Is the dark matter hypothesis even falsifiable?

morse86 · May 3, 2017

Dark matter is not science. It is $cience.

Anyone can create a piece of equipment that tests some arbitrary property and claim its "dark matter" too. It's all rubbish propped up by $$$ public funding university grants and $cientists.

Ygrene Imref · May 4, 2017

There is plasma called "crustal plasma," which seems like, and can be treated as charged microscopic "dust."

But, it is plasma; it exists. It is electromagnetic/charged. It behaves like dust because most physicists haven't realized that, like most other forces, there can exist a fundamental particle (or superposition of it.) It usually stops at standard plasmons.

Crusts can behave like Yukawa fluids, which can get them mixed up for Coulomb interactions, except that Yukawa drops off faster for interparticle interaction.

You can treat this as a field (ideal,) or as a quantum particle (estimation,) but it is still charged "plasmons" that behave like charted crust/supercooled (superpressurized) particles as Yukawa fluids.

Michael · May 4, 2017

morse86 said:
Dark matter is not science. It is $cience.

Anyone can create a piece of equipment that tests some arbitrary property and claim its "dark matter" too. It's all rubbish propped up by $$$ public funding university grants and $cientists.

I'm definitely not a fan of conspiracy theories, but one has to wonder what exactly it takes to falsify a hypothetical entity that literally has cost *billions* of dollars to "test" without a single positive result, and which has always been based upon *flawed baryonic mass estimates* from day one. They found *at least* five different *serious* errors in the baryonic mass estimates that were used in that now infamous 2006 lensing study that claimed to find "proof" of dark matter.

Thunderbolts Forum • View topic - Lambda-CDM - EU/PC Theory - Confirmation Bias

More importantly we've put the idea to the "test" in the lab in a dozen different ways now, and it failed to predict anything useful in any of those tests.

When is a dead horse dead already?

SelfSim · May 4, 2017

Michael said:
... When is dead horse dead already?

The fact of the matter is that the majority of astrophysicists, (who, unlike yourself), actually understand the rationale behind the LCDM model, and are proceeding with the tests for accumulating the necessary empirical data to improve it.

You see Michael, you need to confront that it is only you who isn't satisfied, namely because of your personal refusal to accept the evidence (and deep thinking) which supports the model, and your online ego. This assertion is made perfectly clear by the observation that it is easy to ignore your empty 'challenges'. I even put this assertion to the test recently, (as you're aware), at the International Skeptics 'mainstream' forum (on the LIGO matter) and the response was a deafening silence of disinterest. The same appears to have happened with your direct enquiries at LIGO(?)

You simply have no quality arguments to offer, which can be seen as leading to any better alternatives .. end of story.

sjastro · May 4, 2017

Justatruthseeker said:
Hmmm, funny how that works, since the relative motion of galaxies isnt needed in your magical bending, expanding nothing models where light is Doppler shifted not because of relative motion, but because of expanding spacetime. Or is the CMB magically immune from the affects of magic spacetime?

Once again your ignorance is showing.
Doppler redshift and cosmological redshift are not the same.

The relative motion of galaxies in spacetime is well known and shows up as a phenomenon known as peculiar motion.
It occurs in gravitationally bound galaxy clusters where the effects of gravity dominate rather than expansion and is measured by Doppler shift.
The Andromeda galaxy for example is moving towards our galaxy as its spectrum is Doppler shifted to the blue.

Even galaxy clusters are influenced by other clusters.
The Local Group is being gravitationally influenced by a much larger cluster which explains the motion of our galaxy relative to the CMB.

This is observed as a Doppler shift of the CMB towards the blue in the forward direction of motion of our galaxy and a shift towards the red in the opposite direction.

This difference in Doppler shift of the CMB in the forward and opposite directions is the CMB dipole.

sjastro · May 4, 2017

Michael said:
Plasma isn't magic, it's only magic in your mind because you left out the effects of *electricity* in space. Ya, I do think Peratt's model is reasonably correct, but since it doesn't even include *stars*, it's not exactly complete either.

