Dark Matter falsified?

[cre8id]

First, a quick background on my POV and biases... I would like to state upfront that I am a YEC (Young Earth Creationist) and believe Genesis is actual history and not myth or metaphors. I converted from being an atheist in my mid 20's and, as a young Christian, held on to the secular based Old Earth/Universe views I had been taught all my life and became a theistic evolutionist... until I ran across some YEC books, etc. I now feel theistic evolution is a compromise of God's Word and has serious theological difficulties with sin and death before Adam and Eve fell from grace.
I think the creationist scientists are mostly correct, or are at least usually on the right path, a lot more of the time than the evolutionary POV, whether theistic or non-theistic.
I am NOT a scientist or achedimic, and I do not try to pretend I am. I have always been interested in science and do a lot of reading... I am retired now and no longer try to read the technical journals or keep up with them. My background is more technical in mechanical engineering.

This post is about the possibility that Dark Matter postulate may have been falsified... twice. If this is true, this would have enormous impact on what has become the default explanative force behind almost everything that happens in the cosmos... i.e., gravity. I am sure some sort of 'ad hoc' will come forth from the "gravity centric" crowd (both evolutionist and creationist) with some new but little understood mechanism of correcting for the new studies findings which would falsify gravity as the main force behind the existence of everything from small accretions to solar systems to galaxy clusters.

An alternate force other than gravity has been proposed for a while, but has been pushed aside by those "in power" in the achedimic community. That force is found in the the most common form of matter in the universe, the fourth state of mater, plasma. Where plasma exists, electro-magnetic fields exist... and those are thousands of times stronger than gravity.

I would like to present a video explaining the history of the development of the "dark matter" explanation and what the recent test show to indicate that "dark matter" is no longer viable:
Dark Matter Falsified — Again? | Space News – The Thunderbolts Project ™

If the forces produced by plasma are indeed the main forces in the universe instead of gravity, then all the Big Bang theories are wrong and so are the gravity driven theories of creationists like Humphreys.

Creationist Barry Setterfield hosts the video, which is well made. Some may remember him from the CDK controversy (the decay of the speed of light, noted as C in physics equations). He has advanced things since then, but the video is not really about his work.

 

[BobRyan]

First, a quick background on my POV and biases... I would like to state upfront that I am a YEC (Young Earth Creationist) and believe Genesis is actual history and not myth or metaphors. I converted from being an atheist in my mid 20's and, as a young Christian, held on to the secular based Old Earth/Universe views I had been taught all my life and became a theistic evolutionist... until I ran across some YEC books, etc. I now feel theistic evolution is a compromise of God's Word

Well good on you my friend. Also in admitting to the glaring contradiction between blind-faith-evolutionism and the Bible - Darwin, Dawkins, Provine, P.Z.Meyers agree with you that the gap you see there, the contradiction we all see there.. does truly exist and is irreconcilable.

and has serious theological difficulties with sin and death before Adam and Eve fell from grace.
I think the creationist scientists are mostly correct, or are at least usually on the right path, a lot more of the time than the evolutionary POV, whether theistic or non-theistic.

Amen to that!

I am NOT a scientist or achedimic, and I do not try to pretend I am. I have always been interested in science and do a lot of reading... I am retired now and no longer try to read the technical journals or keep up with them. My background is more technical in mechanical engineering.

Software engineering for me so then a few years of physics, calculus, chem, EE and then a lot of software/hardware courses.

This post is about the possibility that Dark Matter postulate may have been falsified... twice. If this is true, this would have enormous impact on what has become the default explanative force behind almost everything that happens in the cosmos... i.e., gravity.

i don't know about that since the gravity that should be generated by observable baryonic "ordinary" matter is known to have insufficient gravity to hold the Galaxies in place.

An alternate force other than gravity has been proposed for a while, but has been pushed aside by those "in power" in the achedimic community. That force is found in the the most common form of matter in the universe, the fourth state of mater, plasma. Where plasma exists, electro-magnetic fields exist... and those are thousands of times stronger than gravity.

True the plasma theory has been around for a while - but it does not get a lot of funding.

will check out your vid.

 

[timewerx]

If the forces produced by plasma are indeed the main forces in the universe instead of gravity, then all the Big Bang theories are wrong and so are the gravity driven theories of creationists like Humphreys.

I've been conducting a personal scientific research since the late 90's on advanced space propulsion systems.

One thing I found out recently is that certain electric fields might be producing gravity-like forces.

The arrangement I'm using is similar in structure to the Earth's Van Allen belts which is a plasma. But I'm not using plasma but composite material instead which approximates the electrical properties of the Van Allen belts. The material is a composite of plastic and aluminum powder and/or layers of metal wires to achieve the desired electrical property. Carbon fiber plastic composite can be used but the individual fibers must be electrically insulated from each other.

To keep it short and other things considered, I have a hunch that gravity is solely coming from the stars which is the source of the most energetic plasma in the Universe. So how does the Earth has its own gravity if gravity is coming from the stars? Pick a guess! The answer is hiding somewhere in quantum mechanics. Stars might be producing significantly more gravity than based on mass (if you use Newton's equations on gravity)

 

[BobRyan]

ok that was a very helpful video - thanks for sharing it. Also I did not know that 99% of all visible matter in the universe is in the form of plasma! Given that the electro-magnetic interaction is 10x34 stronger than gravity and that 99% of the matter is plasma - and that the simulations prove that you get the same results as what we observe in nature in the galaxy rotation "flat curve" -- It is a very strong case.

It is also a great example of how bias and 'orthodoxy' among scientists retards actual science that tries to stay true to observations in nature regardless of the science-orthodox presented as proof-by-bias against it.

 

[BobRyan]

I've been conducting a personal scientific research since the late 90's on advanced space propulsion systems.

One thing I found out recently is that certain electric fields might be producing gravity-like forces.

The arrangement I'm using is similar in structure to the Earth's Van Allen belts which is a plasma. But I'm not using plasma but composite material instead which approximates the electrical properties of the Van Allen belts. The material is a composite of plastic and aluminum powder and/or layers of metal wires to achieve the desired electrical property. Carbon fiber plastic composite can be used but the individual fibers must be electrically insulated from each other.

To keep it short and other things considered, I have a hunch that gravity is solely coming from the stars which is the source of the most energetic plasma in the Universe. So how does the Earth has its own gravity if gravity is coming from the stars? Pick a guess! The answer is hiding somewhere in quantum mechanics. Stars might be producing significantly more gravity than based on mass (if you use Newton's equations on gravity)

Interesting. But one of the things that does come out even in that video is that the orbital rates in our local solar system are pretty much exactly what one would expect from Newtonian gravitational calculations alone. It is only at the galaxy-level that they are seeing the effect of Plasma physics far outstrip gravitational effects.

If the argument you are making is that the plasma in the sun should massively over power the expected gravitational effects of baryonic matter in our solar system - then we should not be observing the normal expected gravity-induced dynamic in our solar system that we are seeing.

 

[cre8id]

ok that was a very helpful video - thanks for sharing it. Also I did not know that 99% of all visible matter in the universe is in the form of plasma! Given that the electro-magnetic interaction is 10x34 stronger than gravity and that 99% of the matter is plasma - and that the simulations prove that you get the same results as what we observe in nature in the galaxy rotation "flat curve" -- It is a very strong case.

It is also a great example of how bias and 'orthodoxy' among scientists retards actual science that tries to stay true to observations in nature regardless of the science-orthodox presented as proof-by-bias against it.

Thanks for your responses, BobRyan. I find your posts informative and I am sure I am wading in waters that are too deep for me. I understand the basics and try to draw logical conclusions from the information.

A little more background info which may be useful to know:
Space News is put out by the Thunderbolts Project., which is one of today's "abberant science" or often called "junk science" sources for the Plasma Universe theory or sometimes referred to as the Electric Universe (or just EU) theory. They (Thunderbolts) have combined that with some modified views of Velikovsky and his planetary catastrophy theories.
One big difference between the gravity driven Big Bang theory and the EU theories is that most of the people associated with EU are atheists and believe in an infinitely old and infinitely large universe.
Barry Setterfield is a young earth creationist and works as an astronomer. He corresponds with Thunderbolts because of their work with Plasma Theory but is not, to my knowledge, a part of their regular staff. He believes the universe is finite in both time and space. In Genesis, he believes that the Alexandrian text of the Septuagint is more accurate than the Hebrew texts. The Septuagint chronology before the Flood adds almost a thousand years between creation and the Flood. Barry believes that God created the plasma forces which he then used to create all the elements in universe, the planets, stars,etc. God then stretched out the heavens (which the OT mentions the stretching out of the heavens a number of times... something like 13 times I believe but I could be wrong on that number).
Barry believes this stretching out of the heavens by God increased the amount of Zero Point Energy (ZPE) which affected a number of things like the speed of light, radioactive decay rates, etc. He gets pretty involved in all this, and although I have a copy of his monograph about this, I cannot say I understand the details enough to explain it all.
Barry Setterfield's site includes a section on ZPE:
Zero Point Energy

