Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Astronomers Celebrate Reliable Measure of Dark Matter
space.com ^ | 10.29.01 | Heather Sparks

Posted on 10/30/2001 5:19:42 AM PST by callisto

Scientists are closer than ever to balancing the checkbook of cosmic matter. This is because two recent independent measurements of normal matter in the universe are in agreement. The results further strengthen the case for the Big Bang theory and for the nature of the universe as astronomers understand it today.

The universe contains normal atomic matter, what makes you, your dog, the stars, and everything in between. Normal matter is what Carl Sagan was talking about when he said we are all star-stuff.

But in addition to star-stuff, there is invisible dark matter that is known only because the universe is denser than normal matter alone, as evidenced by how structures, like clusters of galaxies, are bound together by gravity. Even individual galaxies don't have enough normal matter in them -- that which can be directly detected -- to keep them from simply flying apart.

Now, through different measurements of conditions existing at the very start of time, astronomers are beginning to see the light.

"There is more than one way of measuring the total amount of matter in the universe," said astronomer Brian Fields from the Center for Theoretical Astrophysics at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. "And if you have an idea of how much normal stuff there is to all the universe, then you know how much other stuff there is, too."

Creation of normal matter

All the "normal stuff" is thought to have been made in two steps, one occurring when the universe was roughly three minutes old, and the other some 300,000 years later.

According to the leading theory, an enormous nuclear explosion called the Big Bang happened 13 billion to 15 billion years ago. From it, the universe appeared in an instant, but as a billion-degree mess of neutrons, protons and electrons. The explosion was so energetic that nothing could come together close enough, for long enough, to form atoms. But the universe expanded and cooled so rapidly that within three minutes protons and neutrons bonded in twos and fours, and formed all the atomic nuclei in the universe. This Big Bang Nucleosynthesis determined how much normal matter would ever exist.

Just how much matter that was can be estimated from observing the most recently formed stars and galaxies, because they are fueled by the hydrogen atoms formed from those original nuclei of twos.

Fields explained that young stars, like our Sun, are just now fusing that original hydrogen into helium whereas older stars fuse helium into oxygen and iron. Because the hydrogen fuel has not been converted, scientists are able to measure the proportion of original normal matter to dark matter.

"Stars change the amount of hydrogen and helium in the universe," he said, "and we want to know what the Big Bang did. So we have to find places where pollution from stars is minimal" to estimate the original amounts of normal and dark matter.

But before any stars could form, hydrogen atoms had to exist. This took 300,000 years after the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis the universe had to cool down enough so that electrons could bind with the nuclei.

Once this happened, there was a curious side effect: the creation of light in the Universe. Unbound electrons scattered the UV radiation from the Big Bang, but once the electrons were bound, the radiation was allowed uniform movement, thus, light was finally released in the young cosmos.

This light has existed since then, travelling along the edge of the universe, stretching and weakening into a still measurable microwave radiation, called the Cosmic Microwave Background, or CMB as astronomers call it.

Weak attraction

At the time of the original release of light, dark matter had congregated in clumps, which created small fields of gravity that eventually pulled in normal matter as well. Images of the CMB are therefore mostly smooth, but have spots, or wiggles, of slight variation, a result of the dark and normal matter pooling together.

"The nature of these 'wiggles' is basically saying how the normal matter was responding to that crazy dark matter," explained Fields, "by amplifying the places where the extra density was."

The CMB, most recently measured by highly sensitive probes in Antarctica, therefore gives a detailed measure of the proportion of normal to dark matter.

Phenomenally, both the measurements of young galaxies and of the cosmic microwave background showed that normal matter makes up just one-tenth of the universe. The rest must be dark matter, researchers say. Fields, who wrote about this astronomical agreement in the Oct. 19 issue of the journal Science, explained why this is causing astronomers to "bring out the bubbly."

"It didn't have to be true," Fields explained, "because they're completely independent things. It's just gorgeous that they agree with each other."

Earlier studies had showed that dark matter made up anywhere from 85 to 95 percent of the universe. Only now do the two different measures of dark matter agree. Now, 90 percent of everything is known to be virtually nothing.


TOPICS: Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: stringtheory

1 posted on 10/30/2001 5:19:42 AM PST by callisto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: callisto
"Normal matter is what Carl Sagan was talking about when he said we are all star-stuff."

