Homepage Forums Plasma Cosmology and BBNH Dark matter search: New calibration confirms LUX dark matter results

Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 10 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1543
    AvatarFrancisl
    Participant

    The title is a teaser.

    #13175
    AvatarKeithPickering
    Participant

    Francisl wrote: The title is a teaser.

    The title’s a tease, but the results are stupendous. The lack of detectable WIMPs with a detector this sensitive puts MOND in the driver’s seat: there is no dark matter, in spite of the article’s claim that “its existence is a near certainty among physicists.”

    Not among some.

    #13194
    AvatarChuctanunda
    Participant

    No dark matter is of course consistent with the BBNH. Does anyone have any insight to share about the recent announcement confirming inflation by some signature in the background microwave radiation? It seems every few months someone announces something to get us ever more solidly behind the Big Bang. I am strongly persuaded by the BBNH, but find all these Big Bang confirming announcements at times challenge my confidence.

    #13195
    AvatarKeithPickering
    Participant

    No dark matter is also consistent with BB, a theory which preceded DM and is not dependent upon it.

    #13323
    AvatarChuctanunda
    Participant

    KeithPickering wrote: No dark matter is also consistent with BB, a theory which preceded DM and is not dependent upon it.

    My reading and re-reading of BBNH tells me BB proponents are desparate to find DM in order to save the BB theory. The proportion of gravity to visible matter does not allow for a BB expansion. For BB to work, they must assume that 90% or better of all matter must be the mysterious and hypotherical DM. Am I in error here?

    #13326
    AvatarImpaler
    Member

    Chuctanunda wrote: No dark matter is of course consistent with the BBNH. Does anyone have any insight to share about the recent announcement confirming inflation by some signature in the background microwave radiation? It seems every few months someone announces something to get us ever more solidly behind the Big Bang. I am strongly persuaded by the BBNH, but find all these Big Bang confirming announcements at times challenge my confidence.

    You should take thouse announcements with a grain of salt, the resent Inflation confirmation study was taken behind the woodshed recently when it was shows that their results could not distinguish between inflation and mere dust. The retraction never gets the same trumpeting as the initial finding announcement.

    Personally I just ignore anything to do with CMB anisotropy, you can torture the CMB into telling you anything you want because the fluctuations their looking at are so absurdly tiny and subject to all kinds of error in extracting it from the background, we should be debating if these fluctuations are even real before basing cosmology on them. The only thing I think we can be confident about is that CMB is VERY isotropic black-body at temperature of 2.7K, which is consistent with BB and admittedly very hard to explain with an alternative.

    P.M. Yes BB theory has become hopelessly dependent on DarkMatter to fill gaps in it’s predictions, it needs DM for nucleosynthesis and galaxy formation in reasonable time frame. The Often repeated flat galactic rotation is really not important to BB, that was just the key observation that let people concluded that their was more matter, initially BB theory was agnostic as to the type of matter but as Baryonic matter was ruled out the consensus retreated (and continues to retreat) into ever more undetectable forms of exotic matter.

    #13330
    AvatarChuctanunda
    Participant

    The May 29 report in NATURE describes a faint twisting of the CMB, discovered using a South Pole based radio telescope called BICEP2, which seemed to confirm cosmic inflation. As we know from reading BBNH, cosmic inflation, like dark matter, is a huge hypothetical fudge factor to make the math work for BB.

    The NATURE article updates the original BICEP2 discovery, concluding “No evidence for or against gravitational waves.”, and further, that “Dust could account for most of the signal.”.

    The perpetual search for the BB holy grail continues…

    #13370
    Avatardelt0r
    Member

    How does the BBNH explain galactic rotation curves? Or gravitational lensing measurements or the Bullet cluster? In fact as far as i can tell, you only have “BB doesn’t explain everything so we are right” Withing a theory that does at least as well, and lets be clear Electric universe does not, (or MOND), is a prerequisite for replacement.

    #13412
    Avataramanasleep
    Member

    delt0r wrote: How does the BBNH explain galactic rotation curves? Or gravitational lensing measurements or the Bullet cluster? In fact as far as i can tell, you only have “BB doesn’t explain everything so we are right” Withing a theory that does at least as well, and lets be clear Electric universe does not, (or MOND), is a prerequisite for replacement.

    Not much work has been done in this area. AFAIK the major Plasma Cosmology explanation for the galactic rotation curves comes from the simulations done by Peratt:

    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1995Ap&SS;.227..167S&db_key=AST&data_type=HTML&format;=&high=42ca922c9c17128

    #13423
    AvatarImpaler
    Member

    Lets distinguish between two things.

    First the falsification of the current paradigm theory (BB) which occurs when the theory makes predictions irreconcilable with observations. Lerner’s recent Tolman surface brightness work dose this in my opinion, no possible modification of BB theory can accommodate this because he’s basically disproved the metric expansion of space and that IS the heart of the theory.

    Second Lerner’s counter theory Plasma Cosmology which is really just a structure formation theory based on Plasma physics, not really a full Cosmology in my opinion. A full cosmology within which his plasma structure formation occurs would need to explain why their is no entropic heat death in an eternal universe and provide a detailed round-trip analysis of all mater and energy such that a universe resembling our own is maintained eternally (or at least periodically).

    Disproving BB obviously dose nothing to establish the truth of Lerner’s theory unless his theory made significant and accurate predictions on the observation in question which invalidated BB, the classic example was Einsteins prediction (with high accuracy) of the deflection of starlight near the sun, it simultaneously disproved Newtonian cosmology and proved his own cosmology. Even if one agrees with Lerner’s Tolman brightness results it’s not a significant enough prediction of his theory that space is non-expanding, lots of other non-expanding cosmologies are possible.

    Dark matter is kind of the same thing, Plasma Cosmology doesn’t have it, but neither do lots of other theories like MOND, disproving dark matter just disproves BB (or forces BB theories to create a Dark Matter free version of the theory which would be very hard because it would ruin Baryogenesis). So far Dark Matter has become a kind of whipping boy because it highlights so well the sloppy ‘epicycles’ logic of BB theory, “BB theory must have extra matter so theorists find the first plausible place where it might be, dig their heels in and if it can’t be detected just claim the matter is progressively weirder and more undetectable ad-infinitude.

Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 10 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.