 

[timewerx]

Interesting. But one of the things that does come out even in that video is that the orbital rates in our local solar system are pretty much exactly what one would expect from Newtonian gravitational calculations alone. It is only at the galaxy-level that they are seeing the effect of Plasma physics far outstrip gravitational effects.

If the argument you are making is that the plasma in the sun should massively over power the expected gravitational effects of baryonic matter in our solar system - then we should not be observing the normal expected gravity-induced dynamic in our solar system that we are seeing.

I wasn't really talking about EM forces arising from Plasma interactions.

I'm talking about forces that closely approximate gravity as opposed to EM forces but can be generated by certain plasma structures. It is like "artificial gravity" and may even be capable of warping space time.

I'm still simply uncertain about it. I'm barely finished in my experiments yet. It's just some initial observations with the tests and heavier device.

 

[-57]

Interesting thread. Whether Setterfield, Humphreys or even Hartnett is correct doesn't relly matter. What is interesting is that there are several lines of thought that go against the BB.
From what I remember dark matter was invented to help the BB work.

 

[BobRyan]

Interesting thread. Whether Setterfield, Humphreys or even Hartnett is correct doesn't relly matter. What is interesting is that there are several lines of thought that go against the BB.
From what I remember dark matter was invented to help the BB work.

I thought it was dark energy that was helping out the BB. Dark Matter just helps out the gravitational model for galaxy rotation - or so I thought.

 

[timewerx]

Interesting thread. Whether Setterfield, Humphreys or even Hartnett is correct doesn't relly matter. What is interesting is that there are several lines of thought that go against the BB.
From what I remember dark matter was invented to help the BB work.

Part of my research concerning practical application is seeking out other phenomenon that may be causing "anomalous gravitational forces" as strictly gravitational forces as opposed to EM forces (like zero attenuation by matter, proportional change in force in relation to mass of matter and space-time curvature).

One of the things that came to my attention is Nuclear explosions due to high energy plasma.

It also came to my attention concerning relevant data (to my research) that might isolate anomalous gravity events being generated is still classified information. Commonly known events like blast wave, radiation effects, and EMP are now mostly declassified in the USA nuclear test program of the mid 20th century.

It's frustrating. What is the further point of declaring certain aspects of nuclear explosions top secret that may be invaluable in scientific research when everybody knows how to build a nuke????

In all these time of research, I've only chanced upon a very short article about the Soviet nuclear test program detecting gravity waves in one of their tests. It is unreliable of course and it's no longer posted. But it helps to confirm my hunch concerning my research.

The obvious application here is faster-than-light starships or warp gates. Artificial warping of space time using artificial gravity generated by something other than mass or other than detonating nukes. However, I could also see why it would be declared classified or top secret. If you think about it, it's a possibility that the dark matter hypothesis could be a deliberate disinformation campaign.

 

[cre8id]

Interesting thread. Whether Setterfield, Humphreys or even Hartnett is correct doesn't relly matter. What is interesting is that there are several lines of thought that go against the BB.
From what I remember dark matter was invented to help the BB work.

I have one more name to add to the list of creationists with a slightly different idea... Dr. Walt Brown who advanced in the hydroplate theory of the movement of Earth's plates. He published the previous version of his book online, which is chock full of information at Center for Scientific Creation | In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood

As to astronomy, Brown's work is concerned more earth and life sciences but does extend to at least our solar system where he has made predictions about short-term meteors and the asteroids. Many of Brown's predictions about what scientists would find has been shown to be true yet he still gets little respect from most creationist organizations.

Short video of Brown explaining his Hydroplate theory:

 

[cre8id]

I ran across this article to share about gravity and dark matter also:
https://www.quantamagazine.org/20161129-verlinde-gravity-dark-matter/
The Case Against Dark Matter
A proposed theory of gravity does away with dark matter, even as new astrophysical findings challenge the need for galaxies full of the invisible mystery particles.


