Miles Mathis is again on sparkling form when he addresses *Dark Matter*.

In a sidebar of the article at the DailyMail, under a heading “what is dark matter?” we find this:

Similarly we know dark matter exists but have never observed it directly.

Scientists are fairly sure it exists and is crucial to the universe, but they do not know what it looks like or where to find it.

You have to laugh.In two neighboring sentences, we are told that they “know” it exists and that “they are fairly sure it exists.”

Just beneath that, the editor probably had this third sentence in his rough copy:

Dark matter may exist, say physicists.

And then this fourth sentence,

When pressed, one researcher looked at his shoes and said, I know fuck-all about dark matter, leave me alone.

Just before press-time, the editor ran a line through three and four.The truth is, you can’t even calculate odds on whether dark matter exists in current theory, since it is just two words that fill a hole.

This is supposed to be physics we are talking about, and the only thing they know is that there is a huge hole in the equations.

They know nothing about what fills that hole, and they admit that.

So how can they claim any surety beyond that?

Any further, and it is no longer a question of physics, it is a question of linguistics.

To estimate how certain you are that something exists, you have to first define that something.

If you can’t even define that something beyond “it fills a hole,” you can’t possibly estimate a level of certainty.

Or you can, but the level of certainty is zero.

In other words, the statements from the mainstream are not valid statements, neither as physics nor as linguistics.

If you don’t know what something is, you can’t know it exists.

To be honest, they should just say that if their data is correct, something has to be filling that hole.

They know something has to be filling it.

But to say they know dark matter is filling it is demonstrably false on the face of it, since they admit they don’t know what dark matter is.

I have shown that some of their equations are pretty good, since it is by using these equations that they know they are missing 95%.

They should take some pride in that, since to solve a problem you have to at least admit you have one.

They not only know they have one, they know almost exactly how big it is.

In this case, they have gotten that far, which is lot farther than they have gotten in many problems.

This is also funny:

The quest to find it is now gaining pace.Last year one of the biggest quests in physics, the search for the enigmatic substance known as dark matter, failed to provide answers.

The Large Underground Xenon (LUX) experiment, the world’s most advanced test to find this elusive material, was unable to detect its presence after its first 90-day run.

A number of researchers are currently re-examining dark matter candidates once written off as unlikely, and considering unpopular ideas such as dark matter could be made out of something undetectable.

What exactly there is “gaining pace”?Can a series of utter failures be said to be “gaining pace”?

This is an old army trick: when confidence is lowest, you just say “confidence is high” over and over.

Earth’s Dark Matter Halo?Miles Mathis

Hans Jelbring [over at Tallbloke’s Talkshop] is also on sparkling form when he addresses the *Big Bang* belief system.

There is freedom of choosing religion in our country so there is no problem what you or I believe.

On the other hand there is a problem when scientists mix facts supported by evidence and laws of nature with fantasy, unfounded hypotheses and faith.

There is no qualitative difference being a creationist believing that earth and our galaxy was created 6000 years ago or believing that the universe was created from a small cosmic egg 14 billion years ago.

From where did this egg originate and what existed before that?

There must have been something more (or rather, less) than a nuclear bomb within it since at that point not even matter are believed to has existed.

None of these beliefs are or can be supported by scientific methods or verified experience.

Hence, it cannot be classified as science.

Many years ago a saw a “scientific” 600 page book in a book store.

It claimed to tell what happened in the first MINUTE after Big Bang.

It was loaded with formulae and unverified hypotheses.

To me this book represented a peak of human hubris, a pretention that logic and mathematical models without any verified anchoring in reality could give the answer to the eternal mystery of our existence.

Big Bang – The greatest fairy tale ever toldHans Jelbring

http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/03/18/hans-jelbring-big-bang-bicep-flexes-its-muscle/

The *Dark Matter* and *Big Bang* belief systems clearly illustrate that the Scientific Method has slowly [and insidiously] been derailed by the *Mathematical Alchemists*.

The rot set in when Newton *shoehorned* mass into Kepler’s Third Law of Planetary Motion and then [somehow] *shoehorned* himself in as president of the Royal Society.

Understanding how this mathematical alchemy is performed requires a basic understanding of a very simple technique [used in solving equations] that allows the mathematician to “add, subtract, multiply, or divide both sides of the equation by the same number”.

…

A more sophisticated form of this technique enables the mathematician to introduce any other variables [of their own choosing] into an equation provided they keep to the established mathematical rule of doing the same thing to both sides of the equation.

…

Unfortunately, the result is mathematically correct but it may be just meaningless nonsense.

Mathematical Alchemy

https://malagabay.wordpress.com/2013/06/21/mathematical-alchemy/

Sadly, dedicated believers in *Mathematical Alchemists* are unwilling to accept that the falsification of Newton’s Universal Law of Gravitation has been well documented.

In 1932 Jan Hendrik Oort became the first to report measurements that the stars in the Solar neighborhood moved faster than expected when a mass distribution based upon visible matter was assumed, but this measurement was later determined to be essentially erroneous.

In 1933, Fritz Zwicky postulated “missing mass” to account for the orbital velocities of galaxies in clusters.

In 1939, Horace Babcock reported in his PhD thesis measurements of the rotation curve for Andromeda which suggested that the mass-to-luminosity ratio increases radially.

He, however, attributed it to either absorption of light within the galaxy or modified dynamics in the outer portions of the spiral and not to any form of missing matter.

In 1959, Louise Volders demonstrated that spiral galaxy M33 does not spin as expected according to Keplerian dynamics.

Following this, in the late 1960s and early 1970s, Vera Rubin, a young astronomer at the Department of Terrestrial Magnetism at the Carnegie Institution of Washington worked with a new sensitive spectrograph that could measure the velocity curve of edge-on spiral galaxies to a greater degree of accuracy than had ever before been achieved.

Together with fellow staff-member Kent Ford, Rubin announced at a 1975 meeting of the American Astronomical Society the discovery that most stars in spiral galaxies orbit at roughly the same speed, which implied that their mass densities were uniform well beyond the location with most of the stars (the galactic bulge), a result independently found in 1978.

Rubin presented her results in an influential paper in 1980.

These results suggest that either Newtonian gravity does not apply universally or that, conservatively, upwards of 50% of the mass of galaxies was contained in the relatively dark galactic halo.

Met with skepticism, Rubin insisted that the observations were correct.

Based on Newtonian mechanics and assuming, as was originally thought, that most of the mass of the galaxy had to be in the galactic bulge near the center, matter (such as stars and gas) in the disk portion of a spiral should orbit the center of the galaxy similar to the way in which planets in the solar system orbit the sun, i.e. where the average orbital speed of an object at a specified distance away from the majority of the mass distribution would decrease inversely with the square root of the radius of the orbit (the dashed line in Fig. 1).

Observations of the rotation curve of spirals, however, do not bear this out.

Rather, the curves do not decrease in the expected inverse square root relationship but are “flat”, i.e. outside of the central bulge the speed is nearly a constant (the solid line in Fig. 1).

It is also observed that galaxies with a uniform distribution of luminous matter have a rotation curve that slopes up from the center to the edge, and most low-surface-brightness galaxies (LSB galaxies) rotate with a rotation curve that slopes up from the center, indicating little core bulge.

This is hardly surprising because science went *full retard* early in the 20th century when the mainstream swallowed Einstein’s mathematical alchemy that conjured up *spacetime* which magically combines space and time into a single continuum.

All objects in the cosmos exist in the omnipresent NOW.

Regrettably, mathematicians don’t believe they exist in the omnipresent NOW.

Mathematicians remember the past while they exist in the omnipresent NOW.

Mathematicians perceive the future while they exist in the omnipresent NOW.Mathematicians theoretically manipulate the past and the future in mathematical formulae.

Unfortunately, mathematicians suffer from delusions of grandeur because they believe their mathematical manipulations prove they don’t live in an omnipresent NOW cosmos.

In physics, spacetime is any mathematical model that combines space and time into a single continuum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpacetimeBasically, mathematicians suffer from a severe case of real world denial.

This neurosis spread rapidly through the scientific community during in the twentieth century “as a consequence of Einstein’s 1905 theory of special relativity”.

While spacetime can be viewed as a consequence of Einstein’s 1905 theory of special relativity, it was first explicitly proposed mathematically by one of his teachers, the mathematician Hermann Minkowski, in a 1908 essay building on and extending Einstein’s work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpacetimeUnfortunately, this neurosis appears to incapacitate rationale thought processes.

Mathematical Black Holes

https://malagabay.wordpress.com/2013/06/22/mathematical-black-holes/

Sadly this slow motion scientific *train wreck* has spawned an ever increasing list of embedded *fairy tales* because the *Mathematical Alchemy* of Newton and Einstein [and many more] is now sacrosanct in the state funded halls of academia.

The Physics of the Oozlum Bird is intriguing because it has the ability to fly around in ever-decreasing circles until it disappears [with an almighty big bang] into a black hole.

The Physics of the Oozlum Bird

https://malagabay.wordpress.com/2014/02/02/the-physics-of-the-oozlum-bird/

Another down fall is the assumption that in E=mc^2 that the equation is a reciprocal in nature. Matter will give energy, but no scientific demonstration that E = matter.

Astronomers and cosmologists are not aware of the electrical circuits powering the universe. A galaxy amounts to a Faraday motor, and thus rotates like one. The electrical force is 39 orders of magnitude greater than gravity. Electricity is found

everywherein the universe as Birkeland currents, including within you and your individual cells (and somatids).Einstain was a fraud from the very beginning of his career. For a better understanding of gravity, look up Ralph Sansbury. Here’s a taste:

Article 15 : Pointers towards explaining mass and gravity electrically | thunderbolts.info

“Ralph Sansbury has proposed a possible model of the fundamental particles (electrons, protons and neutrons) of ordinary matter, and Wal Thornhill of the Electric Universe team regards this model as the key to understanding the force of gravity electrically. Sansbury proposes that fundamental particles are resonant systems of orbiting smaller electric particles of opposite polarity that sum to the charge of that particle. Sansbury referred to the smaller electric charges as “subtrons”.

Let us take, for example, an electron. An electron possesses a negative charge. In Sansbury’s model, the electron is not just one single charged particle, but the summation of a number of orbiting smaller electric particles, some of which are positive and some negative. In the electron the negative subtrons must outweigh the positive subtrons because the summation is negative. It is important to note that each orbiting system of subtrons that constitutes the fundamental particle is a resonant system. The subtrons behave, so to speak, in an orderly way in sync with one another, so that a coherent entity – the electron, the neutron or the proton – is preserved. (This implies that the transfer of energy between the subtrons in their orbits must be nearly instantaneous, which like gravitational action in the solar system has devastating implications for the Special Theory of Relativity.)

The electrical model of mass and gravity differs from the Newtonian model in this way: in the Newtonian model, it is the mass of the particles of any object that generates (though without explanation) gravitational field. In the new electrical paradigm of mass, however, quantity of mass is a measure of how easily an electric field will distort the fundamental particles that comprise it into dipolar forms, because the more dipolar the particles comprising the body become, the more response will be apparent between that body and the presenting field.”

https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/03/03/article-15-pointers-towards-explaining-mass-and-gravity-electrically/

Happy hunting for answers!

Pingback: The Atomic Comet: On The Far Side | MalagaBay