In the Dark with Dark Energy, A Letter to Smithsonian Magazine

Smithsonian Magazine, the enjoyable and informative publication of the Smithsonian Institute, devoted some 6+ pages of glossy print to Richard Panek’s article on “dark matter” and “dark energy,” (a teaser for his impending book on the invisible subject).

Don’t know what dark energy is? It’s invisible. It can’t be measured. It can’t be seen. It exists because astronomers say it does, because they need it to. Why? Because it holds their version of the universe together. (Their version? Yes, their version – not the observable universe, but their current approved theory).

Am I being too hard on the dear lads at NASA? Let’s test my appraisal. The article features the following image, which will tell you all you need to know about “dark energy,” (which does not exist).

“- Michael Turner coined the term “dark energy” in 1998. No one knows what it is.”

No one, except…no one. But that doesn’t stop NASA, or the author Richard Panek, from describing it as a fact, and a reality:

“Scientists reach a consensus in the early 1970s that there was more to the universe than meets the eye…the Milky Way, theorists found, that the center should not hold – based on what we can see of it, our galaxy doesn’t have enough mass to keep everything in place. As it rotates, it should disintegrate, shedding stars and gas in every direction.”

“Either a spiral galaxy such as the Milky Way violates the laws of gravity, or the light emanating from it – from the vast glowing clouds of gas and myriad of stars – is an inaccurate indication of the galaxy’s mass.”

“But what if some of a galaxy’s mass didn’t radiate light? If spiral galaxies contained enough of such mystery mass, then they might well be obeying the laws of gravity.”

Or, maybe gravity is not in control… but never mind. Onward they go:

“Astronomers dubbed the invisible mass ‘dark matter.‘”

What “invisible mass?” The mass that a gravity-only theory needs to exist, in order to keep a gravity-only theory from failing.

So, bring in the ‘missing mass’ to hold it all together. Dark energy, dark matter, and black holes, all ‘exist’ in the minds of astronomers, who are wedded, irreconcilably and interminably, to “Big Bang theory,” which states that gravity rules the universe. Gravity is weak force. A terribly weak force. You need a lot of mass to create a little gravity. “Where’s the mass?” asked the gravity-only theorists.

Big Bang theory also tells this exciting tale: “Everything started as nothing – which exploded.” (Or, expanded, and then expanded again, and is now increasing its speed of up-blowing). Make sense?

Sure it does. Just ask Michael Turner, who, with a “consensus” of fellow Bangers, decided that, although Big Bang theory accurately predicted zilch to nada of the observable universe, they would still hold onto it, and keep adding and adding to it (even if what they had to add was invisible, and without weight, mass or substance).

So now we know: Dark matter is what’s missing to create the gravity that must be in place to keep the Milky Way from spinning into toffee. But what is dark energy? It is what’s needed to keep the universe as a whole expanding. Why? Because gravity doesn’t explain it, and the Big Bang doesn’t either. What’s a scientist to do? How about asserting that there is an invisible, unmeasurable energy source holding it all up? Well, why not, If it makes the contraption ‘work?’

From the scientists at the Wikipedia:

“In physical cosmology, astronomy and celestial mechanics, dark energy is a hypothetical form of energy that permeates all of space and tends to increase the rate of expansion of the universe. Dark energy is the most popular way to explain recent observations and experiments that the universe appears to be expanding at an accelerating rate. In the standard model of cosmology, dark energy currently accounts for 74% of the total mass-energy of the universe…Measuring the equation of state of dark energy is one of the biggest efforts in observational cosmology today.”

Wow! Seventy-four percent of the universe is “hypothetical!” Thanks, NASA.

Historical Note: A fellow named Ptolemy did this for his Earth-centered solar system, way back in the long-time-agos. Holding that the Earth was the central axis of the solar system (and galaxy, and universe), Ptolemy was correctly able to model the movement of the planets around a central Earth. He did so by adding ever more mini-orbits onto the major orbits of the planets. These were called Epicycles.

Ptolemaic Epicycle
– Look, ma, no hands!

Did I mention that he made the theory work on paper? Never let it be said that scientists can’t be creative. Now back to modern astronomy…

The good news is, you pay for this research. Them’s tax dollars at work. This is what NASA has become in recent decades. Far from the brave and brazen rocket-jockeys of the past, they are now a minion enslaved to furtive and angry equations – a science of fiction, or speculation. Pure math, and nothing seen, nothing learned.

Am I being snarky? Nope. That’s just how it is:

“Astronomers like to say that for more pristine observing conditions, they would have to go into outer space—an exponentially more expensive proposition, and one that NASA generally doesn’t like to pursue unless the science can’t easily be done on Earth. (A dark energy satellite has been on and off the drawing board since 1999, and last year went “back to square one,” according to one NASA adviser.) At least on Earth, if something goes wrong with an instrument, you don’t need to commandeer a space shuttle to fix it.”

