Lambda-CDM - Pure Confirmation Bias Run Amuck

Michael · Jun 7, 2016

https://www.theguardian.com/science...black-hole-discovery-forces-universal-rethink

“We didn’t expect to see such a huge black hole in a small place,” said Professor Chung-Pei Ma, an author of the study from the University of California, Berkeley.

That, she added, opens up an intriguing possibility. With such galaxies more common than rich clusters, such supermassive black holes could be rife.

“What this is saying is that you don’t need these galaxy clusters to grow very massive black holes,” says Professor Poshak Gandhi of the University of Southampton, who was not involved in the study. “That throws a wrench in the works of our understanding of how these monster black holes form – it throws the field wide open.”

Here is yet more evidence that the mainstream has absolutely no idea how to properly estimate the mass of various galaxies. Not only did they botch the stellar mass estimates by between 3 and 20 times in 2006, they also botched the potential of each galaxy to hold more mass at it's core than ever imagined.

HitchSlap · Jun 7, 2016

Michael, you're coming across as an unhinged, irrational science-denier. Does continually misrepresenting science and what the experts actually say make you feel better about your religious beliefs? Or were you at some point spurned by the scientific community, and are now wielding a giant ax that must be ground?

Serious question.

Michael said:
Lambda-CDM - Confirmation Bias

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

It seems to me that there are four basic "supernatural" (not naturally occurring on Earth) components to Lambda-CDM, virtually all of which have been *falsified* by satellite measurements from space over the past decade. The observation of confirmation bias over the past decade is simply astounding as it relates to Lambda-CDM.

Dark matter

In 2006, "dark matter" proponents claimed that lensing data supported the existence of an *exotic* form of matter. Their grandiose claims about the supposed existence of supernatural forms of matter were of course *entirely* dependent upon the *assumption* that their baryonic galaxy mass estimation techniques were accurate in 2006, and therefore any "missing mass' was necessarily found in a *non baryonic* form of matter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_Cluster

Since 2006 however, there have been five major revelations of a systematic problem with their flawed calculation of stellar masses that are present in various galaxies and galaxy clusters:

1) Two years later in 2008, they "discovered" that they've been underestimating the amount of scattering taking place in the IGM, and the universe is actually at least *twice as bright* as they *assumed*, leading to an *underestimation* of stellar mass:

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/news/archive/2008/title,21439,en.php

Keep in mind that their entire basis for the baryonic mass calculation of stellar masses relates back to galaxy brightness. They blew the brightness aspect by a factor of two.

2) They "discovered" a year later that they've been using a *flawed* method of 'guestimating" the number of smaller stars that cannot be directly observed at a distance, compared to the larger mass stars that we actually can observe at a distance. They underestimated stellar counts of stars the size of our sun by a factor of 4. and all of it was *ordinary baryonic material*! Ooops....

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/galex/galex20090819.html

3) The following year in 2010, they 'discovered" that they've been underestimating the most *common* sized star (dwarf stars) in various galaxies by a *whopping* factor of between 3 and 20 depending on the galaxy type. Again, they grossly underestimated the *normal baryonic material* that is present in galaxies. Oooopsy......

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2010/12/01/scientists-sextillion-stars.html

4) Two years after that, in 2012, they 'discovered' more ordinary baryonic matter *surrounding* every galaxy that exist inside of the stars themselves. In fact they discovered more ordinary baryonic matter in 2012 than had been ''discovered' since the dawn of human history.

http://chandra.harvard.edu/blog/node/398

5) In 2014 they also "discovered" that they underestimated the number of stars *between galaxies*, particularly galaxies undergoing a collision process like that Bullet Cluster study:

http://www.realclearscience.com/jou..._of_stars_may_be_outside_galaxies_108929.html

There's been at least *five* revelations of *serious* baryonic mass underestimation problems used in that 2006 lensing study that claimed to find 'proof' of exotic forms of matter. They didn't prove any such thing in 2006. All they *actually* "proved" was that their baryonic mass estimation techniques were *worthless* in 2006 as at least five major discoveries have since *verified*. Note also that their stellar mass underestimates are congruent with their finding that most of the 'missing mass' which they called "dark matter' simply "passed on through" the collision process. Since stars are spread so far apart, they don't typically 'collide' in a galaxy collision, and therefore mass contained in stars, including all the stars they forgot to count, would indeed pass right on through that Bullet Cluster collision just as they observed in their lensing patterns.

