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 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:
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 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:
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.
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 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:
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. Here's a couple more:
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:
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 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 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.”
"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.
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
Alternative 2: Gravity as an emergent property
Consider this announcement of a proposed new theory of Gravity:
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 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:
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."
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 
denying, big bang busting, concentric circles.
Duane Caldwell | posted 17 February 2017
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 my article:
Dark Matter, the Big Bang's Missing link
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
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
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
6. Dark Matter: The
Big Bang's Missing Link,
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.
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.
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
16. New theory of gravity might explain dark matter,
Phys.org, 8 November, 2016
17. John Hartnett, Why look for a new theory of
gravity if the big bang cosmology is correct?, 7 February,
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.
Fritz Zwiky - Wikipedia