Message from the Dawn of time...

[davidbilby]

This line actually demonstrates how out of touch with reality you've become. There is a *perfectly logical* explanation for gamma rays and x-rays from space. They occur naturally in our own atmosphere in fact. Do you know what their cause might be David? Why on Earth do I need WIMPS to explain gamma rays or x-rays?

Except the point of many of these experiments, FERMI included, is to remove the known sources, which still leaves a vast excess. Do you not get the point? We know how much we should see in terms of gamma and x-rays from space, because it's not that hard to figure out. We see vastly more. The map of that excess correlates incredibly well with the map of dark matter layout from 2MASS which also satisfies what we know from our current understanding of gravitational dynamics. You don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to realize why that's strong evidence for dark matter. The three pieces all fit together.

The next test - a crucial test - will be analyzing the signals from dwarf galaxies to see if they also show a strong excess signal, since they are galaxies that we know full well aren't rich in high energy photon emitters, but should be highly rich in dark matter according to our present understanding of gravity.

The whole Lambda-CDM model is based on *willfully ignoring* the obvious answer, willfully ignoring the failed "tests" of the theory in the lab, and *willfully* affirming another consequent fallacy related to their own supernatural dogma. You failed three huge tests of your theory, six when we count all that stellar infrastructure that you missed, and you *still* ignore the *most likely cause* of gamma radiation in plasma. Absolutely incredible.

Cool story bro, and nice way to bring up the structures in space that you don't understand either. You haven't heard anything more about that because you don't know where to look, because if you did, you'd be banging on about magnesium gas (the only hope for that idea). Clowes has done some interesting work trying to save his idea, looking at the ionization of magnesium gas as evidence of a structural identity. It's kind of a long shot because the statistical analysis simply doesn't hold up. So much for all of us engaging in willful ignorance...

 

[davidbilby]

Incidentally the possible 30 GeV WIMP in the paper earlier this month would still be fine within the LUX constraints so far, which mostly deal with lower mass particles (~5 to 10 Gev, lower than most theories but easier to measure) and the motion of the Earth through space relative to any potential dark matter particle means that the experiment needs to be done in the southern hemisphere before any grand conclusions can be done, even about particles in the energy realms that LUX is probing.

 

[davidbilby]

In other words, in spite of the fact that LUX peaks in sensitivity in the very range where you're claiming your WIMPS are found

No, it doesn't. Not even close. About 25 billion electron volts out, actually...

and it found nothing

...in a single hemisphere at much lower energy range than most theories have WIMPS at, but that mercifully constrained some earlier findings of possible WIMP events at much lower energy levels than most people thought, which had been something of a problem, but now aren't....

you're still going to claim WIMPS did it anyway

Did what? The WIMP model still fits fine. The 30 GeV finding is still fine, and open for corroboration or falsification. It's not the only model, either...

and ignore the LUX findings entirely.

Hardly, few physicists in the field aren't incorporating the findings in their work in some way. I know of nobody who's ignoring them. The LUX work is excellent.

There is no way to logically falsify your dogma. Even *negative* results are simply ignored.

Nothing is being ignored. The results simply don't say what you think they do and when we point that out you pretend you're smarter than us and that they say something that they don't (despite apparently not being able to understand anything other than the press releases...please feel free to demonstrate otherwise by discussing the energy levels involved and what - what exactly - you think has been constrained out of the picture).

Ya, the primary one being that no exotic forms of stable matter exist in nature..

Now you're bringing a whole host of terms in that aren't relevant and that you don't understand to try and pad out your sentences to look clever. Besides, again, exotic is something of a misnomer (as is 'stable' - stability is not a strong concept in this argument).

Translation: There's just enough wiggle room for a gap in there so I can sneak in my invisible friend.

There's actually kind of a lot of wiggle room. A whole hemisphere's worth, for starters, crucially, not to mention energy levels more likely to be involved. Way more wiggle room than we would like. We HATE wiggle room.

No, that's not what I asked you. I didn't ask you about GR, I asked you to demonstrate that your *invisible friends* are even needed to explain an expanding universe.

Well, dark matter is really more about our understanding of gravity. Dark energy is a placeholder term for something accelerating the expansion of space-time, the expansion of which would naturally require perturbations in the CMB due to gravitational waves. Those perturbations have now been seen and the pattern is pretty much exactly as inflationary theory (to use a catch-all term for many competing inflationary theories) predict. You have no explanation for these perturbations - in your version of "cosmology" they actually should NOT be there. Why are they there, according to you??

[astro-ph/0601171] Is space really expanding? A counterexample

Oh for goodness sake...do you even understand a word of that paper? You understand the Friedmann equations as they relate to a hypothetical "empty universe" well enough to discuss this? I don't think so. I'm surprised that somebody who pooh-poohs mathematics so quickly is falling back on an exceptionally esoteric mathematical idea that is completely - completely -unsupported by any astronomical observations? If you think that's what we're doing, isn't that pot, meet kettle? What's next, rehashing an empty Milne model?

Let me give you a clue too. Quit trying to ride the coattails of GR theory

Sigh. I guess in 1918 you'd have been telling Einstein "quit riding Newton's coattails!". I'm yet to see that you understand even a fragment of GR, you seem unable to cite anything specific about any physical theory you mention, it's just a list of names and "blah blah falsifies blah blah LUX blah blah plasma did it". You don't talk energy levels, you don't seem to realize the limitations of LUX and other experiments in particular. Please...enlighten us as to how you explain the perturbations in the CMB, other than the gravitational wave model which so excellently - unbelievably excellently actually - fits.

Do you not realize that your verbal abuse and strawmen won't work with me yet david?

Since you don't seem to clearly know what your own ideas are, it's hard not to create straw men whilst discussing them. As for verbal abuse, grow up. If you try and claim inflationary theories don't get a huge boost from the findings revealed today then you should expect a certain degree of ridicule. I'm sure you're a very nice person, but your knowledge on this subject is seemingly minuscule and you're claiming the entire scientific community are either idiots or fraudsters, invoking the notion of "religious dogma" to some of the most intelligent minds of the century. What did you expect, a medal?

 

[davidbilby]

I'm asking you to demonstrate *any* part of your claim rather than it *all* being one gigantic affirming the consequent fallacy. GR theory predicts gravitational waves, not inflation theory. Your blatantly just riding the coattails of GR theory.

Inflationary theories, by their very definition, require that gravitational wave perturbations be observed on a scaled-up size in the CMB. The precise pattern depends on the pre-inflationary state, but the concept remains true across the board. Patterns in the pre-inflationary state would be repeated in the post-inflationary state on (considerably) larger scales.

If an inflationary theory tried to say otherwise, it'd be at odds with GR, which predicts gravitational waves. GR is extremely well tested empirically.

Therefore, according to any and ALL inflationary theories, whereby the early universe (which GR says contained gravitational waves) expanded to a larger size, the gravitational waves MUST leave an imprint on the microwave background. There's no escaping that, hence it being a good test of whether inflation falls down or not.

Their absence would have been (and some used to say was) extremely strong evidence AGAINST inflation, because nobody could suggest a mechanism by which they would have been completely cancelled out and therefore invisible given the huge scales involved.

To detect them therefore is extremely strong evidence FOR inflation. Period. No consequents affirmed. It's not PROOF of inflation in the sense that you might be able to come up with a differing explanation for an observed gravitational wave imprint, but since there is no logical explanation for a large scale imprint like this without inflation (it should not be there without inflation!), inflation can count something of a victory...

Any other theory now has to explain them as well or better to be taken seriously. They're welcome to try, but it's going to be a tough one, given that one of the lynchpins of any non-inflationary theory is that such things should not exist. And it seems like they do exist, to 5.2 sigma significance.

You are not understanding which part of this, precisely?

 

[Michael]

5.2 sigma. Yeah, it's pretty much a done deal. Looking forward to that coming past six sigma in the next year.

Great. I'm sure you've eliminated all other *possible* sources of polarized photons, right?

If your cosmology has no explanation for gravitational waves of this kind (which it quite obviously doesn't), it's a huge amount of skin of your nose. No. Wait. It's your nose off your nose, in fact.

Er right. You have three laboratory falsifications of your precious exotic matter theory over 8 months, and that you just sweep under the carpet. Meanwhile you hand me exactly *one* paper, claim it's evidence of your exotic invisible thingamabobs and insist I deal with your *one* tiny spectrum of light as though it's the *only* relevant topic in the whole of astronomy. Nevermind that it's a GR prediction, not an *inflation* prediction. At least give me a day or two to read it over and think about it would ya? Holy cow. I guess if you toss out enough "predictions", one of them is bound to be a hit, even if three of them fail entirely. If you then sweep the failures under the rug, and hail the one successful prediction of your model as the *only important thing* you've discovered over the past 18 months, you sure make it sound nice. When did gravity wave show up in LIGO experiments? Oh ya, never. When did you tie inflation to patterns in such LIGO experiments via exhaustive empirical testing? Oh ya, never.

What is your explanation of the perturbations in the CMB exactly fitting the pattern we expect to see should gravitational waves be responsible (quantum perturbations expanding to an enormous scale)....and why does your model for the CMB predict their existence?

I'm open to an expanding universe of moving *objects*. I'm not prepared to *immediately assume* that all polarized photons are the result of gravitational waves however.

The existence of gravitational wave perturbations in the CMB has no other explanation at present.

Translation: "I've found an unexplained gap in our understanding in which I've inserted my magical invisible friends! Your turn to disprove it!" Give me a break! You can't even rationally explain where dark energy comes from, or demonstrate that inflation has *any* tangible effect on a photon. Why do you lack belief in God again? How come you dead deities can't do anything in the present moment in a real life experiment?

You've certainly suggested none.

False. I handed you a link to to a polarization source. You simply ignored it entirely. You didn't bother explaining how you ruled it out, or how you can be sure the patterns are *absolutely* related to gravity waves. You certainly can't demonstrate inflation is even related to gravity waves in the first place. It's one gigantic affirming the consequent fallacy from start to finish.

The perturbations are of exactly the kind and magnitude one would expect (and as numerous papers have modeled) from the expansion of quantum perturbations in the primordial universe.

So even if we live in an expanding universe, what does that have to do with inflation? That was another paper on GR which you simply ignored.

They are of exactly the kind NOT expected from other theorized sources of gravitational waves such as neutron stars, white dwarves, extragalactic point sources.

How about moving *plasma* sources, like that million degree plasma around our galaxy, and out in space? How about those Birkeland currents and other options?

1959ApJ...130..241W Page 241

Have you anything intelligent to say about the topic other than rehashing of your debunked talking points? Anything beyond your magic falsification plasma pouring from every crevasse of the universe?

I just sat down with a cup of coffee, and I intend to read it. I'll comment on it when I've had the luxury of actually reading through it. Suffice to say your commentary isn't real impressive, nor is your attitude. I'm supposed to just *ignore* six separate falsifications of your galaxy mass estimates and various claims about exotic matter. Meanwhile you whip up a new affirming the consequent fallacy paper as "gospel" without so much as demonstrating any tangible connection between gravity waves and your impotent sky thingies, and I'm supposed to just ignore your failures entirely? Wow.

 

[Michael]

Except the point of many of these experiments, FERMI included, is to remove the known sources, which still leaves a vast excess.

So what? You simply *ignored* the whole concept of current flow through the galaxy and the concept of the central core have more current flowing through it. You're simply seeing excess "discharges" near the core? Big deal!

Do you not get the point? We know how much we should see in terms of gamma and x-rays from space, because it's not that hard to figure out.

Translation: If we *ignore* the flow of current and the *known* primary cause of gamma rays (electrical discharges) *then* we can make up "gaps" in which to insert our otherwise invisible friends! You *guessed* at how many gamma rays should be there based on a *non electric* set of premises. Your model is flawed. Therefore it needs supernatural gap filler, and you provided some *in spite of* all those falsifications of SUSY theory, including that failed electron roundness experiments, the LUX results and the LHC results. Nothing can shake your faith in the supernatural, as long as it doesn't contain the term "God" apparently.

We see vastly more.

No doubt. Peratt's galaxy models have *vastly* more current focused in the core. No doubt the current flow results in excess discharges and excess gamma rays.

The map of that excess correlates incredibly well with the map of dark matter layout from 2MASS which also satisfies what we know from our current understanding of gravitational dynamics.

GR isn't under debate in the first place, so I'm fine with that.

You don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to realize why that's strong evidence for dark matter. The three pieces all fit together.

You don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to realize why you kludged the galaxy infrastructure gestimations in 2006 either. We now know you miscounted whole stars by a whopping factor of anywhere between 4 and 20 and underestimated the mass of the largest stars to boot! When you start looking at how much mass you missed, it's no mystery where the "dark matter" was actually located. It was located in *whole stars*!

The next test - a crucial test - will be analyzing the signals from dwarf galaxies to see if they also show a strong excess signal, since they are galaxies that we know full well aren't rich in high energy photon emitters, but should be highly rich in dark matter according to our present understanding of gravity.

Translation: Forget LHC. Forget LUX. Forget those electron roundness experiments entirely. Forget the fact we botched the stellar infrastructure *entirely*. Trust us, "Wimps emit gamma rays because we say so".

Cool story bro, and nice way to bring up the structures in space that you don't understand either. You haven't heard anything more about that because you don't know where to look, because if you did, you'd be banging on about magnesium gas (the only hope for that idea). Clowes has done some interesting work trying to save his idea, looking at the ionization of magnesium gas as evidence of a structural identity. It's kind of a long shot because the statistical analysis simply doesn't hold up. So much for all of us engaging in willful ignorance...

Oy Vey. No, the *most simple* and *most logical* method to explain an excess of gamma rays is to explain it with an excess of *electrical discharges*. They are a *natural* source of gamma rays in the atmosphere of every major body in this solar system. Your claims are just goofy handwaving based on nothing more than an affirming the consequent fallacy, and pure denial of the results of every lab test to date.

 

[Michael]

Incidentally the possible 30 GeV WIMP in the paper earlier this month would still be fine within the LUX constraints so far, which mostly deal with lower mass particles (~5 to 10 Gev, lower than most theories but easier to measure) and the motion of the Earth through space relative to any potential dark matter particle means that the experiment needs to be done in the southern hemisphere before any grand conclusions can be done, even about particles in the energy realms that LUX is probing.

Translation: Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain and those four straight falsification of SUSY theory, including the electron roundness experiment that I absolutely refuse to even mention or address. Like I said to bhstme, it all goes in one ear and right out the other.

 

[davidbilby]

Great. I'm sure you've eliminated all other *possible* sources of polarized photons, right?

Yeah, that's kind of the point. Unless by possible we're including photon torpedoes, spaghetti monsters, etc. etc. etc.

Er right. You have three laboratory falsifications of your precious exotic matter theory over 8 months, and that you just sweep under the carpet.

Pardon?

Meanwhile you hand me exactly *one* paper, claim it's evidence of your exotic invisible thingamabobs and insist I deal with your *one* tiny spectrum of light as though it's the *only* relevant topic in the whole of astronomy.

You think only one spectrum is involved?

Nevermind that it's a GR prediction, not an *inflation* prediction.

No, it's an inflationary prediction because it relies on GR (you know, empirically tested physics, what we base most theories on). Inflationary theories predict that we should see CMB fluctuations in this pattern. Non-inflationary theories predict(ed) that we should NOT see these fluctuations. Simple as that.

At least give me a day or two to read it over and think about it would ya? Holy cow.

Just a day?

I guess if you toss out enough "predictions", one of them is bound to be a hit

Neat that it's one of the biggies, fundamental to any theory that the universe did not remain static.

even if three of them fail entirely.

Except that they didn't.

If you then sweep the failures under the rug

You are quite literally the only person who sees them as failures, from your unqualified point of view. How's the armchair?

and hail the one successful prediction of your model as the *only important thing* you've discovered over the past 18 months

try the century

, you sure make it sound nice.

It's awesome

When did gravity wave show up in LIGO experiments?

not got down to the sensitivity levels needed, not even close (but that's changing quickly)

Oh ya, never. When did you tie inflation to patterns in such LIGO experiments via exhaustive empirical testing? Oh ya, never.

Because the patterns aren't in LIGO, they're in the CMB

I'm open to an expanding universe of moving *objects*.

Meaningless sentence in terms of GR. Meaningless.

I'm not prepared to *immediately assume* that all polarized photons are the result of gravitational waves however.

They're quite clearly not. These ones, almost certainly are.

Translation: "I've found an unexplained gap in our understanding in which I've inserted my magical invisible friends! Your turn to disprove it!"