One of the few things Carl (The Village Idiot) Sagan said that he got right. Otherwise an interesting article.

Carl was a poor scientist who forgot the most important rule of Science...that what we speculate on is not fact but theory. Just because Carl says it is true doesn't make it so. Besides he was a pot head.
2 posted on 10/30/2001 5:27:08 AM PST by Conan the Librarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Conan the Librarian
Besides he was a pot head.

What does that have to do with anything?

3 posted on 10/30/2001 5:47:43 AM PST by Lysander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Lysander
Its a crime to use pot. If he doesn't have enough respect for the US to obay its laws, why did he bother to live here. There is no area of the Consitiution that says we can choose to obay one law and not another because we don't like that law. Its thinking like that that got us Bill Clinton and the terror attacks. If you don't like a law, work to get it changed, don't just ignore it.

Besides, Intoxicating substances don't help the thought processes.
4 posted on 10/30/2001 5:59:34 AM PST by Conan the Librarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: callisto
Earlier studies had showed that dark matter made up anywhere from 85 to 95 percent of the universe. Only now do the two different measures of dark matter agree. Now, 90 percent of everything is known to be virtually nothing.

First off, if all the matter in the universe had ever been in one place (i.e. prior to the "big bang(TM)"), it would have amounted to the biggest black hole imaginable and nothing would ever have blasted its way out of that.

Second, if this "dark matter(TM)" were actually 90% of the mass of the universe, you'd be vacuuming it off your carpets every day, and not just five or ten vacuum-cleaner bags either. All of the conjecture about MACHOs, WIMPs (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles) and other sundry forms of dark matter are a bunch of BS. What all of that stuff amounts to and a much better acronym for all of it is Fabricated Ad-hoc Inventions Repeatedly Invoked in an Effort to Defend Untenable Scientific Theories, or FAIRIE DUST.

The whole thing is a load of BS. Astronomers and cosmologists have painted themselves into a total box by trying to insist that gravity chiefly governs the cosmos while anybody with an iota of common sense can look at spiral galaxies and similar cosmic phenomena and tell that he is seeing electrical, electromagnetic, and plasma phenomena. The notion of an expanding universe and a "big bang(TM)" are nothing more than logical requirements of a broken theory and a misinterpretation of redshift.

5 posted on 10/30/2001 6:12:17 AM PST by medved
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: medved
Are you intrigued by the "string" theory?
6 posted on 10/30/2001 6:16:49 AM PST by callisto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: medved
The notion of an expanding universe and a "big bang(TM)" are nothing more than logical requirements of a broken theory and a misinterpretation of redshift.

Wow. So you don't think glaxies are receding from each other? They can't be standing still (due to gravitational attraction), so you must think that they are moving toward each other. If so, where's the blue shift?
7 posted on 10/30/2001 6:17:45 AM PST by BikerNYC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: medved
Fabricated Ad-hoc Inventions Repeatedly Invoked in an Effort to Defend Untenable Scientific Theories, or FAIRIE DUST.

Eureka! I think you've discovered the secret.


8 posted on 10/30/2001 6:25:35 AM PST by FairWitness
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: callisto
"But before any stars could form, hydrogen atoms had to exist. This took 300,000 years after the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis the universe had to cool down enough so that electrons could bind with the nuclei.

Once this happened, there was a curious side effect: the creation of light in the Universe. Unbound electrons scattered the UV radiation from the Big Bang, but once the electrons were bound, the radiation was allowed uniform movement, thus, light was finally released in the young cosmos."

"1. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2.And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.3.And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."

Cosmology, with the Big Bang Theory postulating all of creation coming out of essentially nothing, in fact, supports more and more, the Old Testament. The creation of light after darkness carries this one step further. Atheistic cosmologists are VERY uncomfortable with the Big Bang Theory.

9 posted on 10/30/2001 6:35:15 AM PST by ZULU
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Conan the Librarian
"If you don't like a law, work to get it changed, don't just ignore it."

Into authoritarianism, you say? Next time you pass through Virginia, be mindful of these laws, all still technically in force:

Not only is it illegal to have sex with the lights on, one may not have sex in any position other than missionary.
There is a state law prohibiting "corrupt practices of bribery by any person other than candidates."
It is illegal to spit on sidewalk.
If one is not married, it is illegal for him to have sexual relations.
You may not have oral or anal sex.
Police radar detectors are illegal.
Citizens must honk their horn while passing other cars.
Children are not to go trick-or-treating on Halloween.
It is illegal to tickle women.

Be sure to honk as you go whizzing through the speed trap -- I'm sure the judge will understand your position.

You might want to check out Dumb Laws to be sure that you faithfully maintain your law-abiding standards. Or perhaps you insist that people obey only those laws you agree with? ;-)

10 posted on 10/30/2001 6:35:25 AM PST by OBAFGKM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: medved
"Astronomers and cosmologists have painted themselves into a total box by trying to insist that gravity chiefly governs the cosmos while anybody with an iota of common sense can look at spiral galaxies and similar cosmic phenomena and tell that he is seeing electrical, electromagnetic, and plasma phenomena."

Yeah. Any fool can plainly see your wisdom.

11 posted on 10/30/2001 6:37:48 AM PST by OBAFGKM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ZULU
"Atheistic cosmologists are VERY uncomfortable with the Big Bang Theory."

Not at all. It would be that exceedingly rare Biblical-literalist cosmologist who's having difficulties reconciling his beliefs, for time itself begins with the Big Bang.

There is no such thing as a time "before" the Big Bang when God could roll up his sleeves to do His creating.

12 posted on 10/30/2001 6:45:42 AM PST by OBAFGKM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

Comment #13 Removed by Moderator

To: OBAFGKM
That interpretation of the Big Bang is one I never heard before. As a matter of fact, books have been written on the subject "Before the Big Bang".
14 posted on 10/30/2001 6:52:47 AM PST by ZULU
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: callisto
pinging myself for later read, providing this doesn't turn into one of those religous, creationist, Bible quoting, begatting, and on the other hand, heavy math, quark quoting, over everyone elses heads ,with a heavy emphasis on theorical equations that makes Greek an easy read, resulting in someone calling someone else a Nazi threads.
15 posted on 10/30/2001 6:54:57 AM PST by Focault's Pendulum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Focault's Pendulum
...one of those religous, creationist, Bible quoting, begatting, and on the other hand, heavy math, quark quoting, over everyone elses heads ,with a heavy emphasis on theorical equations that makes Greek an easy read, resulting in someone calling someone else a Nazi threads.
Cosmology and theoretical physics tend to bring that out in people, for some reason. LOL.
16 posted on 10/30/2001 7:00:45 AM PST by callisto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: medved
It amazes me how, whenever they hit a snag in their calculations, they come up with another assinine theory to cover up the failings of the first. String theory is a fine example of the lengths to which they will go to unite quantum mechanics with relativity.

"Hmmm...that's not gonna work....how about we say that the universe is made up of...eleven dimensions....yeah! That's the ticket!...and uh...ummm....all but say.....four of them...disappeared after the big bang.....yeah...no, wait...they CURLED UP!....yeah, that's it!...they curled up into....into.....nothing!...something so small it can't be measured...yeah!....There! I think this will convince the Journal Nature!....(if I could only remember the question...)"

17 posted on 10/30/2001 7:04:15 AM PST by ImaGraftedBranch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ZULU
"As a matter of fact, books have been written on the subject "Before the Big Bang"."

Name some.

18 posted on 10/30/2001 7:05:35 AM PST by OBAFGKM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: OBAFGKM
I saw a book in the Library a few months ago called "Before the Big Bang". I can't recall the author, but will check it out and e-mail the author and name to your address in this group OBAFGKM. Give me a few days please.

Thanks.

19 posted on 10/30/2001 7:20:23 AM PST by ZULU
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: ImaGraftedBranch
It amazes me how, whenever they hit a snag in their calculations, they come up with another assinine theory to cover up the failings of the first.

Right. There was a snag in Newton's Theory of Gravity. The calculations didn't add up and the Theory could not explain why the orbit of Mercury processed the way it did.

So what did those silly scientists do? Some boob named Albert Einstein invented some preposterous theory of gravity to "cover up" the failings of that Newtonian theory. It's called The General Theory of Relativity, and along with Quantum Mechanics, it's one of the most experimentally verified theories around.

I'm sure glad scientists don't listen to you, they'd never get anything done.
20 posted on 10/30/2001 7:29:25 AM PST by BikerNYC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: callisto
"Now, 90 percent of everything is known to be virtually nothing."

Which part of this post is not included in the 90 percent?

21 posted on 10/30/2001 7:38:38 AM PST by azhenfud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OBAFGKM
Actually, I would be ok in Virginia. (Ok I don't honk my horn when passing...but Ok I can do that.) But maybe someone in Virginia should work to remove those laws from the books....
22 posted on 10/30/2001 7:54:12 AM PST by Conan the Librarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ZULU
Gen.2 [4] These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

One should carefully observe the usage of the words "generations" and "day" as they are employed within the context of the verse, as this indicates the two are congruent and are highly indicative that the origins of the universe and beginnings of time are formed from one central point or position. However, the usage of the two in the same context clearly shows that the term "day" is to be understood as a time "peroid", not just a twenty-four hour length which our perception initially demands. Our perception of time has been dwarfed by the shortening of man's days in a relative context to the created.

"Modern cosmology is based on the American astronomer Edwin Hubble's discovery in 1929 that all galaxies are receding from each other with velocities proportional to their distances. In 1922 the Russian astronomer Alexander Friedmann proposed that the universe is everywhere filled with the same amount of matter. Using Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity to calculate the gravitational effects, he showed that such a system must originate in a singular state of infinite density (now called the big bang) and expand from that state in just the way Hubble observed."

However, "the big bang theory" was initially proposed as a joke by Sir Fred Hoyle, but was taken out of context and soon became the accepted "basis" of cosmology. This "singular state of infinite density", I believe, was/is instead the eternal realm of existence where time has no effect and that is the "tunnel" the NDE persons describe. "....all galaxies are receding from each other with velocities proportional to their distances." indicates that there is a relative proportion to the passing of time as we know it and the recession of these galaxies, much like a pair of singular points fixed along the unwinding spring in a watch. The velocity of recession is directly proportional to our point of reference (perception) on time passage, which is our planet earth's relation to the sun. This is not to discount the possibility that another point of reference on time passage would have the same proportions, but in a different velocity. The varying lengths of planetary years simplify this theory. The consistancy of the speed of light confirms the varying of time perception, as time is relative only to one's position. Those who would say the creation account is backwards may be viewing creation from the wrong perception. Naturally, God would have needed to have created the light source from the heavenly bodies first before their light could have appeared in the skies over the earth. This does not discount the creation of those bodies FIRST, it merely states a perception as viewed from our planet and testifies to the time length required for that emitted light to reach earth.

Now, for the hydrogen association, look at this quote:

"Interstellar space is filled with extremely tenuous clouds of gas which are mostly Hydrogen. The neutral Hydrogen atom (HI in astronomer's shorthand) consists of 1 proton and 1 electron. The proton and electron spin like tops but can have only two orientations; spin axes parallel or anti-parallel. It is a rare event for Hydrogen atoms in the interstellar medium to switch from the parallel to the anti-parallel configuration, but when they do they emit radio waves with a wavelength of 21 centimeters (about 8 inches) and a corresponding frequency of exactly 1420 MHz. Tuned to this frequency radio telescopes have mapped the neutral Hydrogen in the sky. The image, "http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap010113.html" represents such an all-sky HI survey with the plane of our Milky Way Galaxy running horizontally through the center. In this false color image no stars are visible , just diffuse clouds of gas tens to hundreds of light years across which cluster near the plane. The gas clouds seem to form arching, looping structures, stirred up by stellar activity in the galactic disk. "

Let's consider and analyse this verse:

Gen.1 [6] And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

Here one has to clearly see that "waters" refers to both the primitive (hydrogen and oxygen) and the final liquid (firmament) states of water. The hydrogen ion layer is indicated as being present within the reference to "waters" from the beginning.

Finally consider these things from scripture:

Job.38
[4] Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
[5] Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
[6] Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
[7] When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Could verse 5 be telling us of that plane of our Milky Way and verse 7 plainly of the 1420 MHz radio wave frequency? If this lighter-than-air hydrogen ion layer was surrounding the earth's atmosphere in ancient days, the properties of the spin axis of hydrogen would have produced a "singing" when varying wavelengths of radiation from the stars bounced off, while forcing the change of the proton and electron axis orientation. This layer could also easily have formed the water vapor necessary to trigger the "Great Flood" and just as easily been the filter necessary to keep out higher, more harmful, life-shortening radiation for prior generations. I also notice the statement of man's days being shortened to "an hundred and twenty years" (Gen. 6 [3] ) after the flood and refer to the statement of "the windows of heaven were opened" (Gen. 7 [11] ). This could have been due to the depletion of the hydrogen layer which produced the deluge and allowed the higher concentrations of radiation to reach earth's surface. If this hydrogen layer had become ignited, it would have burned from the top down, not necessarily causing significant heat damage to earth, but producing trillions of cubic meters of water vapor being released into the atmosphere - hence the "Great Flood". So in today's terminology, rain can develop because the sun's radiation can reach the earth's surface in sufficient amounts to vaporize water since it isn't filtered by the former hydrogen ion layer. This holds true if you look at the densities of hydrogen ions in space relative to the ease of radiation's conductivity comparitively speaking to the atmospheric conditions where hydrogen ions are more densely located. Is it any wonder hydrogen is one of the most plentiful, but basic elements of the universe?

In conclusion, I can convincingly say, I know beyond doubt God is on His throne and my Redeemer lives. The heavenly hosts sing His praises constantly and is evidenced by the complex design of the heavens. I hope to help others know this God and to see the relevance of worshipping Him for who He is and for what He has done and is doing for mankind.

23 posted on 10/30/2001 7:59:35 AM PST by azhenfud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: callisto
Does this mean that one day the universe will quit expanding and begin to collaspe inward - back to that original singularity?
24 posted on 10/30/2001 8:02:57 AM PST by sandydipper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ZULU
"Give me a few days please."

Don't worry about it. I found the attached review from Science News Books. There's an article about Sternglass at Sternglass.

His views are certainly not mainstream -- most physicists would regard them as near-crank. His theory resurrects the luminiferous ether, denies the uncertainty principal, constructs protons out of 8 electrons & 9 positrons, and seemingly imposes an absolute inertial reference frame on the Universe. Any one of these is worthy of a highly raised eyebrow.

Before the Big Bang: The Origins of the Universe

-- Ernest J. Sternglass.

This idiosyncratic treatise is likely to cause many cosmologists' heads to spin as Sternglass breaks from the "standard model" of the origins of the universe to argue that not only does the Earth spin on an axis but our solar system, the Milky Way, and the universe itself spin as well -- creating a stable state for the cosmos. Sternglass, whose family fled Europe just before World War II, recounts his education, career, and contacts with Einstein, Bohr, and other greats as he explains the origin of his unique view of physics. Calling on the work of Kant, Gödel, and Einstein, he claims that the universe began with a single positron and electron which rotated close to the speed of light and contained the entire mass of the cosmos. Four Walls Eight Windows, 1997, 294 p., illus., hardcover.

Before the Big Bang
1568580878pad$24.95pad


25 posted on 10/30/2001 8:11:34 AM PST by OBAFGKM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: sandydipper
There are 3 possibilities:

1) an open universe - one which expands forever
2) a closed universe - one that will eventually reach it's maximum expansion and then will begin to fall back in on itself becoming the Big Crunch, and
3) a flat universe - one that has just the right density of matter and energy to expand forever instead of collapsing in a Big Crunch.

26 posted on 10/30/2001 8:31:20 AM PST by callisto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Conan the Librarian
....(snip liberal arguments) Besides, Intoxicating substances don't help the thought processes.

So then what have you been smoking? You make the assumption that "Government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed." True in the beginning but no longer so. Just think back to the War of Northern Aggression. It proved that consent was not an option anymore. A Federal war on pot is unconstitutional in the first place.

27 posted on 10/31/2001 4:39:43 AM PST by Lysander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: medved
The whole thing is a load of BS. Astronomers and cosmologists have painted themselves into a total box by trying to insist that gravity chiefly governs the cosmos while anybody with an iota of common sense can look at spiral galaxies and similar cosmic phenomena and tell that he is seeing electrical, electromagnetic, and plasma phenomena. The notion of an expanding universe and a "big bang(TM)" are nothing more than logical requirements of a broken theory and a misinterpretation of redshift. You surely are covering a lot of ground here.

I am mostly impressed that you are able to deduce all of this with merely "common sense." Gees... Now I understand why I had to go to school --- I must not have had any.

As you probably know, Einstein said that, to wit,

Common sense is a collection of biases that person forms by the time he reaches the age of eighteen.

28 posted on 12/01/2001 9:44:35 PM PST by TopQuark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

I claim that things such as you see above are electromagnetic phenomena and I stand by that and I claim this should be obvious and I stand by that as well. What you see above, particularly the upper arm, shows material being held in a straight line until some point at which the field breaks down, after which material very quickly trails away and dissipates.

Again, this is obvious and nobody should need to be Albert Einstein to comprehend it. There is no conceivable way gravity could do something like that.

29 posted on 12/02/2001 3:39:48 AM PST by medved
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: BikerNYC; callisto; medved
Wow. So you don't think glaxies are receding from each other? They can't be standing still (due to gravitational attraction)*, so you must think that they are moving toward each other. If so, where's the blue shift?

The Hubble shift is incapable of explaining motion in the universe if you're talking about motion "away" from an initial Big Bang. It is an example of applying one observation (the doppler effect) to another observation (what appeared to be a red shift of galaxies), explaining the latter in terms of the former, and too hastily extrapolating that to a theory of origins. Their confidence in the undeniable relationship seen between relative motion and doppler-shift was transferred to an hypothesis that depended on the phenomenon of doppler-shift, embuing the latter with the certainty of the former. Since it easily explained a new cosmology, it was just too good. But it breaks down because of periodicity that has been long observed in so-called red shift values and their association with particular types of stars/galaxies. That is, the periodicity is explained as a function of the star's age, not its speed through space relative to other stars (though there is relative motion between stars). A long time ago, such periodicity was explained away as being artifactual due to the paucity of data. That is no longer the case. The data is overwhelming. However, it is being studiously ignored (even to the point of suppressing publication in U.S. journals of criticisms of the Big Bang and promotion of alternate theories to explain the so-called red shift) by those who have committed their entire careers to promoting the Big Bang rather than to finding out what is really going on, no matter where the trail leads, even to the falsification of their hypothesis. Most people don't like to have their hypotheses falsified, especially when they waddle and quack like a religious belief that attempts to explain Life, the Universe, and Everything (to quote Douglas Adams).

*Do you have any idea how slight gravitational attractions are at the distances involved? Besides, there is gravitational attraction that is supposed to be responsible for the foam-like superstructure of the universe (the stars and galaxies are in the interstices between the bubbles which represent more or less empty space, presumably having been aggregated that way by local gravitational effects). Notice also that this "measurement" of dark mass is not what it claims to be. It's just a measurement of detectable mass subtracted from a mass demanded by a hypothesis, the remainder being called "dark mass". That two different measures of visible or detectable mass come close to agreeing doesn't say a thing about the existence of "dark mass". To believe that it does is equivalent to positing that the purchase represented by a bag of tacos left on a street corner was really much larger because no one would have left the bag unless he had already eaten a very large portion and was just too stuffed to finish the rest and too small/weak to carry the rest and, so, the large amount must have been eaten by a dwarf. Given the typical size of dwarf stomachs, the upper limit on the initial size of the Taco Bell purchase was calculated. Two different proponents of this same theory then carefully measure the mass of the "remaining" tacos and find their numbers in close agreement and triumphantly claim to have measured the mass of the "missing" tacos and, by this, to have proven the existence of the dwarf.
30 posted on 12/02/2001 4:44:30 AM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: aruanan
Check this out
31 posted on 12/02/2001 4:51:14 PM PST by medved
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: medved
Excellent. It's pretty funny (in a tragic sense) to see people in the 21st century genuflecting before Authority as they did hundreds and thousands of years ago without bothering to see if that authority is justified. Someone above said he'd rather believe a stoned Sagan than a... I don't remember the adjective... medved. Typical thoughtlessness. Remember when St. Carlos intoned at the beginning of his program "Cosmos", "The cosmos: all there ever was, is, or shall be"? When he said this he completely departed from the realm of science. If someone believes St. Carlos's pronouncement and yet believes himself to be a scientist, then he is certainly deluded. People like Sagan believe the religious to be out of touch with reality. If religion is the opiate of the masses, then naturalists are mainlining heroin and completely unaware of the fact.
32 posted on 12/02/2001 6:30:57 PM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: aruanan
One other item you might want to check out, my little ursine analysis of the question of prophets and prophecy...
33 posted on 12/02/2001 6:44:12 PM PST by medved
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson