Dark matter: What if it, like, doesn’t exist?
posted at 3:40 pm on August 4, 2007 by Bryan
Scientific consensuses were made to be challenged, and some scientists are challenging the consensus that dark matter — undetected, unseen, and only hinted at by the motion of galaxies — dominates the universe. It’s been the scientific consensus since the 1970s that dark matter exists and comprises more than 90% of the universe.
The mysterious dark matter that’s been called on to make sense of the ways galaxies twirl through space may not exist, if an alternative theory is right.
The surprising way galaxies rotate — as if they are much larger and heavier than they appear to be — has long implied to astronomers and astrophysicists that there is more matter out there holding things together than we see.
That unseen and unseeable matter has fallen under the catch-all term “dark matter.” These days, the most likely candidate for what makes up dark matter is some sort of weakly interacting particle that we’ve so far failed to detect.
But there is another radically different possibility: What if gravity itself doesn’t work quite the way we think? Maybe at the outer edges of galaxies where the gravitational acceleration — the g — of a galaxy is extremely small, gravity tugs just a tad bit more.
If so, that miniscule difference could be enough to cancel the need for dark matter altogether. That’s what the Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) theory suggests, astronomer Stacy McGaugh explains in an article in the Aug. 3 issue of the journal Science…
Some scientists think the MOND g has already been detected by NASA monitoring the Pioneer 10 and 11 spacecrafts, which are now 40 to 60 times further from the sun than Earth.
“They show an extra acceleration directed towards the sun at about the same order of magnitude,” said McGaugh.
As these stories usually end, it’ll take more telescopes and at least 10 years of study to figure out who’s right. Hubble will get one more servicing mission, and the infrared Son of Hubble goes up circa 2013.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
The “dark matter” stuff always sounded a bit like Ye Olde Tyme “ether” to me (not the anesthetic).
I’m going to go for “gravity doesn’t work the way we think it does”.
Then there’s the matter of the “missing” solar neutrinos…
meep on August 4, 2007 at 3:46 PM
Terrorists! Don’t they know this is settled science! It’s consensus…you can’t questions consensus!! To The Hague with them all!!!
Jim-Rose on August 4, 2007 at 3:48 PM
the “gray matter” in my brain hurts!
deathNtaxes on August 4, 2007 at 3:50 PM
Maybe the strings of the “String Theory”
are actually God.
What if the entire universe is the manifestation of God.
TheSitRep on August 4, 2007 at 3:51 PM
This is why I love cosmology, as we expand our knowledge, the questions grow ever more complex. It’s good to see one part of the scientific arena where lively discussion and debate thrives.
Matt Helm on August 4, 2007 at 3:56 PM
Then God could be scientifically quantified, then he’d seem quite insignificant.
My guess is much of what is accepted theory now will look like all the bending over backwards to come up with new models that explained the erratic movement of planets in the sky while still maintaining they all revolved around the earth.
frankj on August 4, 2007 at 3:57 PM
Coincidence does not prove causation
Dark matter coincides with galactic motion.
Gravitational variations coincides with galactic motion.
Carbon dioxide levels coincide with temperature changes.
Solar output changes coincide with temperature changes.
Coincidence should make you curious not convinced.
(Well except for that part about solar output.)
TunaTalon on August 4, 2007 at 3:59 PM
The Dark Matter in Algore’s brain?
Dev on August 4, 2007 at 4:23 PM
In the ’70s, when the dark matter theory became common, global cooling was all the rage. That’s because the ’70s were cool. The 21st century is hot. Dark matter is going out of fashion. Scientists are cool…er, hot.
jaime on August 4, 2007 at 4:27 PM
Never really been a fan of dark matter; too bitter, not enough sugar.
Weight of Glory on August 4, 2007 at 4:28 PM
So then does this give CPR to Joao Magueijo’s ‘Faster then the Speed of Light’??????
Sorry Bryan, but I’m must have MO blood in me, but it seems all the mathematical models is like chasing a rainbow…almost there!!!!!…damn….lets try again.
Limerick on August 4, 2007 at 4:36 PM
Space Daily
Dark Matter And God Particle Within Reach
abinitioadinfinitum on August 4, 2007 at 4:40 PM
Silly wabbits. Next they’ll say that Hubble’s red shift theory is accurate. As if!!
trubble on August 4, 2007 at 4:43 PM
Hmmm, I have started writing a paper which suggests exactly this. At the rate I am getting around to finishing this paper every thing in it will already be proven fact. While I have the mathematics worked out there is still a lot of writing to do. The basic premise of my paper is that gravity is not a mass dependent phenomena and is in fact a field effect generated by string vectored rotations. A very interesting article one the subject can be found here.
Generating gravimetric feilds
doriangrey on August 4, 2007 at 4:48 PM
What is Dark Matter?
Come on, she’s running for president….
ScottG on August 4, 2007 at 4:49 PM
I’m working on a miticlorians theory. Gimme a minute.
TexasDan on August 4, 2007 at 4:56 PM
I see the headlines now.
“Bush Administration Destroys 90% of the Universe!”
Faith1 on August 4, 2007 at 4:59 PM
Science
Kini on August 4, 2007 at 5:10 PM
Without any proof or reason to agree without you whatsoever, I do. For the exact same reasons.
Christoph on August 4, 2007 at 5:16 PM
So Pioneer 10 and 11 are, in reality, global warming skeptics?
Nethicus on August 4, 2007 at 5:29 PM
The way I see it the math didn’t quite fit so the had to makeup dark matter, 1+5=9-darkmatter. See how it works, now there’s no need to change any of our old theories when they don’t add up
Gwillie on August 4, 2007 at 5:35 PM
Dear TheSitRep, I left a quarter under your pillow.
Signed,
“The Tooth Fairy”
ronsfi on August 4, 2007 at 5:37 PM
here is a quote from my brother, who thinks he is a freaking rocket scientist (my apologies to any actual rocket scientists)….
“There’s no such thing as gravity, the earth sucks!”
mrfixit on August 4, 2007 at 5:46 PM
Nonfactor,
I missed your response about rationality and eternality in the Huckabee thread. I responded to your objections.
Tim Burton on August 3, 2007 at 9:50 PM
There is actually two posts. I did it as I had time.
Tim Burton on August 4, 2007 at 5:52 PM
Science and common sense ( there IS a difference ) have both already proven Beyond a Reasonable Doubt that the 70s were the Opposite of Cool
whatever Cool is, the 70s were not it
the rapid rise of widespread drug abuse is not Cool
the epidemic of STDs is not Cool
the collapse of morality…………
Janos Hunyadi on August 4, 2007 at 6:21 PM
So when are the far left scientists going to start calling these guys racist?
Kowboy on August 4, 2007 at 6:32 PM
Gwillie on August 4, 2007 at 5:35 PM
That is pretty much exactly the way it works. “Dark matter” is absolutely nothing except a filler plugged in to make an equation work.
No theory is ever really “right” or “wrong.” Theories are evaluated based on how well they explain observed phenomena.
And the “theory” of dark matter explains NOTHING.
What the Hell is it even supposed to be? It has absolutely no properties in common with anything else we call “matter” except that it (somehow) creates the precise amount of extra gravitational force, in precisely the distribution necessary to fill the gaps in our current understanding of galactic motion.
That’s it. Not exactly the Theory of Relativity there.
You could just as easily call dark matter “invisible gravity generating force,” or “unseen new property of space we don’t understand yet,” or “something else we don’t know anything about that explains how galaxies move.”
But they don’t call it any of those things. Some aesthetic soul slapped the label “dark matter” on it. That term is precisely as descriptive as any of the above, but it somehow feels simultaneously tangible and mysterious.
To people outside the field, that undefined term seems vaguely believable. And everyone inside the field understands that it doesn’t really matter what you call the variable. It’s just a placeholder until somebody can corroborate it – or at least finds a use for it that fulfills something beyond its own hypothesis.
Does that mean that there is a “consensus” regarding dark matter? You bet it does.
And does that consensus have anything at all to do with science? Nope. Not one tiny thing.
logis on August 4, 2007 at 6:37 PM
I have thought ever since I heard of “Dark Matter” that it was probably just an excuse for physicists not being able to figure out how “things work”, so they came up with that rather than just say “We don’t know or even have a freaken clue right now, we will get back to you if we ever figure things out”.
MB4 on August 4, 2007 at 6:39 PM
As a high-school college-prep astronomy/astrophysics student at the date and time in question (1970s) “I was there” when Dark Matter became all the rage. The whole argument was succinctly summed up by my professor, who put it like this;
The part that amused me was, the “coalescence” theory was in fact first seen in the science fiction of Edward Elmer “Doc” Smith, Ph.D (Chem) back in the 1920s. It didn’t become common in “real” astrophysics until the 1950s. And all Doc was trying to do was justify having two galaxies teeming with planets and, therefore, life, in obedience to the theories of planetary formation of Camille’ Flammarion, who theorized that only near passes between suns could “pull out” enough matter from said suns to form planets to begin with. (See the Introduction[s] to any of Smith’s “Lensman” novels.)
The bottom line, as my prof explained it to me, is that astrophysics does not have the faintest idea how the Universe came to exist in the first place, but by the same token, the experts in the field don’t want to admit it. Stedy-State, Big Bang, and Pulsating Universe(s) are just their successive attempts to model something they have no actual supporting evidence for, one way or another.
The “red shift” of entire galaxies has in the past been used to “prove” that either (a) we are receding from them at near C (the speed of light) or (b) they are receding from our position at the same velocity. The problem, of course, is figuring out who, if anybody, is actually standing still to provide a frame of reference.
What is really significant here is that it is just possible that, after several decades of trying to convince everyone else that they “had all the answers”, the astrophysics community (especially the optical astronomy clique my prof referred to as the “West Coast Mafia”) may finally have matured enough (or else been embarrassed by the likes of Stephen Hawking and Miguel Alcubierre’ enough) to simply, and honestly, finally admit that they don’t know, and don’t really have enough hard data for a good guess.
And admitting ignorance is often the first step to figuring out what the facts really are.
Clear Ether! :-)
and cheers
eon
eon on August 4, 2007 at 6:50 PM
AllahPundit likes to “bait us” with the religious threads where the participants argue endlessly, nothing is ever proved or resolved, and no one ever changes their mind.
Meanwhile, Bryan likes to “bait us” with the nerdly science threads where the participants argue endlessly, nothing is ever proved or resolved, and no one ever changes their mind.
Everybody knows that Mensa’s IQ tests are nothing more than exercises in pattern recognition, right? So how are we doing thus far?
CyberCipher on August 4, 2007 at 6:53 PM
So how are we doing thus far?
CyberCipher on August 4, 2007 at 6:53 PM
About like rats in a lab?
MB4 on August 4, 2007 at 6:56 PM
Silly. Then it’s no matter.
;-)
infidel4life on August 4, 2007 at 7:11 PM
Bush lied, dark matter died.
jaleach on August 4, 2007 at 7:33 PM
I guess the dark matter was annihilated by the anti-dark matter.
So, you’re saying the gravitational constant isn’t? Or it’s a different constant? I’m just thankful I don’t fly off the Earth in a straight line. Although I imagine there are some people who wish I would :-)
Things that make you go hmmmm.
Ordinary1 on August 4, 2007 at 7:56 PM
Astrophysicists make me laugh. They are most undisciplined of all the scientific professions. Whenever they see something that does not reconcile with a previously held belief, they make up another belief to explain it. Then they realize the stuff they made up doesn’t really make any sense, when they come to believe something else. So then they go and make up another theory that would explain it, until that notion no longer works. There is no science.
Example: The universe is not expanding fast enough. So I, as an astrophysicist, reconcile this pseudo-observation (psuedo because it may or may not be correct) by creating a new force that stops it. I call it Slow Gravity and I make up facets of this new gravity. It works for a few years until one of my colleaques, Josh Nerd, makes another pseudo-observation which would stipulate that in order for Slow Gravity to exist, something must be slowing that down, we call this something Space Concrete, a substance in space that you can’t really see, but must be there to slow gravity down. It’s made by Haliburton. The problem with Space Concrete is that the universe is not old enough to have created enough of it to slow down the universe’s expansion, so the universe must be older than thought, or Space Concrete must have a secret ingredient.
Alas, it has a secret ingredient.
It is called Dark Force Space Aggregate, which is a super dense kind of aggregate, much denser than normal aggregate for your driveway or patio walk. But in order for this mysterious substance to exist in huge quantities, without being comprised of normal matter, it would have to be comprised of a, heretofore, unknown substance which would have to travel faster than light in order not to be apart of the normal mass of the universe. Which means, of course, that Dark Force Space Aggregate is comprised of super-luminal particles called Nerdite, named after its discoverer. Since nothing can travel faster than light, this means that warp speed is a reality, and if a better understanding of Nerdite can be obtained, perhaps one day humanity will be able to travel as fast as concrete.
But in order for that to happen, more funding is necessary.
The fact is that astrophysicists haven’t a clue. They are not scientists but novelists. They make stuff up as they go along and none of them want to get a real job. And, like any graduate student of any university, almost all of them vote democrat.
jihadwatcher on August 4, 2007 at 7:57 PM
Hmmm. Two thoughts.
1. The history of science is the history of being proven wrong.
2. Freaky Deaky!!
Labamigo on August 4, 2007 at 8:14 PM
So, when are “scientists” going to admit that evolutionism is a hoax?
corona on August 4, 2007 at 8:27 PM
No. Astrophysicists crunch numbers for a living. Certainly not all of them have the insight of an Einstein, but they’re also not sitting around smoking dope, pontificating about how many galaxies are in their fingernails and occasionally leaping up and screaming that they finally figured out what the u-universe is all about, ma-a-an.
What physicists do is extremely boring. The way they tear apart each others theories is, in a word, ruthless. And the trickle of theories that get corroborated do help advance science – albeit very incrementally.
However, what most people see in the MEDIA is a completely different story. Every painstaking, half-baked theory has to be touted as an earth-shattering epiphany. On the rare occasion you actually see a physicist outside his lair, he’s either the most “media-friendly” (i.e., vacuous and self-promoting) ass the profession has to offer. Or else he’s some poor old camera-shy savant who’s being fed catchy lines by a producer with the IQ of a ping-pong ball – who assumes his audience is even dumber than he is.
And, with all due respect, I’m sure that if whatever you do for a living were explained by Katie Couric for the benefit of autistic monkeys, it probably wouldn’t end up sounding all that brilliant either.
logis on August 4, 2007 at 8:59 PM
So does my accountant. But he doesn’t make up the storyline as he goes along.
jihadwatcher on August 4, 2007 at 9:12 PM
I’m happy for both of you. But of course, as I just explained, the average astrophysicist doesn’t “make up the storyline as he goes along” any more than the average accountant does – unless your accountant happens to be a regular guest on “Mad Money.”
logis on August 4, 2007 at 9:35 PM
Then what does he do in the event that the numbers “don’t add up” with the reality of what’s in any given account?
taznar on August 4, 2007 at 9:47 PM
Is ‘dark matter’ like ‘global warming”? Maybe it causes it?
Think I’ll pin my hopes on a better gravity theory.
petefrt on August 4, 2007 at 10:06 PM
Its like I always say. Its mind over matter. If you don’t mind it doesen’t matter
sonnyspats1 on August 4, 2007 at 10:16 PM
That is what the news producers do.. “man did you read this new theory about Nerdite I hear it can fly faster than light, maybe if we make the world aware of it then like everyone would think we are cool and smart then we can get invited to more parties”
run-on sentence intended. You ever hear a stoner producer not talk in run-on sentences?
Gwillie on August 4, 2007 at 10:31 PM
If my accountant made up the story to fit the observations, like an astrophysicist does, he’d be in jail. Most of astrophysics is not based on verifiable theories. It is just wild conjecture no better than the foundation for any religion. But at least religion is religion. But astrophysicists get funding and articles in Scientific American. Really, with a bit of marijuana, or better yet, some magic mushrooms, all of us could be astrophysicists for a day.
jihadwatcher on August 4, 2007 at 10:36 PM
That’s it, I’ve decided. I need to live forever.
Bob's Kid on August 4, 2007 at 10:59 PM
Darned good. At least you, for figuring that out. :)
I bet that if we checked the IQs of posters here they’d be distinctly higher than average. No lie.
Bob's Kid on August 4, 2007 at 11:03 PM
Still doesn’t explain why galaxies are going outward (away from the Big Bang) at an increasing rate of speed.
jediwebdude on August 4, 2007 at 11:17 PM
I strongly agree that the intellectual quality of commenters here is above average. There is a difference between intelligent and educated and it seems most here are both. But back to the thread topic:
I must disagree with those postulating that the scientists are essentially making it up as they go along. They are just following the scientific method of research. As others pointed out, the problem is not with the scientists theorizing, testing, discarding, arguing and re-theorizing on subjects, but rather with the ignorant non-scientists, such as the global climate change worshipers, who take the theories as gospel truth. The dumb masses have neither the clarity or comprehension to distinguish theory from fact, and subsequently tout theory, that matches their world view, as fact to validate their perceptions. Fragile egos tied to an unrealistic world construct lead to frightening outcomes.
deepdiver on August 4, 2007 at 11:24 PM
That’s because darkmatter is ether, or rather the ether os made of darkmatter; just as light is made of photons.
BTW the “missing” solar neutrinos:
“2001-2002: Proof of solar neutrino oscillation
The Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (SNO), the first neutrino detector that can pick up all three known types of neutrinos, resolves conclusively that, in the case of the missing solar neutrinos, the neutrinos are not, in fact, missing. SNO finds that the total number of neutrinos from the sun is remarkably close to what John Bahcall predicted three decades earlier. Ray Davis’s experimental work is vindicated as well, because SNO finds that only about a third of the solar neutrinos that reach Earth are still in the same state that Davis could measure. Roughly two-thirds change type—or oscillate—during the journey.”
It’s all about Nova.
- The Cat
MirCat on August 4, 2007 at 11:33 PM
What Einstein had to say about darkmatter/the ether.
Remember, this guy not only predicted what would happen with an a-bomb, but also what it would look like when it happened. I think he had a pretty good grasp on the motion of particals.
- The Cat
MirCat on August 4, 2007 at 11:38 PM
Dark Matter has always had the smell of ether about it to me, too (pardon the pun). It would certainly come as no surprise to learn that the reason DM hasn’t been directly detected is that it simply doesn’t exist.
It’s still good theory, though, as various formulations involving it tend to lend themselves to the creation of tests and observations of at least some kind. That’s good stuff compared with, say, all the String Theory poetry being generated.
In other words, if it’s possible to eventually arrive at a strong conclusion that Dark Matter either does or does not exist, the theories in question were still in principle good ones (as was ether–it simply turned out to be wrong). If there’s one thing science is definitely not about, it’s being confident that one is right the first time around.
Blacklake on August 5, 2007 at 12:05 AM
You ever hear a stoner producer not talk in run-on sentences?
Gwillie on August 4, 2007 at 10:31 PM
There was one time when I think I heard a stoner producer talk in a non run-on-sentence but then I had the hiccups at the time and may just have thought that he was beginning a new sentence every several words when he may not have been doing that as it may have just sounded that way to me especially as I was thinking about something else at the time so as to be distracted when I was listening to him so he may have actually been talking in a run-on-sentence after all but I really don’t know for sure as it could have been the other way around too although I am not at all sure as I was also pondering the merits of the dark matter theory and also was quite drunk at the time.
MB4 on August 5, 2007 at 12:06 AM
Scientists can’t see or detect “dark matter” in any direct way. The speculate on its existence based upon how galaxies move. Sure seems they have a lot of… faith.
JinxMcHue on August 5, 2007 at 12:13 AM
Somehow I just can’t get all that worked-up about whether dark matters exist or not. I guess I’m kinda like… oh well … no dark matter. Am I missing anything ?
Maxx on August 5, 2007 at 12:36 AM
It’s all caused by global warming.
Herikutsu on August 5, 2007 at 1:11 AM
And “that guy” was also quick to point out that all it would take is a single experiment to prove all his theories wrong.
A big part of science is coming up with the best theory possible to explain all the data at hand, then do the best you can to test it and prove it wrong. As I was once told, the only time you really learn something new in science is when you “break” the theory of model.
Having said that, one of the hallmarks of a good theory is that it can be used to make a testable hypothesis/prediction. The problem with dark matter is that nobody has come up with a good way to test the theory.
taznar on August 5, 2007 at 1:11 AM
Nope, you’re not. Many of the other commenters are trying to make something more out of this than there really is. They are taking one of the most uncertain “consensuses” in science and trying to make a parallel with things (evolution, anthropogenic global warming) that actually deserve the word consensus.
Dark matter has always been the place-holder name for something astrophysicists thought was there and spent a lot of time looking for but could not really pin down. A term of exclusion.
“Scientific consensuses” are not the infallible words of God, but this is no reason to believe that the consensus opinion is a poor picture of reality. It’s the best we’ve got and obviously “consensuses” can come in varying degrees based upon how much research has been done on each issue.
And anyway, this matter is far from settled (forgive the pun).
starflyer on August 5, 2007 at 1:20 AM
I bow to you. Although, I must point out that what you did was not a run on sentence. True you could have used a ‘;’ and a bucket of ‘,’s. With those it would have been correct grammatically. Unlike this post which is not correct grammatically, puntuationally, or even spellingally.
- The Cat
P.S. I think I even made up a few words.
Now on toppic.
Yet it’s effects are very noticable. There, of course, is no way to see, messure, etc. it because it is beyond intert. Kind of like the effects of paper on prose.
Examples of how it interacts: Get a pot and swirl the water. Now take a salt shaker and add salt. When the salt collects look at the pattern. Much like a galaxy, even down to the fact that it’s dence in the center and spiral arms form outwards. Also notice that the salt collects in the center, which is counter to centrifugal force. (yes I know it’s a virtual force). . . read what Albert wrote.
- The Cat
MirCat on August 5, 2007 at 1:22 AM
I agree. Keep in mind dark matter was proposed because observable data deviated from what all (then) currently held theories would predict -meaning they were all wrong in some aspect or particular. That doesn’t mean that the theories are without practical use either. Theories we know to be “wrong” or we don’t fully understand are used every day in engineering simply because they describe the system accurately enough for practical use.
For example, not knowing exactly what gravity is and how it works hasn’t stopped us from using the theory of gravity in everything from building chairs that don’t break to sending space probes throughout the solar system.
taznar on August 5, 2007 at 1:57 AM
What could that possibly have to do with faith? They’re speculating as to a source of gravity, and they don’t insist that it’s true without regard to evidence that challenges the theory.
It’s the exact opposite of faith. Astronomers don’t believe in Dark Matter, they theorize about it.
Blacklake on August 5, 2007 at 2:04 AM
“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”
- Schopenhauer
I suspect that the “Dark Matter” theory will never make it past stage one.
MB4 on August 5, 2007 at 2:19 AM
“The Forever Expanding Theory” = The universe blows.
“The Collapsing Theory” = The universe sucks.
“The Alternating Expansion/Collapsing Theory” = The universe blows and sucks.
Texas Nick 77 on August 5, 2007 at 3:45 AM
taznar on August 5, 2007 at 1:57 AM
Absolutely. Thank you.
Lazarus on August 5, 2007 at 4:07 AM
Actually, some idiot is trying to “test” the theory. I’m not making this up; the guy actually set up a “dark matter detector,” and he’s soaking up millions of dollars a year in research grants!
The problem is that there is no way to DISPROVE the existence of something which has essentially no known attributes. It may as well be a boogey man detector – you can never prove they’re not out there.
Since nobody has any clue how big a “particle” (if that term even makes sense) of dark matter is; there is no way to guess how rare they might be. So there is no rational basis for saying whether the test will have to run for one year, a hundred years, or ten milion years. For all practical purposes, the duration is “as long as you idiots keep paying the bills.”
Again, the problem is not with physicists in general. The problem is that public funds are often distributed based on media fads rather than the relative potential for success – or for failure, which is equally as valuable to science.
logis on August 5, 2007 at 6:16 AM
In latching on to this “dark matter” meme, physicists are basically foregoing some fundamental aspects of Einstein’s theories of Relativity and Gravitation.
Einstein’s theories are truly amazing. They explain so very much, and at the same time they are self-limiting: they tell us what they DON’T cover. It’s understandable that physicists want to apply them to (literally) everything until something better comes along. But there is a natural tendency to fixate on what is comfortable, even when it no longer makes any sense to do so.
On a Universal scale, it makes no real sense to talk about gravity as a “force.” It makes at least as much sense (and Einstein believed MORE sense) to consider gravity as a property of space. So it makes no sense whatsoever to blythely assume that the rules will stay the same on a scale where space itself becomes plastic.
Additionally, assuming the “expansion” of the Universe (whatever that really means) follows the rules of Relativity really makes no more sense than assuming it follows the rules of Newtonian physics. The motion of the Universe as a whole can’t possibly be relative to anything else – because there is no external framework for it to be relative TO.
Calling the unknown factor “dark matter” (or even more bizarrely “dark energy”) instead of “Factor U” or some other random name isn’t just a harmless affectation. It tends to focus thinking on the subject – and even more destructively, it also tends to focus funding!
logis on August 5, 2007 at 6:50 AM
No such thing as dark matter?!
Rove, you did it again you magnificent bastard!!
csdeven on August 5, 2007 at 7:46 AM
Found this.
In 1933, the astronomer Fritz Zwicky was studying the motions of distant galaxies. Zwicky estimated the total mass of a group of galaxies by measuring their brightness. When he used a different method to compute the mass of the same cluster of galaxies, he came up with a number that was 400 times his original estimate (1). This discrepancy in the observed and computed masses is now known as “the missing mass problem.” Nobody did much with Zwicky’s finding until the 1970′s, when scientists began to realize that only large amounts of hidden mass could explain many of their observations (2). Scientists also realize that the existence of some unseen mass would also support theories regarding the structure of the universe (3). Today, scientists are searching for the mysterious dark matter not only to explain the gravitational motions of galaxies, but also to validate current theories about the origin and the fate of the universe.
kiakjones on August 5, 2007 at 8:09 AM
“It’s been the scientific consensus since the 1970s that dark matter exists and comprises more than 90% of the universe”.
Speaking as a layman, but interested in astrophysics, there are many competing/compelling theories. The dark matter theory stemmed from the observable and calculable differnces between “seen and unseen” matter. There is more matter, in the universe, in the space between celestial bodies than there is in all the celestial bodies in the universe. The “ether”/space between bodies, is where all the red meat is. Another fringe, but compelling theory is the Electric Universe. Too math intensive for my technician brain, but have read some layman friendly articles on it that makes alot of sense. Older generational thinking eventually dies away or is refuted. Regardless, it’s still a great ride.
captivated_dem on August 5, 2007 at 11:31 AM
I’m not entirely sure what your point was there, though the link and quote you provided does provide a good illustration as to what it means to “theorize” as opposed to “have faith in.” (I’m assuming that was your intent?)
Blacklake on August 5, 2007 at 12:04 PM
What is holding things together is something that many scientists would scoff at: “…and in him all things hold together” (Col. 1.17); “…and he upholds the universe by the word of his power” (Hebrews 1.3). There’s nothing “dark” or “matter” about Christ Jesus. Just “how” He does so is certainly a mystery.
ricelchew on August 5, 2007 at 12:24 PM
Let’s put it this way, if dark matter doesn’t exist then “the Force” probably doesn’t exist.
Speakup on August 5, 2007 at 3:34 PM
Thanks I’ve seen the posts. I’ll respond in that thread, but right now I’m a bit busy.
Nonfactor on August 5, 2007 at 6:50 PM
I’ll be interested in this subject when I see R. Lee Ermey demonstrate an awesome dark matter bomb on Mail Call.
‘Til then I’m not missin’ much.
ScottMcC on August 5, 2007 at 6:51 PM
I live near Fermi Lab and went one Sunday to an open house “ask a scientist” session. It was pretty neat to see the accellorator. Anyway, I had just finished reading Greene’s Elegant Universe and was asking one kindly scientist about dark matter and how it just seemed too convieniant to to explain the accelleration in expansion of the universe. He told me “well, we really don’t believe in dark matter anymore, now we are looking at something we call dark energy, it’s kinda weird and hard to explain.” I then told him I have some problems with string theory and he said “so do I.”
Another scientist didn’t seem to like my question about wouldn’t a unified theory mean that everything can be predicted like the falling of dominos and therefore mean we have no free will?
If you live in the area I highly recommend it, the lectures with the people dressed like Fermi or Einstein are worth it alone.
Kahuna on August 5, 2007 at 7:21 PM
Excellent analysis on this matter from a few weeks back:
http://creationsafaris.com/crev200708.htm
RightWinged on August 5, 2007 at 10:11 PM
My bad, I didn’t give you the permalink
http://creationsafaris.com/crev200707.htm#20070723a
RightWinged on August 5, 2007 at 10:11 PM
If they are indeed going away at an increasing rate of speed (which I don’t really feel any need to refute), it could be because the universe hasn’t stopped accelerating outward yet from the original big bang (assuming there’s any merit to that one, too; though I don’t really have a problem with BB either)…
My theory has always been skeptical of dark matter. I have always wondered if some of these universal constants aren’t actualy functions…of time-since-the-big-bang. Maybe as the universe ages, C slows down hyperbolically from infinite to roughly what it is now (or maybe even eventually to zero as the universe grows infinitely old), and G varies based on certain factors. We aleardy know that very small black holes have gravitaional functions that don’t fall off as the square-of-the-distance, violating one of the basic principles of gravity.
Only inasmuch as it can’t readily be shot down quickly, and so it lasts a while. But as waws stated above, it can’t be shot dow because it actually isn’t anything yet…
urbancenturion on August 5, 2007 at 11:25 PM
BTW, that galaxy has been my desktop since it came out a few weeks ago…
urbancenturion on August 5, 2007 at 11:26 PM
Just like evolutionists, eh?
Freelancer on August 6, 2007 at 1:54 AM