The Australian fires

[jeff]

Jan 17, 2020 9:09:43 GMT LKeet6 said:

Jan 17, 2020 0:33:29 GMT jeff said:

I fear “science” has moved more toward a religious institution as opposed to what we usually consider science as an institution to be.

The traditional scientific method of formulating a hypothesis, testing that hypothesis through experimentation, analyzing the data and constructing a theory that is testable and falsifiable, has nearly vanished from many scientific disciplines.

Instead, we get told that we already know all the science that could ever be known through thought experiments and mathematical models, and that the only thing left is to fill in the details. It was Stephen Hawking’s modus operandi and I believe it has corrupted science deeply and harmfully.

Example? Dark matter. The observable matter in the universe and it’s gravitational effect is insufficient to keep the matter in galaxies coherent in their rapidly spinning spiral configurations. Do cosmologists look for an alternate, well-known, stronger force than gravity to explain the stability of spiral galaxies? Nope. Instead they invent an invisible, unmeasurable, untestable and irrefutable concept called dark matter. How much dark matter is there in the universe? Why, just enough to make the equations in mathematical models of the universe balance. How convenient! And if you challenge establishment cosmologists and point out how absurd the concept of dark matter or dark energy is, you get greeted with vitriol that rivals religious zealotry. Don’t do it.

Completey disagree with all of that mate

Especially the bit about science being done differently now.

In my opinion, the theory of dark matter is being put forward in the right way. It's ticking ALL the boxes you say scientific enquiry needs. It is not being put forward as fact yet. I haven't seen any "vitriol" from the scientists themselves.

I don't see anything "absurd" about the theory. I mean, obviously it's "convenient" that it balances the equations, if it exists (which it clearly does, in my eyes,) it's also pretty damn INCONVENIENT that we've been unable to see it and measure it up till now?!

Which counter theory to why the equations don't balance do you prefer?

To see science being done right in today’s world, check out the SAFIRE project. They designed an experiment to test the theory that the sun is powered by electricity rather than it being a nuclear furnace. They recreated the sun’s atmosphere (photosphere and corona) in a lab here on Earth. The lab design, the conduct of the experiment, the data, the results are all repeatable and verifiable.

Yet if you read about the project almost anywhere other than the project’s web site, you will find angry and emotional debunking efforts. Why? Because a paradigm shift like that threatens people’s livelihoods and reputations. It’s completely understandable; I would fight for my job and esteem as well. It’s a sad reality that science only advances one death at a time.

Same goes for the theory of plasma cosmology, which postulates that electricity in the form of galactic Birkeland currents, not gravity, drives galaxy and star formation and their behaviors. And going strictly on observations, the more data we gather from deep space the more it looks Ike an electrical model and not a gravitational one.

Almost every prediction or expected observation of the universe in the last decade using the CDM model has been wrong. You would think that if the model was right it would be able to predict future observations. But it never does. Cosmologists are constantly publishing papers announcing surprise at what they’re seeing and how they need to go back to the drawing board. But they never really do. They just keep patching the math with more math instead of re-examining the underlying assumptions of the model based on what they observe. To me, that’s not proper science.

So I go back to asking “what if?” What if gravity isn’t the dominant force in the universe? What if the filaments connecting new stars in a stellar nursery really are Birkeland currents? What if the sun is a light bulb and and not a reactor? The theories we have now that answer these kind of questions may not end up as the final answer, but I believe they are worthy of funding and study.

[LKeet6]

Jan 17, 2020 12:33:22 GMT jeff said:

Jan 17, 2020 9:09:43 GMT LKeet6 said:

Completey disagree with all of that mate

Especially the bit about science being done differently now.

In my opinion, the theory of dark matter is being put forward in the right way. It's ticking ALL the boxes you say scientific enquiry needs. It is not being put forward as fact yet. I haven't seen any "vitriol" from the scientists themselves.

I don't see anything "absurd" about the theory. I mean, obviously it's "convenient" that it balances the equations, if it exists (which it clearly does, in my eyes,) it's also pretty damn INCONVENIENT that we've been unable to see it and measure it up till now?!

Which counter theory to why the equations don't balance do you prefer?

What if the sun is a light bulb and and not a reactor? The theories we have now that answer these kind of questions may not end up as the final answer, but I believe they are worthy of funding and study.

mate, i'm really sorry, but isn't this kind of question EXACTLY what scientists are asking with dark matter??

I'm really struggling here, because you're saying science doesn't come up with all the answers, and then readily admitting your own theory may well not either?! To my eyes, your criticisms of mainstream science and putting forward your own beliefs are riddled with contradiction. You say people give angry and emotional responses to your beliefs, yet have called a theory supported by most scientists "absurd..."

You've not really replied to most of my earlier posts, just put your own ideas, which is fine, but i'm not therefore taking this as a rebuttle to what i've said.

I looked up debunking of this theory in youtube to see if it was as negative as you said, and couldn't really find anything. I found a website, and this was the response of a scientist to the theory- "Princeton University mathematician and physicist Martin Kruskal comments on Ralph Juergens‘s 1972 paper:[1]

“This is certainly an imaginative paper and gives evidence of wide-ranging research and extensive thought on important and challenging problems. Nevertheless, I have serious misgivings about the soundness of the arguments and of the author’s competence to tackle such difficult investigations [..]”

“The idea that the “solar gases are electrically charged … almost surely negative” (p. 8) doesn’t seem to make sense. If a conducting body has net negative charge, the excess electrons tend to move as far apart as possible and hence gather on the surface. Swirling gases inside may well be charged, but some should be positive and some negative.”

That doesn't seem like the "angry and emotional" reactions you are talking about. Neither does this-

C. Leroy Ellenberger criticizes Electric Stars in his article “Still Facing Many Problems”:

“Thus, the electric star model originated with an erroneous conception of what turbulence and chaos entail and, despite an impressive argument by analogy with electric discharges, it fails, as will be explained, because of a feature of solar structure discovered through observations from Skylab in 1973, but which was never discussed by either Juergens or Milton – the coronal hole [..]

“Yes, the Sun could theoretically be powered by an influx of relativistic electrons; but if the Sun were fueled by incoming electrons, why are none observed at the places where they would be expected to be most numerous? Until the theory is reconciled with this observation, the electric star model can be given no credence; and de Grazia’s remark that “Juergens had fully disestablished the thermonuclear theory of the Sun . . .” [Cosmic Heretics (1984), p. 186] is painfully premature at the very least. This point about the absence of electrons in coronal holes is neither abstruse nor esoteric; it is fundamental and elementary in any discussion of solar structure.”

or this-

Astronomer and physicist Tim Thompson has criticised the Electric Sun Hypothesis, for example:

“The solar wind is a flow of protons and electrons, away from the sun, in all directions, both at the same speed. Now, if the first “major property” of the electric sun model were true, we would expect the positively charged sun to repel positively charged protons, and attract negatively charged electrons. That’s what the third “major property” says is happening, but we see that reality is somewhat different. The observation of electrons & protons both being “repelled” by the sun immediately negates any consideration of the sun having a net electric charge that can be detected anywhere in the solar wind flow. If the sun had a net charge that was large enough, then it should repel one charge and attract the other, depending on the sign of the sun’s excess charge. But we don’t see that. “

If you're talking about online behaviour, then I'm not really sure what point you're making. People online are idiots, wow, what a revelation. Mainstream science is torn down ALL the time by mindless idiots online, so join the club! Scientists seem to have reacted as you'd expect, critical, but with scientifc responses.

You talk as if scientists are wedded to the standard model, but they've literally said the standard model and theory of relativity do not match?! ALL kinds of explanations for what it could be are being out forward, ALL are being treated as "theory" and NOT "fact..." I really don't see what the problem is. Alternative theories ARE being looked at, the ones you've put forward are not backed up by science.

I've just spent a good hour or so whilst having lunch doing more reading on this, so I've definitely given your beliefs a lot of time and effort here. And the more I read, the more I'm struggling with it, to be honest. I'm seeing they're not thoroughly peer reviewed, often not at all, their videos on youtube have adverts on them (you've claimed you think mainstream science is corrupted by money,)

i found out that electric universe theory makes the following claims-

- Einstein's postulates are wrong.
- General relativity (GR) is wrong.
- The Universe is not expanding.
- The electric force travels faster than the speed of light with near-infinite velocity.
- Gravity has two poles like a bar magnet; dipole gravity.
A plenum of neutrinos forms an all-pervasive aether.
- Planets give birth to comets.
- Stars do not shine because of internal nuclear fusion caused by gravitational collapse. Rather, they are anodes for galactic discharge currents.
- Impact craters on Venus, Mars and the Moon are not caused by impacts, but by electrical discharges. The same applies to the Valles Marineris (a massive canyon on Mars) and the Grand Canyon on Earth.
- The Sun is negatively charged, and the solar wind is positively charged — the two systems forming a giant capacitor (this is James McCanney's particular erroneous belief.)
- EU proponents from the Thunderbolts Project claim to have predicted the natures of Pluto and Comet 67P more accurately than NASA or ESA.
- The sun is a space lamp getting power from something somewhere, we've never observed this stream of electricity nor any of these power sources that are on the center of each galaxy powering every star in them.
- That things like comets are electric, we've never observed such a thing as an electric comet.
- That craters are scars left from space thunderstorms, we've never observed such a phenomenon. It also claims that things like meteors are not what causes them despite the fact that we literally have video footage of meteor impacts.
- That gravity is electromagnetic in nature which implies that it can be repulsive too, yet it has failed to demonstrate antigravity.

So yeah, I'm going to answer with the constructive criticism i quoted earlier. Some interesting ideas in there, but if they're discounting the above and are not supported by mainstream science, I'm happy to discount it

[ray]

That to me is not only a rebuttal worthy of changing someone’s opinion, it’s worthy of changing the opinion of the people who put the theories forward. Well done Leon.

