RSS

Dark Matter and Dark Energy?

29 Aug

One of the biggest problems of the Big Bang theory is that it needs too many theoretical issues to permit wiggle room to account for its discrepancies. In my previous blog I attempted to show how the arms of a spiral galaxy would collapse in an old universe after only a few turns. Since according to the naturalists’ point of view, the Milky Way galaxy (and every other galaxy) is billions of years old, our sun should have orbited our galactic center at least 20 times. Yet, even if our solar system orbited our galactic center only 4 or 5 times, the spiral arms of the Milky Way would no longer be visible. Yet, they are!

If this matter remained unaddressed by naturalists, they would have to admit the Big Bang Theory, which takes billions of years to viably produce a universe such as ours, is fundamentally wrong, and needs to be discarded. But, this would be anathema in most scientific circles. It would result in admitting that their worldview is painfully bankrupt, and the only viable explanation left is that of the creationists. So, something had to be done.

Dark Energy and Matter

Dark Matter and Dark Energy comprise 96% of our universe! All the stars and planets comprise only 4% of what is real, according to Big Bang Theorists.
(Image from Google Images)

Decades ago they invented the theory of dark matter which would provide enough gravitational force to preserve the present appearance of spiral galaxies. Otherwise they would appear a lot like a ball of stars with more in the center than at the parameter, not to mention the fact, that without the large, theoretical mass, galaxies might never even have formed on their own. Stars would simply move away from each other in the ever expanding universe. Nevertheless, it must be kept in mind that the only reason for the existence of dark matter is to allow the universe to be old. If the universe is relatively young, dark matter is not needed to account for spiral galaxies all over the universe.

It was postulated that just as one would throw a ball up into the air, and the ball would begin to slow down before it would return to the earth, so, too, the expanding universe should be slowing down and would eventually collapse in on itself, no doubt in preparation for another big bang. Yet, after decades of seeking to measure this slowing down of the expansion of the universe, it was found that instead the expansion rate is accelerating! Notice:

“In one of the great results of twentieth century science, NSF-funded astronomers have shown both that the universe does not contain enough matter in the universe to slow the expansion, and that the rate of expansion actually increases with distance. Why? Nobody knows yet.”[1]

Did the naturalists come to the conclusion that the Big Bang Theory is wrong—that their worldview should be discarded? No! They invented another unseen, undetectable commodity—dark energy! They needed something to account for the ever increasing velocity of the expanding universe. According to previous theories, there simply wasn’t enough energy in the universe to account for the acceleration.

What does all this mean? Well, according to present estimates, 96% of all the matter and energy in the universe must be assumed in order to support the Big Bang Theory. In other words, we cannot see or even detect 96% of the universe! It wonders me, however, how one could call this science—that is, not being able to see or detect nearly all the postulated universe, yet, if I believe in God who cannot be seen or detected by science, that is unscientific. While I admit belief in God is not supposed to be scientific, it is certainly **just as** scientific as an unseen, undetectable—yet real (supposedly)—universe.


[1] National Science Foundation Advertisement, “Astronomy: Fifty Years of Astronomical Excellence,” Discover, September 2000, p. 7.

Advertisements
 
6 Comments

Posted by on August 29, 2013 in naturalism, The Big Bang Theory

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

6 responses to “Dark Matter and Dark Energy?

  1. David Amerson

    September 2, 2013 at 14:27

    Thanks for the welcome. I enjoy discussing such matters of science.

    Okay, so for a moment let’s assume you are right and there is no such thing as Dark Matter or Dark Energy. Those two things are not required to determine if the age of the universe is either thousands or billions of years old. In fact it’s a simple matter to test the basis of thousands of years and anyone with some knowledge of light and astronomy can easily test in their own back yard with a telescope.

    Let’s go on the assumption of thousands of years. And to be fair, let’s increase is from the general number of no more than 13K years given by some estimates based on religious texts. For this example we will say 30,000 years. If the age of the entire universe is 30K years or less, then I should not be able to look up at night and see anything beyond 30,000 light years. Light travels at about 186K miles per second or 670M miles per hour. Of course this is a HUGE number so for great distances we simplify it to the distance that light travels in a year. The Milky Way galaxy is about 160K Light years across. So it stands to reason that each night as I look up at the sky, tens of thousands of new stars should be appearing in the night sky as the light from their birth finally reaches earth. The visible universe would consist of a bubble around the Earth 30K LY in any direction and be expanding each day. Obviously this is not what we see.

    Each time we put up a better telescope we see further back in time. The HST can see at least 10 to 15 billion Years in to the past. Far enough back in time to see Quasars which were the early formation of what today are probably simple galaxies much like the Milky Way. There are no nearby quasars and thus they probably no longer exist and the only reason we see them is the vast time necessary for the light to reach Earth. Literally billions of years. So when we hear 15 billion years this is not an accurate age but just as far as we can currently see. Due to expansion much of the universe is likely well beyond what we can see and the age of the universe much older. I can walk out into my backyard tonight and see the Andromeda galaxy and know in an instant that the universe is older than 30K years old. I am looking at light that started its journey more than 2.5 million years ago.

    So why are Dark Matter and Dark Energy important? Mainly to explain our current model of gravity on large scale objects. Without Dark Matter, the speed at which stars rotate around the core of all galaxies are too fast. They should be moving at a much slower rate compared to the stars at the core. Similar to how Pluto moves much slower around the Sun than does Mercury. But this is not what we observe. We see stars moving at much faster speeds than gravity should allow even if the universe was much younger. So there must be much more gravity than can be accounted for by the matter we see. Where does that gravity come from? The current model supports what we currently call “Dark Matter”.

    As to Dark Energy that’s quite a different matter no pun intended. It was expected that we should see the universe slowing down as gravity pulls and slows the initial speed resulting from the Big Bang. They thought they had seriously miscalculated when they discovered it was in fact speeding up. And at a significant rate. What was pushing (or pulling) galaxies apart? Thus Dark Energy which we know less about than we do Dark Matter. One belief is that as galaxies move apart (space expands) in to nothingness and the pull of gravity between the galaxies is decreased and thus space speeds up as it spreads out. It’s important to note that galaxies, stars, planets are not expanding but remaining the same size. Only space is expanding.

    So in short, Dark Matter and Dark Energy have little to do with the current estimates of the age of the universe. My belief, make that my knowledge of the age of the universe, come from observations. No religious texts, no theories, but an observable fact that can be checked and rechecked.

    Sincerely,
    David

     
    • Eddie

      September 4, 2013 at 08:41

      David, greetings again; I’m glad you stayed to comment again. Usually, folks don’t do that. :-)

      You anticipated my next blog-post in your comment regarding distant starlight. It is an intriguing issue. In fact, it stumped me in a previous discussion years ago when I used to peruse the discussion boards. I simply put it aside and wouldn’t bring it up, because I had to reconsider my position. I toyed with the idea that the universe must be billions of years old, and the Biblical days in Genesis 1 needed to be interpreted as ages, but I wasn’t really satisfied with that idea. I was, frankly, disappointed in the Bible not being forthright about what seemed to be true.

      Recently, when I began to restudy the issue and implications of the theory of evolution, I came across several reasonable explanations for distant starlight, and not all of them from religious folks. For example (as you may read in my current blog-post), Dr. João Magueijo, a Spanish physicist, postulates that starlight was virtually instantaneous throughout the universe in the beginning, and has slowed down to what it is today. This contradicts Einstein’s theory of relativity, but it is being taken seriously by at least some scientists who believe in the Big Bang theory. So, this would be one model that would tend to support a Biblical view of the starlight problem.

      Another, which I really liked when I was first introduced to it was Dr. Russell Humphreys’ model in which he postulates that billions of years occurred along the perimeter of space while only a day occurred on earth. His model requires earth to be near the center of the universe, and the gravity near the center distorted the fabric of space in that the earth was emerging out of a black hole (?). Time would be extremely slow at this point while at the perimeter of space, it was very fast in comparison. While this seems to work (it follows Einstein’s theory of relativity) and it would support the Genesis 1 account of Biblical days, I am not as happy with it as I was in the beginning. If I understand it correctly, it would require dark matter at the perimeter of the universe to keep the spiral galaxies in good form.

      Another example that would answer the distant starlight issue would be a model put forward by Drs. Moon and Spencer in the 1950s. Using Riemannian geometry,rather than Euclidean, they postulate that the most distant starlight could have reached earth in less than twenty years.

