Gravity: Cosmology Has Plunged Into A Major Crisis!

It all started when Cosmologists in the 1990s detected a surprise in the readings of distant supernovas concerning their brightness. Science publications began to claim it was some sort of accelerating mysterious energy that was expanding the Universe.

Trying to detect the so-called energy was fruitless as nobody was able to confirm such a phenomena, so it became known as “dark energy.”

Many years have past since then and another so-called phenomena known as “dark matter” alludes detection as well. Both are invisible, and mysterious that supposedly make up 95 percent of the Universe.   A growing number of cosmologists are starting to get frustrated with their explanations in outer space. In physOrg says…

“Modern cosmologists rely more and more on the ominous “dark matter” to explain otherwise inexplicable observations, much effort has gone into the detection of this mysterious substance in the last two decades, yet no direct proof could be found that it actually exists.”

“Even if it does exist, dark matter would be unable to reconcile all the current discrepancies between actual measurements and predictions based on theoretical models. Hence the number of physicists questioning the existence of dark matter has been increasing for some time now.”

Pavel Kroupa was so frustrated with this whole mess of dark matter that he mistakenly claimed the solution would be to reject the whole concept of “Newton’s classical theory of gravitation” so as he put it, we would live in a Universe without “dark matter” and then we would be able to explain all the motion observations in space.

Newton’s classical theory of gravitation would not be abandon but rather it would be modified, just like it has been in the past with special relativity. Classical mechanics works for our everyday experience so it would be foolish to abandon such a principle.

It also interesting to note, defenders of evolution, many of them, always use gravity. “Evolution is fact, just like gravity” You deny evolution, you are denying gravity, some claim. Of course when scientists  start attacking gravity like we see happening in this case, it doesn’t undermine their box (worldview) of Darwinism so they are not threaten by it.

But their best arguments for naturalism is a web of confusion with scientists speculating on so much more than what they actually know while trying to explain what they believe is inside their box.

Cosmologists have been resembling the occult with trying to use this undetectable dark matter by creating unknown substances in their models which has plunged their field into a major crisis. All these assumptions of stuff build on top of each other like the big bang. There is an old saying, when the evolutionary theory in any field of science tries to fill in one gap it generally causes five more gaps to open, the cycle is endless.

Advertisements

72 thoughts on “Gravity: Cosmology Has Plunged Into A Major Crisis!

  1. This is getting tedious: you are again mixing up evolutionary theory with cosmology, and confusing “dark matter” and “dark energy”, which are NOT the same.

    You say: “A growing number of cosmologists are starting to get frustrated.”
    This is nonsense: I am a cosmologist myself, and we are not getting frustrated at all. I’d rather say we are getting excited, that in this age of ‘precision cosmology’ we can start to think about the physics behind it all, because the free parameters are no longer so free (some are determined within a few percent now !).

    You also say: “Cosmologists have been resembling the occult with trying to use this undetectable dark matter by creating unknown substances in their models which has plunged their field into a major crisis.”
    This really is complete and utter nonsense. We’re just doing physics. Both dark matter and dark energy ARE detectable, where dark energy is the harder one.

    I’ve pointed this out a few times before, and you are just completely ignoring all this, which is getting tedious. Read some literature please before complete misrepresenting the state of cosmology, not even understanding the terminology.

  2. Your right, they meaning of dark energy and dark matter are not the same, I made the comment a bit more clearer as I made the transition fairly quickly. How can you explain something with two invisible and mysterious theories that combined supposedly make up 95 percent of the Universe? Your just totally guessing till something else comes along, are you not?

    You state, “We’re just doing physics. Both dark matter and dark energy ARE detectable, where dark energy is the harder one.”

    Reported by the BBC news last year…

    The first stars to appear in the Universe may have been powered by dark matter, according to US scientists….when the Universe was still young, there would have been abundant dark matter, made of particles called Wimps: Weakly Interacting Massive Particles. The theory, published in the journal Physical Review Letters, depends on particles that astronomers can’t see, but are certain exist, and physicists have never detected.

    Now dark energy, it has been labeled as the “most profound problem in physics” and I highly doubt this profound problem has been solved which is why you are still working on the physics aspect of it. Yet, “one possibility is there is no dark energy, and gravity works differently than scientists think.”

    Nope, neither one has been detected. Otherwise, it would have been 2008 science’s major breakthrough instead of adult stem cell research!

  3. It is not just the meaning of ‘dark matter’ and ‘dark energy’ which are not the same, they are actually quite different things.

    And no, we are not ‘totally guessing’, that is just an insult. There are plenty of sensible (and not so sensible) ideas and theories, and these are beyond mere guesswork.

    Then you start quoting again, instead of using your own words (why would that be ???), without giving the real source. You quote the BBC news: fine, but who are these scientists ? I’ve not heard of these ideas, actually, but I might just have missed this star formation idea (which is NOT cosmology, by the way, so I do not know why you quote this).

    Then you say: “… depends on particles that astronomers can’t see, but are certain exist, and physicists have never detected.”
    – we can see them, and they are detected (read the literature)
    – we are not certain of anything

    On we go. You say: “Now dark energy, it has been labeled as the “most profound problem in physics” and I highly doubt this profound problem has been solved which is why you are still working on the physics aspect of it. Yet, “one possibility is there is no dark energy, and gravity works differently than scientists think.”
    The website actually says “what some experts are calling the most profound problem”. Some do, some don’t.
    As for the rest of your statement: sure, it has not been solved. That is science. Not surprising, we’ve only had 10 years. And it is not an easy problem. Also not surprising. So what is your point ??

    Your last sentence is again incorrect: both dark matter and dark energy HAVE been detected, but their nature is not known yet. Just like radiation from radioactive materials: it was simply called alpha, beta and gamma-radiation when discovered, but now we know what it is. Again, that’s science.

  4. the fact is that this debate will go on and on till CHRIST returns. This is a fallen world we live in, and those that believe that this universe came to be without INTELLIGENCE should at least admit that u cannot give solid proof for anything that is not observable. And since nobody can observe the beginning then all theory about such should not be taught as fact.that is deception. Any thing you have to believe should be labeled as religion not scientific fact.

  5. and in the same sense those that believe the univese did come by INTELLIGENCE should admit that you cannot observe the beginning therefore GOD did not intend for us to prove it scientificly again it seems this world was ment to be accepted by faith, no matter how bad u want to u just cant prove what u cant observe

  6. i hope i am clear of taking shoots CHRIST is my redeemer and he is the perfect ONE . What we believe is what determines our veiw of others and i believe that every one deserves to be heard. offence only comes two ways. People with the wrong conversa tion attitude, and if someone is not confident in what they believe. taking shots is only a sign of lack of confidence.

  7. @james:

    I do not like shooting. And what does confidence have to do with scientific theories being right or wrong ? Confidence is a human feature, which normally comes and goes (well, it does for me).

    Offence certainly does not have to come two ways. Why would that be ?

  8. i guess that is the only two ways i have observed it. Couldent the mystery of dark matter have something to do with black holes? And the mystery of dark energy have to do with the mysteries of gravity itself?

  9. @james:
    No, dark matter (not very mysterious, really, it is just not emitting any light) has nothing to do with black holes.
    Dark energy is most likely an energy density field, and does indeed have to do with gravity. Your latter point is probably correct, but you make it sound more mysterious than it really is.

  10. i heard on the science channel that scientist dont fully under stand exactly what gravity is . Thats what i mean by mysteries of gravity.

  11. Well, I guess it depends where your threshold for calling something a ‘mystery’ is … I would say if you understand very little you would do that, but gravity is relatively well understood, but certainly not fully. Where we do have little understanding is in the realms of the quantum world: quantum gravity is a hard nut to crack. We sort of know how it might work, but there is no good theory yet.

    Remember that science is certainly not a ‘finished’ set of theories that explain all: there is lots to understand, still. I just find the word ‘mystery’ a bit too strong for gravity.

    Personally I find the fact that there are still so many religious people around quite mysterious …

  12. well nobody has proved how the universe was formed. And nobody has proven creation wrong. Why would that be a mystery?

  13. As you know, science cannot prove something for 100%. It can only test theories, and some work better than others. I do not know which ‘creation’ you talk about ?
    A 6000 year old universe is most definitely falsified by science.

  14. ha ha give me evidence!! Tell me how close the moon would have been 75 million years ago to the earth and what effect it would have on life. Do the math the moon moves away from the earth at the rate of 3.8 centimeters per year.

  15. Get your evidence at your local library. Far too much to enter in this little box.

    About your 75 million years: here is a discussion on your 3.8 cm per year (which does not need to be constant over time):
    http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=261286

    They get 10 billion years for a constant 3.8 cm/y :

    current distance: 385,000 km = 3.85 billion cm

  16. well since u have not enough space to answer that one , try this one. does it reqire intelligence to look at a piece of art and draw it in detail?

  17. Are you always asking random questions ?

    Of course my wife, who is an artist (painter), is intelligent. And I like to think I am as well, if I look at here latest paintings. Although art is not always meant to be intelligent, as you know, it can also just excite emotions (of any kind).

    But what does that have to do with dark matter, or gravity ?

  18. it has alot to do with gravity and such. If it requires intelligence to be able to recreate art in detail and this universe came to be without intelligence then what intelligence is responsible for the butterflies that have eyes on thier wings that mimics the owls eye in detail? wouldent it require an eye of an intelligent beholder to recreate detailed art?

  19. i cant even sleep beause the wounder and beuty of this world has taken me hostige . That is where my random questions come from.

  20. are you researching the answer cause im having a good time hearing other peoples veiws dont leave me hangin.

  21. @james:

    I was on holiday, just got back today …

    But you are still jumping around, asking random questions, this time about butterfly wings … do you expect to get into an infinite loop answering questions for ever and ever ??
    Can’t you look up the answers (if available) yourself ?

  22. i have asked that question to many ppl but never one direct answer and ive ask some pretty well educated ppl

  23. i am guessing , well i can tell u are well educated it would do alot of good for me if someone would answer this question directly. Of course u dont have to but i believe u can. So its up to you.

  24. I do not mind answering questions, James, but as I said, you are jumping from one random question to another, and I do get the feeling that if I answer one, you keep on coming back with more random questions.

    Above I did answer some questions, and even did a calculation for you which you seem to ignore now …. that is not very helpful.

  25. i did not ignore that calculation, i think that it was a good calculation and i have no need to respond to it. as far as random questions i never have seen a rule book on asking a cosmologist questions. Look i never even finished high school so im definately not perfect just very curious.

  26. That is all fine, but it makes me wonder why I went to the trouble of doing the calculation and showing the results. It does not seem to make any difference to you at all.

    What do you mean by ‘I have no need to respond to it’ ? Something is shown to be wrong (demonstrably), and you do not care ?

    And then you expect me to respond to you ? That is one-way traffic …

  27. BTW: being curious is definitely a good characteristic, but then do something with what you find out !

  28. i must have worded that wrong , sorry what meant was that if thatcalculation is true true then there is no need for me to argue, if thats the right word for it. i dont really think we are arguing. u see what i believe to be an absolute truth , and what i percieve from science is two different things. Science is something that does change from time to time. But what i know in my heart from the word of GOD never changes. There is evidence for chance and for purpose. i like to see it all.

  29. i must clarify that i did say u would have to prove to me that the cosmos is not young but since no one was there to observe when it came to be or how , then neither you nor i could show phisical Proof. Instead we must look at the theories and come to believe in one. Or some choose to believe in nothing. remember science is not perfect. We use to believe the earth was flat. But both the WORD of GOD and science speak against that.

  30. now i realize that i could be seen as an double minded man for makin a statement like that there is evidence for both but from a human perspective looking out there really is. Just as it would be wrong for a creationist to say that there is absolutely no evidece of the old age of the cosmos, it would be just as wrong for someone to say there is absolutly no evidence for the young age. As strange as the cosmos is whos to say that it is not both old and young.the bible says that he created the heavens in a mature state. Just as he did not create adam in a newborn state but as an mature adult.

  31. Well, the cosmos cannot be old and young at the same time, and I’m afraid there really is no evidence at all for a young universe. Your bible (which is one of many contradicting religious books) is not a scientific book, obviously, which many people do not seem to realise …

    There is plenty of evidence for an old universe: one nice thing about the finiteness of the speed of light is that the further you peek back in the universe, the further you peek back in time. So you can actually look back in time almost 13 billion years ago.

  32. well im glad you are at least smart enough to use the word evidence instead of proof. the further you look into the cosmos the furthur back in time u are lookin . Wouldnt that mean that we are somewhat at the center of it all ? And that time is faster there than here? And i do laugh at ur idea of contridictions in the bible. If its no trouble please tell another joke. Or give some example of such. If u dare. With love, james

  33. @james:
    No, we’re not in the centre of it all … that’s a common misconception.

    And my comment on contradictions was about all religious books, not just your bible: all these religious books contradict each other.

  34. im sayin that the world religions disagree because, with adam god founded the true *religion*. But when the world was repopulated by 8 people and was spread around the world truth became legends becuase man no longer had contact with the eye witnesses. And when *religion* became watered down by mans own ideas god sent jesus to reastablish the true *religion* which is not really religion because religon is man made. man replaced god with religion.

  35. and how could any one say that there is no evidece for a young universe when we have not explored even a small percentage of the universe? Why am i willing to exept evidence for an old or mature universe but most of the most intellegent ppl say that someone elses veiw is absolutely wrong based on a science that changes and is not infalable. Is science absolute? Are u sure? How do you know that everthing you think you know according to calculations and research is not goin to be found to be false according to some new discovery? and scince what you know is a theory would it not be a belief system? And is that not what the idea of an intelligent creator is? Is what you believe better than what i believe because it is suposedly backed by infalible evidence?

  36. “im sayin that the world religions disagree because, with adam god founded the true *religion*. ”

    Well, all religions claim to be the ‘true religion’, so that does not help at all ..

    “and how could any one say that there is no evidece for a young universe when we have not explored even a small percentage of the universe? ”

    any evidence for a young universe has not be found so far, but of course it could be found in the future. Could, but it hasn’t so far. Feel free to keep looking !

  37. there is only a few religions that claim to be the true relgion. The others say that all ways are the same and equal. Most of those that claim to be the true one originated in the area of jerusalem. And yes there is lack of evidence for a young universe, but only to those who believe the universe is old. but there are cosmologist that show evidence for a young cosmos , but only because they believe the cosmos is young. is this a coinsadence? I Think not. This debate will go on and on forever but no one will ever witness the origin of the cosmos. So that is another reason i believe that the universe is a mature universe that was created no more than 10 or so thousand years ago.

  38. “there is only a few religions that claim to be the true relgion. ”
    That is most certainly not true. Why would any of the 1000 or so religions of this world not claim to be the true one ?

    “Most of those that claim to be the true one originated in the area of jerusalem. ”
    That is only a small fraction of religions !

    “And yes there is lack of evidence for a young universe, but only to those who believe the universe is old.”
    That is very odd: evidence is evidence, for everybody. Nobody ‘believes’ the universe is old: it is measured to be old !!

    “I Think not. This debate will go on and on forever but no one will ever witness the origin of the cosmos. ”
    You did not get my previous explanation about the finiteness of the speed of light and looking back in time, did you ?

  39. sooooo many religions claim to be lookin for a mesiah, they claim that good morals is a must, they believe in one or more supreame beings,and i have seen for myself that alot of them say that other religions are basically the same. furtheurmore if you have personally seen the origin of the cosmos please send me a video or somethin cauase i bet you will not because such a thing does not exist. it is one thing to write me and say that such a thing exist but it is anotherthing to prove it so prove it.

  40. majior religion is what ive been speaking of, and such religion has alot to do with culture unlike say mormon, jehovahs witness, scientology, ect… The ones that are culture based such as buddism, hindu,native american , myan, ect… Are the ones that alow for others to be the same message for a different culture. Even though they are not exactly the same. Judaism, muslim, islamic,chrirtian ect… Are examples of the ones that claim to be the right one. The religions that leave room for others to be right are a result of not having land to fight over or not believing that other religons suffer eternal punishment for not being exactly as they are. Cultural religions realize that there was once a universal religion but was then spread throuhout the world and givin individual cultural personalities. The bad part of that was that some vital truths were lost.

  41. hey sir, and i call you sir because you are the smartest person i have ever debated with. Please bear with me i know im jumpy. I Dont mean it, i just always think of things like this. But this even helps me sleep better at night when im able to express my thoughts and get reations. And really the issue is not whether the cosmos is young or not but rather was it created by an intelligent designer or not. I Already agree that the cosmos is mature. But where i disagree is that it all happend by chance. I Respect scientist to the highest degree, but i just dont see how they can say that there is no true purpose to life.

  42. “hey sir, and i call you sir because you are the smartest person i have ever debated with. ”
    Don’t call people ‘sir’ just because you consider them to be smart – I would only use ‘sir’ if I respect someone, smart or not. There are some really clever people out there who are complete assholes.

    “But where i disagree is that it all happend by chance.”
    That is not what scientists are saying: there are physical laws that determine what happens, not chance. Also, evolution is not a process by chance ! This is a common misunderstanding. Natural selection is not a random process.

    “And really the issue is not whether the cosmos is young or not but rather was it created by an intelligent designer or not.”
    OK, if you think that is the more important question, then that is fine. But there is no scientific evidence for a ‘designer’, and it doesn’t solve anything as far as science is concerned: where did the designer come from then ? So this does not satisfy my curiousity: it is not really an answer, and there is no evidence at all to back it up.

  43. well since you have already said that the cosmos did not come to be by chance please tell what caused everthing to be in such fine balance.

  44. “nobody would know the answer to that question “where did he come from””

    Why would your designer have to be a single male ? Why not a ‘she’, ‘it’, ‘they’ ?

  45. since he is an eternal spirit outside of time space and matter he is neither. He chose to be refered to as a male most of the time. In proverbs chapter 8 he is refered to as a female. speakin of GOD as wisdom. he Has many attributes female, and it is included.but he does not have any physical appearance bein a Spirit. But does appear in many forms as he chooses.

  46. @james:
    Those are all religious answers, not scientific ones. You were asking me scientific questions, but you seem to be happy with religious answers. Why bother asking these question then ?

  47. well i was gonna keep track of everything i say scientific that we agree on but no matter what i say im alwawys wrong in your eyes. That really stinks.

  48. well it seems that the only two things we agree on is that the cosmos is *mature* and that it is governed by laws but that raises the question who is or what is the law giver ha ha yes u can laugh that is kinda a joke. This really could go on and on

  49. Why don’t you ask it yourself, Michael ? Why are you so hesitant to post on your own blog ? I almost seems like you do not want to discuss things …

  50. to elco i dont know if you have noticed but i have not tried to use not one sourse to back me. its cause i dont care to. i just dont think that science will ever “crack the code”. and i dont think that science is any kind of final athourity as long as it is bein iterprited by finite minds.

  51. dont get me wrong i know that science is a wounderful tool for the things of earth, but i beleive that GOD never meant for us to go beyond bein on earth looking upward. so many ppl try to say things like the bible says that the earth is flat, and that the sun revolves around the earth when really it was written to men who knew not our technology and could only see things from a earthly perspective. when you walk out your front door and look into the distance you only see a flat earth. when you track the movement of the sun across the sky you only see the sun movin. these things are not wrong scientificly. the bible is a book where GOD comunicates with man on mans level. if GOD was to talk to us on his level we would forever be lost. like i said science is helpful but its not good for everything.it aids us in building things and doctors use it science is used all over the earth but when it comes to the cosmos we will never attain.

  52. James,

    Thanks! One wonders why so many as you put it think Christians believed the world was flat, when in fact, they did not. But there are those who believed in spontaneous generation who believed life could evolve from dirty underwear, spoiled food or scum from a clear pond of water. Later it was disproved by Dr. Pasteur. When it comes to space, anything can be assumed of what happened from the past because it cannot be tested. Always remember, religion drives science while evolution suppresses it.

  53. “Always remember, religion drives science while evolution suppresses it.”

    That really is the worst nonsense I’ve heard from you, Michael. Evolution is a scientific theory, religion is a belief system with no scientific basis (which is fine in itself: it is just not science).

  54. sirs,i have talked to many ppl on these subjects and i am just amazed because Elco said that life is not without pupose, evolution is not a random prosses, and that the cosmos is not a result of chance. Elco, what else choice is left other than nature itself is some sort of intelligent means? im not being a smartallic, it really does hit me this way.

  55. did not mean to put words in your mouth. i looked again and saw that you did not respond where i said ” they say life is without purpose”

  56. I don’t think I’ve said that life is not without a purpose … I do think there is no specific purpose to life: it just ‘is’, and I’m quite happy with that (enjoying it as much as I can !).

    I have said that evolution is not a random process, though. That can be found in any textbook, and should be well-known.

  57. ELCO, i was not sayin that you said that life is without purpose, im was saying that i looked back and you had not responded like i said you did. brainfart on my part.

  58. No worries, but I have responded now, right ?
    And I am still happily living my life, trying to be nice to everybody and all.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s