Why is there so much crackpot physics?

[Michael Mozina]

The plasma amount is not nearly as significant as you pretend it to be.

How do you know? We just discovered that the universe is twice as "dusty" as we first thought. How do you know it's not "more" dusty than we currently "estimate"?

It's far smaller than the mass of the stars.

That's not true. As far back as Birkeland, EU/PC proponents have "predicted" (real experimental predictions) that the mass in the materials (ions) between stars was likely to be MUCH more massive than the stars themselves. They would form "current streams" of pinched filaments, cosmic rays, (today we would add neutrinos), all sorts of objects with 'mass". At no time has an EU/PC proponent believed that all mass was concentrated inside the stars themselves.

And no, the whole mass estimate can't be off by a factor of ten if the small bits we have trouble detecting are off by AT MOST a factor of 4 (and then only in certain regions).

My point is that I see little or no attempt to MAXIMIZE the error in favor of "normal matter" in any real attempt to "minimize' the need for exotic types of matter. In fact I observe exactly the opposite behavior. I see little or no movement on any figures related to "dark matter", and yet it's clear at that least *SOME* revision is in order.

Again, none of this can take into account Bullet Cluster, which is the easiest demonstration of Dark Matter.

You and I might both observe something in the sky that we cannot explain. That doesn't mean that I am going to jump to the conclusion that whatever we saw was from another planet. Likewise, we both seem to agree that there is "missing matter" to account for. I've offered you some ways to account for that "missing mass" that is supported by other observational studies. *BEFORE* I go jumping to any conclusions about the *remaining* missing materials, I would expect to see *some progress* at integrating in this other information about the stellar underestimation problems. Is that really expecting too much?

 

[Tubbythin]

That depends. If the "small' stars (the ones you can't see directly) are more dense along the outside perimeter of the galaxy, *THAT* might account for some of what we observe in terms of the rotation patterns.

Except that isn't what is observed. As ben m said:

Stars that are numerous enough to be dark matter, but too dim to emit light, fall under the microlensing search. There are enough of them to be interesting for the stellar IMF, nowhere near enough to be dark matter.

By the way, as far as I can see, the other article works against you. If we underestimate the mass from dusty regions then I think that means we would need even more matter that is dark in the halo to flatten out the rotation curve.

 

[Michael Mozina]

So you're saying we can make observations, but cannot theorize on results of anything observed outside the lab.

You can theorize all you like. You shouldn't theorize yourself into outright rejecting empirical physics in favor of a "dark" religion however. It's one thing to have a "preference", it's quite another to have the need to evangelize against a competing idea. You don't actually fall into the evangelical category but others certainly do, and most of them have never bothered to read Alfven's work for themselves. It's all "hearsay", and most of what the "flock" seems to be hearing is coming from people that haven't read Alfven's work at all, and who refuse to comment on it. It's the ignorance is bliss, couch potato, approach to science.

 

[Tubbythin]

You and I might both observe something in the sky that we cannot explain. That doesn't mean that I am going to jump to the conclusion that whatever we saw was from another planet. Likewise, we both seem to agree that there is "missing matter" to account for. I've offered you some ways to account for that "missing mass" that is supported by other observational studies.

But it isn't supported by other studies. As the NYTimes article explicitly says:

The results also mean that there is about 20 percent more mass in stars than previously thought. But since stars make up such a small percentage of the universe to begin with — dark matter and dark energy account for 95 percent or so — it is a small adjustment over all.

*BEFORE* I go jumping to any conclusions about the *remaining* missing materials, I would expect to see *some progress* at integrating in this other information about the stellar underestimation problems. Is that really expecting too much?

But it makes no difference. Even if it meant all this extra star mass meant less dark matter (I don't think it does) it would be a tiny amount less, quite probably a fraction so small it was already consumed in the error bar.

 

[Dinwar]

So theories based on observations made outside of laboratory conditions cannot violate principles established within laboratory conditions.

 

[Tubbythin]

You can theorize all you like. You shouldn't theorize yourself into outright rejecting empirical physics in favor of a "dark" religion however.

He isn't rejecting empirical physics. He's accepting it. To reject it would be to pretend these observations didn't exist.

It's one thing to have a "preference", it's quite another to have the need to evangelize against a competing idea.

You're the one that keeps bringing up Gods, deities and the infallible word of Alfven

You don't actually fall into the evangelical category but others certainly do, and most of them have never bothered to read Alfven's work for themselves.

Maybe becasuse Alfven was clearly wrong about cosmology. Have you ever considered that possibility?

It's all "hearsay", and most of what the "flock" seems to be hearing is coming from people that haven't read Alfven's work at all, and who refuse to comment on it. It's the ignorance is bliss, couch potato, approach to science.

What is all "hearsay"?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Except that isn't what is observed. As ben m said:

Assuming what Ben says is true *even based on an EU orientation* (unlikely IMO), I still see no effort to eliminate any need for exotic matter in nearly 3 years since that first revelation. Why not?

You seriously underestimated the mass of those clusters that crashed together. Instead of revising the stellar mass estimates, noticing the impact, adding the neutrinos, the plasmas, etc. you're sticking those same falsified exotic matter figures?

By the way, as far as I can see, the other article works against you. If we underestimate the mass from dusty regions then I think that means we would need even more matter that is dark in the halo to flatten out the rotation curve.

Not in terms of the lensing data it's doesn't hurt me, in fact the lensing data is consistent with your stellar mass underestimates. Most of the "missing mass" seems to have "passed on through" the collision process. Were that matter concentrated in stars, that would be consistent with the lensing patterns.

You grossly underestimated the number of stars in that bullet cluster study. When did the mainstream intend to fix that problem? It would give us some insights into their mind too. Will they minimize the effect or maximize the effect in terms of the need for exotic matter? If they change the estimation techniques in a way that minimizes the amount of "normal matter" in the new estimates that will show that they wish to "protect" their current beliefs. If they do it in a way that maximizes things in favor of normal matter, then we know they are serious about "science", vs. protection of the status quo. Until I see some movement, it's pretty clear they are in protection mode at the moment.

 

[Dinwar]

He isn't rejecting empirical physics. He's accepting it. To reject it would be to pretend these observations didn't exist.

Honestly, I'm not doing either one. The specifics of this are outside of my area of expertise, and I'll differ to the experts. What interests me is the relationship between observational and laboratory studies. This has MUCH wider applications than anyone here has given it credit for. Much of geology, for example, would have to be discarded if theories based on field observations cannot reject (or must rely on) lab studies. For example, there has been and can be no experimentation on the idea of mantel plumes (you can get some models built, but at these sizes and temperatures it's almost entirely irrelevant). Similarly, we cannot assess the nature of sheer strain in faults in the lab (not without a few hundred thousand or million years, which we haven't had).

The issue is that astronomy is a historical science, whereas people expect physics to be an experimental science. The two operate in fundamentally different (but still valid) ways, due to the nature of the data collection methods they necessarily must utilize.

 

[Michael Mozina]

But it isn't supported by other studies. As the NYTimes article explicitly says:

But it makes no difference. Even if it meant all this extra star mass meant less dark matter (I don't think it does) it would be a tiny amount less, quite probably a fraction so small it was already consumed in the error bar.

Ya, but look at the insight that provides us with? Instead of "doubling" the number of larger star (therefore 8 times more small stars), they simple make the existing stars 'larger'. The net effect was a protection of the status quo and need for exotic matter instead of trying to explain the observation using "normal" matter whenever possible. A bias there perhaps?

 

[Tubbythin]

Assuming what Ben says is true *even based on an EU orientation* (unlikely IMO), I still see no effort to eliminate any need for exotic matter in nearly 3 years since that first revelation. Why not?

What are you talking about. There have been countless experiments set up to measure such things. For example, do you know how many microlensing collaborations there are/have been are proposed over the last decade and a half?

You seriously underestimated the mass of those clusters that crashed together. Instead of revising the stellar mass estimates, noticing the impact, adding the neutrinos, the plasmas, etc. you're sticking those same falsified exotic matter figures?

What are you talking about? I seriously have no idea. You linked to two pop sci articles I analysed them and then you suddenly proclaim that I underestimated the mass of two clusters that crashed together. I'm really confused. And, imho, you're destroying a perfectly good thread with your ranting.

Not in terms of the lensing data it's doesn't hurt me, in fact the lensing data is consistent with your stellar mass underestimates. Most of the "missing mass" seems to have "passed on through" the collision process. Were that matter concentrated in stars, that would be consistent with the lensing patterns.

What??? WE were discussing the pop sci articles you linked to.

You grossly underestimated the number of stars in that bullet cluster study.

No I didn't.

When did the mainstream intend to fix that problem? It would give us some insights into their mind too.

Do you actually have the slightest inkling of what the bullet cluster shows?

Will they minimize the effect or maximize the effect in terms of the need for exotic matter? If they change the estimation techniques in a way that minimizes the amount of "normal matter" in the new estimates that will show that they wish to "protect" their current beliefs. If they do it in a way that maximizes things in favor of normal matter, then we know they are serious about "science", vs. protection of the status quo. Until I see some movement, it's pretty clear they are in protection mode at the moment.

Pardon?

 

[Michael Mozina]

He isn't rejecting empirical physics. He's accepting it. To reject it would be to pretend these observations didn't exist.

The observation and the interpretation are two entirely different issues. Nobody seems to deny the observation itself, we just seem to have differing 'interpretations' of what that observation tell us.

You're the one that keeps bringing up Gods, deities and the infallible word of Alfven

You're the one calling Alfven's PC theories a "crackpot" theory without ever citing a single flaw in his work. It would be like me waving at Einstein's papers and books and claiming he was a crackpot without ever citing a single flaw in his work. In fact for some folks is far worse. It would be like me handwaving at GR *without* bothering to read Einstein's work at all! Most of you haven't even read Cosmic Plasma and none of you want to touch his circuit orientation with a ten foot pole.

Maybe becasuse Alfven was clearly wrong about cosmology.

Clearly? How?

Have you ever considered that possibility?

Sure, but when have any of his critics ever shown a single flaw in cosmology theories?

What is all "hearsay"?

Some folks might rely upon someone like a "hypothetical" GM character as a "reliable source' of information related to PC/EU theory. They might "hear" what he has to say about it, and ignorantly repeat it *WITHOUT* any of them actually having read Alfven's materials themselves. That's what I mean by hearsay.

 

[Tubbythin]

Ya, but look at the insight that provides us with? Instead of "doubling" the number of larger star (therefore 8 times more small stars), they simple make the existing stars 'larger'. The net effect was a protection of the status quo and need for exotic matter instead of trying to explain the observation using "normal" matter whenever possible. A bias there perhaps?

Funny that. Have you actually read the paper? Do they discuss this in the paper and provide any further analysis. Or did your biases lead you to assume they made no such analysis?

 

[ben m]

How do you know? We just discovered that the universe is twice as "dusty" as we first thought. How do you know it's not "more" dusty than we currently "estimate"?

The only place you can put more dust is in places that are already dusty. You're hypothesizing, Michael, that there's a bunch of extra dust hiding behind the visible dust. (Clever of it, no?) If the "extra dust" were somewhere else, we'd see it.

The dark matter seen in lensing is not in the dusty regions. It's in the crystal-clear empty space in the middle of superclusters, and in the crystal-clear volume of Galactic halos. Do you understand? If there were 1000x as much dust as current estimates, we'd be worried about the gravitational mass of the Galactic disk. We're not. (The gravitational pull of the disk is perfectly well accounted for by its stars and gas.) We're worried about the gravitational pull of the Milky Way's halo, and of supercluster cores. These are not dusty volumes with lots of hidden stars; all photon-based probes say that they're empty space, all gravitational probes say they're dense.

Let me restate my list. Michael, please place each of my ruled-out observations in one of the following categories.

• A) I don't believe astronomers have thought about X at all. They forgot it because they're stupid. Ben is lying when he says it's ruled out.
• B) I believe astronomers looked for X, found it, and covered it up under pressure from the Dark Matter Cabal that runs the NSF.
• C) I believe that astronomers looked for X but did it wrong. They say they ruled it out, but they understated the uncertainty. Perhaps X is utterly unknowable, and anyone who claims to know about it is lying.
• D) I believe that astronomers have found X already, it already explains the dark matter, and this would be obvious if you just added up the already-known numbers.
• E) I don't care what astronomers say about X, I can always change the subject to X+1.

OK, Michael, those are your categories. Please categorize the following statements:

It's not stars. (Emit light.)
It's not diffuse neutral gas. (Collisional + light-absorbing)
It's not diffuse plasma. (Collisional + light-emitting)
It's not some mid-density clumping of gas, too loose to be a hot star but with empty space between (who ordered that? Anyway, emits IR and absorbs everything)
It's not a small population of supermassive black holes (would disrupt the Galactic disk)
It's not stellar-mass black holes or neutron stars (microlensing).
It's not compact object of any size down to ~Moon mass (microlensing)
It's not asteroid-sized objects (Collisional enough to see)
It's not dust-sized objects (collisional + light-absorbing)

 

[Tubbythin]

The observation and the interpretation are two entirely different issues. Nobody seems to deny the observation itself, we just seem to have differing 'interpretations' of what that observation tell us.

The observations that led to the theory are empirical therefore the theory is based on empirical physics. Its quite simple really.

You're the one calling Alfven's PC theories a "crackpot" theory without ever citing a single flaw in his work.

To the best of my knowledge, his theory is not consistent with the Friedmann equations. To the best of my knowledge it cannot explain the CMBR. These are pretty big flaws which I have cited before.

It would be like me waving at Einstein's papers and books and claiming he was a crackpot without ever citing a single flaw in his work. In fact for some folks is far worse. It would be like me handwaving at GR *without* bothering to read Einstein's work at all!

Except that myself and others have pointed to flaws in his work.

Most of you haven't even read Cosmic Plasma and none of you want to touch his circuit orientation with a ten foot pole.

I don't have to.

Clearly? How?

Well it aint consistent with Friedmann.

Sure, but when have any of his critics ever shown a single flaw in cosmology theories?

It is has been done many times on this board.

Some folks might rely upon someone like GM as a "reliable source' of information related to PC/EU theory. They might "hear" what he has to say about it, and ignorantly repeat it *WITHOUT* any of them actually having read Alfven's materials themselves. That's what I mean by hearsay.

I'm not repeating what GM has said. I don't have to read the whole of Alfvens work to know that he was wrong.

 

[Michael Mozina]

The observations that led to the theory are empirical therefore the theory is based on empirical physics. Its quite simple really.

It's so simple it's *oversimplified*. By your logic if I claim "invisible unicorns did it" that too is an "empirical theory".

 

[Michael Mozina]

Well it aint consistent with Friedmann.

Please be more specific. In *what way* is it "inconsistent" with Friedmann?

 

[Hellbound]

It's so simple it's *oversimplified*. By your logic if I claim "invisible unicorns did it" that too is an "empirical theory".

If the properties of whatever you label as "invisible unicorms" match the properties observe,d then yeah.

This seems to be your big confusion. A name of something is not th ething itself. basically, the observastons say there is something that is causing a gravitational force but that does not interact at all with electromagnetic radiation. Since we don't know exactly what it is, we'll call it dark matter (dark because no EM). We know a few things, like it can't be baryonic matter (because such matter does, in all other instances we've ever determined, interact with EM).

Where is the "magic" you keep claiming?

 

[rwguinn]

derailed again by MM and his pet theory--and people responding to it, rather than getting back on topic.

 

[Dinwar]

I was trying. The difference between historic and experimental sciences has spawned numerous crackpots.

 

[dasmiller]

derailed again by MM and his pet theory--and people responding to it, rather than getting back on topic.

If only there were other threads where we could discuss EU/PC/Electric Sun theories . . .