The Expanding Big Bang Fairy tale

Back in August of 2015, I predicted the Big Bang magicians  (those who promote the big bang and go by various titles such as cosmologist, scientist, theoretical physicist etc.) would eventually propose a new fairy tale to explain yet another unexplained fact recently discovered about the wonderfully designed universe that we live in. That fact is the existence of  rings of galaxies, in concentric circles, spanning the mind boggling distance of 5 billion light years.  The Big Bang theory requires that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic – the same everywhere[1] so you should not see in it structures organized in a geometric pattern like concentric circles. Thus this discovery must somehow be explained and made to fit into the Big Bang theory somehow.

I discussed the discovery of this super structure and the problem it poses in an article titled  The coming Big Bang fairy tale where I also made both the above referenced prediction, and guaranteed we’d see a new fairy tale:

To close, let me borrow from the former president of the men’s warehouse:
Another big bang fairy tale is coming. I guarantee it.[2]

So having predicted there would be another big bang fairy tale forth coming over  structures in the universe that the big bang cannot explain, when I learned of the latest story being used to explain certain structures in the universe, I was preparing to declare my prediction fulfilled.  But alas, as I investigated further this latest fairy tale was not put forth to explain the galactic ring structures I discussed. (This new tale concerns early structures.) So while my guarantee is met – they have indeed put forth a new fairy tale – it’s to explain a different phenomenon.  So the fairytale I’m expecting regarding the concentric galaxies is still forth coming. But since there is a new fairy tale afoot that the big bang magicians are promoting,  let’s take a look at that, and why it is still patently clear that the Big Bang magicians are still resorting to magic and fairy tales[3] to keep alive a theory that clearly does not fit the facts. 

The Background for the latest tale

By now you are likely aware of the fact that secular media – taking their cues from secular scientists – largely treat the concept of “dark matter” as  they do Darwin’s theory of evolution – as a fact.  Though it remains an undetected, unproven, hypothetical substance, it is being treated as if scientists are sure it exists. Consider for example, this statement from Carnegie Science about Vera Rubin, an astronomer who worked at Carnegie Institute and who along with astronomer Fritz Zwiky before her, first brought to light some of the problems for which they are invoking dark matter as an answer:

After observing dozens more galaxies by the 1970s, Rubin and colleagues found that something other than the visible mass was responsible for the stars’ motions. Each spiral galaxy is embedded in a “halo” of dark matter—material that does not emit light and extends beyond the optical galaxy. They found it contains 5 to 10 times as much mass as the luminous galaxy. [4]

From the title of the work, which speaks about her “confirming” dark matter, to the many individual statements within (e.g. “embedded” in dark matter) – it’s all written as if dark matter is as well an established fact as the ground we walk on.  But that is not the case. There has been no “confirmation” that dark matter exists.  Galaxies embedded in a “halo” of dark matter is a theory, not a fact. And the estimates of “5 to 10 times as much mass” is based on the assumption that it is dark matter that is causing the unusual galactic motions of stars and galaxies.

The Latest Big Bang Fairy Tale

So given this environment where scientists are now 1)  acting as if dark matter is a discovered, proven substance, and 2) the fact that they need dark matter to rescue the big bang theory[5] it should come as surprise that the latest fairy tale is – are you ready?  Dark matter is not limited to being a “halo” around galaxies moving too fast. Some scientists now believe there is an entire, invisible dark universe filled with dark entities:

  • Dark stars giving off
  • Dark light (dark photons and radiation) providing this dark energy to
  • Dark planets where live
  • Dark aliens possibly watching Dark TV shows

I kid you not.  This is being presented not as science fiction, but as valid science theory which is intended to reflect the nature of reality. Thus there are scientists out there who now want you to believe that since (in their estimation) the matter we can see only makes up about 4% of the entire universe, the huge amounts of dark matter that “must be there” (more on that later) also means there’s an entire “dark” or “shadow” universe out there as well. This is in spite of the fact that they have yet to detect a single dark matter particle, in spite of numerous teams using numerous search methods looking for it for numerous years.  Some of these teams have been searching for over 30 years. To date nothing has been found. I listed 6 of those experiments in a previous article here.[6] Here’s a couple more:

  • Rafael Lang, an  experimental physicist at Purdue university, has been using 100 kilos of highly pure, inert liquid Xenon as a detector. If a dark matter particle (which is in theory flooding all around us all the time, even now) hits the nuclei of the Xenon atoms – it would leave a detectable trail of light. He’s been searching since 2008 with no luck. To improve his odds, now he wants to use a 1 ton tank instead of a 100 kilo tank.[7] (Approximately 100 times larger.)
  • John Butterworth is a leading experimental physicist at University College,  London and works also at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) in Geneva, Switzerland. In particle physics, particles are measured by their mass and spin. Mass and force particles have different spin. Through examination of particles that result from collisions, Butterworth is effectively looking for an inverse force particle – a force particle spinning like a mass particle – which would make it an invisible mass particle.[8]  Narrator Morgan Freeman explains, “John has been scouring the many big bangs created by the LHC looking  for matter versions of force particles like the photino.”[9] If found it would be a candidate for the dark matter particle; but he’s been looking a long time and “there’s a lot less chance than there used to be”[10] of finding it now Butterworth says.

Not all scientists are throwing all caution to wind – electing instead to exercise a bit of professional skepticism regarding an unseen dark (aka shadow) universe. Atheist cosmologist Lawrence Krauss concedes:

It would require a plethora of tooth fairies to imagine that the dark sector is that complicated, to actually reproduce something like our sectors – in order to have dark planets and dark people and dark TV shows. People have imagined it, I’m not saying they haven’t. But it certainly stretches the realm of credibility. [11]

But how did we get to this point where some credentialed scientists believe there  are invisible, unseen “dark aliens” living in an invisible, “dark” universe that is undetectable? (Which means they will soon be trying to convince you and I of that story as well.)  Let’s take a look at some of the observations that have driven big bang believers into buying into this fantastic story of a universe dominated and made possible by dark matter.

The Unsolved Problems

Fritz Zwiky

Vera Rubin

Fritz Zwicky in the 1930s and Vera Rubin in the 1980s observed something they didn’t expect: Intact galaxies and gases orbiting in the farthest reaches of space ten times faster than they should be; that is faster than both Newton and Einstein predict. I say “intact” because the galaxies themselves maintain their internal integrity. They don’t fly apart, like the water flying off a dog when he shakes himself dry – which is what would be expected at the speeds they are observed to be orbiting at. Following is a visual of what is expected (the red circle) versus what is actually observed.

How can the stars and galaxies possibly be moving as an intact whole, that fast? The party line answer – “there must be more mass.”

“The only possible explanation was that there was more matter than we thought producing more gravity. And since the extra stuff couldn’t be seen, it was given the slightly sinister title ‘dark matter.'”[12]

“The only way to resolve this paradox – of Galaxies which spin 10 times too fast is to assume that there is a halo – a halo of invisible matter surrounding the galaxy, keeping the galaxy whole.”[13]
Michio Kaku, Theoretical Physicist;

“The only possible explanation?” “The only way to resolve this paradox?” Clearly this is a statement of those toeing the party line. But are they correct in their assessments? Consider the following animation, which is a simplified depiction of another solution to the problem of galaxies and stars orbiting faster than expected.

A new approach: New physics

The main difference to note between the two animations representing two different approaches: in the first, the motion of the galaxies is relative only to the other galaxies.  The universe is static. In the second, the motion of the galaxies is due to the motion of the universe itself. Any motion of the galaxies would be in addition to the motion imparted by the universe. So clearly, there is another approach to solving the problem. This first alternate solution is called cosmological general relativity.

Alternative 1: Cosmological General Relativity

In the above animation, the circled reference galaxy depicts the motion observed by astronomers. Its motion is due to the motion of the galaxy. Dark matter is neither needed nor added. A solution without dark matter? How can that be? By the application of new physics: a new cosmological model as developed by Israeli cosmologist Moshe Carmeli and expounded and applied by John Hartnett.[14]

The physics of Einstein views the world in 4 dimensions: 3 of space and of 1 time which he bundled together as spacetime in his theory called General Relativity.
The physics of Carmeli expands upon Einstein’s. He views the world in 5 dimensions: 4 of space and 1 of time which he also bundles together and calls spacevelocity. This extra degree of freedom in the spatial dimension allows the universe to move.[15] Thus instead of a static spacetime universe as in Einstein’s model, Carmeli speaks of a moving spacevelocity universe in his theory which is called Cosmological General Relativity.  In this model the universe is accelerating – without the need of dark energy. And as depicted in the animation above, it explains the observed speedy motion of distance galaxies without the need for dark matter.

Alternative 2: Gravity as an emergent property

Consider this announcement of a proposed new theory of Gravity:

“In 2010, Erik Verlinde surprised the world with a completely new theory of gravity. According to Verlinde, gravity is not a fundamental force of nature, but an emergent phenomenon. In the same way that temperature arises from the movement of microscopic particles, gravity emerges from the changes of fundamental bits of information, stored in the very structure of spacetime.”[16]

Here we see yet another solution to the problem of galaxies moving too fast. So once again let me point out that there are, in fact,  other approaches to solving the the problem of fast moving galaxies –  contrary to the party line approach of dark matter being “the only way” as popularly espoused. But cosmologist John Hartnett makes an equally valid point in his discussion of the matter:

“If what we are told is true—i.e. that big bang cosmology is essentially complete and the big bang origin of the universe correct—why do these physicists even look for new physics? Is it not because as time goes by the research problem of the non-detection of dark matter, dark energy, dark radiation (a sterile neutrino), dark photons, chameleons and many more dark entities starts to indicate that the whole paradigm itself is in doubt?”[17]

Conclusion

The addition of suspected distant, dark matter aliens will not be the final add-on or adjustment to the big bang fairy tale. All one need do to see that is consider where the theory has been, and its current state to reach that conclusion. To illustrate, I offer the following four observations:

1. Secular scientists have invested too much in the big bang for much too long to admit they’re wrong. Therefore for the vast majority of them, they will find it next to impossible to set aside their anti-design, anti-Bible bias and actually follow the evidence and conclude the big bang model simply does not result in the universe we observe and therefore cannot be true.

2. Given that, they will need to continue to add on theories (like inflation,   dark matter, and the multiverse) to fix observations that the theory by itself can’t explain in order to maintain the illusion that the theory is true.

3. Since  dark matter is now as much a required part of the big bang theory as inflation, we will see continued speculation and research around a dark matter universe:

“If we can show that dark matter interacts with itself, that means there really could be dark matter galaxies, dark matter stars, dark matter planets and people all around us right now that we’re not aware of.”[18]
Michelle Thaller, Astronomer

And since secular scientists have a never dying hope to find alien life such as the distant dark alien in the featured picture above, they will continue chasing their tails looking for both baryonic (regular matter) and  non-baryonic (dark matter) aliens.

4. Big bang magicians have still not, to my knowledge, offered a feasible (i.e. within the bounds of the limitations of the big bang theory)  explanation to account for the concentric rings of galaxies which I discuss in The Coming Big Bang fairy tale, so I’m still expecting another fairy tale – apart from the distant dark alien tale –  to cover the observation about the structure of the universe.

I’m not sure of the order, but I’m hoping the next fairy tale they release will be the one I’ve been waiting for – the one that will tell a nice little, just-so story about why the galaxies are arranged in Copernican principle [19] denying, big bang busting,  concentric circles.


Duane Caldwell | posted 17 February 2017 | printer friendly version


Notes  

1.  The cosmological principle is a requirement for the Big Bang to be true. It specifies a homogeneous distribution of matter – such that at sufficiently large scales it looks the same in all places (isotropic). For more on the requirements of the Big Bang Theory, see article: Dark Matter, the Big Bang’s Missing link
Back

2. ref  fom my article, The Coming Big Bang fairy tale, 21 August, 2015
Back

3. By “magic” I mean misleading logical fallacies (for examples see my article Exposing the Big Magic Behind the Big Bang  or physical impossibilities they refuse to address (for an example see More Big Bang Magic Tricks – Shadows and Waves).  By “fairy tales” I mean un-provable theories promoted as science with no evidence such as the theory of inflation and the multiverse.
Back

4.  Vera Rubin Who Confirmed “Dark Matter” Dies, Carniegie Science, 26 December, 2016, https://carnegiescience.edu/news/vera-rubin-who-confirmed-%E2%80%9Cdark-matter%E2%80%9D-dies
Back

5. For more on why the Big Bang requires dark matter to explain things like star formation see my article Dark Matter: The Big Bang’s Missing Link
Back

6. Dark Matter: The Big Bang’s Missing Link, note 6  http://rationalfaith.com/2016/05/dark-matter-the-big-bangs-missing-link/#6n
Back

7. ref from Morgan Freeman’s Through the Wormhole  episode “Is there a Shadow Universe?”, documentary, 2016
Back

8.  Photons are the carriers of the electromagnetic force – including visible light. In the theory of Super Symmetry, every particle has a symmetric partner. Thus theoretically, the super-symmetric partner of the photon is the photino.

Butterfield is thus looking for a modified version of a theoretical particle. Super Symmetry has yet to be proven, and Butterfield is not even looking for a standard super symmetric particle, he’s looking for a hybrid – an undiscovered super-symmetric particle with mass (not all particles have mass – the photon for example doesn’t) that spins like a force particle – thus making it behave like a mass particle but leaving it invisible like a force particle. Clever idea, but thus far he’s been unsuccessful.
Back

9. Narrator, Morgan Freeman’s Through the Wormhole  episode “Is there a Shadow Universe?”, documentary, 2016
Back

10.  John Butterworth, ref from Morgan Freeman’s Through the Wormhole  episode “Is there a Shadow Universe?”, documentary, 2016
Back

11. Lawrence Krauss, ref from How The Universe Works episode “The Dark Matter Enigma”, documentary, 2017
Back

12. Katie Frieze, ref from Space’s Darkest Secret episode “Dark Matter” documentary 2015
Back

13. Michio Kaku, ref from The Universe episode “Dark Matter” History Channel documentary, 2008
Back

14. For more on the Carmelian Cosmological General Relativity model, see John Hartnett, Dismantling The Big Bang, Green Forest, AR: Masterbooks, p. 289- 291
Back

15. If you’re bothered by the required extra dimension in Carmelian physics, consider 1) String theory and M Theory – popular theories trying to be the TOE – theory of everything – by explaining the basic unit of matter not as particles,  (as in particle physics), but as vibrating strings. String Theory requires 10 dimensions (6 extra dimensions), while M theory requires 11 dimensions (7 extra).  Consider also 2) It is entirely likely that God exists also in extra-dimension space. For a brief discussion on the likelihood of extra-dimensional space, see What is Rational Faith, Part 2
Back

16. New theory of gravity might explain dark matter, Phys.org, 8 November, 2016 https://phys.org/news/2016-11-theory-gravity-dark.html
Once again the title is misleading. Verlinde’s new gravity model is not explaining dark matter. It is explaining the phenomenon of the unexpectedly rapid orbit of stars and galaxies for which they invoke dark matter. In Verlinde’s model, dark matter is not needed.
Back

17. John Hartnett, Why look for a new theory of gravity if the big bang cosmology is correct?,  7 February, 2017,  https://biblescienceforum.com/2017/02/07/why-look-for-a-new-theory-of-gravity-if-the-big-bang-cosmology-is-correct/
Back

18. Michelle Thaller, ref from How The Universe Works episode “The Dark Matter Enigma”, documentary, 2017
Back

19. The Copernican principle essentially states that neither the Sun nor the earth are in a central, special location within the universe. And since that’s the case, there is no preferred or privileged place from which to view the universe. The discovery of concentric rings of galaxies provides evidence against this, because the preferred place to see and recognize such a structure is from the center, which is where earth appears to be.
Back


Images:
Featured: “Distant Dark Alien” composite by Duane Caldwell, © 2017
Alien © Adimas | fotolia
Astronomy © Yuriy Mazur | fotolia

Fritz Zwiky – Wikipedia
Vera Rubin, astronomer,  working with a telescope at Lowell Observatory, 1965 – Carnegie Science

Animations:
Galaxy Rotation Speeds – Duane Caldwell © 2071
Spacevelocity
– Duane Caldwell © 2071

Animation Reference:
John Hartnett, Starlight, Time and the New Physics, Creation Ministries International DVD Lecture, 2009

Other References:
John Hartnett, In the Middle of the Action, Creation Ministries International DVD Lecture, 2009

Dark Matter affect architecture of Galaxy clusters, Astronomy Magazine 26 January, 2016 http://www.astronomy.com/news/2016/01/dark-matter-affects-architecture-of-galaxy-clusters

One thought on “The Expanding Big Bang Fairy tale

  1. Dr. John Hartnett has offered another possible solution to the dark matter problem: The proper application of known physics. In his recent article, he points out a key factor that scientists may not have properly accounted for.
    Article: “Has the dark matter mystery been solved?”
    https://biblescienceforum.com/2017/04/06/has-the-dark-matter-mystery-been-solved/

    Excerpt:
    “The illustration often used in reference to Einstein’s general relativity theory (and remember Newtonian physics can be derived from GR) is that “masses tell space how to curve and the curved space tells the masses how to move”. This in effect assumes the masses in a galaxy are a continuum and thus curve the space in the galaxy in a smooth fashion. The individual stars are neglected in favour of a smooth continuum of matter density. And in the modelling the matter density is modelled in this fashion. But by approximating the billion-body system of a galaxy as a continuum of smoothed-out matter it appears that something is neglected in the application of the standard Newtonian physics.”