Er, no, and I didn't even make that claim in the first place. Peratt model doesn't need exotic matter to explain any mass layout or rotational aspects of galaxies, but we can add all the plasma we might need to in his model to achieve whatever lensing requirement we might have.

You also seem to be ignoring the fact that I offered you *two different* ways to remove your exotic matter, A) adopt EU/PC theory, or B) fix your *own* models by replacing exotic matter with ordinary plasma!

As long as you keep mixing and matching the two options that I offered you, it's just your own confusion that is irrational and illogical, not Peratt's work, and not the other suggestion that I offered you.

Like your models aren't entirely postdicted to obtain any desired result?

You still have provided *zero* evidence that DM cannot be replaced with ordinary plasma, and we already know that you botched the stellar mass estimates of that 2006 lensing study by between 3 and 20 times depending on the size of the star and the type of galaxy. What more does it take to falsify a turkey of a hypothesis that can be easily replaced with ordinary matter?

No amount of spin doctoring, subject changing, irrelevant comments and incomprehensible responses will change the fact that your magic plasma is incompatible with Peratt’s model which in turn doesn’t make any predictions for galaxy rotation numbers.

So get on with explaining how magic plasma does not cause scattering.

sjastro · May 4, 2017

Michael said:
The only one who is acting dishonestly is you by attacking the individual rather than sticking to attacking the *topic*. Your whole tangent about "honesty" is nothing but a dishonest ruse to move the conversation *off* of the topic.

Sunyaev–Zel'dovich effect - Wikipedia

Oh, boloney. It's the one hypothesis where you seem to embrace the concept of scattering in plasma when it suits you, but only in the absolutely silliest of ways.

The suns in every distant (and local) galaxy is emitting those microwave "bright spots', it's not some lame inverse Compton scattering process that causes those bright spots.

So? I'm sure we've moving relative to everything.

It's not just a "galactic effect" is a *solar effect*! That's why our sun has to be filtered out of the microwave background, and it's why our galaxy and local galaxy cluster has to be "filtered out" too. it's not just a 'galactic' emission, it's a solar emission just like every other "background" that we might look at or consider, including x-ray backgrounds.

Huh? If the Earth is in motion relative to any emitting object in deep space, and *every* emitting object in deep space, we'll see that effect in the light pattern that it generates. Talk about red herrings.....

Every *other* wavelength under the sun, and emitted by the sun creates a "background" effect over enough distance and enough scattering. We see that the universe also has an "x-ray" background too, but not because of some mythical surface of last scattering. Likewise the universe has a microwave background caused by solar emissions and scattering in spacetime. So what?

You pick *one* specific wavelength and try to build a federal case over it, even though Eddington *predicted* the background temperature of space to within 1/2 of a degree of the right temperature based on nothing but starlight and scattering. He was *way* more accurate, in fact a whole order of magnitude more accurate than early BB proponents.

What a load of incomprehensible nonsense.

The CMB being a surface of last scattering is a perfect blackbody, none of your sources such as the Sun can produce this blackbody spectrum as radiation passes through different temperature regions such as the lower and upper photosphere.

Let’s add the term CMB dipole to your resume of terms beyond your capacity of comprehension.
The Earth’s orbit results in insignificantly small periodic temperature fluctuation measurements of the CMB due to Doppler shift.
Even after this effect is subtracted the CMB dipole is still there.
WMAP and Planck measuring the CMB weren’t even in “Earth’s orbit”, they had small orbits near and around the L2 LaGrange point.

A measurable CMB dipole kills off any idea that the source is local or galactic in origin.

Stop trying to kid yourself into thinking you have even the vaguest comprehension of the subject matter and get on with explaining how your magic plasma does not cause scattering.

sjastro · May 4, 2017

Justatruthseeker said:
Because you never read the link or any of the others.

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

"Peratt further notes that:[3] "When scaled to cosmic dimensions the simulations show:

a burst of synchrotron radiation of luminosity ~1037 W lasting 107-108 years as the interaction began;

isophotal topologies of double radio galaxies and quasars, including juxtapositioned "hot spots" in the radio lobes (cross sections of the interacting Birkeland currents);

the formation of "dust lane" peculiar and elliptical galaxies at the geometric center of quasars and radio galaxies (due to plasma trapped and compressed within the elliptical magnetic separatrix);

a spatially varying power law along the major axis of the simulated double radio galaxies in agreement with observations;

alternating beams of betatron-pumped synchrotron-emitting electrons on either side of the elliptical center (these have the morphologies (i.e., "knots" or vortices) and polarization properties of jets); and

a "superluminosity" and fading of jets as the betatron-induced acceleration field sweeps over and ignites previously confined plasma."

Peratt continues: "The simulation time frame of this investigation lasted some 108-109 years. The lifetime and evolution of quasars and double radio sources, the so-called end problem of double radio galaxies, was addressed in this paper (Paper II) by continuing the simulation run ~1-5 x 109 years farther in time. This extension of the simulation showed:

the transition of double radio galaxies to radioquasars to radioquiet QSO's to peculiar and Seyfert galaxies, finally ending in spiral galaxies;

the formation of irregular and dust lane galaxies, as well as more flattened E and S0 galaxies within the magnetic separatrix;

barred and normal spiral galaxies resulting from the inflow of plasma from the outer Birkeland currents onto the the elliptical galactic center; the characteristic rotational velocities of spiral galaxies including the fine-detail vortex cotangent structure on the "flat" portions of the spiral-arm velocity components;

replications of the morphologies of multiple interacting galaxies;

"horseshoe" like regions of nearly neutral Hi gas in spiral galaxies resulting from the convection and neutralization of plasma into regions of strong galactic magnetic fields; and

toroidal and poloidal components of the galactic magnetic field with field strengths reaching 2 x 10-4 G at the galactic center (fields as high as 10-2 G can occur in concentrated regions). These results were reported prior to their observation in the Galaxy""

Where in this document does Peratt MATHEMATICALLY DERIVE a standard rotation curve that can be checked against observation which was the point of my post?

This is how scientific theories progress.

Newton mathematically derived Kepler’s empirically based third law of planetary motion using the inverse square law of gravity, or the application of quantum mechanics based on linear algebra and Hilbert spaces to derive the Balmer empirical formula for the energy levels in the hydrogen atom are two such examples.

sjastro · May 4, 2017

Justatruthseeker said:
Explain how your dust estimates off by 30 times doesn't?

But you don't really understand quantum physics or electromagnetic theory.

Electrons above the rest energy emit photons in the "forward" direction. But as long as you keep thinking of that plasma as ordinary dust and gas you will always be confused. We are not discussing non ionized matter which scatters light isotropically, but ionized matter.

You won't understand until you change your mindset and quit thinking of it as dust and gas.

The master of word salad and garbled thinking giving me a lecture on my lack of understanding of quantum mechanics and electromagnetism is irony at its finest.

sjastro · May 4, 2017

You simply have no quality arguments to offer, which can be seen as leading to any better alternatives .. end of story.

Let's give Michael the benefit of the doubt.
We should allow him time to produce his paradigm changing paper that magic plasma doesn't cause scattering and how it will overturn quantum mechanics and classical physics.

Michael · May 4, 2017

SelfSim said:
The fact of the matter is that the majority of astrophysicists, (who, unlike yourself), actually understand the rationale behind the LCDM model, and are proceeding with the tests for accumulating the necessary empirical data to improve it.

Improve it? How about explaining a way to *falsify* it outright? FYI, unlike the EU/PC hater posse, I did take the time to understand the "rationale" behind LCDM. I understand all too well *why* it's flawed and how it's flawed, which is why I reject it. I fully understand how many mistakes were made in the baryonic mass estimates of that now infamous 2006 "proof of dark matter" paper, and I've listed them on Thunderbolts (and in a thread here) for you too.

I also understand that you just found most of the mass of our *own galaxy* in 2012.

I understand that your cosmological redshift models do not account for *any* inelastic scattering to account for any of that cosmological redshift.

Your problem is that I know way too much about the rationale behind BB theory because I used to believe in it. I reject it for good reasons which I can easily explain and have explained.

