Jump to content
BeAChooser

Dark Matter Even More Missing Now ...

Recommended Posts

"EU advocates can be roughly split into two groups. The first are garden-variety physics cranks who are convinced that they have a legitimate, revolutionary scientific theory, and that the scientific establishment is either blindly ignoring them out of misplaced faith in their own theories, or deliberately suppressing them for some greater, nefarious purpose.

The second group is composed of various other woo-peddlers who use EU claims to prop up their main ideas (because mainstream physics would blow them apart). For these people, the EU hypothesis is a means to an end, not an end in and of itself. The more common subsets of this group include some Young Earth creationists, who wish to discredit the mainstream cosmology and geology suggesting that Earth is billions of years old, and some of the loonier fringes of global warming denialism (such as Vault-Co), who are trying to find some process outside human control that they can attribute climate change to. The latter particularly like the hypotheses of Pierre-Marie Robitaille."

 

 hmmm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This topic is about advanced physics. Since all I am is a software engineer with an MSc in mathematics, the only honest stance for me is to not have an opinion about the topic.

 

But I can have an opinion about crank non-experts who rant about the topic, who denigrate real PhD experts, who hold opinions for crackpot reasons.

 

There's no arguing with a crackpot. If someone says they're a fish, and that because you're just like them, you're a fish too, you don't take off your pants to show them your legs in an attempt to prove them wrong. Instead, you go on your way, after calling the drivers of the loony-van.

GUEST_40af80a8-b4b6-4b70-9c56-ba241edf06

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, rrober49 said:

"EU advocates can be roughly split into two groups. The first are garden-variety physics cranks who are convinced that they have a legitimate, revolutionary scientific theory, and that the scientific establishment is either blindly ignoring them out of misplaced faith in their own theories, or deliberately suppressing them for some greater, nefarious purpose.

The second group is composed of various other woo-peddlers who use EU claims to prop up their main ideas (because mainstream physics would blow them apart). For these people, the EU hypothesis is a means to an end, not an end in and of itself. The more common subsets of this group include some Young Earth creationists, who wish to discredit the mainstream cosmology and geology suggesting that Earth is billions of years old, and some of the loonier fringes of global warming denialism (such as Vault-Co), who are trying to find some process outside human control that they can attribute climate change to. The latter particularly like the hypotheses of Pierre-Marie Robitaille."

 

 hmmm

 

What's the problem, snowflake?  

 

You still can't explain what causes those helically wound plasma filaments we seem to see everywhere we look out there?  

 

Still can't identify what dark matter actually is?  

 

Still can't get that picture of a black hole that was promised us last year to show us?  

 

So instead you have to resort to crude ad hominem attacks against me?  

 

:P

 

By the way, did you see the Thule picture?  

 

ultima-thule-photos.jpg

 

The articles on this object (like this one: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/jan/02/first-close-ups-of-ultima-thule-reveal-it-resembles-dark-red-snowman?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other ) state that "The dark red hue of much of the surface is thought to be due to the effects of space radiation on exotic ices on the surface."   Oooooo ... "exotic ices".   So they are still saying the object is ice?  The mainstream was, of course, referring to it as an "icy body" before the rendezvous and (https://abc7chicago.com/technology/nasas-new-horizons-spacecraft-to-take-pictures-of-ultima-thule/4997475/ ) "NASA said it is likely icy with a little bit of rock as well."  I suppose that nothing has changed their minds.  

 

Which reminds me, the mainstream predicted that comets (and they've said for a long time that the Kuiper belt is a source of comets) were made predominantly of ice.   So when space missions to comets began, they went looking for ice.   But that's not what they found, did they, snowflake.   They found rock.  Lots of rock.     Like they did with Comet 67P.   Now there's a strange looking ROCK

 

5631125109fb2.jpg

 

Gee ... that looks amazingly like Thule.    And we know it was rock because they landed on it and here's what they found ...

 

comet-67p-rocky-surface.jpg

 

And then the found evidence that the jets coming off were due to electrical activity ... not the sun heating "ice".  

 

Indeed, they found all sorts of activity that suggests electrical activity ... even if they continue to mostly ignore it.

 

It's still a major puzzle for the mainstream .... but not the Electric Universe community.

