Dark Matter was Invented to Save Bad Gravity Theory
Continuing the theme that 20th century physics is all-knowing, all-seeing, and can do no wrong, when scientists saw their gravity equations could not describe the speed of stars on the edge of galaxies, instead of looking at their own equations they did what they always do: change the facts.
Here in the diagram below, you can see the predicted speed of stars in galaxies and the measured speed. It is based on Kepler’s Third Law that bodies further away from the center should move more slowly. “Houston we have a problem!” Instead of saying their calculations were wrong, they invent dark mass / mass / energy.
A quote from a worshiped physicist is very pertinent here:
“If the facts don’t fit the theory, change the facts” — Albert Einstiein
In this case, instead of changing the gravity equations, they changed the facts. What did they change? They invented something invisible and impossible to detect because it must be really really hard to detect if the physicists can find it. Heaven forbid their equations are wrong! In fact, one of the more famous “physics evangelists” Michio Kaku says there is a Nobel Prize waiting for the answer to dark energy. That is the interest of course: the Nobel Prize. They don’t care if Dark Energy or Dark Matter is real or not.
So basically, physicists invented a magical thing they called “dark” and say it is the reason stars are going faster than their equations predict.
Suppose in engineering, an engineer has an equation that is supposed to describe something and it obviously does not stand up to real-world observations and experiment. Imagine the engineer going to their boss and saying:
“Ya know, the equation I have that shows this structure should withstand hurricane winds but in our real test, the structures are blown over. Instead of changing my structure and knowing my calculations MUST BE RIGHT, I have invented ‘dark wind’ which we cannot see but is there and it is exerting more force that we think on my structure. Thus, this ‘dark wind’ is what is causing my structure to fall, not my equations.”
How long do you think the engineer would keep their job? Not long.
But this is exactly what scientists have done with dark matter. They invented dark matter to make up for their equations for gravity which do not work instead of saying their model of gravity is flawed.
God’s Equations
This is ludicrous. Where does this stubbornness come from? It comes from the fact that scientists believe when they discover a particle or an equation like Newton’s equation, they have discovered equations that god used to create the universe. The once they are discovered, they are correct and only can be enhanced.
This is why Einstein’s relativity equations are so beloved. When objects are moving very slowly, Einstein’s equations are for all intents and purposes, the same as Newton’s equations. As an object gets closer to the speed of light, mass increases, time slows down and length contracts. Einstein kept Newton’s sacred equations and added to it.
Every time someone thinks they find something that proves Einstein wrong, they are show in days or weeks or months later to be in error. It never fails. Yet, we have GPS scientist with over 30 patents who publically admits that relativity is not used and in fact, GPS shows the flaws in relativity. Once more, particle accelerators don’t in fact observe mass increase as particles approach the speed of light (see the documentary “Einstein Wrong – The Miracle Year” for such details).
Physicists are the priests for god’s equations. They come from down the sacred mountain to reveal their particles to the world and from then on, the equations are never to be violated, only enhanced. They “bamboozle” the layman as Carl Sagan points out and we buy it not realizing that the paradoxes and “hard-to-understand” theories in fact are greatly flawed from bad basic assumptions.
Not the First Time
This is not the first time scientists in the mainstream have invented something to save a theory. Neutrinos were invented or as the lingo used “postulated” to save the fact that physicists were applying relativistic kinematic equations to decay or radioactivity. As Dr. Carezani has pointed out, radioactivity or decay should not even involve kinetic equations because kinetics require forces from the outside of a system.
Outside the Mainstream
Thankfully, there is a group of scientists who do not believe in invention and anomalies. One person is Bob de Hilster who says “in the universe, there are no anomalies. The universe just works the way it works and we try to explain it best we can”. With that “engineering” attitude, Bob de Hilster says your gravity model must explain the speed of stars on the edge of the galaxy. And Bob de Hilster’s model does just that. (My father’s model says gravity is caused by pushing mass or gravitons and he can easily explain the speed being measured).
So let’s stop inventing stupid things like dark matter and dark energy and start rewriting gravity equations that explain what we see. If my father has a better model, maybe we should look at it. After all, Occam’s Razor says the simpler explanation is better.