You see Michael, you need to confront that it is only you who isn't satisfied,

Every EU/PC proponent that I know isn't satisfied with LCDM. In fact most LCDM proponents I've met aren't satisfied with it either in terms of it's *overwhelming* use of placeholder terms for human ignorance.

namely because of your personal refusal to accept the evidence (and deep thinking) which supports the model,

You don't even technically have any "evidence" to support your model since most of the so called "evidence" that you might try to cite has *better* explanations and *empirical* explanations. Your arguments amount to affirming the consequent fallacies on a stick in the final analysis, and I have to "hold faith" in unseen (in the lab) entities as well. That's not real evidence.

and your online ego.

More personal attack nonsense. Yawn.

I love how your side attacks people, yet you refuse to acknowledge the huge ego that is required to do such a thing.

This assertion is made perfectly clear by the observation that it is easy to ignore your empty 'challenges'.

Of course it's easier to *not* deal with a skeptic. Come on.

I even put this assertion to the test recently, (as you're aware), at the International Skeptics 'mainstream' forum (on the LIGO matter) and the response was a deafening silence of disinterest.

So what? There are probably a total of 8000 astrophysicists on the entire planet that might actually "care" about or who might be interested in gravitational waves in the first place. Did you really think such a topic would be as well read, or as widely debated as most threads?

The same appears to have happened with your direct enquiries at LIGO(?)

I don't really know where things stand with LIGO. They took quite awhile to respond to my first email, and it was much easier to answer since it wasn't particularly specific. I'll give them some time before I assume they're "disinterested".

What I did notice is that not a single so called "skeptic" at ISF was ever able to pick apart even *one* of my five main criticisms of the LIGO paper, and every single one of those criticisms is a "deal breaker" in terms of claiming that they actually "discovered" gravitational waves.

Will we *ever* see a LIGO paper with a *visual* confirmation of a celestial origin of the signal, or is invisible, make-believe astronomy the only thing that you guys do?

You simply have no quality arguments to offer, which can be seen as leading to any better alternatives .. end of story.

In terms of the gravitational wave claim, it's not up to me to offer a "better" explanation of the signal or any alternatives to it, it's up to them to prove their claim that the signal in question must have been related to a celestial event, and they simply didn't do it.

In terms of cosmology, the same argument applies. I don't even have to offer anyone a "better" cosmology model in order to reject LCDM based on it's failed predictions at LHC, LUX and everywhere else. It just so happens that EU/PC theory is a viable cosmology theory and it's the one that I happen to prefer.

If mainstream blogs are any indication of the mainstreams actual "knowledge" of EU/PC theory, they obviously don't know the first thing about it, starting with it's solar model neutrino predictions.

Justatruthseeker · May 4, 2017

SelfSim said:
The fact of the matter is that the majority of astrophysicists, (who, unlike yourself), actually understand the rationale behind the LCDM model, and are proceeding with the tests for accumulating the necessary empirical data to improve it.

You see Michael, you need to confront that it is only you who isn't satisfied, namely because of your personal refusal to accept the evidence (and deep thinking) which supports the model, and your online ego. This assertion is made perfectly clear by the observation that it is easy to ignore your empty 'challenges'. I even put this assertion to the test recently, (as you're aware), at the International Skeptics 'mainstream' forum (on the LIGO matter) and the response was a deafening silence of disinterest. The same appears to have happened with your direct enquiries at LIGO(?)

You simply have no quality arguments to offer, which can be seen as leading to any better alternatives .. end of story.

What evidence? That gravitational models fail to explain rotation curves accurately without adding ad hoc theory?

Yet these same people that claim it's been tested to a high degree of accuracy want to modify Newtons laws, which GR reduces to or add what, 27% magic matter because the calculations failed to give the correct results?

Of course they failed, the universe is 99.9% plasma and .1% non ionized matter. As soon as they start using the correct physics for plasma like is done in every laboratory, you won't need that Fairie Dust.

Evidence? You've had close to 15 null results already, you got no evidence.

Justatruthseeker · May 4, 2017

sjastro said:
Once again your ignorance is showing.
Doppler redshift and cosmological redshift are not the same.