Another site, which is creation biased, is Creation-Evolution Headlines had this article:
CEH: Excuses for Missing Dark Matter
Excuses for Missing Dark Matter
You might enjoy checking out the site's Baloney Detector page: CEH: Baloney Detector

 

[pat34lee]

Interesting thread. Whether Setterfield, Humphreys or even Hartnett is correct doesn't relly matter. What is interesting is that there are several lines of thought that go against the BB.
From what I remember dark matter was invented to help the BB work.

The universe is supposedly expanding much faster than it should given their theories about the beginning and the observed size and mass of it. Instead of adapting the theory to the facts, they added pixie dust; unseen mass and energy greater than everything we see and can measure.

 

[cre8id]

Someone may find this series of comments within the article interesting:
CEH: Dark Matter Remains Missing
Posted on March 1, 2017

How long do astronomers get to search for something that has no direct evidence?

Dark Matter News

The Universe Is Expanding Surprisingly Fast (Mike Wall on Space.com). Nobody knows what dark matter is; even less what dark energy is. Astronomers are feverishly looking for the mysterious unknown stuff, which they must find to maintain the consensus cosmology. Yet the properties of the stuff, detected indirectly by its effects (if it exists), is changing as they observe: “it’s possible that dark energy — the mysterious force that’s thought to be driving the universe’s accelerating expansion — has grown in strength over the eons,” Wall writes.

No sign of seasonal dark matter after four years of searching (New Scientist). “Dark matter has just suffered another blow. Only one experiment claims to have seen signs of the mysterious stuff, and now the massive XENON100 experiment has failed to find any evidence for that signal,“Jennifer Ouellette reports. “This may put the controversial signal to rest once and for all – but some say it’s not that simple.” What’s it going to take to falsify this dark hypothesis? The skepticism is justified, she admits. “So does this mean it’s all over but the crying for the controversial claim? Not necessarily.”

New evidence in favor of dark matter: The bars in galaxies are spinning more slowly than we thought (Science Daily). Hope springs eternal to find dark matter. This story is not about detecting it, but inferring it from the motions of barred spirals.

Searching for axion dark matter with a new detection device (Phys.org). The “axion” sounds like something real, but it’s just a place-holder for ignorance. It’s just a name for a proposed particle to constitute dark matter, ever since evidence for WIMPs and MACHOs have been disappointing. Jim Shelton talks about Yale’s attempt to build a detector for the mysterious particle (if it exists). Will this turn out to be an elaborate search for ghosts?

Next-gen dark matter detector in a race to finish line (Phys.org). In this article, Glenn Roberts Jr. reports on South Dakota’s team trying to improve the sensitivity of their LUX detector, ever since the previous tests didn’t find the stuff. This story is red meat for sociologists of science. Groups around the world are racing to detect dark matter, perhaps for fame or fortune of a Nobel Prize. But what if there isn’t any? “It’s a friendly and healthy competition, with a major discovery possibly at stake,” one researcher says. Maybe it keeps mad scientists out of trouble.

Stanford physicist suggests looking for dark matter in unusual places (Phys.org). Amy Adams interviews physicist Peter Graham about his ideas about where axions might be hiding.

Can dark matter vanquish controversial rival theory? (Science Magazine). Adrian Cho wonders if the continued non-detection of dark matter will lend credibility to MOND theory (Modified Newtonian Dynamics).

Astroparticle physics: Dark matter remains elusive (Nature). Xiangdong Ji writes about the failure of the XENON detector to find dark matter. Searchers find it hard to quit. They just think they need to increase the sensitivity of their detectors.

[Comment by editior: ]
Sometimes increasing the sensitivity of instruments works; solar neutrinos were found that way, and so were fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background. At some point, though, it will be come ridiculous to keep pressing the case. We wonder if changing the assumptions about the age of the universe would solve the problem.
​

 

[gideon123]

There are a lot of fundamental misunderstandings on this thread.

The physical sciences are based on DIRECT OBSERVATION of the world around us. That's it. Period. Any scientific theory can be overthrown - and will be overthrown - if new data contradict the theory. This applies to physics, astrophysics, biology
.. and a great many other sciences.