 

Which leads me to a question about Thule.   Based on the picture they have, the media are being told that "the odd shape of Ultima Thule is thought to have come about when swirling ice and dust particles coalesced in the early life of the solar system and eventually led to two large lumps of rock colliding and sticking together."  So which is it?  Mostly ice with a little rock, like NASA was apparently saying before the rendezvous?   Or mostly rock with a little ice, like the above statement seems to say?   Hmmmmmm?

 

Oh and by the way, roper49, please provide the link to the statement about EU that you posted.   I'm sure I'll have something to say about THAT, too.  😉

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, laripu said:

This topic is about advanced physics. Since all I am is a software engineer with an MSc in mathematics, the only honest stance for me is to not have an opinion about the topic.  But I can have an opinion about crank non-experts who rant about the topic, who denigrate real PhD experts, who hold opinions for crackpot reasons.

 

You don't know anything about me, laripu.    Not a damn thing.   But we do know that you can't successfully dispute the CONTENT of my posts (in other words, the facts and logic they contain) BECAUSE YOU HAVEN'T DONE IT.   All you can apparently do is push an adhominem attack against me.   Which I hate to tell you, is a logical fallacy.     And which, by the way, does show you have an opinion about the topic, all denials aside.   Just saying ...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Ultracrepidarianism is the tendency for people to confidently make authoritative pronouncements in matters above or outside one's level of knowledge. Often, those pronouncements fall entirely outside the ultracrepidarian's realm of legitimate expertise.

Another expression of ultracrepidarianism, as instantiated by those with an actual expertise in something, is the tendency to start treating all other fields as somehow being sub-categories to your own field.

Epistemologists saying "it's all epistemology in the end", mathematicians saying "it's all mathematics in the end", physicists saying "it's all physics in the end", psychologists saying "it's all psychology in the end" (et cetera) and thus proceeding to apply their methods to a completely different field which they hardly realize they don't understand.

The lesson is: being an expert means being an expert at something — and "something" is specific, not universal. In other words, various forms of expertise are not interchangeable."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, BeAChooser said:

ou don't know anything about me, laripu.    Not a damn thing.   But we do know that you can't successfully dispute the CONTENT of my posts (in other words, the facts and logic they contain) BECAUSE YOU HAVEN'T DONE IT.   All you can apparently do is push an adhominem attack against me.   Which I hate to tell you, is a logical fallacy.     And which, by the way, does show you have an opinion about the topic, all denials aside.   Just saying ...

 

 

 no we have opinions about a type of person or persona , you have opinions about the topic 

 

 you attack yourself just fine

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BeAChooser said:

 adhominem attack

Which I hate to tell you, is a logical fallacy.

 

Not quite right. Using an ad hominem attack to discredit an idea propagated by the subject of the attack ... that's a logical fallacy.

 

I'm not attacking you to discredit what you say. I'm attacking you because you're a crap artist: a person puffing himself up by adhering to a fringe theory. You'd be a crap artist even if you said the water is wet and proved that the square root if any prime number is irrational.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, rrober49 said:

"Ultracrepidarianism is the tendency for people to confidently make authoritative pronouncements in matters above or outside one's level of knowledge. Often, those pronouncements fall entirely outside the ultracrepidarian's realm of legitimate expertise.

Another expression of ultracrepidarianism, as instantiated by those with an actual expertise in something, is the tendency to start treating all other fields as somehow being sub-categories to your own field.

Epistemologists saying "it's all epistemology in the end", mathematicians saying "it's all mathematics in the end", physicists saying "it's all physics in the end", psychologists saying "it's all psychology in the end" (et cetera) and thus proceeding to apply their methods to a completely different field which they hardly realize they don't understand.

The lesson is: being an expert means being an expert at something — and "something" is specific, not universal. In other words, various forms of expertise are not interchangeable."

 

What's the problem, snowflake?  

 

You still can't explain what causes those helically wound plasma filaments we seem to see everywhere we look out there?  

 

Still can't identify what dark matter actually is?  

 

Still can't get that picture of a black hole that was promised us last year to show us?  

 

So instead you have to resort to crude ad hominem attacks against me?  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, laripu said:

I'm not attacking you to discredit what you say. 

 

Stop LYING.   That is EXACTLY what you're trying to do, laripu.   And everyone here can see it.

 

Quote

I'm attacking you because you're a crap artist: a person puffing himself up by adhering to a fringe theory. 

 

LOL!

 

All I'm doing is posting sourced news articles and logic to show what passes for mainstream astrophysics is nothing but gnomish, cultish "crap" ...

 

... to use your expression more rationally.

 

And there are more articles and logic coming, SNOWFLAKE.

 

Indeed, the only way you're going to stop me posting them is by ...

 

... actually finding dark matter,

 

... actually seeing black holes,

 

... and by actually explaining the physics of helically wound plasma filaments.

 

And you and I both know your chances of doing that are growing dimmer and dimmer by the day.

 

Despite the billions and billions of dollars your cult *scientists* are spending.

 

:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, laripu said:

This vitriol belongs in NHB.

 

I'd love it if this thread could be in the big room.  

 

But the management probably wouldn't think it appropriate since it's not about politics, per se.  

 

And I doubt the motivation of the Big Bang, Black Hole, Dark Matter cultists is political ... like it is with the AGWalarmist cultists.

 

It's just about money and greed and bad science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s a new year … time for yet another dark matter gnome:


https://phys.org/news/2019-01-dark.html

 

Quote

 

Dark matter on the move


Scientists have found evidence that dark matter can be heated up and moved around, as a result of star formation in galaxies. The findings provide the first observational evidence for the effect known as 'dark matter heating', and give new clues as to what makes up dark matter. The research is published today in the journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.

 


So this AMAZING gnome, which astrophysicists not long ago were CERTAIN did not interact with the rest of the universe in any way other than through gravity, now can be heated and caused to move?   By what?   Dark Energy?   LOL!    And notice, folks, here is yet another mainstream article that talks about “wind”, “gas”, “dust” and gravity … but never mentions plasma (which even NASA still says comprises 99.999% of the visible universe) or electrical and magnetic activity (that we see everywhere we turn out there now).  And, by the way, I checked the *scientific* paper itself ( https://academic.oup.com/mnras/advance-article/doi/10.1093/mnras/sty3404/5265085 ) and it doesn’t mention either of those two things either.   Not one mention of the substance that comprises 99.999 percent of what we can see out there or electricity or magnetism.    What’s that tell you, folks?  This thread should give you a clue by now.   :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Igon Value Problem is a way of summarizing the lack of depth often encountered in modern journalism that focuses on esoteric subjects in which the journalist (or any writer in general) is not an expert themselves.

The problem states:

[W]hen a writer’s education on a topic consists in interviewing an expert, he is apt to offer generalizations that are banal, obtuse or flat wrong.

This was coined by Steven Pinker in a review of Malcolm GladwellWikipedia's W.svg's book What the Dog Saw.[1]

Its name is a humorous reference to eigenvalue problemsWikipedia's W.svg in mathematics,[2] and stems from a misinterpretation of the term "eigenvalue" as "igon value" by Gladwell as discussed below.

Such problems arise because the writer in question doesn't have the full understanding of a topic that comes from a full education and becoming a true expert in the subject. They are then prone to comparatively simple errors arising from mis-hearing or misunderstanding a topic in their interview with an expert.

Obviously, a journalist can't literally become an expert in everything; and often the finer technical details aren't the point. But they, and their editors, need to be aware of the necessity of getting them right, as making obvious technical errors badly weakens any substantive argument they may be making.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, BeAChooser said:

-snip-

Indeed, the only way you're going to stop me posting them is by ...

  

... actually finding dark matter,

-snip-

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/10/01/the-most-important-x-ray-image-ever-taken-proved-the-existence-of-dark-matter/#70f445769f7a

Quote

The Most Important X-Ray Image Ever Taken Proved The Existence Of Dark Matter

 

https%3A%2F%2Fblogs-images.forbes.com%2F

The gravitational lensing map (blue), overlayed over the optical and X-ray (pink) data of the Bullet cluster. The mismatch of the locations of the X-rays and the inferred mass is undeniable.X-ray: NASA/CXC/CfA/M.Markevitch et al.; Lensing Map: NASA/STScI; ESO WFI; Magellan/U.Arizona/D.Clowe et al.; Optical: NASA/STScI; Magellan/U.Arizona/D.Clowe et al.

When it comes to the Universe, it mainly generates X-rays through high-temperature heating.

https%3A%2F%2Fblogs-images.forbes.com%2F

X-rays from Chandra reveal the cluster MACS J0717's hot gas, while optical data show the individual galaxies in the system.X-ray (NASA/CXC/IfA/C. Ma et al.); Optical (NASA/STScI/IfA/C. Ma et al.

When matter heats up, through collisions, interactions, acceleration or collapse, it can emit X-rays.

https%3A%2F%2Fblogs-images.forbes.com%2F

X-ray emissions that are large, extended, and structure-rich highlight a variety of supernovae seen in the galaxy. Some of these are only a few hundred years old; others are many thousands. A complete absence of X-rays indicates the lack of a supernova. In the early Universe, this was the most common death-mechanism of the first stars.NASA/CXC/SAO

Galaxy clusters, supernova remnants, active galaxies, binary star systems, and even the Moon emit them.

https%3A%2F%2Fblogs-images.forbes.com%2F

As seen in X-rays against the cosmic background, the Moon's illuminated (bright) and non-illuminated portions (dark) are clearly visible in this early X-ray image taken by ROSAT. The X-rays arise mostly from reflected emission from the Sun.DARA, ESA, MPE, NASA, J.H.M.M. Schmitt

 

Yet the most important X-ray image of all time was an incredible surprise.

https%3A%2F%2Fblogs-images.forbes.com%2F

The Bullet cluster, the first classic example of two colliding galaxy clusters where the key effect was observed. In the optical, the presence of two nearby clusters (left and right) can be clearly discerned.NASA/STScI; Magellan/U.Arizona/D.Clowe et al.

This is the Bullet Cluster: a system of two galaxy clusters colliding at high speeds.

https%3A%2F%2Fblogs-images.forbes.com%2F

The X-ray observations of the Bullet Cluster, as taken by the Chandra X-ray observatory.NASA/CXC/CfA/M.Markevitch et al., from Maxim Markevitch (SAO)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, rrober49 said:

... snip ...

 

What's the problem, snowflake?  

 

You still can't explain what causes those helically wound plasma filaments we seem to see everywhere we look out there?  

 

Still can't identify what dark matter actually is?  

 

Still can't get that picture of a black hole that was promised us last year to show us?  

 

So instead you have to resort to crude ad hominem attacks against me?  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rrober49 said:

The Igon Value Problem

 

That's hilarious.

Here's another:

 

I got my education in Montreal (35 years ago). The main thing I studied was non-commutative ring theory. Rings have subsets that (I like to say) 'suck things back in by multiplication'; the subsets are called "ideals". An example of a ring is the integers {... -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3 ...}, and one ideal in the integers is the subset of even integers. Obviously, an even integer, multiplied by any other integer, is still even, so it 'sucks things back in via multiplication'. The integers are a commutative ring, but some rings aren't. (Think matrix multiplication.) So you can have different effects multiplying from the left or from the right.... Hence "left ideals" and "right ideals", are concepts that appear in my MSc thesis.

 

I was slightly worried that "left ideals" might affect my security clearance. It didn't. ☺️ 

See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_(ring_theory)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, BeAChooser said:

Which reminds me, the mainstream predicted that comets (and they've said for a long time that the Kuiper belt is a source of comets) were made predominantly of ice.   So when space missions to comets began, they went looking for ice.   But that's not what they found, did they, snowflake.   They found rock.  Lots of rock.     Like they did with Comet 67P.   Now there's a strange looking ROCK

 

 

2 freaking rocks out of trillion and trillions = stop clocking

 

 you walk into it, face first,  over and over

 

The phrase "stopped clock" (also "broken clock" or "sudden outbreak of common sense"[1]) comes from the proverb "even a stopped clock is right twice a day", thus implying that even cranks, denialists, or conspiracy theorists can theoretically be correct once in a while, generally by chance alone, and may indicate that a tiny pocket of healthy rebel braincells have yet to succumb to the dementia that has clearly overtaken their siblings. Recovery, however, is not to be expected, particularly since we're in fact the ones who are crazy.

While some stopped clock moments take the form of a crank simply (to all our surprise) endorsing something normal and mainstream, e.g. anti-littering laws, many other stopped clock moments actually take the form of a crank - for once - lending his or her misdirected effort to the rational side by calling out another crank on their obviously cranky ideas - essentially amounting to the pot calling the kettle black (or at least the kettle calling the pot black). This irony is often lost on them, however, as they clearly consider themselves sane. In yet other cases, it is simply the case of the crank having consistently blamed their bête noire for everything until something stuck. However, since we're not really into ad hominem(just snark), we gladly give them a point for being correct, no matter how dirty their laundry. Even Hitler gets points from us (see list below).

This analogy is one counterpoint to the fallacy fallacy, which is the mistake of assuming that any conclusion derived from fallacious reasoning must be false. To extend the analogy a bit further, a clock stopped at 3:48 will always conclude that the current time is 3:48. Thanks to its faulty premises, though, this conclusion happens to be correct only for a total of two minutes out of any given day, or 1/720 (roughly 0.14%) of the time. Even further, a clock actually running backwardswould give the correct time four times a day.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bludog said:

 

LOL!   The Bullet Cluster study didn't actually prove the existence of dark matter, bludog.    You are misinformed.     First, those x-rays might easily have other, far more innocuous, explanations ... just like redshift may have other explanations than what the mainstream assumes.   Read this, for example … http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Cosmology/Bullet.html .   But more important, we now know that virtually every 'assumption' they made in that 2006 study was *wrong*.     You realize, don't you, that for 'dark" matter to be required, they had to assume that certain baryonic mass estimates were accurate.   But it's been repeatedly demonstrated that the baryonic mass estimation techniques used in the study were massively flawed.  Do you know that we now know they botched the stellar mass estimates of those Bullet Cluster galaxies by a whopping factor of between 3 and 20 times ( https://www.foxnews.com/science/scientists-find-200-sextillion-more-stars-in-the-sky )?   They underestimated the brightness of those galaxies by a factor of two ( https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/galex/galex20090819.html ) and their whole mathematical calculation of baryonic mass was based on brightness!  They underestimated stellar counts of stars the size of our sun by a factor of 4.    And since the study, astronomers have discovered that there is more ordinary baryonic matter *surrounding* every galaxy that exists than inside of the stars themselves.  None of it accounted for in that study.    In fact, astronomers discovered more ordinary baryonic matter in 2012 than had been ''discovered' since the dawn of human history.   They Bullet Cluster *scientists* also underestimated the number of stars *between* galaxies ( https://www.realclearscience.com/journal_club/2014/11/06/up_to_half_of_stars_may_be_outside_galaxies_108929.html ).   And it was also just discovered that are two different plasma and gas "halos" around galaxies that they had no idea about.  And all these factor would affect the calculations in that 2006 study.    So no, bludog, they didn't prove the existence of dark matter.  All they *actually* "proved" was that their baryonic mass estimation techniques were totally *worthless*.   But instead of dealing with THAT reality, they (and their helpful minions … like YOU) keep citing that same bullet cluster study as "proof" … while ignoring every failed "test" looking for dark matter.  Billions of dollars have been *wasted* 'testing" their theory, but what good is any "test" when they simply refuse to take no for an answer?  Hmmmmmm?   In any case, here are a few more sources for you to look at ... once that even suggest that the bullet cluster data may in fact be evidence against dark matter:   https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/09/science-in-progress-did-the-bullet-cluster-withstand-scrutiny/ and http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-bullet-cluster-as-evidence-against.html .  Not that I expect they'll change YOUR mind.   :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rrober49 said:

... snip ...

 

What's the problem, snowflake?  

 

You still can't explain what causes those helically wound plasma filaments we seem to see everywhere we look out there?  

 

Still can't identify what dark matter actually is?  

 

Still can't get that picture of a black hole that was promised us last year to show us?  

 

AND I predict you can't find proof that comets are mostly ice either.   

 

So instead you have to resort to crude ad hominem attacks against me?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BeAChooser said:

What's the problem, snowflake?  

 

You still can't explain what causes those helically wound plasma filaments we seem to see everywhere we look out there?  

 

Still can't identify what dark matter actually is?  

 

Still can't get that picture of a black hole that was promised us last year to show us?  

 

AND I predict you can't find proof that comets are mostly ice either.   

 

So instead you have to resort to crude ad hominem attacks against me?

 

 

 look you dork you made this thread to tell us about what you think

 

why do I need to prove you wrong ? I owe you no such thing 

 

 you have Crap prof and tabloid like links and scribbled on pictures. kids in the 6th grade could pedal this idea better then you

 

 so continue 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, rrober49 said:

look you dork

 

"dork"?   What are you, ten years old?

 

5 hours ago, rrober49 said:

... snip ...

 

Oh my ...

 

You still can't explain what causes those helically wound plasma filaments we seem to see everywhere we look out there?  

 

Still can't identify what dark matter actually is?  

 

Still can't get that picture of a black hole that was promised us last year to show us?  

 

Can't find proof that comets are mostly ice either? 

 

But you're still sure mainstream astrophysicists have it right?

 

LOL!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'd say that the optimism or plasma cosmologists mentioned at the end of that video is even stronger a year later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Immanuel Velikovsky (1895–1979) was an enthusiastic early adopter of electric universe ideas, seeing in them a possible mechanism to explain his hypothesis of a violent rearranging of the Solar System as recently as a few thousand years ago, and that Earth had previously been a satellite of Saturn. Velikovsky’s influence still looms large and has become an integral part of the current EU dogma. EU figureheads Wallace Thornhill and David Talbott are staunch supporters of Velikovsky’s mythological-based fairy tales and often pay tribute to the enormous influence he has had on shaping their own far-fetched theories.[7]"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, rrober49 said:

"Immanuel Velikovsky (1895–1979) was an enthusiastic early adopter of electric universe ideas, seeing in them a possible mechanism to explain his hypothesis of a violent rearranging of the Solar System as recently as a few thousand years ago, and that Earth had previously been a satellite of Saturn. Velikovsky’s influence still looms large and has become an integral part of the current EU dogma. EU figureheads Wallace Thornhill and David Talbott are staunch supporters of Velikovsky’s mythological-based fairy tales and often pay tribute to the enormous influence he has had on shaping their own far-fetched theories.[7]"

 

Did you watch the video I just posted, snowflake?  No?   Then is your sole purpose here to push misinformation (that you don't even source) about what is the core of EU theory?   The core is what I've been noting on this thread (all the material you're now running from) and Velikovsky has NOT been mentioned by me.   That's because his ideas are on the very very fringe of all that might be considered to encompasses EU ideas.  In fact, they are more on the fringe than any of the gnomes now being proposed by supposedly mainstream astrophysicists to explain why the result of 70 years and billions of dollars spent searching for dark matter and proof of black holes has turned up NOTHING.   And I've listed dozens of such gnomes in this thread.  Just saying ...

 

And just so everyone knows ... since you obviously want to hide it ... the source of what you've been plagiarizing is RationalWiki:   https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Electric_Universe .   What are their credentials for dismissing/trashing/smearing EU/PC theories?   Hmmmmmm?    Are they any more qualified than I?   I would hazard no.   Or I wouldn't be surprised to find that they are connected to the mainstream astrophysics community and therefore trying an end run to smear what they CAN NOT directly challenge in a debate.    

 

So I tell you what, snowflake.   Since you think they have all the answers ...

 

... why don't you go ask them to give you answers to the questions I have repeatedly asked you?   

 

Specifically ...

 

1) explain the physics behind all those helically wound plasma filaments we seem to see everywhere we look out there without using a gnome or handwaving.

 

2) identify what constitutes dark matter (after 70 years and billions of dollars you'd think they'd know).   

 

3) show us that picture of a black hole that we were promised last year. 

 

4) prove that comets are mostly ice like the mainstream predicted.

 

5) tell what has generated the magnetic fields that are now observed to be pervasive throughout the universe ... again without resorting to mythical gnomes.

 

I'll bet you they will run from those questions just like have, snowflake.  

 

Now I could go on and on and on noting observations that you and those you think are engaged in *good* science or *good* science reporting can't begin to explain.    

 

But let's start with those five and see what you and they come up with.

 

You shouldn't have a problem given how certain you are that mainstream astrophysicists and sources like RationalWiki know the truth.

 

And you keep posting.  

 

Because every time you bump this thread, and show how you're running from what I've actually posted and using strawmen instead, you only make my case.

 

:lol:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm 

how about you post your own work bro

 

I made no such claim of providing you any proof of any sort

 

burden of proof is on you

you have proven nothing of viable importance to anything 

 

 I know why I plan on sitting with you everytime you post 😉

 

continue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×