Is the dark matter hypothesis even falsifiable?

[Nihilist Virus]

Gah! I'm not complaining about 'science' as a whole, I'm complaining about dark matter claims specifically! In that specific case, astronomers haven't made any accurate "predictions". In fact they've failed every "test" conceivable in the lab. They've failed more observational "tests" than they pass too.

These galaxies should be chaotic—but they're not

I'm not inclined to fact check these claims at the moment. So let's assume you're right. Let's assume you're right about everything. What then?

Religion certainly does 'predict' that God interacts with humans on Earth and therefore humans should have "experiences" that they attribute to God. They do seem to have such experiences as we can see from human writings throughout recorded human history, and the fact that the majority of humans believe in God even to this day.

Religion predicts that God will interact with humans. Humans claim to interact with God in mutually contradictory ways. How do we TEST to see if they are interacting with God? Why do you suddenly not give half a shekel about TESTS when it comes to religion's predictions?

Furthermore, can you perhaps explain to me why humanity invented many religions back when the worldwide population was low, and yet now when the population is high we're inventing far fewer religions? That is exactly the opposite trend that your model would predict.

It's asinine that you're *assuming* some sort of gravitational influence from a non-existent "dark matter", while ignoring recorded influence of "God" on many different human beings throughout human history.

Again, I see no influence of God, nor have you even explained what we should be looking for. Unless, for you, mere claims are sufficient. In that case, there is abundant evidence that alien abductions are real.

So according to that logic I *win* by "definition" because I defined God as the universe and definitions cannot be falsified.

According to that logic? So... you think that definitions can actually be true or false? There are well-defined terms and ill-defined terms, but there is no notion of falsehood here. You can't just grab a rubber True/False stamp and just stamp everything.

In mathematics, a similar notion occurs with numbers and inequalities. You actually can have two numbers which are not related under the "<" relation. For example,

1<i is false;
1>i is false;
1=i is false;

and i=(-1)^(1/2) is neither true nor false, but rather is a definition.

Any belief or concept can be right or wrong. Not all beliefs are necessarily "falsifiable" however.

Right.

And I suspect that you are very young and very naive.

Please, don't violate my safe space with your verbal abuse. I'm a delicate snowflake.

Whether you "made it up" or not, you're still trying to stuff that definition down my throat instead of dealing with the specific (purely empirical) definition that I gave you.

Again, I'm not compelling you to use any definition. Although, yes, I did, at the very start, assume that you believe in the normal notion of God. And, of course, this was the one time where that assumption caused a problem.

But you are absolutely lying when you say that I won't deal with the definition you gave me. I did deal with it by saying that it accomplishes nothing. You're assuming the point in question: that God exists. I'm simply saying that making this assumption bypasses the part where we agree on the rules of the game and even the part where we play the game and instead skips us right to where we just declare you the winner. So congratulations on your Little League participation trophy.

I suggest that you give it a rest and tone down your ego drivel for awhile and the conversation will become a lot more enjoyable. If you keep hurling personal insults at people they'll eventually just write you off as being childish and they'll stop responding to you. That doesn't mean that you 'won' the debate, you just 'won' yourself some further isolation.



If you are incapable of handling the published materials associated with this topic, then you probably should have stayed out of this conversation in the first place because you're obviously in way over your head. What's the point of *pretending* that you have enough knowledge of this topic to demonstrate any point you're trying to make? You certainly haven't been able to explain a way to falsify all possible exotic matter claims so far.

The only one who shouldn't be talking about this is you because you don't even know the absolute basics of how definitions, data, and hypotheses work, as has been shown repeatedly.

That simply means that I love Christ and I honor his teachings. That does *not* mean that I buy all of *your* (or anyone else's) definitions of God or "Christianity".

OK, go and sell all that you have, give to the poor, and follow Christ. Er, no, never mind... people who "follow Christ" or "honor his teachings" never do that one. At least, they don't do it for Christ. Now, if he had told someone to enjoy a lolly pop each day, I'd bet all Christians would be doing it. Oh that's right, you guys all definitely do eat crackers and drink grape juice. How surprising that you all do the easy things but not the hard things. Shows how limited your love is for Christ, and how little you ultimately do care in the grand scheme of your life.

Grandmother back from the dead after spending three days in a morgue | Daily Mail Online

With the advent of modern medicine, people come back from the dead all the time. That isn't what makes Christ important to me. It's his teachings and his influence on my life that are important to me personally, not "parlor tricks".

You are the exception to every rule I can think of. I'll give you that.

It seems like you're intent on building a case based on what you personally perceive to be a "Christian" rather than anything I've actually said.

I do pay attention to what you're saying, and that's probably a problem at this point.

Actually it's not physically impossible to come back from clinical death as many near death experiences have demonstrated.

Coming back from the dead is not the same as coming back from near death. You have no point here.

So *exactly* how would 'space' expand in the first place?

Dunno, that's why it's called dark energy.

Ah, no ego nonsense to deal with. How refreshing.



If that is true, you're unqualified to debate most of my physical definition of God because it's primarily based upon published and peer reviewed scientific papers. There are a few "leaps of faith" on my part (at least one major one FB mentioned) that you could comment on, but all the electrical and circuit oriented aspects are supported by published works.

But I at least understand the fundamentals of definitions, data, and hypotheses so I will have a leg up on you in any scientific discussion whatsoever.

No, your understanding of the topic of cosmology is trivial, so you perceive Panentheism to be trivial. It's actually a very scientifically complex topic. To even debate the merits of that specific cosmology theory, you also have to know quite a bit about LCDM as well to even be able to compare the two ways of viewing and describing the physical universe.

Panentheism is a fictional fabrication for which there is no evidence.

I'm sure there's an intent at an insult in there, but "Ok".



Actually I can in fact "see" the material in the circuits because that material is not nearly as 'dark' as you (or astronomers) imagine.

Half the universe’s missing matter has just been finally found

Minds require brains. Brains require a lot of energy input and radiate a lot of energy. We are alive because of the sun's energy. The universe has to waste a lot of energy so we can have minds.

