Major update: 31st January 2022
Popular science talks about having all the evidence for the Big Bang Theory and it being correct and all factually provable, but that is far from reality.
There are huge missing elements that just don’t make the theory work.
Scientists had to keep pushing back the age of the universe to try to show why the galaxies were in those positions.
And then they had to explain how and why the galaxies are moving in space and for the sums to add up scientists had to create something to account for the missing mass of the universe:
Table of Contents menu:
Table of Contents:
1. The missing 85% of mass in the universe
There isn’t a little bit of mass missing, their calculations came up with just 15% of the universe being made up of ordinary matter – the ‘stuff’, the things we could touch, see and know that exist.
But 85% had to be hypothesized as missing.
The problem, uncovered in the 1930s, was that galaxies were moving so fast that they should fly apart.
The scientists needed something to slow the expansion of the universe, so they named this invisible phenomenon ‘dark matter’ which holds the galaxies together.
But there was also another problem, there seems to be a force or energy that drives the universe’s expansion and speeds it up.
This missing energy the scientists called ‘dark energy’ which is like a repulsive force, a sort of anti-gravity and they reckon that this dark energy accounts for roughly 68% universe’s total mass energy.
In this calculation dark matter makes up 27 percent and the rest is just 5% which is all the regular matter we see and interact with every day. 2
Astronomers can make calculations on the amount of dark and normal (baryonic) matter in the universe by comparing two measurements:
The first measurement is the total amount of light emitted by a large structure, like a galaxy, which astronomers can use to infer that object’s mass. The second measurement is the estimated amount of gravity needed to hold the large structure together.‘How much of the universe is dark matter?’ By Paul Sutter. November 26, 2022. 3
When astronomers compare these measurements on galaxies and clusters throughout the universe, they get the same result:
There simply isn’t enough normal, light-emitting matter to account for the amount of gravitational force needed to hold those objects together.
Thus, there must be some form of matter that is not emitting light: dark matter.
Different galaxies have different proportions of dark matter to normal matter. Some galaxies contain almost no dark matter, while others are nearly devoid of normal matter…
a massive object, like a galaxy cluster, will warp space-time around it so much that it will bend the path of any light passing through — an effect called gravitational lensing. Astronomers can then compare the amount of mass that we see from light-emitting objects to the mass needed to account for the lensing, again proving that extra mass must be lurking somewhere.
But after searching since 1933 no dark matter particles have been detected – this is not good evidence for the Big Bang.
This is just one of the many discrepancies in the theory which are making some scientists nervous about the Big Bang theory.
2. Does the Big Bang theory provide the answers?
Scientists have got different ideas on how the universe was created, but one scenario that has got the most votes from their ranks is the Big Bang theory.
This does not mean that the Big Bang theory fulfils and answers all the problems, for there is a lot of missing evidence for the Big Bang. The Big Bang Theory struggles to provide answers for things in the universe which cannot be explained and there is a selection of scientists that have opposing views.
In this article we will be coming across the ΛCDM (Lambda cold dark matter) model which helps to define the Big Bang cosmological model in which the universe contains three major components:
- a cosmological constant denoted by Lambda (Greek Λ) and associated with dark energy
- the postulated cold dark matter (abbreviated CDM)
- ordinary matter.
The ΛCDM model is frequently referred to as the standard model of Big Bang cosmology because it is the simplest model that provides a reasonably good account of the beginning of the universe.
But, even though it is widely accepted, it is nowhere near a complete theory and it has got a lot of missing parts:
Dark matter—vital for big bang believers…‘Is ‘dark matter’ the ‘unknown god’? by John Hartnett 4
This includes not only the hypothetical beginning of the universe in a ‘big bang’, but also its structure and evolution.
For example, the big bang would result in hot gas, which could not form stars, galaxies and galaxy clusters without dark matter to help condense the gas.
Also, testing of the big bang model with type Ia [type one-A] supernova measurements supposedly shows accelerating expansion where dark energy is also needed.
Dark matter is also invoked to explain tiny irregularities in the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation, allegedly the fireball from the big bang.
Also, without dark matter, big bang nucleosynthesis (formation of light elements like helium and the hydrogen isotope deuterium in the hot big bang fireball) won’t work, either.
In short, to get the big bang theory to work, the matter content of the universe must comprise 85% dark matter, hence only 15% normal matter, like protons and neutrons.
That’s you, me, the magazine you’re reading, everything—to which add 85% dark matter.
So there is a huge incentive to prove that the dark-matter sceptics (like me), who dispute the existence of the stuff, are wrong.
Conclusion: The solution is simple—dark matter never existed in the first place. That is why it is missing.
It is invisible because it is not there.
The standard big bang universe formation theory is wrong.”
The missing matter is colossal, it is more than six times the total estimated matter of the whole visible universe.
That is not just a minor tweak to get the numbers to add up. This puts doubt upon the whole Big Bang theory.
