know" too.

That's not a correction. You're repeating what I said.

Over the past few decades however, the term "dark matter" has become synonymous with *exotic* types of mass, not just ordinary baryonic forms of matter. That's what LHC "tested", LUX "tested", PandaX "tested", Xenon1T "tested", etc. All those 'tests' were failures.

Many different types of exotic matter fit the definition of dark matter. Their non existence proves what, exactly?

What is even the point of the OP aside from espousing scientific illiteracy?

In the case of exotic matter claims, how is the exotic matter hypothesis falsifiable?

Didn't you literally just say that we tested for the existence of certain forms of exotic matter and found they don't exist? Where is the unfalsifiable hypothesis?

Or by "'tests' being failures" do you mean that we are neither able to confirm nor deny the existence of these certain kinds of exotic matter?

Not a single experiment related to exotic forms of non-baryonic matter passed any so called "test".

Again, awaiting clarity here.

Furthermore we've found *numerous* problems with the baryonic mass estimates which are based on light in the mainstream calculations:

2008 | Universe shines twice as bright | University of St Andrews
NASA - Galaxies Demand a Stellar Recount
Scientists Find 200 Sextillion More Stars in the Sky
Milky Way is Surrounded by Huge Halo of Hot Gas | ChandraBlog | Fresh Chandra News
A Universe of Stars May Exist Outside Galaxies | RealClearScience
Milky Way: Hydrogen halo lifts the veil of our galactic home: Astronomers find missing mass in the hydrogen halo that surrounds our home galaxy

Your point being what?

Not only have we "tested" numerous models of exotic matter, we've demonstrated *repeatedly* that the baryonic mass estimates used in astronomy are *ridiculously* wrong!

Ok... so we make the necessary corrections and then recalculate whether dark matter exists. What's the point?

If that's not enough "evidence" to falsify the concept of exotic matter, what is it going to take?

You would need to show that the existence of a particle is physically impossible. Or you can prove that the particle absolutely must manifest under certain conditions, and then actualize those conditions.

In either case, you're unnecessarily accepting the burden of proof. If someone proposes the existence of a particle, the burden is on them to prove it. The rest of us should be skeptical of said particle's existence.

I don't accept the existence of any particle which has not been demonstrated to exist. In that regard, I'm lost as to what your point is.

I'd be inclined to agree with you in the sense that various explanations for missing mass could "hypothetically" be falsified. However, there are numerous possible invisible exotic matter snipes to look for, and there is already *ample* evidence that the mainstream baryonic mass estimates have been the real problem all along, yet the exotic matter snipe hunts continue unabated. How would we go about falsifying an infinite potential number of exotic matter models?

Again, you don't have to accept that burden of proof. If you can show that galactic rotation can be explained without appealing to dark matter, then no one would propose the existence of dark matter. It all comes down to the data.

It seems that you seem to think you're qualified to analyze the data yourself and infer that dark matter is not responsible for any observed physical phenomenon. I'm not a physicist, or even a scientist at all except in the most general sense possible, and yet I seem to have found serious problems with your fundamental approach to this issue. So if you don't mind I'll go along with the scientific consensus.

 

[RealityCheck01]

It's completely false and untrue that you have quoted any published paper that doesn't include plasma and plasma particle acceleration.

17 March 2012: PEER REVIEWED material that states plasma is OPTIONAL in MR

9 March 2018 Michael: A deeply ignorant demand for published papers that only cover MR in vacuum.
He is ignorant about what a scientific paper is !
Scientific papers contain new results. MR in vacuum is textbook physics covered in a few pages. No one who knows about scientific literature would to expect any published paper to only contain what is already in a textbook - that is the role of references. So we get papers that include MR in vacuum that are mostly about MR in plasma.

The rest of the post is an old fantasy about dark matter being falsified by some normal matter being found. I wrote posts here asking for him to support his fantasies about these observations so:
9 March 2018 Michael: A "dark matter is falsified by some normal matter being found" lie.
We are missing half of the normal matter in the universe. Finding more normal matter fills in that gap. Dark matter would be falsified if we found 50 times as much normal matter as we have already found. None of the sources state this which is what makes his assertion into a lie.

