Is the dark matter hypothesis even falsifiable?

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Bingo! In this case, the repeated observation of "missing mass" in distant galaxies and clusters...

Whatever the explanation is, the observation is not of 'missing mass', but of anomalous galactic motion and lensing.

The idea of unseen or 'missing' mass is an inference from the observations, a potential explanation (i.e. hypothesis), one of several.

 

[sjastro]

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Your emotional tirade not only reinforces that you are out of your depth, but you are also illogical and irrational.
You lack the ability to judge the relevancy of your comments in this discussion, and frankly most of it is off topic rubbish.
The reasons are obvious since your responses are always scripted. You have the answers even before the questions are asked. When there is the invariable mismatch between my comments (and anyone else) and your scripted responses, that’s when it becomes ridiculous as exemplified by your “answers” to my questions.

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.

This is an exercise in delusion.
You flatly refuse to accept the evidence that no plasma has been found in the lensed regions of the Bullet Cluster because it contradicts your emotionally driven ideas.

So your answer is to a employ method which you accuse mainstream of doing, invent plasma clump matter which becomes a full blown description about Birkeland currents in the Universe. This is a further delusion as no giant Birkeland currents have ever been observed even as a SZ effect on the cosmic radiation background!!!

Strange isn’t Michael we can observe the SZ effect for galaxy clusters, but the much larger giant Birkeland currents are invisible.
Birkeland currents must therefore be as voodoo in nature as your description of dark matter.

 

[sjastro]

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.

And here Michael you display a lack of basic comprehension skills.
If you read the article it refers to the blockage of light by interstellar dust not plasma. If you think plasma is composed of grains of carbon and silica there really is not much point in discussing the issue.

I made it perfectly clear to you I was referring to your magical plasma as a substitute for dark matter in the galaxy’s disk.
Our view of the Universe would be a lot darker than just simply the affects of interstellar dust if your magical plasma behaved like normal plasma.

 

[Michael]

And here Michael you display a lack of basic comprehension skills.
If you read the article it refers to the blockage of light by interstellar dust not plasma.

All plasma is "dusty", and some of the material is not ionized. You're still just ignoring the point. You *underestimated* the mass in those clusters by *whopping* amounts, and this is only the tip of the iceberg. That's just one of the major problems with your mass estimates based on "brightness".

If you think plasma is composed of grains of carbon and silica there really is not much point in discussing the issue.

I think you're dreaming if you don't think scattering happens in space. That's been the mainstream's problem from day one.

I made it perfectly clear to you I was referring to your magical plasma as a substitute for dark matter in the galaxy’s disk.
Our view of the Universe would be a lot darker than just simply the affects of interstellar dust if your magical plasma behaved like normal plasma.

Not at all. We are losing light to the plasma medium and that's why you keep *underestimating* mass in various galaxies. You're the one peddling "magic" matter. I'm just using ordinary forms of matter.

The dead give away is that you folks didn't even find most of the mass of our own galaxy until 2012 because it was contained inside of a million degree plasma halo that surrounds the whole galaxy.

The mainstream baryonic mass estimates based on light have been proven to be *unreliable* in at least five different *serious* ways. There's never been any need for exotic forms of matter, just a need to *fix your broken mass estimation techniques*.

 

[Michael]

Whatever the explanation is, the observation is not of 'missing mass', but of anomalous galactic motion and lensing.

Is is evidently caused by "missing mass' since the "fix" the mainstream used to explain those observations was magic matter. Both the lensing data and the rotation patterns are explained by the mainstream by using "additional mass". Nowhere do their formulas require that mass to be a special type of matter to explain those two observations.

The idea of unseen or 'missing' mass is an inference from the observations, a potential explanation (i.e. hypothesis), one of several.

They didn't even find most of the mass of our own galaxy until 2012, six full years *after* that infamous lensing study. They didn't know it was located in a "halo" around the galaxy (like their dark matter models predict) until just last year! There was never any need for exotic forms of matter to explain either the rotation patterns of galaxies, or the lensing observations we observe from space.

 

[Michael]

Your emotional tirade not only reinforces that you are out of your depth, but you are also illogical and irrational.

What emotional tirade? I'm just noting that your magical forms of matter are utterly unnecessary to explain galaxy rotation patterns and lensing patterns.

I love how you think *I'm* being illogical and irrational for preferring empirical physical solutions to problems, and you think you're being logical and rational by introducing a *supernatural* agent to do what *ordinary plasma can easily do*! That's a riot.

You lack the ability to judge the relevancy of your comments in this discussion, and frankly most of it is off topic rubbish.

You lack the ability to argue your point with actual science, so you attack the *individual*. It's the oldest and sleaziest trick in the book.

The reasons are obvious since your responses are always scripted. You have the answers even before the questions are asked. When there is the invariable mismatch between my comments (and anyone else) and your scripted responses, that’s when it becomes ridiculous as exemplified by your “answers” to my questions.

My points haven't changed in over a decade because your dark matter entity thingy has never shown up in lab in all that time, even after spending all that money "testing" your beliefs. They all came back negative. My responses aren't scripted, but I'm sure they're pretty predictable by now. It's not my fault that your baryonic mass estimates were shown to be flawed repeatedly over the past decade, nor it is my fault that your experiments falsified your claims in the lab over and over and over again.

This is an exercise in delusion.

Yep. You're under the delusion that mythical forms of matter exist and they're somehow required to explain lensing patterns. That's definitely an exercise in delusion on your part as LHC, LUX PandaX and numerous other experiments have demonstrated.

You flatly refuse to accept the evidence that no plasma has been found in the lensed regions of the Bullet Cluster because it contradicts your emotionally driven ideas.

Your claim is flat out false. We found *all kinds of plasma* in those clusters since 2006, starting with all the plasma in all the suns that you *underestimated* by a whopping factor of between 3 and 20 times! What the heck are you talking about? You're in pure denial of all the flaws that were discovered in your baryonic mass estimates over the past decade.

So your answer is to a employ method which you accuse mainstream of doing, invent plasma clump matter

I didn't "invent" anything. Plasma exists in nature and it shows up in the lab, unlike your mythical dark matter. I used an off the shelf form of matter to do the trick whereas you *assumed* your mass estimates were perfect, and you *invented* a new form of mythical matter.

which becomes a full blown description about Birkeland currents in the Universe.

We see them all over the place in space, and even around our own planet. The mainstream calls them "Steve", "magnetic slinky", "magnetic rope", 'filaments" and all sorts of stupid terms.

This is a further delusion as no giant Birkeland currents have ever been observed even as a SZ effect on the cosmic radiation background!!!

That's just pure denial on your part again. Everywhere we look in space we see massive plasma threads that connect the galaxies and the galaxy clusters together.

Strange isn’t Michael we can observe the SZ effect for galaxy clusters, but the much larger giant Birkeland currents are invisible.

Not really. Galaxies have *stars* in them, whereas not all currents in space require stars to exist all along the current channel. Stars are easier to see, that's all.

Birkeland currents must therefore be as voodoo in nature as your description of dark matter.

Sorry, but they show up in the lab. You can even go down to the store and buy a plasma ball and turn it on, and watch the currents form inside the plasma ball. That filamentary behavior and those field aligned currents are driven and created by the electric fields. You can demonstrate that point by flipping the electrical switch on and off and you'll see the filaments form and disappear as you do it.

You folks have a pure fear of electricity in space. I think you all know that the time is coming where LCDM is going to just look silly. You can't deny the role of electricity in space forever.

 

[SelfSim]

... You lack the ability to argue your point with actual science, so you attack the *individual*. It's the oldest and sleaziest trick in the book.

My dear Michael;

The forum is a crucible which reduces fairy-floss arguments such as EU's, (and your ever-shifting flavours of it), until all that is left is an ideologically driven mindset. I have travelled this same path with you many times, so I know this as fact, and so do many others.
Don't make it 'personal' by playing the victim! It is clear from us peanut-gallery onlookers that you avoid actually thinking about your rhetorical regurgitations, (usually taken from EU dogma), which, like Peratt's work, was never done to support EU crackpotisms in the first place.

Sorry, but they show up in the lab.

They showed up in the lab because that's what the experiment was designed to create!
Are you telling us there is a designer creating the same thing out there in the cosmos?

You can even go down to the store and buy a plasma ball and turn it on, and watch the currents form inside the plasma ball. That filamentary behavior and those field aligned currents are driven and created by the electric fields. You can demonstrate that point by flipping the electrical switch on and off and you'll see the filaments form and disappear as you do it.

Goodness me!
I think I saw one of those plasma-balls just the other night, when I was looking through my 'scope whilst star-gazing!

Sheer genius, I say!

You folks have a pure fear of electricity in space. I think you all know that the time is coming where LCDM is going to just look silly. You can't deny the role of electricity in space forever.

If that's the case, why do you then revere, and extol the virtues of the observational platforms launched by mainstream thinkers, which were specifically designed to research the ebb/flows in the local magnetosphere (etc)?

 

[sjastro]

All plasma is "dusty", and some of the material is not ionized. You're still just ignoring the point. You *underestimated* the mass in those clusters by *whopping* amounts, and this is only the tip of the iceberg. That's just one of the major problems with your mass estimates based on "brightness".

I think you're dreaming if you don't think scattering happens in space. That's been the mainstream's problem from day one.

Not at all. We are losing light to the plasma medium and that's why you keep *underestimating* mass in various galaxies. You're the one peddling "magic" matter. I'm just using ordinary forms of matter.

Making up phantom comments and attributing them to others is very typical of you Michael.
Where did I suggest that plasma in space doesn’t scatter light, in fact I explicitly mentioned in a previous post it does.
"Normal” plasma scatters light, your magical plasma as a substitute for dark matter clearly cannot, otherwise we will be surrounded by an optically “opaque” medium that would give us a completely different view of the Universe to what it actually is.
It’s the lack of scattering of your dark matter substituted by plasma that makes it magical.

Also stop making blatant misrepresentations of definitions.
Some plasma is in fact dusty does not imply that all plasma is “dusty”.
Interstellar dust is not plasma or dusty plasma full stop.

The dead give away is that you folks didn't even find most of the mass of our own galaxy until 2012 because it was contained inside of a million degree plasma halo that surrounds the whole galaxy.

The mainstream baryonic mass estimates based on light have been proven to be *unreliable* in at least five different *serious* ways. There's never been any need for exotic forms of matter, just a need to *fix your broken mass estimation techniques*.

We know Michael as you keep on reminding us ad nauseum.

What you don’t seem to know or perhaps are lying by omission is that if mainstream were able to count every single atom, molecule, ion and electron in the Universe it would account for only around 5% of the total mass-energy in the Universe.

 

[sjastro]

What emotional tirade? I'm just noting that your magical forms of matter are utterly unnecessary to explain galaxy rotation patterns and lensing patterns.

I love how you think *I'm* being illogical and irrational for preferring empirical physical solutions to problems, and you think you're being logical and rational by introducing a *supernatural* agent to do what *ordinary plasma can easily do*! That's a riot.



You lack the ability to argue your point with actual science, so you attack the *individual*. It's the oldest and sleaziest trick in the book.



My points haven't changed in over a decade because your dark matter entity thingy has never shown up in lab in all that time, even after spending all that money "testing" your beliefs. They all came back negative. My responses aren't scripted, but I'm sure they're pretty predictable by now. It's not my fault that your baryonic mass estimates were shown to be flawed repeatedly over the past decade, nor it is my fault that your experiments falsified your claims in the lab over and over and over again.



Yep. You're under the delusion that mythical forms of matter exist and they're somehow required to explain lensing patterns. That's definitely an exercise in delusion on your part as LHC, LUX PandaX and numerous other experiments have demonstrated.



Your claim is flat out false. We found *all kinds of plasma* in those clusters since 2006, starting with all the plasma in all the suns that you *underestimated* by a whopping factor of between 3 and 20 times! What the heck are you talking about? You're in pure denial of all the flaws that were discovered in your baryonic mass estimates over the past decade.



I didn't "invent" anything. Plasma exists in nature and it shows up in the lab, unlike your mythical dark matter. I used an off the shelf form of matter to do the trick whereas you *assumed* your mass estimates were perfect, and you *invented* a new form of mythical matter.



We see them all over the place in space, and even around our own planet. The mainstream calls them "Steve", "magnetic slinky", "magnetic rope", 'filaments" and all sorts of stupid terms.



That's just pure denial on your part again. Everywhere we look in space we see massive plasma threads that connect the galaxies and the galaxy clusters together.



Not really. Galaxies have *stars* in them, whereas not all currents in space require stars to exist all along the current channel. Stars are easier to see, that's all.



Sorry, but they show up in the lab. You can even go down to the store and buy a plasma ball and turn it on, and watch the currents form inside the plasma ball. That filamentary behavior and those field aligned currents are driven and created by the electric fields. You can demonstrate that point by flipping the electrical switch on and off and you'll see the filaments form and disappear as you do it.

You folks have a pure fear of electricity in space. I think you all know that the time is coming where LCDM is going to just look silly. You can't deny the role of electricity in space forever.

Summary Checksheet.

Rambling emotive scripted arguments:- Check
Dishonest representation of quoted statements:- Check
The use of word salad to hide lack of comprehension:- Check
The use of "Pareidolia Science":- Check
Playing the victim card:- Check
Ad Hom attacks:- Check

 

[Michael]

My dear Michael;

The forum is a crucible which reduces fairy-floss arguments such as EU's, (and your ever-shifting flavours of it), until all that is left is an ideologically driven mindset.

Your denial process is pretty amusing since I'm left with a working model, which is way more than you'll ever do with "magnetic reconnection".

LOL! The irony of the mainstream comments is really amusing at times, particularly after their *spectacular* string of epic failures at LHC LUX, etc, ect, ect, ect over the past two decades. I don't know how the mainstream could have possibly done any worse if they tried, other then waste more money than they have already wasted.

I have travelled this same path with you many times, so I know this as fact, and so do many others.

One thing that I've learned is that you may have done some traveling but apparently EU/PC haters know absolutely nothing about EU/PC theory, starting with the neutrino predictions of *any* of the various solar models to choose from. Almost none of you have read Alfven's work for yourselves, or Peratt's work for yourselves, and never have any of you ever pointed out any mathematical error in their work.

I don't think you even know what "facts" are frankly. If the mainstream blogs are any indication, the mainstream is *clueless* about even the basics of the theory. You seem to reject your own strawmen, not actual EU/PC models.

Don't make it 'personal' by playing the victim!

You're the one making it "personal" by taking the conversation *off topic* (dark matter) and and by discussing *individuals*. It's the oldest trick in the book, and pretty predictable too since you've got nothing to show in the lab, and you can provide no logical way to even falsify your claim in the first place!

It is clear from us peanut-gallery onlookers that you avoid actually thinking about your rhetorical regurgitations, (usually taken from EU dogma), which, like Peratt's work, was never done to support EU crackpotisms in the first place.

You don't even know enough about the neutrino predictions of various solar models in the EU/PC paradigm so you have no right to define what is or is not "EU" theory.

They showed up in the lab because that's what the experiment was designed to create!

You mean working models of current carrying plasma? Ya, that's true. Notice the contrast in the fact that EU/PC models actually *work* in the lab?

Are you telling us there is a designer creating the same thing out there in the cosmos?

There could be. Whatever the "cause" however, the results speak for themselves. The presence of Birkeland currents can be seen everywhere we look, from the largest filamentary structures we observe in space, to the ones that show up in plasma balls on Earth.

Goodness me!
I think I saw one of those plasma-balls just the other night, when I was looking through my 'scope whilst star-gazing!
Sheer genius, I say!

It's amusing how you folks think that you're being clever by ridiculing something that actually works in a lab after spending *billions* of dollars on an invisible snipe hunt that failed to turn up any of your dogmatically sacred dark snipes.

If that's the case, why do you then revere, and extol the virtues of the observational platforms launched by mainstream thinkers, which were specifically designed to research the ebb/flows in the local magnetosphere (etc)?

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

Been there, done that. The engineers and hardware manufacturers are my scientific heroes. It's only the "hypothetical cosmology dogma" that I don't care for. I love the Howard Wolowitiz's of science, but the Shelton Coopers, not so much.

I'd be more impressed with the magnetosphere modelers if they were using circuit theory as Hannes Alfven suggested rather than "pseudoscience" to explain the behaviors of the magnetosphere.

 

[Michael]

Making up phantom comments and attributing them to others is very typical of you Michael.
Where did I suggest that plasma in space doesn’t scatter light, in fact I explicitly mentioned in a previous post it does.

You did? Where? Where did you account for photon redshift caused by scattering over vast cosmological distances in your models?

"Normal” plasma scatters light,

Ya, and there's plenty of plasma in the universe that scatters the light and causes photon redshift.

your magical plasma as a substitute for dark matter clearly cannot, otherwise we will be surrounded by an optically “opaque” medium that would give us a completely different view of the Universe to what it actually is.

Boloney! You didn't even find most of the mass of our *own* galaxy until 2012. It wasn't optically opaque at millions of degrees either. You're just making stuff up and handwaving in claims on a whim. You folks finally found it based on the absorption spectrum but not till *way* after your infamous 2006 lensing study.

It’s the lack of scattering of your dark matter substituted by plasma that makes it magical.

No, it's that scattering that *causes photon redshift*, not your *magical* space expansion genie and his supernatural dark energy side kick.

Also stop making blatant misrepresentations of definitions.

Right, like your side doesn't misrepresent EU/PC models? How many solar models did Birkeland promote, 1 or 3? Does Jeurgen's (Scott/Thornhill) model predict "no neutrinos"? Does Thornhill predict *no* water on comets? Give me a break.

Some plasma is in fact dusty does not imply that all plasma is “dusty”.

Well, you'd have to reach really high temperatures and have it all heated evenly to not end up with non ionized gases in there somewhere.

Interstellar dust is not plasma or dusty plasma full stop.

Ya, and you didn't account for that dust properly in 2006. Full stop. Those galaxies were twice as bright to start with, and you miscounted the number of stars by *huge* numbers!

We know Michael as you keep on reminding us ad nauseum.

Ya, but you do absolutely nothing about it other than to ignore all your mass estimation errors, and ignore all your failed lab "tests" of your claims, and you go right back to spewing the same falsified *dogma*

What you don’t seem to know or perhaps are lying by omission

Oh don't even get me started with the lying by omission nonsense after that LIGO veto, or the nonsense that the mainstream tries to pull with Hubble and Alfven and Einstein when they discuss LCDM theory.

is that if mainstream were able to count every single atom, molecule, ion and electron in the Universe it would account for only around 5% of the total mass-energy in the Universe.

See, you went right back to your *dogma* rather than to acknowledge your mass estimation errors and *fix* your broken models. That's exactly why you're stuck in the dark ages of astronomy, because all you ever do is repeat *falsified dogma*!

You have *no* evidence for that last claim, none.

 

[Michael]

Summary Checksheet.

You should call it a summary cheat sheet where you switch the conversation from a topic to an individual because you have no lab results, or observational evidence to support any of your claims.

You guys are so predictable.

 

[Michael]

Strange isn’t Michael we can observe the SZ effect for galaxy clusters.....

FYI, no you don't. You see microwave emissions from all the suns in the galaxy clusters and scattering from around them. The whole SZ claim is bogus.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

how can a theory ever be falsifiable when you have over 12 null results and yet they refuse to let it die. It only took 4 null results with aether theory.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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.

except the sum total of the stars do not increase linearly with distance.
those on the edge would have no mass outside their orbit to affect them and they therefore should not participate in the flat rotation curve.

Actually what they measure when they measure rotation curves is clouds of plasma, not individual stars. Plasma acts collectively, which is why it undergoes a flat rotation curve. But until you add the current aspect, you wont understand. But you should since you measure magnetic fields everywhere - and no magnetic field exists without an electrical current. So you should understand electric currents exist everywhere.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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.

Oh theres nothing wrong with NASA except they have to play up to the dark matter crowd to keep them happy for funding. But they still throw in the truth when they can get away with it.

It must be news, you still dont understand that where a magnetic field exists, an electric current exists and created that magnetic field. News flash: magnetic fields are everywhere.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

If that's the case, why do you then revere, and extol the virtues of the observational platforms launched by mainstream thinkers, which were specifically designed to research the ebb/flows in the local magnetosphere (etc)?

Because they were built and designed by electrical engineers and therefore actually work.

That you add pseudoscience interpreting the data is not the same thing as making a device.

But hmmm, I wonder who understands more, the person making the device to gather the wanted data, or the person just looking at the data without understanding what was needed or how to gather it.??????

 

[lesliedellow]

Oh theres nothing wrong with NASA except they have to play up to the dark matter crowd to keep them happy for funding. But they still throw in the truth when they can get away with it.

Oh good oh, another conspiracy theory.

It must be news, you still dont understand that where a magnetic field exists, an electric current exists and created that magnetic field. News flash: magnetic fields are everywhere.

Try putting a magnet next to a copper wire, and see if you get an electric current. Michael Faraday did, and guess what he found.

 

[Michael]

Oh good oh, another conspiracy theory.

I'm personally not much of a fan of conspiracy theories, but how many failed experiments *should* it take in the lab before one just admits that there is no evidence to support their claim and just move on?

The last round of LUX-LZ funding sure smacks of pure denial at it's finest.

 

[lesliedellow]

I'm personally not much of a fan of conspiracy theories, but how many failed experiments *should* it take in the lab before one just admits that there is no evidence to support their claim and just move on?

The last round of LUX-LZ funding sure smacks of pure denial at it's finest.

What experiments did Darwin conduct "in the lab?"