Is the dark matter hypothesis even falsifiable?

[TagliatelliMonster]

And this is what they are not taking into consideration as 99.9% of the universe is plasma

"they", being those stupid and ignorant scientists who should all just listen to you laymen folks instead, I bet?

Maybe we should extent them an invitation to come and learn how to do their jobs by reading both your and Michael's posts on this internet forum.

There is no need for strange exotic matter - just the application of the correct physics.

Those ignorant physicists... applying physics wrong, all day long!

Tsk, tsk....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

My point was about how in science, there are no expressions of absolute certainties as new data/discoveries/knowledge may always and at any time force us to re-evaluate currently held ideas.

Nothing in your post addressed that point.

Now apply charge to that ball so it is no longer non-ionized matter, change the voltage in that area of space due to everything around it being ionized and.......

now that ball does not fall down does it, despite the 999.9999% certainty it should.

Now that moondust levitates off the surface, despite the 999.9999% certainty it should fall.

Then a simple "i agree" or even just rating my post by clicking the "agree" icon would have been enough.

Your whole rant about plasma and how the mainstream in the scientific community is completely wrong and you correct, is irrelevant.

If you have a problem with the science, take it up with scientists. If you think you know better, then get to work and show them all wrong. This is not the platform to do so.


Sorry, I'm not arrogant enough to pretend to know better then scientists concerning their own field of expertise.

Your entire rant that plasma is irrelevant in a universe 99.9% plasma strikes me as being made in ignorance.

Thats just it the "experts" in their field have tried to correct the cosmologists - which are not plasma experts.

http://plasmauniverse.info/downloadsCosmo/Peratt86TPS-I.pdf

http://plasmauniverse.info/downloadsCosmo/Peratt86TPS-II.pdf

https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1970/alfven-lecture.pdf

"The cosmical plasma physics of today is far less advanced than the thermo-
nuclear research physics. It is to some extent the playground of theoreticians
who have never seen a plasma in a laboratory. Many of them still believe in
formulae which we know from laboratory experiments to be wrong. The
astrophysical correspondence to the thermonuclear crisis has not yet come.
The cosmical plasma physics of today is far less advanced than the thermo-
nuclear research physics. It is to some extent the playground of theoreticians
who have never seen a plasma in a laboratory. Many of them still believe in
formulae which we know from laboratory experiments to be wrong. The
astrophysical correspondence to the thermonuclear crisis has not yet come."

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19870005703.pdf

So now accept your own argument..... The "experts" in plasma physics, 99.9% of the universe are trying to educate you, but suddenly you are rejecting the "experts". And lets face it, when it comes to plasma I do believe a plasma physicist is more of an "expert" in that field than any cosmologist. But then those cosmologists have never set foot in a plasma laboratory despite 99.9% of the universe being composed of it. Nor is it even required reading in an astrophysics class.

Isnt that sort of like going into medicine without studying medicine except for a cursory glance? Would you trust your doctor if all the medical education he had was a few articles he read about medicine, while the doctor with years of study in the field of medicine was trying to tell you something different?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

"they", being those stupid and ignorant scientists who should all just listen to you laymen folks instead, I bet?

Maybe we should extent them an invitation to come and learn how to do their jobs by reading both your and Michael's posts on this internet forum.



Those ignorant physicists... applying physics wrong, all day long!

Tsk, tsk....

And yet the plasma experts are not asking you to believe in Fairie Dust. Just well established laboratory physics. Funny how that works. Funny how the real experts in plasma physics dont seem to matter to you.


http://plasmauniverse.info/downloadsCosmo/Peratt86TPS-I.pdf

http://plasmauniverse.info/downloadsCosmo/Peratt86TPS-II.pdf

https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1970/alfven-lecture.pdf
So it really has nothing to do with what the "experts" in their respective fields have to say, but what you want to believe in, right?

As someone once said, you dont covince people your right, they die and a new generation replaces the old. You wouldnt change your view despite 15 null results in the laboratory, so why change now. Even if it only took 4 to do away with aether theories. But Dark matter isnt held to the same standard is it.

 

[lesliedellow]

And yet the plasma experts are not asking you to believe in Fairie Dust. Just well established laboratory physics. Funny how that works. Funny how the real experts in plasma physics dont seem to matter to you.


http://plasmauniverse.info/downloadsCosmo/Peratt86TPS-I.pdf

http://plasmauniverse.info/downloadsCosmo/Peratt86TPS-II.pdf

https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1970/alfven-lecture.pdf
So it really has nothing to do with what the "experts" in their respective fields have to say, but what you want to believe in, right?