Now if there was any doubt about their ordinary mass estimation problems, let's look at how they did in the lab with respect to exotic matter claims since 2006:

1) LHC *destroyed* every single "popular" brand of SUSY theory and we're left with whatever is sitting at the bottom of the barrel. In fact the whole thing has become a SUSY theory of the gaps claim

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20300100

2) LUX experiments demonstrated that the mainstream poured tons of money down a hole in the ground and found exactly *zero* evidence of exotic matter as they erroneously *predicted*.

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2013/oct/31/lux-dark-matter-search-comes-up-empty

3) PandaX experiments also verified that the mainstream has a bad habit of pouring money down a hole and coming up empty:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2014-09/scp-fdm092814.php

4) They "tested" some other predictions related to electron roundness, and again they *falsified* every prediction they made:

http://www.seeker.com/perfect-elect...ersymmetry-1768164981.html#news.discovery.com

5) We can now add Xenon-100 results to the list of *failures* to detect "dark matter".

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/08/150820144842.htm

If the *numerous* revelations of *gross* baryonic mass underestimation in 2006 wasn't bad enough, they've already falsified every "popular" brand of exotic matter that they put forth since 2006. In at least ten different ways, they've either *destroyed* their own claims about the accuracy of their baryonic mass estimates they used in 2006, or they falsified every so called 'prediction" that they ever made about exotic matter in the lab.

Dark Energy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy

The entire basis of their 'dark energy' claims is based upon the *presumption* that all SN1A events act as "standard candles' and occur pretty much exactly the same way, every single time. Since their original claims however, several studies have since undermined their claim that SN1A events are all the same, and are really 'standard candles' as they *assumed*:

1) Major studies done as far back as 2011 cast serious doubt on their dubious claim about 'standard candles' that apparently aren't standard after all:

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/spitzer/news/spitzercepheids20110112.html

2) A more recent study verifies that standard candles aren't really 'standard' after all as well:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-04/uoa-aun041015.php

3) The only "test" that I'm aware of to look for dark energy in the lab was also a complete bust:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/08/150820144719.htm

Translation: They found nothing useful in the lab from their dark energy "predictions".

Note that dark energy makes up almost 70 percent of their entire theory, meaning that the *vast* majority of their theory rests upon a now *falsified* premise, and it's actual "predictive" value is zero!

Inflation

Inflation theory was all the rage again last year when the mainstream made *ridiculous* and grandiose claims about having 5+ sigma confidence that the polarized light patterns they observed were caused by inflation and gravity waves.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26605974

Guth even make claims about it being Nobel Prize worthy work. They called it the "smoking gun" for inflation.

Of course the *entire* claims was based upon their "assumption' that they could rule out other very *ordinary* causes of polarized light patterns, and that 'assumption' fell completely apart by the time the paper passed the peer review process. Despite all the outrageous hype, it turns out that *ordinary dust* around out own galaxy is the likely culprit, not inflation:

http://www.space.com/28423-cosmic-inflation-signal-space-dust.html

That leaves inflation's only claim to fame it's '"prediction' of homogenous layout of matter, and even *that* claim has been blown out of the water by Planck's revelation of a hemispheric variations in the CMB and "cold spots'.

http://sci.esa.int/planck/51559-hem...cold-spot-in-the-cosmic-microwave-background/

There's really *nothing left standing* of Lambda-CDM after the revelations of the past decade. The whole thing was based upon *now falsified* premises, none of which the mainstream has come to terms with. They're simply in denial at this point.

mzungu · Jun 7, 2016

Go write a peer reviewed paper on the subject. Meanwhile the rest of the REAL scientific community will continue down the path of REAL science.

mzungu · Jun 7, 2016

... oops double post.