A mind on the scale of the universe has no source for energy. Any energy source would be minuscule at best. Combined with the size of the mind you're talking about, a single thought would take ages to occur. So how exactly we're supposed to detect this, or intercept a single thought, is beyond me.

 

[SelfSim]

...
But you are absolutely lying when you say ...

Sounds familiar ..
(Its an all-too-consistent pattern with Michael ..)

 

[Michael]

I'm not inclined to fact check these claims at the moment. So let's assume you're right. Let's assume you're right about everything. What then?

Then there's really no empirical evidence left standing to support the concept of exotic matter, and there's no logical way to falsify an unlimited potential number of exotic matter claims, none of which have any real support in the first place. It's like trying to disprove the existence of any possible number of invisible unicorn models.

Religion predicts that God will interact with humans. Humans claim to interact with God in mutually contradictory ways.

Not always. Religions tend to share a lot in common. They typically teach love, and selfless service, and forgiveness for instance.

How do we TEST to see if they are interacting with God?

I actually suggested one such mechanism in the Empirical theory of God threads involving measuring the electromagnetic fields in the room during meditation and prayer.

Why do you suddenly not give half a shekel about TESTS when it comes to religion's predictions?

Name a single *controlled* "test" for the mainstream claim that "space expansion" is an empirical 'cause' of photon redshift, or a controlled experimental test of inflation? I can at least conceive of a real empirical test including control mechanisms to test my ideas in a real lab experiment. I can't control God, but I can control and measure most of the other factors.

Furthermore, can you perhaps explain to me why humanity invented many religions back when the worldwide population was low, and yet now when the population is high we're inventing far fewer religions?

Where did you get that figure? Citation please. It seems to me like Christianity in particular has multiplied it's number of different 'sects' many times over in the last 700 years or so. I'd say it's the other way around frankly. Scientology is a relatively recent phenomenon for instance.

That is exactly the opposite trend that your model would predict.

My model wouldn't necessarily predict anything about the *number* of different religions based on population. We are all individuals and we don't tend to agree on even say the nature of beliefs of our current President, so I see no reason to believe we'd all agree on the topic of God.

Again, I see no influence of God,

There are typically more churches in any give city than McDonald's!

nor have you even explained what we should be looking for.

You should be looking for accounts from humans about their experiences with God.

Unless, for you, mere claims are sufficient.

Astronomers *claim* to you that their mass estimation techniques are correct, therefore "exotic matter did it". Did you bother to check their work or did you just take their claims at face value?

In that case, there is abundant evidence that alien abductions are real.

Most humans don't believe in alien abductions and it's a very *rare* (small percentage) that claim to have interactions with aliens.

According to that logic?

According to your logic. You just said that a definition cannot be falsified. Only in the sense that you're obligated to accept the definition for purposes of testing is the definition not falsifiable, but a few failed tests could in fact falsify that 'belief'.

So... you think that definitions can actually be true or false?

It can be correct or incorrect, sure. I could be wrong for defining God as the physical universe if in fact that isn't the case.

There are well-defined terms and ill-defined terms, but there is no notion of falsehood here. You can't just grab a rubber True/False stamp and just stamp everything.

How didn't you rubber stamp exotic matter as being viable or space expansion as a presumed 'cause" of redshift?

I understand what you're suggesting in the sense that you're obligated to accept my 'definition' of God, but it could still be a belief that is *wrong* none the less. Wouldn't you agree?

Right.

So the definition is something you're obligated to test, but it's not necessarily correct.

Please, don't violate my safe space with your verbal abuse. I'm a delicate snowflake.

Ok, that was funny! Two points for you.

Again, I'm not compelling you to use any definition. Although, yes, I did, at the very start, assume that you believe in the normal notion of God. And, of course, this was the one time where that assumption caused a problem.

Fine.

But you are absolutely lying when you say that I won't deal with the definition you gave me. I did deal with it by saying that it accomplishes nothing.

It instantly "predicts" that God (as the universe) interacts with human beings on Earth, so it explains human experiences of God.

You're assuming the point in question: that God exists.

In the case of LCDM you're "assuming' that space expansion is a real 'cause' of photon reshift too. You're *assuming* that the mainstream mass estimates are correct too, hence the need for "dark matter".

I'm simply saying that making this assumption bypasses the part where we agree on the rules of the game and even the part where we play the game and instead skips us right to where we just declare you the winner. So congratulations on your Little League participation trophy.

But I'm not declaring myself the 'winner' by virtue of the definition itself. You have every right to expect me to provide supporting evidence.

The only one who shouldn't be talking about this is you because you don't even know the absolute basics of how definitions, data, and hypotheses work, as has been shown repeatedly.

Oh boloney. That's just another *assumption* you're making, apparently without even having much knowledge of the subject. You *still* haven't answered the question of my OP, and explained specifically how to falsify an endless number of possible exotic matter claims.

OK, go and sell all that you have, give to the poor, and follow Christ. Er, no, never mind... people who "follow Christ" or "honor his teachings" never do that one. At least, they don't do it for Christ.

Actually I've known quite a few people who've done that, and I've had a few times in my life where I had no net worth to sell in the first place. In my particular case I can't honestly say that I did that for Christ however.

Now, if he had told someone to enjoy a lolly pop each day, I'd bet all Christians would be doing it. Oh that's right, you guys all definitely do eat crackers and drink grape juice. How surprising that you all do the easy things but not the hard things. Shows how limited your love is for Christ, and how little you ultimately do care in the grand scheme of your life.

Do you also require that astronomers live "perfect" lives simply by virtue of their belief in LCDM? We're all humans. Nobody ever said that Christianity was automatic path to perfection.

You are the exception to every rule I can think of. I'll give you that.

Glad I could be of service in that respect.

I do pay attention to what you're saying, and that's probably a problem at this point.

How so? You do seem to be a little less hostile in this post, and you seem to be responding to my beliefs about God rather than someone else's beliefs, so it seems like we're making some progress.

Coming back from the dead is not the same as coming back from near death. You have no point here.

Suppose I choose to play devils advocate and point out that it's hard to be sure that Jesus was 'dead' rather than "near death"? How could I be certain? If that was the *entire* basis of my "faith" in Christ, it would be a pretty "weak" form of faith from my perspective.

Dunno, that's why it's called dark energy.

FYI, "dark energy" is a different metaphysical claim from 'space expansion". The concept of space expansion was around before dark energy was invented. The answer "Dunno" however works for me, but it demonstrates that there are questions that you (and all astronomers by the way) cannot answer.

But I at least understand the fundamentals of definitions, data, and hypotheses so I will have a leg up on you in any scientific discussion whatsoever.

LOL! That's ego talking. You didn't even seem to know the difference between space expansion and dark energy. Trust me, ignorance is not bliss.

Panentheism is a fictional fabrication for which there is no evidence.

I could (and have) said the same thing about dark energy, dark matter, space expansion, inflation and LCDM. What I can say is that there is *more* evidence to support the cosmology theory known as Panentheism than to support the LCDM model.

Minds require brains. Brains require a lot of energy input and radiate a lot of energy. We are alive because of the sun's energy. The universe has to waste a lot of energy so we can have minds.

Energy cannot be created or destroyed so what makes you assume that any energy is "wasted'?

A mind on the scale of the universe has no source for energy.

Fusion would do just fine.

Any energy source would be minuscule at best.

Er, no. Fusion lights up all the stars in the universe.

Combined with the size of the mind you're talking about, a single thought would take ages to occur.

That would depend on whether you believe a "thought" has to traverse the whole of spacetime, or just a single sun actually. In fairness to you however, that is a point of contention that's been raised before, and it's logical point of contention. Having said that however, the sun has more circuits that are visible in it's atmosphere than all the circuits inside our two brains put together, and those are just the ones we can see in satellite images.

So how exactly we're supposed to detect this, or intercept a single thought, is beyond me.

The logical carrier particle of thought would be photons via the EM field.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Then there's really no empirical evidence left standing to support the concept of exotic matter, and there's no logical way to falsify an unlimited potential number of exotic matter claims, none of which have any real support in the first place. It's like trying to disprove the existence of any possible number of invisible unicorn models.

Let's define something between the two of us. Let the symbol stand for, "You don't understand how definitions, data, and hypotheses work. Definitions are neither true nor false, data is not falsifiable, and observations are not hypotheses. I've explained this to you, directly and in excruciating detail, to no avail. In light of this, your opinion on scientific matters means poop to me."

That said, I have this to say in response to your above paragraph:

Not always. Religions tend to share a lot in common. They typically teach love, and selfless service, and forgiveness for instance.

And when will you start practicing one of those?

I actually suggested one such mechanism in the Empirical theory of God threads involving measuring the electromagnetic fields in the room during meditation and prayer.

I'm pretty sure this has been done, and nothing has been detected. Don't you think Christians would be shouting this from the rooftops if it went in their favor?

Name a single *controlled* "test" for the mainstream claim that "space expansion" is an empirical 'cause' of photon redshift, or a controlled experimental test of inflation? I can at least conceive of a real empirical test including control mechanisms to test my ideas in a real lab experiment. I can't control God, but I can control and measure most of the other factors.

Where did you get that figure? Citation please. It seems to me like Christianity in particular has multiplied it's number of different 'sects' many times over in the last 700 years or so. I'd say it's the other way around frankly. Scientology is a relatively recent phenomenon for instance.

I wouldn't call new denominations new religions. Denominations tend to believe the same thing - the Bible, for instance - but they interpret it in different ways. What I'm talking about is the fact that new religions used to pop up a lot more per capita. The difference is that a new religion is a whole new list of unsubstantiated nonsensical fabrications, whereas new denominations typically make no actual new assumptions.


And I don't need to produce the data on this. Don't be absurd. We both know the population of humanity has increased greatly and we both know that the amount of new religions - as defined above - has tapered off. Don't be daft.

My model wouldn't necessarily predict anything about the *number* of different religions based on population. We are all individuals and we don't tend to agree on even say the nature of beliefs of our current President, so I see no reason to believe we'd all agree on the topic of God.

Self-refuting. If we don't all agree on the topic of God, wouldn't that contribute to new religions being fabricated? Or do you mean that the disagreements are only sufficient to generally lead to new denominations?

There are typically more churches in any give city than McDonald's!

And the church has easily left behind enough rape victims to fill a football stadium.

You should be looking for accounts from humans about their experiences with God.

Right after I look at accounts of alien abduction.

Astronomers *claim* to you that their mass estimation techniques are correct, therefore "exotic matter did it". Did you bother to check their work or did you just take their claims at face value?

Most humans don't believe in alien abductions and it's a very *rare* (small percentage) that claim to have interactions with aliens.

Rare, therefore false?

According to your logic. You just said that a definition cannot be falsified. Only in the sense that you're obligated to accept the definition for purposes of testing is the definition not falsifiable, but a few failed tests could in fact falsify that 'belief'.

It can be correct or incorrect, sure. I could be wrong for defining God as the physical universe if in fact that isn't the case.

How didn't you rubber stamp exotic matter as being viable or space expansion as a presumed 'cause" of redshift?

I understand what you're suggesting in the sense that you're obligated to accept my 'definition' of God, but it could still be a belief that is *wrong* none the less. Wouldn't you agree?

So the definition is something you're obligated to test, but it's not necessarily correct.

Ok, that was funny! Two points for you.

Fine.

It instantly "predicts" that God (as the universe) interacts with human beings on Earth, so it explains human experiences of God.

No... again, I don't see how this cosmic mind could operate on a timescale perceivable to humans, and further, I don't see why it would, either.

In the case of LCDM you're "assuming' that space expansion is a real 'cause' of photon reshift too. You're *assuming* that the mainstream mass estimates are correct too, hence the need for "dark matter".

But I'm not declaring myself the 'winner' by virtue of the definition itself. You have every right to expect me to provide supporting evidence.

