Dark Matter & Dark Energy
In the 1930s, the Dutch astronomer, Jan Oort, examined the redshifts of stars moving in the Galactic plane. He wanted to find out how fast they were moving.
The Milky Way has spiral arms and isn't flying apart. So, it's reasonable to assume that there's enough gravity holding the Galaxy together. Here's the thing: Oort discovered that there's only half the mass in the Galaxy to hold it gravitationally together. So, in theory, the Milky Way should be breaking apart.
That the Galaxy is holding itself together indicates that either the current model of galaxy formation and how they rotate is wrong, or there's some undetected stuff out there in space.
Today, no one in mainstream astroscience has worked out how spiral galaxies maintain their shape. It goes against Isaac Newton's Law of Gravitation. According to Newtonian mechanics, since most of the mass of a spiral galaxy is concentrated in the middle, the farther a star is from the center, the slower it ought to move.
However, we find that of ALL the stars in a spiral galaxy move with the same velocity, except those within 30,000 parsecs from the galactic center. Those stars orbit more slowly the nearer they are to the core.
A VLT Image of the spiral galaxy NGC 1232. Red coloring indicates older stars. The galaxy lies in the constellation Eridanus about 60 million light years away and about twice the size of the Milky Way. Credit: European Southern Observatory
For the tangential velocity of a star to remain constant, the more remote it is from the Galactic center, the sum of the masses of the stars closer than it to the core must rise proportionally to the Galaxy's radius. The thing is that there are fewer and fewer stars as the distance to the Galactic center increases, so the overall mass can't increase proportionally with range.
There lies the problem of the missing mass of spiral galaxies according to the standard model. It is clear that stars remote from the Galactic center either disobey the law of gravitation, or a stronger force than gravity is dominant at Galactic distances.
So which is right?
Galaxy Cluster Behavior
Galaxy clusters also seem to disobey Newton's law of gravitation. The velocities of galaxies in groups with respect to one another are simply too fast.
The central regions of the galaxy cluster Abell 2744, nicknamed Pandora’s Cluster because of what appears to be many different and strange phenomena. Credit: NASA, ESA, and D. Coe (STScI)/J. Merten (Heidelberg/Bologna)
If gravitation is the dominant force in the Universe, then galaxy clusters with members traveling at ‘way too fast’ speeds wouldn't be observed, would they? But they are!
Newton's Law of Gravitation works. It works perfectly in space around the Solar System.
F = GMm/r2
The Voyager probes to the Solar System's outer planets in the 1970s and all the others since have proven that Newton's gravitation law works. Okay. Since that law works well, what then could be affecting our observations? If there's a hidden, unseen and undetected mass in galaxies, that would easily explain our observations. It would also put any fears to rest that something's seriously wrong with Newtonian physics.
If the missing mass were in the form of matter which doesn't reflect starlight, then that would explain what we see, wouldn't it? In 1933 the astronomer Fritz Zwicky called the invisible matter Dark Matter. However, such hypothesizing is baseless when the empirical scientific method is applied. The deductive method must NEVER take precedence.
The Big Bang Theory
According to the Belgian Roman Catholic priest, astronomer, and professor of physics, Georges Lemaître, the theory of an expanding Universe explains the recession of nearby galaxies. That was an observation confirmed by the American astronomer Edwin Hubble in the 1920s.
Hubble provided evidence that galaxies' recessional velocities increase with distance from the Earth - Hubble's law. The Hubble-Lemaître Law implies that the Universe is expanding. Previously, the American astronomer, Vesto Slipher, provided evidence that the light from many galaxies was strongly red-shifted, which meant that they have high recession velocities.
Absorption lines in the visible spectrum of a supercluster of distant galaxies are on the right, compared with absorption lines in the visible spectrum of the Sun on the left of this diagram. Arrows indicate redshift. Wavelength increases towards the red end of the spectrum. Image credit: Georg Wiora
Since Lemaître's 1927 finding that an expanding universe could be traced back in time to a single originating point, cosmologists have built on the idea of spatial expansion.
Fred Hoyle, the English astronomer who formulated stellar nucleosynthesis, coined the term "Big Bang" on the UK BBC radio. That's where the term comes from. So now you know. It's a derogative term underneath. Hoyle, however, rejected the Big Bang idea in favor of the Steady State theory.
From the analysis of galactic redshifts, Hubble concluded that galaxies are drifting apart.
In 1964, the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) was discovered by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, which supports the Big Bang model.
Measurements of supernovae redshifts indicate that the expansion of the Universe is accelerating. However, Indications are not facts. The ONLY way that can happen under the gravity paradigm is for the existence of more energy – hence the invention of Dark Energy.
Wave a Red Flag!
Existing physical laws of nature indicate that the Universe began in an initial state of very high density and temperature. Big Bang theory describes how the Universe has expanded from a very high density, high-temperature state to today. It explains a range of phenomena, including the abundance of light elements, the CMB, large-scale structure, and Hubble's law.
It all sounds perfect, doesn't it? The Big Bang model also indicates that the farther away galaxies are, the faster they move. Okay, that means they must be gaining more and more energy.
Suppose the observed conditions are extrapolated backward in time using the laws of physics as we know them. In that case, the prediction is that there was a singularity just before the period of very high density. A singularity in astroscience is a point at which a function takes an infinite value when matter is infinitely dense.
Wave a BIG Red Flag:
Singularities are typically associated with the Big Bang theory. They're nothing other than mathematical creations. Remember that. Mathematics is NOT science. So, lots of astroscientists today are unsurprisingly confused. They're undecided whether the Universe began from a singularity or if our current knowledge is insufficient to describe the Universe.
Measurements of the expansion rate of the Universe indicates that the Big Bang occurred around 13.8 billion years ago. After the supposed initial expansion, the Universe is thought to have cooled down sufficiently to allow the formation of subatomic particles, and later the atoms making up the 92 elements of the Periodic Table.
But is that true?
Vast clouds of hydrogen, helium, and lithium maybe later coalesced through gravity, eventually forming the first stars and galaxies - the descendants of which are visible today. Though most of the mass in the Universe is thought to be in the form of dark matter - according to the Big Bang theory - it can't be baryonic matter – that is, the protons, neutrons, and electrons. Wave a red flag:
Dark Energy satisfies the Standard Model of cosmology. It is a hypothetical form of energy that supposedly permeates all of space - creating a force that opposes the weak force of gravity.
Here's the thing: why do astroscientists invent hypothetical entities to explain the observation that the expansion of the Universe appears to be accelerating and that gravity only attracts?
Have they forgotten that the electric force is close to 1040 times more powerful than gravity and that it both attracts and repels?
It seems so.
By believing that feeble gravity is the dominant force in the Universe and NOT the electric force, a 96% of the mass of the Universe is missing, hence the need to invent dark matter and dark energy. They may as well blame it on faeries for what it's worth.
This puzzle should have raised red flags all over the place, but due to ingrained belief systems, the gullible take it all in as fact.
Mainstream students and astroscientists are no different than church-goers preached to from a pulpit. Why don't they use their hard-earned knowledge and the experimental results from other disciplines, such as electrodynamics and plasma science, to put forward hypotheses with firmer bases?
Answer: Because they're NOT taught to do that. They're taught the same old regurgitated curricular BS that's endemic in popular astroscience today.
Students aren't being taught to use the empirical scientific method from the outset. If they were, they would have rejected most of the deduced nonsense dating from the last century to the present day.
According to mainstream astroscience, Newton's law of gravitation is inviolate. That being so, the missing mass just has to be found.
Here are some of the 'thought up' explanations that can't be proven NOT to exist: -
- MACHOs - MAssive Compact Halo Objects such as fictional black holes and neutron stars
- Wimps - Weakly Interacting Massive Particles. These weird particles that have mass don't interact with ordinary matter, so aren't they, therefore, faeries made of something undetectable and unknown?
- Hot Dark Matter - fast-moving neutrinos and imaginary things like tachyons from ‘Star Trek.’
- Cold Dark Matter - expired stars, dead planets, and failed stars, such as Brown Dwarfs.
- CCDM - Cold Collisionless Dark Matter
- SIDM - Strongly self-Interacting Dark Matter
- RDM - Repulsive Dark Matter
- FDM - Fuzzy Dark Matter – how about VDM - Vague … get the idea?
- SADM - Self Annihilating Dark Matter
- WDM - Warm Dark Matter
Is there any evidence for the existence of any dark matter? Not a shred. The same applies to dark energy.
The fact is that after decades of trying to find the unseen stuff, researchers have found zippo.
That today's mainstream astroscientists suggest that some 96% of matter in the Universe is invisible should quickly raise a red flag:
Modified Newtonian Dynamics
With 96% of the matter in the Universe being hypothetical, in 1983, Mordechai Milgrom of the Weizman Institute of Science, Israel, proposed, of all things, altering Newton's law of gravitation.
Called MOdified Newtonian Dynamics, it attempted to get around the problem of the low-density regions of mass in galaxies.
Surely, scientific laws can't be changed just to fit some ‘deduced’ theory?
String theory proposes that the Universe might be a 4-D brane in 11 dimensions. That means a four-dimensional membrane in eleven dimensions.
Abstract mathematics is NOT science.
We live in a 3-D world, so we can't prove the existence of submicroscopic, curled-up dimensions. Okay, minuscule string-like vibrations in 4-D space and time (space-time) sound plausible, and sets of vibrating waves could well appear to us as subatomic particles.
The trouble is that they are all invisible, undetectable, hypothetical, and impossible to disprove. They only EXIST in mathematics, which is not science. Wave a red flag:
M-branes and P-branes ONLY exist in the abstract mathematical Universe of string and M theory. These are similar to belief systems. There's NO experimental evidence for their existence, and abstract mathematical theories are untestable. We can't prove or disprove them. They may as well be religions.
Science is about testable hypotheses, NOT about putting squiggles and curly symbols on a blackboard.
Time to Dispose of the Untestable
Albert Einstein's theory of General Relativity and the Big Bang theory are teetering on a precipice because they are untestable mathematical complexities. Mathematics is not science. Experimentally verifiable science is needed.
Time to Trash the Gravity-only Paradigm
The plain fact is that the law of gravitation DOESN'T explain the rotation of galaxies.
So, what does?
Galaxies are not held together by the feebly weak force of gravity. It's is more like a pseudo force because we feel an effect just like it when the vehicle we are traveling in suddenly brakes. Gravity is, therefore, a phenomenon like acceleration - a change in speed or direction.
The electric force, being 1040 times more powerful than gravity, permeates the Universe. It's the dominant force in the Universe by far. Electricity is everywhere, from atoms to galaxy clusters. Each of our five senses is fundamentally electrical. The nervous system is electrical; plant photosynthesis is entirely electrical; biochemistry and ALL chemical reactions are electrical.
So, what isn't electric in nature? The answer is nothing. Even nuclear energy is electrical underneath.
Where there's a moving electric current, there's always associated mutual magnetism. Where there's a changing magnetic effect, there's always an associated electric effect. The two are mutually intertwined.
A changing electric field creates a reciprocal changing magnetic field, which creates a changing electric field, which creates a changing magnetic field, which creates, ad infinitum. It goes on forever if not absorbed. It can, however, be refracted and reflected. Think about that.
The last paragraph just explained the nature of light. It's electromagnetic radiation, and it propagates through a vacuum at a speed of 186,000 miles every second. It's what telescopes gather. We see it through our eyes.
Electrodynamics – Not Dark Matter & Dark Energy
Electrodynamics, together with plasma science, form a paradigm that astroscience should embrace - NOT the disgraced current gravity paradigm. Electrodynamics is the paradigm astroscience must adopt. The sooner astroscientists grasp that, the quicker they will make sense of what they see through their instruments.
Today's mainstream astroscientists believe that there's no electricity in space. Oh, but there's magnetism, they admit. It's about time they WOKE UP.
Mathematics is NOT science.
Invisible, dark, unseen, untestable 'faerie-like' things are NOT science.
Electrical engineers know MORE about the workings of the Universe than mathematicians and gravicentrics.