Michael · Jun 7, 2016

HitchSlap said:
Michael, you're coming across as an unhinged, irrational science-denier. Does continually misrepresenting science and what the experts actually say make you feel better about your religious beliefs? Or were you at some point spurned by the scientific community, and are now wielding a giant ax that must be ground?

Serious question.

Since it's a serious question, I'll give you a serious answer:

I'm definitely not a "science denier", and my "lack of belief" in LCDM theory is certainly not irrational.

I do not have any problem at all with evolutionary theory, standard particle physics theory, circuit theory, EM field theory, QM, or any empirically demonstrated branch of physics. The only scientific "hypothesis" that I personally reject is one specific cosmology model, and nothing else. I simply happen to favor an *alternative* scientific model, which unlike LCDM, is based *entirely* on empirically demonstrated principles and concepts. There's nothing "irrational" about a preference for empirical physical alternatives to supernatural constructs.

Despite it's current popularity, LCDM isn't based upon empirical cause/effect demonstrated physics. It requires faith in at least four unique supernatural constructs, each of which is more impotent on Earth than an average supernatural definition of God. At least most supernatural definitions of God begin with the premise that God can have a tangible effect on humans on Earth in the present moment, whereas all the supernatural constructs of LCDM are a complete duds in the lab, and every lab experiment to date has been a complete disaster. In fact every "popular" brand of "cold dark matter" theory has already been falsified by experimentation, and that's probably the only part of LCDM theory that *might* be falsifiable in the lab. Worse still, the entire basis for the "dark matter" claim has since been shown to be *riddled* with serious mass calculation flaws.

EU/PC theory isn't technically even strictly a theistic concept or model of the universe in the first place, and by itself it has nothing whatsoever to do with any religious beliefs. My preference for EU/PC theory over LCDM has absolutely nothing to do with my "religious" beliefs. I didn't even entertain the concept of Pantheism/Panentheism until *after* rejecting LCDM and after embracing EU/PC theory, and then realizing that EU/PC theory happens to be congruent with that particular concept. In terms of my "religious" beliefs however, my preference for EU/PC theory predates any religious overtones, and I would still prefer it over LCDM without any religious overtones. Furthermore LCDM itself is full of religious overtones if that's all I cared about.

My basic "lack of belief" in LCDM is exactly the same "lack of belief" that you seem to have with the concept of "God". Apparently you "lack belief" in any empirical influence of God on human beings *in spite of* all the testimony of human beings throughout recorded human history. Likewise, I simply lack belief that "dark" energy or dark matter exists, or that it has any empirical influence on photons. It's the same "lack of belief", and it's driven by a lack of empirical cause/effect justification of the various claims.

I've never really been "spurned" by the scientific community because until recently I haven't really had much reason to question any standard scientific models. Quite the contrary in fact. Most standard scientific models are based entirely upon pure empirical physics, the various cause/effect claims can be demonstrated in the lab, and no "acts of faith" in the unseen (in the lab) are required in most branches of physics. LCDM is the lone exception to that rule. It's not as though just *one* act of faith is required in LCDM, but rather four unique acts of faith are required to hold belief in LCDM. I'm simply bored silly of LCDM because it has no real "predictive" value. All it's core tenets have been *postdicted* from previous data, and it's been an absolute disaster in terms of predicting anything useful in the lab.

I've even managed to get a few astronomy oriented papers published, so my preference for EU/PC theory is definitely not motivated by anything that the scientific community has done to me.

In spite of your beliefs, I have not rejected science, the scientific method, or any empirically demonstrated theory in science. There's only one specific scientific hypothesis/model that I believe to be false, and I have many rational reasons for rejecting LCDM, starting with the first 10 links in that first post.

Michael · Jun 7, 2016

mzungu said:
Go write a peer reviewed paper on the subject. Meanwhile the rest of the REAL scientific community will continue down the path of REAL science.

