Dark Matter Electromagnetically Debunked

[Native]

OP Subject: Dark Matter Debunked by E&M explanations.

Video abstract.
It's time to put to bed the fairytale of Dark Matter. Something so dark and mysterious that it remains undetected after decades of searching with sophisticated instruments. In 2014, a vast network of plasma filaments—the Intergalactic Web—was discovered that connects many if not all the galaxies in the universe. Evidence shows stars are connected to their planets and to other stars, and all galaxies are connected. The more we carefully examine, we find the cosmos interconnected with plasma filaments—also known as Birkeland Currents. Author and electrical engineer Donald E. Scott, PhD, systematically debunks the theory,

Take you time to listen here -

 

[Nimos]

OP Subject: Dark Matter Debunked by E&M explanations.

Video abstract.
It's time to put to bed the fairytale of Dark Matter. Something so dark and mysterious that it remains undetected after decades of searching with sophisticated instruments. In 2014, a vast network of plasma filaments—the Intergalactic Web—was discovered that connects many if not all the galaxies in the universe. Evidence shows stars are connected to their planets and to other stars, and all galaxies are connected. The more we carefully examine, we find the cosmos interconnected with plasma filaments—also known as Birkeland Currents. Author and electrical engineer Donald E. Scott, PhD, systematically debunks the theory,

Don't understand anything he is talking about, he might as well speak in a foreign language

 

[Subduction Zone]

OP Subject: Dark Matter Debunked by E&M explanations.

Video abstract.
It's time to put to bed the fairytale of Dark Matter. Something so dark and mysterious that it remains undetected after decades of searching with sophisticated instruments. In 2014, a vast network of plasma filaments—the Intergalactic Web—was discovered that connects many if not all the galaxies in the universe. Evidence shows stars are connected to their planets and to other stars, and all galaxies are connected. The more we carefully examine, we find the cosmos interconnected with plasma filaments—also known as Birkeland Currents. Author and electrical engineer Donald E. Scott, PhD, systematically debunks the theory,

Take you time to listen here -

How about a link to his peer reviewed paper instead?

 

[Native]

Don't understand anything he is talking about, he might as well speak in a foreign language

Well, to all conventional cosmological believers, this video content IS indeed a foreign language, because most scientists have conventionally deposited their intellectual and critical skills in the squared gravity black box.

 

[ChristineM]

OP Subject: Dark Matter Debunked by E&M explanations.

Video abstract.
It's time to put to bed the fairytale of Dark Matter. Something so dark and mysterious that it remains undetected after decades of searching with sophisticated instruments. In 2014, a vast network of plasma filaments—the Intergalactic Web—was discovered that connects many if not all the galaxies in the universe. Evidence shows stars are connected to their planets and to other stars, and all galaxies are connected. The more we carefully examine, we find the cosmos interconnected with plasma filaments—also known as Birkeland Currents. Author and electrical engineer Donald E. Scott, PhD, systematically debunks the theory,

Take you time to listen here -

Only..

Recently, for the first time the cosmic web has been observed and it turns out to to be cold hydrogen gas, not plasma.

So professor scotts explanation is just another hypothesis based on i accurate data.

I will add that dark matter has been indirectly observed

 

[Nimos]

Well, to all conventional cosmological believers, this video content IS indeed a foreign language, because most scientists have conventionally deposited their intellectual and critical skills in the squared gravity black box.

I mean, my knowledge of this topic is simply not good enough, so have no clue what he is talking about. Not saying he is wrong, just that I wouldn't be able to make such judgement given my lack of knowledge.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, to all conventional cosmological believers, this video content IS indeed a foreign language, because most scientists have conventionally deposited their intellectual and critical skills in the squared gravity black box.

Please, no false attacks against others that you cannot justify. I could just as well claim that "all creationists are liars" . That would be wrong and it would also be against the rules of the forum. Can you properly support your beliefs? By the way why trust an electrical engineer? And an apparently dishonest one at that. A supposed PhD in a field outside of the topic one is discussing does not make a difference. I might as well "debunk" him by claiming to be a doctor myself. The "PhD" would only be noteworthy if he held a PhD in astrophysics. Otherwise it is only so much wallpaper.

 

[Native]

I mean, my knowledge of this topic is simply not good enough, so have no clue what he is talking about. Not saying he is wrong, just that I wouldn't be able to make such judgement given my lack of knowledge.

Fair enough and I didn´t meant my reply otherwise too.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And once again, is there any evidence here? All that we have so far are empty claims. I suppose we could play dueling videos.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hmm, no papers. Okay. The OP gave us a "PhD" I present a "Professor":

Okay, he was a chemistry professor at a college but now makes his money on YouTube. He bases his work on peer reviewed science and is not afraid to use peer reviewed papers to support his claims and at times he will even interview the experts in the field. You will not see the awkward jump cuts when believers in woo woo do interviews where it appears that the questions asked are not the topics that the expert replied to. He also does not put himself forward as an expert but constantly refers to the works of experts in the field when necessary.

 

[Yerda]

OP Subject: Dark Matter Debunked by E&M explanations.

Hi.

Can you summarise this guy's work?

 

[Native]

Can you summarise this guy's work?

Very shortly:
He has the electromagnetic force to govern and form everything and it´s rotational and orbital motions in the observable Universe.
He has the observed electromagnetic strings in the Cosmic Web to connect everything electromagnetically.
When taking the electromagnetically explanation approach towards the formation and motion of galaxies, the need for "dark matter" isn´t there anymore.
This is only assumed needed when working excludingly with the assumed gravity - which nobody can explain by which dynamic means it should work, anyway.

 

[PureX]

Only..

Recently, for the first time the cosmic web has been observed and it turns out to to be cold hydrogen gas, not plasma.

So professor scotts explanation is just another hypothesis based on i accurate data.

I will add that dark matter has been indirectly observed

"Indirectly observed" means it has not been observed, but only inferred by something else that has been observed. Much the same way Bigfoot has been inferred from observing fuzzy photos and giant footprints in the snow, but has never actually observed, itself.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Indirectly observed" means it has not been observed, but only inferred by something else that has been observed. Much the same way Bigfoot has been inferred from observing fuzzy photos and giant footprints in the snow, but has never actually observed, itself.

With the exception that we can repeatedly repeat the inferred observations of Dark Matter. Not just in the rotation of our galaxy but by most of them. Discover a new galaxy and measure its speed of rotation and the mass of it and it will very very probably be rotating to quickly. And then there is the evidence from colliding galaxies as well. Big foot photos as bad as they are are not observable on demand.

 

[Native]

"Indirectly observed" means it has not been observed, but only inferred by something else that has been observed. Much the same way Bigfoot has been inferred from observing fuzzy photos and giant footprints in the snow, but has never actually observed, itself.

Yes and "circumstantial evidences" and biased connected add hoc assumptions should not be enough to be called factual science anywhere,

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes and "circumstantial evidences" and biased connected add hoc assumptions should not be enough to be called factual science anywhere,

The claim that the evidence is "circumstantial is one that you would have to support. But I never see deniers of science ever defending their apparently false allegations.

From this source:

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pn...tence,in the universe, gravitational lensing,

"The evidence for the existence of dark matter through its gravitational impact is clear in astronomical observations—from the early observations of the large motions of galaxies in clusters and the motions of stars and gas in galaxies, to observations of the large-scale structure in the universe, gravitational lensing, and the cosmic microwave background."

That is not just one source. That is four or five different sources. Meanwhile there does not appear to be any evidence for the electric universe. Without a coherent testable hypothesis they by definition cannot have any evidence.

 

[ChristineM]

"Indirectly observed" means it has not been observed, but only inferred by something else that has been observed. Much the same way Bigfoot has been inferred from observing fuzzy photos and giant footprints in the snow, but has never actually observed, itself.

Correct, thats what i said about dark matter. Observations of gravitational lensing have been observed and verified by many independent individuals.

However fuzzy photos and footprints can not be independently verified and can be faked. Especially when there is a journalist nearby make a sensation out of some hunters fuzzy photo.

I have personally faked child's footprints walking over a snow covered car. Quite convincing until you know how it's done.

So i guess it's down to the quality if the evidence eh?

 

[PureX]

Yes and "circumstantial evidences" and biased connected add hoc assumptions should not be enough to be called factual science anywhere,

But to the 'scientism" crowd, it's as sacrosanct as God is to the theism crowd. And mostly for the same reasons. But I get into trouble with the 'overseers' here if I post too much about that. They think I'm being 'mean'.

 

[PureX]

Correct, thats what i said about dark matter. Observations of gravitational lensing have been observed and verified by many independent individuals.

However fuzzy photos and footprints can not be independently verified and can be faked. Especially when there is a journalist nearby make a sensation out of some hunters fuzzy photo.

I have personally faked child's footprints walking over a snow covered car. Quite convincing until you know how it's done.

So i guess it's down to the quality if the evidence eh?

To the 'believers' the evidence is always irrefutable.

 

[Subduction Zone]

To the 'believers' the evidence is always irrefutable.

You seem to be blaming the wrong crowd. And you may be conflating "irrefutable" with "undeniable". There is quite a bit of evidence that is "undeniable". For example there is clear undeniable evidence for evolution. When one posts scientific evidence for an idea only two rules need to be followed. It has to support an idea. And that idea must be testable. Scientific evidence is not only clearly defined, it puts the burden of proof upon those that deny it.

The fact that one cannot honestly deny that it is evidence for an observation never means that it is irrefutable. A later discovery or observation could show the evidence to be wrong. Or it could be shown to support another idea instead. But, as I said, once it is shown that an observation does fit the definition of scientific evidence the burden of proof is on the person that wishes to deny the evidence.

So currently we do have strong, undeniable evidence for Dark Matter. Does it "prove" Dark Matter? No, of course not. There is no proof in the sciences. And the evidence could be refuted. But until it is refuted it is evidence for Dark Matter.

And yes, your uses of the word "scientism" are usually incorrect and a personal attack against people that are only using the sciences properly.

The people against dark matter cannot seem to accomplish anything in the way of science to support their beliefs.