3. Aging the universe with Hubble’s Law
If we agree that Hubble’s Law tells us that the universe is expanding, it also implies that in the past the universe was much smaller than it is today.The John A. Dutton e-Education Institute is the learning design unit of the College of Earth and Mineral Sciences at The Pennsylvania State University. 5
If we assume that the expansion’s apparent velocity (that is, how fast the galaxies appear to be moving apart) has been constant over the history of the universe, we can calculate how long ago the galaxies began their separation.
This should tell us the time that the expansion began, which should give us an estimate of the age of the universe…”
Notice the quote above starts with: “If we agree that Hubble’s Law…”.
It is not an absolute fact that it is expanding, it has just got the most votes from scientists.
So Hubble’s Law is: v = Ho d
- where v is the velocity of a receding galaxy (typically expressed in km/s)
- d is the distance to the galaxy
- Ho is the Hubble’s constant.
Hubble’s Law is based on the ‘Redshift’ of distant galaxies.
Redshift can be explained like this:
Doppler, an Austrian mathematician, discovered that the frequency of sound waves changes if the source of sound and the observer are moving relative to each other.‘What is ‘red-shift’?’ by The European Space Agency 6
If the two are approaching, then the frequency heard by the observer is higher;
if they move away from each other, the frequency heard is lower…
Light behaves like a wave, so light from a luminous object undergoes a Doppler-like shift if the source is moving relative to us.
Ever since 1929, when Edwin Hubble discovered that the Universe is expanding, we have known that most other galaxies are moving away from us.
Light from these galaxies is shifted to longer (and this means redder) wavelengths – in other words, it is ‘red-shifted’…”
So to return to Hubble’s theory:
The velocity of the galaxies has been determined by their redshift, a shift of the light they emit toward the red end of the spectrum.Wikipedia Hubble’s Law 7
Hubble’s law is considered the first observational basis for the expansion of the universe, and today it serves as one of the pieces of evidence most often cited in support of the Big Bang model.
The motion of astronomical objects due solely to this expansion is known as the Hubble flow…”
A calculation is then made and the age of the universe comes out at:
14.4 billion years…Wikipedia Hubble’s law 8
This is slightly different from the age of the universe which is approximately 13.8 billion years.
The Hubble time is the age it would have had if the expansion had been linear, and it is different from the real age of the universe because the expansion is not linear;
they are related by a dimensionless factor which depends on the mass-energy content of the universe, which is around 0.96 in the standard ΛCDM model…”
See this article on how science is in a state of flux and changes from one theory to another.
Could Hubble’s Law be wrong in providing the age of the universe?
Not all scientists agree with using Hubble’s Law:
Wikipedia talking about Halton Arp states that he was:
known as a critic of the Big Bang theory and for advocating a non-standard cosmology incorporating intrinsic redshift…Wikipedia Halton Arp page 9
(He) performed research at the Mount Wilson Observatory and Palomar Observatory, became a Research Assistant at Indiana University in 1955.
In 1957 he became a staff member at Palomar Observatory, where he worked for 29 years.
In 1983 he joined the staff of the Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics in Germany.
He died in Munich, Germany on December 28, 2013.
He was an atheist…
Arp never wavered from his stand against the Big Bang, and until shortly before his death in 2013, he continued to publish articles stating his contrary view in both popular and scientific literature, frequently collaborating with Geoffrey Burbidge (until Burbidge’s death in 2010) and Margaret Burbidge.
He explained his reasons for believing that the Big Bang theory is wrong, citing his research into quasars or quasi-stellar objects (QSOs).
Instead, Arp supported the redshift quantization theory as an explanation of the redshifts of galaxies…”
Halton Arp, an atheist, believed that he could see errors in the Big Bang theory and the use of Hubble’s Law to calculate the age of the universe.
He wrote in one of his books:
But if the cause of these redshifts is misunderstood, then distances can be wrong by factors of 10 to 100, and luminosities and masses will be wrong by factors up to 10,000.‘Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science’ (1998) by Halton Arp page 1.
We would have a totally erroneous picture of extragalactic space, and be faced with one of the most embarrassing boondoggles in our intellectual history…”
Putting a wrong conclusion on the cause of Redshifts would give yet another dodgy piece of evidence for the Big Bang to be correct.
Arp argued that the redshift was not due to Hubble expansion or physical movement of the objects, but must have a non-cosmological or “intrinsic” origin, and that quasars were local objects ejected from the core of active galactic nuclei (AGN).Wikipedia Halton Arp page 10
Nearby galaxies with both strong radio emission and peculiar morphologies, particularly M87 and Centaurus A, appeared to support Arp’s hypothesis…”
Evolutionists quote that these things prove evolution: anatomy, molecular homology, biogeography, fossils and direct observation, but they don’t.
How do Christians feel when scientists seem to be saying that the Bible is wrong and evolution is right?
But Scientists are not always correct.
We, and scientists, can get a thrill from how this world is constructed. Are there physical scientific laws that have been set up by a non-human Mathematician or Designer?