I hope deniers realise they’re wrong (on the grand scale, not within this forum - if someone chooses to believe otherwise I’m not going to treat them differently in here) , or at least try to do the right thing on a micro level just in case.

[jeff]

Leon

Just getting back to this thread today.

I thought about my description of the Lambda-CDM model as “absurd” and realized I was guilty of the same negativity of which I accuse others. I apologize for that.

Thanks for greeting the electric universe model with enough respect to go and read about it. Most don’t. The vitriol I’ve witnessed happens mostly in physics and astrophysics forums, blogs and in the EU forums. The Thunderbolts websites have a good deal of information on Plasma Cosmology, but they are not the sole source, and in fact more than one plasma cosmologist has turned their back on that group for the behavior of the founders and their treatment of their colleagues.

If your dad has 3 degrees and is still involved in scientific research in some capacity, then he may have a better feel for what’s going on behind the scenes in Physics and Cosmology than what is apparent to me. Every news story I see or read, every documentary on Cable or Netflix presents black holes, dark matter and energy, an expanding universe and an an electrically neutral interstellar void as fact, not theory. The supporters of that theory in forums and Internet blogs (often with very credentialed authors and not your typical online idiots) do the same. Published authors are more well-behaved in their scientific papers.

The whole peer-review process is a double-edged sword in that it can validate good research, but the temptation will always be there to restrict papers that challenge the status quo. Still, it’s what we have.

The thing about the standard model and all it’s variations is that it still relies on gravity to do all the things we observe. The math needed to make gravity perform all the dances we see in the observable universe is unbelievably complex and beyond the ken of all but a few. The models you mentioned appear to me be variations on the same theme; the base assumptions are essentially the same.

What are the odds that almost every impact crater we see is a perfect circle, implying a perfectly vertical impact path? Now imagine an incredibly powerful lightning bolt striking a planet’s surface. It does so like lightning here on Earth: perpendicular to the surface.

Look at the Grand Canyon from a space photo, then look at a Lichtenberger figure carved into a piece of wood or metal. Even if the similarity doesn’t strike you, consider how water running downhill, even for eons, can have created the canyon and it’s shapes? It’s not logical on its face, but since the only tools geologists have are wind and erosion, that’s what we get.

Plasma Cosmologists and the Electric Universe scientists correctly predicted what Voyager would encounter when it crossed the Heliopause. Establishment cosmologists were surprised.

P67 showed everyone that comets are not dirty snowballs, but are in fact rock. The EU predicted that. Since there isn’t really a mechanism for a rock to sublime and create a cometary tail, there has to be another mechanism. A glow mode plasma discharge due to the comet’s different electrical potential from the sun’s environment would fit the bill nicely.

And so on.

So yeah, count me among those who doubt the existence of black holes, dark matter and dark energy, the Big Bang and an ever-expanding, increasingly complex mathematical model of the universe. Those things aren’t necessary, in my view, to explain, model or predict what we see in our universe. There’s a simpler answer. Occam’s Razor and all that.

Again, thank you for the time you took to give this serious thought. Above and beyond, given the time investment required. Cheers!

[hammers1man]

Regarding comets and how much ice they contain. It is quite mind blowing to think how many asteroids and comets must of hit this planet to deliver the huge amount of water that covers the earth.

[LKeet6]

Jan 19, 2020 1:07:11 GMT jeff said:

Leon

Just getting back to this thread today.

I thought about my description of the Lambda-CDM model as “absurd” and realized I was guilty of the same negativity of which I accuse others. I apologize for that.

Thanks for greeting the electric universe model with enough respect to go and read about it. Most don’t. The vitriol I’ve witnessed happens mostly in physics and astrophysics forums, blogs and in the EU forums. The Thunderbolts websites have a good deal of information on Plasma Cosmology, but they are not the sole source, and in fact more than one plasma cosmologist has turned their back on that group for the behavior of the founders and their treatment of their colleagues.

If your dad has 3 degrees and is still involved in scientific research in some capacity, then he may have a better feel for what’s going on behind the scenes in Physics and Cosmology than what is apparent to me. Every news story I see or read, every documentary on Cable or Netflix presents black holes, dark matter and energy, an expanding universe and an an electrically neutral interstellar void as fact, not theory. The supporters of that theory in forums and Internet blogs (often with very credentialed authors and not your typical online idiots) do the same. Published authors are more well-behaved in their scientific papers.

The whole peer-review process is a double-edged sword in that it can validate good research, but the temptation will always be there to restrict papers that challenge the status quo. Still, it’s what we have.

The thing about the standard model and all it’s variations is that it still relies on gravity to do all the things we observe. The math needed to make gravity perform all the dances we see in the observable universe is unbelievably complex and beyond the ken of all but a few. The models you mentioned appear to me be variations on the same theme; the base assumptions are essentially the same.

What are the odds that almost every impact crater we see is a perfect circle, implying a perfectly vertical impact path? Now imagine an incredibly powerful lightning bolt striking a planet’s surface. It does so like lightning here on Earth: perpendicular to the surface.

Look at the Grand Canyon from a space photo, then look at a Lichtenberger figure carved into a piece of wood or metal. Even if the similarity doesn’t strike you, consider how water running downhill, even for eons, can have created the canyon and it’s shapes? It’s not logical on its face, but since the only tools geologists have are wind and erosion, that’s what we get.

Plasma Cosmologists and the Electric Universe scientists correctly predicted what Voyager would encounter when it crossed the Heliopause. Establishment cosmologists were surprised.

P67 showed everyone that comets are not dirty snowballs, but are in fact rock. The EU predicted that. Since there isn’t really a mechanism for a rock to sublime and create a cometary tail, there has to be another mechanism. A glow mode plasma discharge due to the comet’s different electrical potential from the sun’s environment would fit the bill nicely.

And so on.

So yeah, count me among those who doubt the existence of black holes, dark matter and dark energy, the Big Bang and an ever-expanding, increasingly complex mathematical model of the universe. Those things aren’t necessary, in my view, to explain, model or predict what we see in our universe. There’s a simpler answer. Occam’s Razor and all that.

Again, thank you for the time you took to give this serious thought. Above and beyond, given the time investment required. Cheers!

I wasn't talking about my dad's qualifications to try and add gravitas to what I was saying, that was a separate point. Obviously the amount of reading and level of reading someone had done is relevant, but it would appear all of us have a strong interest and have done a fair amount of reading on this stuff.

In my view, it is fair to be treating black holes and expanding universe as "fact..." The other stuff, I'll be honest, I'm less sure on.

What I do know though, is that whenever I see this stuff talked about in shows and in my reading, there is ALWAYS a "there is still so much we don't know" line taken with it. They're just VERY confident on what they've observed and measured. Especially with the expanding universe. Red shift is pretty rock solid as a proof.

With the round crater things I'm not very knowledgeable. Isn't it just that the crater is for the whole "event," not just the impact? So it's like an explosion, no? The rock explodes outwards (in a fairly even spread) and carries on hollowing out the impact area? Also, I HIGHLY doubt they are EXACTLY a half sphere in shape?! It just looks like because it roughly is, would be guess...

I understand a lack of satisfaction in what science has been able to outright "prove" so far, what I'm still struggling with is an insistence that this other theory does a better job?!

[jeff]

Jan 19, 2020 11:17:41 GMT LKeet6 said:

Jan 19, 2020 1:07:11 GMT jeff said:

Leon

Just getting back to this thread today.

I thought about my description of the Lambda-CDM model as “absurd” and realized I was guilty of the same negativity of which I accuse others. I apologize for that.

Thanks for greeting the electric universe model with enough respect to go and read about it. Most don’t. The vitriol I’ve witnessed happens mostly in physics and astrophysics forums, blogs and in the EU forums. The Thunderbolts websites have a good deal of information on Plasma Cosmology, but they are not the sole source, and in fact more than one plasma cosmologist has turned their back on that group for the behavior of the founders and their treatment of their colleagues.

If your dad has 3 degrees and is still involved in scientific research in some capacity, then he may have a better feel for what’s going on behind the scenes in Physics and Cosmology than what is apparent to me. Every news story I see or read, every documentary on Cable or Netflix presents black holes, dark matter and energy, an expanding universe and an an electrically neutral interstellar void as fact, not theory. The supporters of that theory in forums and Internet blogs (often with very credentialed authors and not your typical online idiots) do the same. Published authors are more well-behaved in their scientific papers.

The whole peer-review process is a double-edged sword in that it can validate good research, but the temptation will always be there to restrict papers that challenge the status quo. Still, it’s what we have.

The thing about the standard model and all it’s variations is that it still relies on gravity to do all the things we observe. The math needed to make gravity perform all the dances we see in the observable universe is unbelievably complex and beyond the ken of all but a few. The models you mentioned appear to me be variations on the same theme; the base assumptions are essentially the same.

What are the odds that almost every impact crater we see is a perfect circle, implying a perfectly vertical impact path? Now imagine an incredibly powerful lightning bolt striking a planet’s surface. It does so like lightning here on Earth: perpendicular to the surface.

Look at the Grand Canyon from a space photo, then look at a Lichtenberger figure carved into a piece of wood or metal. Even if the similarity doesn’t strike you, consider how water running downhill, even for eons, can have created the canyon and it’s shapes? It’s not logical on its face, but since the only tools geologists have are wind and erosion, that’s what we get.

Plasma Cosmologists and the Electric Universe scientists correctly predicted what Voyager would encounter when it crossed the Heliopause. Establishment cosmologists were surprised.

P67 showed everyone that comets are not dirty snowballs, but are in fact rock. The EU predicted that. Since there isn’t really a mechanism for a rock to sublime and create a cometary tail, there has to be another mechanism. A glow mode plasma discharge due to the comet’s different electrical potential from the sun’s environment would fit the bill nicely.

And so on.

So yeah, count me among those who doubt the existence of black holes, dark matter and dark energy, the Big Bang and an ever-expanding, increasingly complex mathematical model of the universe. Those things aren’t necessary, in my view, to explain, model or predict what we see in our universe. There’s a simpler answer. Occam’s Razor and all that.

Again, thank you for the time you took to give this serious thought. Above and beyond, given the time investment required. Cheers!

I wasn't talking about my dad's qualifications to try and add gravitas to what I was saying, that was a separate point. Obviously the amount of reading and level of reading someone had done is relevant, but it would appear all of us have a strong interest and have done a fair amount of reading on this stuff.

In my view, it is fair to be treating black holes and expanding universe as "fact..." The other stuff, I'll be honest, I'm less sure on.

What I do know though, is that whenever I see this stuff talked about in shows and in my reading, there is ALWAYS a "there is still so much we don't know" line taken with it. They're just VERY confident on what they've observed and measured. Especially with the expanding universe. Red shift is pretty rock solid as a proof.

With the round crater things I'm not very knowledgeable. Isn't it just that the crater is for the whole "event," not just the impact? So it's like an explosion, no? The rock explodes outwards (in a fairly even spread) and carries on hollowing out the impact area? Also, I HIGHLY doubt they are EXACTLY a half sphere in shape?! It just looks like because it roughly is, would be guess...

I understand a lack of satisfaction in what science has been able to outright "prove" so far, what I'm still struggling with is an insistence that this other theory does a better job?!

I did some more research over the last few days and I was amazed at the kerfuffle over “standard” models that has occurred since last summer (as you said in an earlier post). SOFIA, Cassini, etc. And more published papers are starting to point to plasma and super strong magnetic fields in motion as reasons for the surprises to the standard model predictions. Not everyone and certainly not consensus, but it’s being talked about. 👍🏻

Halton Arp wrote a book called, “Seeing Red” where he shows that redshift is an intrinsic property of stars and not an indication of velocity relative to us, using the observational data from telescopes when he was cataloging stars. Coincidentally, after he published his book, he was denied telescope time everywhere in the world for the rest of his life. Not cool.

*IF* you are at all still interested, I found a web site that has done a good job collecting relevant papers, stating the problems with the standard model and the promising features of the Plasma Universe model. There are also some not-too-shabby videos that go into detail about why the Plasma Universe is a credible replacement for the standard model. Case in point: you quoted a paper that said an electric sun was not possible because we don’t see the current that powers it. The site below summarizes and links to a paper that says that Cassini has revealed, with its measurements of Enceladus’ plasma plume, why the current is not detected.. Dust. Dust particles bind to ions and shield them from Cassini’s sensors. Cassini can only measure 5% of the actual current in the plume. If our best sensors can only detect 5% of the current when it’s *in* the current, we have no chance of detecting interplanetary currents, much less interstellar ones. It’s an interesting read.
spaceweathernews.com/plasma/

To your point about insistence on the Plasma Universe model being the answer, perhaps I’m a bit of a fan boy. But gee whiz, it sure looks promising. 😀

[neilwilkes]

Jan 17, 2020 9:09:43 GMT LKeet6 said:

Jan 17, 2020 0:33:29 GMT jeff said:

I fear “science” has moved more toward a religious institution as opposed to what we usually consider science as an institution to be.

The traditional scientific method of formulating a hypothesis, testing that hypothesis through experimentation, analyzing the data and constructing a theory that is testable and falsifiable, has nearly vanished from many scientific disciplines.

Instead, we get told that we already know all the science that could ever be known through thought experiments and mathematical models, and that the only thing left is to fill in the details. It was Stephen Hawking’s modus operandi and I believe it has corrupted science deeply and harmfully.

Example? Dark matter. The observable matter in the universe and it’s gravitational effect is insufficient to keep the matter in galaxies coherent in their rapidly spinning spiral configurations. Do cosmologists look for an alternate, well-known, stronger force than gravity to explain the stability of spiral galaxies? Nope. Instead they invent an invisible, unmeasurable, untestable and irrefutable concept called dark matter. How much dark matter is there in the universe? Why, just enough to make the equations in mathematical models of the universe balance. How convenient! And if you challenge establishment cosmologists and point out how absurd the concept of dark matter or dark energy is, you get greeted with vitriol that rivals religious zealotry. Don’t do it.

Completey disagree with all of that mate

Especially the bit about science being done differently now.

In my opinion, the theory of dark matter is being put forward in the right way. It's ticking ALL the boxes you say scientific enquiry needs. It is not being put forward as fact yet. I haven't seen any "vitriol" from the scientists themselves.

I don't see anything "absurd" about the theory. I mean, obviously it's "convenient" that it balances the equations, if it exists (which it clearly does, in my eyes,) it's also pretty damn INCONVENIENT that we've been unable to see it and measure it up till now?!

Which counter theory to why the equations don't balance do you prefer?


Oh, how I wish what I am about to post in the attached text file here Why LCDM is a failure.txt (7.63 KB) was my own work, but it isn't.
The Concordance Model (AKA the LCDM model) is a dismal failure along with SUSY & STring Theory and the problem is that theoretical physics is supposed to be the bedrock of the sciences yet these days it is all nothing but mathematical speculation that is fundamentally opposed to the empirical method - it is unfalsifiable and untestable.
Hundreds of Billions of $$ as well as €€ have been squandered on dozens of "Dark Matter" searches, all of which have come up empty - the reality is that the mass estimates of baryonic matter have all grossly underestimated what is really out there as we are now seeing the intergalactic Current Sheets & Magnetic Fields and the enormous amounts of interstellar as well as intergalactic dust that has until recently been completely missed. It is attracted to the magnetic fields in the same way your clever dusters work, and it is everywhere - no Dark Matter is needed or exists. Ditto Dark Energy, and it is not needed either - please see & try to understand Universe NOT Still Expanding - 1912.04257.pdf (104.35 KB)which shows that the Universe is not expanding in the first place!! It is mathematical data fudging.
There is a lot of this going on - check out 's superb book Lost In Math (review) I have, and she concludes quite rightly that there is no Multiverse, no SUSY (and therefore no WIMPS as they cannot exist of SuperSymmetry is incorrect).
Plus much, much more.
She is not the only one who concludes - quite rightly - that the onus these days is to publish at all costs, so people are publishing so-called research that is untestable and instead of reining in their overheated imaginations they are now trying to step back 1000 years by demanding the rules are relaxed & actual experiments & observational data is no longer needed because of an idea seems to be right, then it MUST BE right and should not therefore be subjected to testing!!There was a similar article in The Lancet recently, also saying 50% of all published papers these days are junk, and to close this section, just look at this:
June 22, 2016 - first rumours that the diphoton bump is fading away with LHC data
July 21, 2016 - the LUX dark matter experiment concludes - no WIMPS (no surprise either given the LHC, despite seriously expensive "upgrades" has since failed to find ANY new particles thus disproving SUSY concept)
August 4, 2016 - LHC data published, the diphoton bump is gone.
Why does this matter? Because since it's "discovery" was announced, over 500 papers were written about a statistical fluctuation!! The most popular ones have already been cited over 300 times.
October 2016 - no Axions.
Not a single search has turned up any sign of Dark Matter at all - there is now nowhere left to look - and this is because it is like hunting for Unicorns.
Cosmology is in serious Crisis, and this is the Queen of the Sciences. 

I could go on at similar length about so-called Anthropogenic Global Warming, which is more Pseudoscience - actually, I take that back - it is Science Fiction.
In the Cambrian period, which saw the greatest diversity of life we have ever seen on this planet, CO2 levels were at over 4,000ppm against today's pitiful 415ppm and guess what - the planet did not burn.
Since CO2 levels have increased, Crop Yields have also increased accordingly. See ourworldindata.org/crop-yields

Natural Disasters are not increasing - this is simply untrue, and can be easily shown & proved to yourself by spending an hour or two at www.realclimatescience.com
The Aussie fires, dreadful though they are, are normal for Australia - in the 1970's TEN TIMES the acreage burned. This is caused by excessive Fuel Load and it is not possible for areas to burn every year as is being claimed by the hysterical mainstream media & the terrorist organization Extinction Rebellion because it will take years for the same load to build up again. Forests store up Solar energy when they grow, and this is always eventually released in fires. The Australian Climate has always been drought & flood & fire and always will be.

Storms may well get more severe in the coming decades, but it will have nothing to do with CO2 levels, as CO2 does not drive climate - show me ONE study that proves it does (I will save you the search time as you cannot, because there is no such paper in existence). It was warmer in the Mediaeval Warm Period than it is now, yet that was natural & the 1 degree we have seen is man made? It was much warmer in the Roman period, yet that too was natural but the 1 degree we have seen is man made? Despite the fact that the Sun was at it's most active in over 10,000 years for the same period we saw 1 degree of warming, coupled with the fact that there has been no Volcanic Cooling in the same period? Man Made? Superstitious balderdash my friends.
Are you aware of the fact that our planetary Magnetic Field has weakened by 25% over the last 200 years, with the weakening having so far undergone 2 accelerations and is now at 5% drop per decade - and still accelerating?
The Northern Magnetic Pole is heading towards Siberia.
The Southern Magnetic Pole has left Antarctica
magneticreversal.org/
suspicious0bservers.org/
Please, keep an open mind - what is happening here has nothing to do with Human Activity and everything to do with our Magnetic Reversal & the Weakening Magnetic field in conjunction with the fact that we live just 8 light minutes away from a Main Sequence Star. It is the Solar & Global Electrical Circuits and the Induced currents that cause the heating, such as it has been - and to be blunt, it is easy enough to show warming when you cherry-pick your start dates from the lowest trough in the 70's Global Cooling scare too.

CO2 is a vital trace gas - 0.4% of the atmosphere and of that, humans create 0.03% of the atmospheric load. If anything, we were/still are dangerously LOW on CO2.
Even NASA have shown that since the levels have risen, Green Plant growth on the planet has increased.
climate.nasa.gov/news/2436/co2-is-making-earth-greenerfor-now/
(The Idiotic "For Now" has no basis in the title as it is not actually covered in the article)


But there you go.
I shall not write anything more on this - even though I could bore for Britain, as I have done my research and understand that the alarmists are little better than terrorists.
From 2022, Particle Forcing must be included in Climate Models - and all Climate Models are not predictions, but are scenarios. This disclaimer can be found on any of the relevant sites easily enough so think of finding these as homework.
The alarmists are effectively getting spooked by Video Games.
Which brings me to the conclusion - this is all about a Video Game, so I am now off to go practise for that - a video game of golf.
And TGC2019 is about as realistic as Climate Models are, which still does not stop it being fun.

[LKeet6]

Yeah, I think I'm going to choose not to re-engage this again.

I gave a LOT of effort and respect previously, spending nearly 2 hours reading up on the stuff put to me, even though I KNEW I was going to disagree with it; and yet still managed to respond in a respectful way, not using silly terms like "unicorn," and not completely out of hand dismissing the ideas of someone else.

This would be probably be the 4th or 5th time I would have engaged with a man made climate change denier in the past couple of years and read LOADS of their links and finding the counter arguments to the points, especially the CO2 stuff, and I'll be honest, I can't be bothered again...

I'm pretty sick of hearing the "they've published loads of books, so this proves corruption" line of argument. Or, you know, it's popular and widely agreed science that loads of people agree on- NOT calling it "fact" tho, ALL of the stuff you're bashing is theoretical science anyway- and they've spent years studying it and just want to publish a book on it??

This all stayed really respectful, up till now; I recommend we all leave it at this point...

[jeff]

Jan 20, 2020 14:34:18 GMT LKeet6 said:

Yeah, I think I'm going to choose not to re-engage this again.

I gave a LOT of effort and respect previously, spending nearly 2 hours reading up on the stuff put to me, even though I KNEW I was going to disagree with it; and yet still managed to respond in a respectful way, not using silly terms like "unicorn," and not completely out of hand dismissing the ideas of someone else.

This would be probably be the 4th or 5th time I would have engaged with a man made climate change denier in the past couple of years and read LOADS of their links and finding the counter arguments to the points, especially the CO2 stuff, and I'll be honest, I can't be bothered again...

I'm pretty sick of hearing the "they've published loads of books, so this proves corruption" line of argument. Or, you know, it's popular and widely agreed science that loads of people agree on- NOT calling it "fact" tho, ALL of the stuff you're bashing is theoretical science anyway- and they've spent years studying it and just want to publish a book on it??

This all stayed really respectful, up till now; I recommend we all leave it at this point...

I'm good with that. Somehow I think this will all work itself out over time, even without my obviously brilliant and insightful input.

[hammers1man]

Jan 20, 2020 14:07:33 GMT neilwilkes said:

Jan 17, 2020 9:09:43 GMT LKeet6 said:

Completey disagree with all of that mate

Especially the bit about science being done differently now.

In my opinion, the theory of dark matter is being put forward in the right way. It's ticking ALL the boxes you say scientific enquiry needs. It is not being put forward as fact yet. I haven't seen any "vitriol" from the scientists themselves.

I don't see anything "absurd" about the theory. I mean, obviously it's "convenient" that it balances the equations, if it exists (which it clearly does, in my eyes,) it's also pretty damn INCONVENIENT that we've been unable to see it and measure it up till now?!

Which counter theory to why the equations don't balance do you prefer?


Oh, how I wish what I am about to post in the attached text file here View Attachment was my own work, but it isn't.
The Concordance Model (AKA the LCDM model) is a dismal failure along with SUSY & STring Theory and the problem is that theoretical physics is supposed to be the bedrock of the sciences yet these days it is all nothing but mathematical speculation that is fundamentally opposed to the empirical method - it is unfalsifiable and untestable.
Hundreds of Billions of $$ as well as €€ have been squandered on dozens of "Dark Matter" searches, all of which have come up empty - the reality is that the mass estimates of baryonic matter have all grossly underestimated what is really out there as we are now seeing the intergalactic Current Sheets & Magnetic Fields and the enormous amounts of interstellar as well as intergalactic dust that has until recently been completely missed. It is attracted to the magnetic fields in the same way your clever dusters work, and it is everywhere - no Dark Matter is needed or exists. Ditto Dark Energy, and it is not needed either - please see & try to understand View Attachmentwhich shows that the Universe is not expanding in the first place!! It is mathematical data fudging.
There is a lot of this going on - check out 's superb book Lost In Math (review) I have, and she concludes quite rightly that there is no Multiverse, no SUSY (and therefore no WIMPS as they cannot exist of SuperSymmetry is incorrect).
Plus much, much more.
She is not the only one who concludes - quite rightly - that the onus these days is to publish at all costs, so people are publishing so-called research that is untestable and instead of reining in their overheated imaginations they are now trying to step back 1000 years by demanding the rules are relaxed & actual experiments & observational data is no longer needed because of an idea seems to be right, then it MUST BE right and should not therefore be subjected to testing!!There was a similar article in The Lancet recently, also saying 50% of all published papers these days are junk, and to close this section, just look at this:
June 22, 2016 - first rumours that the diphoton bump is fading away with LHC data
July 21, 2016 - the LUX dark matter experiment concludes - no WIMPS (no surprise either given the LHC, despite seriously expensive "upgrades" has since failed to find ANY new particles thus disproving SUSY concept)
August 4, 2016 - LHC data published, the diphoton bump is gone.
Why does this matter? Because since it's "discovery" was announced, over 500 papers were written about a statistical fluctuation!! The most popular ones have already been cited over 300 times.
October 2016 - no Axions.
Not a single search has turned up any sign of Dark Matter at all - there is now nowhere left to look - and this is because it is like hunting for Unicorns.
Cosmology is in serious Crisis, and this is the Queen of the Sciences. 

I could go on at similar length about so-called Anthropogenic Global Warming, which is more Pseudoscience - actually, I take that back - it is Science Fiction.
In the Cambrian period, which saw the greatest diversity of life we have ever seen on this planet, CO2 levels were at over 4,000ppm against today's pitiful 415ppm and guess what - the planet did not burn.
Since CO2 levels have increased, Crop Yields have also increased accordingly. See ourworldindata.org/crop-yields

Natural Disasters are not increasing - this is simply untrue, and can be easily shown & proved to yourself by spending an hour or two at www.realclimatescience.com
The Aussie fires, dreadful though they are, are normal for Australia - in the 1970's TEN TIMES the acreage burned. This is caused by excessive Fuel Load and it is not possible for areas to burn every year as is being claimed by the hysterical mainstream media & the terrorist organization Extinction Rebellion because it will take years for the same load to build up again. Forests store up Solar energy when they grow, and this is always eventually released in fires. The Australian Climate has always been drought & flood & fire and always will be.

Storms may well get more severe in the coming decades, but it will have nothing to do with CO2 levels, as CO2 does not drive climate - show me ONE study that proves it does (I will save you the search time as you cannot, because there is no such paper in existence). It was warmer in the Mediaeval Warm Period than it is now, yet that was natural & the 1 degree we have seen is man made? It was much warmer in the Roman period, yet that too was natural but the 1 degree we have seen is man made? Despite the fact that the Sun was at it's most active in over 10,000 years for the same period we saw 1 degree of warming, coupled with the fact that there has been no Volcanic Cooling in the same period? Man Made? Superstitious balderdash my friends.
Are you aware of the fact that our planetary Magnetic Field has weakened by 25% over the last 200 years, with the weakening having so far undergone 2 accelerations and is now at 5% drop per decade - and still accelerating?
The Northern Magnetic Pole is heading towards Siberia.
The Southern Magnetic Pole has left Antarctica
magneticreversal.org/
suspicious0bservers.org/
Please, keep an open mind - what is happening here has nothing to do with Human Activity and everything to do with our Magnetic Reversal & the Weakening Magnetic field in conjunction with the fact that we live just 8 light minutes away from a Main Sequence Star. It is the Solar & Global Electrical Circuits and the Induced currents that cause the heating, such as it has been - and to be blunt, it is easy enough to show warming when you cherry-pick your start dates from the lowest trough in the 70's Global Cooling scare too.

CO2 is a vital trace gas - 0.4% of the atmosphere and of that, humans create 0.03% of the atmospheric load. If anything, we were/still are dangerously LOW on CO2.
Even NASA have shown that since the levels have risen, Green Plant growth on the planet has increased.
climate.nasa.gov/news/2436/co2-is-making-earth-greenerfor-now/
(The Idiotic "For Now" has no basis in the title as it is not actually covered in the article)


But there you go.
I shall not write anything more on this - even though I could bore for Britain, as I have done my research and understand that the alarmists are little better than terrorists.
From 2022, Particle Forcing must be included in Climate Models - and all Climate Models are not predictions, but are scenarios. This disclaimer can be found on any of the relevant sites easily enough so think of finding these as homework.
The alarmists are effectively getting spooked by Video Games.
Which brings me to the conclusion - this is all about a Video Game, so I am now off to go practise for that - a video game of golf.
And TGC2019 is about as realistic as Climate Models are, which still does not stop it being fun.

What I find quite amazing and it has nothing to do with anything you just typed in your extremely long post.
Is that you found a thread about Australian fires on an independent forum that you had to register to post a single message.
Now you say the game is very unrealistic so why are you even here in a society that is all about trying to make it realistic as possible,you obviously have no interest in playing here.
My conclusion is that you have way too much time on your hands and you are someone that needs to put your opinions forward to everyone else because you are right and they are wrong. Well that attitude alone turns people away that are interested in the subject.