No, we've found an empirically tested measurement of fluctuations in the CMB that exactly match the model of a gravitational wave perturbation from the primordial universe inflated to present size. Your turn.

Give me a break! You can't even rationally explain where dark energy comes from

Or what it is. Whoop di doo.

or demonstrate that inflation has *any* tangible effect on a photon.

If the theory is correct, the wavelength independent cosmological redshift demonstrates that perfectly

Why do you lack belief in God again?

Or Allah, or Zeus or whoever? Because they are all equal glimpses of the untrue.

How come you dead deities can't do anything in the present moment in a real life experiment?

They're doing plenty, if these findings are correct, which it seems awfully like they are, which is why you're panicking.

False. I handed you a link to to a polarization source.

There are literally countless polarization sources. What matter is what they do, where they are and the signals they produce. Yours was not a source in the CMB and thus irrelevant.

You simply ignored it entirely.

It's irrelevant.

You didn't bother explaining how you ruled it out

Because it didn't come from the CMB, which these signals demonstrably do

or how you can be sure the patterns are *absolutely* related to gravity waves.

No...it could be God screwing with us. But mathematically they match gravitational wave fluctuations from the primordial universe inflated to scales that match what we would expect, and that have been predicted for a couple of decades. So yeah, you've got a job to do to explain what ELSE could produce them, especially in your cosmology that says they shouldn't exist.

You certainly can't demonstrate inflation is even related to gravity waves in the first place.

It's not. Why would we want to do that?

It's one gigantic affirming the consequent fallacy from start to finish.

And the Chen paper proves tired light "in the lab" (despite being completely irrelevant, incomplete as your purpose and not anything to do with your topic). It's really not, unless you set stupid standards.

So even if we live in an expanding universe, what does that have to do with inflation?

Great question. Inflation is merely a type of expanding universe.

That was another paper on GR which you simply ignored.

No, that paper was about Friedmann empty universe explanations of our space-time metric. It didn't suggest that the universe expanded, merely that our space-time lent the illusion of expansion, but never mind.

How about moving *plasma* sources, like that million degree plasma around our galaxy, and out in space? How about those Birkeland currents and other options?

1959ApJ...130..241W Page 241

Motion of particles within space-time is not motion of the coordinates of space-time, which is what GR postulates. Do you not understand this? If you bring up motion of particles within space-time - plasma, blancmange or last sunday's breakfast - none of this is relevant whilst discussing GR, which doesn't specifically talk about space-time as fixed immovable points. Learn what comoving coordinates are and why the notion of a fixed space-time isn't what GR is talking bout.

I just sat down with a cup of coffee, and I intend to read it. I'll comment on it when I've had the luxury of actually reading through it.

Great. You kind of dismissed it without reading through it, so I suppose that's a marginal improvement.

Suffice to say your commentary isn't real impressive, nor is your attitude. I'm supposed to just *ignore* six separate falsifications of your galaxy mass estimates and various claims about exotic matter

None of which come anywhere close to anything useful, and none of which say what you think they say. Your attitude is "you all must be wrong, I'll just figure out why later". Sure.

Meanwhile you whip up a new affirming the consequent fallacy paper as "gospel" without so much as demonstrating any tangible connection between gravity waves and your impotent sky thingies, and I'm supposed to just ignore your failures entirely? Wow.

I think the paper you mention is the very paper we discuss? Not sure. Whatever. Read away.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I can see that Michael still does not know the difference between a failure to observe and a falsification. And he is waving his hands like mad at this latest discovery.

I think I will sit back and watch for a bit

 

[davidbilby]

Translation: Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain and those four straight falsification of SUSY theory

Which SUSY theory in particular?

including the electron roundness experiment that I absolutely refuse to even mention or address. Like I said to bhstme, it all goes in one ear and right out the other.

Electron roundness work is fabulous. I've not read DeMille's team's papers yet, in truth, just a quick scan of the summaries. Loop quantum guys are pretty pleased though. None of it helps tired light or any of that nonsense in any way. Also, it should be pointed out that there are kind of a number of SUSY theories that don't have an issue with this (although QUITE a few do). It's entirely possible that the electron dipole moment is tiny and below detection of this experiment. More to be done on that.