 

[Michael]

That's not a correction. You're repeating what I said.

No, you said that 'dark matter' had been observed. All we know is that the mainstream baryonic mass estimates are *way messed up*. We don't observe "dark matter".

Many different types of exotic matter fit the definition of dark matter. Their non existence proves what, exactly?

Why exactly are you an 'atheist' again? Without any evidence that exotic matter exists, why are we even "looking" for it in the first place?

What is even the point of the OP aside from espousing scientific illiteracy?

I'm pointing out that the exotic matter snipe is unfalsifiable.

Didn't you literally just say that we tested for the existence of certain forms of exotic matter and found they don't exist? Where is the unfalsifiable hypothesis?

It's found in the fact that there's an unlimited number of possible definitions and they consistently change them on the fly.

Or by "'tests' being failures" do you mean that we are neither able to confirm nor deny the existence of these certain kinds of exotic matter?

I mean they can rule out *some* possible definitions, but not all.

Your point being what?

My point being that there's ample evidence that their bayonic mass estimates were flawed which is why they didn't find all the *ordinary mass* that was/is present.

Ok... so we make the necessary corrections and then recalculate whether dark matter exists. What's the point?

The point is that they *do not* and *have not* made those necessary corrections and they continue to "assume" that "exotic matter did it".

You would need to show that the existence of a particle is physically impossible.

That's akin to me physically/legistlatively requiring you to demonstrate that every possible definition of God is impossible, otherwise you must let me use your tax dollars to look for God.

Or you can prove that the particle absolutely must manifest under certain conditions, and then actualize those conditions.

How would you do that for God or exotic matter?

In either case, you're unnecessarily accepting the burden of proof. If someone proposes the existence of a particle, the burden is on them to prove it. The rest of us should be skeptical of said particle's existence.

I am skeptical of it's existence, which is why I don't wish them to waste my tax dollars on their invisible snipe hunts anymore.

I don't accept the existence of any particle which has not been demonstrated to exist. In that regard, I'm lost as to what your point is.

My point is that even if you don't accept the existence of God, nobody forces you to pay for "God searches" with your tax dollars, but they do force you to pay for invisible matter snipe hunts.

Again, you don't have to accept that burden of proof. If you can show that galactic rotation can be explained without appealing to dark matter, then no one would propose the existence of dark matter. It all comes down to the data.

That's also been done by the way, which only shows that exotic matter isn't necessary, and it's a waste of my tax dollars looking for it.
New Paper Eliminates The Need For Dark Matter To Explain Galaxy Rotation Patterns

It seems that you seem to think you're qualified to analyze the data yourself and infer that dark matter is not responsible for any observed physical phenomenon.

I'm qualified to analyze the *negative results* for myself, and other explanations do exist which do away with the need for exotic matter.

I'm not a physicist, or even a scientist at all except in the most general sense possible, and yet I seem to have found serious problems with your fundamental approach to this issue. So if you don't mind I'll go along with the scientific consensus.

Why don't you do that with respect to the topic of God as well?

 

[RealityCheck01]

Hi Nihilist Virus, This may interest you: Missing baryon problem

The missing baryon problem is a problem related to the fact that the observed amount of baryonic matter does not match theoretical predictions. The density of baryons can be constrained according to big bang nucleosynthesis and the cosmic microwave background. The best current data, by the Planck (spacecraft) in 2015, yields a density about 4.85% of the critical density.[1] However, directly adding up all the known baryonic matter produces a baryonic density slightly less than half of this.[2] The missing baryon problem is distinct from the dark matter problem, which is mainly non-baryonic in nature. There is also much more dark matter in the universe than there are missing baryons.[3]

The missing baryon problem was proclaimed solved in October 2017, with the missing baryons located in hot intergalactic gas.[4]

We will have to wait to see if the "proclamation" is supported with more observations.

Michael's list is either ignorance from him or observations contributing to that missing baryonic matter. For example, 2008 | Universe shines twice as bright | University of St Andrews does not state that the mass of these galaxies has changed!
Astronomers have known for a long time that part of the light from galaxies is blocked by dust and reemitted in as infrared radiation. So they use infrared radiation and other bands to estimate the mass of galaxies. The discovery is that twice as much of the light is blocked as previously thought and converted into infrared. An astronomer would know what effect (if any) this would have on galaxy mass. But the astronomers who wrote the paper do not mention it.

See for example Clowe, Douglas; et al. (2006). "A Direct Empirical Proof of the Existence of Dark Matter". The Astrophysical Journal Letters. 648 (2): L109–L113. arXiv:astro-ph/0608407.
Clowe et. al. explicitly state that they use bands including the IR band.

 

[Michael]

17 March 2012: PEER REVIEWED material that states plasma is OPTIONAL in MR

9 March 2018 Michael: A deeply ignorant demand for published papers that only cover MR in vacuum.

It's deeply ignorant that you keep citing papers that *include* plasma and plasma particle acceleration while ignorantly claiming that plasma is *optional*. Plasma is not optional RC. Get a grip.

He is ignorant about what a scientific paper is !

I know it's a thing that you *never* produce to support any of your deluded comments. You make up claims as you go and you cite links that don't support you claim, or you cite yourself.

Scientific papers contain new results. MR in vacuum is textbook physics covered in a few pages.

You've never provided *any* pages that didn't included plasma and plasma movement in the "vacuum"

No one who knows about scientific literature would to expect any published paper to only contain what is already in a textbook - that is the role of references. So we get papers that include MR in vacuum that are mostly about MR in plasma.

Translation: No published paper supports your claim and you can't produce your missing math formula and we all know it.

The rest of the post is an old fantasy about dark matter being falsified by some normal matter being found.

The fantasy is claiming that your mass estimates were ever right in the first place.

The only one lying is you since I've produced six references in this thread already that show you botched the mass estimates in *at least* six different ways.

I wrote posts here asking for him to support his fantasies about these observations so:

So I did, and did so repeatedly only to have you ignore them as usual


Is the dark matter hypothesis even falsifiable?

It's a lie that we need *50* times as much ordinary matter. We'd only need about six times now, and that's already been done. You missed the stellar mass estimates by up to *20* times, and that's just *one* of your problems.
2008 | Universe shines twice as bright | University of St Andrews
NASA - Galaxies Demand a Stellar Recount
Scientists Find 200 Sextillion More Stars in the Sky
Milky Way is Surrounded by Huge Halo of Hot Gas | ChandraBlog | Fresh Chandra News
A Universe of Stars May Exist Outside Galaxies | RealClearScience
Milky Way: Hydrogen halo lifts the veil of our galactic home: Astronomers find missing mass in the hydrogen halo that surrounds our home galaxy

 

[Michael]

Hi Nihilist Virus, This may interest you: Missing baryon problem

2008 | Universe shines twice as bright | University of St Andrews
NASA - Galaxies Demand a Stellar Recount
Scientists Find 200 Sextillion More Stars in the Sky
Milky Way is Surrounded by Huge Halo of Hot Gas | ChandraBlog | Fresh Chandra News
A Universe of Stars May Exist Outside Galaxies | RealClearScience
Milky Way: Hydrogen halo lifts the veil of our galactic home: Astronomers find missing mass in the hydrogen halo that surrounds our home galaxy

That was "solved" last year in that last article, but that doesn't explain any of the other mainstream mass estimation blunders.

We will have to wait to see if the "proclamation" is supported with more observations.

Review the first *five* of those six articles. The all show *other* problems in the model.

Michael's list is either ignorance from him or observations contributing to that missing baryonic matter. For example, 2008 | Universe shines twice as bright | University of St Andrews does not state that the mass of these galaxies has changed!

That's pure nonsense because their entire mass estimates of various galaxies is based on the amount of light they emit. IF they botched the brightness figure by a factor of two, they also botched the mass estimates.

Astronomers have known for a long time that part of the light from galaxies is blocked by dust and reemitted in as infrared radiation.

Ya, but the grossly underestimated the amount of light that was being obscured.

So they use infrared radiation and other bands to estimate the mass of galaxies. The discovery is that twice as much of the light is blocked as previously thought and converted into infrared. An astronomer would know what effect (if any) this would have on galaxy mass. But the astronomers who wrote the paper do not mention it.

Yes they did. Read the paper for yourself.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

No, you said that 'dark matter' had been observed. All we know is that the mainstream baryonic mass estimates are *way messed up*. We don't observe "dark matter".

Already addressed.

Why exactly are you an 'atheist' again?

Because it is moronic to positively assert the existence of an undetectable, transdimensional entity.

Without any evidence that exotic matter exists, why are we even "looking" for it in the first place?

Astronomers claim there is evidence. So there's that.

I'm pointing out that the exotic matter snipe is unfalsifiable.

If something interacts with reality gravitationally, then it is detectable.

It's found in the fact that there's an unlimited number of possible definitions and they consistently change them on the fly.

In other words they're defining a new potential kind of exotic matter and then testing for its existence, right? What do you expect? Are they supposed to start looking for something without even defining what they're looking for?

I mean they can rule out *some* possible definitions, but not all.

Ok.

My point being that there's ample evidence that their bayonic mass estimates were flawed which is why they didn't find all the *ordinary mass* that was/is present.

So when will you be collecting your Nobel prize?

The point is that they *do not* and *have not* made those necessary corrections and they continue to "assume" that "exotic matter did it".

Why? To soak up our taxes and help themselves to a job? Is that your actual claim?

That's akin to me physically/legistlatively requiring you to demonstrate that every possible definition of God is impossible, otherwise you must let me use your tax dollars to look for God.

Christians do use my tax dollars to look for God. Churches help themselves to 911 aid without paying into it. Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's.

How would you do that for God or exotic matter?

For exotic matter? I don't know... I'm not a physicist. I reckon that defining the particle first is a good idea. But according to you they can't do that.

As for God, such an entity cannot be shown to exist because he does not interact with reality. So a reality in which he exists and another reality in which he doesn't exist are indistinguishable from one another, and hence belief in God is foolish from the very start.

I am skeptical of it's existence, which is why I don't wish them to waste my tax dollars on their invisible snipe hunts anymore.

Again, your Noble prize awaits you.

My point is that even if you don't accept the existence of God, nobody forces you to pay for "God searches" with your tax dollars, but they do force you to pay for invisible matter snipe hunts.

Again, if a church catches fire, won't the fire department come out? Yes they will. Does the church pay taxes? No it doesn't.

A nonprofit organization that takes in money must provide some tangible benefit to society to be untaxable. Churches offer riches to us after we're dead. I'm literally better off buying real estate on Jupiter. Christianity is fraudulent, and the Catholic version ought to be forcibly dissolved as they are a criminal organization.

That's also been done by the way, which only shows that exotic matter isn't necessary, and it's a waste of my tax dollars looking for it.
New Paper Eliminates The Need For Dark Matter To Explain Galaxy Rotation Patterns

Again... scientific consensus > your opinion.

I'm qualified to analyze the *negative results* for myself, and other explanations do exist which do away with the need for exotic matter.

Even if you have a relevant PhD, I'm still correct in saying that scientific consensus > your opinion.

And if that inequality reverses, once again, your Nobel prize awaits.

Why don't you do that with respect to the topic of God as well?

Feel free to venture into the apologetics forum where that discussion is appropriate. I'll make short work of you.

 

[Michael]

Already addressed.

Not really. You haven't demonstrated a need for exotic forms of matter to begin with.

Because it is moronic to positively assert the existence of an undetectable, transdimensional entity.

Yet that is exactly what dark matter proponents are doing with their exotic matter models. SUSY theories require extra spacetime dimensions in fact. What a blatant double standard.

Astronomers claim there is evidence. So there's that.

