Cosmologists Are Lost In the Dark

Ever since two rescue theories such as dark matter and dark energy were proposed and have been studied many times over using some of the most advanced and expensive equipment known to man has yet to lead to any sort of breakthrough. Many articles have been appearing lately in the last few months about their “lack” of knowledge and their inability to directly detect it.

Here are just a few of them…

The search for dark matter

“What we do know about dark matter comes from the ways it’s influenced the universe nearly as far back as the Big Bang. Like paw prints left by an elusive animal, the cosmos is full of signs of dark matter’s existence, but we haven’t actually seen the creature itself.”

“So far, not a single experiment has yielded a definitive trace of dark matter.”

Dark Matter Just Got Murkier

“We have never directly observed dark matter, but we know a great deal about what it must be: It must be massive (because it affects the rotation of galaxies); it must be electrically neutral (because we can’t see it); it must be different from ordinary matter (because we see no evidence for it interacting with matter in the usual ways); and it must be stable (because it has existed since the dawn of the universe). These properties are unequivocal.”

“However, we don’t know exactly what it is.”

The dark universe

“The existence of dark matter has been inferred from the motion of stars since the 1930s, but its nature remains a mystery. The dark-matter particle posited by the most popular theory has not been shown to exist — if it is to make an appearance, it may be now or never. The search is narrowing and the possibilities are dwindling; physicists may soon have to move on to alternative explanations”

“Explaining dark energy is even tougher. The discovery of the accelerating expansion of the Universe in 1998 called for a driving force that opposes the pull of gravity (S205). At the heart of attempts to characterize this energy is a deceptively simple question: is dark energy constant? Finding out will require looking back in time, to the birth of the Universe” 

Something is wrong with dark matter

“The LUX measurement is simply the most recent and most powerful of a long line of searches for dark matter. They found no evidence for the existence of dark matter and were able to rule out a significant range of possible WIMP properties and masses.”

Dark Matter and The Big Bang

This may surprise some but it wasn’t proposed by an atheist nor an agnostic, nor some sort of special interest group but rather a Belgian Jesuit priest living in the 1920s, who was an astronomer, and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Leuven. He was the first to propose the expansion of the universe. A couple of years later it was Edwin Hubble who declared the expansion of the universe which was predicted by Einstein’s theory of gravity, and general relativity, more than a decade earlier. However, this caused a problem for those who believed the universe was eternal which including Einstein. So he did was like what most evolutionists do in this situation when observational data conflict with their theory, Einstein came up with a rescue hypothesis ( cosmological constant ) in order to keep the universe eternal.

But the rescue hypothesis didn’t hold up instead evolutionists began to propose “constant density” whereby increases in the matter just pops into existence spontaneously. Eventually, it changed in 1965 with the discovery of the cosmic microwave background (CMB), a low-level, nearly uniform radiation permeating the universe from all directions.

The Big Bang Theory took hold and replaced the old theory in the mid 60’s after the discovery of CMB despite opposition from those like  Fred Hoyle who said…

“[The Big Bang] is an irrational process that cannot be described in scientific terms … [nor] challenged by an appeal to observation.”

Changing The Big Bang Theory Back To Eternal

The reason for the opposition much like Einstein was the fact that the Big Bang Theory gave the universe a beginning and when you have a beginning, you require a cause for that beginning to happen whereas eternal, there is no such cause required because it’s always there and things can evolve from it. This type of explanation for how the universe evolved are much easier to create a storyline when the tools and material are already created into existence. For example, Stephen Hawking came up with the idea of universal quantum singularity, where there was no origin in time which makes it basically eternal. He described our universe having many different histories (multi-universes) and we are supposedly just some of them! Unlike in Creationism where there was a beginning and will be an end, this is called, “finite”.

By no means does these newer theories solve anything as far as the Big Bang goes…Major questions remain and are just a few of them…

  1. How did nature choose the specific laws which control the universe, as deduced from observation?”
  2. How did the universe start off with an initial state in such a high degree of homogeneity?”
  3. Why, after 13.8 billion years since the big bang, is not the universe in thermal equilibrium?”

 

What about Dark Energy?

Dark energy was invented because the universe was moving apart faster than astronomers had predicted, and dark energy was created in order to explain the mystery. This is very common in theories pertaining to its supposed evolution. When observational data doesn’t match up with their beliefs, they involve new things to solve problems in their story but that doesn’t make it factual in fact it opens up more complexity as we shall see in a moment.

In Conclusion

The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed despite all the new technology—inflation, dark matter, and dark energy which is what holds the whole theory together because without them there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory.

For instance, In 1978, Princeton physicist Bob Dicke along with other scientists noticed the universe is finely tuned, “too perfect” in their opinion for something to have been created by random natural causes. A little bit too much, the universe tears itself apart, a little bit too less of an expansion and the whole universe collapses. It had to be finely precise without a reason to do so. Sounds complicated? Indeed! One of the things I have always stressed in this blog when a theory becomes more and more complex, it is usually an indicator that the theory is not based on reality.

“Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.”

Romans 1:21 KJV

Cosmology guru Alan Guth eventually invented the hypothesis known as “inflation” however, he was unable to figure out how to stop it once it got started. Over time others joined in and came up with ideas of their own. What seemed to be the greatest problem-solving idea which kept the Big Bang Theory alive was falsified a year later when it failed to produce a smooth universe. This was not the end for inflation rather it required a rescue device to save it. So inflation which is needed to keep the Big Bang alive needed saving itself. Otherwise, as Guth knew but despised, the evidence does in fact point to an intelligent designer namely God :)

Fitting Contradictions Is Bad For Science

We are blessed to be living in a day in age where technology is able to see many parts of the universe which previous generations were unable to see. The better the technology, the worse off evolutionary theories become often times adding more complexity than answering questions or meeting model expectations, lets use Galaxy Evolution as an example…

“Dwarf galaxies that orbit the Milky Way and the Andromeda galaxies defy the accepted model of galaxy formation, and recent attempts to wedge them into the model are flawed, reports an international team of astrophysicists.”

“David Merritt, professor of astrophysics at Rochester Institute of Technology, co-authored “Co-orbiting satellite galaxy structures are still in conflict with the distribution of primordial dwarf galaxies,” to be published in an upcoming issue of Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.” 

This observation poses a contradiction for evolutionary scientists in the fundamental formation of galaxies according to their supposed evolution. The model predicts structures to be in clumps situated in random positions but in reality, the structures are positioned orderly around their parent galaxies. The reason for this is…it’s part of intelligent process rather than a mindless one.

So what happens when contradictions like this are discovered? Usually, they go into rescue mode by attempting to discount the observation in order to preserve the prevailing model. Three papers were published to do that very task. But it was rebuked by 14 other astronomers from six different countries.

“The standard cosmological model is the frame of reference for many generations of scientists, some of whom are beginning to question its ability to accurately reproduce what is observed in the nearby universe. Merritt counts himself among the small and growing group that is questioning the accepted paradigm. Scientific progress embraces challenges to upheld theories and models for a reason, Merritt notes.

“When you have a clear contradiction like this, you ought to focus on it,” Merritt said. “This is how progress in science is made.”

Is it really scientific progress devoting one’s work to the fundamental flaws with theories which are not agreeing with real-time observations? When you are driving your car and you make a wrong turn that leads you to the wrong street, will you still find your desired destination using the wrong road? Some roads are tweaked (road construction) and you are required to take a different route or drive on the other side of the road. This is different than having a fundamental flaw in the direction which you are going.

Perhaps these scientists should discontinue driving on the wrong road and try a different one!

Does Cosmology Require Knowledge Of Reality?

Since the universe has been designed with a mind that has purpose much like how a house it built, reprogramming adult stem cells, building an engine, or a machine. Today’s secular Cosmologists have entered the non-reality zone!

Cosmologist Sean Carroll would like to get rid of the idea of reality, to him it’s not important if reality can verify it or not, rather what is believed to be real or not. Carroll writes

“Modern physics stretches into realms far removed from everyday experience, and sometimes the connection to experiment becomes tenuous at best. String theory and other approaches to quantum gravity involve phenomena that are likely to manifest themselves only at energies enormously higher than anything we have access to here on Earth. The cosmological multiverse and the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics posit other realms that are impossible for us to access directly. Some scientists, leaning on Popper, have suggested that these theories are non-scientific because they are not falsifiable.”

A question comes to mind from one of my expert readers who he himself is a Cosmologist. If God is impossible for us to use man-made tools to detect Him directly to explain what we see in the universe, then how can the likes of Caroll and perhaps yourself, believe in other realms that are impossible to access directly?

Is reality important in your research? Stephen Hawking, who is considered one of the smartest men to ever exist, embraces non-reality because he says, “I don’t demand that a theory correspond to reality because I don’t know what it is.”  If you don’t know what reality is, how do you know if it’s true or not? Because now your entering the occultic realm where reality is just an illusion and as a result of reality not conforming to its premise, an inference is carefully crafted and shaped for reality which is then fitted for the occultic realm as truth.

Do non-reality realms (something one would find in science fiction movies) such as a belief in multi-universes make predictions, advance math or even technology? It certainly advances the imagination of man but for what purpose? Promote atheism? Is string theory for example, just a faith-based theory in order to defend atheism?

Cosmology does require a knowledge of reality, though it may not have the whole picture as man continues to learn about the universe but embracing anti-real based theories is not scientific.

Albert Einstein, once said, “The man of science is a poor philosopher.”

Darwinism Integrated With The Creation of the Universe

If one ‘theory’ which happens to be widely accepted in a particular group which doesn’t always mean it’s factual, then can this ‘theory’ be used to explain another widely accepted ‘theory’ about the universe?

Co-founder of DNA, Francis Crick said, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved..” In 1996, atheist Richard Dawkins said in his book “The Blind Watchmaker”, “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”

The reason why nature appears designed is because it is designed! If nature didn’t look designed, Crick wouldn’t have given biologists such advice neither would Dawkins. Many secular scientists know observations point to design rather than a random purposeless process but must to adhere to an erroneous type of framework so you will see from time to time, scientists trying to disprove those observations.

A couple of Oxford evolutionists decided since assumptions in Darwinism have been so successful within their philosophy of science, they applied it to the fine tuning of the universe! How did the universe become finely tuned? Having something finely tuned is not an ideal environment  for evolution. The ‘theory’ requires flexibility! If fruit flies would have become more flexible in the experiment with change rather than resisted to change while showing a loss in fitness over time, then evolution would have hard evidence rather than assuming those fruit flies could still change into another species.

Fine tuning of the universe are like fruit flies. Both are finely tuned and both are winding down rather than evolving up. It’s a great analogy, here is the Oxford’s scientists analogy

“Cosmological natural selection proposes that, if new universes are born inside black holes, a ‘multiverse’ of many possible universes could be shaped by a process similar to natural selection so that successive generations of universes evolve to become better at making black holes…”

However, they admit...”evolution of universes is very different from the evolution of animals,” but  they conclude...“models of evolving universes are quite similar to models of bacterial evolution.”

Is a black hole simply in a quantum mechanical state which will eventually decay over time and ultimately disappear through Hawking radiation or a new universe? I would think the former, meaning a black hole is in a quantum mechanical state which will decay over time! When evolutionists try to explain fine-tuning, this is what one would call using God-given talents to promote man-made stories which adhere to no science at all which claims precise fundamental constants in our universe being changed from another universe to the next universe and so on!