Many scientists believe that God created the universe and even in the account in Genesis.
4. The scientific community question Big Bang’s validity
John Horgan in 2017 wrote an article: ‘Is a Popular Theory of Cosmic Creation Pseudoscience? – Physicists battle over whether the theory of inflation is untestable, and hence not really scientific’ in Scientific American’:
The theory holds that in the first instant of the big bang, the universe underwent a tremendous, exponential growth spurt before settling down to the slower rate of expansion observed today.‘Is a Popular Theory of Cosmic Creation Pseudoscience?’ by John Horgan 11
First conceived in the early 1980s, inflation quickly became popular, because it seemed to account for puzzling features of the observable universe.
Inflation explains, supposedly, why the universe looks quite similar in all directions and yet isn’t entirely uniform, since it contains galaxies and other clumps of matter.
By the early 1990s, some cosmologists were beginning to doubt inflation…
Almost 40 years after their inception, inflation and string theory are in worse shape than ever.
The persistence of these unfalsifiable and hence unscientific theories is an embarrassment that risks damaging science’s reputation at a time when science can ill afford it.
Isn’t it time to pull the plug?”
A number of scientists doubt the evidence for the Big Bang and here is a stinging statement by 33 top Scientists:
The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed– inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples.‘An Open Letter to the Scientific Community’ Cosmology Statement.org (Published in New Scientist, May 22-28 issue, 2004, p. 20) 12
Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory.
In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation.
It would, at the least, RAISE SERIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF THE UNDERLYING THEORY.
But the big bang theory can’t survive without these fudge factors.
Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation.
Without some kind of dark matter, unlike any that we have observed on Earth despite 20 years of experiments, big-bang theory makes contradictory predictions for the density of matter in the universe.
Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory’s explanation of the origin of the light elements.
And without dark energy, the theory predicts that the universe is only about 8 billion years old, which is billions of years younger than the age of many stars in our galaxy.
What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation.
The successes claimed by the theory’s supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centred cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.”
5. Does the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation prove the Big Bang?
There is a ‘glow’ that fills the entire Universe which is visible as microwaves – part of the Electromagnetic Spectrum.
The Big Bang theory suggests that there should be a ‘glow’ of microwave radiation from the eruption.
The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) has been accurately measured by orbiting detectors, and many scientists and astronomers believe that this is very good evidence for the Big Bang theory being correct: 13
The discovery of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) in 1964 confirmed a key prediction of the Big Bang cosmology. From that point on, it was generally accepted that the universe started in a hot, dense state and has been expanding over time.‘Lambda-CDM model’ Wikipedia 14
The rate of expansion depends on the types of matter and energy present in the universe, and in particular, whether the total density is above or below the so-called critical density.
During the 1970s, most attention focused on pure-baryonic*** models, but there were serious challenges explaining the formation of galaxies, given the small anisotropies* in the CMB** (upper limits at that time).
In the early 1980s, it was realized that this could be resolved if cold dark matter dominated over the baryons***, and the theory of cosmic inflation motivated models with critical density.
During the 1980s, most research focused on cold dark matter with critical density in matter, around 95% CDM**** and 5% baryons***:
these showed success at forming galaxies and clusters of galaxies, but problems remained;
notably, the model required a Hubble constant lower than preferred by observations, and observations around 1988–1990 showed more large-scale galaxy clustering than predicted.
These difficulties sharpened with the discovery of CMB anisotropy* by the Cosmic Background Explorer in 1992, and several modified CDM models, including ΛCDM and mixed cold and hot dark matter, came under active consideration through the mid-1990s.”
* anisotropies is having a physical property which has a different value when measured in different directions.
** cosmic microwave background (CMB or CMBR)
*** baryons are a type of composite subatomic particles which contain an odd number of valence quarks.
**** CDM is Cold Dark Matter.
The quote continues:
The ΛCDM model then became the leading model following the observations of accelerating expansion in 1998, and was quickly supported by other observations:‘Lambda-CDM model’ Wikipedia 15
in 2000, the BOOMERanG microwave background experiment measured the total (matter–energy) density to be close to 100% of critical, whereas in 2001 the 2dFGRS galaxy redshift survey measured the matter density to be near 25%;
the large difference between these values supports a positive Λ or dark energy.
Much more precise spacecraft measurements of the microwave background from WMAP in 2003–2010 and Planck in 2013–2015 have continued to support the model and pin down the parameter values, most of which are now constrained below 1 percent uncertainty.
There is currently active research into many aspects of the ΛCDM model, both to refine the parameters and possibly detect deviations.
In addition, ΛCDM has no explicit physical theory for the origin or physical nature of dark matter or dark energy…”
Could the interpretation of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation be wrong?
As we have said, the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation theory is widely accepted by the scientific community, but there are a few dissenters who believe that there is a lack evidence for the Big Bang:
A large majority of astronomers and astrophysicists support the ΛCDM model or close relatives of it,‘Lambda-CDM model’ Wikipedia 16
but Milgrom#, McGaugh##, and Kroupa### are leading critics, attacking the dark matter portions of the theory from the perspective of galaxy formation models and supporting the alternative modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND) theory, which requires a modification of the Einstein field equations and the Friedmann equations as seen in proposals such as modified gravity theory (MOG theory) or tensor–vector–scalar gravity theory (TeVeS theory).
Other proposals by theoretical astrophysicists of cosmological alternatives to Einstein’s general relativity that attempt to account for dark energy or dark matter include f(R) gravity, scalar–tensor theories such as Galileon theories, brane cosmologies, the DGP model, and massive gravity and its extensions such as bimetric gravity.”
# Mordehai “Moti” Milgrom is an Israeli physicist and professor in the department of Particle Physics and Astrophysics at the Weizmann Institute in Rehovot, Israel.
In 1981, he proposed Modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND) as an alternative to the dark matter and galaxy rotation curve problems. Milgrom suggests that Newton’s Second Law be modified for very small accelerations. 17
## Stacy McGaugh is an American astronomer and professor in the Department of Astronomy at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio. His fields of speciality include low surface brightness galaxies, galaxy formation and evolution, tests of dark matter and alternative hypotheses and measurements of cosmological parameters. 18
### Pavel Kroupa is a Czech-Australian astrophysicist and professor at the University of Bonn with Carsten Weidner, formulated the “IGIMF (integrated galactic initial mass function) theory, with Ulrich Bastian, which took the first precise measurement of the spatial movement of two extragalactic systems. In 1997 he also discovered stellar-dynamic solutions for the satellite galaxies of the Milky Way without the need for exotic dark matter, etc. 19
In the context of the present cosmological paradigm, ΛCDM, there are two major constituents of the Universe for which the only evidence is astronomical.‘A historical perspective on modified Newtonian dynamics’ by R.H. Sanders in The Canadian Journal of Physics 11 June 2014
There is dark energy, perhaps represented by a cosmological constant in Einstein’s equations.
This medium, comprising 70% of the energy density of the Universe, causes the observed present accelerated expansion evidenced by supernovae in distant galaxies and makes up the energy difference necessary for closure of the Universe.
And then there is cold dark matter — hypothetical particles, beyond the standard model of particle physics — comprising 25% of the Universe and interacting with baryonic matter (the remaining 5%) primarily through the force of gravity…
Here the cosmological paradigm impinges upon the dynamics of these well-observed local systems and should, in principle, be testable. And here it fails.
The evidence supporting the standard cosmological paradigm is said to be so overwhelming that there is little room for doubt.
This is in spite of the fact that the most well-motivated dark matter particles — supersymmetric partners — should be detectable in terrestrial experiments via the rare scattering of atomic nuclei.
In fact such events have never been seen in spite of considerable effort and expense invested in particle dark matter search experiments.
Lawrence Maxwell Krauss (mentioned in the next quote) is an American-Canadian theoretical physicist and cosmologist who previously taught at Arizona State University, Yale University, and Case Western Reserve University.
He is an anti-theist (typically refers to direct opposition to the belief in any deity.) 20
Physicist/cosmologist Lawrence Krauss recently convened a physics conference on St. Thomas, which included an all-star cast of cutting-edge theorists and physicists.‘The Energy of Empty Space that isn’t Zero’ A Talk With Lawrence M. Krauss 21
The topic of the meeting was ‘Confronting Gravity.’
Krauss intended to have ‘a meeting where people would look forward to the key issues facing fundamental physics and cosmology’.”
Lawrence Krauss finished his article with these words:
when you look at CMB map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun.‘The Energy of Empty Space that isn’t Zero’ A Talk With Lawrence M. Krauss 22
Is this Copernicus* coming back to haunt us? That’s crazy.
We’re looking out at the whole universe.
There’s no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun — the plane of the earth around the sun — the ecliptic.
That would say we are truly the center of the universe.
The new results are either telling us that all of science is wrong and we’re the center of the universe, or maybe the data is imply incorrect, or maybe it’s telling us there’s something weird about the microwave background results and that maybe, maybe there’s something wrong with our theories on the larger scales. And of course as a theorist I’m certainly hoping it’s the latter, because I want theory to be wrong, not right, because if it’s wrong there’s still work left for the rest of us.”
* Nicolaus Copernicus was a Renaissance-era mathematician, astronomer, and Catholic canon who formulated a model of the universe that placed the Sun rather than Earth at the centre of the universe.
From a Creation scientists viewpoint:
The missing dark matter in galaxies, galaxy clusters, and the whole universe, and the smoothness of the CMB radiation create unassailable problems in the formation of stars and galaxies in the ‘early universe’.‘Recent Cosmic Microwave Background data supports creationist cosmologies’ by John G. Hartnett 24
Prof. Stephen Hawking in his book said,
‘This [big bang] picture of the universe … is in agreement with all the observational evidence that we have today’,
But admitted, ‘Nevertheless, it leaves a number of important questions unanswered ….’ 23
The important questions left unanswered, of course, concern how stars and galaxies could have originated.”
