World's most sensitive dark matter detector finds nothing (again). :(

[morse86]

It's a bunch of computers and software programs running on it. The programs could be written in a way to find a "hoaxmissing particle" and all the second hand source scientists that read the conclusion/abstract and consider it "peer review" would rejoice.

They will announce the "hoaxmissing particle" soon. This is just a "media piece" to get the public hyped up.


Just like when NASA landed on the moon, all the scientists watching their computer monitors saw it happened...they got all the telemetry metrics. They can "confirm it". It's "peer reviewed".

 

[Ophiolite]

It's a bunch of computers and software programs running on it. The programs could be written in a way to find a "hoaxmissing particle" and all the second hand source scientists that read the conclusion/abstract and consider it "peer review" would rejoice.

They will announce the "hoaxmissing particle" soon. This is just a "media piece" to get the public hyped up.


Just like when NASA landed on the moon, all the scientists watching their computer monitors saw it happened...they got all the telemetry metrics. They can "confirm it". It's "peer reviewed".

Be honest. You are just jealous you've been left out of the conspiracy. What you have to understand is that we conspirators have set some standards as to whom we let on board.

 

[Michael]

Be honest. You are just jealous you've been left out of the conspiracy. What you have to understand is that we conspirators have set some standards as to whom we let on board.

The problem with calling it a conspiracy is that it's the mainstream's own "tests" that keep shooting their own claims about exotic matter in the foot. Go figure.

 

[Michael]

If there is an actual conspiracy, it's a conspiracy to ignore all the holes they keep shooting in their own feet.

The (all negative) results of the past decade have made me really start to wonder if there is any logical way to falsify LCDM theory. It's not like all four of the supernatural constructs of "big bang" theory can even be "tested", but dark matter theory has already failed so many "tests", it's not even funny. Not only were the mainstream's galaxy mass estimates shown to be horrifically flawed in 2006, every "lab test" to date on exotic matter theory has *falsified* a bunch more mathematical models. All the negative results are simply ignored.

 

[Michael]

Bump.....

I'd love to hear from any resident atheists that actually believe that exotic dark matter theory is any more 'scientific' than belief in God, particularly after the lab results of the past decade.

 

[Michael]

This particular topic most readily demonstrates the overlap between science and religion, and the reliance upon "faith" in "science", misplaced or not.

After spending *billions* (with a B) of dollars in search of exotic forms of matter, dozens of the most popular mathematical models have been falsified, and not a single shred of evidence suggests that any sort of "missing mass" in cosmology is in any way associated with exotic matter.

Since 2006, it's been demonstrated repeatedly that the baryonic mass estimation techniques that were used in the now infamous "proof" of dark matter paper were not worth the paper they were printed on. They miscounted entire *stars* in that flawed study by a whopping factor of between 3 and 20!

In the entire history of physics, never was more money spent on a supernatural snipe hunt, and after all that money spent, not a shred of empirical evidence supports the idea.

While some remain "faithful" to the belief in exotic forms of matter, all the "tests" run to date would demonstrate that it's a *misplaced* form of faith, "bad faith".

In terms of empirical physics, there isn't a "better" example of science relying upon pure "faith", "faith" that runs counter to the physical evidence in fact. How does any atheist justify trying to apply a purely empirical standard of evidence as it relates to the topic of God, when no such standard of evidence exists within "science".

In science, "faith" is common place, both misplaced faith, and justified faith that has later born empirical fruit. Faith isn't the dirty word that atheist seem to presume.

I can't even think of a better topic to demonstrate the blurred lines between science and religion. Of the four supernatural constructs of LCDM theory, only "dark matter" has the ability to be put to the test in so many ways, and it's come up empty every single time. If billions of dollars of failed so called "tests" of exotic matter theory won't falsify exotic matter claims, what will? If one can accept big bang theory on "faith" in the unseen in the lab, how then can anyone justify blaming a theist for living on faith with respect to the topic of God?

 

[Michael]

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/11/161102144436.htm

To do this, the scientists extended the successful Standard Model of particle physics which allowed them, among other things, to predict the mass of so-called axions, promising candidates for dark matter.

This particular sentence (article and paper) deserves a bit of translation, and a healthy dose of skepticism, particularly in light of previous and recent axion studies:

https://briankoberlein.com/2016/04/26/dark-matter-still-not-axions/

If dark-matter axions exist, they should interact with the gamma rays, changing the spectrum from Perseus A. But the team found no evidence of any change in the spectrum. The results aren’t strong enough to rule out the existence of axions, but it is strong enough to rule them out as a source of dark matter.

Now that's all in addition to this bombshell of a study from September of this year:

https://www.insidescience.org/news/new-findings-muddy-understanding-dark-matter

Now researchers examining 153 galaxies find that by looking solely at where stars and gases in those galaxies are located, they could precisely predict the anomalous ways in which they moved. This may hint that dark matter is more strongly coupled to normal matter than currently thought. It could also indicate that dark matter does not exist and that another explanation is needed for the discrepancies that dark matter models were invoked to solve, said study lead author Stacy McGaugh, an astrophysicist and chair of astronomy at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland.

So essentially this new computer simulation from this month simply *ignores* the fact that the dark matter axion argument has failed at least two previous "tests" this year alone, and their first sentence is quite a slight of hand.

Yes indeed the *standard* particle physics model has been very successful to date, whereas various "extensions" to that model have failed repeatedly in various 'tests'. It's dubious to be claiming to "extend" the standard particle physics model to start with, whereas the article seems to be trying to ride the coattails of that successful model, when no such "ride" is warranted, necessary or consistent with the previous 'tests'.

Even though axion theory failed two recent tests from this year alone, they used a supercomputer to find more "gaps" where axions might still be hiding. What's the point of "testing" their models when they simply ignore the negative results of such "tests' and pretend that it never happened?

Oy Vey. The mainstream really does have the single worst case of confirmation bias in the history of physics. Every year LCDM theory keeps failing multiple tests of their model, and every year the mainstream just keeps on ignoring the results of their own "tests".