Needless to point out (except to you), inflation and CDM don't actually rely completely in any way on SUSY. There are versions of them that intersect and do rely on each other, but there's as many that don't as do. WIMPS are entirely possible in a non-supersymmetric framework, just that we wouldn't have such a nice explanation of the hierarchy problem to go along with them.

But I guess you don't get that...

 

[davidbilby]

So what? You simply *ignored* the whole concept of current flow through the galaxy and the concept of the central core have more current flowing through it.

Except that it's not just in the central core (though that's a good spot) and whatever you mean by "current" in this instance would still not have anywhere near the excesses observed

You're simply seeing excess "discharges" near the core? Big deal!

And everywhere else, beautifully in line with the dark matter map and nothing to do with any "current" ideas

Translation: If we *ignore* the flow of current and the *known* primary cause of gamma rays (electrical discharges)

Except electrical discharges wouldn't just produce an excess of gamma rays

*then* we can make up "gaps" in which to insert our otherwise invisible friends! You *guessed* at how many gamma rays should be there based on a *non electric* set of premises.

It's electromagnetic radiation. What's a "non-electric" premise?

Your model is flawed.

It's not actually a model, merely an observation that's inconvenient to you...

Therefore it needs supernatural gap filler, and you provided some *in spite of* all those falsifications of SUSY theory, including that failed electron roundness experiments, the LUX results and the LHC results. Nothing can shake your faith in the supernatural, as long as it doesn't contain the term "God" apparently.

Which SUSY theory? What does LUX constrain (be specific). What does LHC constrain (be specific). You don't know what you're talking about, and it shows, sir, since you keep bashing out the same blather with NO physics attached, no knowledge, nothing beyond a few acronyms and some ill-placed asterisks.

No doubt. Peratt's galaxy models have *vastly* more current focused in the core. No doubt the current flow results in excess discharges and excess gamma rays.

No doubt! Whatever Peratt says must be true. How silly of us to continue to work.

GR isn't under debate in the first place, so I'm fine with that.

So if you're fine with those data sets correlation perfectly why do you deny that they correlate beautifully...when you admit that they do?

You don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to realize why you kludged the galaxy infrastructure gestimations in 2006 either. We now know you miscounted whole stars by a whopping factor of anywhere between 4 and 20 and underestimated the mass of the largest stars to boot!

None of which - as you've been told and demonstrated many times, Mr Mozina, even comes close to filling in the gap by many, many, many orders of magnitude. You could quadruple the amount of observed matter - let's assume we're underestimating stars by fully 75%. You wouldn't even be close to completing the mass/energy budget of the universe. Not even close. Not even scratching the surface. And why do you think we measure galaxy mass by COUNTING STARS???? I'm going to bet you've been told how erroneous that is before...have you? I can't believe some of the things you actually type.........

When you start looking at how much mass you missed, it's no mystery where the "dark matter" was actually located. It was located in *whole stars*!

No, it's not. Simply not. By the way, is there a "half" star I'm unaware of?

Translation: Forget LHC. Forget LUX. Forget those electron roundness experiments entirely. Forget the fact we botched the stellar infrastructure *entirely*. Trust us, "Wimps emit gamma rays because we say so".

What morons or cheats you think we are from your armchair. God, I feel so dirty being part of this little scientific mafia. Still, it'd be fun if we learnt to sing and dance and knocked over a fruit stand or two, between crunching through papers. Sigh. What a life. What it must be like in Michaelland where plasma is free and on tap and all the women are ravishingly beautiful.

Oy Vey. No, the *most simple* and *most logical* method to explain an excess of gamma rays is to explain it with an excess of *electrical discharges*.

No, it's not.

They are a *natural* source of gamma rays in the atmosphere of every major body in this solar system.

Except, that these gamma rays don't come from a body in this solar system or anything like it, so why is that relevant?

Your claims are just goofy handwaving based on nothing more than an affirming the consequent fallacy, and pure denial of the results of every lab test to date.

Cool story bro. When can we expect your explanation of the BICEP data?

 

[Michael]

No, it doesn't. Not even close. About 25 billion electron volts out, actually...

I think I'll focus on one issue at a time (per post with you). Since I'm still digesting the paper, how about explaining *exactly* where you think we're going to find your magical WIMPS.

First results from LUX experiment in South Dakota | Sanford Underground Research Facility

The mass of WIMPs is unknown, but theories and results from other experiments suggest a number of possibilities.
LUX has a peak sensitivity at a WIMP mass of 33 GeV/c2 (see below), with a sensitivity limit three times better than any previous experiment.

What energy range are your mythical WIMPS again?

Now explain to us all why SUSY theory failed it's own golden test at LHC, and why it failed it's predictions related to electron roundness experiments.

Can you even make up your mind if exotic matter emits gamma rays or x-rays? If you throw up enough "predictions" at the wall, one of them is bound to stick in the public consciousness, is that it?

 

[Michael]

Wimp/Dark Matter, part II

Please explain why I should believe that your "missing mass" that you didn't see in that 2006 lensing study has anything at all to do with exotic forms of matter? In 2008, we found out that you botched the mass estimates on the largest stars that we can directly observe in distant galaxies by underestimating the amount of dust and inelastic scattering occurring in that dust and plasma. Strike one against your stellar mass estimation techniques in 2006.

The following year we found out that you *grossly* underestimated the amount of ordinary stars (ones we cannot see directly) in a stellar infrastructure by a *whopping* factor of 4. Strike two.

The following year we found out that your stellar mass estimation techniques *grossly* underestimated the number of dwarf stars by a factor of between 3 and 20. Strike three.

Since then you've had three more strikes at LHC, LUX and in the electron roundness experiments.

Is there actually any possible way to falsify your claims related to exotic matter? If so, how? Will you even personally commit to an actual energy range, or is this strictly a moving target and an exotic matter of the gaps claim?

 

[Michael]

Dark matter Part 3:

None of which - as you've been told and demonstrated many times, Mr Mozina, even comes close to filling in the gap by many, many, many orders of magnitude. You could quadruple the amount of observed matter - let's assume we're underestimating stars by fully 75%.

Where in the world did you get that 75 percent figure when you miscounted entire stars by factors of anywhere between 3 and 20, and you underestimated the mass of the largest stars as well? How about more like 300 percent or 400 percent in the stellar infrastructure alone, not to mention all that plasma you found in 2012?

 

[Michael]

Except that it's not just in the central core (though that's a good spot) and whatever you mean by "current" in this instance would still not have anywhere near the excesses observed

Oh boloney:
NASA - NASA's Fermi Detects the Highest-Energy Light From a Solar Flare

Solar flares in our own solar system routinely emit gamma rays at *very* high energy states. Why do I even need WIMPS to explain gamma rays when *electrical discharges* in solar flares does the trick quite nicely? The whole galactic infrastructure emits them.

Cool story bro. When can we expect your explanation of the BICEP data?

Hopefully pretty soon. I'm still trying to figure out section 9. That seems to be where all the "magic" is happening.

 

[Michael]

BBC News - Cosmic inflation: 'Spectacular' discovery hailed

Professor Alan Guth: "This experiment is Nobel Prize worthy"

Well, it's officially 'cannonized' literature already according to the living supernatural savior of Gutheology. I guess I'll have to finish up section 9.

 

[NGC 6712]

Michael - as the years go by you just become a parody of yourself. That is actually quite a remarkable achievement - useless but remarkable nonetheless.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Yep. Just like a figured. Somehow without respect to *any* other electromagnetic process in plasma, they've eliminated *every* other possible cause of polarization in plasma and they've decided that the "big bang did it".

It's nothing but another affirming the consequent fallacy with respect to cause. It's the same exact fallacy they always use, just a different day.

Affirming the consequent? How so? Abductive inference more likely.

 

[Michael]

Michael - as the years go by you just become a parody of yourself. That is actually quite a remarkable achievement - useless but remarkable nonetheless.

It's more than a little amusing to me that the gaps of your CDM claim keep getting smaller by they year, and your handwaving about Lambda keeps getting more and more desperate. The "parody" is the fact you actually have the audacity to call it "science". Sure just sweep those failures at LUX, LHC and the electron roundness experiments right under the rug. Maybe nobody else will notice.

 

[Michael]

Affirming the consequent? How so? Abductive inference more likely.

Lambda-CDM has *consistently* tried to ride the coattails of GR by stuffing magic into the formula. That's not "inference", that's just dogma on a stick. Even gravitational waves would simply support *GR theory*, not inflation, not dark energy, and not support for any exotic forms of matter.