Is the dark matter hypothesis even falsifiable?

[Michael]

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

I never made any such claim in the first place, nor is that a requirement to know more about the universe than LCDM proponents. They're clueless about ninety five percent of it to start with!

Whether they could or not is 100% irrelevant.

Not really. It takes a lot more than simply reciting dogma correctly to run a successful company for a quarter of a century. Don't ridicule something that you don't understand. There's a reason that 80 percent of small businesses fail within the first two years. Even smart people fail.

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".

Oh boloney they have nothing to prove. They have their entire professional reputation at stake, so admitting they "blew it" with respect to DM is *much* more difficult for them to do than it is for me to acknowledge their mistake. Their whole *livelihood* is sometimes at stake too.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with place holder names.

There's a problem with using them to describe 95 percent of your entire hypothesis however. All I have to do is figure out more than 5 percent of the universe in terms of empirical physics, and I'm *way* ahead of LCDM proponents.

I don't need placeholder terms for human ignorance to describe and explain a mostly plasma universe. 100 percent of the universe is based on *ordinary* matter and energy IMO.

If there were no gaps in scientific knowledge to be filled in, scientists would be out of a job.

Not unless you undervalue the need for research. In the business world, just getting something to work doesn't keep one competitive over time.

But that does not mean that they are going to accept whatever crank theory Michael Mozina sees fit to offer them.

I didn't write EU/PC theory. A Nobel Prize winning author wrote it. I didn't even write Birkeland's solar theory either, and it works in the lab.

When you use the term "crank" to describe their work, you really undermine your own personal credibility. People who live in supernatural glass houses really shouldn't be throwing stones at pure empirical physics. Right or wrong, their beliefs work in the lab. There's nothing "crank" about it.

Compare and contrast that to the track record of "dark matter" proponents. Every single one of the mathematical models was shown to be a "crank" math formula with no basis in physical reality. Who's the crank?

You keep claiming that the mainstream hasn't missed anything, but they missed most of the mass of every galaxy in that lame 2006 lensing study. They missed the million degree plasma 'halo' around our galaxy until 2012 and they missed the fact that it's rotating like their "dark matter' models require until *just last year*. They've missed almost *everything*.

 

[Michael]

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.

I'll bet they have real empirical evidence before they reject his statements however. I've *never* seen any astronomer find a single mathematical or physical error in Cosmic Plasma. Care to give it whirl?

You'd have a lot more sympathy from me if the mainstream wasn't using 95 percent placeholder terms for ignorance with a smattering of pseudoscience to describe the universe we live in. I see no signs that they have an real "expertise" in plasma physics or they would have abandoned "magnetic reconnection" theory by now.

My conversation about that particular topic at ISF/JREF was really quite enlightening.

 

[lesliedellow]

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.

The primary means by which charged particles escape the Sun is through their kinetic energy. They are then split into positive and negative streams of charged particles by the Earth's magnetic field, and only at that point do you have an electric current.

 

[lesliedellow]

I never made any such claim in the first place, nor is that a requirement to know more about the universe than LCDM proponents. They're clueless about ninety five percent of it to start with!

This is just boring. You can throw insults at working scientists all you like, but it won't advance the cause of your pet obsession one iota, so live with it.

 

[Michael]

Astronomers =/= cosmologists

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

I'll grant you that I personally have a lot of respect and appreciation for "astronomy", but I utterly lack belief in LCDM *cosmology* claims.

I do very much appreciate the work that has occurred in terms of planetary exploration and space engineering in general:

Thunderbolts Forum • View topic - The confessions of a mainstream heretic.

I simply reject one specific cosmology theory that happens to be "popular" at the moment in favor of a purely empirical cosmology theory.

 

[Michael]

The primary means by which charged particles escape the Sun is through their kinetic energy.

True, but that kinetic energy begins and end with the electric field that exists between the surface of the cathode sun, and the heliosphere. It's certainly not from "convection". The mainstream model blew that "prediction" by two whole orders of magnitude.

They are then split into positive and negative streams of charged particles by the Earth's magnetic field, and only at that point do you have an electric current.

True again, but that original particle kinetic energy is supplied by the E field. You can verify that fact by turning off the power supply in Birkeland's model and watch how fast the corona and the Earth's aurora disappear.

 

[lesliedellow]

Astronomers =/= cosmologists

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

I doubt if the distinction is as clear cut as you seem to imagine. Somebody who spends his days worrying about the chemical composition of Jupiter's atmosphere, or about the black hole at the centre of our galaxy, is unlikely to have too much trouble switching his attention to the big bang.

 

[Michael]

This is just boring. You can throw insults at working scientists all you like, but it won't advance the cause of your pet obsession one iota, so live with it.

You apparently refuse to accept the fact that the mainstream can technically "explain" only about 5 percent of *their own claims*! They have *no clue* what form "dark matter" might take. They've botched every "prediction" to date! Collectively they cannot even name a single source of "dark energy" either. Their "knowledge" in terms of actual empirical physics is only about 5 percent *before* we even start factoring in the fact that most of their plasma models are based on pure *pseudoscience*!

They literally "know" virtually *nothing* about the universe in terms of actual percentages and real physics.

All I need to know is circuit theory and the fact that most of the "missing mass" in the universe is mostly made of plasma and I am already *light years* ahead of the LCDM proponents in terms of real 'knowledge" about the universe. It's not exactly difficult for anyone to know more about the universe than LCDM proponents.

 

[Michael]

I doubt if the distinction is as clear cut as you seem to imagine. Somebody who spends his days worrying about the chemical composition of Jupiter's atmosphere, or about the black hole at the centre of our galaxy, is unlikely to have too much trouble switching his attention to the big bang.

I'd bet almost anything that they have more confidence in their measurement of the composition of Jupiter's atmosphere than they are 'confident' in LCDM.

 

[lesliedellow]

You apparently refuse to accept the fact that the mainstream can technically "explain" only about 5 percent of *their own claims*!

Boring, boring, boring.

 

[Michael]

Boring, boring, boring.

Evidence of gravitational waves, or evidence of confirmation bias?
Thunderbolts Forum • View topic - Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

Care to discuss LIGO claims then? Holy cow! They literally *cheated* with their method by exempting celestial origin claims from being rejected based upon a lack of external confirmation as they did with *every other* potential cause of the signal.

You seem to imagine that your heroes are infallible, but I assure you that isn't the case. A few years ago I watched 200+ of them sign their name to that BICEP2 fiasco paper, and it blew up in their face in mere months. I picked out the offending section (9) of that paper on the first read through!

The published and supposedly 'peer reviewed" LIGO paper contains *flat out false statements* about the events surrounding the data quality veto of that exact signal.

Scientists are human too, and they are prone to error just like everyone else. A large number of them signing their name on a paper doesn't guarantee the accuracy either as BICEP2 *clearly* demonstrated.

 

[Radrook]

Okay.

Here's the thing though, as I explained: that goes for ALL of science.
Any claim made with "certainty", is unscientific by definition.
Science can tell you what is likely true. Some things are so incredibly likely that we just call it true, without additional qualifications for ease of communication.

But even those things are never considered "absolutely" true or "certain".
There's always that 0,000...001% chance of being wrong - no matter how unlikely it may seem that it is wrong.

It's just how science works. Everything is questionable.



If you drop a ball in a vacuum 999.999 times and every time it falls to the earth at exactly 9.81 meters per second per second, it would obviously be crazy to suggest that it will be different the millionth time.

But it could. How incredibly unlikely it may seem.
Taking into account everything we know about mass, gravity, etc... there is absolutely no reason to assume it will be different. But there you have it: taking everything we know into account. What about the things we do NOT know? We don't know anything about the things we don't know. And in those things we don't know, there might be stuff that shows our current understandings to be wrong or incomplete.

If you express 100% certainty, then you are effectively saying that among the set of things you do NOT know, there is nothing that might contradict things you think to know now.

I shouldn't have to explain why such would be intellectual dishonesty...

Strictly speaking, in scientific context, we are merely talking about a degree of certainty. A degree that can only approach 100%, but never become 100%.


Furthermore, your "example" of standing on a skyscraper also seems to imply that "either you are certain, or you are equally justified to believe one or the other", which is off course ridiculous.

The alternative to being absolutely certain, is not a 50/50 chance of being right or wrong.

That's why the impression of certainty should not be intentionally propagated to the non-scientific public. Unfortunately it is in many a diverse and devious ways which really don't need any elaboration.

 

[Michael]

Boring, boring, boring.

Ya know.......

I really don't understand your boredom. It would be different if the tables were turned, and the mainstream was convinced of a purely empirical cosmology theory, and I was trying to peddle a creation mythology using four different and unique supernatural constructs to explain the same basic cosmological observations, one of which had failed billions of dollars worth of 'tests' of my claims. In that scenario, I'd definitely understand your boredom.

As it stands however, the mainstream is using mostly placeholder terms for human ignorance to describe the universe, and the other 5 percent is mostly "pseudoscience" according to the Nobel Prize winning author who wrote MHD theory. The cold dark matter component has to be the single most "tested" theory in physics in terms of the money that has been spent "testing" exotic matter claims, and it's been a complete and utter *failure* in the lab.

They really aren't the "experts" that you imagine them to be or they wouldn't be using those placeholder terms for human ignorance to describe the vast majority of their beliefs. The wouldn't have failed every "prediction" they made with respect to dark matter either. That's not "boring", those are simply the facts.

What exactly am I "giving up" by lacking belief in LCDM theory? I can still explain the same basic features of the universe, and I require no placeholder terms for pure ignorance to do it. I can replicate all of my beliefs in a laboratory setting. I don't see any actual "knowledge" that I'm giving up by lacking belief in one specific creation mythology that is almost completely based on useless terms that have no actual "knowledge" associated with them in the first place.

You shouldn't be bored. The mainstream's lack of a real explanation isn't boring, it's a relevant fact. The opportunity to let go of *all* four supernatural components associated with current cosmology theory isn't boring to me, it's really quite exciting. There's a chance for real "knowledge" for a change, and there's no need for exotic forms of matter or energy to explain events in spacetime. That's not boring, that's quite intriguing from my vantage point, particularly since I see nothing to lose by simply letting go of all placeholder terms for ignorance and getting rid of a little pseudoscience as well.

What exactly am I giving up by giving up on LCDM?

 

[sjastro]

All I need to know is circuit theory and the fact that most of the "missing mass" in the universe is mostly made of plasma and I am already *light years* ahead of the LCDM proponents in terms of real 'knowledge" about the universe. It's not exactly difficult for anyone to know more about the universe than LCDM proponents.

I nominate this quote for the Dunning Kruger quote of the year award.

Since you have admitted your knowledge of cosmology is greater than any individual on the planet, then explain how the hot plasma halo that sits outside the stellar boundary of our galaxy affects the Keplarian orbits of outer lying stars resulting in flat rotation curves.

 

[lesliedellow]

I nominate this quote for the Dunning Kruger quote of the year award.

I would agree, except that even Michael is no match for Justatruthseeker. It's a close run thing though.

 

[Michael]

I nominate this quote for the Dunning Kruger quote of the year award.

Yawn. Your emotional need for ad-homs in a debate is just sad IMO.

Since you have admitted your knowledge of cosmology is greater than any individual on the planet,

I did not. I will admit that I do believe that I know more about the universe than any LCDM proponent, but that's true for every EU/PC proponent IMO, not just me personally. I'd give that particular honor to Anthony Peratt, or maybe Eric Lerner. My understanding of plasma physics pales in comparison to theirs.

then explain how the hot plasma halo that sits outside the stellar boundary of our galaxy affects the Keplarian orbits of outer lying stars resulting in flat rotation curves.

Dark matter halo - Wikipedia
NASA’s Hubble Finds Giant Halo Around the Andromeda Galaxy

I'd assume that it works pretty much the same way that your "dark matter halo" models work, only Peratt's galaxy rotation model *includes* current flow which the mainstream tends to simply ignore.

What makes you think that only an exotic matter "halo" can explain that rotation pattern?

 

[Michael]

I nominate this quote for the Dunning Kruger quote of the year award.

FYI, that particular honor belongs to the European space agency. Apparently they can't tell the difference between a very ordinary Birkeland current in the Earth's upper atmosphere (albeit oriented sideways) and a "Steve".

When Swarm met Steve

 

[Michael]

I would agree, except that even Michael is no match for Justatruthseeker. It's a close run thing though.

But of course you can't demonstrate that anything I've said is not true. Somehow it's all my personal fault that the mainstream has a big fat zero batting average in the lab with respect to their dark matter "predictions"? Care to explain how that's my fault?

 

[lesliedellow]

But of course you can't demonstrate that anything I've said is not true. Somehow it's all my personal fault that the mainstream has a big fat zero batting average in the lab with respect to their dark matter "predictions"? Care to explain how that's my fault?

1.) Nobody knows what dark matter is, or whether it even exists for sure.
2.) Therefore no theory incorporating dark matter.
3.) Therefore no predictions made on the basis of that theory.
4.) Therefore no falsified predictions.

 

[sjastro]

Dark matter halo - Wikipedia
NASA’s Hubble Finds Giant Halo Around the Andromeda Galaxy

I'd assume that it works pretty much the same way that your "dark matter halo" models work, only Peratt's galaxy rotation model *includes* current flow which the mainstream tends to simply ignore.

What makes you think that only an exotic matter "halo" can explain that rotation pattern?

Try addressing the question, instead of hiding behind a couple of non relevant links, a fleeting reference to Peratt, and answering a question with a question.