Is the dark matter hypothesis even falsifiable?

[Michael]

1.) Nobody knows what dark matter is, or whether it even exists for sure.

I'm pretty sure that exotic forms of matter do not exist, and I'm positive there is exactly zero supporting evidence for it, either from observations from space, or in the lab. Plasma and dust seem like the most likely sources of any 'missing mass'.

2.) Therefore no theory incorporating dark matter.

You've never heard of SUSY theory I presume?

3.) Therefore no predictions made on the basis of that theory.

That's just plain wrong.
String Theory Now on Life Support | RealClearScience

4.) Therefore no falsified predictions.

https://www.seeker.com/perfect-electron-roundness-bruises-supersymmetry-1768164981.html

I'm sorry to burst your little bubble but SUSY proponents and WIMP theorists have been making various predictions about the composition and the effects of dark matter all along, and they've been designing and building equipment to "test" those models including axion models.

 

[Michael]

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.

I just did! I have every logical reason to believe that it works *exactly* like your dark matter halo models work, but the "missing mass" is just ordinary dust and plasma, not any form of exotic matter. You've got *zero* evidence to support the concept that only exotic forms of matter can explain galaxy rotation curves, or lensing patterns around galaxies.

 

[sjastro]

I just did! I have every logical reason to believe that it works *exactly* like your dark matter halo models work, but the "missing mass" is just ordinary dust and plasma, not any form of exotic matter. You've got *zero* evidence to support the concept that only exotic forms of matter can explain galaxy rotation curves, or lensing patterns around galaxies.

You did not answer the question Michael.
I will ask again, how does 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'm pretty sure that exotic forms of matter do not exist, and I'm positive there is exactly zero supporting evidence for it, either from observations from space, or in the lab. Plasma and dust seem like the most likely sources of any 'missing mass'.



You've never heard of SUSY theory I presume?



That's just plain wrong.
String Theory Now on Life Support | RealClearScience



https://www.seeker.com/perfect-electron-roundness-bruises-supersymmetry-1768164981.html

I'm sorry to burst your little bubble but SUSY proponents and WIMP theorists have been making various predictions about the composition and the effects of dark matter all along, and they've been designing and building equipment to "test" those models including axion models.

Creationists don't know the difference between the big bang theory, evolution or abiogenesis. With them it all gets thrown into one big pot, and stirred well.

Now we have Michael throwing super symmetry (first proposed in 1966), string theory (early seventies) and dark matter (circa 1920s) into one big pot, and stirring well. Why doesn't that surprise me?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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

And Peratt was the head of the Los Alamos National Laboratory. Is one of the top plasma physicists in the field, to which even those people at the JET laboratory refer to.

You mean those people at NASA that are just getting around to studying plasma? They already understand, it's you that refuse to listen to them.

NASA - The Electric Atmosphere: Plasma Is Next NASA Science Target

"Our day-to-day lives exist in what physicists would call an electrically neutral environment. Desks, books, chairs and bodies don't generally carry electricity and they don't stick to magnets. But life on Earth is substantially different from, well, almost everywhere else. Beyond Earth's protective atmosphere and extending all the way through interplanetary space, electrified particles dominate the scene. Indeed, 99% of the universe is made of this electrified gas, known as plasma."

They've been trying to tell you for years, but its gone over your head.

Moon Fountains | Science Mission Directorate

Moondust in the Wind | Science Mission Directorate

NASA - Electric Moon Jolts the Solar Wind

‘Electric Wind’ Strips Earth-like Planets of Oceans, Atmospheres

NASA - Cassini Sees Saturn Electric Link With Enceladus

Electrical Circuit Between Saturn and Enceladus

NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS) - The Jupiter-Io connection - An Alfven engine in space

Magnetic Portals Connect Earth to the Sun | Science Mission Directorate

NASA Cassini Spacecraft: Saturn, Sun Share 8300Km-Wide Magnetic Rope FTE; Earth, Mercury Share Too

Yes, they have been telling you for years, you just havent been listening.

 

[Michael]

Creationists don't know the difference between the big bang theory, evolution or abiogenesis. With them it all gets thrown into one big pot, and stirred well.

Likewise LCDM "creationists" typically don't know the difference between Birkeland's solar model, Alfven's solar model and Juergen's solar model, nor do they understand much about Alfven's work or Peratt's work. It all gets thrown into one big pot and stirred well.

I know the differences between your list and the differences in the list that I mentioned too.

Now we have Michael throwing super symmetry (first proposed in 1966), string theory (early seventies) and dark matter (circa 1920s) into one big pot, and stirring well. Why doesn't that surprise me?

Um, I'm afraid that it's the mainstream that is doing all the mixing, while stirring in 4 *other* hypothetical/supernatural constructs while they're at it. Why doesn't that surprise me? And please don't blame me for M-theory either.

 

[Michael]

You did not answer the question Michael.
I will ask again, how does 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?

If you *actually* want to understand how a galaxy really forms and how it functions in EU/PC theory, I suggest that you study Peratt's computer models.

I don't personally need to reinvent the wheel for you with respect to galaxy rotation patterns. All I have to do is replace your exotic matter with plasma in that "halo", and use your own models.

Dark matter halo - Wikipedia

Unless and until you can explain why only *exotic* matter will work in those models, there's really nothing more to discuss.

In terms of any lensing data we might discuss, the mass density that is necessary to explain the observed lensing patterns simply dictates where the plasma concentrations must be located. In terms of lensing data or galaxy rotation patterns, there's really nothing that your exotic matter can do that EU/PC theory cannot do *without* the need for any supernatural forms of matter or energy.

As long as you keep ignoring the *current flow* aspects of galaxies and stars, I doubt that you'd even begin to understand how plasma behaves in the real universe or in Peratt's computer models.

The *only* reason that you *need* exotic forms of matter to explain anything related to galaxies is so that you can claim to "predict" (actually postdict) nucleosynthesis numbers which can match observations related to amount of hydrogen and helium we observe in space. You're therefore stuck with very specific and very exacting percentages of exotic matter that really aren't "modifiable" without destroying the whole LCDM cosmology model. There is no LCDM without CDM, but the mass concentration patterns, and the rotation patterns of galaxies don't require CDM to be "exotic" in nature.

 

[lesliedellow]

And Peratt was the head of the Los Alamos National Laboratory. Is one of the top plasma physicists in the field, to which even those people at the JET laboratory refer to.

You mean those people at NASA that are just getting around to studying plasma? They already understand, it's you that refuse to listen to them.

NASA - The Electric Atmosphere: Plasma Is Next NASA Science Target

"Our day-to-day lives exist in what physicists would call an electrically neutral environment. Desks, books, chairs and bodies don't generally carry electricity and they don't stick to magnets. But life on Earth is substantially different from, well, almost everywhere else. Beyond Earth's protective atmosphere and extending all the way through interplanetary space, electrified particles dominate the scene. Indeed, 99% of the universe is made of this electrified gas, known as plasma."

They've been trying to tell you for years, but its gone over your head.

Moon Fountains | Science Mission Directorate

Moondust in the Wind | Science Mission Directorate

NASA - Electric Moon Jolts the Solar Wind

‘Electric Wind’ Strips Earth-like Planets of Oceans, Atmospheres

NASA - Cassini Sees Saturn Electric Link With Enceladus

Electrical Circuit Between Saturn and Enceladus

NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS) - The Jupiter-Io connection - An Alfven engine in space

Magnetic Portals Connect Earth to the Sun | Science Mission Directorate

NASA Cassini Spacecraft: Saturn, Sun Share 8300Km-Wide Magnetic Rope FTE; Earth, Mercury Share Too

Yes, they have been telling you for years, you just havent been listening.

So NASA are the heroes for the next five minutes. Only until the next time they say something to upset the EUers, I guess.

That there is such a thing as ionised gas is hardly news hot off the press.

 

[sjastro]

If you *actually* want to understand how a galaxy really forms and how it functions in EU/PC theory, I suggest that you study Peratt's computer models.

I don't personally need to reinvent the wheel for you with respect to galaxy rotation patterns. All I have to do is replace your exotic matter with plasma in that "halo", and use your own models.

Dark matter halo - Wikipedia

Unless and until you can explain why only *exotic* matter will work in those models, there's really nothing more to discuss.

In terms of any lensing data we might discuss, the mass density that is necessary to explain the observed lensing patterns simply dictates where the plasma concentrations must be located. In terms of lensing data or galaxy rotation patterns, there's really nothing that your exotic matter can do that EU/PC theory cannot do *without* the need for any supernatural forms of matter or energy.

As long as you keep ignoring the *current flow* aspects of galaxies and stars, I doubt that you'd even begin to understand how plasma behaves in the real universe or in Peratt's computer models.

The *only* reason that you *need* exotic forms of matter to explain anything related to galaxies is so that you can claim to "predict" (actually postdict) nucleosynthesis numbers which can match observations related to amount of hydrogen and helium we observe in space. You're therefore stuck with very specific and very exacting percentages of exotic matter that really aren't "modifiable" without destroying the whole LCDM cosmology model. There is no LCDM without CDM, but the mass concentration patterns, and the rotation patterns of galaxies don't require CDM to be "exotic" in nature.

You are not fooling anyone Michael.
Your response is textbook handwaving as you don't understand the question itself let alone provide an answer.
Since you can't give the answer I will.
The reason why the outer lying stars (in fact nearly all stars) follow non Keplerian orbits is that the orbits are not around a single spherical mass, but a collection of individual masses inside the orbit.
The flat rotation curve is simply due to the linear increase in the sum total of the individual masses inside the orbit with increasing orbit size.
Anything outside the orbit such as the hot plasma halo does not affect the shape of the rotation curve.

 

[lesliedellow]

Oops.

 

[Michael]

So NASA are the heroes for the next five minutes. Only until the next time they say something to upset the EUers, I guess.

That there is such a thing as ionised gas is hardly news hot off the press.

NASA and ESA typically involve themselves with planetary exploration and space engineering in general. That kind of effort is well appreciated by everyone, including the EU/PC crowd.

When they start misusing scientific terms however, like calling a million degree plasma a "gas", or when they call a Birkeland current "Steve", they tend to get blasted by the EU/PC community.

Nothing wrong with that.....

 

[Michael]

You are not fooling anyone Michael.
Your response is textbook handwaving as you don't understand the question itself let alone provide an answer.

What a bunch of hogwash. I gave you two answers, one from the EU/PC models that Peratt presented *decades* ago, and one answer that is based upon your own *mainstream models*

Since you can't give the answer I will.
The reason why the outer lying stars (in fact nearly all stars) follow non Keplerian orbits is that the orbits are not around a single spherical mass, but a collection of individual masses inside the orbit.
The flat rotation curve is simply due to the linear increase in the sum total of the individual masses inside the orbit with increasing orbit size.
Anything outside the orbit such as the hot plasma halo does not affect the shape of the rotation curve.

Translation: Yes, ordinary matter does exactly the same thing as exotic matter and they are interchangeable in terms of galaxy rotation patterns. Oy vey.

FYI that plasma "halo" isn't just around the outside of the galaxy, the stars are embedded in a hot plasma halo that exist *everywhere throughout* the whole galaxy starting in the core and extending *way* beyond the visible star clusters.

Don't think that we didn't notice that you have still have never demonstrated that exotic matter is necessary to explain anything related to galaxy rotation patterns or lensing data. Ordinary plasma *easily* replaces your supernatural invisible friend.

 

[Michael]

Oops.

Ya, "oops", we don't need exotic forms of matter to explain anything in space.

 

[Michael]

I think this thread pretty much demonstrates *why* exotic matter claims are not falsifiable. Even getting sjastro to openly admit that exotic matter is not required to explain galaxy rotation patterns is just about impossible. They don't want to admit the *obvious* for *obvious* reasons.

Let's be honest. LCDM nucleosynthesis predictions and CMB claims *require* magical forms of matter to make them work right, therefore the dogma related to the percentage of ordinary matter compared to the amount of exotic matter cannot ever change dramatically regardless of the observations.

LCDM proponents are stuck with exotic matter, in pretty much *required* percentages, like it or not. There's simply no room for massive changes to those percentages and not have big bang theory fall completely apart. That's why the mainstream keeps burying their collective heads in the sand with respect to all the baryonic mass estimate errors they made in that now infamous 2006 lensing study that claimed to 'prove' the existence of dark matter, and that's why they can't and won't make any significant changes as a result of those revelations. It's also why they are forced to ignore every single negative result on dark matter in the lab and ignore every failed prediction they made based upon that claim. Exotic matter is utterly and entirely optional as it relates to explaining gravitational lensing patterns and galaxy rotation patterns. It's mandatory however in LCDM (big bang theory), in pretty much *non modifiable* percentages.

Denial is pretty much all they can resort to at this point.

 

[sjastro]

What a bunch of hogwash. I gave you two answers, one from the EU/PC models that Peratt presented *decades* ago, and one answer that is based upon your own *mainstream models*

Stop being ridiculous Michael.
I even went to the trouble of highlighting the pertinent words in the questions that you failed to address.
To add to your absurdity in a previous post you stated this.

If you *actually* want to understand how a galaxy really forms and how it functions in EU/PC theory, I suggest that you study Peratt's computer models.
I don't personally need to reinvent the wheel for you with respect to galaxy rotation patterns.

So which is the correct version Michael, where you gave an answer based on Peratt’s model or this cop out response?

Translation: Yes, ordinary matter does exactly the same thing as exotic matter and they are interchangeable in terms of galaxy rotation patterns. Oy vey.

FYI that plasma "halo" isn't just around the outside of the galaxy, the stars are embedded in a hot plasma halo that exist *everywhere throughout* the whole galaxy starting in the core and extending *way* beyond the visible star clusters.

Don't think that we didn't notice that you have still have never demonstrated that exotic matter is necessary to explain anything related to galaxy rotation patterns or lensing data. Ordinary plasma *easily* replaces you supernatural invisible friend.

The translation MIchael is that you are totally out of your depth and fail to see the blindingly obvious.
In order for the rotation curve to be flat your plasma halo would have to be concentrated inside and near the disk.
Remember Michael plasma scatters light, so why don’t you explain to us how this thick magical plasma inside the disk gives an unobstructed view for astronomers in visible light wavelengths when observing galaxies.
Here is another question for you Michael if plasma behaves exactly as dark matter than why does the Bullet Cluster clearly show gravitational lensing beyond the plasma boundary of the merging clusters.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... If indeed there can never be certainty via science as you claim, then you must be uncertain that gravity exists. Of course that uncertainty would most certainly never come to mind if they placed you on a ledge 100 stories up on a skyscraper.

It may be worth pointing out that there's a difference between the repeated observation of the effect and the explanation for the effect. Science attempts to explain observations.

Also, with respect to certainty about gravity, the Equivalence Principle of Einstein's General Relativity means that in certain situations it is not possible to distinguish between gravity and acceleration.

Just sayin'.

 

[Radrook]

It may be worth pointing out that there's a difference between the repeated observation of the effect and the explanation for the effect. Science attempts to explain observations.

Also, with respect to certainty about gravity, the Equivalence Principle of Einstein's General Relativity means that in certain situations it is not possible to distinguish between gravity and acceleration.

Just sayin'.

Yes, observation and explanation are two different things and gravity is indeed indistinguishable from the effect of acceleration. In fact, that's how flat Earth believers claim that flat-Earth gravity is being produced.

 

[Michael]

It may be worth pointing out that there's a difference between the repeated observation of the effect and the explanation for the effect. Science attempts to explain observations.

Bingo! In this case, the repeated observation of "missing mass" in distant galaxies and clusters could be indicative of an exotic form of matter, or it could indicate that our baryonic mass estimates based upon light alone are *woefully inadequate*.

Since that 2006 lensing study that claimed to find "proof" (yes they used that exact word) of "dark matter", there have been at least five major revelations of major baryonic mass estimate problems in that paper. They underestimated the brightness by a factor of two, the number of stars by a factor of between 3 and 20 times depending on the size of the star and the type of galaxy, the number of stars *between* galaxies in the clusters, and the hot plasma halo that surrounds every galaxy. There is *overwhelming* evidence that the real "cause" of that repeated observation is that their baryonic mass estimates were and are horrifically *flawed* and they need to be fixed.

There is *zero* evidence in the lab to support exotic matter even after spending many *billions* (with a B) of dollars and euros looking for it. Every prediction that has been made by exotic matter proponents has been a dismal failure in the lab to this very day.

Ditto by the way for dark energy, but that's a different thread.

 

[Michael]

Stop being ridiculous Michael.

LOL! There have been at least five *major* problems shown to exist in that 2006 lensing study, and you want *me* to stop being ridiculous? You've struck out 100 percent of the time in the lab, and wasted billions of dollars to find zero supporting evidence of your claim, and you want me to stop being ridiculous?

I even went to the trouble of highlighting the pertinent words in the questions that you failed to address.

I didn't fail to address anything. I gave you two different answers, one based on EU/PC computer models of galaxy mass layouts, and one based on *your own models*. Stick enough plasma in either one, and you solve your problem *immediately* if not sooner.

The longer your drag your feet and blame me for your laziness, the longer I'll laugh at you.

[To add to your absurdity in a previous post you stated this.

If you *actually* want to understand how a galaxy really forms and how it functions in EU/PC theory, I suggest that you study Peratt's computer models.
I don't personally need to reinvent the wheel for you with respect to galaxy rotation patterns.

So which is the correct version Michael, where you gave an answer based on Peratt’s model or this cop out response?

Huh? What cop out? I simply refer you to *published and peer reviewed material* for consideration. You're the one copping out here not me. Do you have a problem with Peratt's model?

I'm not your personal physics mommy you know. Most conversations involve *citations to published materials*, they don't require me to personally spoon feed it to you.

The translation MIchael is that you are totally out of your depth and fail to see the blindingly obvious.

Out of my depth? Wow. You won't read the materials or address my points, but somehow I'm out of my depth. If you mean I didn't personally write Peratt's computer models all by myself, you're right, I'm out of my depth. I'm relying upon a *plasma physicist* that studied under Hannes Alfven and who works at Los Alamos. Do you have a problem with that? If so, why? Does one have to be the world's leading expert on evolutionary theory to answer basic questions and *cite appropriate material*?

Do you mean 'out of my depth' in terms on not being the worlds leading expert on mainstream "dark matter" models? Guilty as charged. I never even much *cared* for their models to be quite honest. I've always figured that they simply botched the mass estimates and I've always had faith that lensing is a better method of figuring out where the mass is located and I always figured that whereever it was found, it would mostly be made of *plasma*, just like the other 99% of the known universe. Who cares if I'm not the worlds leading expert on that topic either? Holy cow.

In order for the rotation curve to be flat your plasma halo would have to be concentrated inside and near the disk.

And I'm sure that a lot of that plasma is concentrated just as your models predict because that's where they would need to be located in Peratt's model too. Did you ever take a gander at Birkeland's lab work with terellas? They also tended to concentrate matter in "rings" around the sphere.

Remember Michael plasma scatters light, so why don’t you explain to us how this thick magical plasma inside the disk gives an unobstructed view for astronomers in visible light wavelengths when observing galaxies.

It depends on the composition of the material the density of the material and the *temperatures* of those materials. Why did it take the mainstream until 2012 to figure out that our own galaxy is *surrounded* by million degree plasma that contains more mass than the rest of the stars in the galaxy? Ooops?

Here is another question for you Michael if plasma behaves exactly as dark matter than why does the Bullet Cluster clearly show gravitational lensing beyond the plasma boundary of the merging clusters.

I'm not sure what you're asking exactly, but let me answer your question in a general way that should apply to every lensing observation. Everywhere that lensing occurs is where a clump of *plasma* is likely to be located. It's likely to be concentrated inside of *filaments* called "Birkeland currents" with galaxies and galaxy clusters embedded in those massive Birkeland currents. The whole universe is "wired together" by current carrying plasma and current carrying plasma forms filaments both in the lab and in space. There's nothing magical or mysterious about it. It's all just composed of ordinary *plasma* and electrons flowing through that plasma.

 

[Michael]

Remember Michael plasma scatters light, so why don’t you explain to us how this thick magical plasma inside the disk gives an unobstructed view for astronomers in visible light wavelengths when observing galaxies.

It doesn't give an unobstructed view:

Universe Now Twice as Bright

That was one of those *major* mistakes that was made in that 2006 paper and you're still making that same mistake today.