Dark matter is not behaving as predicted

_{Denyse O'Leary

March 4, 2012

News, Physics}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

From “Dark Matter Core, Left Behind from Wreck Between Massive Clusters of Galaxies, Defies Explanation,” we learn,

Astronomers using data from NASA’s Hubble Telescope have observed what appears to be a clump of dark matter left behind from a wreck between massive clusters of galaxies. The result could challenge current theories about dark matter that predict galaxies should be anchored to the invisible substance even during the shock of a collision.

“This result is a puzzle,” said astronomer James Jee of the University of California in Davis, lead author of paper about the results available online in The Astrophysical Journal. “Dark matter is not behaving as predicted, and it’s not obviously clear what is going on. It is difficult to explain this Hubble observation with the current theories of galaxy formation and dark matter.”

Initial detections of dark matter in the cluster, made in 2007, were so unusual that astronomers shrugged them off as unreal, because of poor data. New results from NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope confirm that dark matter and galaxies separated in Abell 520.

In real science, inconvenient facts don’t just get propagandized away – which is how science differs from Darwinism.

Comments

tjguy: Nahmonides is one of the ancient, most respected Jewish commentators on the Five books. The comment is from the 12th Century. He had a geat deal to do with the OT. Much of Genesis can be understood several ways. You will find Schroeder, an Orthodex Jew, very interesting with his dual background as a Ph.d. particle physicist, and a scholar of the Torah.turell_{March 6, 2012
March
03
Mar
6
06
2012
02:25 PM
2
02
25
PM
PDT}

I don't know who Nahmonides is but he has nothing to do with the Bible. We are told that God created the sun moon and stars on day 4. That doesn't fit with the Bible. The Big Bang says the sun and other stars were formed first and ten finally earth and lastly the mysterious moon. So with all these problems, why don't more scientists question the big bang? My guess is that it is the best guess they have so they don't want to poke too many holes in it until they have something to replace it lest they be embarrassed by having no viable theory. Fortunately there is a growing number of scientists who are willing to question it!tjguy_{March 6, 2012
March
03
Mar
6
06
2012
01:14 AM
1
01
14
AM
PDT}

Gerald Schroeder in his book, Genesis and the Big Bang, shows the fit with the Bible. He quotes Nahmanides on page 65: “At the briefest instant following creation all the matter of the universe was concentrated in a very small place, no larger than a grain of mustard [the ‘grain of mustard’ was an ancient colloquialism for the tiniest imaginable speck of space]. The matter at this time was so thin, so intangible, that it did not have real substance. It did have, however, a potential to gain substance and form and to become tangible matter. From the initial concentration of this intangible substance in its minute location, the substance expanded,expanding the universe as it did so. As the expansion progressed, a change in the substance occurred. This initially thin noncorporeal substance took ontangible aspects of matter as we know it. From this initial act of creation, from this ethereally thin pseudosubstance, everything that has existed, or ever will exist, was, is, and will be formed.”turell_{March 5, 2012
March
03
Mar
5
05
2012
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PDT}

In real science, inconvenient facts don’t just get propagandized away – which is how science differs from Darwinism.
And yet the Big Bang theory also persists. Fortunately there are a growing number of scientists who are beginning to challenge this theory, but for the most part, even Christian scientists just accept this idea as fact.
An Indian and an American scientist have questioned the Big Bang theory, saying it does not serve as a viable explanation for the origin of the universe. The research papers of Ashwini Kumar Lal of India's Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation and Rhawn Joseph of Northern Brain Research Laboratory have been accepted for publication in the April issue of the peer-reviewed Harvard journal, Journal of Cosmology. http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/Indian-US-scientists-question-Big-Bang-theory/Article1-527242.aspx
Inconvenient facts for the Big Bang: 1. The cataclysmic Big Bang is believed to have created a flood of gravitational waves which should fill the universe and yet they remain undetected. http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/Indian-US-scientists-question-Big-Bang-theory/Article1-527242.aspx 2. Horizon problem that required the fudge factor of inflation to prop up the theory.
‘But the big bang theory can’t survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation. … Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory’s explanation of the origin of the light elements.’ http://www.cosmologystatement.org/
3. Problem of unobserved dark matter and dark energy invented to save the theory.
Without some kind of dark matter, unlike any that we have observed on Earth despite 20 years of experiments, big-bang theory makes contradictory predictions for the density of matter in the universe. And without dark energy, the theory predicts that the universe is only about 8 billion years old, which is billions of years younger than the age of many stars in our galaxy. http://www.cosmologystatement.org/
4. Fully formed galaxies early in the history of the universe.
"The Big Bang is said to have occurred 13.75 billion years. But there is evidence, as I have written in my paper, that there were fully formed distant galaxies that must have already been billions of years old at the time," he added. In his paper "Big Bang? A Critical Review", Lal says: "There is a growing body of evidence which demonstrates the Universe could not have begun with a Big Bang 13.75 billion years ago. "Indeed, the day may come when it is determined there never was a Big Bang and cosmologists of the future will only gaze back in wonder at how anyone could have believed in a creation event which was refuted by so much contradictory evidence," he adds.
5. The quantization of red shifts
Astronomer William Tifft of the University of Arizona was the first to claim that the red shifts of galaxies fall into distinct packets or quanta, like the rungs of a ladder. … Tifft was ignored at first, but continued to amass data for many years, most showing the same effect. Now, in a major study of more than 200 galaxies, using very sensitive equipment, two UK astronomers, Oxford’s Bill Napier and Bruce Guthrie from Edinburgh, claim to have ‘the best evidence yet’ that the phenomenon is real.( Science, Vol. 271, p. 759, 9 February 1996.) This time, even some former skeptics of the claim are taking it seriously enough to warrant getting involved in the debate, suggesting proposals to test it further, and so on. … the data are already very impressive. According to Bill Napier they tried hard to avoid concluding that the red shifts were quantized, but failed. There seems little doubt that if these observations did not conflict with the big bang, they would have been taken much more seriously a long time ago. http://creation.com/hubble-hubble-big-bang-in-trouble
The faulty naturalistic assumptions which scientists work from necessarily lead to wrong interpretations of the data.
The problem seems to be, as prominent astronomer Geoffrey Burbidge put it (Burbidge is Professor of Physics at the University of California, San Diego): ‘Big bang cosmology is probably as widely believed as has been any theory of the universe in the history of Western civilization. It rests, however, on many untested, and [in] many cases, untestable assumptions. Indeed, big bang cosmology has become a bandwagon of thought that reflects faith as much as objective truth.’ Scientific American, p. 96, February 1992
Why don't we Christians questions the Big Bang Theory more than we do? There is a difference between cosmic evolution, chemical evolution, and biological evolution, but if biological evolution and chemical evolution(origin of life)is not tenable, why would be think that cosmic evolution is? The Big Bang doesn't fit with the Bible any better than chemical evolution or biological evolution do.tjguy_{March 5, 2012
March
03
Mar
5
05
2012
12:30 AM
12
12
30
AM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply