Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

brantc · Jul 23, 2009

Reality Check said:
You should not stop. You have just made the same unsupported assertion that you made in the electric universe thread. You did not read or reply to my question then:

Maybe you will answer now.

Sorry. I did not see your reply to this post previously.

Let me preface this with the caveat that "optical tables are known to be inaccurate to experimentalists at moderate to extreme ranges due to the lack of experimental data.
Theorists do not incorporate this caveat when using these and other table for astronomical (and other) purposes. I seen many papers written using these tables with no experimental data."
Told to me by Bill a experimental hardcore scientist. I need to find him and talk to him again about this.

So for TOPS;

The parameters that I entered are as follows;
Density- 10-7 g/cm3
Energy- 6000k @ 11,000K per eV = ~.6eV

Composition from Wiki.
"The surface of the Sun consists of hydrogen (about 74% of its mass, or 92% of its volume), helium (about 24% of mass, 7% of volume), and trace quantities of other elements, including iron, nickel, oxygen, silicon, sulfur, magnesium, carbon, neon, calcium, and chromium."

I stuck with a H-He mixture. I also tried Neon and other gases
Pretty straight forward..

I fiddled with the Photon energy group bounds (in keV) to get the range that I was interested in.

I then selected Frequency dependent opacities because that gives you specific frequencies along the x axis with amplitude along the y.

Then selects the output style format. 2-D Plots of frequency dependent opacities.

Then you go to select Data Output Options. Select PS(postscript) output.
The GIF output format does not seem to work for me in Firefox 3.5 so I use Ghostscript to view the final output.

Why??

I was required to plot plasma opacities in connection with work that I do. I am a lab tech working with Dr Felipe Gaitan, the discover of Single Bubble Sonoluminescence. I have a couple of patents and a (the last)author on a paper due out in a couple of months in The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
Our webpage.
http://www.impulsedevices.com/

My opinion in no way reflects the opinions of my employers.
My opinion is simply an exploration into alternate ways of interpreting visual data gathering techniques..

Here is a good article in Nature on Sonoluminescence work done at UIUC.
Plasma formation and temperature measurement during single bubble cavitation
http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/suslick/pdf/nature.030205.pdf

Can you tell us this so that we can tell whether you are lying or not:

What parameters you put into the TOPS page to get your results?

How much is "large"?

When you plug "large" into the optical depth equations is the result 4800 kilometers? Or even 500 kilometers?

Large is a 75% increase in "optical depth" as compared to the frequency 200 nm away...
I did not actually compute the optical depth with the new numbers.
this also depends on the brightness of the source. The source is loop foot prints at 1 million degrees lighting up the surrounding area.

Do you think the when we look at the loop footprints we are looking under the photosphere?

It doesnt matter what the optical depth is if you can see the surface.
If think the sun is a plasma ball then you will not see the surface.
You will say there is solar moss in the chromosphere, and it still doesnt matter because you are not able to look out from the inside to verify...

And another question:
Why do you think that all astronomers for many decades have been deluded into thinking that they cannot see into the photosphere just by applying a filter to their telescope?

Because of the way they think the sun is constructed. Nobody thinks they are looking at a solid surface.

Here is the blackbody emission surface of the sun at viewed at 171A through the photosphere.
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/images/arcade_9_nov_2000.gif

From the JET website.

"The Science of JET", by John Wesson".

"The initial idea was that of detecting the blackbody radiation from the thermal plasma ions. However, when the ICE spectra were measured they were not consistent with this expectation, having instead narrow equally-spaced emission lines, the spacing being proportional to the magnetic field, and intensities much larger than the blackbody level. The spectrum from a deuterium-tritium plasma is shown in Figure 13.4 (below). The observed frequencies depend on the magnitude of the magnetic field at the location of the emission and, surprisingly, it was found that in JET this meant that the emission comes from the edge of the plasma in the outer midplane."

People learn new things all the time.

As I have said I have never seen a single experimental example of a thin or medium thin plasma produce a blackbody.

Only in astronomy does this idea exist.

temporalillusion · Jul 23, 2009

Deja Vu all over again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_experiment

I. The scientific method has four steps

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

A natural experiment can be a properly performed experimental test.

Science is a way of removing our senses and biases out of the equation. It doesn't matter if you see colours differently, are colour blind, or are blind, if you use the same apparatus to measure the wavelength of light, you will get the same number as everyone else that does it. No subjectivity is possible.

Reality Check · Jul 23, 2009

brantc said:
Sorry. I did not see your reply to this post previously.

...TOPS stuff...

Large is a 75% increase in "optical depth" as compared to the frequency 200 nm away...
I did not actually compute the optical depth with the new numbers.
this also depends on the brightness of the source. The source is loop foot prints at 1 million degrees lighting up the surrounding area.

Thanks for your reply brantc.

To my mind "large" would be an order of magnitude to turn the measured optical depth of the photosphere in the visible range (100's of km) to what would be needed to see MM's iron surface (~4800 km).
However I do not know whether a 75% change in opacity could result in a 1000% change in optical depth.

brantc said:
Do you think the when we look at the loop footprints we are looking under the photosphere?

No I do not.
When we are looking at the loop footprints in an image we are seeing the limit of light emitted by the loops that can be seen in that image. There is no information about where the footprints are located depth wise. They could be at the core of the Sun!

brantc said:
It doesnt matter what the optical depth is if you can see the surface.
If think the sun is a plasma ball then you will not see the surface.
You will say there is solar moss in the chromosphere, and it still doesnt matter because you are not able to look out from the inside to verify...

I am not sure what you mean by this.
If the optical depth is 1000 km (at least twice what it is in the visibils range) and there is a non-plasma "surface" 2000 km below the photosphere then you will never see that surface.

But then you have the problem that the temperature of the photosphere is measured to be ~6000 K and that this temperature is measured to increase with depth. Thus any "surface" is plasma.

brantc said:
Because of the way they think the sun is constructed. Nobody thinks they are looking at a solid surface.

Here is the blackbody emission surface of the sun at viewed at 171A through the photosphere.
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/images/arcade_9_nov_2000.gif

That is a 171A image of the Sun, i.e, of plasma at a temperature of 160,000 K to 2,000,000 K (no black body emission).
No one would think that they are looking at a solid surface in that image because the boiling points of materials are ~2000 K.

brantc said:
From the JET website.

"The Science of JET", by John Wesson".

"The initial idea was that of detecting the blackbody radiation from the thermal plasma ions. However, when the ICE spectra were measured they were not consistent with this expectation, having instead narrow equally-spaced emission lines, the spacing being proportional to the magnetic field, and intensities much larger than the blackbody level. The spectrum from a deuterium-tritium plasma is shown in Figure 13.4 (below). The observed frequencies depend on the magnitude of the magnetic field at the location of the emission and, surprisingly, it was found that in JET this meant that the emission comes from the edge of the plasma in the outer midplane."

People learn new things all the time.

That is right - that is science.
I am not sure that the plasma in the Joint European Torus can be directly compared to the Sun's plasma. I would expect that the very large magnetic fields involved will influence what is happening (as the quote suggests).

brantc said:
As I have said I have never seen a single experimental example of a thin or medium thin plasma produce a blackbody.

Only in astronomy does this idea exist.

Can you define "thin or medium thin plasma"?
Is the photosphere one?

The real question is how do you account for the fact that a nearly black body spectrum is actually measured for the Sun?
Where do you think that this comes from?
Is there a ~6000 K solid surface emitting it and if so what is that solid surface made of?

Michael Mozina · Jul 23, 2009

Ziggurat said:
I don't need to see in order to quantify,

If you're describing and quantifying solar images, or any images for that matter, you'll need to see them, or feel them, or rely upon your senses in some physical way.

and seeing isn't the same thing as quantifying.

No, but you need some sort of sensory input to quantify anything meaningful in physical reality.

I may use my eyes to read the number off a spectrometer (though if I didn't, other methods of transmitting that info are possible),

You'll somehow need to become "aware" of this information in some manner and rely upon your senses and your own subjective aspects of awareness when you do so.

but the spectrometer is doing the quantifying, not my eyes,

You'll still require one of your senses to subjectively "register" that information in your head.

and the numbers which come from the spectrometer are ultimately far more meaningful than what color the light looks like to my eyes.

Well, ok. It may also eliminate a lot of "subjectivity" as well. It may not however resolve all disputes due to many other factors.

Apparently this is a hard reality for you to grasp, what with your aversion to numbers.

You're talking about a mechanical/digital measuring device and I have no aversion to numbers as long as they are attached to real things that actually can be shown to exist in nature, like "electrical current" or "plasma" or anything that shows up in empirical experiments.

Ziggurat · Jul 23, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
If you're describing and quantifying solar images, or any images for that matter, you'll need to see them, or feel them, or rely upon your senses in some physical way.

To the extent that nothing gets into our brain except through our senses, yes. But the quantification part doesn't need to rely on our senses at all. Not even for images.

I have no aversion to numbers as long as they are attached to real things that actually can be shown to exist in nature, like "electrical current" or "plasma" or anything that shows up in empirical experiments.

Good. So now why don't you try to quantify some of those very physical properties predicted by your ideas?

Michael Mozina · Jul 23, 2009

Reality Check said:
Could the reason be that dark flow is not (yet) data which does not support the hypothesis?

[*]Dark flow is a single statistical analysis of the three year WMAP data. Experimental data or statistical analysis of data are not accepted until they are repeated independently. That is the scientific requirement that results be reproducible. Th authors know this and that is why they are going onto analyze the five-year WMAP data (ideally it should be another group doing this).

It's a little ironic that you want "multiple group confirmation" of anything that works against your theory, but you'll take a wing and a prayer and no independent confirmation of SUSY brands of dark matter. That sounds like a bit of a double standard from this side of the aisle.

[*]Dark flow places a limit on the parameters of inflation.

Aren't we just grasping at straws to keep Lambda theory afloat against all the odds and all the measurements?

The only actual claim to fame of inflation was the notion that the mass of the universe is homogeneous on the largest scales. It turns out that this may not even be *CLOSE* to accurate and you still won't even consider getting off the sinking ship.

Just assume for a moment that this information is confirmed by multiple groups. Now what? How can you claim that inflation is so great because it predicted a homogeneous layout of matter and "oooops", it's not homogeneous on the largest scales? What good is inflation again? What useful "prediction" was correct again?

That limit when measured accurately may rule out some inflationary theories.

As long as it is "ok" to make up the "properties" on a whim in an ad-hoc manner, and you never have to physically back up your claim in a real experiment, I'm sure someone could eventually "fudge the numbers" and come up with some bizarre brand of "inflation". As long as you never have to demonstrate your claims in a lab, I guess anything is possible.

It may even rule out all inflationary theories. That is still to be determined.

Somehow I doubt that inflation will die a natural death in my lifetime. These "anything goes as long as the math fits" concepts are impossible to verify or falsify in a standard scientific manner. As long as someone can throw more "properties" into the mix that they never have to support, how can anything be ruled out? How long should we wait around before we decide to try alternative theories?

FYI: Guth's original inflationary theory has been joined by several other candiates.
[/LIST]

Are they all shy around the lab?

Michael Mozina · Jul 23, 2009

Ziggurat said:
To the extent that nothing gets into our brain except through our senses, yes. But the quantification part doesn't need to rely on our senses at all. Not even for images.

But even to "quantify" something in your head, you have to subjectively conceptualize a model in your head. You have to ponder your options and in a very subjective way come up with a mathematical model. No quantification method is immune from subjective interpretation.

Good. So now why don't you try to quantify some of those very physical properties predicted by your ideas?

This thread isn't related to "my ideas".

Ziggurat · Jul 23, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
But even to "quantify" something in your head, you have to subjectively conceptualize a model in your head. You have to ponder your options and in a very subjective way come up with a mathematical model. No quantification method is immune from subjective interpretation.

No. The choice of definitions for a given physical property may in some sense be arbitrary, but once chosen, measurements of that property need not be subjective at all.

Reality Check · Jul 23, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
It's a little ironic that you want "multiple group confirmation" of anything that works against your theory, but you'll take a wing and a prayer and no independent confirmation of SUSY brands of dark matter. That sounds like a bit of a double standard from this side of the aisle.

Are you kidding?
The nonbaryonic nature of dark matter has been confirmed in thrree (count them: 1, 2, 3 ) separate observations: Bullet Cluster, MACS J0025.4-1222 and even Abell 520)?

Michael Mozina said:
Aren't we just grasping at straws to keep Lambda theory afloat against all the odds and all the measurements?
...snip...

Aren't we just grasping at ignorance to keep your opinion about Lambda theory afloat against all the odds and all the measurements?

Michael Mozina · Jul 23, 2009

Reality Check said:
Are you kidding?

No, I'm quite serious.

The nonbaryonic nature of dark matter has been confirmed in thrree (count them: 1, 2, 3 ) separate observations: Bullet Cluster, MACS J0025.4-1222 and even Abell 520)?

No. All these "non observations" demonstrate is the limits our current technologies, and "unexplained mass you can't see". You have no evidence whatsoever that any of that mass is contained in "non-baryonic" forms of SUSY particles. I'll be happy to let you 'explain' some of that unexplained mass with non baryonic forms of neutrinos that have been observed in nature and observed in real labs here on Earth. Unless you have "conformation" of SUSY particles, and confirmation of any "properties" you assign to said particles, from multiple 'teams of different groups of scientists" (like you impose on "dark flows"), then I'll let you use SUSY particles in your theories. Until then you have absolutely no physical evidence that any of that unexplained mass is contained in non baryonic forms of matter. It could be caused by anything, including MACHO forms of DM, electrons, neutral atoms of iron and nickel, it could be almost anything. What it' can't be are any mythical forms of matter that have not been confirmed to exist in nature unless you have empirical physical evidence that these particles do exist here on Earth.

Aren't we just grasping at ignorance to keep your opinion about Lambda theory afloat against all the odds and all the measurements?

The problem for you is that I am not ignorant of all the holes and dark flows in your dying theory. Against all odds I've seen you folks prop it up with more and more ad hoc mental creations like inflation and dark energy and non baryonic forms of matter for over 30 years since I first studied BB theory in my teens as a hobby. I've seen all the major metaphysical modifications like "dark energy" being stuffed in there all willy-nilly with no respect to empirical physics for decades. Your theories always fail. That's why they keep morphing further and further into the metaphysical abyss. Now those "dark flows" will get "explained away" with some "new and improved" brand of "dark flow inflation". Further and further into the metaphysical abyss we go.......

I think I'll stick with empirical physics thanks. I can accept that there are just some things that I cannot yet explain via empirical physics and I'll leave it at that. I don't need to "make it up as I go" like you folks seem to need to do. If you want to have a creation story with all kinds of metaphysical entities, I can't stop you. I simply have no desire to join you in the metaphysical abyss.

Tubbythin · Jul 23, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
Well, my definition is no different than the definition used in all fields of science.

Funny. Since you're the only one who thinks it involves selectively ruling out astronomical observations at your own discretion.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080923-dark-flows.html

*FAIL*

Huh???

How about the dark flows? Where were they "predicted" to exist in inflation theory. Why wouldn't these flows blow way inflation theory since inflation theory predicts a homogeneous layout of matter at large scales

Let's go back to that definition for a second:

Why shouldn't we now rule out inflation?

Erm. Did you even read the article you linked to:

The scientific method requires that an hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with experimental tests.

The theory of inflation isn't actually all that complicated.

I beg to differ. Its extraordinarily complicated.

It has simply been falsified by observation and it was never physically shown to exist or have any effect on anything in the first place.

Wishful thinking.

What else should I call it?

The theory of inflation. Or cosmic inflation. Or the cosmic theory of inflation. Whatever.

You should be on this side of the debate awhile and listen to all the personal attacks that come your way. It's not like you folks are exactly "fair' in your criticisms, or that your criticisms are directed at ideas and theories.

Please show me where I have been unfair. Its pretty difficult to maintain sensible arguments, however, when the opposition resort to belittling a theory they are utterly clueless about with words like "faeries" and "pixies" etc.

Well, not IMO. You've made me do more reading than anyone else here. Derek has kept me busy too, but most of these folks aren't even attempting to communicate at the level of science.

Yes they are. Just look at section I points 3 & 4 from your link:

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

The questions asked of you are very regularly of one type or the other.

Ya, but they aren't "invisible" and they emit light.

Correct.

Why didn't you just scrap your galaxy mass estimation techniques and start over?

Because there is no problem with the galaxy mass estimation techniques. To scrap the results would be the exact opposite of science. It would be a case of, as your source puts it:

Another common mistake is to ignore or rule out data which do not support the hypothesis. Ideally, the experimenter is open to the possibility that the hypothesis is correct or incorrect. Sometimes, however, a scientist may have a strong belief that the hypothesis is true (or false),

Ie the experimental results do not support the hypothesis that the Standard model particles (as is) are all there is.

Remember that part about not accepting evidence that blows away the theory?

The evidence says that dark matter exists. Not accepting the evidence would be a rejection of the existence of dark matter. You really do have this exactly backwards.

But none of these things have been independently confirmed to exist in nature. No 'properties' of these particles has been observed. Any attempt to simply slap on "properties" to them in an ad hoc manner is simply unacceptable.

Nobody is. Like I said, the cases for SUSY particles, axions and heavy neutrinos would be there whether or not we had made dark matter observations.

You can't go around just "making up" properties so that things fit properly into your otherwise falsified theory about galaxy mass estimation techniques.

Huh? Its not a theory of galaxy mass estimation techniques that is in trouble. These results have been verified by multiple, independent experiments. To ignore the results is most certainly a case of "not accepting evidence".

You are making it impossible to falsify the theory in that manner.

You really have this completely backwards. The galaxy mass measurements ARE the experiment. NOT the theory.

Who knows if such particles even exist?

Nobody. That's why people are looking for them and their experimental signature. The solution could of course be "some other particle we haven't thought of". I don't think anybody has ruled that out yet.

Aren't you just grasping at straws now instead of letting a falsified theory die a natural scientific death?

There is no falsified theory. The galaxy mass measurements are exactly that, measurements. NOT theory.

I disagree. I'm relying on the fact that 100 years of so of lab based study has turned up no evidence or any need for any new forms of exotic particles.

That is incorrect. The experimental results suggest the standard model is incomplete.

Sure, anything is "possible", but how "probable" is it that new exotic forms of matter exist in nature?

Very very probable. And I'd say that without ever having heard of dark matter.

It seems a lot more likely to me that mass estimates are simply wrong and that theory should die a natural death.

But, to put it bluntly, the last question you asked clearly indicated you have no idea what you are talking about.

Michael Mozina · Jul 23, 2009

temporalillusion said:
Deja Vu all over again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_experiment

A natural experiment can be a properly performed experimental test.

Science is a way of removing our senses and biases out of the equation. It doesn't matter if you see colours differently, are colour blind, or are blind, if you use the same apparatus to measure the wavelength of light, you will get the same number as everyone else that does it. No subjectivity is possible.

The data gathering process can be automated so that no subjectivity about say the "photon count" of the solar spectrum is possible. How that data get's "interpreted" however can be entirely "subjective". For instance, you 'assume' that the solar photosphere experiences little or no 'mass separation' of elements, so that iron and hydrogen and helium and nickel stay all nice and mixed together at the surface of the photosphere. Someone else might not make that same assumption and therefore "interpret' that data in a very different (and equally subjective) way.

Reality Check · Jul 23, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
No. All these "non observations" demonstrate is the limits our current technologies, and "unexplained mass you can't see". You have no evidence whatsoever that any of that mass is contained in "non-baryonic" forms of SUSY particles. I'll be happy to let you 'explain' some of that unexplained mass with non baryonic forms of neutrinos that have been observed in nature and observed in real labs here on Earth. Unless you have "conformation" of SUSY particles, and confirmation of any "properties" you assign to said particles, from multiple 'teams of different groups of scientists" (like you impose on "dark flows"), then I'll let you use SUSY particles in your theories. Until then you have absolutely no physical evidence that any of that unexplained mass is contained in non baryonic forms of matter. It could be caused by anything, including MACHO forms of DM, electrons, neutral atoms of iron and nickel, it could be almost anything. What it' can't be are any mythical forms of matter that have not been confirmed to exist in nature unless you have empirical physical evidence that these particles do exist here on Earth.

Ignoring the science yet again MM?
The observatrions are nothing to do with the detection of SUSY particles.

The observations are to do with the measurement of dark matter. in the three (count them: 1, 2, 3 ) separate observations: Bullet Cluster, MACS J0025.4-1222 and even Abell 520).

A is a big blob of gas.
B is a bib blob of gas.
Blob A hits blob A.
- If the gas is all the same stuff then the result will be another blob of gas .
- If the gas is a mixture of two kinds of gas , one of which interacts weakly with the other, then the result will be 3 blobs since the weakly interacting gas passes through the other gas .
We see 3 blobs.
Thus the gas is made of two kinds of gas, one of which interacts weakly with the other.

First asked 18 July 2009
Any problems with this analysis with what is going on with the majority of the matter in the Bullet Cluster and MACS J0025.4-1222 (and even Abell 520)?

If not then you agree that these three observations are evidence that there is matter that does not interact like baryonic matter. This we call nonbaryonic matter.

Michael Mozina · Jul 23, 2009

Reality Check said:
Ignoring the science yet again MM?

Not at all. I'm simply ignoring the "hype" about what you "can't" see.

The observatrions are nothing to do with the detection of SUSY particles.

I agree.

If the gas is all the same stuff then the result will be another blob of gas .

I'm guessing this is where your basic problem lies. The materials in a galaxy are not all "gas". Some of the matter is contained inside solar systems which do not necessarily "collide' with anything of substance in the other galaxy during the "pass through" process. The only thing that "collides" are the particles in the ISM, and they only "partially" collide at that. Some ions are likely to "pass right through" along with the heavier materials contain in "clumpy" matter like comets and planets and burned out suns.

You seem to want to *OVERSIMPLIFY* the physical processes of a galaxy collision to the point of absurdity.

Reality Check · Jul 23, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
Not at all. I'm simply ignoring the "hype" about what you "can't" see.

In other words you are ignoring the science since there is no "hype" in the observations. And we do "see". We measure the matter that is colliding through the X-rays that it emits. We measure the matter that is in the clusters through gravitational lensing.

Michael Mozina said:
I'm guessing this is where your basic problem lies. The materials in a galaxy are not all "gas". Some of the matter is contained inside solar systems which do not necessarily "collide' with anything of substance in the other galaxy during the "pass through" process. The only thing that "collides" are the particles in the ISM, and they only "partially" collide at that. Some ions are likely to "pass right through" along with the heavier materials contain in "clumpy" matter like comets and planets and burned out suns.

I'm guessing this is where your basic problem lies. You just do not understand the observations.
You are ignoring that galaxies rarely collide and so the ISM does not contribute much to the X-ray emissions.
You are ignoring the intracluster medium and the fact that the ICM in each of the colliding clusters does collide as shown by the shockwaves in the X-ray images.

Gravitational lensing shows where all of the matter in the colliding galactic clusters is. Most of the matter in the galactic clsusters is in the blobs to either side of the X-ray emitting blob.
The dark (no X-ray or other light is emitted) matter is in the outyling blobs. This matter has passed through all the other matter in the galactic cluster without interacting much, i.e. has not heated up through collisions. It is dark matter.

There is of course some normal matter in these blobs. No one is saying that there is only dark matter there. I made it a bit too simple for you by only mentioning the dark matter.

X-rays shows where electromagnetically interacting matter is.
The X-ray emitting blob happens to be where your "clumpy" matter resides, i.e. the galaxies in the cluster.

Michael Mozina said:
You seem to want to *OVERSIMPLIFY* the physical processes of a galaxy collision to the point of absurdity.

You seem to want to display your *IGNORANCE* that the observations are not of galaxies colliding.
As you have stated before and seem to have forgotten - galaxies in the collision of galactic clusters rarely collide and the "clumpy" matter is even less likely to collide.

Here is the question again in a non-simplified formn:

A is a big blob of gas.
B is a bib blob of gas.
Blob A hits blob A.
- If the gas is all the same stuff then the result will be another blob of gas.
  It is probable that some of the gas will not not collide. In that case there will be blobs of gas to each side. The size of these outlying blobs will reflect the amount of gas that did not collide.
- If the gas is a mixture of two kinds of gas , one of which interacts weakly with the other, then the result will be 3 blobs since the weakly interacting gas passes through the other gas.
  The size of these outlying blobs will reflect the amount of gas that did not collide plus the amount of weakly interacting gas.
We see 3 blobs.
The outlyng blobs contain most of the matter.
Thus the gas is made of two kinds of gas, one of which interacts weakly with the other.

First asked 18 July 2009
Any problems with this analysis with what is going on with the majority of the matter in the Bullet Cluster and MACS J0025.4-1222 (and even Abell 520)?

Remember that astronomers can calculate the probability of atoms in the ICM colliding as they travel millions of light years through each cluster. I do not know the exact number but expect it to be tiny (an atom travels millions of lightyears throough a meduim containing about 1 atom per cubic meter - you do the math!).
Thus the amount of gas that did not collide is tiny. The outlying blobs are thus mostly weakly interacting gas.

If not then you agree that these three observations are evidence that there is matter that does not interact like baryonic matter. This we call nonbaryonic matter.

Michael Mozina · Jul 23, 2009

Reality Check said:
In other words you are ignoring the science since there is no "hype" in the observations. And we do "see". We measure the matter that is colliding through the X-rays that it emits. We measure the matter that is in the clusters through gravitational lensing.

I think rather than doing this line by line, I'm going to start with a simple observation and a single question.

Were I personally to speculate on the origin of "non baryonic" matter that might be present in a galaxy inside of our electric universe, it would be non baryons in the form of electrons streams in vast quantities. That was the "non baryon" of choice for Birkeland and Alfven. That would explain those "slinky" (Birkeland current) structures we observe in space by the way.

What makes you believe that new and exotic forms of non baryonic material are required to explain these "non observations" of matter in distant galaxies?

Reality Check · Jul 23, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
I think rather than doing this line by line, I'm going to start with a simple observation and a single question.

Were I personally to speculate on the origin of "non baryonic" matter that might be present in a galaxy inside of our electric universe, it would be non baryons in the form of electrons streams in vast quantities. That was the "non baryon" of choice for Birkeland and Alfven. That would explain those "slinky" (Birkeland current) structures we observe in space by the way.

What makes you believe that new and exotic forms of non baryonic material are required to explain these "non observations" of matter in distant galaxies?

I would start by asking you: What "non observations" of matter in distant galaxies?

But the answer is in the pervious post: What is observed to be going on with the majority of the matter in the Bullet Cluster and MACS J0025.4-1222 (and even Abell 520)?

temporalillusion · Jul 23, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
The data gathering process can be automated so that no subjectivity about say the "photon count" of the solar spectrum is possible. How that data get's "interpreted" however can be entirely "subjective". For instance, you 'assume' that the solar photosphere experiences little or no 'mass separation' of elements, so that iron and hydrogen and helium and nickel stay all nice and mixed together at the surface of the photosphere. Someone else might not make that same assumption and therefore "interpret' that data in a very different (and equally subjective) way.

Well no kidding, everything is based on an assumption. "Given this, this, and this, then that is true".

Usually though it's not a blind assumption like you seem to characterize it. Assumptions are usually identified with big flashing arrows or have a basis for making the assumption. "Assuming all type Ia supernovae have these characteristics (insert support for assumption), etc..."

For a natural experiment, the design of the experiment could contribute to removing an assumption.

Michael Mozina · Jul 24, 2009

Reality Check said:
I would start by asking you: What "non observations" of matter in distant galaxies?

You can't *SEE IT DIRECTLY*. All you can do is *SEE THE EFFECT* of that matter in distant lensing patterns. All you know is that it exists in the galaxy and you can't see it directly! You have no idea *WHY* you can't see it directly.

Michael Mozina · Jul 24, 2009

temporalillusion said:
Well no kidding, everything is based on an assumption. "Given this, this, and this, then that is true".

I'm just noting that from the very start, "observations" become subjective almost from the moment the brain becomes aware of them. There is no way to avoid that fact.

Usually though it's not a blind assumption like you seem to characterize it. Assumptions are usually identified with big flashing arrows or have a basis for making the assumption. "Assuming all type Ia supernovae have these characteristics (insert support for assumption), etc..."

Sure. Blind or not blind however, assumptions are not always correct. They can also have a significant impact on how one subjectively 'interprets' raw data, even data that is collected in an automated way. Subjectivity is pretty much a given in all branches of science. That is why controlled experiments are so valuable. They allow us to determine 'cause/effect' relationships and remove many of the subjective influences.

For a natural experiment, the design of the experiment could contribute to removing an assumption.

That's not typically possible. For instance, we can collect the photons from the sun and have no assumption at the start of our collection process about how these photons patterns got into the spectrometer. Once we start "analyzing" the data however, subjectivity is pretty much a given.

sol invictus · Jul 24, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
Were I personally to speculate on the origin of "non baryonic" matter that might be present in a galaxy inside of our electric universe, it would be non baryons in the form of electrons streams in vast quantities.

That kind of incredibly stupid idea just proves yet again that you don't understand the most basic aspects of physics. Free electrons are about the least invisible thing in existence. They interact extremely strongly with all frequencies of electromagnetic radiation. In the quantities necessary to account for dark matter, they would also give the universe a *huge* net electric charge, which is impossible for all sorts of obvious reasons.

That would explain those "slinky" (Birkeland current) structures we observe in space by the way.

Those structures form in all simulations of cosmology, including those that do not take electromagnetic forces into account. Gravity alone, acting on otherwise non-interacting particles, makes filamentary* structures precisely like the ones we see.

What makes you believe that new and exotic forms of non baryonic material are required to explain these "non observations" of matter in distant galaxies?

Physics.

*One should note that much of the apparent filamentary structure observed in both simulations and the real universe is an artifact of the way the images are processed. If you make a slightly different choice of brightness map, you get something that looks much more clumpy and much less filamentary. But either way, pure gravity simulations match data very well.

temporalillusion · Jul 24, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
I'm just noting that from the very start, "observations" become subjective almost from the moment the brain becomes aware of them. There is no way to avoid that fact.

Maybe if things are judged by looking at grainy photos and drawing conclusions about astronomical phenomenon. Otherwise, no not really.

Theories should be precise, quantified to the point that an observation falling outside the theory is like a flashing red light.

Michael Mozina said:
Sure. Blind or not blind however, assumptions are not always correct. They can also have a significant impact on how one subjectively 'interprets' raw data, even data that is collected in an automated way. Subjectivity is pretty much a given in all branches of science. That is why controlled experiments are so valuable. They allow us to determine 'cause/effect' relationships and remove many of the subjective influences.