FYI, I'm beginning to believe that it actually might be worth submitting a paper on this particular topic. Many EU/PC oriented papers have already been published, and it's also a path of REAL science. In fact, unlike LCDM, EU/PC theory is based upon pure empirical physics, and empirically demonstrated cause/effect relationships. There are no "acts of faith" in the "unseen" (in the lab) that are required in EU/PC, whereas LCDM requires four leaps of faith in supernatural constructs.

Michael · Jun 7, 2016

By the way Hitchslap:

In no way have misrepresented those papers or those links. It's not my fault that their 2006 baryonic mass calculations were based upon flawed mass estimation techniques, and each of those 5 first published papers demonstrates that the 2006 baryonic mass estimates used in 2006 were not worth the paper they were printed on.

Michael · Jun 7, 2016

HitchSlap said:
Michael, you're coming across as an unhinged, irrational science-denier. Does continually misrepresenting science and what the experts actually say make you feel better about your religious beliefs? Or were you at some point spurned by the scientific community, and are now wielding a giant ax that must be ground?

Serious question.

FYI, it does bother me that you believe that I'm somehow in "denial" of something you're calling "science". I would say that exactly the opposite is true in fact. EU/PC theory is based upon pure empirically demonstrated physics in the lab, so it's certainly a branch of "science" as well. Whether it's applicable science might be debatable, but it's certainly 'science', and it's certainly a "scientific" theory, and "scientific" alternative to LCDM.

Perhaps you could explain to me *exactly* what types of evidence or "science" that you feel that I must somehow "deny" with respect to LCDM theory? When you factor in the links in that first post, and all the revelations of the past decade as it relates to LCDM theory, for the life of me I cannot even comprehend what "evidence" or "science" that you believe that I personally have to deny?

In fact, it seems to me that the denial process begins and ends with the first five links I cited, and it has nothing to do with me personally. The 2006 landmark paper on "dark matter" was based upon a 'brightness formula' with respect to galaxies, and a calculation that 'guestimated' the number of stars that were large enough to emit enough light to reach Earth, vs. the number of smaller stars that we would not expect to "see" from Earth. In the first case, the "brightness" aspect of the calculation was later undermined by the revelation in 2008 that 1/2 of the light that is emitted from galaxies never reaches the Earth. The "guestimation" calculation that attempted to estimate the mass of smaller and more numerous stars in the various galaxies were shown to be off by a whopping factor of between 3 and 20 times depending on the size of the star and the type of galaxy.

The bottom line is that the entire "dark matter" claim of 2006 *assumed* that their baryonic mass estimates were *ballpark correct*. In fact however, they were off by 3 to 20 times! That's not "in the ballpark", in fact it's not even close.

The denial process with respect to dark matter begins and ends with the flawed baryonic mass estimates used by the mainstream in 2006. Every published paper I cited in those first five links demonstrates that point using *published and peer reviewed* materials.

When we get to the "lab", and we look at the "predictive usefulness" of dark mater theory, it's been a complete and total *disaster* to date. While the Higgs was found, and the standard particle physics model was demonstrated, not a hint was seen to support SUSY theory or any stable exotic form of matter at LHC.

Not a single other experiment at LUX, or PandaX, or anywhere else came up with any "discovery" based on a prediction of LCDM theory. In fact billions have now been spent in search of CDM, and nothing has been found.

The denial process with respect to 'dark energy' begins and ends with the premise that all SN1A events are "standard candles" as first *assumed*. Like the DM mass calculations problems, the *assumption* that all SN1A events are the same has since been shown to be false. There are now *at least* two different types of SN1A events, and even the other method of calculating distances has been shown to be riddled with problems in terms of calling them "standard candles". The whole premise is flimsy at best, and the mainstream cannot even name so much as a single source of this mythical "dark energy".

Exactly what "evidence" or "science" do you feel I personally have to "deny" when you factor in the links I provided you in terms of the *results* of LCDM theory over the past decade?

RealityCheck01 · Jun 14, 2016

Michael said:
...

Lots of insults, fact less text and ignorance snipped.
Ask yourself, Michael, how deluded someone would have to be to state that the mass of the Earth includes the mass of the Sun !
Now think about how deluded it is to state that things outside of galaxies add to the mass of the galaxies.

Repeated lies about Clowe et. al. who do not count stars and use I-band near infra red (not visible) light to estimate the mass of the galaxies doing the lensing.
7 June 2016 Michael: Delusions about papers unrelated to dark matter and a lie about dark matter !

Adding what looks like couple of lies is bad, Michael.
A lie about "a brightness formula that has since been shown to be *worthless*".

Stellar masses are calculated from the I-band luminosity of all galaxies equal in brightness or fainter than the component BCG. The luminosities were converted into mass assuming (Kauffmann et al. 2003) M/LI = 2.

15 June 2016 Michael: Cite the scientific literature that shows that Kauffmann et al. 2003 is wrong.

The Lyman-alpha forest exists and is evidence that neutral H in-between galaxies increases as we look back in time, i.e. that galaxies came into existence and then started ionizing hydrogen.
Keck Observatory Detects Most Distant Galaxy Ever Discovered: How This Could Change Theories About The Universe is a Lyman-alpha line which should have been absorbed by neutral H in the galaxy and has alternative explanations, e.g. "unusually hot stars".
15 June 2016 Michael: Can you understand the difference between inside a galaxy and outside a galaxy?
Probably not since you think that a galaxy's mass includes objects outside of the galaxy (maybe even the Milky Way mass includes the Magellanic Clouds !).

RealityCheck01 · Jun 14, 2016

Michael said:
....

A fact less post that is not a reply to the science in the post I linked to:
7 June 2016 Michael: Delusions about papers unrelated to dark matter and a lie about evidence for dark matter !

RealityCheck01 · Jun 14, 2016

Michael said:
...

A repeat of the inability to understand that a debate is impossible with a debater denying the real world, e.g. the Clowe et. al. paper counting stars when it does not.
7 June 2016 Michael: Delusions about papers unrelated to dark matter and a lie about evidence for dark matter !

RealityCheck01 · Jun 14, 2016

Michael said:
Apparently, ...

Apparently you want this thread to be flooded with my post listing the delusions you have stated about science just in this thread, e.g. the Clowe et. al. paper counting stars. I will do the rational act of linking to the post for anyone in the world to read instead.

7 June 2016 Michael: Delusions about papers unrelated to dark matter and a lie about evidence for dark matter !

RealityCheck01 · Jun 14, 2016

Michael said:
http://www.science20.com/eternal_bl...d_not_believe_big_bang_associated_press-85962
https://ladailymirror.com/2011/12/31/hubble-no-evidence-of-big-bang-theory/

15 June 2016 Michael: Repeats an argument from authority (Edwin Hubble) as if thousands of cosmologists did not exist !
15 June 2016 Michael: Linking again to reports that Hubble did not support the Big Bang theory as is well known makes an assertion that Hubble supported tired light theories into a lie. (evidence supplied at last!)

RealityCheck01 · Jun 14, 2016

Michael said:
...

The usual insults and delusions following by a link to the scientific literature with an omission.
ALCOCK-PACZYŃSKI COSMOLOGICAL TEST by M. López-Corredoira (2014)
This test matches concordance ΛCDM (not mentioned by Michael) and "static universe with tired-light redshift".

If Michael had bothered to read and understand this paper he would see it is dubious. Just read the references which include PDFs on the PDF upload web site vixra (Ashmore and Holushko), arXiv preprints from cranks (Brynjolfsson), the 1st Crisis in Cosmology Conference, etc.

Fantasies about Hubble again so:
15 June 2016 Michael: Repeats an argument from authority (Edwin Hubble) as if thousands of cosmologists did not exist !
15 June 2016 Michael: Linking again to reports that Edwin Hubble did not support the Big Bang theory as is well known makes an assertion that Hubble supported tired light theories into a lie. (evidence supplied at last!)

RealityCheck01 · Jun 14, 2016

Michael said:
RC,...

The delusion of claiming that a diagram containing only currents in vacuum contains plasma yet again.

RealityCheck01 · Jun 14, 2016

Michael said:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0806.4481

At last, Michael, backs up an unsupported assertion with evidence !

I am sure that other readers can see that the delusions Michael has retained for many years about science (the transition region seen in the solar atmosphere by maybe millions of people in total solar eclipse is below the solar surface; H + He + other elements including a tiny % of Fe plasma at temperatures > 160,000 K is a "rigid iron surface" or "iron mountain ranges"; vacuum = plasma, etc.) make any assertion that Michael makes unbelievable without evidence.

This is Hubble’s Cosmology: From a Finite Expanding Universe to a Static Endless Universe (PDF).
There is Edwin Hubble's personal opinion from an interview. This is not modern science where knowledgeable people know the evidence that a tired light theory does not work in the real universe.
15 June 2016 Michael: Repeats an argument from authority (Edwin Hubble) as if thousands of cosmologists did not exist !

RealityCheck01 · Jun 14, 2016

Michael said:

The many year old delusion about the diagram above containing plasma (Somov's example of magnetic reconnection in vacuum in the section before his section on magnetic reconnection in plasma) !

RealityCheck01 · Jun 14, 2016

Michael said:
https://www.theguardian.com/science...black-hole-discovery-forces-universal-rethink

Here is yet more evidence of ignorance leading to what looks like delusional thinking from Michael.
This is an observation of NGC 1600. It is thought that very massive super massive black holes form within dense galaxy clusters so that there are plenty of galaxy collisions to grow the black holes. But that one galaxy (not every galaxy in the universe as Michael seems to think !) has a 17 billion solar mass black hole and is not in a dense area. NGC 1600 has a mass of ~10^12 solar masses measured back in 2008. The new measurement of the mass of the black hole tells us how much of that ~10^12 solar masses belongs to the black hole. It does not change the mass of the galaxy.
15 June 2016 Michael: The very massive super massive black hole in NGC 1600 is not evidence that the mass of every galaxy in the universe is underestimated!.

RealityCheck01 · Jun 14, 2016

Michael said:
I'm definitely not a "science denier", and my "lack of belief" in LCDM theory is certainly not irrational....

That is not right, Michael.
You deny eyesight: Solar images show a gap in the solar atmosphere that is called the transition region. It is possible that Babylonian astronomers noticed that gap thousands of years ago during total solar eclipses. Billons of people have learned high school science and seen images of total solar eclipses with that gap.

You deny English: A textbook section on magnetic reconnection in vacuum with an example containing no plasma has plasma according to your knowledge of English!

And then you get to denial of science: A "rigid iron surface" exists at a temperature of > 160,000K. A paper that does not count stars, counts stars. Stars or a gaseous halo outside of galaxies increases the mass of galaxies, etc. etc. !

The irrational part of your "lack of belief" starts with the denial that evidence for dark matter even exists.
7 June 2016 Michael: Delusions about papers unrelated to dark matter and a lie about evidence for dark matter !

There is the denial of the real world where "managed to get a few astronomy oriented papers published" is wrong. The person who managed to get your 2 papers published was obviously Dr. O. Manuel - a respected nuclear physicist puiblishing in nuclear physics journals.
You contributed your delusions about the Sun (a couple of images with the delusion of a rigid iron surface) to the 2 published papers, one containing the abysmally invalid idea that the Sun contains a neutron star. Your delusion also popped up in a couple of conferences.

RealityCheck01 · Jun 15, 2016

Whoops, I should really not use Google to search for people: Dr. Oliver Manuel. This is nothing to do with his abysmal solar physics.

Lambda-CDM - Pure Confirmation Bias Run Amuck

Contributor

PROUDLY PRIMATE

INVICTUS

INVICTUS

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency