Models Are Not Meeting Expectations In The Universe

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.

Advertisements

13 thoughts on “Models Are Not Meeting Expectations In The Universe

  1. “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.”

    So, if naturalism produces all these wrong answers—causing space satellites to crash and GPS clocks to malfunction and tall buildings to remain suspended in midair—then please tell us how creationism explains gravitation. How would a creationist calculate a satellite orbit by consulting the Bible? How would a creationist compensate a GPS clock for relativistic velocities according to the precepts of Genesis? How would a creationist design a stable wall by following the example of Jericho?

    Does anything in this post assert any evidence for creationism? No. Does anything in this post propose any creationist principle of galaxy formation? No. Does anything in this post offer any new understanding whatever? No.

    Then what is its purpose? Apparently to make creationists feel better by dragging scientists down. Not exactly a Christian motive.

    ===========================
    By the way, a possible explanation has already been proposed since the new Scientist article appeared. “Exploring Dark Matter with Milky Way Substructure” (Science, 325:970-973) proposes that the Milky Way halo may not be a smooth sphere, but have subhalos and other structure. Experiments to test this hypothesis are proposed for Fermi satellite..

  2. Indeed, there are lots of solutions to the “missing satellite” problem, and one does not need to fool around with gravity.

    By the way, your post again shows complete ignorance on this topic (I happen to be an active researcher in this field), but that does not stop you making your claims.

    Of course one needs to challange everything in physics, that is what science does all the time ! It comes naturally !

  3. By the way, your title is very odd: expectations are coming from the models, so how can models not meet expectations ?

    You should replace models with observations.

    Do you have any idea how science works ? I think not.

  4. The sun is not only the most massive body within the solar system. It is also the most luminous body. Why should it be that the sun’s mass attracts the planets? It could be the radiation emanating from it that gravitationally attracts the planets. For a gravitational theory that is based on the attractive properties of radiation go to

    http://vixra.org/abs/0907.0018.

    There you will see experiments for instance of how a 210 gm test mass heated to ~400 degrees celsius increases its weight by 22% or increases its gravitational mass by 46 gm.

    This radiation-based theory does not need dark matter or dark energy.

  5. “Why should it be that the sun’s mass attracts the planets?”

    Because that is an idea that works very well. To incredible precision. Ah, and both dark matter and dark energy are just nice puzzles to solve: why would you have an immediate answer for what these actually are, just after they are discovered ?

    Even for the simple battery, discoverd by Volta, it took about a 100 years to discover how it actually works !!

  6. Eelco said:”Because that is an idea that works very well …
    why would you have an immediate answer for what these actually are, just after they are discovered ?

    Well the idea that everything in the sky revolves around the earth in a 24 hour period works very well too. In fact before the GPS system was established a very useful and popular way to navigate the globe was to use the geocentric system which you know has been supplanted by the heliocentric system.

    And by the way I do not have an immediate answer. It has taken me 33 years to flesh out this simple but very plausible idea that “sunlight is gravitationally attractive”.

    It took Copernicus 30 years to flesh out the simple and plausible idea of heliocentric motion.

    It took Darwin 20 years to flesh out the simple and plausible idea of natural selection.

    Ad so I agree with you it takes a long time to work out the implications of a good idea. I have experimental evidence for my idea. Have they got experimental evidence for the dark matter or dark energy ideas?

  7. yes gravity is an awome subject, but i got some news for ya , one day im gonna lose gravitation and meet JESUS in the air. hope to see you there!!!!

  8. @Peter Fred:

    “Well the idea that everything in the sky revolves around the earth in a 24 hour period works very well too. ”

    I do not think that “works”. You obviously confuse how things appear with how things work … not very helpful.

  9. @Michael:

    It still says “Models are not meeting expectations” in the title. That is very odd, as the expectations ARE the models. They are one and the same thing.

  10. sorry i just seem pop up out of nowhere, off subect. just tring to put some “lol” in the picture.

  11. @Eelco
    “I do not think that “works”. You obviously confuse how things appear with how things work … not very helpful”

    According to the standard model of cosmology every galaxy is surrounded by a spherical halo of dark matter. This idea explain the flat rotation curves of galaxies. It work very well if dark matter exists. Multimillion dollar projects have been in place since 1987 that attempt to detect dark matter directly. And guess what they have not found it. So this belief in dark matter may be just as much a lost cause as the belief that everything revolves around the earth in a 24 hour period.

  12. wait wait wait wait just a minute here now now i think i have somethin to say here……………………..ok mabey i dont i just have always wanted to say that.

  13. @Fred James:
    Without dark matter many things in cosmology do not make sense, including rotation curves (the dark matter haloes do not need to be spherical, though !), but many other things as well. Gravitational lenses have clearly demonstrated the existence of dark matter. What the nature of that dark matter is, is another ‘matter’: we do not know that yet.

    Same was true for radiation from radioactive materials: this was simply called alpha-, beta- and gamma-radiation before people understood what it was. Same story: the existence of this radiation was demonstrated, but its nature was not clear. Now we know, of course.

    When we’ll know what dark matter is made of (besides the normal baryonic component), I do not know. Hopefully soon …

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