Space's Deepest Secrets

[Michael]

The Hunt For Dark Energy - Space's Deepest Secrets:

I've started recording the new series Space's deepest secrets and I just happened to watch episode 4 on the concept of dark energy. It was done this year and I was curious to know if it included any reasonably "current" information related to DE or DM theories. A number of comments in the video struck me as interesting:

One interesting part of the presentation was listening to Saul Perlmutter explain how "brightness" was used to determine that the universe was accelerating. Now of course ordinary "scattering" would tend to have the same basic effect in terms of decreased brightness/distance.

The other interesting part of the presentation was the "typical" misrepresentation of Edwin Hubble, and what he personally believed with respect to the photon redshift phenomenon. The presentation immediately *claimed* that Hubble proved the universe was expanding in spite of Hubble's own beliefs to the contrary. That's still the single biggest "misrepresentation" done in astronomy to this day, and it does the entire field of study a *huge* disservice. Later on in the presentation they seem to be looking for "alternatives" to their "interpretation" of evidence, when Hubble himself already gave them some very important alternatives to consider, which they either don't even know about anymore, or they simply ignore at their own scientific peril.

When the presentation delved into "dark matter" claims, they did not include any mention of the stellar miscounts with respect to earlier lensing studies. They didn't mention all that additional matter they found in 2012 that surrounds the galaxies and which rotates like "dark matter", and which apparently contains more mass than all the stars combined. That a pretty serious oversight IMO considering those stellar miscounts were substantial, and that plasma cloud was discovered over 4 years ago. There was also no mention of the spectacular string of lab failures of "dark matter" over the past decade either. What's up with burying their collective heads in the sand on that topic anyway?

Apparently from the Euclid consortium, astrophysics theory is on hold until 2020 when they "might" try to rule out "some" ideas, but again, not a single mention of Hubble's own preferred ideas.

I was somewhat pleased to seem them discuss the introduction of the Lambda term. Someone in the videos said that it was added to GR because GR otherwise predicts an "expanding" universe. That wasn't actually accurate. GR theory without a Lamba constant predicts *either* an expanding *or* a contracting universe. Einstein never tried to use it to get something for nothing as is the case with "dark energy". They did discuss the fact that dark energy does density defying energy tricks for breakfast, and they tried to use QM theory to support the idea, and then they turned a total blind eye to the fact that QM fails to come up with the right number, in fact it's off by 120 orders of magnitude!

You'd "think" that by 2016 they'd have mentioned that SN!A events were since shown to come in *at least* two different flavors, not one:

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

Not a peep in the presentation about any of that stuff.

I got the distinct impression while watching the Euclid team dine on a yacht that cosmology theory is pretty much "on hold" till at least 2020, and none of them want to talk about either of the two elephants in the room with respect to DE or DM. Ordinary matter, and problems with early baryonic mass estimates easily explains "dark matter", and simple scattering in plasma explains why distant objects appear less "bright" than expected.

Oy Vey.

I wasn't impressed with the presentation. They all noted that they were using placeholder terms for what amounts to human ignorance, and yet none of them even mentioned Hubble's *other* solution to the redshift phenomenon. Not once was that ever even mentioned.

Edit: Gah. I messed up the Title somehow. How do I edit the title of the thread?

 

[Larniavc]

I stopped reading at Plasma.

 

[Oafman]

I've started recording the new series Space's deepest secrets and I just happened to watch episode 4 on the concept of dark energy.

Did you jump straight to the dark energy episode? Be honest now, Michael..

 

[lesliedellow]

I stopped reading at Plasma.

Sensible thing to do.

 

[Michael]

Did you jump straight to the dark energy episode? Be honest now, Michael..

Yep.

I did go back and watch with first two episodes on multiverse theory and "dark matter" too. They all could have been written and produced 10 years ago without respect to any new results for any experiment. They didn't mention all the failures of dark matter theory, and "WIMP" theories still prevail in spite of *zero* supporting evidence of exotic forms of matter. No mention of all the stellar miscounts, or the plasma cloud that surrounds the galaxies that was found in 2012.

I gather that the multiverse episode was written in early 2014 but not shown until 2016 based on the fact that they tried to ride the coattails of BICEP2 with respect to multiverse theory. Apparently the argument went "If inflation, then multiverse. BICEP2 showed (at the time the show was produced) evidence of inflation, therefore multiverse". Of course if the reverse is true in terms of BICEP2, which it now is, it's not the death sentence of multiverse theory. The hypocritical standards are completely off scale. FYI, the multiverse claims are apparently all based upon issues related to "Big bang" theory. If one begins with an infinite and static universe, the multiverse idea becomes irrelevant.

The amusing state of astronomy is that the guy that invented the "multi-worlds" concept in QM was *ridiculed* during his life, yet the mutliverse crowd hail him now as a their great patron saint of M-theory.

I must say that the "dark matter" presentation was probably the most jaw dropping presentation. In *spite of* all the failed predictions of DM to date, they keep on peddling that 26 percent dark matter claim, and they keep claiming that it must be made of WIMPS or Axions, in spite of all the lab failures to date. It's pure unadulterated denial at it's finest.

The most annoying part of the series to date IMO was the Multiverse episode and the constant talk about 'knowledge'. They whole multiverse meme is one gigantic *make believe* concept, yet all the proponents talked about the idea being "knowledge", and their great contributions to the the "knowledge" of astronomy. It's nothing of the sort.

It's almost depressing to watch the mainstream go into pure denial over the results of all their own "tests" of their claims. Negative results are simply ignored, swept under the rug, and the very same dogma continues unabated. What's the point of spending billions of dollars on "tests" of their claims when they all are *negative*, and not a single negative results has any influence on the dogma? It's a denial-go-round of epic proportions.

We are literally living in the "dark ages" of astronomy where we "know" that we don't know 95 percent of the universe, and the 5 percent we claim to "understand" is all based upon pure "pseudoscience" according to the author of MHD theory. We simply couldn't be more ignorant of the physics of space if we tried.

 

[Michael]

Having now seen the Multiverse theory presentation, and considering M-theory seems to be growing slowly over time, maybe the term "M" was a good title for this thread afterall.

I must say that I'm not necessarily "surprised" the the 'frozen in time' nature of this 2016 series, but holy cow. There have been revelations of stellar miscounts and a "dustier" universe since 2008, and lab failures of WIMP theories going back since the startup of LHC and the first Xenon/LUX experiments. Not a mention of any of that in any of the three first episodes?

This whole series has the "feel" of a belief that has been "frozen in time" and which remains impervious to external falsification either from observation (failed axion tests) or from lab tests (WIMP/SUSY failures).

I wonder if a decade from now they'll bother to mention that the standard model passed another milestone this year, or whether we'll have to wait few more decades to note that reality.

I'll admit, I'm a little disappointed in the series already. The whole "Hubble proved the universe is expanding" claim is absolutely false. They seem to be looking for answers, but they refuse to reconsider any of their "assumptions" about either the "cause" of photon redshift as Hubble himself was willing to do, or about the nature of that "missing mass" they had in 2006. Every observation for the past decade has demonstrated that the mainstream botched the stellar mass estimates in that landmark 2006 "dark matter" lensing study, and they completely missed the fact that galaxies are surrounded by clouds made not of "dark matter", but made of million degree *plasma* that rotates just like the rest of the galaxy, and just like their 'dark matter' models "predicted". Holy smokes. They can't see the plasma forest due to all the plasma trees!

The only justification that they have for claiming "26 percent dark matter", is due to the necleosynthesis "needs". If they don't use exotic, not light interacting forms of matter in the mix, their hydrogen/helium abundance figures go up in smoke. They're "stuck" between a metaphysical rock and supernatural hard place. If they try to embrace empirical physics, or embrace all the stellar mass estimate problems they had in 2006, their whole theory falls apart at the seams.

Better they simply bury their collective heads in the sand, and pretend it still 2006 all over again.

I'm not impressed with this series. The did interview one scientist who studied dark matter his whole career and talked openly about the value of finding nothing. That value only is reaped when you acknowledge you're looking in the wrong direction and you try something else.

 

[Michael]

Epilogue: Space's Deepest Secrets (2016 episodes)

I'd have to say that this series seems to be going absolutely nowhere, and they keep looking for a "savior" figure of physics that has already lived and died in many different individuals.

The sad fact remains that this 2016 series documents the pitiful state of affairs of astronomy today, and the irrational nature of never questioning any of one's basic "assumptions". Hubble himself *questioned* the nature of photon redshift. He didn't *assume* it had to be related to expansion or to any one particular cause. Hubble preferred a static universe solution, not an expansion solution to that observation. Astronomers today aren't even reconsidering how much scattering takes place in space, even though brightness calculations have shown that we've been systematically underestimating scattering, and galaxies are typically at least twice as bright as we 'believed' when "dark energy" was first proposed. They admit openly that their "beliefs" are predicted upon brightness figures, and they've been underestimating object brightness, yet they continue down the rabbit hole of 'dark energy' anyway.

The mainstream has literally deviated about as far from empirical physics as is humanly possible. They're living in the "dark ages" with no answers and no ability to question their own assumptions. They're stuck, and no data can save them.

A full 95 percent of LCDM theory is based upon terms that amount to pure human ignorance. The other 5 percent of their physics is based upon 'pseudoscience' according to Hannes Alfven, the author of MHD theory. That's about 100 percent pure ignorance of the physics of a plasma universe. It's time for them to go back to the drawing board, and return to embracing empirical physics again. Near 100 percent ignorance isn't bliss and their ignorance hasn't gotten any better in over a decade. In 2016 they can't even *mention* the numerous failures they had in terms of their so called "predictions". It's time for a change.

 

[Michael]

If the computer industry remained as static as the "knowledge" level of astronomy over the past decade, we'd still be running Windows Vista, and the iPhone (and other smart phones) wouldn't exist.

Actually, since 95 percent of their claim *remains* a term related to human ignorance, we'd wouldn't even have computers in 2006, just promises that they'll eventually figure out how to built one, and they have this great "idea" for a "Windows Vista" operating system that they will build someday if you simply agree to continue to crowd fund them for a few more decades.

 

[lesliedellow]

If the computer industry remained as static as the "knowledge" level of astronomy over the past decade, we'd still be running Windows Vista, and the iPhone (and other smart phones) wouldn't exist.

So how is a virtual memory system which could be written today different from one which could have been written ten years ago?

 

[timewerx]

Edit: Gah. I messed up the Title somehow. How do I edit the title of the thread?

Actually, it's a fitting title.

The answer you're seeking is in that letter.

 

[Michael]

So how is a virtual memory system which could be written today different from one which could have been written ten years ago?

Considering the fact that none of the mainstream stuff actually works in the lab, the comparison was somewhat dubious on my part. So long as the mainstream, never has to demonstrate their claims empirically, "anything goes". It's like the epicycle scenario all over again. As long as the math "works" somehow, you folks really don't care if the physics is right or not.

 

[lesliedellow]

It's like the epicycle scenario all over again. As long as the math "works" somehow, you folks really don't care if the physics is right or not.

Crap. Like all theories with a claim to be scientific, the Ptolemaic epicycles were capable of falsification, and, as it happens, they were in fact falsified. All that is required of a scientific theory is that it be falsifiable, and accounts for the available facts. The more a theory can account for, so much the better.

Tell me, Einstein, how would you test a theory about the evolution of the Solar System "in the lab?" Assuning that you haven't got a life sized model of the early solar system, and a few billion years to spare, that is.

 

[Michael]

Crap. Like all theories with a claim to be scientific, the Ptolemaic epicycles were capable of falsification, and, as it happens, they were in fact falsified.

Hundreds of years later? I don't have a hundred years to wait around for the mainstream to figure out that exotic matter isn't necessary to explain events in spacetime.

All that is required of a scientific theory is that it be falsifiable, and accounts for the available facts. The more a theory can account for, so much the better.

If that were actually true, dark matter theory would be long since dead and buried. In the past decade we found out that the mainstream underestimated entire stars by a whopping factor of between 3 and 20 times depending on the type of galaxy and the size of the star. We've seen *all* of the "tests" of exotic matter come up empty to the tune of *billions* of dollars worth of failed tests. There is no way to falsify the exotic matter claim. There are an infinite number of possible variations on the same theme, so the concept as a whole is utterly and completely unfalsifiable, or the results of the past decade would have done the job by now.

Tell me, Einstein, how would you test a theory about the evolution of the Solar System "in the lab?" Assuning that you haven't got a life sized model of the early solar system, and a few billion years to spare, that is.

Me? I wouldn't even try. You're still confusing the difference between applying math (computer modeling) to empirical processes like gravity and applying math to mythical processes like epicycles and dark matter. Working 'math' alone doesn't determine the validity of the concept.

 

[Michael]

"Space's Deepest Secrets"

(Living in the dark ages of astronomy)

I think I've seen a total of five of these episodes now. The episode on planetary physics was interesting, but the rest of these shows could have been written a decade or more ago and it wouldn't have made one iota of difference with respect to their content and their claims. They've basically engaged themselves in exactly the same "brainwashing" (mental herding) with respect to what Hubble "observed" in terms of photon redshift and it's 'cause'. Likewise, they've already made up their minds with respect to the existence of exotic forms of matter and energy *in spite* of overwhelming evidence which now demonstrates that their 'predictions' based on exotic matter are completely and utterly worthless in the lab.

There is no falsification possibility with LCDM theory. It's all one big circular feedback loop, and all NULL results of 'tests' are ignored and dismissed instantly.

 

[lesliedellow]

If that were actually true, dark matter theory would be long since dead and buried. In the past decade we found out that the mainstream underestimated entire stars by a whopping factor of between 3 and 20 times depending on the type of galaxy and the size of the star.

I have lost count of the number of times I have heard you say that, and I have lost count of the number of times I have heard people tell you that it doesn't come close to accounting for what can be observed. Do you think astrophysicists are simply perverse, or something?

 

[Michael]

I have lost count of the number of times I have heard you say that, and I have lost count of the number of times I have heard people tell you that it doesn't come close to accounting for what can be observed. Do you think astrophysicists are simply perverse, or something?

Care to explain how they can miscount/estimate the number of stars in galaxies by a factor of between 3 and 20 times, miscount/estimate the number of stars shared between galaxies in a cluster, *and* not have a clue about the million degree plasma clouds around galaxies until 2012 that hold more mass than all the stars combined, and have it *not* change your 'missing mass' predictions?

I think that astrophysicists that promote BB theory are stuck between a metaphysical rock and hard place. In terms of their "model", they can't actually deviate more than a few percentage points and have it come anywhere close to matching their nucleosynthesis predictions, and the Planck data set postdictions.

They are basically obligated to bury their collective heads in the sand and pretend that those NULL results from LHC, LUX, PandaX, AMDx, etc, etc, etc over the past decade do not matter one iota, and all those stellar and plasma miscounts in 2006 are irrelevant.

The moment they even try to change the exotic matter numbers by even say 10 percent, the entire house of dark cards falls apart at every other level.

 

[Michael]

IMO, it's really kind of sad that in 2016, in the age of smart cell phones, computers, TV's the internet and the golden age of empirical electrical physics that astronomy is still stuck in the dark ages, using placeholder terms for what amount to pure human ignorance to *avoid* embracing ordinary circuit theory in plasma, and even more ordinary inelastic scattering processes in plasma and dust. It's just pitiful IMO. With the exception of planetary episode, this whole "Space's Deepest Secrets" series could have been written over a decade ago. Almost nothing has changed. I'm amazed how many null results in the lab, and how many stellar miscount problems they simply swept under the rug. Wow!