Oh boloney. That's just another *assumption* you're making, apparently without even having much knowledge of the subject. You *still* haven't answered the question of my OP, and explained specifically how to falsify an endless number of possible exotic matter claims.

Actually I've known quite a few people who've done that, and I've had a few times in my life where I had no net worth to sell in the first place. In my particular case I can't honestly say that I did that for Christ however.

Why wouldn't you do it for Christ? If he's your savior, why wouldn't you do it for him? If he's not your savior, which is what you seem to be saying, then how are you actually a Christian? Being vaguely sympathetic to Christ's teachings is absolutely insufficient to make you a Christian.

Do you also require that astronomers live "perfect" lives simply by virtue of their belief in LCDM? We're all humans. Nobody ever said that Christianity was automatic path to perfection.

Nonsensical question.

Glad I could be of service in that respect.



How so? You do seem to be a little less hostile in this post, and you seem to be responding to my beliefs about God rather than someone else's beliefs, so it seems like we're making some progress.

We're making some progress. The next step, after all this poop, is the wipe phase. At the end is the flush phase. Hand washing phase is optional, as per the advice of Jesus.

Suppose I choose to play devils advocate and point out that it's hard to be sure that Jesus was 'dead' rather than "near death"? How could I be certain? If that was the *entire* basis of my "faith" in Christ, it would be a pretty "weak" form of faith from my perspective.

I'd like to see you argue the swoon theory with the real Christians here. Send me the link!

FYI, "dark energy" is a different metaphysical claim from 'space expansion". The concept of space expansion was around before dark energy was invented. The answer "Dunno" however works for me, but it demonstrates that there are questions that you (and all astronomers by the way) cannot answer.

LOL! That's ego talking. You didn't even seem to know the difference between space expansion and dark energy. Trust me, ignorance is not bliss.

I could (and have) said the same thing about dark energy, dark matter, space expansion, inflation and LCDM. What I can say is that there is *more* evidence to support the cosmology theory known as Panentheism than to support the LCDM model.

Energy cannot be created or destroyed so what makes you assume that any energy is "wasted'?

It's called entropy.

Fusion would do just fine.



Er, no. Fusion lights up all the stars in the universe.

Again... entropy. Or should I say ?

That would depend on whether you believe a "thought" has to traverse the whole of spacetime, or just a single sun actually. In fairness to you however, that is a point of contention that's been raised before, and it's logical point of contention. Having said that however, the sun has more circuits that are visible in it's atmosphere than all the circuits inside our two brains put together, and those are just the ones we can see in satellite images.

No, you don't understand the objection being made.

A flower blooms too slowly for a human to perceive it. A humming bird's wings flap too fast for a human to perceive it.

A conscious, intelligent entity could very well have a consciousness that thinks too fast or too slow for meaningful dialogue between it and us to be possible. In fact, this is more likely than not. And this is ignoring the obvious problem of a language barrier, and the less obvious problem that there's no reason to assume that an alien would communicate through the same media that we do, and the even less obvious problem that an alien could communicate via light and/or sound and yet still be unable to communicate with us because of our/their inability to access the entire spectrum of light waves and sound waves. It's utterly unreasonable to posit that a mind the size of the universe would operate on the required time scale for us to perceive it.

The logical carrier particle of thought would be photons via the EM field.

No, the logical carrier of thought would be gravitational waves. Gravity wells will long outlast the era of starlight, and cosmic-scale minds must exist long enough to have a few thoughts. The era of starlight is a blink compared to how long galaxies will persist in the eternal cosmic night. Eventually the universe will be a homogeneous gas incapable of outputting work, but there is a lot that will happen in the cosmic night before that.

 

[Michael]

Let's define something between the two of us. Let the symbol stand for, "You don't understand how definitions, data, and hypotheses work. Definitions are neither true nor false, data is not falsifiable, and observations are not hypotheses. I've explained this to you, directly and in excruciating detail, to no avail. In light of this, your opinion on scientific matters means poop to me."

That said, I have this to say in response to your above paragraph:



And when will you start practicing one of those?





I'm pretty sure this has been done, and nothing has been detected. Don't you think Christians would be shouting this from the rooftops if it went in their favor?







I wouldn't call new denominations new religions. Denominations tend to believe the same thing - the Bible, for instance - but they interpret it in different ways. What I'm talking about is the fact that new religions used to pop up a lot more per capita. The difference is that a new religion is a whole new list of unsubstantiated nonsensical fabrications, whereas new denominations typically make no actual new assumptions.


And I don't need to produce the data on this. Don't be absurd. We both know the population of humanity has increased greatly and we both know that the amount of new religions - as defined above - has tapered off. Don't be daft.





Self-refuting. If we don't all agree on the topic of God, wouldn't that contribute to new religions being fabricated? Or do you mean that the disagreements are only sufficient to generally lead to new denominations?




And the church has easily left behind enough rape victims to fill a football stadium.



Right after I look at accounts of alien abduction.







Rare, therefore false?































No... again, I don't see how this cosmic mind could operate on a timescale perceivable to humans, and further, I don't see why it would, either.















Why wouldn't you do it for Christ? If he's your savior, why wouldn't you do it for him? If he's not your savior, which is what you seem to be saying, then how are you actually a Christian? Being vaguely sympathetic to Christ's teachings is absolutely insufficient to make you a Christian.



Nonsensical question.



We're making some progress. The next step, after all this poop, is the wipe phase. At the end is the flush phase. Hand washing phase is optional, as per the advice of Jesus.





I'd like to see you argue the swoon theory with the real Christians here. Send me the link!















It's called entropy.



Again... entropy. Or should I say ?



No, you don't understand the objection being made.

A flower blooms too slowly for a human to perceive it. A humming bird's wings flap too fast for a human to perceive it.

A conscious, intelligent entity could very well have a consciousness that thinks too fast or too slow for meaningful dialogue between it and us to be possible. In fact, this is more likely than not. And this is ignoring the obvious problem of a language barrier, and the less obvious problem that there's no reason to assume that an alien would communicate through the same media that we do, and the even less obvious problem that an alien could communicate via light and/or sound and yet still be unable to communicate with us because of our/their inability to access the entire spectrum of light waves and sound waves. It's utterly unreasonable to posit that a mind the size of the universe would operate on the required time scale for us to perceive it.





No, the logical carrier of thought would be gravitational waves. Gravity wells will long outlast the era of starlight, and cosmic-scale minds must exist long enough to have a few thoughts. The era of starlight is a blink compared to how long galaxies will persist in the eternal cosmic night. Eventually the universe will be a homogeneous gas incapable of outputting work, but there is a lot that will happen in the cosmic night before that.

If you're not going to bother to read the links that I suggest, and you're not going to put any real thought into your responses, I think we're done now. This is obviously a huge waste of my time.

You never did provide a reference to support your claim about "new" religions, so I have no idea where you got that idea from, or whether its even true.

About the only thing that you actually responded to intelligently was the carrier particle aspect of our debate, but you missed the whole point. If you had read the empirical theory of God threads that I suggested, you'd know that I'm suggesting (and supporting with appropriate scientific papers/books) that the universe that we live inside of is *electromagnetic* at every scale imaginable. It's an electromagnetic environment, just like the brains of living organisms here on Earth. The mass layouts of the circuitry is even very similar to the circuit layouts of living organisms on Earth. As above, so below.

The logical communication mechanism between two electromagnetic organisms of different scales would be the EM field.

An eternal being of infinite complexity has had all the time in the universe to figure out how to communicate with the living creatures inside of it's domain.

There's exactly zero empirical lab tested evidence to support the LCDM model that your cosmological beliefs are based upon, and there is no evidence whatsoever that universe has ever been, or ever will become a homogeneous ball of gas. That's essentially impossible due to the influence of gravity and EM fields.

I'm sure that you'll interpret my complete boredom of this conversation as some sort of a "victory" on your part, but the reality is that I simply see no point in wasting my valuable time posting lengthy explanations to your questions, including the appropriate supporting scientific links, only to have you respond with a single childish emoticon without ever bothering to read the links that I suggested. This conversations is obviously a complete waste of my time.

Live long and prosper.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

 

[Michael]

That about describes the level of actual effort that you've put into this conversation alright.

 

[Michael]

Another dark matter claim bites the dust:

https://phys.org/news/2018-03-galactic-bulge-emissions-due-dark.html

Over the past several years, a consensus of sorts has emerged among astrophysicists to explain the large gamma ray emissions from the center of the Milky Way—they are likely due to dark matter particles (WIMPs) bumping into each other or with regular matter, it was theorized. But in this new effort, the researchers report evidence of another source, casting doubt on dark matter as the likely cause of the emissions.

The researchers have been studying data from the Fermi Gamma-Ray Space Telescope, which has been in orbit for the past decade. They were able to see that the gamma rays actually mirrored the distribution of stars near the center of the galaxy—they were formed in the shape of an X, not a sphere as would be expected if it were caused by dark matter interactions.

So much for WIMP annihilation being the cause of gamma rays near the core of our galaxy.

 

[RealityCheck01]

...Review the first *five* of those six articles

Over 3 years of unsupported fantasies that detection of more normal matter (fills in the missing half of normal matter) and irrelevancy (star counts and brightness that are not used for galaxy masses in dark matter research) means there is no dark matter.

There was 6 November 2014 Michael: Fantasies about visible matter observations and dark matter need evidence
But that post vanished after a change in forum software (see the end of this thread and the missing continuation)

16 March 2018: It is a lie that I have not reviewed articles he links to.
There is (Milky Way is Surrounded by Huge Halo of Hot Gas): Oct 30, 2012: Evidence for missing matter, not dark matter.

Milky Way: Hydrogen halo lifts the veil of our galactic home: Astronomers find missing mass in the hydrogen halo that surrounds our home galaxy is an explicit statement of finding missing normal (not dark) matter.

"Universe shines twice as bright" was also addressed at the JREF forum. This is the simple fact that astronomers have known that dust blocks visible light from galaxies for decades and so use the infrared band where the dust reemits that light

"Galaxies Demand a Stellar Recount" is an article in a post on the Thunderbolts forum by a guy called Michael Mozina with a lie that stars were counted in papers like Clowe et. al. Repeated here by Michael (It turns out however that they miscounted the number of whole stars in various galaxies) back on Aug 13, 2015. Luckily you have learned that this was a lie and astronomers do not count stars to measure the mass of galaxies.

But...
16 March 2018: A lie that the mass of galaxies is measured by "amount of light they emit."
He knows that the Clowe et. al paper that measured dark matter separated from normal matter in the Bullet Cluster used multiple bands of light (not one measure of brightness), e.g. the infrared (IR) band where the dust the blocks visible light from galaxies reemits that light thus making "Universe shines twice as bright" moot.

ETA: This is what honesty looks like: I made a mistake. The mass of galaxies in Clowe et. al. is a simple calculation using just the I-band where the dust that blocks some visible light reemits the light as infrared radiation.

 

[RealityCheck01]

There's exactly zero empirical lab tested evidence to support the LCDM model that your cosmological beliefs are based upon, and there is no evidence whatsoever that universe has ever been, or ever will become a homogeneous ball of gas.

16 March 2018: The delusion that only things can be tested in labs exist (stars !

16 March 2018: Invalid "homogeneous ball of gas" statement about the LCDM model.
The Big Bang part of the LCDM model is that the early universe was filled with a hot, dense, almost homogeneous plasma. No surface = no ball. It was plasma. There were variations that we see today n the CMB.

16 March 2018: An obvious "no evidence whatsoever that universe has ever been, or ever will become a homogeneous ball of gas" lie.
What is the evidence for the Big Bang? which he has seen before is what makes an ignorant assertion into a obvious lie. For example, Oct 30, 2012

What is the evidence for the Big Bang?
That's part of the scientific world.

 

[Michael]

Over 3 years of unsupported fantasies that detection of more normal matter (fills in the missing half of normal matter) and irrelevancy (star counts and brightness that are not used for galaxy masses in dark matter research) means there is no dark matter.

What a convoluted and misrepresentation of the facts. First of all "brightness" is *absolutely* used to "guestimate" the amount of 'ordinary' (baryonic) mass in various galaxies, so that's just a flat out misrepresentation of the facts. At one point I even pointed out the exact formula for you where that was done in the now infamous Bullet Cluster fiasco paper, but like everything else, you simply ignored it, and went back to repeating the same false nonsense.

Secondly, we haven't just found a "few" problems in your mass estimation techniques, we found more than a half dozen *major* problems with them. You underestimated whole stars in that Bullet Cluster study by a whopping factor of between 3 and 20 times, and in the last five years we've found more mass inside of gas and plasma halos around our galaxy than are contained in all the stars combined. You underestimated the stars *between* galaxies too. You even underestimated the number of larger stars that we can actually observe from Earth, their size and their brightness too. In short, there's only even been "proof" that your baryonic mass estimates have been flawed all along and no evidence whatsoever that exotic matter exists. Billions of dollars of lab tests confirm that it's highly likely that your baryonic mass estimates were flawed, since no forms of exotic matter have ever been observed in controlled experimentation, and the standard particle physic model has passed ever conceivable test to date with flying colors.

There was 6 November 2014 Michael: Fantasies about visible matter observations and dark matter need evidence
But that post vanished after a change in forum software (see the end of this thread and the missing continuation)

The only "fantasy" going on here is your "fantasy" that your baryonic mass estimates have ever been correct in the first place, as *numerous* studies have demonstrated.

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

I've kept a long list of your baryonic mass estimate *fails*.

16 March 2018: It is a lie that I have not reviewed articles he links to.
There is (Milky Way is Surrounded by Huge Halo of Hot Gas): Oct 30, 2012: Evidence for missing matter, not dark matter.

It's a lie that I ever claimed that you didn't read them, and it's a lie that you ever changed your pitifully flawed mass estimation techniques to deal with it too. You simply bury your heads in the sand on that issue like you do with your convection speed problems.

Milky Way: Hydrogen halo lifts the veil of our galactic home: Astronomers find missing mass in the hydrogen halo that surrounds our home galaxy is an explicit statement of finding missing normal (not dark) matter.

The problem for you is that this is all *on top of* all the other stellar miscount problems, and that *hot plasma* halo found five years ago. The really telling aspect is the fact that both of the new "halos" of ordinary matter are located *exactly* where your dark matter halo models expected that missing mass to be found! They fit *perfectly* to explain your precious "dark matter", and they're made of ordinary baryons, not something exotic.

"Universe shines twice as bright" was also addressed at the JREF forum. This is the simple fact that astronomers have known that dust blocks visible light from galaxies for decades and so use the infrared band where the dust reemits that light

You *underestimated* that effect however by a factor of 2 and you didn't discover that problem until *after* your now infamous Bullet Cluster fiasco paper.

"Galaxies Demand a Stellar Recount" is an article in a post on the Thunderbolts forum by a guy called Michael Mozina with a lie that stars were counted in papers like Clowe et. al. Repeated here by Michael (It turns out however that they miscounted the number of whole stars in various galaxies) back on Aug 13, 2015. Luckily you have learned that this was a lie and astronomers do not count stars to measure the mass of galaxies.

I never said you "count" them I said you *underestimated* them by factor of four. Do you even tell the truth? You're like the Donald Trump of astronomy.

But...
16 March 2018: A lie that the mass of galaxies is measured by "amount of light they emit."
He knows that the Clowe et. al paper that measured dark matter separated from normal matter in the Bullet Cluster used multiple bands of light (not one measure of brightness), e.g. the infrared (IR) band where the dust the blocks visible light from galaxies reemits that light thus making "Universe shines twice as bright" moot.

Your whole baryonic mass estimates were a joke. You underestimated stars in galaxies by a factor of between 3 and 20 times, and you underestimated stars between galaxies, and you missed two different halos of matter that have only been found in the last five years, long *after* that 2006 bullet cluster nonsense.

In short, there's not a *shred* of evidence to demonstrate that you've *ever* correctly estimated the mass of any galaxy. In fact, you recently changed the mass of our closest neighbor by a factor of 3, yet you "pretend" that your mass estimation techniques are "right", therefore exotic forms of matter must exist. What a joke.

 

[Michael]

16 March 2018: The delusion that only things can be tested in labs exist (stars !

What a blatant hypocrite. You apply that same standard toward the topic of God, but you invent four metaphysical invisible friends to fill the gaps of your otherwise falsified cosmology theory.

16 March 2018: Invalid "homogeneous ball of gas" statement about the LCDM model.
The Big Bang part of the LCDM model is that the early universe was filled with a hot, dense, almost homogeneous plasma. No surface = no ball. It was plasma. There were variations that we see today n the CMB.

The CMB is just just another wavelength, and like all wavelengths it related to stars and the scattering of light in space. Period. There's also an x-ray background and other wavelength backgrounds galore. In fact, every "bright" region in the CMB relates right back to galaxy clusters and every dark region just contains fewer of them.

16 March 2018: An obvious "no evidence whatsoever that universe has ever been, or ever will become a homogeneous ball of gas" lie.
What is the evidence for the Big Bang? which he has seen before is what makes an ignorant assertion into a obvious lie. For example, Oct 30, 2012

Your entire claim is predicated upon the *actual cause* of photon redshift. Photons routinely lose momentum to a dusty plasma environment in the lab, but *never* due to "space expansion" in any lab experiment ever. That cause/effect claim is a pure "statement of (bad) faith" on your part, like a religious belief which cannot be demonstrated in a lab.

 

[RealityCheck01]

What a convoluted and misrepresentation of the facts. ....

Mostly an ignorant baryonic matter rant.
20 March 2018: A "I even pointed out the exact formula for you where that was done" lie.
This is the Clowe e. al. paper on detection of dark matter in the Bullet Cluster.

Stellar masses are calculated from the I-band luminosity of all galaxies equal in brightness or fainter than the component BCG. The luminosities were converted into mass assuming (Kauffmann et al. 2003) M/LI = 2.

There is no "exact formula" using brightness as in the Universe is twice as bright article. That article is that dust blocks visible light. The Universe is twice as bright in the visible spectrum There is an exact formula using the brightness of the single I-band - the infra-red band outside of the visible spectrum where light from is reemitted from dust and emitted from stars and emitted from gas.

6 November 2014 Michael: Fantasies about visible matter observations and dark matter need evidence
Still no evidence to back up his fantasies. Not one calculation. None of the citations mention dark matter. No papers using these observations to recalculate the amount of dark matter.

A lie that he claimed I had not read articles. He claimed I had needed to reviewed articles and I replied: 16 March 2018: It is a lie that I have not reviewed articles he links to.
Oct 30, 2012: Evidence for missing matter, not dark matter.
Milky Way: Hydrogen halo lifts the veil of our galactic home: Astronomers find missing mass in the hydrogen halo that surrounds our home galaxy is an explicit statement of finding missing normal (not dark) matter.

16 March 2018: A lie that the mass of galaxies is measured by "amount of light they emit."
This is what honesty looks like: I made a mistake. The mass of galaxies in Clowe et. al. is a simple calculation using just the I-band where the dust that blocks some visible light reemits the light as infrared radiation.

What is actually idiotic is that he has no idea how changing the mass of galaxies in Clowe et. al. changes their conclusion - it may even increase the amount of dark matter detected. He may even think that the dark matter will vanish when this is just one of many different measurements of dark matter !
So we get
20 March 2018: Cannot understand that increasing galaxy masses in Clowe et.al may increase or decrease the amount of dark matter.
My suspicion and total guess: The masses of the galaxies are used in gravitational lensing. So the amount of dark matter will not change but its location will.

 

[RealityCheck01]

What a blatant hypocrite.....

20 March 2018: A "falsified cosmology theory" lie because the Lambda-CDM model is a working scientific model.

16 March 2018: Invalid "homogeneous ball of gas" statement about the LCDM model.

20 March 2018: A CMB "related to stars and the scattering of light in space"" delusion.
This is the CMB - which has a perfect black body spectrum, etc. that means it cannot be related to a fantasy about stars or scattering.

16 March 2018: An obvious "no evidence whatsoever that universe has ever been, or ever will become a homogeneous ball of gas" lie.

20 March 2018: A "*actual cause* of photon redshift" lie about the evidence for the Big Bang.
What is the evidence for the Big Bang? which he has seen before (Oct 30, 2012) is what makes an ignorant assertion into a obvious lie. Hubble's law (redshift) is evidence for an expanding universe and for a Steady State universe. It is the body of evidence that makes the overwhelming evidence for an expanding universe.
There is an actual cause for redshift in an expanding universe - the increase in distance between the points on an electromagnetic wave ! That is the definition of the expansion in an expanding universe as anyone who has the ability to read Wikipedia knows.

20 March 2018: A delusion that cosmological redshift can be detected in the lab.
On the same page as What is the evidence for the Big Bang? that he must have read over 5 years ago: Why doesn't the Solar System expand if the whole Universe is expanding?
Bound systems such as galaxies and the Solar System and atoms do not expand with the expansion of the universe. The Earth's orbit changes by 1 part in a septillion in 4.6 billion years due to an expanding universe. Now think about an experiment in a lab on Earth and a hypothetical expansion of the Earth due to an expanding universe !

 

[Michael]

Mostly an ignorant baryonic matter rant.

LOL. The standard particle physics model is *the* most tested and successful particle physics model in history. Your exotic matter claims are the real "rant" as demonstrated by all those failed experiments you keep trying to sweep under the rug.

20 March 2018: A "I even pointed out the exact formula for you where that was done" lie.
This is the Clowe e. al. paper on detection of dark matter in the Bullet Cluster.

There is no "exact formula" using brightness as in the Universe is twice as bright article. That article is that dust blocks visible light. The Universe is twice as bright in the visible spectrum There is an exact formula using the brightness of the single I-band - the infra-red band outside of the visible spectrum where light from is reemitted from dust and emitted from stars and emitted from gas.

Your baryonic mass calculations are a lie. They've been shown to be unreliable in numerous and massive ways. You underestimated the number of stars in that bullet cluster study by a factor of between 3 and 20 times, and you left out two important "halos" of baryonic matter that have been found in just that last five years. You even underestimated the number of stars *between* galaxies in those clusters.

6 November 2014 Michael: Fantasies about visible matter observations and dark matter need evidence
Still no evidence to back up his fantasies. Not one calculation. None of the citations mention dark matter. No papers using these observations to recalculate the amount of dark matter.

You have the burden of proof standing on it's head. It's up to *you* to demonstrate that your baryonic mass estimates are *correct*, and I've shown you a half dozen studies that show that they are *incorrect*, and you've never updated your mass estimation techniques to fix them, just like you've never fixed your convection problem in solar physics.

A lie that he claimed I had not read articles.

It's a lie to suggest I said such a thing in the first place. I said you didn't fix your broken junky formulas for baryonic mass or convection. You simply ignore the problems.

16 March 2018: A lie that the mass of galaxies is measured by "amount of light they emit."
This is what honesty looks like: I made a mistake. The mass of galaxies in Clowe et. al. is a simple calculation using just the I-band where the dust that blocks some visible light reemits the light as infrared radiation.

It's been falsified more times than I have fingers on my right hand.

What is actually idiotic is that he has no idea how changing the mass of galaxies in Clowe et. al. changes their conclusion - it may even increase the amount of dark matter detected.

Wow, talk about faerie-tales for children.

He may even think that the dark matter will vanish when this is just one of many different measurements of dark matter !

You have no 'measurements of dark matter' to start with! At best case you have evidence that your baryonic mass estimates are a joke.

So we get
20 March 2018: Cannot understand that increasing galaxy masses in Clowe et.al may increase or decrease the amount of dark matter.

False. You botched the mass estimates in more than a one way to begin with.

