Friday, April 3, 2009

NASA Produces More Doctored Photographs and Fake Dark Matter Evidence

Mel Acheson: Cluster Coupling. (Hat tip: Anaconda)

The image above reveals the merging of deception and prejudice.

The press release accompanying the image explains that it shows the collision of two galactic clusters, which separates gas from mass:

"Using optical images from Hubble, the team was able to infer the distribution of the total mass (colored in blue)—dark and ordinary matter—using a technique known as gravitational lensing. The Chandra data enabled the astronomers to accurately map the position of the ordinary matter, mostly in the form of hot gas, which glows brightly in X-rays (pink) … The separation between the material shown in pink and blue therefore provides direct evidence for dark matter…."

The deception lies in the blue glow juxtaposed with the pink: The pink came from detection of x-ray radiation; the blue came from computer modeling of a belief. The prejudice lies in equating that belief with “direct evidence.”

This merging has accompanied the ostracism of critics and dissenters and the neglect of data that is contrary to, even contradictory of, the consensual faith. The credo of falsification is recited in public and flouted in practice. The “technique” of gravitational lensing has become a desperate ploy to defend an uncritical and institutionalized faith in obsolete mechanistic theories against the space-age discoveries of electrical and magnetic activity in the previously unsuspected plasma that fills space.

Acknowledging that the universe is composed not of hot gas but of plasma provides direct interpretations of the image: The blue glow of computer-generated “faerie dust” disappears. The remaining images of optical and x-ray radiation indicate the proliferation of ejections, pinches, and other instabilities in plasma discharges. These phenomena can be generated and observed in labs and need not be taken on faith in extrapolations from theories whose applicability is doubtful.


Jeffery Keown said...

Not so much "Doctored" as highlighted.

There may nothing there, but they wanted to delineate where they suspect the data leads. It's like using a yellow highlighter on a textbook.

Call it what you want. Your use of the word Doctoring certainly makes it look like a conspiracy.

OilIsMastery said...

Why don't you highlight an invisible pink unicorn in there?

It is a conspiracy. A conspiracy to believe in mythology and keep people stupid. Conspiracies are real.

"When a true genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." -- Jonathan Swift, author, 1726

Quantum_Flux said...

I'm giving this article the bennefit of the doubt here, however, I'm not quite sure what this particular statement is supposed to mean:

"These phenomena can be generated and observed in labs and need not be taken on faith in extrapolations from theories whose applicability is doubtful."

...can it really or is there insufficient evidence to warrant that people know the electrical forces involved here? To be intellectually honest, people haven't mapped the variation of the voltage potentials between the Earth and the moon and the sun, it is a big stretch to think it is possible to recreate or even model the forces involved in this remote far-off galactic collision in a lab.

Quantum_Flux said...

....people don't even have a vector on the trajectories of these galaxies, I don't think, nor any of the individual mass constituents thereof. How can they? They have only observed these galaxies for a single shutter moment, not even two shutter moments of the camera spread out over time.

Anaconda said...

@ Jeffery Keown:

"...highlighted." ???

You got to be kidding me!

"Highlight" suggests emphasizing something already there.

But there is nothing "there" to highlight.

It's simple, Jeff, "modern" astronomy is desperate to promote the supposed reality of "dark" matter.

All "modern" astronomy's suppositions rest on gravity, but the calculations don't work...repeat that, don't work.

Can you get that through your head -- DON'T WORK -- unless they sprinkle magical beans onto their equations.

But for the failure of the gravity "only" model, "dark" matter would have never been thought of, period.

Jeff, don't you get it, that's why "modern" astronomy is so resistent to electromagnetism: With an alternative theory (that doesn't rely on a menagerie of exotics, including "dark" matter), "modern" astronomy can't get away with inventing exotics that can't be detected. And, undoubtedly it would have already "confirmed" the existence of "dark" matter like all the rest of their exotics, to protect their "theory".

"Modern" astronomy is in crisis!

Jeff, and you give OilIsMastery a hard time.

This is where the rubber meets the road: "Modern" astronomy relies on the "infinity" concept; both the so-called "big bang" and "black holes" rely on the "infinity" concept.

You can't quantify "infinity" by its very definition.

Mathematicians have taken over astronomy and instead of admitting that the gravity "only" model has been falsified numerous times, they have invented "crutches" to keep the patient walking.

Jeff, aren't you offended by that?

Or do you drink the Kool-Aid?

This doctored picture, and that's what it is -- DOCTORED -- is a revolting affront to scientific integrity.

That is the problem with "modern" astronomy, they early on hypothesized only gravity operated in deep-space to shape large structures. And they developed an a priori set of mathematical equations based on that supposition, and all their hypothesis flow from that.

Again, that, a priori supposition, and the mathematical equations derived from it have been falsified, but instead of acknowledging the falsification, "magical beans" have been liberally sprinkled on various large deep-space structures, so they can justify rejiggering their equations and the results.

Jeff, it's revolting they would doctor a photograph.

It's more offensive, you would blithely "see" the emperors clothes.

Its bad science.

But pure mathematicians care more about their equations than reality.

And, apparently, Jeff, so do you.

Or at least you are willing to coddle them and their desperate deceptions.

OilIsMastery said...


I've done some work to the side bar. Hopefully it is more organized and useful to you and other potential researchers. Let me know what you think and if you have any suggestions.


Anaconda said...

@ Quantum_Flux:

Quantum_Flux presents a passage from the POD (Picture of the Day):

"These phenomena can be generated and observed in labs and need not be taken on faith in extrapolations from theories whose applicability is doubtful."

And raises a solid question: "...can it really or is there insufficient evidence to warrant that people know the electrical forces involved here?"

But the question can equally be turned around and directed at "modern" astronomy: Is there really sufficient evidence to warrant that people know the gravitational forces involved here?

So, then one must compare and analyze the available scientific evidence for each of the competing propositions (gravity "only" model versus the electromagnetic model which incorporates gravity by the way).

The difference is that "electrical forces" can be modeled in the laboratory from actual plasma physics experiments because of plasma scaling, and advanced experimental apparatus like the Z machine that produces electromagnetic phenomenon.

On the other hand, there are no "gravity experiments" that come close to verifying the existence of "modern" astronomy's menagerie of exotics.

Also, while morphology (the shape of objects and processes) is not fool proof, there is much more qualitative similarity of morphology between recognized plasma processes and objects as observed & measured in the laboratory and observed & measured in space phenomenon than has every been achieved by the gravity "only" model, which has practically zero in the way of qualitative or quantitative laboratory verification.

Again, that is why "modern" astronomy is so adamant about rejecting electomagnetism from consideration because when you stack up the actual physical evidence, as opposed to a priori mathematical equations and their derived supposed physical phenomenon, the stack of evidence is much higher for the electromagnetism model.

Isn't Science about weighing the evidence and perfering the proposition that has more evidence in its favor?