They also used to claim that the Earth was the center of the universe and they've failed more "tests" related to LCMD than I can count. So that's not reassuring.

If something interacts with reality gravitationally, then it is detectable.

So you have no objection if I just change the terms, call it "God matter", "God energy" and "Godflation" and claim that I have evidence of God interacting with our universe? Ordinary matter interacts with gravity. I have no idea that any *other* type of matter does or does not interact with gravity. I'd have to *assume* it. Does God interact with gravity?

In other words they're defining a new potential kind of exotic matter and then testing for its existence, right? What do you expect? Are they supposed to start looking for something without even defining what they're looking for?

Since I don't need anything exotic in the first place, and there's no valid evidence to suggest exotic matter even exists, and they can't decide on a single definition in the first place, I'm not interested in their invisible matter snipe hunts.

So when will you be collecting your Nobel prize?

All of my ideas came from somewhere or someone else, so "never" is the likely answer.

Why? To soak up our taxes and help themselves to a job? Is that your actual claim?

Yep. With all the errors they made in the mass estimation techniques it's a lot more likely that they need to update their baryonic mass estimates and start over.

Christians do use my tax dollars to look for God. Churches help themselves to 911 aid without paying into it. Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's.

Huh? Theistic humans may help themselves to 911 aid but what does that have to do with any Churches? My money doesn't belong to astronomers who believe in metaphysical mumbo-jumbo. They didn't earn my money, print my money, or do anything use with it either other than blow it on useless "tests" and then promptly ignore the results they didn't like, and spend some more of my money.

For exotic matter? I don't know... I'm not a physicist. I reckon that defining the particle first is a good idea. But according to you they can't do that.

Would you be happy if I "define God" and demand you pay for my search?

As for God, such an entity cannot be shown to exist because he does not interact with reality.

Who says? Christians would say that he answers prayers and he interacts with them. I'd be happy to debate a Panentheistic definition of the term "God" with you, in which case the universe definitely interacts with us in every conceivable way.

So a reality in which he exists and another reality in which he doesn't exist are indistinguishable from one another, and hence belief in God is foolish from the very start.

Ditto for your dark matter deity. I even showed you a way to explain galaxy rotation patterns without it, and I showed you plenty of evidence that the mainstream baryonic mass estimates are *seriously* flawed.

Again, your Noble prize awaits you.

I'm not holding my breath. Dr. Donald Scott wrote a pretty good paper however, as has Anthony Peratt.

Again, if a church catches fire, won't the fire department come out? Yes they will. Does the church pay taxes? No it doesn't.

The church *members* sure do, and they'll rebuild the building without any taxpayer help.

A nonprofit organization that takes in money must provide some tangible benefit to society to be untaxable. Churches offer riches to us after we're dead. I'm literally better off buying real estate on Jupiter.

Yet you think dark matter proponents will provide you with something useful during your lifetime after 8 decades of failures galore? Hope springs eternal eh?

Christianity is fraudulent, and the Catholic version ought to be forcibly dissolved as they are a criminal organization.

I feel much the same way about LCDM proponents, but some aspects of solar system exploration are useful IMO. I'm not carrying quite as big of a chip on my shoulder as you are.

Again... scientific consensus > your opinion.

You don't apply that logic as it relates to the topic of God, and science isn't determined by "popularity". Epicycles used to be really popular in astronomy circles too at one point in time.

Even if you have a relevant PhD, I'm still correct in saying that scientific consensus > your opinion.

Yet you ignore that "consensus" argument as it relates to the topic of God. Sounds rather hypocritical IMO.

And if that inequality reverses, once again, your Nobel prize awaits.

Unlikely. The ideas I am espousing have been put forth by others, in most cases since long before my birth. The fact you heard them from me first hardly warrants a Nobel.

Feel free to venture into the apologetics forum where that discussion is appropriate. I'll make short work of you.

LOL. I have a much better idea. Go ahead and take your best shot in a science related forum, we'll keep the conversation focused exclusively on the physics, and let's see how you do.

An Empirical Theory Of God
An Empirical Theory Of God (2)