Invisible Dark Matter: Scientists have come up empty-handed.

The interesting fact some have missed, is that the null result by LUX, narrows the field and theory itself somewhat, enabling further research and experiment to be more likley of success.
An also as the LHC achieves maximum power output, that can also have a bearing on finally solving one of the greatest mysteries in cosmology.
LUX and its null results will define and refine the search for DM candidates with the updated LZ experiment here.....
http://lz.lbl.gov/


The following is a paper on the design of LZ.......

http://arxiv.org/abs/1509.02910
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1509/1509.02910.pdf
ABSTRACT
The design and performance of the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) detector is described as of March 2015 in this Conceptual Design Report. LZ is a second-generation dark-matter detector with the potential for unprecedented sensitivity to weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs) of masses from a few GeV/c2 to hundreds of TeV/c2 . With total liquid xenon mass of about 10 tonnes, LZ will be the most sensitive experiment for WIMPs in this mass region by the end of the decade. This report describes in detail the design of the LZ technical systems. Expected backgrounds are quantified and the performance of the experiment is presented. The LZ detector will be located at the Sanford Underground Research Facility in South Dakota. The organization of the LZ Project and a summary of the expected cost and current schedule are given.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Point of order : From : http://www.skepdic.com/adhominem.html
"ad hominem fallacy
Ad hominem is Latin for "to the man." The ad hominem fallacy occurs when one asserts that somebody's claim is wrong because of something about the person making the claim. The ad hominem fallacy is often confused with the legitimate provision of evidence that a person is not to be trusted.
...
Good refutations of arguments try to undermine the accuracy, relevance, fairness, completeness, and sufficiency of reasons given to support a conclusion. One of the more common tactics of those who can't provide a good refutation of an argument is to divert attention away from the argument by calling attention to something about the person who made the argument. Rather than criticize a person’s premises or reasoning, one asserts something about the person’s character, associations, occupation, hobbies, motives, mental health, likes or dislikes.

The fallacy in the ad hominem is due to the irrelevant nature of the appeal made, not to its falsity. If what is said about the person is false, in addition to being irrelevant, two fallacies are committed, false premise and irrelevant premise."
- the ^^above quoted^^ from : http://www.skepdic.com/adhominem.html
Here are a few more Links, DaveC426913, that also define or explain what an "ad hominem" is, if you wish to further your understanding.

- : http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
- : http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad hominem
- : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Yes, DaveC426913, why don't we all!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You mean as per the following exchanges and examples of your interpretations........
I said earlier.......

​

You asked why.......​

I replied.......

You wisely [?] replied.....

I then commented........

You again wisely [?] replied........

I also said......

you said......

I said.....

you replied......

Quick comment on that...While you are correct with adage, you are wrong with the old adage re "unable to see the forest for the trees" Actually either is acceptable...forest or trees and even if it was not, It shows the level of pedant and nonsense you stoop to, and whatever it is troubling you as regards your problem with me....
http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/can't see the wood for the trees
"can't see the wood for the trees"
if someone can't see the woods for the trees, they are unable to understand what is important in a situation because they are giving too much attention to details.

Then you made another wise [?] remark about the usual emojis.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The you finish up with.....

Again, I have seen many times in the past how fruitless it is getting into any debate/argument with you about anything, not just with myself but also at least two mods.
I'm not saying anymore on this issue except that your peers on this forum, and mine will be the best judges as to who is constantly trying to create arguments over pedantic matters and non existent problems.
Yes indeedy! You certainly are not able to see the woods for the trees!.



My apologies to the reasonable members on this forum for the usual off topic banter that sometimes happens when frauds and anti science trolls cannot accept the message of scientific articles, in some vane effort to push their own hidden and not so hidden agendas.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I appreciate you posting several paragraphs confirming what I just said, but you didn't have to. I already defined it quite succinctly.

I was quite explicit about the relevancy of Pad's comment (if true). If Paddoboy feels that you are having problems with following the topic, that is a relevant issue to the discussion of the topic. Thus it is not an ad hominem.
It is simply a criticism about what he sees as problematic progress of the discussion.

I have no opinion about whether it is warranted, I simply called my own point of order about the misuse of a logical fallacy.


So, you stop misusing em and I'll stop calling em and the thread will proceed apace.

 

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1605.04909v2.pdf

arXiv:1605.04909v2 [astro-ph.CO]
24 May 2016

A History of Dark Matter:

Although dark matter is a central element of modern cosmology, the history of how it became accepted as part of the dominant paradigm is often ignored or condensed into a brief anecdotical account focused around the work of a few pioneering scientists. The aim of this review is to provide the reader with a broader historical perspective on the observational discoveries and the theoretical arguments that led the scientific community to adopt dark matter as an essential part of the standard cosmological model.

 

I wondered about this.

So it is, specifically, a part of the SCM.

That definitely puts the onus on objecters to make their case.

 

The common factor in thread getting off track is Paddoboy.

He should be somewhat more objective and apersonal about any criticism or contrary opinion on the subject. As soon as any poster attempts to take a position which Paddo feels is anti main stream, the name calling starts and thread gets derailed in cross fire.

And bigger problem is his understanding of subject, just yesterday only he claimed that spin of a BH repels matter, suggesting total lack of even basic understanding of the subject. Then he attempts to clutter things with links and copy pastes to cover his nonsense.

 

Kind of silly to say that in a thread where
a] he started it, thus he defined the topic
b] the thread topic is the search for DM - part of the mainstream model - not alternate theories
c] he's been addressing the thread topic in post after post, even while others attempt to use it as a soapbox to post off-topic - and non-mainstream - ideas.

You pretend that these alternate theories are on-topic. They are not.
Pad is within his right - and obligation to other readers - to keep it on-track.

 

expletive deleted wasn't stating personal opinion re the need for DM. He was stating as fact that non baryonic DM is not needed.He is wrong...dmoe is wrong, and so are you. CASE CLOSED.

Just yesterday you claimed that, and you were either highly ignorant of what was said, or just plain confused. Janus pulled you up on the actual facts uncontaminated by your twisting and turning and misinterpreations and/or confusion.
And obviously my copy n pastes inevitably show just how out of touch and wrong you are.
Apologies if I keep on stuffing up your god of the gaps routine.

 

Excuse me, paddoboy, but what am I allegedly wrong about now?
Please cite?

 

Agreed. The argument that somehow it did not gel with GR was only a furphy.
A couple of other papers express the same fact that PhysBang has been trying to make earlier in the piece.

 

Referring to your above nonsense once more......
from the "Gravity" thread.......

 

Great thread Paddoboy thanks for starting it, and I take this opportunity to thank you for all the other threads you start as well.

It is amazing how much better the site presents when, as I do, have 4 of the very worst members on ignore.

But I can see they are active from your attempts to pull them into line.

I miss nothing with them not interrupting and obsessional nit picking.

Clearly nothing to contribute other than personal attacks and off topic dribble.

I find it ammusing that unless you quote the god,dmoe or eddy most of the world would not realise they have posted, assuming others are as smart as me and have them on ignore.

I have saved so much time not having to read their dribble and gained so much satisfaction to know I ignore them which is the cruelest thing one can do to these chest beating fools.

Make sure you report every post they make that is off topic...er maybe not as that's all you would be doing each day every day.

Again keep up the good work of putting matters of scientific interest before forum members.

And please if any of the mugs comment on my post please don't quote them so they know I will never read their crap.

Alex

 

If Janus feels that spin of BH repels the accreting material....then thats his flawed understanding of the subject. But it is apparent that he is talking about the jet process, he is not supporting that BH spin repel. You are not able to figure out the ejected jet, you are calling it repulsion which is technically incorrect.

 

It is immaterial who starts the thread because intent to derail is not there. It just gets derailed because of his over enthusiastic and slavish obeisance to whatever is termed as mainstream. He looses his objectivity and starts making personal attacks and threads get derailed in cross firing.

You know DM is a dicey mainstream concept. There are few who are very critical about this. DM detection failed, so it is natural that the discussion would stray towards what's the future of DM, and one such aspect would be renouncing the DM.

 

The common factor obviously are the trolls and cranks that forums such as this are bound to attract...particularly those that get desperate and need to lie to save face.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

eg: What I said.....

You understand that the magnetic field lines are twisted due to the spin, and matter caught up in those field lines are twisted along with it and thrown out at the polar regions.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Wrong....Non baryonic DM is totally necessary to explain anomalous rotations just as one example.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

It is an essential part of standard cosmology
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1605.04909v2.pdf


But as expletive deleted has been told, please show a link supporting your case.
Obviously you are unable. Case Closed:

 

Janus is not confused,

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Dave is not confused,

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I am not confused,

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The links I give are not confused,

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The forum though certainly knows who is confused and desperate to salvage some credibility!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Just to add.........
A couple of extracts from that link above......
"Although dark matter is a central element of modern cosmology",

"The aim of this review is to provide the reader with a broader historical perspective on the observational discoveries and the theoretical arguments that led the scientific community to adopt dark matter as an essential part of the standard cosmological model".

But as expletive deleted has been told, please show a link supporting your case.
Obviously you are unable. Case Closed:

 

Everything in those links seems to validate Dave's point.