John G. Hartnett says that there is something fundamentally wrong with the notion of finding Dark Matter to solve the ‘missing pieces’ of the Big Bang theory:
But for more than 40 years now dark matter has been sought in various lab experiments with consistently negative results.Hartnett, J.G., ‘SUSY is not the solution to the dark matter crisis’ 28
This has developed into what is called the dark matter crisis. 25
Occasionally a claim is made that a theorist has some inkling of what dark matter particles might be; but the crisis remains. 26
Dark matter particles have been sought without success in the galaxy using very sensitive detectors deep in underground mines, 27 or with the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) over 10 years of experiments looking for the lowest mass stable particle in a theorised class of as-yet-undiscovered supersymmetric particles.”
6. Alternative theories to the dark matter hypothesis
a) Modified Newtonian dynamics
Several independent observations point to the fact that the visible mass in galaxies and galaxy clusters is insufficient to account for their dynamics when analysed using Newton’s laws.
This discrepancy – known as the “missing mass problem” – was first identified in 1933.
While Newton’s Laws predict that stellar rotation velocities should decrease with distance from the galactic centre, Vera Rubin and collaborators found instead that they remain almost constant – the rotation curves are said to be ‘flat’.
This observation necessitates at least one of the following:
- Dark matter: There exists in galaxies large quantities of unseen matter which boosts the stars’ velocities beyond what would be expected based on the visible mass alone, or
- Modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND): Newton’s Laws do not apply to galaxies.
The basic premise of MOND is that while Newton’s laws have been extensively tested in high-acceleration environments (in the Solar System and on Earth), they have not been verified for objects with extremely low acceleration, such as stars in the outer parts of galaxies.
Milgrom suggested a new effective gravitational force law for low-acceleration objects.
The majority of astronomers, astrophysicists, and cosmologists accept dark matter as the explanation for galactic rotation curves (based on general relativity, and hence Newtonian mechanics), and are committed to a dark matter solution to the missing-mass problem.
MOND, by contrast, is actively studied by only a handful of researchers. 29
Bill Worraker responds to the scientific world hanging so much on the Big Bang theory when it has got so much missing evidence for the Big Bang:
Not only have objects such as white dwarf stars, brown dwarfs, black holes and neutrinos been proposed to account for the dark matter, but also various exotic hypothetical objects including gravitinos, photinos, axions, magnetic monopoles, WIMPs and MACHOs. 30‘MOND over dark matter?’ by Bill Worraker 39
But, we ask, is all this really good science?
To begin with, the presence of dark matter has recently been called into question in Creationist 31 32 and in general astronomical literature. 33 34 35 36
The recent detection of faint white dwarf stars allegedly belonging to the Milky Way halo population was hailed as revealing a sample of the elusive dark matter. 37
However, these stars more probably belong to a thick galactic disk population. 38 …
What interest do creationists have in MOND, a purely mechanistic theory, which was not developed with origins in mind?
First, creationist astronomers and cosmologists should be aware of developments which, at least indirectly, impinge on our understanding of the astronomical data relevant to creation.
Moreover the remarkably successful predictions of MOND could be pointing to the need for fundamentally new physics at a time when we are hearing that human understanding of the physical universe is nearly complete!
MOND exposes deep cracks behind the self-confident façade of modern uniformitarian cosmology and thus reminds us of the fallibility of scientific paradigms, especially when they have been developed in ignorance of the Creator.”
And Dr John Hartnett also responds:
But the reason it (Dark Matter) is invoked is because the standard LCDM big bang model does not work without it and dark energy.‘Claimed dark matter ‘find’ won’t help end ‘big bang’ crisis’ by Dr John Hartnett 40
It is woefully found wanting.
There are some mainstream people now discussing “discarding” the standard model because of what they call the “dark matter crisis”.
If you base your theology on the big bang—because it has an origin in time—then you are ignoring the elephant in the room.”
On August 19, 2016, the “SUSY Bet” event took place in Copenhagen at the conference on ‘Current Themes in High Energy Physics and Cosmology’.
SUSY is supersymmetry, a proposed type of spacetime symmetry that relates two basic classes of elementary particles.
From 2000 the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) should have collected enough experimental data to confirm or deny the existence of the supersymmetric particles and particles with sufficiently low masses should have been discovered.
But nothing has been found:
With the non-detection of any SUSY particles and the essential demise of string theory (that is how good experimental physics should work) it also does not bode well for dark matter.‘SUSY is not the solution to the dark matter crisis’ by John Gideon Hartnett 41
The dark matter crisis has just gotten into a bigger crisis.
The best candidate has been experimentally shown now to be extremely improbable.
Where does that leave dark matter and the standard model of particle physics?
Where does that leave the standard big bang model and big bang nucleosynthesis? In big big trouble.
It is a failed paradigm and should be discarded.”
b) Scalar–tensor–vector gravity (STVG)
STVG is also referred to as MOG (MOdified Gravity) and is a modified theory of gravity developed by John Moffat, a researcher at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Ontario.
STVG has been used successfully to explain galaxy rotation curves 42, the mass profiles of galaxy clusters 43 , gravitational lensing in the Bullet Cluster 44 and cosmological observations 45 without the need for dark matter.‘Scalar–tensor–vector gravity’ Wikipedia 48
On a smaller scale, in the Solar System, STVG predicts no observable deviation from general relativity. 46
The theory may also offer an explanation for the origin of inertia. 47
c) Cosmic Inflation
Cosmic Inflation is a theory of the increased expansion of space in the hypothesized Big Bang, proposed by physicist Alan Guth in 1979 while investigating the problem of why no magnetic monopoles (a hypothetical elementary particle that is an isolated magnet with only one magnetic pole) is seen today.
He found that if the universe contained a field in a positive-energy false vacuum state, then according to general relativity it would generate an increased expansion of space and would resolve many other long-standing problems.
No physical scalar field has yet been discovered that is responsible for this inflation.
If this field did not exist, scientists would have to propose a different explanation for all the observations that strongly suggest a metric expansion of space has occurred and is still occurring (much more slowly) today.
It explains the origin of the large-scale structure of the cosmos…‘Inflation (cosmology)’ Wikipedia 51
Many physicists also believe that inflation explains why the universe appears to be the same in all directions (isotropic), why the cosmic microwave background radiation is distributed evenly, why the universe is flat, and why no magnetic monopoles have been observed.
The detailed particle physics mechanism responsible for inflation is unknown.
The basic inflationary paradigm is accepted by most physicists, as a number of inflation model predictions have been confirmed by observation;*
however, a substantial minority of scientists dissent from this position. 49 50
The hypothetical field thought to be responsible for inflation is called the inflaton.”
* In fact temperature anisotropies observed by the COBE satellite in 1992 exhibit nearly scale-invariant spectra as predicted by the inflationary paradigm. Recent observations of WMAP also show strong evidence for inflation. 52
Inflation theory has many problems and these need to be solved: fine-tuning, eternal inflation, initial conditions, etc. 53
7. Astrolab: testable, repeatable, observable… and 100% wrong
I like this comment by dewcoons (below) which basically says that throughout history the scientific community could ‘prove’ that their theory of the universe was correct, but as time went on their theory was found to be wrong:
Have you ever seen an Astrolab? (Do you even know what one was? Most people don’t.)Comment by dewcoons on Yahoo! Answers 54
It was a model of the universe that showed the movements of the plants, moon, sun and stars.
It was able to explain every known visible object and movement in the sky.
At the time they were build (centuries ago) they were probably the most complex machinery that man could build.
They perfectly demonstrated how the universe worked, and help many astronomers and others to develop theories on future movements of celestials object, etc.
They were great because they tied in perfectly with existing physics and math, showing how the different planet’s movement perfectly fit the five solid objects of geometry.
They mean everything needed for the “scientific process” – testable, repeatable, observable… and 100% wrong.“
Dewcoons comment continues:
The Astrolab was the scientific proof that the earth was the center of the universe, the sun revolved around the earth, and stars were in a fixed “bowl” of firmament that covered the flat earth.Comment by dewcoons on Yahoo! Answers 56
Every single thing needed to support that theory scientifically was there.
And it all worked perfectly with the evidence that we had.
But was completely wrong.
Since the time of telescope, we have learned a lot about out world, solar system and the universe around us.
It is bigger, bolder and more beautiful that anyone had imagined.
But we are also discovering every year that things we have learned through the telescope are just as wrong as the Astrolab. There are no channels on Mars, even though science had mapped and named them all.
Saturn does not have a ring, it has a series of thousands of rings, as do Jupiter, Neptune and Uranus.
From where we sit in the universe, we appear to see an expanding universe.
There is a Doppler Effect.
But from where we sit on earth, the sun appear to orbit us and is the same size as the moon.
Sorry, but we have not gotten to where we can observe the nature of the universe from anything but our little 0.0000000001% (if that) of the observable universe.
It is possible that the universe is expanding.
It is also possible that we may be sitting in a small area of the universe that is expanding.
It is also possible that we are in a universe that orbits a central point, and we would see a “right shift” in the movement of objects and an expanding of space between them because we are on the “inside” of the orbiting circle.
None of us know for certain.
The Big Bang is not the only possible answer to what we see in the universe.
Nor is an expanding universe…”
Are the scientists saying that all the evidence for the Big Bang is complete, testable, repeatable and observable.
8. Does Evolution attempt to gag God?
The main problem is that all scientific theories have to fit in with billions of years because secular scientists can see no other way of getting to this high level of complexity which, in their minds, needs all that time for it to evolve.
The bottom line is that many scientists seem to be saying: ‘Anything, but not God.’
Is the Big Bang in crisis? Stubborn problems with dark matter, dark energy, and cosmic expansion have some astronomers rethinking what we know about the early universe:
As I said earlier, it’s possible that the various puzzles cosmologists face today are little more than a few trivial threads that scientists will tie up nicely in the years ahead with the help of new experiments and observations. But lately, it seems the more we study the universe, the less we understand it. Despite decades of effort, the nature of dark matter remains unknown, and the problem of dark energy seems nearly intractable. We do not know how the particles that make up the atoms in our universe managed to survive the first moments of the Big Bang, and we still know little about cosmic inflation, how it played out, or how it came to an end — assuming that something like inflation happened at all.‘Is the Big Bang in crisis?’ by Dan Hooper May 14, 2020. Astronomy.com 57
It is from this perspective that I sometimes find myself considering whether these mysteries might represent something greater than a few open and unrelated questions. Perhaps they are telling us that the earliest moments of our universe were far different from what we long imagined them to be. Perhaps these problems represent the beginning of a revolution for the science of cosmology.
The Bible starts with the most amazing words that explain its beginning:
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.Genesis 1:1-3 ESV
The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
And God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light.”
The Bible text does not tell us how much time elapsed between God’s initially creating and the earth being without form. It could have been seconds, or it could have been millennia.
But whatever it is, those words are the most precise, trustworthy words we will ever hear.
9. Let’s learn a lesson from some bath water!
How did the universe begin, was it a Big Bang or did things instantly appear as God created planets, stars, moons, etc?
No human was there at the beginning of the world, so we have to look back and make the best guess we can.
We will have to come up with a theory. So let’s do a practical demonstration:
You come home one evening and find the bath is half filled with hot water – say 50 deg Centigrade.
How long has the water been in the bath? The answer is easy, right?
Well, there could be several theories, let’s give them some names:
- The Super Hot Theory:
The water came out of the tap at nearly 90 deg C and no cold water was added, so it has taken a long time to cool to this temperature.
- The Precipitation Theory:
Some cold water was added so the starting temperature was about 75 deg C and has been cooling for about half an hour.
- The 50:50 Theory:
It has only been run a few minutes earlier because hot and cold water was added to give the desired temperature of 50 deg C.
Which theory is right? We could debate this until the cows come home.
Any one of those three theories could be right, but the sensible thing to do is ask the person who ran the bath!
Scientists have their theories on how the earth began, but it is potentially impossible to scientifically prove because no human was there when it happened.
If we believe that God is not restricted to the laws of nature, then anything is possible.
He could create the earth from nothing instantly or over many years, whatever he chose to do.
From the Genesis account God created everything instantly and with an apparent age.
10. Evolution attacks the main witness for God:
So if we believe in the whole Evolution concept then, we would believe that all the wonderfully diverse insects, mammals, fish, and plant life have evolved from simple molecules.
Then natural selection happens and the fittest, best-adapted creatures and plants increase and there have been multitudes of chance happenings over millions of years.
By promoting evolution God is removed from the picture.
The world around us is no longer created by a Superior Being, but it is self contained, and self sufficient.
Everything to create life, and sustain life (so Evolutionists reckon) is already here, not God.
By removing God from our world, we remove any requirements and expectations that God puts upon us.
Then there is no need for us to surrender to the great Creator, the all sustaining God.
Unbelieving people find that this eases their conscience.
But there is a voice that tells us to look to God.
This witness speaks twenty-four hours a day, and in every country in the world and has borne witness to the Creator God, ever since the world began.
This witness is the created world, because the Psalmist wrote:
The heavens declare the glory of God;Psalms 19:1-2 NIV
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they display knowledge.”
This witness says “All this is made by God!”
So man has put in a louder voice that shouts out: “All this, by chance and evolution.”
For thousands of years this witness has stood, proclaiming the Truth about the Creator and Designer of all things.
Suddenly that witness has been challenged, and many people have judged it to be a false witness, and they have stopped listening to that witness.
That is how important the subject of Evolution is when it is blindly accepted without question.
Are scientists clutching at straws – anything but God
The Big Bang has many unsolved problems: blue stars have a limited life and are therefore very young, but no such star formation has been observed and there is no known mechanism for it to happen.
Then there is the unanswered non-retention of neutron stars which is a problem. So how old is the universe?
Many scientists believe in God and the creation in Genesis.
The Bible states that all of humanity came from one woman, Eve, and when the three child-bearing ladies left Noah’s Ark they formed three core groups. Many scientists reject that.
But now modern genetics is showing that there are three main mitochondrial lineages and that they can trace all of humanity back to one woman who they commonly call Mitochondrial Eve!
Also, dog breeds do NOT prove evolution.
References – open in new tabs:
‘What’s the difference between dark matter and dark energy?’ By Eric Betz. March 3, 2020. Astronomy.com ↩
‘How much of the universe is dark matter?’ By Paul Sutter. November 26, 2022. Live Science. ↩
Brownstein, J. R.; Moffat, J. W. (2007). “The Bullet Cluster 1E0657-558 evidence shows Modified Gravity in the absence of Dark Matter”. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. 382 (1): 29–47. arXiv:astro-ph/0702146 ↩
The John A. Dutton e-Education Institute is the learning design unit of the College of Earth and Mineral Sciences at The Pennsylvania State University. ↩
‘Is a Popular Theory of Cosmic Creation Pseudoscience?’ by John Horgan. Live Science. ↩
‘An Open Letter to the Scientific Community’ Cosmology Statement.org (Published in New Scientist, May 22-28 issue, 2004, p. 20) Rense.com ↩
‘Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation’ by The Physics of the Universe ↩
‘The Energy of Empty Space that isn’t Zero‘ A Talk With Lawrence M. Krauss ↩
Hawking, S., A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes, Bantam Press, London, 1988. ↩
Livio, M., The Accelerating Universe, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 2000. ↩
Kroupa, P., The dark matter crisis: problems with the current standard model of cosmology and steps towards an improved model. ↩
Hartnett, J.G., Claimed dark matter ‘find’ won’t help end ‘big bang’ crisis ↩
Hartnett, J.G., SUSY is not the solution to the dark matter crisis ↩
Livio, M., The Accelerating Universe, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 2000. ↩
Oard, M. and Sarfati, J., No dark matter found in the Milky Way galaxy, Journal of Creation 13(1):3–4, 1999. ↩
DeYoung, D.B., Dark matter, CRSQ 36(4):177–182, 2000. ↩
Lucentini, J.A., Handle on dark matter? Sky and Telescope 103(1):16–17, (News Notes, January 2002), 2002. ↩
Olling, R.P. and Merrifield, M.R., Luminous and dark matter in the Milky Way, MNRAS 326(1):164–180, 2001. ↩
Binney, J.J. and Evans, N.W., Cuspy dark matter haloes and the galaxy, MNRAS 327(2), pp. L27–L31, 2001. ↩
Governato, F., Moore, B., Cen, R., Stadel, J., Lake, G. and Quinn, T., The Local Group as a Test of cosmological models, New Astronomy 2(2):91–106, 1997. ↩
Oppenheimer, B.R., Hambly, N.C., Digby, A.P., Hodgkin, S.T. and Saumon, D., Direct detection of galactic halo dark matter, Science 292(5517):698–702, 2001. ↩
Reid, I.N., Sahu, K.C. and Hawley, S.L., High-velocity white dwarfs: thick disk, not dark matter, Ap. J. 559(2):942–947, 2001. ↩
Hartnett, J.G., Claimed dark matter ‘find’ won’t help end ‘big bang’ crisis ↩
Hartnett, J.G., SUSY is not the solution to the dark matter crisis ↩
Brownstein, J. R.; Moffat, J. W. (2006). “Galaxy Rotation Curves Without Non-Baryonic Dark Matter”. Astrophysical Journal. 636 (2): 721–741. arXiv:astro-ph/0506370 ↩
Brownstein, J. R.; Moffat, J. W. (2006). “Galaxy Cluster Masses Without Non-Baryonic Dark Matter”. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. 367 (2): 527–540. arXiv:astro-ph/0507222 ↩
Brownstein, J. R.; Moffat, J. W. (2007). “The Bullet Cluster 1E0657-558 evidence shows Modified Gravity in the absence of Dark Matter”. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. 382 (1): 29–47. arXiv:astro-ph/0702146 ↩
Moffat, J. W.; Toth, V. T. (2007). “Modified Gravity: Cosmology without dark matter or Einstein’s cosmological constant”. arXiv:0710.0364 ↩
Moffat, J. W.; Toth, V. T. (2008). “Testing modified gravity with globular cluster velocity dispersions”. Astrophysical Journal. 680 (2): 1158–1161. arXiv:0708.1935 ↩
Moffat, J. W.; Toth, V. T. (2009). “Modified gravity and the origin of inertia”. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society Letters. 395 (1): L25. arXiv:0710.3415 ↩
Steinhardt, Paul J. (2011). “The inflation debate: Is the theory at the heart of modern cosmology deeply flawed?”. Scientific American. Vol. 304, no. 4. pp. 18–25. Bibcode:2011SciAm.304d..36S. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0411-36. PMID 21495480 ↩
Earman, John; Mosterín, Jesús (March 1999). “A Critical Look at Inflationary Cosmology”. Philosophy of Science. 66 (1): 1–49. doi:10.1086/392675 ↩
Tsujikawa, Shinji (28 April 2003). “Introductory review of cosmic inflation“. arXiv:hep-ph/0304257 ↩
Jacopo188, CC BY-SA 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0, via Wikimedia Commons ↩
‘Is the Big Bang in crisis?’ by Dan Hooper May 14, 2020. Astronomy.com ↩
Images: thanks to Serif Resource CD ↩