Lies And Delusions Of Science: Dark Matter And Frame Dragging

I think I’ve found my niche attacking statist scientists that spew lies and propaganda on behalf of the state.  Most economists are too concerned with the markets to run around refuting lies the state sponsored terrorists you call mainstream scientists vomit onto the public.

Let us begin with one of the most blatant boldfaced lies ever told.

Dark Matter.

What is it and why should you care?

As scientific observational equipment has advanced, we have been able to make ever more accurate measurements of galaxies and their movements in the heavens.  Statist scientists that believe gravity is king eventually attempted to calculate how a galaxy could form and why they are observed to rotate as they do.

Supposedly evil sinister “black holes” lurk in the middle of galaxies and this is what causes matter to come together into a galaxy.  The gravity of that mass holds it in place as it spins around the black hole for eternity.

The problem comes from the fact that they couldn’t make their stupid models spin around and stick together the way real galaxies do without adding a bloat load of mass to them.  Additional mass means more gravity is available in their retarded models to make them work correctly.

When scientists actually went back and measured the amount of observable matter in real galaxies, they found that the observable matter in real galaxies was only a fraction of that required by their idiotic models.

Hence, dark matter was born.

Rather than accepting the fact that their models (and hence Einstein’s retarded theories of relativity) must be wrong, they simply dreamed up a new form of invisible matter and added it into their equations to make them balance.

For example:

Say a retarded model of galaxy formation requires 100 units of mass to make a galaxy spin around and form, yet real galaxies only have 25 units of observable mass.  Scientists claim that 75 units of “dark matter” must exist in real life because their stupid model says it must be so, otherwise the model wouldn’t work.

I’m serious.

This is the true story of where “dark matter” comes from.

So, why should you care?

Because scientists are running around spending epic amounts of your tax dollars trying to prove “dark matter” actually exists.  For example, the CDMS project is set to blow a cool 80 million looking for this elusive dark matter.

To date, the CDMS project has detected: NOTHING!

Of course, I’m confident it will eventually detect “something.”  Why am I confident it will detect something?  Because the scientists running it are a bunch of lying thieves.  Just like climate scientists that seem to find evidence of “global warming” by cooking the numbers through fraudulent data manipulation, statist cosmologists engage in the same kind of fraud.

If you want to see a real model of galaxy formation that doesn’t involve black holes, dark matter, dark energy, WIMPS, MACHOs, or any other made up nonsense, look no further.

Let us look at a great example of open fraud by cosmologists to prove my point.

The wonderful Gravity Probe B experiment.  I shall call this GPB for short.  GPB was a satellite whose mission was to search for proof of “frame dragging.”  This is a supposed effect of Einstein’s retarded version of relativity that claims rotating bodies drag “spacetime” around themselves.  If GPB didn’t find frame dragging… well that would just be a horrible sin against humanity.

So did GPB find evidence of frame dragging?

According to the data – no.

According to scientists – yes.

The initial data returned by the GPB probe showed absolutely no evidence of any frame dragging effects at all.  It was a bunch of garbage.  Nothing but a jumble of random data points.

Since such a finding is totally unacceptable, scientists chalked up the total lack of proof for frame dragging to static build up on the gyro sensors.  Now such things really do happen from time to time, experiments just generate bad data for some unforeseen reason.  So I’m not saying there wasn’t any static buildup causing errors in the readings.

However, scientists then set about creating a lie to cover up the mission failure.  Simply saying the mission failed due to static would have been fine.  But they didn’t leave it at that.  Instead, scientists cooked up a totally fraudulent hypothetical model that supposedly “removed the errors caused by the static build up on the gyros” from the data.  Of course, after washing the data through their ridiculous hypothetical model, the data showed frame dragging!  - Amazing!

It took them 5 years to cook up a fraudulent model capable of generating frame dragging results out of a pile of random numbers, but they managed to do it.  You can read the actual paper summarizing the findings here.  The word “hypothetical” appears zero times in the paper.  The word “model” appears 7 times.

Let us be clear, the models they are talking about here are PURELY hypothetical in nature.  They are made up.

A clearer understanding of these misalignment torques came from a model of the effects of the electrostatic potentials on the surface of the rotor and the housing. It was clear from the magnitude of the torque that it could not be explained by the asphericity and mass unbalance of the conducting surfaces of the rotor and the housing interacting with the electric fields produced by the electrostatic suspension system and charges on the rotor and the housing. Instead, a more general model was constructed, which included patch effects on the surface of the rotor and the housing. The patch effect is usually described in terms of a surface dipole layer [55] above the underlying conducting surface, which produces electrostatic potential frozen on the surface, independent of external applied fields. In this case, the electric field is no longer necessarily perpendicular to the surface, and it is possible, under some circumstances to produce torques on a perfectly spherical rotor. Similar effects have been discussed for planar surfaces by Speake [56].

Now that may seem like a load of technical nonsense to most people, but anyone should be able to pick up the fraud here if they think about what was just said.  “and it is possible, under some circumstances” – yeah, possible when the scientists conducting the analysis are a bunch of lying douche bags.

To summarize, they tried to wash the data with a concocted model that at least had some basis in reality, but since the errors were too large to be corrected by such a model, they had to resort to total all out fraud.  When you take real data and wash it through a hypothetical model, the results are no longer real, they are hypothetical.

You’ll hear no mention of the word “hypothetical” from the statists barfing lies all over the publik though.  They hold the results gleaned from their analysis to be real verifiable proof of frame dragging.

And how much did Gravity Probe B cost the tax paying publik?

New York Times reports:

financed by $750 million from NASA and launched into orbit in 2004

  • Idiot_Buster

    hmmm. interesting ideas that you have there.
    Gravitational attraction is inversely proportional to distance between the two objects. FACT and PROVEN! Use this simple formula to calculate the galaxy and you will find out that your ideas are flat out WRONG.
    It seems to me that you have a degree from the Discovery channel university with no real education at all. I Guess it takes all kinds to infect the minds nearby and to use this as the domineering opinion to get yourself attention.
    When i can go to my observatory and do measurements that is real data. What you are on about is just ill informed rubbish.
    Try Studying the Universe and getting out your calculator before opening your mouth again

  • Idiot_Buster

    hmmm. interesting ideas that you have there.
    Gravitational attraction is inversely proportional to distance between the two objects. FACT and PROVEN! Use this simple formula to calculate the galaxy and you will find out that your ideas are flat out WRONG.
    It seems to me that you have a degree from the Discovery channel university with no real education at all. I Guess it takes all kinds to infect the minds nearby and to use this as the domineering opinion to get yourself attention.
    When i can go to my observatory and do measurements that is real data. What you are on about is just ill informed rubbish.
    Try Studying the Universe and getting out your calculator before opening your mouth again

  • Idiot_Buster

    hmmm. interesting ideas that you have there.
    Gravitational attraction is inversely proportional to distance between the two objects. FACT and PROVEN! Use this simple formula to calculate the galaxy and you will find out that your ideas are flat out WRONG.
    It seems to me that you have a degree from the Discovery channel university with no real education at all. I Guess it takes all kinds to infect the minds nearby and to use this as the domineering opinion to get yourself attention.
    When i can go to my observatory and do measurements that is real data. What you are on about is just ill informed rubbish.
    Try Studying the Universe and getting out your calculator before opening your mouth again

  • Idiot_Buster

    hmmm. interesting ideas that you have there.
    Gravitational attraction is inversely proportional to distance between the two objects. FACT and PROVEN! Use this simple formula to calculate the galaxy and you will find out that your ideas are flat out WRONG.
    It seems to me that you have a degree from the Discovery channel university with no real education at all. I Guess it takes all kinds to infect the minds nearby and to use this as the domineering opinion to get yourself attention.
    When i can go to my observatory and do measurements that is real data. What you are on about is just ill informed rubbish.
    Try Studying the Universe and getting out your calculator before opening your mouth again

  • Idiot_Buster

    hmmm. interesting ideas that you have there.
    Gravitational attraction is inversely proportional to distance between the two objects. FACT and PROVEN! Use this simple formula to calculate the galaxy and you will find out that your ideas are flat out WRONG.
    It seems to me that you have a degree from the Discovery channel university with no real education at all. I Guess it takes all kinds to infect the minds nearby and to use this as the domineering opinion to get yourself attention.
    When i can go to my observatory and do measurements that is real data. What you are on about is just ill informed rubbish.
    Try Studying the Universe and getting out your calculator before opening your mouth again

  • Idiot_Buster

    hmmm. interesting ideas that you have there.
    Gravitational attraction is inversely proportional to distance between the two objects. FACT and PROVEN! Use this simple formula to calculate the galaxy and you will find out that your ideas are flat out WRONG.
    It seems to me that you have a degree from the Discovery channel university with no real education at all. I Guess it takes all kinds to infect the minds nearby and to use this as the domineering opinion to get yourself attention.
    When i can go to my observatory and do measurements that is real data. What you are on about is just ill informed rubbish.
    Try Studying the Universe and getting out your calculator before opening your mouth again

  • Idiot_Buster

    hmmm. interesting ideas that you have there.
    Gravitational attraction is inversely proportional to distance between the two objects. FACT and PROVEN! Use this simple formula to calculate the galaxy and you will find out that your ideas are flat out WRONG.
    It seems to me that you have a degree from the Discovery channel university with no real education at all. I Guess it takes all kinds to infect the minds nearby and to use this as the domineering opinion to get yourself attention.
    When i can go to my observatory and do measurements that is real data. What you are on about is just ill informed rubbish.
    Try Studying the Universe and getting out your calculator before opening your mouth again

  • Idiot_Buster

    hmmm. interesting ideas that you have there.
    Gravitational attraction is inversely proportional to distance between the two objects. FACT and PROVEN! Use this simple formula to calculate the galaxy and you will find out that your ideas are flat out WRONG.
    It seems to me that you have a degree from the Discovery channel university with no real education at all. I Guess it takes all kinds to infect the minds nearby and to use this as the domineering opinion to get yourself attention.
    When i can go to my observatory and do measurements that is real data. What you are on about is just ill informed rubbish.
    Try Studying the Universe and getting out your calculator before opening your mouth again

  • Idiot_Buster

    hmmm. interesting ideas that you have there.
    Gravitational attraction is inversely proportional to distance between the two objects. FACT and PROVEN! Use this simple formula to calculate the galaxy and you will find out that your ideas are flat out WRONG.
    It seems to me that you have a degree from the Discovery channel university with no real education at all. I Guess it takes all kinds to infect the minds nearby and to use this as the domineering opinion to get yourself attention.
    When i can go to my observatory and do measurements that is real data. What you are on about is just ill informed rubbish.
    Try Studying the Universe and getting out your calculator before opening your mouth again

  • Idiot_Buster

    hmmm. interesting ideas that you have there.
    Gravitational attraction is inversely proportional to distance between the two objects. FACT and PROVEN! Use this simple formula to calculate the galaxy and you will find out that your ideas are flat out WRONG.
    It seems to me that you have a degree from the Discovery channel university with no real education at all. I Guess it takes all kinds to infect the minds nearby and to use this as the domineering opinion to get yourself attention.
    When i can go to my observatory and do measurements that is real data. What you are on about is just ill informed rubbish.
    Try Studying the Universe and getting out your calculator before opening your mouth again

  • Idiot_Buster

    hmmm. interesting ideas that you have there.
    Gravitational attraction is inversely proportional to distance between the two objects. FACT and PROVEN! Use this simple formula to calculate the galaxy and you will find out that your ideas are flat out WRONG.
    It seems to me that you have a degree from the Discovery channel university with no real education at all. I Guess it takes all kinds to infect the minds nearby and to use this as the domineering opinion to get yourself attention.
    When i can go to my observatory and do measurements that is real data. What you are on about is just ill informed rubbish.
    Try Studying the Universe and getting out your calculator before opening your mouth again

    • abu bau

      relativist faggot detected

      relativism is like cancer 

  • Really

    Science is about discovery. Science uses data to give
    substance to theories. Usually there’s a theory and then the tools to prove (or
    disprove) a theory are developed. Using phrases like “their stupid
    model” or “cook up a fraudulent model” is neither useful nor
    helpful. I consider ‘michaelsuede’ to be a ranting fundamentalist who should probably troll for a living.
    +1 for Idiot_buster
    -1 for abu bau (really faggot detected) what a ‘redneck’ thing to say.

  • joseph

    “Gravitational attraction is inversely proportional to distance between
    the two objects. FACT and PROVEN! Use this simple formula to calculate
    the galaxy and you will find out that your ideas are flat out WRONG” Idiot_Buster

    No, classical description of gravity is inversely proportional to distance^2, but galaxy rotational speed is observed to match a inverse distance relationship. The short answer is not dark matter but a an effect of the expansion of space. See Moshe Carmeli’s Relativistic Cosmology.