The relative motion of galaxies in spacetime is well known and shows up as a phenomenon known as peculiar motion.
It occurs in gravitationally bound galaxy clusters where the effects of gravity dominate rather than expansion and is measured by Doppler shift.
The Andromeda galaxy for example is moving towards our galaxy as its spectrum is Doppler shifted to the blue.

Even galaxy clusters are influenced by other clusters.
The Local Group is being gravitationally influenced by a much larger cluster which explains the motion of our galaxy relative to the CMB.

This is observed as a Doppler shift of the CMB towards the blue in the forward direction of motion of our galaxy and a shift towards the red in the opposite direction.

This difference in Doppler shift of the CMB in the forward and opposite directions is the CMB dipole.

Your ad hominem attacks are wasted as frankly I could care less what you think because personally I think your a burnt out bulb.

Which you avoided answering the question. Or did you just hope I wouldn't notice your avoidance? How is it your magic CMB avoids being affected by your magic expanding spacetime?

And magic expanding spacetime isn't needed to explain cosmological redshift. Not that you'll understand the paper or even read it.

A New Non-Doppler Redshift

That it shows a towards or away shift shows it is a local event. All radiation emitted beyond 600 parsecs is redshifted only. Only objects within our local group show Doppler shift towards the red or blue, everything else is systematically redshifted. Your own explanation is faulty at best and ignorant of what actually happens to all radiation coming from beyond 600 parsecs. They might fool you with that made up excuse, but the facts don't jive with the explanation.

Michael · May 4, 2017

sjastro said:
Let's give Michael the benefit of the doubt.
We should allow him time to produce his paradigm changing paper that magic plasma doesn't cause scattering and how it will overturn quantum mechanics and classical physics.

Hoy Vey. The quite normal plasma of spacetime, including all that plasma you found in 2012 *does* cause scattering which is why you've been underestimating the brightness of various galaxies since day one.

Universe Now Twice as Bright

QM effectively *requires* scattering to occur. I definitely don't have to overturn QM or classical physics because EU/PC theory is consistent with classical physics and QM. You guys really don't understand EU/PC theory at all.

Michael · May 4, 2017

sjastro said:
What a load of incomprehensible nonsense.

The fact that you don't understand it doesn't mean that it's incomprehensible.

The CMB being a surface of last scattering is a perfect blackbody,

This is nothing but supernatural "dogma" that is inconsistent with the *raw* observations of microwave images, which is why you have to filter out all the emissions from our local sun and our local galaxy, and local galaxy cluster to even get anywhere *close* to getting a "smooth blackbody" type of image. Even then it has a whole bunch of bright and dark points associated with galaxies or a lack of galaxies because every galaxy is filled with a few hundred billion *light sources* for microwaves!

none of your sources such as the Sun can produce this blackbody spectrum as radiation passes through different temperature regions such as the lower and upper photosphere.

The "blackbody" aspect is best explained by Eddington's "prediction" of the background temperature of space. It's just the average temperature of the dust of space. So what? Every cosmology theory other than LCDM would have to include a background temperature that is caused by starlight and scattering.

Let’s add the term CMB dipole to your resume of terms beyond your capacity of comprehension.

At least I don't have a comprehension problem over something as simple as the neutrino predictions of solar models.. Your personal attack nonsense is directly related to your lack of any real argument that holds up to scrutiny.

The Earth’s orbit results in insignificantly small periodic temperature fluctuation measurements of the CMB due to Doppler shift.

When I was discussing movement, I wasn't limiting myself to the Earth's orbital movements. Our solar system is in motion, and so is our galaxy.

A measurable CMB dipole kills off any idea that the source is local or galactic in origin.

A measurable hemispheric variation in the CMB kills off inflation theory too, but that never stopped you from burying your head in the sand over *that* problem, or ignoring Guth's nonsense about homogeneity.

Stop trying to kid yourself into thinking you have even the vaguest comprehension of the subject matter and get on with explaining how your magic plasma does not cause scattering.

When are you going to accept the fact that it *does* cause scattering? Where is your "non-blurry" Z>10 galaxy images? How out of touch with real physics are you to believe that scattering will *not* happen in plasma?

Justatruthseeker · May 4, 2017

sjastro said:
Where in this document does Peratt MATHEMATICALLY DERIVE a standard rotation curve that can be checked against observation which was the point of my post?

