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!

Science News From Interesting to Way Out There

In the evolutionary framework, natural selection for the most part selects the best. But nature demonstrates otherwise. Pretending to be a dangerous, they species are harmless and their bluff is far from perfect, yet it is quite effective.  Evolutionary biologists call it a great example of evolution in action. However, the species perform mimics that are poor as a result, they say their supposed emergence remains something of a puzzle.

Many explanations have been invented to explain these imperfect mimics.  The best mimics happen to be the biggest while smaller species are very successful with imperfect ones. Since that is the case, evolutionists claim that natural selection proclaims it to be sufficient enough! Like many of these studies is it demonstrating upward evolution or just variants within a kind? Variants within a kind which isn’t evolution because those variants are not turning into another species.

Next is an invented explanation to fill in a gap about the behavior of gravity which is believed to be no enough to keep the Universe together, so dark matter was invented. Now scientists work on discovering it directly costing billions of dollars. Here is what science daily writes on one of more recent studies…

“There’s more to the cosmos than meets the eye. About 80 percent of the matter in the universe is invisible to telescopes, yet its gravitational influence is manifest in the orbital speeds of stars around galaxies and in the motions of clusters of galaxies. Yet, despite decades of effort, no one knows what this “dark matter” really is.”

“Many scientists think it’s likely that the mystery will be solved with the discovery of new kinds of subatomic particles, types necessarily different from those composing atoms of the ordinary matter all around us. The search to detect and identify these particles is underway in experiments both around the globe and above it.”

Regardless if dark matter exists or not doesn’t really have any effect on the creationist model, but it seems after decades of research reveal that scientists are no closer t knowing what they are looking for.  Job security?

“Instead of analyzing the results for each galaxy separately, the scientists developed a statistical technique — they call it a “joint likelihood analysis”…”An important element of this work is that we were able to take the statistical uncertainties from an updated study of the dwarf stellar motions and factor it into the LAT data analysis,” said Johann Cohen-Tanugi, a physicist at the Laboratory of the Universe and Particles at the University of Montpellier 2 in France and a member of the research team.”

In another discovery, maturity found in our backyard. Back in the 90’s the Hubble stunned scientists when it viewed mature galaxies in deep space, where they thought they would find younger stars.  Now another observation reported by MSNBC is falsifying the “big bang theory”…

“Astronomers have discovered a planetary system that formed nearly 13 billion years ago, suggesting the early universe harbored more planets than has been thought. The system consists of a star called HIP 11952 and two Jupiter-like alien planets. It is just 375 light-years from Earth, in the constellation Cetus (the Whale). The planets are likely the oldest yet found; at 12.8 billion years old, they’re just 900 million years younger than the universe itself, according to the commonly accepted Big Bang theory.”

Increasing complexity in a theory is never a good thing in a traditional practice of the scientific method. The Earth has been labeled as 4.5 billion as well as the rest of our solar system by evolutionists now only 375 years away from us, there is a planetary system that supposedly formed 13 billion years ago.  Some who believe in those time frames along with the big bang suspect the measurement for this discovery is not accurate and will eventually correct itself.

On the contrary, you will see many invented explanations that will attempt to explain such complexity while increasing the overall complexity of the theory itself much like Darwinian evolution.  There is much going on in other areas of science that these people are wasting tons of taxpayer’s money with their beliefs.

In Search Of Dark Matter Has Encountered A Setback

CalTech astronomer Fritz Zwicky had many achievements which included the following…In 1937, Zwicky  proposed that galaxy clusters could act as gravitational lenses using Einstein’s newly discovered theory. It wasn’t until 1979, when the first observation was accomplished, thus confirming his proposal.

He also worked with others on pioneering Schmidt telescopes where he searched for supernovae and discovered about 120 on his own. But one of his more controversial proposals came from observing stars that were moving so fast, gravity shouldn’t have held them together. To fill in this gap, he postulated that an unseen amount of matter was present.

The proposal became widely accepted by secular astrophysicists despite the fact it remained directly undetected. However, not all secular astrophysicists were convinced. Moffat and Joel Brownstein of Canada’s Perimiter Institute for Theoretical Physics published an alternative view and that was modifying the theory of gravity which they called, “MOG”.  In particular, they modified one of Einstein’s equations that explains how mass warps space and time, Moffat explained how the effect of gravity may be more substantial in galactic scales than in smaller scales.

“…it has successfully predicted their motions ‘without the necessity of adding dark matter,’” reports ScienceNOW.”

Because of the popularity among secular astrophysicists despite evidence to the contrary, the quest for dark matter remained at a high level of priority which was now a critical part of the explanation of the big bang theory. Where it is predicted that the origin of the universe had equal amounts of matter and antimatter. Antimatter is the same as matter with the same mass as showed by a proton and an antiproton having the same mass to within one part in 10 billion. However, observational problems occurred because no antimatter domains were detected in space within 20 megaparsecs of the Earth.

In 2009, there was a startling discovery that revealed an excess of these antimatter particles in cosmic rays that came from an European astrophysics experiment. In May 16, 2011, the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer with a hefty price tag, costing two billion dollars was launched. Its mission is to measure cosmic rays for the purpose of explaining the origin of the universe and attempt to detect directly, dark matter.

More recently, Stefan Funk and Justin Vandenbroucke from Stanford University, came up with an idea that was inspired by the European astrophysics experiment using the Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope. It was launched in June 2008, with a hefty price tag of $690 million dollars, that has been providing scientists with improved data on gamma rays. The idea wasn’t part of the telescope’s mission but Stefan Funk and Justin Vandenbroucke wondered if it still could be accomplished, specifically the observation of electrons and their antimatter twins, positrons.

This was designed to try to detect, “a sudden drop-off of this excess in those cosmic rays beyond a certain energy level, as many theories predicted would happen if dark matter was involved.” But the observation did not turn up what was predicted, there was no sudden drop-off in the cosmic rays. Thus what was deemed as a promising piece of the puzzle now seems to be in doubt.

In Science Daily…

“Their result casts doubt on the dark matter explanation, which is one reason why the paper started making news just four days after it was published online. The first scholarly paper on the implications of Funk and Vandenbroucke’s work appeared on the physics archive soon thereafter. That paper declared that “the standard positron production scenario must be incomplete.” In other words: Who knows where these excess positrons are coming from?”

So why is all this money being poured into trying to detect dark matter? After all, the money being allocated for these missions could be used for things like fighting diseases, stem cell research, engineering where research focuses on plants and animals to come up with amazing new products or technology. The reason being, the big bang theory relies on dark matter. It is required. It heavily relies on other invisible items as well like dark energy and inflation.

But for creationists models, it doesn’t require dark matter, but even if dark matter were to be detected, the outcome doesn’t affect their models either. This is not to say, these type of observation tools being used to measure such things as gamma rays are totally useless, on the contrary.

How Does Cosmology Study A Theoretical Entity?

Redshift is when an object moves away from an observer, for the past 90 years it has been measured. Unexpected dimness was detected from one of the most distant galaxies! In the 1990s, dark energy was proposed to explain this phenomena but Astronomers are unable to observe dark energy directly but use it to explain a force that is thought to be responsible for the accelerating pace of the expansion of the universe.

Physorg made an announcement that dark energy though unable to be observe directly has been measured with more precision than ever before by astronomers using the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory.

“By combining their observations of galaxy clusters with other cosmological data, the scientists made the most precise dark energy measurements to date. The new measurements are consistent with the simplest model, in which dark energy is a “cosmological constant”—an energy field that is uniform throughout space and time. The idea of a cosmological constant was introduced by Albert Einstein in 1917, but soon fell out of favor. In recent years, the idea has become popular again as a way of explaining the accelerating expansion of the universe.”

“The observations also weigh against so-called “modified gravity” models, in which gravity is either stronger or weaker than predicted by Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity. The new results show that the growth of cosmic structure is consistent with the predictions of General Relativity, supporting the view that dark energy drives cosmic acceleration.”

What is being measured is X-ray emissions from galaxy clusters which is then combined with a theoretical model of dark energy.  Light can be measured, but darkness? No, it cannot be measured. On another theoretical entity, Nature published an interesting debate on whether or not dark energy is a mystery which some scientists believe that 5 percent is observed and understood while 95 percent is not observed and understood. Other scientists believe it’s no mystery at all…

“We must demand more of cosmology than just piling on components or constants to a model to reproduce observations. Otherwise, we would still happily be adding epicycles to the Ptolemaic model of planetary motion. Cosmological models, along with their constants and components, must be grounded in laws of nature that we understand. The magnitude of the cosmological constant cannot currently be explained by any physics we know. Until it is, it is a mystery.”

I must applaud the comment above even though I disagree with his conclusion about the universe! The approach of studying  a “Theoretical Entity” like dark matter and dark energy is not good science. There is a saying, “for every complicated physical phenomenon there is a simple, wrong explanation.” –astronomer Tommy Gold. Giving labels like “cosmological constant” to things in the universe they don’t understand themselves with no natural laws doesn’t make the science any better! It suggests a contest to see who can invent a concept that goes beyond experience then gets popularized so it could be deemed as factual. In reality, if creation scientists would be doing stuff like this, they would be laughed at.

Storybook Claims And Empirical Justification

Scientific explanations are thick, many times dry and sometimes unapproachable to most except specialists. Secular science as often point out here, go way beyond empirical justification. Here are some examples…

In space.com…

“Now scientists have used dark matter theory to predict the menagerie of galaxies found in the universe. Their new model reproduces 13 billion years’ worth of cosmic evolution, resulting in a surprisingly accurate tally of the different kinds of galaxies we see.”

This is a case where these scientists and media alike are taking advantage of the public attention on such matters. First of all, nobody has seen nor detected “dark matter” and yet we read they have such an “accurate” take on it. The hypothesis of dark matter was to fill in a void because gravity was not enough to explain many observations in space.  Nor has anyone seen a galaxy rotate once, let alone form and evolve.

Without empirical justification one can let their imagination fly all over the place and make claims of solving one of the mysteries of space. As far as accuracy, there are always multiple theories that can account for the same data. When “dark matter” is used to make the model’s prediction work, it casts doubt on the whole explanation. Models like these work great in Hollywood, but not in the real world!

In another article in science daily, supercomputers were used to run simulations using of course the “cold dark matter theory” and other speculations to make it work or at least mostly work…Funny how they refer to it as “cold” I had a person in here once arguing how warm it was…Anyway, the article continued…

“There’s been just one problem: the theory suggested most galaxies should have far more stars and dark matter at their cores than they actually do. The problem is most pronounced for dwarf galaxies, the most common galaxies in our own celestial neighborhood. Each contains less than 1 percent of the stars found in large galaxies such as the Milky Way.”

“Now an international research team, led by a University of Washington astronomer, reports Jan. 14 in Nature that it resolved the problem using millions of hours on supercomputers to run simulations of galaxy formation (1 million hours is more than 100 years). The simulations produced dwarf galaxies very much like those observed today by satellites and large telescopes around the world.”

The computer simulation was based on 75 percent unobserved reality. This unobserved reality of “cold dark matter” we are told “works amazing well.”  Amazing well? They don’t know what this fill in the void theory is let alone know how it works!

Richard Massey: Science Is A Fashion Statement

The philosophical Pandora box has been opened in order to explain the scientific method being used in our present time. This is the same method which creationists like myself  have been very critical about. In Nature, Richard Massey reveals the approach being used by scientists…

“As scientific fashions come and go, the rivalry between the three houses might be more at home on the catwalks of Paris or Milan.  The techniques are at different stages of the same product cycle.  Initial hype draws a flurry of excitement, but when systematic physical flaws show up, sober reflection brings a sheepish look back at the design.  Some methods may be consigned to a dusty drawer.  But the stitch or two of alterations by Schmidt and colleagues has ensured that gravitational lensing will still be on the hot list next season.”

“Initial enthusiasm for using supernovae as cosmic distance indicators, and thus as a probe of the Universe’s expansion, garnered vast allocations of time on ground- and space-based telescopes, and triggered the first plans for a dedicated, all-sky successor to the Hubble Space Telescope.  Unfortunately, the explosions were later found to depend on the stars’ environment and ingredients, which evolve over cosmic time.  Such effects can be parameterized only to a certain precision, and the technique is falling out of fashion.”

Richard Massey is right on target about how scientists use methods that reflects a fashion but gives no answer on how  cosmologists are converging on a correct answer. Science is about searching for truth which expands our knowledge about nature and the Universe, it’s not a fashion statement, narrowed to a particular framework (naturalism) because it’s popular.

What I find very strange but very common among those who embrace evolution about this article, Richard Massey begins with a very positive message…

“Since the Big Bang, the Universe’s initial expansion has been gradually slowed by the gravitational pull from the mass it contains.  Most of this mass is in the form of invisible and mysterious dark matter.  Today, however, the Universe seems to be re-accelerating under the influence of even weirder stuff dubbed dark energy.  For astronomy funding purposes, ‘dark’ is the new black.  Almost nothing is understood about either dark matter or dark energy – but both are many times more common than visible matter, and their tug of war will shape the fate of the entire cosmos.”

Wouldn’t you think if there is no reliable measuring tool which has been in fashion for many years cast doubt and be in question when it’s collected results are labeled as factual data? If observation is the key component of any science, that critic might also wonder why dark, mysterious unknown stuff which nobody really understands could even become fashionable in the first place!

Revealing The Existence of Dark Matter Remains Elusive

Physicists and Astronomers have a huge dilemma on their hands if they are going to continue to tell the public that 95 percent of the universe consists of dark matter but nobody has been able to observe it. PhysOrg had no one but two related articles on the subject…

“The percentage of the known Universe that is missing.  As in it is not there.  Or at least if it is there, we can’t see it.  We call this unseen stuff “dark matter”.  That has been well known for sometime.  What is trickier in answering is why?  Why is it that 95% of the universe is made up of this so-named “dark matter?”  An even trickier question is where?

As in where is this dark matter?  It is those two questions that have plagued physicists for decades.  Dark matter, by its own definition cannot be seen, hence its name.  So how do we “see” it, how do we know “where” to look?”

Those who defend naturalism crave a good puzzle within the story on how the Universe functions like this particular one. While it’s true scientists would like to be the first to discover how to observe such an elusive phenomena if it’s really out there, because it gives them the excuse that science hasn’t progressed enough to observe it.

Unlike the oil story which can be tested and have results. You know the one where the majority of scientists told the public for many years that oil and gas are products of organisms that lived and died when in fact oil is predominantly geological in origin. The majority of course in this case was wrong.

Now back to dark matter. It’s concept was invented to explain why galaxies don’t break apart while they spin. Like merry-go-rounds at the fair park, galaxies generate what known as a centripetal force while they rotate. The problem with visible matter, there is not enough of it according to scientists to keep the galaxies from tearing themselves apart. This is the main reason why scientists who believe in evolution claim there is “dark matter” out there somewhere.

Even though dark matter has never been observe doesn’t mean physicists don’t know what it’s consists of. On the contrary as stated…

“Aprile and many other physicists believe that dark matter is made up of WIMPS, or weakly interacting massive particles. As their name suggests, WIMPS very rarely bump into each other or into anything else; otherwise, scientists would have discovered them a long time ago.”

They also think they know where to look as they are currently conducting an experiment on Earth.

“Aprile and her colleagues are looking for WIMPS beneath 5,000 feet of rock in Italy’s Gran Sasso mountains in an experiment known as XENON. The project, which recently won $2.5 million of additional funding from the National Science Foundation, consists of a hatbox-sized container of liquid xenon—an element that occurs naturally in the atmosphere as a gas—sandwiched between two detectors.”

“Should a dark matter particle come into contact with a xenon atom, it will trigger a flash of bluish light that the detectors will pick up.”

Question, if they have never seen dark matter or are not sure exactly what it is, how do they know a particle (if it exists at all) will trigger a reading from the detectors? They sound confident, but it’s only because they are trying to make their project relevant for funding…The first quote that I stated in the beginning of the post was very accurate as far as what scientists really know about the invented concept of dark matter.