      Which, if any, of these theories (and there are others) is correct? I don’t know, and neither would I be qualified to offer a good opinion of which one is the best model. The point is that there are models presently on the table which would support the Biblical point of view of the universe being thousands of years old and the creation of stars occurred on the 4th day as recorded in Genesis 1:14-19.

       
    • David Amerson

      September 4, 2013 at 16:12

      Hi Eddie,

      Glad to chime in as it is an interest I ponder often.

      That’s the first I have read about the theory on VLS. And while it may offer means by which light can travel to Earth in less time, the gravitational forces necessary to produce such a distortion in time should be easily provable and visible in some way today. That kind of gravity just doesn’t go away in the time frame that is postulated. I am not even sure life could be present during the forces necessary to produce the required effect. We are talking about billions of years occurring around the Earth while the Earth experiences only 7 days. That’s a huge amount of difference in time scale. We should see some evidence of that today.

      Even if we choose to just toss the time for light to travel across the known universe, there are still many other sciences unrelated to astronomy that point to a massive timescale rather than one limited to tens of thousands of years. Obviously we know the most popular argument between creationism and science is that of evolution. The mere mention that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago starts a huge debate. But there are many unrelated branches of science that support a large time frame vs. tens of thousands of years.

      Chemistry tells us that just knowing the decay rate of certain radio isotopes can provide fairly accurate time scales as they break down at a very specific rate over time. While they cannot detect time frames of 15 billion of years they do support timeframes of up to 4 or 5 Billion years.

      Mapping of the human genome also supports a timeframe in generations that are much more extensive than those listed in the Bible. The large variations in Human DNA would take more generations than are allotted for in the Bible. At least 70 thousand years for the differences we see in modern humans today, probably longer.

      Climatology by looking at rocks, trees and, all point to a climate changes that are billions of years old with the climate on Earth being much different in the past than would have supported human life.

      I could go on as there are many more sciences provide evidence of billions of years vs tens of thousands. So it goes well beyond just astrophysics and tossing the current cosmological model would require a vast majority of what we understand today.

      Science is best done with no presumptions. Some of the best science has thrown out long accepted models of the universe and rewritten the book. Religion on the other hand requires presumptions. If a theory comes along that works better than the Big Bang, the book on science will be rewritten. But we know that religion is not designed to be rewritten though some would argue that it has been done else we would not have so many variations. But for now, the Big Bang is the best model we have to support the evidence we see and can test. One cannot argue the vast distance between objects nor the acceleration we see around us. The speed of stars in a galaxy has been measured and the result is missing mass. These are things that can be tested and retested. Much of our current science is based on the timescales supported by cosmology.

      Now I would not be the one to say that God is Supernatural and thus not required to follow the laws of nature and as such he created the universe the way it appears today. The laws do not apply to him and thus he can throw them in to chaos anytime. But then why should humans try to understand anything about nature if it can change at any time?

       
    • Eddie

      September 5, 2013 at 10:15

      Greetings, David. If I understand your argument correctly, you are addressing Dr. Russell Humphreys’ model which puts the earth near the center of the universe, originally emerging out of a black hole. You said:

      “That’s the first I have read about the theory on VLS. And while it may offer means by which light can travel to Earth in less time, the gravitational forces necessary to produce such a distortion in time should be easily provable and visible in some way today. That kind of gravity just doesn’t go away in the time frame that is postulated. I am not even sure life could be present during the forces necessary to produce the required effect. We are talking about billions of years occurring around the Earth while the Earth experiences only 7 days. That’s a huge amount of difference in time scale. We should see some evidence of that today.”

      Each of the arguments I put forth in my previous reply offer a model in which light **could** come from the perimeter of the universe to the earth in a relatively short time. I am not completely happy with any of them. My intent was to show that there are legitimate arguments offered by specialists in the field of physics that would permit starlight, much like what we see today with the naked eye, in the earth’s heavens on the 4th day of creation. Whether or not “life could be present during the forces necessary to produce the required effect” is a moot issue. Life wasn’t created until the following day. If God was powerful enough to create such a vast universe, I would assume he would be powerful enough to compensate in some legitimately lawful way (i.e. not contradicting physics) that would allow for the existence of life one day later. I don’t know how he created all we see, and neither you nor anyone else really knows how the Big Bang could have occurred or (if it did) how it all came to be what we experience today. All you have are theories, and all I have is what I read in the Bible. Both of us are pretty much out of luck as far as empirical evidence is concerned. We have evidence of **something** and our interpretation of that **something** defines our worldviews.

