Dark Matter update: TED Talk

[Fort Fun Indiana]

We have learned a lot about what dark matter isn't, but we have learned almost nothing about what it is.

 

[g5000]

I have serious doubts about dark matter. In fact, I think the dark matter gambit is evidence the underlying physics model which requires it to exist is deeply flawed.

 

[james bond]

We have learned a lot about what dark matter isn't, but we have learned almost nothing about what it is.

Dark matter and dark energy are evidence for God. Science and Christianity put together in one. It's the winning combination for the true believers. There you go

The others get to ponder the mysteries that we will never know it this life . Just think 95% is stuff we do not know and cannot be explained by the matter we know.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Dark matter and dark energy are evidence for God

No they aren't.

Well that was easy...

 

[james bond]

Dark matter and dark energy are evidence for God

No they aren't.

Well that was easy...

You are wrong again. It's complex. That's one of the reasons it's evidence of God. God is the dark energy. There may be no dark matter despite it all.

"it is shown that in this cosmology the cosmological constant or dark energy is a property of space-time. This can be interpreted in a creationist cosmology as the power of the Lord giving a boost to the expansion of the fabric of space as He stretched it out. He is the unseen force in the universe. By the correct choice of field equations, the motions of the galaxies are described without the need to resort to exotic particles. This description fits a finite galactocentric universe, and is consistent with a creationist cosmology."

The devil is in the details though:

"Dark matter is the term for the hypothesized matter in the universe required to explain the missing mass problem of the standard cosmological / big bang model. Dark matter supposedly interacts with normal matter by gravity, but does not absorb or emit radiation, and thus cannot be seen. Big bang cosmologists propose that about 25% of the universe is made up of dark matter (possibly consisting of non-standard particles, such as neutrinos, axions or weakly interacting massive particles [WIMPs]).1 70% of the universe in their models is made up of the even more obscure dark energy, leaving 5% of the universe as ordinary matter.

dark matter can be eliminated completely from the universe
In the nineteenth century, dark matter was once blamed for the anomalous advance of Mercury’s perihelion.2 Mercury’s elliptical orbit around the sun advances, or precesses, by a very small amount each orbit. The expected precession, according to Newtonian and Keplarian laws of planetary motion, was inexplicably exceeded by 43 seconds of arc per century.

If our solar system was comprised only of the sun and one planet, that planet would retrace its elliptical path perfectly forever, assuming Newton’ Law of Gravity was all there was. The presence of other planets destroys this perfection because of the small gravitational forces they exert on each other. However, those effects are completely predictable. The anomalous effect on Mercury’s orbit, described above, was not predictable by any known theories of gravitation at the time."

Thus, you have been pw3nd again.

The math is here -- Dark matter and a cosmological constant in a creationist cosmology? - creation.com

The key is a galactocentric universe:

"Conclusion
The cosmological general relativity of Carmeli can explain the expansion of the accelerating universe without the need to resort to dark matter. By making a reasonable assumption about the dependence of matter density on redshift, it is shown that dark matter can be eliminated completely from the universe . As in past centuries, dark matter has been invoked to account for motions that could not be explained with the then-known laws of physics. General Relativity was applied to the motion of the planets to solve the riddle of the advance of the perihelion of Mercury.1 There still remains the alleged dark matter found in halos around spiral galaxies. That is outside the scope of this paper, but Milgrom’s MONDJournal of Creation 16(3):11–14, 2002.">27 is a good empirical fitAnnu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 40:263–317, 2002.">28 and Carmeli’s new equations of motion offer a solution there also. Int. J. Theor. Phys. 37(10):2621–2625, 1998. See also Hartnett, J.G., Can the Carmeli metric correctly describe spiral galaxy rotation curves? <arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0407/0407082.pdf>, January 2005.">29

The modified field equations used by Carmeli describe a universe that would be expected from a reading of the Bible. That is, a galactocentric universe—the Milky Way galaxy being at the centre of the universe. The equations don’t explicitly involve a dark energy or a cosmological constant term, but they describe the present visible universe very well. They tell us the universe is accelerating and an extrapolation describes a state in the past where the universe was given a big push to expand out to its present locations. The cosmological constant, or dark energy, really describes a property of space-velocity. The big push was God, but through the agency of the fabric of space itself. He is the unseen force in the universe. God designed the original creation in a state such that it would naturally expand, relaxing the fabric of space itself like an uncoiling spring."

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That's one of the reasons it's evidence of God.

No, it isn't.

 

[james bond]

That's one of the reasons it's evidence of God.

No, it isn't.

Just because you're an atheist and say, "No, it isn't" means "Yes, it is." That's how these things work with those who are wrong most of the time.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Just because you're an atheist and say, "No, it isn't" means "Yes, it is."

Hmm, no, that's even dumber.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

The existence of dark matter is sort of like having Damaged Eagle on ignore.

*****DARK CHUCKLE*****

 

[ReinyDays]

Does æther by any other name smell as sweet? ...

The problem isn't well stated in the video ... we can get a good close estimate of a galaxy's mass by looking at the light matter ... we can also get a good close estimate of the mass any star orbiting the galaxy around the fringe ... but General Relativity says this galaxy should be flying apart, these fringe stars are moving too fast to stay in orbit around the galaxy ...

Ah ... we can insert a mythological substance into the galaxy so that it has enough mass to keep our wayward star in orbit ... problem solved ...

Cleverly, this mythological substance doesn't interact with electromagnetic radiation so we can't use light to detect it ... no nuclear forces ... it only interacts with gravity fields ... nice, eh? ...

Is it easier to believe in magic ... or is it easier to believe Einstein is wrong? ... phaw ... humans are humans, our gravity equations are perfect no matter how much shit we have to make up ... careful, this article might give you a hernia ... Alternatives to general relativity - Wikipedia ... damn near did me ...

<snarky nitpick>
4'35" - both matter and anti-matter were created in equal amounts ... theoretically ... it's still an open question why so much extra matter was created, and why so much anti-matter is missing ... dumb broad ...
</snarky nitpick>

 

[james bond]

Just because you're an atheist and say, "No, it isn't" means "Yes, it is."

Hmm, no, that's even dumber.

Well, what you said means yes, you are smarter. So, it means that I am right about dark matter and dark energy as evidence for God.

The Bible states God stretches out the heavens and we discovered that the universe keep expanding and is accelerating in its expansion. Science backs up the Bible and not, "No it isn't."

OTOH, the atheist scientists state the same, but it's caused by invisible particles of invisible that is made up of stuff that is unknown to this physical world. Thus, it isn't natural and more of space is made up of it than what we know of the space made up of. It means they know squat about most of the universe while the creation scientists have the better theory.