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 :)

Astronomy and Cosmology: Where Are They Now?

Next month is going to be exciting because for the first time in man’s history, we are going to get some secular pictures from the space probe, “New Horizons” . Currently the probe is less than 30 million miles away and has already transmitted some historical pictures of Pluto.

“We can also see that every face of Pluto is different and that Pluto’s northern hemisphere displays substantial dark terrains, though both Pluto’s darkest and its brightest known terrain units are just south of, or on, its equator…”  

-says New Horizons Principal Investigator Alan Stern.

This project without its planetary evolution conclusions is good science. The more probes that are out there, the better we learn what is going on in space. It’s exciting! Star formation on the other hand has been used to mislead the public. There is no doubt that Nature News along with Science Daily and certain Astronomers have committed fraud, perhaps but not exclusive to, for the reason of helping fund these types of projects.

Let’s begin by displaying the headlines:

The first one is from Nature News which is also found in Scientific American as well as in other publications.

“Astronomers Claim to Take First Glimpse of Primordial Stars”

In the Southern European Observatory where the discovery took place makes and even more profound statement in their science release.

“Best Observational Evidence of First Generation Stars in the Universe” 

Wow, it sounds as though a major discovery was made, this could be the hard evidence that certain scientists were looking for, but the question remains. Is it really? Let’s go back to Nature News again…

“Now astronomers think they may have spied a late-blooming cluster of such stars, in the brightest distant galaxy observed to date. The stars, seen as they were when the Universe was around 800 million years old, appear to be primordial in compositionbut also to have formed more recently than some second-generation stars.”

How can these Astronomers claim this discovery to be first generation of stars? ‘Appearing’ to be primordial in composition is not the same as being first generation! These stars are considered younger than second-generation of stars! Not only that, but these stars were discovered in a galaxy which has elements that according to their theory could only have formed well after the first generation of stars!

“That primordial stars should turn up in such a large and already-evolved galaxy presents a challenge to the group’s interpretation.” 

Indeed, but these Astronomers used the classic “fit the data into a theory technique” rather than let the data speak for itself. Here is how they answered the challenge which make stars younger than second generation into first generation…

“Sobral and colleagues suggest that the primordial stars may be late-developers, formed from a cloud of pristine and uncontaminated gas that was prevented from cooling and coalescing by the heat of strong radiation from earlier-blooming stars. “We think we’re seeing the last episode of Population III star formation,” he says.” 

This is a prime example on how some scientists (not all) are misleading the public with their so-called discoveries in Astronomy. There is no real evidence here that would make any logical person to conclude that these stars are first generation. None! The headlines are a bunch of lies!

Moving on to Cosmology…

“As is your habit, you are reading Science at breakfast (today’s treat: an omelet made with dodo eggs). But as soon as you finish this paragraph, a carnivorous wombat crashes through the door into your apartment and chomps angrily on your prehensile tail. Right … now” (No this isn’t Star Wars -emphasis mine).

“Ridiculous? Certainly—here. But it’s true somewhere in the universe, according to many scientists. An increasing number of mainstream physicists have espoused an almost unspeakably bizarre picture of the cosmos, one filled with mirror worlds and parallel universes, with doppelgängers and alternate histories. In many of these parallel universes—countless ones—an exact duplicate of you is doing exactly what you’re doing: reading this article in Science magazine. In others, you exist with subtle (and not-so- subtle) changes from your present-day life—you sport horns or speak in Latin or make a living by juggling hedgehogs at cocktail parties.”

This is a classic of opening your mind to fiction because it may be reality someday. Some of this is used in Hollywood. Bob Berman, wrote a very thought-provoking article in Astronomy magazine (July 2004, page 16) which I quoted some of it once before in 2012, it certainly applies to what is going on now with Cosmology. In fact, he gives a pretty good science lesson.

“The problem in cosmology is that facts are few and the imaginations of people who cook up theories are fertile. We have known for nearly seventy years that the cosmos is expanding. Every measurement made of galaxies showed that everything is moving away from everything else. The picture looked very much like what happens when a firecracker explodes, with material on the outside edge of the object that exploded moving the fastest and material to the inside moving less quickly.

“The term “big bang” or “inflation” was at least partially rooted in this observation. Temperature measurements of intergalactic space supported the theory by being exactly what they should be if the cosmos was infinitely hot and cooled during the expansion of the cosmos. What banged or who banged it was not knowable, and that is where all the theories came from. It is interesting that the Bible agrees with the observation of the expanding universe. Numerous passages in the Bible describe the cosmos as an expanding entity. “God who created the heavens and stretched them out” appears in one way or another over and over in scripture (see Isaiah 42:5; 40:22; 44:24; 45:12; 48:13; 51:13; Job 9:8; 37:18; Psalm 104:2; Jeremiah 10:12; 51:15; Zechariah 12:1).”  

“Many atheists had a problem with the “big bang” concept because it suggested a beginning, and if there was a beginning there had to be a cause which suggested a causer. To get around this problem, it was recognized that since gravity seemed to be a property of mass, everything in the cosmos was attracting everything else, and that meant that eventually gravity would stop the expansion of the universe and pull everything back to a central point. The fact of gravitational attraction seemed sure and the fact that things were coasting from the initial process seemed unquestionable. One could theorize that whatever caused the big bang could happen over and over. This theory was called the oscillating universe theory, and was heavily promoted by leading atheists.”

“There were lots of scientific problems with the oscillating universe theory. Only mass would be affected by gravity and much of the energy in the cosmos was in the form of light which would not be gravitationally susceptible. It also seemed that some objects on the outer edge of the expansion were traveling so fast that they would never be significantly affected by gravity. In spite of these and other problems, the oscillating universe theory was in textbooks and even used by Carl Sagan in his famous Cosmos series in which he compared it to the Hindu concept of reincarnation.”

“In the late 1990s another observation was made by astronomers that totally disrupted this whole picture. It was discovered that the cosmos was not slowing down in its expansion as gravitational effects would have been expected to do, but that the cosmos was actually accelerating in its expansion. This observation has been confirmed by several different methods and is now considered to be a fact. The problem is that the fact that the cosmos is accelerating in its expansion is at odds with everything we can do in the laboratory.”

“What does a good scientist do when confronted with such an astounding fact? The answer should be to propose explanations that are testable and for which experiments can be conducted to see whether or not the proposal is consistent with scientific experiments. The problem with today’s public speakers on this subject is that proposals are being made that have no possible way of being tested, and each pronouncement is made with such pomp and flair that the average reader assumes that not only has the theory been tested, but it has been successful on every point.”

“One proposal has been that 70% of the universe must be made of an antigravity force called dark energy (* which has been adjusted since this article has been written to 95% of the universe. * -emphasis mine). No one knew what it was or how it could exist, but the concept has appeared in hundreds of magazines and newspapers that we have seen. Recently we have seen statements that the dark energy loses its power over time, so eventually the acceleration will stop and the universe will collapse as the oscillating universe theory suggested. There is no evidence of this, and no way of testing it.”

“Some periodicals have said that Einstein’s cosmological constant is what is causing the acceleration of the cosmos. This is a constant that Einstein threw into his equations to make them fit his opinions about the cosmos–an act that he later called his greatest blunder. The problem is that no one has any idea what the constant would represent or be caused by. Now it is fashionable to refer to the “Big Rip.” This is a theory that says that eventually everything will explode–even atoms. Another theory is called “string theory” which assumes that there are eleven spacial dimensions and then suggests that membranes from these other dimensions sometimes touch each other explosively creating things like our universe.”

“Suddenly, we’re imbedded in a frothy quantum foam of unlimited possibilities. It’s a free-for-all where each solemnly presented theory is soon changed or rebutted.. Throw the math this way, that way, tweak the equations, set fire to the physics building, nothing matters. It’s Alice in Wonderland meets Stephen Hawking.”

New proposals about dark matter come out all the time, New Scientist actually asked a valid question, “How long can we keep looking for dark matter?” 

“WE HAVE been aware of the need for dark matter since the 1930s. Without this stuff, we can’t make sense of the rotation of galactic clusters, or how galaxies formed in the first place. And yet, to date, we have found nothing. Even CERN’s Large Hadron Collider, our best and by far most expensive tool for finding it, has so far drawn a blank. How much longer can we keep looking?”

The universe is not making sense for those who believe in non-design. This usually happens when a theory is not true. Does the article answer its own question? No! Rather, it looks for remedies to find dark matter. This is the problem. It is true, it would be hard to pin point an exact time frame but looking more than 80 years with very expensive tools, I would say it is time to move on. There are so many other things in science which requires work that may turn out to be fruitful. I can’t wait till next month! Pluto, here we come! :)

An Ugly Theory Destroyed By A Beautiful Fact

Back in the late 1970’s, evidence for a young universe was very strong (and still is today) but this put secular scientists in a difficult position as National Geographic writes…

“In 1978, he learned in a talk by Princeton physicist Bob Dicke of a problem with the universe—it was too perfect. All sorts of factors, from the workings of atoms to the gravity holding stars together, seem too exquisitely fine-tuned for creating a cosmos in defiance of both rational explanation and what chance would predict.”

“One second after the big bang—and I’m pretty sure that is the example he used—the expansion rate had to be just right to an accuracy of 14 decimal places or our universe would look nothing like it does now.” Just a smidge more expansion and the universe would have blasted itself apart. A tiny bit less and it would have fallen in on itself. Instead it had unfolded just right, balanced on a universe-friendly knife-edge, seemingly for no reason.”

Secular Cosmology was in a major crisis, the evidence was leading towards a purpose which is in the direction of intelligence rather than some random act with no reason. And if it was a random act, then the universe should have been full of cosmic defects which it doesn’t have. This mean their theory wasn’t being endorse by the facts, rather the evidence is leading towards a young universe no older than 10,000 years old!

“In fact, these defects should have been so numerous and so massive that if they actually existed, the age of the universe “would turn out to be about 10,000 years,” Guth says, with a laugh. “This doesn’t turn out to be the case, scientifically.”

Guth knew the evidence could fit into the Biblical time frame but believed explanations (rather than science) were required to skew the evidence out of that direction. You see, science isn’t really disproving the Bible, science is not really at odds with the Bible, only those who reject the Biblical framework have that problem and thus use ‘science’ as a pretext to insert their illogical disbelief.

With a need to force the data into their illogical belief, Guth came up with a solution, one he thought would solve the flatness problem and the horizon problem. This solution was called, “inflation”  but it wasn’t easy at first because he came across his first dilemma and that was how to stop inflation once it got started!

In 1981, his inflation theory was falsified because the universe did not turn out to be smooth as predicted. But this ugly theory wasn’t about to die with a beautiful fact that falsified it, many caught on, producing even crazier ideas in order to keep it alive. These crazier ideas cannot be confirmed with normal science methods because they are out of the realm of reality as it invokes other universes.

There is no confirmation on more than one universe let alone many of them! Yet, this is where the theory of inflation has lead them because they deny the real evidence that is showing (as an estimate) the universe to be no older than 10,000 years old. Sounds more like something out of Hollywood rather than coming from scientists themselves.

But his imagination might win him a Nobel Prize award because it doesn’t allow scientists to follow the evidence rather it allows scientists to follow a fictional story that is fitted. It is one of the biggest bluffs of all time! But there is no way getting around the evidence, which does confirm the frame work of the Bible :)

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.”

More Lumpiness Discovered In The Universe

There has been a buzz within the cosmology community about finding a structure which blows away a record with previously known discoveries! One headline describes the structure as being 4 billion light years across which makes it 40,000 times larger than the Milky Way! National Geographic says it is the biggest thing ever discovered in the universe!

So what is this remarkable phenomena which is causing such a buzz? Scientists found it using data that came from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey! The structure of course is a Large Quasar Group (LQG) consisting of 73 quasars that spans about 1.6 billion light-years in most directions while the widest point being 4 billion light years across.  What is even more interesting, according to secular cosmology, it shouldn’t be there!

“Talk about a whopper—astronomers have discovered a structure in the universe so large that modern cosmological theory says it should not exist, a new study says.”

The latest observational data that violates a widely accepted assumption is known as the “cosmological principle”  which holds to the belief that the universe is essentially homogeneous when viewed at a sufficiently large-scale.

In science daily

“Dr Clowes said: “While it is difficult to fathom the scale of this LQG, we can say quite definitely it is the largest structure ever seen in the entire universe. This is hugely exciting — not least because it runs counter to our current understanding of the scale of the universe.”

Dr Clowes also confessed, “It could mean that our mathematical description of the universe has been oversimplified—and that would represent a serious difficulty and a serious increase in complexity.”  

Assumptions on how things supposedly evolved always creates a challenge over time, as things become more mysterious within the framework rather than clarify! The challenge for them now is keeping the  “cosmological principle” intact so they can try to solve other problems with it as National Geographic speculates not that anyone observed it happening but it fits the principle…

“The massive structure could possibly shed light on the evolution of galaxies like our own Milky Way. Quasars, which pump out powerful jets of energy, are among the brightest and most energetic objects from when the universe was still young. They represent an early, but brief, stage in the evolution of most galaxies.”

The Lumpiness Problem is not a recent falsification, in fact it goes way back to 1982, when astronomers discovered quasars grouped together in clumps or ‘structures’ of surprisingly large sizes! Nine years later, Geller and Huchra discovered “The Great Wall” of galaxies! But this recent discovery is so huge by far exceeds the limit of the theory that scientists have to admit that the big bang theory is unable to deal with it! Also, a controversial stream of galaxies all moving in the same direction, called the “dark flow,” also flies in the face of theory.

As technology has gotten better there has been a trend of discovering larger and larger structures in the universe! This has created a challenge for modern cosmology from getting a smooth universe in the beginning to a structured one later on. In 1982, it became hard to imagine the universe going from a smooth spacetime, and a cloud of expanding gas, to dense clusters of dense matter in long chains of quasars! Since that time, new data has made it even more difficult to imagine!

So has the big bang theory been falsified, yes! Is it time now to move on to a better framework namely, design? Let the evidence speak for itself rather than trying to force it into a theory that has been falsified quite a number of times over the years and now scientists are challenged to rescue its demise!

Gravitational Lensing Falsifies Evolutionary Cosmology

A recent press release from JPL displays a bombshell for evolutionary cosmology.  Anthony Gonzalez from the University of Florida couldn’t believe his eyes, he had to take second and third looks at a newly acquired observation from Hubble that consisted of a giant arc where it shouldn’t be according to evolutionary cosmology.

You see, arcs are the light of distant galaxies distorted by intervening matter.  This giant arch discovered is being distorted by powerful gravity created by an enormous  cluster galaxy! So why would this be a falsification of evolutionary cosmology?

The press release explains this…

“When I first saw it, I kept staring at it, thinking it would go away,” said study leader Anthony Gonzalez of the University of Florida in Gainesville, whose team includes researchers from NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. “According to a statistical analysis, arcs should be extremely rare at that distance. At that early epoch, the expectation is that there are not enough galaxies behind the cluster bright enough to be seen, even if they were ‘lensed,’ or distorted by the cluster.”

“The other problem is that galaxy clusters become less massive the further back in time you go. So it’s more difficult to find a cluster with enough mass to be a good lens for gravitationally bending the light from a distant galaxy.”

In other words, this mature galaxy which is supposed to be much younger in its formation has been discovered in an extremely distant part of the universe where its estimated mass is said to be 10 trillion suns and very close to what evolutionary cosmologists believe to be pretty close to the “Big Bang.”  While JPL promotes this to be a unique discovery, it does put evolutionary cosmology in jeopardy. The most massive galaxies should not exist so close to the alleged big bang and it cannot be tweaked in order to have it fit into a progressive structure of formations predicted by the big bang.

In the future, more likely than not, there are discoveries like these waiting to happen.  Scientists are just scratching the surface with these observations.  And lastly, scientists need to think outside the box rather than constrain themselves with failed theories!

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!