My suspicion and total guess: The masses of the galaxies are used in gravitational lensing. So the amount of dark matter will not change but its location will.

The lensing measurement simply demonstrates that your estimates based on light are not worth the paper they are printed on, but you refuse to acknowledge the real problem with your baryonic mass estimates based on light. You just bury your head in the sand and pretend they're "prefect" even when *numerous* studies demonstrate than they are not even close to right.

 

[Michael]

20 March 2018: A "falsified cosmology theory" lie because the Lambda-CDM model is a working scientific model.

No, LCDM is a *non* working model that fails more "tests" than it actually passes.

Your gish gallop routine is getting old. You cite yourself over and over and over and never deal with the actual material.

Space does have an average temperature based on light heating up the dust between the stars. Period. It has nothing to do with a "bang". Eddington got the right number to within 1/2 of one degree on his first try, whereas BB'er missed it by a whole order of magnitude, must like your dubious and now falsified solar convection predictions.

20 March 2018: A delusion that cosmological redshift can be detected in the lab.

It's a "delusion" that space expansion has anything to do with cosmological redshift in the first place. Your bait and switch routine is just unethical. There is no real 'empirical lab tested evidence' to support any of your nonsense. It's all a big metaphysical magic trick that never works in the lab.

 

[RealityCheck01]

LOL. ...

The standard particle physics model is the most tested, successful and known to be incomplete particle physics model in history. That is irrelevant to what I did ont record before but will now:
21 March 2018: A post that is mostly an ignorant and irrelevant baryonic matter rant

20 March 2018: A "I even pointed out the exact formula for you where that was done" lie.

21 March 2018: Back to the lie that stars in the bullet cluster were counted in Clowe et. al. ("underestimated the number of stars in that bullet cluster study").

He makes up fantasies
6 November 2014 Michael: Fantasies about visible matter observations and dark matter need evidence
And we get
21 March 2018: An ignorant demand that astronomers check their galaxy mass estimates when they already do that.

16 March 2018: A lie that the mass of galaxies is measured by "amount of light they emit."

20 March 2018: Cannot understand that increasing galaxy masses in Clowe et.al may increase or decrease the amount of dark matter.

 

[RealityCheck01]

No, LCDM is a *non* working model that fails more "tests" than it actually passes.....

21 March 2018: A "LCDM is a *non* working model" lie until he produces the number of failed and passed tests.

21 March 2018: Parrots his Eddington "dust" and CMB lie that I have seen before.
Eddington calculated the effective temperature of radiation from stars.
Eddington did not calculate he temperature of the CMB.
Eddington's Temperature of Space

20 March 2018: I explain that it is a delusion that cosmological redshift can be detected in the lab.
1 part per septillion over 4.6 billion years for the Earth's orbit for the enormously weak force of gravity !

21 March 2018: A ""delusion" that space expansion has anything to do with cosmological redshift" lie when an expanding universe automatically gives cosmological redshift.
He knows that this is a lie since he has known about What is the evidence for the Big Bang? since Oct 30, 2012.

This is simple enough to explain to a high school student or maybe younger! Take a wave. Look at periodic points on the wave, e.g. its peaks. There is a certain distance between those points.. We call that a wavelength. In an expanding universe the distance between points increases. The wavelength of light emitted at one time will get longer with time as the universe expands. This is cosmological redshift.

 

[Michael]

The standard particle physics model is the most tested, successful and known to be incomplete particle physics model in history.

You have absolutely no evidence that it's "incomplete". You made that up.

The looming crisis for particle physics.....
Backreaction: The Multiworse Is Coming

Subine sums up your problem nicely. You're blowing magic math smoke.

You still haven't even provided a logical way to falsify your exotic matter claims. It's all based entirely upon wishful thinking, starting with your wishful thinking that your baryonic mass estimates were ever worth the paper they were printed on.

21 March 2018: An ignorant demand that astronomers check their galaxy mass estimates when they already do that.

They haven't fixed the errors they found, and you're still *assuming* that got things right when they clearly *didn't* get them right!

16 March 2018: A lie that the mass of galaxies is measured by "amount of light they emit."

It's pure baloney that your baryonic mass estimates aren't based on the emission of light or that they're right.

20 March 2018: Cannot understand that increasing galaxy masses in Clowe et.al may increase or decrease the amount of dark matter.

You made that up too.

 

[Michael]

21 March 2018: A "LCDM is a *non* working model" lie until he produces the number of failed and passed tests.

I've done that for you numerous times now:

Thunderbolts Forum • View topic - Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?
Thunderbolts Forum • View topic - Keeping a list of the failed predictions of the LCDM model

You simply ignore my answers and my cited articles/papers and then you repeat the same pitiful request over and over and over again because you're stuck in an endless denial-go-round routine.

21 March 2018: Parrots his Eddington "dust" and CMB lie that I have seen before.
Eddington calculated the effective temperature of radiation from stars.
Eddington did not calculate he temperature of the CMB.

Boloney.

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pre2001/V02NO3PDF/V02N3ASS.PDF

He nailed it to within 1/2 of one degree.

20 March 2018: I explain that it is a delusion that cosmological redshift can be detected in the lab.
1 part per septillion over 4.6 billion years for the Earth's orbit for the enormously weak force of gravity !

The 'delusion' is your belief that space expansion has anything to with cosmological redshift in the first place.

This is simple enough to explain to a high school student or maybe younger! Take a wave. Look at periodic points on the wave, e.g. its peaks. There is a certain distance between those points.. We call that a wavelength. In an expanding universe the distance between points increases. The wavelength of light emitted at one time will get longer with time as the universe expands. This is cosmological redshift.

Pure bait and switch unethical nonsense because "space expansion' isn't the same process as moving objects, and only moving objects can be shown to cause redshift (and blueshift), not "space expansion" (or contraction).

You "bait" with moving objects and Doppler shift and then you unethically "switch" to pure metaphysical mumbo-jumbo when those unsuspecting high school students aren't looking.

You *still* haven't offered us a viable or logical way to falsify your exotic matter claims, and they've already failed *billions* of dollars of tests.