All theories can be falsifiable.
And all theories can be provable.
It depends entirely on what the data say.
And ONLY on what the data say.

It does not depend on random opinions.

Ideas like Dark Matter were created, because scientists could not explain expansion rates of objects in the Universe. It is only a theory at this time, it could be right or wrong. It will be tested against all future data.

I can't comprehend why some Christians would be bothered by this process. What is wrong with searching for the truth? Does the Bible say that we shouldn't investigate things? Where??

The same applies to the Theory Of Evolution. It exists in the biological sciences, wherr it is TESTED constantly against real data including dating techniques, DNA investigations, and the study of species lines. The theory is holding up, doing remarkably well, because it does explain patterns of life on Earth. There is no conflict between Evolution and the Bible. There are only conflicted ideas in the minds of some Christians.

 

[BobRyan]

There are a lot of fundamental misunderstandings on this thread.

The physical sciences are based on DIRECT OBSERVATION of the world around us. That's it. Period. Any scientific theory can be overthrown - and will be overthrown - if new data contradict the theory. This applies to physics, astrophysics, biology
.. and a great many other sciences.

All theories can be falsifiable.
And all theories can be provable.
It depends entirely on what the data say.
And ONLY on what the data say.

It does not depend on random opinions.

Ideas like Dark Matter were created, because scientists could not explain expansion rates of objects in the Universe. It is only a theory at this time, it could be right or wrong. It will be tested against all future data.

I can't comprehend why some Christians would be bothered by this process.

So far so good.

After all the Bible does not say "the reason that the universe looks this way is because of turtles". We know that God created flowers - but that does not mean that they don't come from seeds or that they can't be killed by frost etc.

The same applies to the Theory Of Evolution. It exists in the biological sciences, wherr it is TESTED constantly against real data

Not true. When the mountains of disconfirming data comes .. it is ignored because evolution is an ISM... a religion not a science.

We can see cells, and watch biology and test it. We cannot watch dust, rocks, gas and sunlight produce an amoeba or watch an amoeba turn into a rabbit over time. And everyone knows it.

We can "observe" 50,000 generations of prokaryotes NOT turn into Eukaryotes! That we can do.

There is no conflict between Evolution and the Bible. .

A by-faith-alone speculation that even Darwin rejected.

 

[JDD_III]

We can "observe" 50,000 generations of prokaryotes NOT turn into Eukaryotes! That we can do.

This ^^

Lenskis experiments have failed dismally to demonstrate the breadth of evolution claimed for naturalistic origins. The proponents even have to be purposefully deceptive in presenting its most striking finding. Yet the claims always come back to these experiments only supporting molecules to man ToE.

BTW 50k generations is equivalent to >1m yrs of human evolution...

 

[gideon123]

Let me repeat. Science is in a constant quest for the truth. End of story. No more, no less. The physical sciences are contantly tested against observations from the physical universe. Constantly. all sciences agree on the Earth being about 4 billion years old. The science that now supports evolution is now very deep with understanding.

When some Christians argue against evolution .. it is immediately obvoius that they DON'T even understand what that theory says. Before you argue against an idea, please take the time to understand it thoroughly. For example, buy a copy of the book ... Biology In Focus by Campbell. Read the whole book. Then come back and talk about what evolutuon says. And keep in mind that this book was literally written and reviewed by hundreds of the world's best biologists.

I could care less if Darwin chose to be an atheist. I am not limited by his notions about God.

Christians need to get out of the dark ages.
Seriously!!

 

[pat34lee]

Someone may find this series of comments within the article interesting:
CEH: Dark Matter Remains Missing
Posted on March 1, 2017

How long do astronomers get to search for something that has no direct evidence?
​

Until they can either fake the evidence or convince
everyone else that it doesn't matter, anyway.

 

[pat34lee]

Let me repeat. Science is in a constant quest for the truth. End of story. No more, no less. The physical sciences are contantly tested against observations from the physical universe. Constantly. all sciences agree on the Earth being about 4 billion years old. The science that now supports evolution is now very deep with understanding.

When some Christians argue against evolution .. it is immediately obvoius that they DON'T even understand what that theory says. Before you argue against an idea, please take the time to understand it thoroughly.

Does that mean you don't believe that anything disproves
evolution today? That there is no proof it didn't happen?
That is one leap of faith, believing in nothing.