Is the dark matter hypothesis even falsifiable?

[Michael]

What experiments did Darwin conduct "in the lab?"

He certainly observed nature up close and personal, right here on Earth, including the wide variety of different species he observed.

Besides, the mainstream already propose a whole series of so called "tests" of their exotic matter hypothesis. We tried a bunch of them at LHC, LUX, PandaX, AMDx, electron roundness tests, ect, with respect to exotic form of matter claims, and we've found absolutely nothing to suggest that the idea has any merit. Worse yet, we found *numerous* and devastating errors in the baryonic mass estimates that the mainstream has been using, and that they used in that now infamous 2006 "dark matter" paper. What's the point of whipping a dead horse when ordinary plasma and dust will work just fine to explain the very same observations?

Even the concept of photon redshift/distance is much more "easily" (empirically) explained by ordinary forms of inelastic scattering in plasma, something that we observe in the lab.

I really believe that it's only a matter of time before we abandon the dark ages of superstitious supernatural matter and energy dogma, and we start looking for "real" empirical solutions. Ordinary plasma physics makes the most sense in terms of places to begin, and that's exactly where Hannes Alfven started when he applied circuit theory to plasma in space.

There are no observations from space that require the existence of exotic matter to explain. Likewise, there are no lab results that require the existence of exotic forms of matter to explain. Why continue to whip that dead horse?

 

[lesliedellow]

He certainly observed nature up close and personal, right here on Earth, including the wide variety of different species he observed.

He formulated a hypothesis, which at the time was criticised for being long on assertion, and short on evidence. That is no longer the case, of course.

Besides, the mainstream already propose a whole series of so called "tests" of their exotic matter hypothesis. We tried a bunch of them at LHC, LUX, PandaX, AMDx, electron roundness tests, ect, with respect to exotic form of matter claims, and we've found absolutely nothing to suggest that the idea has any merit.

There you go again. Tossing into one pot, and stirring well, any number of disparate concepts.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

He formulated a hypothesis, which at the time was criticised for being long on assertion, and short on evidence. That is no longer the case, of course.

Except for the fact they refuse to correct those errors too. His famous finches were classified as seperate species supposedly because they were reproductively isolated. Sadly actual DNA data showed they had always been interbreeding so we're never reproductively isolated and so speciation never happened.

But like so many thing from evolution to dark matter etc it is simply uncorrected error after uncorrected error after uncorrected error.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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.

Except you are still in denial of what caused the magnetism in the first place.

Origin of Permanent Magnetism

Always trying to put the magnetic cart before the electric horse.

You still haven't come to terms that without an electric current first, there is no magnetic field to create a secondary electric current.

 

[Michael]

He formulated a hypothesis, which at the time was criticised for being long on assertion, and short on evidence. That is no longer the case, of course.

Ya, but in this case we've already spent billions and there's nothing to suggest the existence of stable forms of exotic matter, and the mass estimate techniques that have been used have been shown to be flawed in numerous ways.

How much money is 'enough' money to "test" the dark matter claim before we accept no for an answer?

There you go again. Tossing into one pot, and stirring well, any number of disparate concepts.

They're all under the umbrella of "dark matter".

 

[lesliedellow]

Except for the fact they refuse to correct those errors too. His famous finches were classified as seperate species supposedly because they were reproductively isolated. Sadly actual DNA data showed they had always been interbreeding so we're never reproductively isolated and so speciation never happened.

But like so many thing from evolution to dark matter etc it is simply uncorrected error after uncorrected error after uncorrected error.

Crap. You know everything there is to know about how evolutionary biology has developed since 1859, do you? Or do you know absolutely nothing, apart from you get from that totally impartial site, AIG?

 

[lesliedellow]

Ya, but in this case we've already spent billions and there's nothing to suggest the existence of stable forms of exotic matter, and the mass estimate techniques that have been used have been shown to be flawed in numerous ways.

How much money is 'enough' money to "test" the dark matter claim before we accept no for an answer?

As much as I hate to repeat myself, until dark matter is either found, or rendered superflous by a theory which wins general acceptance BY PEOPLE WHO ARE QUALIFIED AS ASTROPHYSICISTS, AND WHO KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT.

They're all under the umbrella of "dark matter".

No they are not. Super symetric particles are a possible candidate for dark matter, but that is all. Supersymetry was originally raised as a possiblity in the 1960s, and not in connection with dark matter.

 

[Michael]

As much as I hate to repeat myself, until dark matter is either found, or rendered superflous by a theory which wins general acceptance BY PEOPLE WHO ARE QUALIFIED AS ASTROPHYSICISTS, AND WHO KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT.

If they actually knew what they were talking about they wouldn't be using placeholder terms for human ignorance to describe 95 percent of the universe, and "pseudoscience" to describe the other 5 percent. Their so called 'predictions' would not have been wrong 100 percent of the time in the lab, and their baryonic mass estimates they used in 2006 would have been correct to start with.

You don't even have any evidence they they actually know what they are talking about either.

No they are not. Super symetric particles are a possible candidate for dark matter, but that is all. Supersymetry was originally raised as a possiblity in the 1960s, and not in connection with dark matter.

Where do you think that WIMP theories come from, and why is it *still* the leading "candidate" for "dark matter"?

Is there a dollar limit or a number of failed attempts before you will simply accept "no" for an answer? What *exactly* would constitute a falsification mechanism for your dark matter claim *other than*: "If and only if the mainstream decides to change it's collective opinion"?

Your whole argument seems to boil down to an appeal to (false) authority fallacy.

 

[lesliedellow]

If they actually knew what they were talking about they wouldn't be using placeholder terms for human ignorance to describe 95 percent of the universe,

There is absolutely nothing wrong with using placeholder terms for something which is awaiting an explanation.

and "pseudoscience" to describe the other 5 percent.

I had noticed that you don't seem to be too keen on quantum theory. It's a shame that it seems to work, isn't it?

Their so called 'predictions' would not have been wrong 100 percent of the time in the lab, and their baryonic mass estimates they used in 2006 would have been correct to start with.

For the umpteenth time, to test a hypothesis is not to make a prediction.

You don't even have any evidence they they actually know what they are talking about either.

I consider a PhD, and years as a working scientist, to be better evidence that they know what they are talking about than anything you have to offer.

Where do you think that WIMP theories come from, and why is it *still* the leading "candidate" for "dark matter"?

Because it is what a 100% elementary deduction would imply that is what dark matter must be if it exists at all.

Is there a dollar limit or a number of failed attempts before you will simply accept "no" for an answer? What *exactly* would constitute a falsification mechanism for your dark matter claim *other than*: "If and only if the mainstream decides to change it's collective opinion"?

No experiment falsified the existence of the aether. It was abandoned when the development and verification of later theories rendered it obsolete. The same might happen to dark matter, or it might be found. You are so weded to your EU nonsense that you are unable even to contemplate the latter possibility.

 

[Michael]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with using placeholder terms for something which is awaiting an explanation.

Since 95 percent of LCDM is awaiting an explanation, and the rest is "pseudoscience" according to Alfven, what exactly can they 'explain'?

I had noticed that you don't seem to be too keen on quantum theory. It's a shame that it seems to work, isn't it?

Where did you get that idea? I sometimes cite QM hypotheses of gravity and the carrier particle gravitons as something that remains to be demonstrated in a lab, but that doesn't mean I have a problem with QM. FYI, the LCDM hypothesis is the only popular mainstream hypothesis that I outright reject. I'm fine with QM, GR, etc.

For the umpteenth time, to test a hypothesis is not to make a prediction.

How about you explain how it's possible to ever falsify this claim, and what was the point of the LUX, AMDX, PandaX, etc experiments? Why build them if they didn't make any predictions that they hoped to verify in those experiments? What good were their "predictions"?

I consider a PhD, and years as a working scientist, to be better evidence that they know what they are talking about than anything you have to offer.

I consider working empirical models and real empirical explanations to be much better than a theory that's 95 percent unexplained, and 5 percent pseudoscience according to the guy that wrote MHD theory. All their Phd's haven't seemed to amount to much in terms of the lab results, or in terms of the accuracy of their original baryonic mass estimates in that now infamous 2006 lensing study. The mainstream underestimated the number of entire stars in those clusters by a whopping factor of between 3 and 20 times in that study. They had no idea where most of the mass of a given galaxy was located until 2012. Your appeal to authority fallacy would have more bite were it not for the revelations of the past decade, both in terms of lab results and in terms of crosschecking their baryonic mass estimates of galaxies.

Because it is what a 100% elementary deduction would imply that is what dark matter must be if it exists at all.

There's no evidence that it exists at all, and it's based on SuperSymmetry theory.

No experiment falsified the existence of the aether. It was abandoned when the development and verification of later theories rendered it obsolete. The same might happen to dark matter, or it might be found. You are so weded to your EU nonsense that you are unable even to contemplate the latter possibility.

You have that completely backwards. You're so wedded to the LCMD dogma, that you cannot even contemplate the former even after blowing billions of dollars on an invisible snipe hunt.

You seem to overlook that I was once a LCDM "believer" prior to about 2005 when I converted to EU/PC theory. I can contemplate the possibility that exotic forms of matter could exist, and in fact my tax dollars have been used to fund the search. On the other hand, I'm not so emotionally attached to the existence of exotic types of matter that I have to keep throwing good money after bad when the results have consistently been negative for more than a decade, and the mainstream's baryonic mass estimates that have been used to justify the claim have been shown to be *riddled* with serious flaws.

I still see no logical way to falsify DM theory, and you've offered me no logical way to do so. According to you, I'm supposed to just wait around and hope that the mainstream eventually changes their mind someday, possibly long after I'm already dead.

 

[lesliedellow]

Since 95 percent of LCDM is awaiting an explanation, and the rest is "pseudoscience" according to Alfven, what exactly can they 'explain'?

Oh yes, Alfven says. Well, I guess that just about settles it then, doesn't it?

How about you explain how it's possible to ever falsify this claim, and what was the point of the LUX, AMDX, PandaX, etc experiments? Why build them if they didn't make any predictions that they hoped to verify in those experiments? What good were their "predictions"?

Like I said, it will either be found, or another theory will render the concept of dark matter obsolete.

I consider working empirical models and real empirical explanations to be much better than a theory that's 95 percent unexplained, and 5 percent pseudoscience according to the guy that wrote MHD theory. All their Phd's haven't seemed to amount to much in terms of the lab results, or in terms of the accuracy of their original baryonic mass estimates in that now infamous 2006 lensing study. The mainstream underestimated the number of entire stars in those clusters by a whopping factor of between 3 and 20 times in that study. They had no idea where most of the mass of a given galaxy was located until 2012. Your appeal to authority fallacy would have more bite were it not for the revelations of the past decade, both in terms of lab results and in terms of crosschecking their baryonic mass estimates of galaxies.

Having an electric current flow through an ionised gas when an electric field is appled demonstrates nothing, except high school physics. (And the same goes for a vacuum. Those ignoramuses in the "mainstream" managed to invent the vacuum tube without the help of EUers.)

There's no evidence that it exists at all, and it's based on SuperSymmetry theory.

WI - Weakly interacting. They must be, otherwise it wouldn't be so difficult to detect them, if they exist.
M - Massive. Again, they must be if they are to be responsible for a gravitational field.
P - Particle. Well yeah, they are particles.

So what has that got to do with supersymmetry?

You have that completely backwards.

Oh no I haven't. If dark matter turns out not exist, that's fine by me, and it would be fine by the world's astrophysicists as well. But they quite clearly do not consider a crackpot theory of EU enthusiasts to be a viable candidate for an alternative theory.

 

[sjastro]

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



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



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.



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



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.



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.



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!



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*



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.



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.

Yawn.
This post once again confirms you are one hopelessly confused individual and are providing the fodder for the irrational and illogical comments.
This is a statement of fact not a personal attack.

You just don’t get do you that your magical plasma would need to have the same density distribution as dark matter in order to explain the rotation curve and therefore it cannot be an explanation for the reasons given.

Did it ever occur to you that a few mainstream scientists are opposed to the idea of dark matter yet not one of them would even remotely consider your simplistic idea that plasma is the answer for the same reasons.

You can’t take a trick about dusty plasma either.
The entire plasma halo surrounding the galaxy is heated up to 2.5 million degrees K where no dusty plasma can exist over a region far larger than our Galaxy.
Yet you conclude “ionized gases” are not the dominant feature but dust.

The rest of your post is nothing more than the mindless form of Gish gallop debating.

I can understand why you have been booted out of every moderated SF and why people ignore you in droves.

 

[sjastro]

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.

It’s only bogus to you Michael as are you totally clueless as to what the SZ mechanism is about.
I even provided you with a link which you either didn’t read or is beyond your capacity for comprehension.

 

[sjastro]

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.

It seems I didn’t make myself clear enough that any mass outside the flat region of the rotation curve at some given distance from the centre will not affect it, only the amount of mass inside the orbit.

For the curve to be flat over the distance range in question each star in that range must have the same orbital velocity.
For an individual star of mass m to be in orbit around a collection of stars of total mass M the gravitational force must equal the centrifugal force on each star.

The gravitational force in this case in this case is GMm/r^2.
The centrifugal force on the star is –mv^2/r.
For the orbit to exist GMm/r^2=-mv^2/r
Or M=abs((v^2/G)r)

Since G is constant and v is a constant over the range where the rotation curve is flat, v^2/G is constant hence the total mass M varies linearly with distance r.

Actually what they measure when they measure rotation curves is clouds of plasma, not individual stars.

This is so emphatically wrong.
The rotation curve is based on the Doppler shift of the 21 cm line of neutral hydrogen gas.

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.

This is nothing more than word salad.
Why don’t you produce a mathematical model that shows how magnetic fields shape the rotation curve.

 

[Michael]

Oh yes, Alfven says. Well, I guess that just about settles it then, doesn't it?

No, the fact that it works in the lab settles it. It's amusing from my perspective that you're forced to quibble over the small stuff.

The mainstream uses his formulas too, and they try to ride his coattails in spite of his outright rejection of their misuse of those formulas.

Like I said, it will either be found, or another theory will render the concept of dark matter obsolete.

It hasn't been found after spending billions with a B, and EU/PC theory already renders the whole concept obsolete, just like Alfven's double layer paper renders "reconnection" theory obsolete.

Having an electric current flow through an ionised gas when an electric field is appled demonstrates nothing, except high school physics.

And yet the mainstream remains mystified by the heat source of the corona, when an ordinary high school physics experiment explains it *easily*. Go figure.

(And the same goes for a vacuum. Those ignoramuses in the "mainstream" managed to invent the vacuum tube without the help of EUers.)

Well, every dog has his day.

WI - Weakly interacting. They must be, otherwise it wouldn't be so difficult to detect them, if they exist.
M - Massive. Again, they must be if they are to be responsible for a gravitational field.
P - Particle. Well yeah, they are particles.

So what has that got to do with supersymmetry?

Miraculous WIMPs

Come on. Really? SUSY theory has been at the forefront of hypothetical particle physics for a long time now. The fact the mainsream won't even commit to a *specific* mathematical/physical model simply demonstrates the mainstream's complete lack of "knowledge".

Oh no I haven't. If dark matter turns out not exist, that's fine by me, and it would be fine by the world's astrophysicists as well.

Well then start by *fixing* those obviously broken formulas that were used in that 2006 paper and see where we are at that point! You can't even do that, or modify the percentages very much because you're constrained by *dogma*! The rest of your theory falls apart without exotic forms of matter.

But they quite clearly do not consider a crackpot theory of EU enthusiasts to be a viable candidate for an alternative theory.

Yawn. The ever obligatory "crackpot", "crank" or other ad hom. That's pretty amusing considering the fact that EU/PC works in the lab, whereas your crackpot claims about dark matter have been a total bust in the lab.

Science's only sacred truth is that there are no sacred truths. All assumptions must be critically examined. Arguments from authority are worthless. Whatever is inconsistent with the facts, no matter how fond of it we are, must be discarded or revised.

Regardless of how fond you may be of DM claims, they're inconsistent with the facts that we see in the lab.

 

[Michael]

Yawn.
This post once again confirms you are one hopelessly confused individual and are providing the fodder for the irrational and illogical comments.
This is a statement of fact not a personal attack.

Ordinary inelastic scattering in plasma in the lab, and all dark matter experiments to date demonstrate that it's a personal attack.

You just don’t get do you that your magical plasma would need to have the same density distribution as dark matter in order to explain the rotation curve and therefore it cannot be an explanation for the reasons given.

You haven't given any legitimate reasons to start with! You didn't even locate most of the mass of our own galaxy until 2012, and it wasn't "optically opaque' as you keep trying to insist that it would be if missing mass were all made of plasma.

Did it ever occur to you that a few mainstream scientists are opposed to the idea of dark matter yet not one of them would even remotely consider your simplistic idea that plasma is the answer for the same reasons.

That's probably because they would have to give up the whole "big bang" concept, not just migrate over to MOND theory. The big bang concept is a "sacred cow". Some deviation is tolerated, but not an outright rejection of the whole big bang concept.

You can’t take a trick about dusty plasma either.

There's no "trick" in the first place. You've been consistently *underestimating* the brightness of galaxies because you've been consistently underestimating the effect of inelastic scattering in spacetime.

The entire plasma halo surrounding the galaxy is heated up to 2.5 million degrees K where no dusty plasma can exist over a region far larger than our Galaxy.

Ok, I'll bite. Why not? Surely you don't think that every little ion and element is heated to millions of degrees do you?

Yet you conclude “ionized gases” are not the dominant feature but dust.

Nope. I assume the dominant feature is plasma but all plasma is dusty. Nothing in space is perfectly one or the other. Even the sun's photosphere contains non ionized particles.

The rest of your post is nothing more than the mindless form of Gish gallop debating.

Bah. Your whole debate style is Gish gallop. It's mostly just handwaving.

I can understand why you have been booted out of every moderated SF and why people ignore you in droves.

I can too. You folks are absolutely *terrible* when it comes to public scientific debate, mostly because you're trying to defend the hopelessly indefensible. Banning all dissent is therefore just about your only option.

Thunderbolts Forum • View topic - The mainstream cannot handle an honest debate on cosmology

 

[Michael]

Why don’t you produce a mathematical model that shows how magnetic fields shape the rotation curve.

Galaxy formation - The Plasma Universe theory (Wikipedia-like Encyclopedia)

The fact that you won't bother to read Peratt's published work on galaxy rotation patterns doesn't mean that it does not exist.

 

[Michael]

It’s only bogus to you Michael as are you totally clueless as to what the SZ mechanism is about.
I even provided you with a link which you either didn’t read or is beyond your capacity for comprehension.

I know *exactly* what that bogus mechanism is. It's nothing but a magic trick to avoid the obvious fact that all the *stars* in the universe are the emitters of the microwave background, not your mythical surface of last scattering. The brighter regions in the CMB are simply where the star density is above average, and the 'cold spots' are where they are less dense. SZ is pure nonsense.

This is *easily* demonstrated by a single image of our own sun in microwave:

The Sun: Microwave and Radio Waves

The background around the sun is *dark* compared to the sun's own emissions of microwaves. Ordinary stars and ordinary scattering causes the CMB as Eddington himself calculated to within a half a degree based on scattering. It took big bangers 3 or 4 tries to any closer to Eddington's *correct* prediction based on ordinary scattering of starlight on the dust of spacetime.

SZ is pure nonsense.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Crap. You know everything there is to know about how evolutionary biology has developed since 1859, do you? Or do you know absolutely nothing, apart from you get from that totally impartial site, AIG?

Which totally ignored the fact that the DNA data showed they had always been interbreeding. But then ignoring the data is your only defense.

What is AIG? Apparently you are paranoid over something.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

As much as I hate to repeat myself, until dark matter is either found, or rendered superflous by a theory which wins general acceptance BY PEOPLE WHO ARE QUALIFIED AS ASTROPHYSICISTS, AND WHO KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT.

The most qualified are the plasma physicists since 99.9% of the universe is plasma.

Not that you would understand that.

No they are not. Super symetric particles are a possible candidate for dark matter, but that is all. Supersymetry was originally raised as a possiblity in the 1960s, and not in connection with dark matter.

Super symmetry is dead, let it rest in peace already.

Supersymmetry Fails Test, Forcing Physics to Seek New Ideas