Poor Gravity Equations + Dark Energy
=
Better Gravity Equations not Requiring Dark Matter
Simple math.
I have sent this question to Stephen Hawking’s AMA on Reddit & I expect a reply.
Artificial Intelligence is simply programming as it just cannot have freedom of action.
Let Stephen Hawking be informed that both Theories of Relativity, Big Bang Theory and Black Hole are all proved baseless through published papers in peer-reviewed journals. For details all of you may refer https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/adopted-paradigm-physics-incorrect-shafiq-khan?trk=prof-post. Either he should accept the standing open challenge or else he should stop deceiving ignorant people. The standing open challenge could be seen at http://www.worldsci.org/php/index.php?tab0=Abstracts&tab1=Display&id=6476&tab=2 and http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/4018.
Everything from the accelerating universe to dark energy is theorized using a gravitational model of cosmology based on the general theory of relativity, and it turned out to be based on self-contradicting non-Euclidean geometry. Here is a link to an explanation about the self-contradicting non-Euclidean geometry and why because of it general relativity lost its coordinate system. It is something that can be understood even by someone whose math education didn’t exceed high school geometry. How much have we really changed when it comes to science establishments anyway? Think back to the arrest of Galileo or back to Ptolemy and the epicycles. Part II of the article explains why this flaw, a flaw in the elementary geometry of twentieth century mathematicians, was overlooked throughout the twentieth century: https://www.facebook.com/notes/reid-barnes/when-is-an-assertion-about-coordinates-merely-an-assertionan-unsupported-asserti/789731027746140
https://www.facebook.com/notes/reid-barnes/when-is-an-assertion-about-coordinates-merely-an-assertionan-unsupported-asserti/789731027746140
I agree with John Chappell that, logically, Einstein relativity cannot possibly be true but people, including scientists, will believe almost anything if it is repeated endlessly by those they, rightly or wrongly, believe in.
Incidentally, you people should read the paper on my website sometime.
Regards.
Brian Sprigg
Thank you for writing this! Yes, Ockham’s razor should be applied when the theories get out of hand and objects/processes begin to be invented to explain away other objects/processes. A simple example is in the odd theories of stellar evolution in which stars explode, condense into neutron stars/black holes, or expand into red giants without mass loss, etc, and the currently falsified nebular hypothesis (thanks to the Kepler Space Telescope and others).
In short, we can keep the odd, surrealistic (accepted) models for both the creation of the entire universe and the evolution of simple objects such as stars and even keep the now falsified models for planet formation via disc theory, or we can do something that was hypothesized by Lord Kelvin, Alexander Oparin, Anthony Abruzzo, Nicholas de Cusa and even myself: The understanding that the ultimate in Ockham’s razor concerning the stars is the fact that stellar evolution isn’t surreal, and planet formation doesn’t require discs, it is that the stars evolve into planets themselves. This meaning that stellar evolution literally IS the process of planet formation, meaning the “star” is and has always been the hot young planet, and the “planet” is and has always been the evolving/ancient star. The two were never mutually exclusive, they were only different in our minds.
The secrets are right in front of us, we just haven’t been asking the correct questions, as well we have made certain assumptions true which were never based in reality. This means the faint young sun paradox is solved, the “missing angular momentum problem” of the nebular disc is solved, the mystery of life formation is solved, the understanding of how the solar system came to be is solved, the reasons why hot jupiters orbit in front of the hypothetical snow line is answered, where the true goldilocks zone is, how all the water on Earth formed, a complete replacement of the plate tectonics/expansion tectonics theories can be made, and a plethora of other things all come together very, very neatly.
All we had to do is see the obvious. The reason why there are an estimated 200+ billion exoplanets is because there are 200+ billion stars. They are the same thing! Caterpillars become butterflies/moths, acorns become oak trees, eggs became dinosaurs, the process of nature’s ability to transform is unlimited, and should have been obvious to any natural philosopher. Let us get back on track, we have 4.5 billon years of evolution sitting atop our shoulders, its about time we used it!