You see? Here on Earth, we can use our imaginations to see “dark matter” and “dark energy” and unicorns and black holes. And they’re right in any case, because if it doesn’t exist, going to space to see it is just a waste of time…

Strange for an article which states: “More than most sciences, astronomy depends on the sense of sight…” Well, golly! Good start! And then, “…before astronomers can reimagine the universe as a whole, they first have to figure out how to perceive the dark parts.”

Why do they have to “reimagine” it? Can’t they just look at the universe, and see what’s there? Nope. Because what’s there isn’t what they want to see. The known universe is Electro-Magnetic in form and structure. But that contradicts Big Bang theory (and Einstein’s wishful thinking) which state that space is a “void.” Even though it isn’t. The article continues, “Knowing what dark energy does would help scientists think about how that structure has evolved over time – and how it will continue to evolve.”

Oy vay. Now it evolves? From “seeing” to “believing,” to “needing more funding” in 4 seconds flat.

“For all its advances, astronomy turns out to have been laboring under an incorrect, if reasonable, assumption: what you see is what you get. Now astronomers have to adapt to the idea that the universe is not the stuff of us—in the grand scheme of things, our species and our planet and our galaxy and everything we have ever seen are, as theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss of Arizona State University has said, “a bit of pollution.”

Yet cosmologists tend not to be discouraged. “The really hard problems are great,” says Michael Turner, “because we know they’ll require a crazy new idea.” As Andreas Albrecht, a cosmologist at the University of California at Davis, said at a recent conference on dark energy: ‘If you put the timeline of the history of science before me and I could choose any time and field, this is where I’d want to be.'”

That’s scientism, kids: “You are pollution. You need new crazy ideas. And you should not trust what you see.”

You don’t have to be a genius to do it, just a good story-teller.

So, when will NASA stop ‘borrowing’ taxpayer dollars to do experiments with invisible monsters in space? When will they focus on the electromagnetic currents winding through the galaxy and universe?

Cygnus Loop

– Electromagnetic plasma in space. My Goodness – talk about a future energy source.

When will it change? When you tell them that you’ve had enough. That takes writing and blogging and talking about it. So talk, write, blog. You can write Smithsonian HERE. Ask them if they’d mind covering the Big Bang controversy, or Plasma Cosmology. Can’t hurt. Might help.

I submitted the following as a letter to the editor. I hope it doesn’t disappear down a “black hole.” (which also does not exist).

Dear Editor,

Regarding “Dark Energy: The Biggest Mystery in the Universe

Has it occurred to anyone at Smithsonian Magazine, that what cannot be seen, measured, or verified, might not, in fact, exist?

How do you devote five or six pages of your usually fine journal to a bit of scientism so speculative and un-falsifiable…without even raising the question:

Do these guys really know what they are talking about?

Isn’t it worth noting that the Big Bang theory has been falsified in its every iteration – from Father Georges Lemaitre’s reconciliation of the Biblical Genesis, with modern astro-physics, to current CMV estimates:

* First there was nothing, then BANG, there was everything!

* “There was silence on the face of the deep, and the Lord said, let there be light, and there was light.”

How different are these two creation stories? (Not at all). How similar? (entirely). Is that just coincidence?

Father Georges LeMaitre attempted to correlate Edwin Hubble’s observation of a shift into the red of distant objects – even as Hubble himself warned that interpreting redshift as a Doppler effect might be unwise and unwarranted.

Halton Arp then falsified redshift through the observation of contradictory galaxies and celestial bodies: Redshift was more likely a determinant of age, and not distance.

Sir Fred Hoyle had his own problems with the ludicrous and quite Biblical Big Bang ‘theory,’ so much so that he devised a ‘steady state’ model to try to better match what is observed.

Kristian Birkeland noted, in the early 20th C. that Earth is bathed and coated with electromagnetic energy. Hans Alfven took the observation further, and revealed that all of outer space courses with electromagnetic energy – a force 10 to the power of 39 times more powerful than gravity.

10 with 39 zeros.

So, who needs “dark energy?”

I take the citation from your otherwise good and serious journal as a last word:

“Michael Turner coined the term “dark energy” in 1998. No one knows what it is.” That’s because it isn’t.

Liam

6 Comments

  1. http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/How_We_See_Dark_Matter_999.html

    “The idea of dark matter was born at Caltech in 1933. (Just three years later, JPL would be born there as the “rocket boys” began their first launch experiments.) In observations of a nearby cluster of galaxies named the Coma cluster, Fritz Zwicky calculated that the collective mass of the galaxies was not nearly enough to hold them together in their orbits.

    He postulated that some other form of matter was present but undetected to account for this “missing mass.” Later, in the 1970’s and ’80’s, Vera Rubin similarly found that the arms of spiral galaxies should fly off their cores as they are orbiting much too quickly.”

  2. Effectively Zwicky, Rubin, et al falsified the gravitational model of galaxies by way of ACTUAL observations finding not nearly enough matter/mass available for gravity to do what it’s purported to do.

    Rather than admitting the model falsified, however, scientists have simply engaged in a little mathematical sleight-of-hand and “balanced the books” by adding invisible (imaginary, since it’s never been directly detected) extra matter.

    Dark Matter is nothing more than an ERROR BAR on the gravitational model of galaxies, showing QUITE PRECISELY just how far off mathematico-theoretical models are from empirically observable reality. That is to say, it quite clearly demonstrates how much of a MATTER DEFICIT the gravitational model faces, based upon actual observable stuffs versus how much is required if the gravitational model worked as advertised (which it SIMPLY DOESN’T).

    The queen of the sciences has no clothes. Responsible scientists should call SHENANGIANS and start a proverbial riot in the streets! (Pardon the South Park reference.)

  3. Worse yet, recent studies show a systemic bias!

    (Team Shines Cosmic Light on Missing Ordinary Matter)
    http://www.physorg.com/news182097187.html

    “The smaller an object the further its ratio of ordinary matter to dark matter is from the cosmic mix. McGaugh says their work indicates that the largest bound structures, rich clusters of galaxies, have 14 percent of ordinary baryonic matter, close to expected 17 percent.

    ‘As we looked at smaller objects – individual galaxies and satellite galaxies, the normal matter content gets steadily less,’ he says. ‘By the time we reach the smallest dwarf satellite galaxies, the content of normal matter is only ~1percent of what it should be. (Such galaxies’ baryon content is ~0.2percent instead of 17percent). The variation of the baryon content is very systematic with scale. The smaller the galaxy, the smaller is its ratio of normal matter to dark matter. Put another way, the smallest galaxies are very dark matter dominated.'”

    Put simply, the smaller the galaxy, the greater the percentage of “dark matter” required to balance the gravitational books. The largest bound structures are apparently around 14%/86% (normal / dark matter, respectively). The smallest dwarf galaxies are around 1%/99% (normal / dark matter).

    Something is very wrong with this picture. Methinks it’s the model that astronomers are using!

  4. Thank you MG,

    Great notes on the invisible and hypothetical world of deeeep space. Or, of deeeep funding. Or, of deeeeep wishful thinking.

    When I was a boy, I really admired and loved NASA, astronomy and all of it. I still love exploration, but I find it a shame that NASA gave up looking at what is, and is focused instead on what isn’t, and what ‘must be’ to make a batch of failed predictions ‘work.’

    How hard it is to self-examine. I suppose it’s just as true for institutions as for individuals. What is the phrase ascribed to Socrates? The unexamined life is not worth living…How about the unexamined theory is not worth paying for?

  5. Sadun, all I can say is WOW! Went to the first site and it was saying almost precisely what I had said earlier about science and religion and how we cannot possibly visualize the things the scientists and mathmaticians are throwing at us, therefore they cannot either, and therefore they are not describing anything real, just their imagination and interpretations of things.

    I loved how he discussed the gravity experiment on board the satelite, and how the gyroscopes must have come in to contact with space, because they believe space is physical, and capable of being warped, yet also flat, so the experiment confirmed what they believed to begin with, without considering something else may have happened, because anything else would kill their beliefs. That everything Einstein says has to be proven true, because if one thing he said isn’t true, it’s no longer a model. So he predicts everything they try to do to confirm Einstein will always prove Einstein correct, because they cannot accept that anything else could possibly be the explanation.

    But that it all comes down to objects. I had used the simple explanation that if you cannot visualize it, you cannot therefore define something. You cannot visualize infinite, beginning, end, etc, therefoe you cannot define them. They are merely terms. He uses objects. Something is either physical and can be defined and most importantly, illustrated, or it is not physical, cannot be defined, cannot be illustrated and is therefore not an object.

    The Milky Way Galaxy is huge. You could not possibly have a large enough chalk board to draw it in precise detail and scale. But you could go to a chalkboard and at least give a rough shape, some idea of what its makeup is and I could look at it and agree it is a reasonable illustration of an object. But you can’t do that with the universe as it is currently “defined”. You can’t give even a rough approximation because if you draw a circle, or even a line this assumes there is something outside the circle or beyond the points of the line. And therefore, the difinition of the universe as we collectively understand it, cannot be accurate if it can be illustrated in any manner. Because the universe is either everything, or it is not. If it is not everything, you could probably draw a rough approximation on a chalk board and it would have shape and form like an object.

    Objects are facts. You can point to them or represent them as a drawing. Until they can draw a string from string theory or make a statue of it, it’s just an idea. Not a fact. Same for light, particles, gravity, black holes. Unless you can illustrate it, even with a rough sketch, its not yet an object that exists and is a fact, but merely a notion, an idea, a fantasy.

    Amazing stuff. Thanks for sharing that link. In one week I have read two sites that back up my position on Science and Darwin. I could even say Science, Religion and Darwin since I consider science in its current form to be the same as religion.

    Good stuff!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *