Can Science Explain Various Undetectable Data?

Scientists in embrace natural means for the cause of specialized information in the Universe likes to portray themselves above Christians and religious people in general. The reality is, many theories in science goes by faith. One rarely sees a theory in naturalism abandoned once falsified data is discovered even on a regular basis. Generally, the theory is only gets revised, sometimes many times over. This is because of the popularity of these particular theories have in secular science.

All branches of science have this problem, these examples come from one of my favorite subjects, astronomy…

The Multi-Universe hypothesis states that outside of our observable universe there is an undetermined amount of other universes. National Geographic claims there is new proof in detecting this idea…

“Dark flow” is no fluke, suggests a new study that strengthens the case for unknown, unseen “structures” lurking on the outskirts of creation…In 2008 scientists reported the discovery of hundreds of galaxy clusters streaming in the same direction at more than 2.2 million miles (3.6 million kilometers) an hour. This mysterious motion can’t be explained by current models for distribution of mass in the universe. So the researchers made the controversial suggestion that the clusters are being tugged on by the gravity of matter outside the known universe.”

There is a common argument leveled against creationists in this report, but used for to allegedly prove the muli-universe hypothesis.  “This mysterious motion can’t be explained by current models…so researcher made the controversial suggestion” sound familiar? Creationists say, evolution can’t explain the origin of information nor the means to create specified information (like a computer program) to create DNA, therefore makes the conclusion it’s from intelligence, namely God!  Looks like some secular scientists are hypocritical and hold to a double standard. There is a lot of evidence in various breaches of science which verifies creationism unlike the multi-universe hypothesis.

This is not all, an up and coming theory in terms of money and non-detectable data is focusing on building more detectors.

“The XENON100 detector is an instrumented vat, about the size of a stockpot — 12 inches in diameter and 12 inches tall — holding 220 pounds of frigid liquid xenon. It is, in effect, a traffic surveillance camera that can record the occasional, if very infrequent, collision between a dark matter particle and a xenon atom.”

Why is there such a push for detection of dark matter? Cosmologists require more dark matter than what is believed to be detected.  How much is that alledged detection? Only 17 percent! How can this theory be called a fact when 83 percent of it hasn’t been detected? How much evidence constitutes a fact rather than an idea? Quite frankly, much of money used for trying to detect dark matter could be used for planetary exploration which is observable and we would learn much more from it.

Speaking of planets, the Dynamo Theory is another, one of which has been discussed briefly in this blog. After an attempt to justify this theory, phys.org reports…

“But scientists’ understanding of dynamo theory has been complicated by recent discoveries of magnetized rocks from the moon and ancient meteorites, as well as an active dynamo field on Mercury – places that were thought to have perhaps cooled too quickly or be too small to generate a self-sustaining magnetic field.  It had been thought that smaller bodies couldn’t have dynamos because they cool more rapidly and are therefore more likely to have metallic cores that do not stay in liquid form for very long.”

This theory has long been falsified and should be abandon for a better theory that explains what we see but it only remains through revisions (fitting the data into a theory rather than the theory showing the data) because it still popular among secular scientists. More story telling with this theory because the theory requires it, “According to Weiss, the finding suggests that sustaining a magnetic field like the one on Earth might not require a large, cooling core that constantly moves liquid and creates currents, but could also be somehow generated by the cores of smaller bodies like planetesimals – some of which are only 160 kilometers wide.”

Noticed the word, “somehow” is used. Practicing stricter empirical science is rare these days because it restricts too much of their imagination which they use to tell the public that what they mean is “factual” rather than just an idea or complete guesswork on their part. Can science explain various undetectable data? The answer is “no” it cannot for how can one explain when it cannot be observe nor be understood? Data must be detected either directly or indirect in order for science to work and this is why it works better in creationism rather than evolution!

Gaudi’s Math Becomes Highly Questionable

This is a classical example of why evolutionary scientists get into trouble, not only that, but major science publications as well.  “Now we know…” Gaudi declares at the American Astronomical Society Meeting  where he also accepted the Helen B. Warner Prize for Astronomy. While his award might be impressive to some, his new research study is not…

“MicroFUN astronomers use a method called gravitational microlensing, which occurs when one star happens to cross in front of another as seen from Earth. The nearer star magnifies the light from the more distant star like a lens. If planets are orbiting the lens star, they boost the magnification briefly as they pass by.”

“This method is especially good at detecting giant planets in the outer reaches of solar systems — planets analogous to our own Jupiter.”

His estimate comes from trying to determine “earthlike” systems. What were those systems? A total of two gas giants out of many quadrillions of possible planet systems in the universe, which were not even close to a star. No science media questioned such math, in fact, science day and the rest deemed it to be pretty amazing.  However, readers from space.com were not so excited over this so-called new finding and conclusion.

One reader responded…

“I think Gaudi and Gould are nowhere near a point they should be speculating on final results.  Our techniques for finding planets so far are outright primitive and have not been used long enough to begin to detect what we are looking for! It seems to me to be like looking down at a forest from way up high in an airplane and saying, “We only saw three elk, four bears and a couple of coyotes.  There really can’t be much wild life in the whole forest…”

Another reader says…

“It is way to early to be making these kinds of statements.  We have too little data to even speculate.  It is this kind of junk science that gets the scientific community into trouble.”

Do not be surprised if Gaudi and company declare they found alien life too. Because with conclusions (we know now) like these with just a spec of data, there is no limit on what they will find or how much money they will make in the process. Secular science publications and Guadi call this science, but it’s really highly questionable.

Mars Geology Has Some Interesting Data For Creationism

I have been very critical of exploring Mars, namely the hype of trying to find life while favoring more exploration on other planets and moons which seem to have information worth studying. There is only so much money that can go around which is another reason as well. But I must say, the recent data on Mars appears very interesting.

Planetary geologists are beginning  to find rapid geology processes in Mar’s history. Some of these processes resembles things that happened on earth, however these effects are different considering Mars is much colder with a different atmosphere.

Water eruptions that occurred sometime in Mar’s past from two channels known as Mangala Fossa and Cerberus Fossa. Scientists have estimated a volume flux around 107 –108 m3/s from Mangala Fossa which seemed to have hot mud carried with it. There is a fracture about 200 km long. Also, Cerberus Fossa  has a fracture about 35 km long. Both of these eruptions propelled material several kilometres laterally across the surface.

Volcanic flows were ruled out due to the nature of the channels and ridges.  These type of eruptions require water to be located about 3–4 km below the surface. The water eruptions are just one example of a variety of large-scale rapid catastrophic events that have shaped the surface of Mars in its past. There is also massive volcanoes and evidence of glaciation on Mars.

The question remains how could a Martian atmosphere support so much liquid water in the past? Mars’ current atmosphere is quite thin and if there were liquid water on the surface of Mars today it would quickly evaporate and/or freeze. There is quite a bit more study needed especially from a young-age creation perspective.

Could Mars have been designed with a thicker atmosphere than present that was partially lost as a result of large impacts? A large impact to blast gasses away is possible but keep in mind, this is all tentative, unlike evolutionists who declare these things as facts first if there is an agreement among the majority. But whatever happened in Mars’ past, it does appear it was dramatic and catastrophic. Martian geology will generally demand rapid catastrophic processes and thus will fit a young-age viewpoint nicely.

Planet-Building Models Limited In Scope and Variation

Satoshi Okuzumi, “Electric Charging of Dust Aggregates and Its Effect on Dust Coagulation in Interplanetary Disks,” is another example, of the story in naturalism.

“Let us consider a small population of irregularly large aggregates (referred to as “test aggregates”) growing with a large population of standard (D ~ 2) fractal aggregates (“field aggregates”).  Under this assumption, the kinetic energy of relative motion between test and field aggregates is written as … ”

Impressive jargon, but it’s not logical. According to this paper in it’s attempt to try and explain how these tiny dust particles turns into planets one needs large pre-existing large dust particles.

“Therefore, if there exists an aggregate that is large and compact, it will be able to continue growing by sweeping up smaller “frozen” aggregates.”

So why is he claiming all this crazy stuff about pre-existing large dust particles needed to build a planet in naturalism? There is a major problem with the dust known as the “electrostatic barrier” which is the reason why there has been little attention over many years paid to answering and solving this question; “What happens when cosmic rays add static electricity to the clumps?”

I’ll tell you what basically happens, the static charge builds up and forms a barrier then it starts repelling particles from sticking to each other. Thus, it makes it impossible for the dust to build any futher. Problematic wouldn’t you say? Now how can this problem be solved? What would happen next to enable those dust particles to keep building?

Okuzumi suggested that turbulence might be an answer. However, this presents another problem, turbulence only happens at 20AU which is about the radial distance of Uranus. Turbulence causes another problem, raising the collision rate.

Obviously, this paper has open up more gaps than it has solved. Some will say, the solution is out there, we just haven’t found it yet. This is not about the science, but a matter of assumptions about initial conditions. Why not model things from the top down?