Er, no - they're not claiming any hypothesis as true; and what they're claiming as 'real' or 'true' is that they have made observations that don't fit the current theories.
Those very same observations fit EU/PC theory just fine! I'm not pretending that I have the capability of accurately measuring the the baryonic mass of distant galaxies in the first place, so any "missing mass" due to lensing data I would assume is made of *ordinary matter*.
Your side is the one that is making *claims* they can't substantiate with any evidence. They are claiming they A) had the ability to *correctly* estimate the amount of ordinary baryonic matter present in distant galaxies in 2006 (or even now), therefore B) they claim that some type of 'exotic' form of matter makes up the difference.
Both claim A) and claim B) were *falsified* repeatedly over the past decade. What difference did it make to them?
Thunderbolts Forum • View topic - Lambda-CDM - EU/PC Theory - Confirmation Bias
If they aren't claiming it's "true", and it's failed every single "test", why don't they let it be falsified and move on? It's a form of pure faith at this point in time, *bad* faith too. It goes directly *against the evidence* we've gathered over the past decade.
I recommend you learn a little about the philosophy of science. As previously explained, the only failed experiment in science is one that fails to obtain valid results.
How then can we falsify exotic matter claims with both parts A and B have been falsified repeatedly?
I'm not complaining about the "philosophy" of science, I'm complaining about the results of their "tests" all being negative, yet I'm supposed to 'change their opinions" or accept their "beliefs" in the supernatural.
There's a good (Popperian) argument to be made that the most successful result, in terms of utility, is a falsification (I'm guessing that's what you mean by a 'failed test') because it eliminates the hypothesis being tested. You can't definitively falsify a range of particle hypotheses for the 'dark matter' effect without falsifying every hypothesis in that range; and you can't falsify an individual particle hypothesis by looking once and not seeing it, because of the problem of induction (the 'Black Swan' problem); ideally you want to try a number of independent approaches to reach an acceptable level of certainty.
Exactly. It's a supernatural particle of the gaps argument. Nothing can falsify every possible energy state range, but the burden of proof was never on me to do that in the first place. The burden in upon you to demonstrate that it *exists*. You can't.
You may feel it's all a waste of time because you already know the right answer, and there are probably many other blokes on the internet who feel the same way about their preferred answer to the 'dark matter' effect, but no-one can make that claim until their hypothesis has been thoroughly tested, outperforms all others, and becomes a scientific theory in its own right. If you can do that, go for it
Alfven beat me to the important stuff by 50 years, and Birkeland beat me to the solar model by 100.
They already provided working models in Birkeland's case, and Alfven provided all the necessarily math to build a cosmology theory. Nobody listened.
But if the hypothesis you favour has been published in a reputable journal, you'll have the consolation that in the unlikely event that they falsify all the higher ranking hypotheses and finally vindicate yours, you'll be able to point to your publication and say "I told you so!" Try not be disappointed if they find a model that works before that, or if it's a different bloke on the internet who turns out to have the best model, or if they say, "Meh, whatever..."
There are already plenty of published papers on the topic of EU/PC theory, and even I helped get a few of them published. Time will tell. In the meantime however, I'm certainly not impressed with their "expertise' anymore than I'm impressed with the 'expertise" of snipe hunters or astrologers.
Honestly, the amount of evidence *against* exotic matter is simply overwhelming. The only reason the mainstream refuses to accept the results is because even the falsification of the exotic matter claim itself causes the whole nucleosynthesis claims of LCMD to bite the dust, and the whole theory bites the dust.
Therefore, it's lather, rinse, repeat for the mainstream, regardless of how many lab *failures* they have. It doesn't matter to them one iota.
