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!

Credit: Katy Brooks

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.

Gravity: Cosmology Has Plunged Into A Major Crisis!

It all started when Cosmologists in the 1990s detected a surprise in the readings of distant supernovas concerning their brightness. Science publications began to claim it was some sort of accelerating mysterious energy that was expanding the Universe.

Trying to detect the so-called energy was fruitless as nobody was able to confirm such a phenomena, so it became known as “dark energy.”

Many years have past since then and another so-called phenomena known as “dark matter” alludes detection as well. Both are invisible, and mysterious that supposedly make up 95 percent of the Universe.   A growing number of cosmologists are starting to get frustrated with their explanations in outer space. In physOrg says…

“Modern cosmologists rely more and more on the ominous “dark matter” to explain otherwise inexplicable observations, much effort has gone into the detection of this mysterious substance in the last two decades, yet no direct proof could be found that it actually exists.”

“Even if it does exist, dark matter would be unable to reconcile all the current discrepancies between actual measurements and predictions based on theoretical models. Hence the number of physicists questioning the existence of dark matter has been increasing for some time now.”

Pavel Kroupa was so frustrated with this whole mess of dark matter that he mistakenly claimed the solution would be to reject the whole concept of “Newton’s classical theory of gravitation” so as he put it, we would live in a Universe without “dark matter” and then we would be able to explain all the motion observations in space.

Newton’s classical theory of gravitation would not be abandon but rather it would be modified, just like it has been in the past with special relativity. Classical mechanics works for our everyday experience so it would be foolish to abandon such a principle.

It also interesting to note, defenders of evolution, many of them, always use gravity. “Evolution is fact, just like gravity” You deny evolution, you are denying gravity, some claim. Of course when scientists  start attacking gravity like we see happening in this case, it doesn’t undermine their box (worldview) of Darwinism so they are not threaten by it.

But their best arguments for naturalism is a web of confusion with scientists speculating on so much more than what they actually know while trying to explain what they believe is inside their box.

Cosmologists have been resembling the occult with trying to use this undetectable dark matter by creating unknown substances in their models which has plunged their field into a major crisis. All these assumptions of stuff build on top of each other like the big bang. There is an old saying, when the evolutionary theory in any field of science tries to fill in one gap it generally causes five more gaps to open, the cycle is endless.