Oh sure, you will find "plasma experts" on a website called "plasma universe," just like you will find "flat earth experts" on the Flat Earth Society's website. I am sure we will all be wholly convinced that the Earth is flat after reading their alternative science.

Scientists at the JET laboratory in Oxford Uk work with multi million degree hot plasma every day of their lives. There, if anywhere, you and Michael ought to find a receptive ear for your nonsense, so off you go then:

JET | EUROfusion

 

[lesliedellow]

Now apply charge to that ball so it is no longer non-ionized matter, change the voltage in that area of space due to everything around it being ionized and......

Sorry sunshine, a ball with an electrical charge on it is a ball with an electrical charge on it. Only gases can be ionise, and it certainly would fall to the ground unless there was an enormously strong electric field, exerting a force in a skyward direction.

 

[Michael]

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

10 years of specialize education on "dark" stuff is akin to 10 years of specialized education in dark voodoo, or dark magic IMO. You've got no empirical evidence that the concept has any merit whatsoever in the lab, or in space. Every so called 'prediction" made by your dark magic "experts" bit the dust at LHC. Their grandiose knowledge of dark stuff isn't the least bit impressive to a skeptic, especially when they can't even name so much as a source of 'dark energy", and their track record in the lab is abysmal.

 

[Michael]

Oh sure, you will find "plasma experts" on a website called "plasma universe," just like you will find "flat earth experts" on the Flat Earth Society's website.

This statement is just sad IMO. Alfven literally wrote the book on MHD theory and plasma physics, and his work is what EU/PC theory is based upon. Birkeland's models *work* in the lab.

The only theory you should be comparing to a "flat Earth" theory is LCDM which uses "pseudoscience" to describe 5 percent of the universe, and dark magic to explain the rest.

Plasma physics works in the lab, and therefore so do all the precepts of EU/PC theory.

 

[Michael]

"they", being those stupid and ignorant scientists who should all just listen to you laymen folks instead, I bet?

Maybe we should extent them an invitation to come and learn how to do their jobs by reading both your and Michael's posts on this internet forum.

Those ignorant physicists... applying physics wrong, all day long!

Tsk, tsk....

If the mainstream's portrayal of EU/PC concepts and theories on their blogs is any indication of their understanding of the subject, it's pitiful. They really should study the subject from someone who actually understands it. I've seen nothing but misinformation and pure *disinformation* on their blogs and no sign that they actually understand the ideas that they attempt to ridicule.

FYI, Hannes Alfven called magnetic reconnection theory "pseudoscience" till the day that he died, and his double layer paper makes the entire concept irrelevant and obsolete.

What they don't know about double layers and plasma physics could fill volumes. The fact that they ignore the effect of inelastic scattering processes in plasma should be your first clue that they really don't understand plasma or plasma physics.

 

[Michael]

a.) Plasma is electrically neutral, and it remains neutral even if he electrons have enough kinetic energy to free themselves from the nucleus of the atoms.

By your definition a lightning bolt is "neutral". It's a current carrying environment and that's the part they keep missing.

 

[Michael]

My point was about how in science, there are no expressions of absolute certainties as new data/discoveries/knowledge may always and at any time force us to re-evaluate currently held ideas.

Nothing in your post addressed that point.

In the case of DM theory however, there has been no reevaluation after spending *billions* of dollars falsifying all their mathematical 'predictions' in the lab for the past decade, and in spite of all the *numerous* problems in their baryonic mass estimation techniques.

Supernatural dogma is tough to kill, particularly dogma that enjoys no empirical laboratory support in the first place.

Sorry, I'm not arrogant enough to pretend to know better then scientists concerning their own field of expertise.

There is nothing "arrogant" about noting that your "experts" have been wrong 100 percent of the time in the lab for over a decade, and they can't even name so much as a source of 'dark energy' which makes up 70 percent of their beliefs. What kind of pathetic "expertise" is that? 95 percent of their beliefs amount to nothing more than placeholder terms for human ignorance.

It does not take any arrogance to reject that kind of supernatural nonsense in favor of empirical physical solutions to the same observations in space.

 

[Michael]

Okay.

Here's the thing though, as I explained: that goes for ALL of science.
Any claim made with "certainty", is unscientific by definition.

So when LCDM proponents claim that Hubble 'proved' that the universe is expanding, or when they claim to have found "proof" of dark matter, that kind of "certainty" is anything *but* scientific. That kind of unscientific verbiage is *commonplace* in astronomy today. It's not the exception, it's the *rule*.

 

[lesliedellow]

This statement is just sad IMO. Alfven literally wrote the book on MHD theory and plasma physics, and his work is what EU/PC theory is based upon. Birkeland's models *work* in the lab.

St Alfven may have been the ultimate polymath (PBUH), but he did not write the book on cosmology.

 

[lesliedellow]

10 years of specialize education on "dark" stuff is akin to 10 years of specialized education in dark voodoo, or dark magic IMO.

No, three years as a physics undergraduate, three years as a physics post graduate, four years as a post doc, and the last twenty as a research scientist.

And you can manage what exactly?

 

[lesliedellow]

By your definition a lightning bolt is "neutral". It's a current carrying environment and that's the part they keep missing.

So is a copper wire a "current carrying environment," but it won't be carrying an electric current in the absence of an electric field

"They" miss nothing. "They" are physicists.

 

[Michael]

No, three years as a physics undergraduate, three years as a physics post graduate, four years as a post doc, and the last twenty as a research scientist.

And you can manage what exactly?

Well, I've been successfully self employed for almost 25 years and I've managed my company for all that time. I seriously doubt that most astronomers could start and run a successful business for nearly a quarter of a century. They definitely would go bankrupt in record time, or they'd be sued into oblivion for false advertising if they relied upon dark matter and dark energy for their sales.

All those years of math and all those degrees and yet their track record on dark matter in the lab is utterly dismal. It's impossible to bat less than 0 or they'd be in negative territory by now.

Your appeal to authority fallacy wouldn't sound so ridiculous if they had not struck out 100 percent of the time in the lab, and their galaxy mass estimation techniques weren't shown to be flawed in *numerous* ways.

How can you even think they have any real "expertise" when 95 percent of their beliefs amount to placeholder terms for pure human ignorance? They can't even collectively identify a single source of "dark energy" and that supernatural monstrosity makes up *most* of their model.

 

[Michael]

St Alfven may have been the ultimate polymath (PBUH), but he did not write the book on cosmology.

He did however write the book on plasma physics (MHD theory) and *plasma* cosmology. He called the mainstream's high energy plasma modeling techniques a form of 'pseudoscience'. He also made "reconnection" theory obsolete and irrelevant with his double layer paper, not the mainstream ever noticed or cared.

 

[Michael]

So is a copper wire a "current carrying environment," but it won't be carrying an electric current in the absence of an electric field

There is no "absence" of an electric field as the sun's hot corona, and Birkelands *prediction* (based on real experimentation) of that corona and the Earth's auroras clearly demonstrate.

"They" miss nothing. "They" are physicists.

They have missed almost everything important which is why they're reduced to using placeholder terms for human ignorance to describe 95 percent of the universe, and they use "pseudoscience' to mathematically model the other 5 percent.

EU theory *works in the lab* as that video demonstrates.

 

[lesliedellow]

Well, I've been successfully self employed for almost 25 years and I've managed my company for all that time.

Oh well. Wow! I can see how that might make you a leading expert in the world of astrophysics.

I seriously doubt that most astronomers could start and run a successful business for nearly a quarter of a century.

Whether they could or not is 100% irrelevant.

All those years of math and all those degrees and yet their track record on dark matter in the lab is utterly dismal. It's impossible to bat less than 0 or they'd be in negative territory by now.

Unlike you, they haven't got anything to prove, and they don't see things in terms of success or failure. They are more likely to view the outcome of any experiment as an "interesting result".

How can you even think they have any real "expertise" when 95 percent of their beliefs amount to placeholder terms for pure human ignorance? They can't even collectively identify a single source of "dark energy" and that supernatural monstrosity makes up *most* of their model.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with place holder names. If there were no gaps in scientific knowledge to be filled in, scientists would be out of a job. But that does not mean that they are going to accept whatever crank theory Michael Mozina sees fit to offer them.

 

[lesliedellow]

He did however write the book on plasma physics (MHD theory) and *plasma* cosmology. He called the mainstream's high energy plasma modeling techniques a form of 'pseudoscience'.

Oh well, he said it, so that settles it, I suppose. Do you think biologists today uncritically accept everything which flowed from the pen of Charles Darwin? Because I have got news for you - they don't.

 

[FrankDux]

Astronomers =/= cosmologists

Are you sure you even know what you're talking about ?