Revealing The Existence of Dark Matter Remains Elusive

Physicists and Astronomers have a huge dilemma on their hands if they are going to continue to tell the public that 95 percent of the universe consists of dark matter but nobody has been able to observe it. PhysOrg had no one but two related articles on the subject…

“The percentage of the known Universe that is missing.  As in it is not there.  Or at least if it is there, we can’t see it.  We call this unseen stuff “dark matter”.  That has been well known for sometime.  What is trickier in answering is why?  Why is it that 95% of the universe is made up of this so-named “dark matter?”  An even trickier question is where?

As in where is this dark matter?  It is those two questions that have plagued physicists for decades.  Dark matter, by its own definition cannot be seen, hence its name.  So how do we “see” it, how do we know “where” to look?”

Those who defend naturalism crave a good puzzle within the story on how the Universe functions like this particular one. While it’s true scientists would like to be the first to discover how to observe such an elusive phenomena if it’s really out there, because it gives them the excuse that science hasn’t progressed enough to observe it.

Unlike the oil story which can be tested and have results. You know the one where the majority of scientists told the public for many years that oil and gas are products of organisms that lived and died when in fact oil is predominantly geological in origin. The majority of course in this case was wrong.

Now back to dark matter. It’s concept was invented to explain why galaxies don’t break apart while they spin. Like merry-go-rounds at the fair park, galaxies generate what known as a centripetal force while they rotate. The problem with visible matter, there is not enough of it according to scientists to keep the galaxies from tearing themselves apart. This is the main reason why scientists who believe in evolution claim there is “dark matter” out there somewhere.

Even though dark matter has never been observe doesn’t mean physicists don’t know what it’s consists of. On the contrary as stated

“Aprile and many other physicists believe that dark matter is made up of WIMPS, or weakly interacting massive particles. As their name suggests, WIMPS very rarely bump into each other or into anything else; otherwise, scientists would have discovered them a long time ago.”

They also think they know where to look as they are currently conducting an experiment on Earth.

“Aprile and her colleagues are looking for WIMPS beneath 5,000 feet of rock in Italy’s Gran Sasso mountains in an experiment known as XENON. The project, which recently won $2.5 million of additional funding from the National Science Foundation, consists of a hatbox-sized container of liquid xenon—an element that occurs naturally in the atmosphere as a gas—sandwiched between two detectors.”

“Should a dark matter particle come into contact with a xenon atom, it will trigger a flash of bluish light that the detectors will pick up.”

Question, if they have never seen dark matter or are not sure exactly what it is, how do they know a particle (if it exists at all) will trigger a reading from the detectors? They sound confident, but it’s only because they are trying to make their project relevant for funding…The first quote that I stated in the beginning of the post was very accurate as far as what scientists really know about the invented concept of dark matter.

Advertisements

16 thoughts on “Revealing The Existence of Dark Matter Remains Elusive

  1. Here we go again …

    “This is the main reason why scientists who believe in evolution claim there is “dark matter” out there somewhere.”
    Biological evolution has nothing to do with dark matter in the universe. Only baryonic matter produces life.

    And *of course* dark matter has been observed, most notably in gravitational lenses (your spinning galaxies is only one of many pieces of evidence) and in the cosmic microwave background radiation. Indeed we do not know what the dark matter is made off, just like we used not to know what radioactive radiation was when it was observed: it was simply called alpha-, beta- and gamma-rays. Now we know, of course, and one day we hope to know what dark matter is made off (and at least part of it is still simply normal stuff that doesn’t radiate).

    You still show a complete lack of knowledge on this topic, and its history, and you display an amazing lack of interest in learning about it as well. How many times have I already commented on this topic?

  2. “Physicists and Astronomers have a huge dilemma on their hands if they are going to continue to tell the public that 95 percent of the universe consists of dark matter but nobody has been able to observe it.”

    That’s OK. As long as they don’t try to sell it to us by the pound, as creationists do.

    ==Soc Puppette

  3. I’m sorry. You said “dark” matter. I was thinking “brown” matter.

  4. Eelco: “you display an amazing lack of interest in learning about it as well. How many times have I already commented on this topic?:

    When your only purpose is to ridicule, interest in learning is not important.

    Science blogs such as Pharyngula and Bad Astronomy are interesting, because you can learn about actual research and new discoveries.

    Creationist blogs are depressing for the converse reason. All you can find out is ad-hoc arguments why the stuff in the science blogs was wrong.

  5. Let’s suspend reality and say Michael is right. What does this have to do with creationism? How does this have ANYTHING to do with proving God created everything 6 kyrs ago?

  6. astroturf: “Let’s suspend reality and say Michael is right. What does this have to do with creationism? How does this have ANYTHING to do with proving God created everything 6 kyrs ago?”

    Nothing! Absolutely nothing! See my comments from, oh, six months ago until now, and Soc Pupette’s comment above.

    The blog title, “New Discoveries and Comments about Creationism” is a complete fraud. when have you ever seen any new anything? Any new discoveries about creationism? Any comments about creationism?

    Micheal, if it ain’t so, please show an example

    The sole purpose of this entire blog can be summed up as “Ha, ha, Science! Stick it in your ear. You don’t know everything.””

    Micheal, if it ain’t so, please show an example

    The blog doesn’t even have qany creationist readers, or at least any that aren’t afraid arfvue for their beliefs.

    Micheal, if it aion’t so, please show an example.

  7. Olorin – I know. And it’s astrostu … don’t be a jerk about my name, that’s just an unwarranted ad hominem.

    My point was to ask Michael to explain this, to actually understand from his point of view how this supports his claim at all. I’m not looking for the obvious snarky answer from someone who understands the science of this. I’m treating this as a learning experience for myself to actually try to understand Michael’s views.

  8. In the previous comment, the penultimate paragraph should be’

    “The blog doesn’t even have any creationist readers, or at least any that aren’t afraid to step forward and witness for their beliefs.”

    My only excuse for the erors is the incipient arrival of a Chevy Suburban XL loaded with 4 grandchildren and a dog, for an excursion to Ansari’s restaurant, who have the best salatet malfoof around—not to mention my favorite Araq and a belly dancer who invites the 6-year-old to dance with her.

  9. Sorry astrostu, I try not to play with names, except my own

    Michael’s view have not been at all evident in this blog. So I wonder also. Much of the material seems to be shoveled in from the ICR. One of my questions above was not snarky—who else reads the blog, besides a couple of us who drop in and rip it apart? Few or no other commenters. Whom is it for?

    Last year, I think a gal ran this blog, with approximately the same content, and asymptotically zero commenters.

    == Ford van Doorkey

  10. “The light bends the gravity”
    “The matter produces the gravity field, and the energy of emission produces the separation field”.

    —————————————————————————

    Let’s change the Einstein field equation a bit.

    Einstein original Rab – 1/2 * Rgab = 8paiG/c^4 * Tab

    Modified version Rab – 1/2 * Rgab = 8paiG/c^4 * (Tmab + i*Teab)

    Here: Tmab is the stress tensor by matter
    Teab is the energy tensor by emission energy

    Then this should be the Modified Einstein Field Equation (MEFE).

    It is said by all the people that the gravity has the same intensity regardless of the direction of measurement and that it is isotropic. But I think that the gravity will work not only three dimensionally but also two or one dimensionally. In the two or one dimensional gravity, the gravity will be concentrated in one plane or line and will have a stronger effect than three dimensional gravity has. Then the separation forces are necessary in order to smash the gravity into two or one dimension.
    Then the imaginary factor is necessary.

    According to the Einstein Theory;
    Matter warps the continuum according to the amount (or mass) which exists in any locality. Then all motion along world lines in the vicinity must follow the warp.If world lines must follow warps in space, beams of light passing near the mass should be deflected with a certain angle.
    But here for me, the light can’t be deflected one-sidedly. It should also affect back the gravity field. Beams of light will loosen the gravity field to the orthogonal direction slightly. And huge amount of beams of light or emissions will shove away the gravity field in a thin-depth disk.

    There are three phases of the relation of gravitation and separation.

    elliptical galaxy e.g. NGC4881 “Three Dimension” -> ordinary Newton’s equation
    GM(smaller than r)m/r^2 = mv^2/r
    gravitationally unstable

    barred spiral galaxy e.g.NGC1300 “One Dimension” -> new New1ton’s equation
    G”M(smaller than r)m = mv^2/r

    spiral galaxy e.g. NGC4414 “Two Dimension” -> new New2ton’s equation
    G’M(smaller than r)m/r = mv^2/r
    gravitationally stable

    There are also phase-shifts among those three phases.

    —————————————————————————

    The Law of Universal Gravitation and Separation

    It is the universal force which unifies gravity and separator into one. No one ever knows about the separator force. So now, I give a definition of the law of universal separation at first.

    Fs = – Sp Ea Eb / r^2 F ; the separation force
    Ea ; Energy which belongs to the point a
    Eb ; Energy which belongs to the point b
    r ; the distance between a and b
    Sp ; the separation constant
    This force will not be detected on the Earth. It can be negligible even in the solar system. But it will work in the galactic scale.
    Next step is to unify Gravitation and Separation into one law.

    Fg = G Ma Mb / r^2 —————–Then,
    Fg+s = G Ma Mb / r^2 – Sp Ea Eb / r^2

    And assume that Sp = G / c^4, because E = mc^2.

    Fg+s = G Ma Mb / r^2 – (G / c^4) Ea Eb / r^2

    One step forward by using the complex number formula.

    F = G ( Ma + i Ea / c^2 ) ( Mb + i Eb / c^2 ) / r^2
    F = G Ma Mb / r^ – (G / c^4) Ea Eb / r^2 + i ( G Ea Mb / ( r^2 c^2 ) + G Ma Eb / ( r^2 c^2 ))
    The real part is Re( F ) = Fg+s, but I don’t know how to deal with the imaginary part ; Im( F ) = G Ea Mb / ( r^2 c^2 ) + G Ma Eb / ( r^2 c^2 ).

    So an existing substance is to be described as S = M + i E / c^2 .
    In a certain independent area, if M + E / c^2 = constant ( in other words when M decreases by ΔM, E will increases by ΔE = ΔM c^2 ), then abs( S ) = will be minimum when M = E / c^2, because abs( S ) = root( M^2 + E^2 / c^4 ).

    “Energy” is the emission of light. In the beginning there was only the light with the energy ( = Eo ). At present equilibrium, the total matter in the space is (1/2)Eo/c^2 and the total energy has decreased to (1/2)Eo.

    http://www.geocities.jp/imyfujita/galaxy/galaxy01.html

    Iori Fujita

  11. @iori fujita:
    “Let’s change the Einstein field equation a bit.”

    Yes, lovely, changing equations is always fun. But what is your motivation for doing this ? “Let us ” is a bit meager …

  12. When you have a truly 1- or 2-dimensional manifold, of course gravity must decrease differently in order to maintain conservation of energy. But this is not what Iori is talking about, because the other dimension(s) actually exist; the matter distribution is merely different..

    It may be that the introduction of a “separator force” accounts for radial velocities in our galaxy or in other normal galaxies. One can always tweak the math to match the data.

    But what about—Eelco, help me out here—the recently discovered merging galaxies that have displaced the dark-matter halos from the centers of the ordinary matter. Those galaxies show different patterns of rotational velocities, which are accounted for by dark matter, but I believe would not comport with Iori’s formulation.

  13. wow yal some sart folks.our brains are compters, i just wish i had been givin the same model you guys have. man one day you guys and or girls are gonna realize that mans wisdom is gonna be brought to nothin. yeah thats right, nothin. but thats kool by me cause when JESUS resurects my body and changes me over to a super smart and glorified saint of GOD im gonna have limitless knowledge, super human abilities, you know where i can fly and walk through walls, and stuff like that. so yep enjoy your super smart brains while you can. the first shall be last and the last shall be first. seriously, JESUS loves you and paid the full penalty for all man kinds sins. man those eqations really confuse me. im glad that salvation through GODS WORD is for the smart and the simple.

  14. “Revealing The Existence of Dark Matter Remains Elusive”

    Revealing blank minds, however, is not so elusive. In fact, one of them has been observed just above.

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