Of course assumptions aren't always correct, which is why things are usually "if this, then that", not "that always".

You can control a natural experiment as well, by choosing your sample set, making more observations, factoring out known variables, etc.. In cosmology, the assumptions are usually pretty basic, like "we aren't the center of the universe" or "the laws of physics don't change over there", or "the universe is homogeneous and isotropic".

Michael Mozina said:
That's not typically possible. For instance, we can collect the photons from the sun and have no assumption at the start of our collection process about how these photons patterns got into the spectrometer. Once we start "analyzing" the data however, subjectivity is pretty much a given.

Most science isn't done isolated from other science though. When I start gathering photos I can make assumptions based on the known laws of physics. Those assumptions may be wrong, and if they become invalidated then my conclusions may need to be changed or discarded.

Wangler · Jul 25, 2009

When looking at the papers that discuss the three "bullet cluster" type examples that RC has posted, I found that the typical mass-light ratio for one of these clusters is about 50 to 100 (the paper on the MACS J0025.4-1222 cluster says the ratio is ~1%, but I think they meant light/mass ratio instead).

they also state the gas-total mass ratio is ~10%. they provide the interaction cross section estimated for the dark matter, but what is the similar number for baryonic matter?

Wouldn't the dark matter keep "holding" onto the normal matter through the collision?

Is the normal-matter interaction enough to overcome the gravitational pull of the large clumps of dark matter?

Reality Check · Jul 25, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
You can't *SEE IT DIRECTLY*. All you can do is *SEE THE EFFECT* of that matter in distant lensing patterns. All you know is that it exists in the galaxy and you can't see it directly! You have no idea *WHY* you can't see it directly.

That is right. That is why it is called dark matter.
There is no difference between observing the gravity that matter gives off and observing the radiation that matter gives off. According to your terminology both are a "non observation". Scientists call it an observation of an effect of all matter (including dark matter).

What makes you believe that nonbaryonic material is not required to explain these observations of matter in distant galactic clusters?

GeeMack · Jul 25, 2009

Reality Check said:
What makes you believe that nonbaryonic material is not required to explain these observations of matter in distant galactic clusters?

Well, doh. Scientists only *ASSUME* that stars are made of gasses, but if they would stare at a running difference graph long enough they'd know, like I do, that stars have a solid iron crust under the photosphere. All that extra mass they measure, they're only *ASSUMING* it's dark matter pixies because they want to "oversimplify" everything, but it's really the iron in the stars! Birkeland knew it. He even said so. Wahhhhhh.

Reality Check · Jul 25, 2009

Wangler said:
When looking at the papers that discuss the three "bullet cluster" type examples that RC has posted, I found that the typical mass-light ratio for one of these clusters is about 50 to 100 (the paper on the MACS J0025.4-1222 cluster says the ratio is ~1%, but I think they meant light/mass ratio instead).

they also state the gas-total mass ratio is ~10%. they provide the interaction cross section estimated for the dark matter, but what is the similar number for baryonic matter?

Wouldn't the dark matter keep "holding" onto the normal matter through the collision?

Is the normal-matter interaction enough to overcome the gravitational pull of the large clumps of dark matter?

I would guess that the similar number for baryonic matter would be ~100% cross section. If a particle interacted electromagnetically then traveling through millions of light years of a gas with about 1 similar particle per cubic meter would guarantee interaction.

brantc · Jul 26, 2009

Originally Posted by brantc View Post
Sorry. I did not see your reply to this post previously.

...TOPS stuff...

Large is a 75% increase in "optical depth" as compared to the frequency 200 nm away...
I did not actually compute the optical depth with the new numbers.
this also depends on the brightness of the source. The source is loop foot prints at 1 million degrees lighting up the surrounding area.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your reply brantc.

To my mind "large" would be an order of magnitude to turn the measured optical depth of the photosphere in the visible range (100's of km) to what would be needed to see MM's iron surface (~4800 km).
However I do not know whether a 75% change in opacity could result in a 1000% change in optical depth.

I'm not necessarily hooked on 4800km as the correct depth for the surface.

Originally Posted by brantc View Post
Do you think the when we look at the loop footprints we are looking under the photosphere?

Click to expand...

No I do not.
When we are looking at the loop footprints in an image we are seeing the limit of light emitted by the loops that can be seen in that image. There is no information about where the footprints are located depth wise. They could be at the core of the Sun!

The loops definitely penetrate the photosphere.
Even NASA says so.
http://www.nasa.gov/mpg/124357main_flare_320.mpg

Originally Posted by brantc View Post
It doesnt matter what the optical depth is if you can see the surface.
If think the sun is a plasma ball then you will not see the surface.
You will say there is solar moss in the chromosphere, and it still doesnt matter because you are not able to look out from the inside to verify...

Click to expand...

I am not sure what you mean by this.
If the optical depth is 1000 km (at least twice what it is in the visibils range) and there is a non-plasma "surface" 2000 km below the photosphere then you will never see that surface.

But then you have the problem that the temperature of the photosphere is measured to be ~6000 K and that this temperature is measured to increase with depth. Thus any "surface" is plasma.

Show me measured to increase with depth.

Originally Posted by brantc View Post
Because of the way they think the sun is constructed. Nobody thinks they are looking at a solid surface.

Here is the blackbody emission surface of the sun at viewed at 171A through the photosphere.
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/images/arcade_9_nov_2000.gif

Click to expand...

That is a 171A image of the Sun, i.e, of plasma at a temperature of 160,000 K to 2,000,000 K (no black body emission).
No one would think that they are looking at a solid surface in that image because the boiling points of materials are ~2000 K.

Yes. That is an image of that area of the sun taken at 171A. The light from the plasma (loop footprints, loop etc) is short UV from 100eV(1 million degrees) plasma and it is lighting up the surrounding area which I am saying is the solid blackbody emitting surface of the sun.
It is a regular picture taken at 171A of the ground on the sun.
The loops are thermionic emission from a solid metal surface.

Originally Posted by brantc View Post
From the JET website.

"The Science of JET", by John Wesson".

"The initial idea was that of detecting the blackbody radiation from the thermal plasma ions. However, when the ICE spectra were measured they were not consistent with this expectation, having instead narrow equally-spaced emission lines, the spacing being proportional to the magnetic field, and intensities much larger than the blackbody level. The spectrum from a deuterium-tritium plasma is shown in Figure 13.4 (below). The observed frequencies depend on the magnitude of the magnetic field at the location of the emission and, surprisingly, it was found that in JET this meant that the emission comes from the edge of the plasma in the outer midplane."

People learn new things all the time.

Click to expand...

That is right - that is science.
I am not sure that the plasma in the Joint European Torus can be directly compared to the Sun's plasma. I would expect that the very large magnetic fields involved will influence what is happening (as the quote suggests).

Yes, but that will not change a blackbody to lines.

Originally Posted by brantc View Post
As I have said I have never seen a single experimental example of a thin or medium thin plasma produce a blackbody.

Only in astronomy does this idea exist.

Click to expand...

Can you define "thin or medium thin plasma"?
Is the photosphere one?

The photosphere is a thin plasma.

The real question is how do you account for the fact that a nearly black body spectrum is actually measured for the Sun?
Where do you think that this comes from?
Is there a ~6000 K solid surface emitting it and if so what is that solid surface made of?

Blackbody emission is the property of dense (condensed) matter.

If you design a lamp to emit the solar spectrum, how come it doesnt melt?

Because the emission is electrical in nature.

Michael Mozina · Jul 26, 2009

Oh no Mr. Bill......

http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.3648

Looks like your "dark energy" is probably nothing more than EM fields in space. I guess this means you'll become EU advocates after all?

Reality Check · Jul 26, 2009

brantc said:
I'm not necessarily hooked on 4800km as the correct depth for the surface.

That will disappoint Micheal Mozina. What is the correct depth and how did you calculate it?

brantc said:
The loops definitely penetrate the photosphere.
Even NASA says so.
http://www.nasa.gov/mpg/124357main_flare_320.mpg

I hope you are not a "picture looks like something and so must be that" guy like MM.
That is what astromoners agree happens - coronal loops penetrate the photosphere. They also agree that they cannot be seen penetrating the photosphere in images that are filtered to emphasis features in the corona (e.g. the TRACE 171A images).

brantc said:
Show me measured to increase with depth.

Limb darkening measuring is the technique used to measure the temperature of the photosphere with depth. I suggest that you look it up in a textbook.

brantc said:
Yes. That is an image of that area of the sun taken at 171A. The light from the plasma (loop footprints, loop etc) is short UV from 100eV(1 million degrees) plasma and it is lighting up the surrounding area which I am saying is the solid blackbody emitting surface of the sun.
It is a regular picture taken at 171A of the ground on the sun.
The loops are thermionic emission from a solid metal surface.

The 171A pass band being used means that the temperature of the emitting material is between 160,000 K aand 2,000,000 K.

brantc said:
Yes, but that will not change a blackbody to lines.

Yes it could change a nearly black body spectrum to lines. The strong magnetic field adds a constraint to the freedom of the electrons in the plasma. So rather being free to emit photons in a range of energies, the electrons are constrained to specific energy levels (like electrons in atoms).

brantc said:
The photosphere is a thin plasma.

You want the photosphere to be a "thin" plasma (and you assert that a "thin" plasma cannot emit a nearly black body spectrum) so you are defining the photosphere as a "thin plasma.

What I want is the scientifically defined density of a plasma that makes it "thin" enough so that it cannot emit a nearly black body spectrum.

brantc said:
Blackbody emission is the property of dense (condensed) matter.

If you design a lamp to emit the solar spectrum, how come it doesnt melt?

Because the emission is electrical in nature.

How come the solar wind at a temperature of millions of degree has not melted the Earth over billions of years?
(a clue: temperature is not energy).

Reality Check · Aug 21, 2009

A bump since Michael Mozina is stating that dark matter has to be baryonic in another thread.

Here is the question again in a non-simplified form:

A is a big blob of gas.
B is a bib blob of gas.
Blob A hits blob A.
- If the gas is all the same stuff then the result will be another blob of gas.
  It is probable that some of the gas will not not collide. In that case there will be blobs of gas to each side. The size of these outlying blobs will reflect the amount of gas that did not collide.
- If the gas is a mixture of two kinds of gas , one of which interacts weakly with the other, then the result will be 3 blobs since the weakly interacting gas passes through the other gas.
  The size of these outlying blobs will reflect the amount of gas that did not collide plus the amount of weakly interacting gas.
We see 3 blobs.
The outlyng blobs contain most of the matter.
Thus the gas is made of two kinds of gas, one of which interacts weakly with the other.

First asked 18 July 2009
Any problems with this analysis with what is going on with the majority of the matter in the Bullet Cluster and MACS J0025.4-1222 (and even Abell 520)?

Remember that astronomers can calculate the probability of atoms in the ICM colliding as they travel millions of light years through each cluster. I do not know the exact number but expect it to be ~~tiny~~ high (an atom travels millions of lightyears throough a meduim containing about 1 atom per cubic meter - you do the math!).
Thus the amount of gas that did not collide is tiny. The outlying blobs are thus mostly weakly interacting gas.

If not then you agree that these three observations are evidence that there is matter that does not interact like baryonic matter. This we call nonbaryonic matter.

Michael Mozina · Aug 21, 2009

Reality Check said:
If not then you agree that these three observations are evidence that there is matter that does not interact like baryonic matter. This we call nonbaryonic matter.

It seems silly IMO to duplicate this discussion in two different threads, but for anyone following the conversation, here was the recent article in question that suggests that our mass (normal mass) estimation techniques are critically flawed:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090819145846.htm

Evidently the term "dark" has many meanings. Something can be dark in the visible spectrum but not be "invisible" to other wavelengths.

Reality Check · Aug 21, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
It seems silly IMO to duplicate this discussion in two different threads, but for anyone following the conversation, here was the recent article in question that suggests that our mass (normal mass) estimation techniques are critically flawed:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090819145846.htm

Evidently the term "dark" has many meanings. Something can be dark in the visible spectrum but not be "invisible" to other wavelengths.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the question.
Obvioulsy the term "dark" in dark matter has a specific meaning, i.e. not visible in any wavelength.

edd · Aug 27, 2009

There's a 'semi-popular' review of MOND put out on astro-ph today - http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.3842
I thought it might be of interest to this thread.

Reality Check · Oct 29, 2009

A bump since Michael Mozina is stating that dark matter is missing matter in yet another thread.

Here is the question again in a non-simplified form:

A is a big blob of gas.
B is a bib blob of gas.
Blob A hits blob A.
- If the gas is all the same stuff then the result will be another blob of gas.
  It is probable that some of the gas will not not collide. In that case there will be blobs of gas to each side. The size of these outlying blobs will reflect the amount of gas that did not collide.
- If the gas is a mixture of two kinds of gas , one of which interacts weakly with the other, then the result will be 3 blobs since the weakly interacting gas passes through the other gas.
  The size of these outlying blobs will reflect the amount of gas that did not collide plus the amount of weakly interacting gas.
We see 3 blobs.
The outlying blobs contain most of the matter.
Thus the gas is made of two kinds of gas, one of which interacts weakly with the other.

First asked 18 July 2009
Any problems with this analysis with what is going on with the majority of the matter in the Bullet Cluster and MACS J0025.4-1222 (and even Abell 520)?

Remember that astronomers can calculate the probability of atoms in the ICM colliding as they travel millions of light years through each cluster. I do not know the exact number but expect it to be high (an atom travels millions of light years through a medium containing about 1 atom per cubic meter - you do the math!).
Thus the amount of gas that did not collide is tiny. The outlying blobs are thus mostly weakly interacting gas.

If not then you agree that these three observations are evidence that there is matter that does not interact like baryonic matter. This we call nonbaryonic matter.

edd · Nov 2, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
Now those "dark flows" will get "explained away" with some "new and improved" brand of "dark flow inflation". Further and further into the metaphysical abyss we go.......

It turns out not - http://arxiv.org/pdf/0910.4233 explains it much more conventionally and argues that there is no good evidence for a dark flow at all.

Michael Mozina · May 17, 2010

So much for predicting things correctly:

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=30822

And oh look, more holes in your theory:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18839-dark-matter-claims-thrown-into-doubt-by-new-data.html

Ziggurat · May 17, 2010

Michael Mozina said:
So much for predicting things correctly:

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=30822

Funny how you assume that the error is in our cosmology theories, not our galactic evolution theories. Confirmation bias, Michael.

And oh look, more holes in your theory:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18839-dark-matter-claims-thrown-into-doubt-by-new-data.html

You need to brush up on your reading comprehension. That article doesn't say there are any holes in the dark matter theory. What it says is that an earlier experiment may not have detected dark matter as originally claimed. That doesn't mean it isn't out there. And as any student of logic could tell you, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Can you understand the distinction? Because it's important.

Michael Mozina · May 17, 2010

Ziggurat said:
Funny how you assume that the error is in our cosmology theories, not our galactic evolution theories. Confirmation bias, Michael.

Funny how your theory keeps predicting the opposite of what we actually observe.

You need to brush up on your reading comprehension. That article doesn't say there are any holes in the dark matter theory. What it says is that an earlier experiment may not have detected dark matter as originally claimed. That doesn't mean it isn't out there. And as any student of logic could tell you, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Can you understand the distinction? Because it's important.

The problem is that there is no evidence that non baryonic dark matter exists in the first place! The few "experiments" that have been done tend to falsify the whole notion of "non baryonic" dark matter. Instead of acknowledging this problem, your whole industry keeps pointing at the sky and claiming it exists anyway. What exactly will it take to falsify your theories anyway?

Ziggurat · May 17, 2010

Michael Mozina said:
Funny how your theory keeps predicting the opposite of what we actually observe.

Hey, we can add another word to the list of words Michael invents his own definition for!

The problem is that there is no evidence that non baryonic dark matter exists in the first place!

Goalpost, moved. And you're wrong anyways.

The few "experiments" that have been done tend to falsify the whole notion of "non baryonic" dark matter.

Wow, two in one post!

What exactly will it take to falsify your theories anyway?

Closing the gigantic mass gap between baryonic mass measurements and total mass measurements, obviously.

Michael Mozina · May 17, 2010

Ziggurat said:
Hey, we can add another word to the list of words Michael invents his own definition for!

Oh come on. Your theory "predicts" an "aging" universe, not one that was "ancient" 10 Billion years ago! You can't ignore the fact that every "prediction" about the how the galaxies would be younger as we looked further back in time has been blown away. It's been going on for years now.

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=14524
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/M..._Eight_Times_More_Massive_Than_Milky_Way.html

Goalpost, moved. And you're wrong anyways.

No, you're the one moving the goalposts. There is *ZIP* in the way of "observational evidence' for "non baryonic' forms of 'dark matter' or 'CDM'. In other words your "CDM" has been 'debunked" (your terms) in the lab on every occasion.

Closing the gigantic mass gap between baryonic mass measurements and total mass measurements, obviously.

Well, If I could wake you up to the mass flows involved in "current flows" it wouldn't be so darn "dark" anymore. The fact you 'refuse to see' simply makes it more difficult to have a real discussion. You're so busy chasing dark invisible aether bunnies that you forgot all about empirical physics.

What exactly is it going to take to kill your dead metaphysical creation myth? You do realize that only creationism and Lambda-CMD theory *require* faster than light expansion, right?

There is no physics behind your theories, just metaphysical pigs galore that are dressed up with bright pretty red mathematical lipstick. The moment we try to test any of it in a lab, the whole thing goes to hell in a hand basket.

So, let's recap:

Your BB theory *failed* to correctly predict the existence of those "mature" galaxies we see way back in time that are "clustered" and "red" and all things associated with 'modern" galaxies. Your dark matter buddy is evidently a "no show' in the lab, and has evidently the 'cracks' where you can actually stuff him back in there have been increased to a mass in excess of 80 protons.

So essentially you need something more massive than iron making up 5 times more mass than all the suns in the heavens.

Here's a history quiz for you. Who in history every used a particle that massive to calculate a number for the mass in space that was many times greater than the mass of all the stars? What actual particle did they/he/she actually use to predict that mass?

Bonus question:

How did that particle get from the sun and into space according to this theory?

Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

Muse

Technical Admin

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Illuminator

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Technical Admin

Banned

Banned

Philosopher

Technical Admin

Master Poster

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Muse

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Master Poster

Penultimate Amazing

Master Poster

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Banned