      “Obviously we know the most popular argument between creationism and science is that of evolution. The mere mention that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago starts a huge debate. But there are many unrelated branches of science that support a large time frame vs. tens of thousands of years.

      “Chemistry tells us that just knowing the decay rate of certain radio isotopes can provide fairly accurate time scales as they break down at a very specific rate over time. While they cannot detect time frames of 15 billion of years they do support timeframes of up to 4 or 5 Billion years.”

      I intend to address the problem of humans & dinosaurs as well as radio isotope dating in later blog-posts. It wouldn’t be very productive for me to try to address every subject under consideration between creationists and naturalists in a single blog-post, and I’m sure you can appreciate that. In fact, I don’t believe it would be productive if I sought to load down each post with a lot of technical data to prove or address each point I make. By that I don’t mean to imply I am a highly educated person, but I do understand what I read and try to put it in terms most folks (like myself) would readily understand. While adhering to this premise, I leave my argument wide open for controversy with folks holding an opposing opinion, but I hope comments and interaction here would compensate for the lack of technical data elsewhere in the blog-post under consideration.

      “Mapping of the human genome also supports a timeframe in generations that are much more extensive than those listed in the Bible. The large variations in Human DNA would take more generations than are allotted for in the Bible. At least 70 thousand years for the differences we see in modern humans today, probably longer.”

      This assertion assumes there is absolutely no problem with the data under consideration, but my information shows there is. For example, Brian Sykes (“Blood of the Isles, Exploring the genetic roots of our tribal history”; Bantam Press, London et al., 2006, p. 150) claims that one of the daughters of the “Eve” of Europe, called Ursula, was found in Ireland. The problem is the oldest settlement of Ireland is put at 9000 years ago, but the mtDNA of Ursula is cir. 45,000 years old. In order for her oldest descendent in Ireland to fit into this timeframe, it is theorized a large group of her daughters migrated to Ireland together. Sykes admits: “it is a frequent and understandable misunderstanding that we have located the skeleton of Ursula and the other matriarchs and then worked out how long ago they lived from carbon-dating. But this is not so; it is all accomplished by reconstructions” (ibid., p. 151).

      In other words, he argues from a presumption, which you say later in your comment is best when science operates “with no presumptions.” I agree, by the way, but this is not what is being done in many respects.

      “Climatology by looking at rocks, trees and, all point to a climate changes that are billions of years old with the climate on Earth being much different in the past than would have supported human life.”

      Again, many assumptions are made when considering these things. For example, rings in tree stumps are taken to be years rather than wet or dry seasons. Rock formations are dated according to the presumed accuracy of the uniformitarian theory. Yet, science operates best when presumptions are not made—we both agree on this principle.

      “… One cannot argue the vast distance between objects nor the acceleration we see around us. The speed of stars in a galaxy has been measured and the result is missing mass. These are things that can be tested and retested. Much of our current science is based on the timescales supported by cosmology.

      Your argument presumes great age—billions of years. Yet, if the universe is only thousands of years old, there is no need for the ‘missing mass.’

      “Now I would not be the one to say that God is Supernatural and thus not required to follow the laws of nature and as such he created the universe the way it appears today. The laws do not apply to him and thus he can throw them in to chaos anytime. But then why should humans try to understand anything about nature if it can change at any time?

      I agree. In fact, I believe God **must** operate according to laws we can understand, otherwise, he could not be recognized in his creation. If creation (which includes the laws operating within it and those holding it together) points to a Creator as the Bible concludes, then the Creator had to have operated in a way we could find him or at least see and understand what he did, and by implication, know he is there.

       
  2. David Amerson

    September 2, 2013 at 01:23

    The notion that the Big Bang did not happen billions of years ago has long since been put to rest by any credible scientist willing to look at simple data that even most high school kids could understand. Dark matter is simply matter that we cannot directly see but can prove does exist by simply looking at gravitational lensing. It’s mere presense proved by its own gravity. We cannot directly see black holes but no one would argue they do not exist. Gravity is the main body of proof that they do exist. Dark matter is nothing more than matter that does not interact with light, except gravitationally, so our telescopes cannot view it.

    Dark enery is most likely the expansion of thel universe into nothingness. As galaxies move away from each other, their gravitational hold on each other is decreased and ther is nothing to slow the expansion of space over time and the more time passes the faster everything goes.

    While we may not yet have been able to directly detect dark matter we have a good model that preditcts it is a sub atomic particle that rarely interacts with other matter. Until recently the atomwas the smallest object. That theory was adjusted when sub atomic particles were first theorized then detected. No serious sci e ntist would deny them.

    Regardless this neither proves that God exists or not. God is by nature something that science can never prove nor disprove. It can however point to where some religious texts simply do not accurately describe science. Nor should they, they are texts on morality not science. Science cannot accurately describe morals nor does it try.

     
    • Eddie

      September 2, 2013 at 09:07

      Greeting David, and welcome to my blog. I always appreciate people who take the time to read what I say and especially those willing to express their own point of view on the matter under discussion.

      The notion that the Big Bang did not happen billions of years ago has long since been put to rest by any credible scientist willing to look at simple data that even most high school kids could understand.

      Well, this is the sort of thing I’ve been pointing to in this series of my blogs. There are credible scientists who don’t believe the ‘Big Bang’ occurred, and not all of them are religious. While most people with a high school education are able to understand the **premise** of the Big Bang Theory, it doesn’t necessarily follow that the Big Bang actually occurred. You are expressing your worldview, not necessarily a truth.

      Dark matter is simply matter that we cannot directly see but can prove does exist by simply looking at gravitational lensing. It’s mere presense proved by its own gravity. We cannot directly see black holes but no one would argue they do not exist. Gravity is the main body of proof that they do exist. Dark matter is nothing more than matter that does not interact with light, except gravitationally, so our telescopes cannot view it.

      We both have a worldview through which we define and express what we think we know. The above represents your ‘interpretation’ of what you can see. Spiral Galaxies would no longer appear as they do today, if the universe were billions of years old. Dark matter was **theorized** as the gravitational energy holding the spiral galaxies together. Otherwise, naturalists would have to admit that the universe could be only thousands of years old. If such were true, the Big Bang could not have occurred (no time); therefore, something had to be done to salvage the Big Bang Theory—hence they postulated ‘dark matter’, which in my worldview is nothing more than the proverbial emperor’s clothes. :-)

      Dark enery is most likely the expansion of thel universe into nothingness. As galaxies move away from each other, their gravitational hold on each other is decreased and ther is nothing to slow the expansion of space over time and the more time passes the faster everything goes.

      While we may not yet have been able to directly detect dark matter we have a good model that preditcts it is a sub atomic particle that rarely interacts with other matter. Until recently the atomwas the smallest object. That theory was adjusted when sub atomic particles were first theorized then detected. No serious sci e ntist would deny them.

      Of course there are ‘serious’ scientists who deny the existence of both dark energy and dark matter. These things represent the **worldview** of people who don’t believe in God, and are utilized to express or define what we are able to see. Admittedly, some scientists who believe in God do embrace these theories, but the bottom line is: without the hypothesis of dark energy and dark matter, the naturalist’s worldview is in serious trouble. They **must** salvage the Big Bang theory until something better comes along, because a universe only thousands of years old is anathema. By the way, the ‘gravity’ folks claim is caused by dark matter has not been detected, it is the theorized force that **must** be there to hold things in place like we see them today. With a universe that is thousands of years old, neither dark energy nor dark matter is needed.

      Regardless this neither proves that God exists or not. God is by nature something that science can never prove nor disprove. It can however point to where some religious texts simply do not accurately describe science. Nor should they, they are texts on morality not science. Science cannot accurately describe morals nor does it try.

      I must disagree with your point of view about religion. If one is honest about his faith, if anyone or anything experienced is able to refute that belief, the believer needs to either change his or her focus or change his or her worldview—to be honest. Otherwise one’s faith is nothing more than a figment of one’s imagination, or put another way, it would be nothing more than the the emperor’s cloths. :-)

       

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: