Big Bang-Mathigicians and the fraud of Dark Matter.
The Big Bang cannot explain galaxy formation or the structure of the Universe. By default, establishment 'science' is forced to add a parameter to balance the equations and 'save the phenomena'.
“Dark matter makes up most of the universe. It’s not made out of atoms. Your chemistry teacher was wrong in saying that the universe is mainly made out of atoms…. Whole generations of textbooks have now had to be thrown out….It’s invisible. You cannot photograph dark matter. We know it’s there because of its gravitational presence.” (Michio Kaku, Parallel Universes)
Feel that religion. Apostle Michio, one of the more excitable and luminous of Big Bang and string-theory evangelists, says we cannot identify, discover or even confirm Dark Matter, but it exists, because it must exist to hold the universe together and make up the missing energy density from Big Bang models. I am sure Apostle Michio is well-compensated for his dogmatic sermonising.
The self-proclaimed geniuses say no to atoms and no to molecules. Even though both can be observed. Apostle Michio and ‘The Science’ say yes to a mysterious ‘miasma’ that remains undiscovered. No religion here. Just ‘The Science’.
In the previous post we discussed why Dark Energy was a mathigician fraud. The same is true of its mysterious, never found twin brother, Dark Matter. Neither impress the sane or critical.
Why Dark Matter?
In 1933 Bulgarian astronomer Fritz Zwicky was confused about the stability of the universe given that all galaxies and planets are in constant movement, yet systems and orbs are not detached from their galaxial binding. He conjured up ‘dark matter’ to explain the ‘binding force’.
Dark Matter is similar to Newton’s ‘fictitious forces’ which Newton deployed to explain the stability of this solar system and planetary orbits around the Sun. Newton understood that his theory of gravity could not explain the design and structure of our solar system.
In the 1970s, Vera Rubin of Cal-Tech discovered that galaxies do not rotate according to Newton’s laws. The outer rims of spiral galaxies seemed to be rotating too fast for the amount of matter the spiral arms contain. She calculated about ten times too fast. Instead of revolving like the planets do around the Sun, where the outer planets travel much slower than the inner planets, the outer arms of spiral galaxies travel only a little less than the inner arms.1
Rubin’s assessment, which is still valid, presents a huge problem for Big Bangers who claim that the universe is 13.7 billion years old. If these fast-spinning spiral galaxies are going to survive 13.7 billion years without wrapping themselves up into a compact ball, they are going to need an external force to stop the collapse.
To solve the ‘endless age’ dilemma enter Dark Matter.
To conform to Newtonian formalism, the galaxies need about 23% more matter than they presently contain, and the matter needs to be properly distributed around the galaxy. Otherwise and quite obviously, the entire theory is bunk. Below is an illustration of how Dark Matter exists within and around a typical galaxy.
The middle image visualises the problem. It nullifies the complex and mathigicianic equations of astrophysicists and leads to other problems. Well known science-writer Marcus Chown in the New Scientist formulated some of these:
“Dark matter has become an essential ingredient in cosmology’s standard model. That’s because the big bang on its own fails to describe how galaxies could have congealed from the matter forged shortly after the birth of the universe. The problem is that gas and dust made from normal matter were spread too evenly for galaxies to clump together in just 13.7 billion years. Cosmologists fix this problem by adding to their brew a vast amount of invisible dark matter which provides the extra tug needed to speed up galaxy formation.”2
Invisible brew indeed. Anyone can add invisible ingredients to a cake. It does not mean the actual cake is enriched or changed. It only describes the desperation of the baker.
Newton’s Narrative breaks down
Chown’s magical and invisible ‘brew’ is used to explain the rapid motion of outlying stars in galaxies.
The Narrative: Astronomers have measured stars orbiting their galactic centres so fast that they ought to fly off into intergalactic space. But Dark Matter’s extra gravity would explain how the galaxies hold onto their speeding stars. Similarly, Dark Matter is needed to explain how clusters of galaxies can hold on to galaxies that are orbiting the cluster’s centre so fast they ought to be flung away. This supposedly remedies the issues found by Vera Rubin.
This is the narrative, but there are a lot of inconsistencies with the theory.
First, no matter how you measure it, there is too much of Dark Matter, versus what is expected; or in our solar system, not enough Dark Matter. There is no consistency to the quantity, its location, or where it should be found. As given above, this magical substance must be dispersed perfectly and equally around, if not within, a galaxy. This is not what is observed.
Second, Dark Matter supposedly shows up where it shouldn’t. An example is in globular clusters, tight knots of stars that orbit the Milky Way and many other galaxies.
Third, the stars in these globular clusters (such as Omega Centauri with ‘1 million stars’) are moving faster than the gravity of visible matter can explain.
Fourth, unlike normal matter, the dark ‘brew’ is completely incapable of emitting light or any other form of electromagnetic radiation. So how then does it work?
Fifth, a ‘cloud’ of Dark Matter cannot radiate internal heat, a process vital for gravitational contraction.
Sixth, this means that Dark Matter cannot easily clump together at scales as small as those of globular clusters.
The only explanation for the above is to recognise a breakdown in Newton’s law of gravity.
Newton amended
Within Newton’s ‘law of gravity’ an object's gravitational pull is inversely proportional to the square of the other mass or object’s distance from it.
If for example, ‘globular clusters’ are truly behaving as observed, this would tell us that Newton's inverse square law holds true only above some critical acceleration. Below this threshold strength, gravity appears to dissipate more slowly than Newton predicts. When Newton’s laws are applied to spiral galaxies the rotation rate is ~ten times too slow.
This breakdown in Newtonianism has been known for a while. Around 30 years ago Mordehai Milgrom at the Weizmann Institute in Rehovot, Israel, proposed a theory known as Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) to explain this issue. Milgrom’s conclusion was simple, there is no need for Dark Matter in the universe, one can modify Newtonian mechanics.
Another possible solution might be to employ Kepler’s law of gravitation rather than Newton’s. Kepler’s law focuses upon the mean density inside the orbit and allows the orbit to increase in speed the farther it is from the center of mass. By contrast Newton’s law maintains that the mass of a body is concentrated in the center of an orbit. This means that the gravity decreases the farther from the center of mass the orbit. This will result in a decrease in orbital speed.
If we adjust Newton and use Kepler there is no need for the priestly incantations, burning incense and virgin sacrifices to ‘Dark Matter’. We can use real science to ‘save the phenomena’, not ridiculous maths and non-existent ‘brews’.
Theology and Canons
The underlying philosophical and theological position was and is, that the Big Bang must always be right.
The foundations for the Big Bang rest on Einstein’s (disproven) GTR theorem of spacetime curvature and gravitational waves, along with disproven assumptions about CMB (cosmic background radiation measurement). The establishment will never revise these foundations.
Neither will they modify the concept of galaxies and what makes them spin, or Newton’s laws (as ‘the science’ did over the miniscule discrepancy in the perihelion of Mercury, easily explained by slight adjustments to Newton’s maths, no need to use Relativity).
Instead the mathigicians invented a new parameter without any concern about providing observational evidence for its existence. This has nothing to do with ‘science’.
Establishment ‘science’ declares that Dark Matter is an entirely non-baryonic substance. Baryonic means material composed of protons, neutrons and atomic nuclei, with the fundamental building block being a ‘quark’.
Dark Matter is not composed of baryonic materiality and is thus ‘undetectable’ because light will ‘go beneath it’. This material is called a ‘lepton’ and is composed of electrons and positrons (opposite charged electrons). Leptons are not made of quarks.
However we have a problem.
The above logic is rather odd given that the mathigicians apply Newton’s F=MA to Dark Matter to explain the various issues listed above and to remediate issues with Newtonian mechanics. Newton’s ‘laws’ are entirely based on baryonic matter, namely material matter (maybe the mathigicians just forgot this). Newtonian mechanics do not apply to leptons. Newton had no idea that leptons existed (are there even smaller particle units?).
Despite these gymnastics it has been known for some time that Dark Matter is more imagination than ‘science’.
· A team in Chile using the MPG/ESO 2.2-metre telescope at the European Southern Observatory’s La Silla Observatory, along with other telescopes, mapped the motions of more than 400 stars up to 13,000 light-years from the Sun.
· The most accurate study of the motions of stars in the Milky Way 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, the mysterious invisible substance that can only be detected indirectly by the gravitational force it exerts (in other words, it is all inferential).
· From this new data they have calculated the mass of material in the vicinity of the Sun, in a volume four times larger than ever considered before.
· All attempts so far to detect dark matter in laboratories on Earth have failed.
· These results also mean that attempts to detect dark matter on Earth by trying to spot the rare interactions between dark matter particles and ‘normal’ matter are unlikely to be successful - ever. (“Serious Blow to Dark Matter Theories? New Study Finds Mysterious Lack of Dark Matter in Sun's Neighborhood,” ScienceDaily, Apr. 18, 2012)
If we ignore no proof and failure, than Dark Matter is proven. Another issue for ‘the science’ is that they use the Type 1a supernovae to measure the distance of objects in space through the invisible ‘dark matter’. This is incorrect because Type 1a supernovae are inconsistent and vary greatly in their mass and movements.
Annihilation Theories
Dark Matter cannot be found, because it destroys itself !
This is another path ‘the science’ and mathigicians follow. The Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer, a particle collector mounted on the outside of the International Space Station is used to infer that Dark Matter annihilates itself and forms electrons and positrons.
A previous post outlined the 1932 discovery of the positron by Carl Anderson (which disproved Relativity). Anderson found that when gamma radiation of no less than 1.022 million electron volts (MeV) was discharged at any point of space in his laboratory, an electron and positron emerged from that point. He also found the converse, that is, when an electron collides with a positron, the two particles disappear, as it were, and produce two gamma-ray quanta which disperse in opposite directions, but with a combined energy of 1.022 MeV.
In the fulcrum of Einstein’s E = mc2 declamation (early 1930s), Anderson’s experiment and proven phenomenon was interpreted to state that matter could be created and annihilated out of thin air! Of course this is invalid (why E = mc2 is wrong, here, here, here).
Old, sinful, ignorant and bad habits die hard.
We now see the same nonsense being applied to Dark Matter, based on AMS gamma radiation detection which produces positrons. Anderson already discovered this almost a 100 years ago! Electron/positron pairings may fill all of space and that sufficient gamma radiation releases the pairings. In other words the matter already exists, and the radiation just shakes them loose.
This of course means that Einstein’s aether-less space is false and both Special and General Relativity nullified. Can’t have that now can we!
Cue the mathigicians and the gymnasts. Get out the word salad chefs and the image creators. Draw those arrows on attractive renderings and visualisations pointing to ‘artistic interpretations’ of the data with the notation that all is known and proven.
Bottom Line
You can see that the Dark Matter theology is not based on science, but fiction and philosophy. No proof exists, the maths make no sense and observational evidence does not support the concept. It is a chimera. It is simpler and more factual to modify Newton than toss virgins into the Dark Matter volcano.
There is one interesting irony with the Dark Matter issue. Vera Rubin’s discovery of the anomalous nature of galaxy rotation showed how easily modern cosmology will abandon the empirical approach in order to save their precious Big Bang paradigm. However, another discovery of Rubin’s provided science with the solution to the Dark Matter problem, but it was summarily ignored.
Rubin discovered that if we add all the known motions in the galactic plane, the sum of motion is zero in the Earth’s vicinity.
Rubin’s calculations put the Earth in the centre of the universe! Anathema!3
This would mean that the law of inertia and inertial points would be at work based on Newtonian physics and a complete rewrite of astrophysics would be necessary. This will never happen with the secular religion of decentralised cosmic acceleration, infinity time and space, mechanical materiality, and ‘evolving’ structures.
Money, power, prestige, awards, degrees, books, conferences, media appearances, secular religiousity and deeply held spiritual beliefs and all that.
All hail.
==
1Vera C. Rubin, Norbert Thonnard and W. Kent Ford, Jr., “Motion of the Galaxy and the Local Group determined from the velocity anisotropy of distant Sc I galaxies,” The Astronomical Journal, vol. 81, No. 9, Sept. 1976, p. 735.
2Marcus Chown, New Scientist, July 2, 2005, p. 4
3Dark Energy: Is it Merely an Illusion?” ScienceDaily, Sept. 29, 2008, citing the article by Timothy Clifton, Pedro G. Gerreira, and Kate Land, “Living in a Void: Testing the Copernican Principle with Distant Supernovae,” Physical Review Letters, 101, 131302 (2008) DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.131302.
Banger sales material include:
"The History of the Universe" by David H. Lyth
"A Brief History of Time" by Stephen Hawking.
NASA's dedicated webpage for the James Webb Telescope,
European Space Agency's dedicated webpage.
Dissidents
Hannes Alfven a dissident and Nobel Prize Winner (plasma physicist)
Fred Hoyle, acclaimed scientist who supposedly lost the debate when CMB was ‘found’
David Spergel of Princeton, a bold critic of the Banging Religion
Science cannot and will not ever be able to explain the origin of species or the origin of life and/or the origin of the universe, not with the Big bang theory or the origin of species and evolution or by the scientific method.
OMG…GRANNY LOVES YOU!!! RELEASE COMPLETE CORRECT PYSICS 2025 !!!!!