Go actually read his papers and you'll find the math.

This is how scientific theories progress.

you don't believe that for a minute. Every gravitational calculation gives the wrong answer until you fudge it with magic matter.

Newton mathematically derived Kepler’s empirically based third law of planetary motion using the inverse square law of gravity, or the application of quantum mechanics based on linear algebra and Hilbert spaces to derive the Balmer empirical formula for the energy levels in the hydrogen atom are two such examples.

And Newtons laws fail miserably when applied to plasma 99.9% of the universe. So miserably they want to modify it instead of just using the correct physics.

You said it perfectly "planetary motions" non ionized matter .1% of the universe. Now apply the correct physics to the other 99.9%.

Michael · May 4, 2017

sjastro said:
No amount of spin doctoring, subject changing, irrelevant comments and incomprehensible responses will change the fact that your magic plasma

Plasma isn't "magic". It shows up in the lab. It causes inelastic scattering both in the lab and in space. There's nothing "magic" about it since all it's various properties can be observed and verified in the lab.

Compare and contrast that with your "magic" "cold dark matter" which has *never* shown up in any lab experiment and it's various properties have been assigned to it in a purely ad-hoc manner based upon nothing more than *emotional need*, not observed lab results.

is incompatible with Peratt’s model which in turn doesn’t make any predictions for galaxy rotation numbers.

His model does make all kinds of predictions which match observation, and we can simply modify the amount of plasma to fit various lensing patterns. We can also vary the current flow to achieve various temperatures and rotation curves too. It's very flexible in that respect.

I'd start with Peratt's model but that's just me. You can start with your own model if you prefer and just swap out the 'dark' stuff with ordinary plasma.

So get on with explaining how magic plasma does not cause scattering.

Only LCDM requires "magic" plasma to exist in space because ordinary plasma causes scattering both in the lab, and in space.

Universe Now Twice as Bright

Justatruthseeker · May 4, 2017

sjastro said:
The master of word salad and garbled thinking giving me a lecture on my lack of understanding of quantum mechanics and electromagnetism is irony at its finest.

What is ironic is your sad attempt to avoid the question. Explain how your dust estimates which were 30 times off doesn't cause scattering?

What's ironic is if you even half way comprehended quantum mechanics and electrodynamic theory you would have the very answer you seek in why plasma doesn't scatter isotropically and why your "dust" isn't scattering the light either. Not that I hold out any hope for your comprehension of the difference between ionized particles, charged particles and "dust".

The fact you don't understand that electrons with a high energy emit photons in the "forward" direction just tells me you don't understand much of anything when it comes to quantum mechanics and electrodynamic theory.

But is ad hominem attacks all you have? I think it is, I don't think you understand much of anything to be honest. All you can do is parrot your high priests of magic matter.

Justatruthseeker · May 4, 2017

Speaking of temperature Michael, have you asked them yet how that plasma is radiating at 2.5 million degrees, hotter than the surface of the sun, yet far removed from any source of heat?

I'd love to hear their Fairie Dust excuse for that one.

Justatruthseeker · May 4, 2017

Let's get back to your people's magic CMB dipole.

I'll repeat since you all ignored it the first time because you had no answer.

All radiation beyond 600 parsecs is systematically shifted to the red end of the spectrum. Only local objects show both red and blue shift due to the Doppler effect.

Since the CMB has a dipole shift it has to be local in origin, since it too is not systematically shifted to the red end of the spectrum.

Not one single source of energy beyond 600 parsecs shows anything but a redshift. Nor can we perceive any difference due to our motion towards or away from them.

Since you claim we can see differences due to our motion, it only confirms the CMB is a local source.

I'll even give you a hint. It's very close and has entirely the motion of only the earth around the sun. The cause has already falsified every theoretical model of the heliosphere.

But again this would require a basic understanding of quantum mechanics and electrodynamic theory to grasp.

Is the dark matter hypothesis even falsifiable?

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Contributor

A non "-ist"

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Contributor

Newbie

Newbie

Contributor

Contributor

Newbie

Contributor

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency