New Observational Data Falsifies Dark Matter

The big bang theory has caused many problems with its predictions concerning research in cosmology one of which is the invention of dark matter.  This is because some scientists are on the wrong path on what makes the universe function.  In the 90′s it was discovered that the universe is rapidly expanding, which falsifies the idea of a prediction that the universe is supposed to be slowing down.  Why would the theory require the universe to go slower?  A rapidly expanding universe as we observe it today would not allow accretion to occur which is another problem concerning the Nebular hypothesis.

You see, experiments and known observational facts of trying to get little amounts of dust to join and then form balls have never been found to be obtainable.  Another problem with that is, the process is required to work fast, otherwise the planet will be dragged into the star in short order.  And that is not all, these little dust particles lack the gravitational potential to grow on their own so it’s up to other mechanisms in the mist of all the chaos like turbulence, wind, heating, cooling, colliding and electrical activity tending to disrupt them.  While the presence of boulder-sized objects are inferred and is able to be observed, one could also look at those objects as leftover debris from the disruption of existing planets which is most likely what happened.

Now getting back to the new study which seriously damages the idea of dark matter. Science Daily reports…

“The most accurate study so far of the motions of stars in the Milky Way has found no evidence for dark matter in a large volume around the Sun. According to widely accepted theories, the solar neighbourhood was expected to be filled with dark matter, a mysterious invisible substance that can only be detected indirectly by the gravitational force it exerts. But a new study by a team of astronomers in Chile has found that these theories just do not fit the observational facts. This may mean that attempts to directly detect dark matter particles on Earth are unlikely to be successful.”

Dark matter is getting harder to detect which isn’t a good sign for those who are trying to detect this man-made story to fill in the gap of another falsified prediction.  Future studies could suggest the same thing. But because of the importance of using dark matter to explain another problem in the big bang theory there remains some sort hope in…

“…existing models of how galaxies form and rotate suggest that the Milky Way is surrounded by a halo of dark matter. They are not able to precisely predict what shape this halo takes, but they do expect to find significant amounts in the region around the Sun. But only very unlikely shapes for the dark matter halo — such as a highly elongated form — can explain the lack of dark matter uncovered in the new study.”

Science is supposed to explain things with reference to natural law and make predictions. Unlike changing natural laws to fit the theory. Yea, it can be falsifiable but it also is supposed to have observational support, rather than increased complexity which is nothing more than reinventing a theory every time new data throws a monkey wrench into the old theory!

About these ads

5 thoughts on “New Observational Data Falsifies Dark Matter

  1. You still haven’t got the foggiest idea what you are talking about, Michael …

    And any theories which even hints at a lack of dark matter (in this case just locally, and this study is by no means conclusive or confirmed), and you are jumping up and down, simply ignoring the hundreds and hundreds of studies that keep on confirming the existence of dark matter.

    Extremely selective, Michael.

  2. Science is supposed to explain things with reference to natural law and make predictions. Unlike changing natural laws to fit the theory. Yea, it can be falsifiable but it also is supposed to have observational support, rather than increased complexity which is nothing more than reinventing a theory every time new data throws a monkey wrench into the old theory!

    Michael has just pointed out the most important difference between science and creationism.

    Scientific theories are extended, modified, or replaced “every time new data throws a monkey wrench into the old theory.” Every time. Creationism, on the other hand, never changes; it merely ignores or distrots new data to fit the old theory. That is, science follows the evidence wherever it goes, whereas creationism leads the evidence to a desired outcome.

    .

    Oh, wait. Michael reveals another fundamental difference between science and creationism. The goal of science is to explain things and to make predictions. Creationism, on the other hand, explains nothing, and has never employed irs theory to make any predictions.[1] In fact, it is incapable of making predictions.

    These two are bound together. Explanations are required in order to make predictions. For example, genetic evolution allows us to predict that a species greatest diversity occurs where that species first evolved (Vavilov’s Law). On the other hand, the creationist theory of created kinds tells us absolutely nothing as to the physiology, genetics, geographical distribution, or any other observable fact concerning any plant or animal.

    In other words, creationism is vacuous. Even if it were correct, it would be useless for any purpose.

    ===============

    [1] We should remind Michael yet again that a prediction of an event must be made before an experiment or observation confirms the event. Afterward doesn’t count.

  3. Why would the theory require the universe to go slower? A rapidly expanding universe as we observe it today would not allow accretion to occur which is another problem concerning the Nebular hypothesis.

    This is so mixed-up that it is hard to know where to begin.

    ==Dark matter is not required for planetary accretion.
    ==Dark matter deals with the stability of galaxies, not planetary nebulae, and is necessary only for their stability, not for their formation.but only for galaxy stability once it has formed.
    ==Dark matter has nothing to do with the expansion of the universe as a whole.
    ==The latest results have the universal acceleration actually slowing down for the first few billion years, and only then speeding up. The observed rate of increase would affect us only a trillion years into the future.
    ==The slowing down of universal expansion was predicated upon an assumption that Einstein’s cosmological constant was zero. Now that we have evidence for the actual rate of expansion, we know the value of this constant. No “falsification” is involved.

    .

    You see, experiments and known observational facts of trying to get little amounts of dust to join and then form balls have never been found to be obtainable.

    Except for one minor detail. Various stages of such accretions have in fact been observed.

    Another problem with that is, the process is required to work fast, otherwise the planet will be dragged into the star in short order.

    This one is laughable. In his reckless disregard fro truth, Michael just made it up.

    While the presence of boulder-sized objects are inferred and is able to be observed, one could also look at those objects as leftover debris from the disruption of existing planets which is most likely what happened.

    Michael also pulled this one out of his ear–or some other orifice. But we’re used to that. Or should be, by now.

    Michael can’t even get his facts straight, much less the theories.

  4. Scientists had expected to find some dark matter in the vicinity of thew solar system, but they did not.

    Suppose you have seen other people find Easter eggs. You think that someone may have hidden one in your front yard. But you found no egg there.

    This “falsifies” Easter eggs in the same way that finding no dark matter near the Sun “falsifies” the existence of dark matter.

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