What I find interesting at times, is scientists claiming so much knowledge of what’s out there in space. Long held assumptions continue to be undermined with new discoveries. The origin of galaxies is one of the latest. The story goes something like this, the universe formed itself or was assisted by another universe. Over an enormous period of time we should be able to observe certain things namely thousands of tiny satellite galaxies around the outskirts of the Milky Way. But what is has been observe is only about 25 of these tiny satellite galaxies.
New Scientist states:
“We see only about 1 per cent of the predicted number of satellite galaxies,” says Pavel Kroupa of the University of Bonn in Germany. “It is the cleanest case in which we can see there is something badly wrong with our standard picture of the origin of galaxies.”
“They reported that most of those galaxies orbit the Milky Way in an unexpected manner and that, taken together, their results are at odds with mainstream cosmology. There is “only one way” to explain the results, says Kroupa: “Gravity has to be stronger than predicted by Newton.”
Can a basic scientific law such as gravity be questioned? The answer of course is a resounding; “yes.” The problem with origins isn’t with gravity rather it’s with the perception of those trying to studying the Universe in light of naturalism. We are already observing a conflict between those who believe in dark matter and those who want to revise Newton’s gravity law because they say with many studies over the years, there is just not enough visible matter to hold everything together.
Seems like tiny satellite galaxies are not the only things which has been miscounted these days but counts from the Galaxy Evolution Explorer has been putting a big dent into the notion of 500 stars to every giant. The new data is showing that ratio has been about 400 percent off it’s mark. It reveals 2,000 small stars to every one gaint. NASA is suggesting a recount!
“What this paper is showing is that some of the standard assumptions that we’ve had – that the brightest stars tell you about the whole population of stars – this doesn’t seem to work, at least not in a constant way,” said Gerhardt R. Meurer, principal investigator on the study and a research scientist at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md.”
“Astronomers have long known that many stars are too dim to be seen in the glare of their brighter, more massive counterparts. Though the smaller, lighter stars outnumber the big ones, they are harder to see. Going back to a grocery story analogy, the melons grab your eyes, even though the total weight of the blueberries may be more.”
Now that’s a goofy analogy by Gerhardt Meurer. It’s difficult for the layperson to make a judgement on cosmologists’ assertion that dark matter represents 95% of reality or how galaxies supposedly evolved from mergers of mini-galaxies. Some assume because they are knowledgeable, they always know what they are talking about. But a layperson needs a skeptic eye, these scientists are fallible men who make mistakes.