Dark Matters, When All You Have Is Light
A cluster of galaxies equivalent to a thousand Milky Ways was observed at a distance of 7.7 billion light-years. What does it mean? According to astronomers mentioned in an article on Space.com, it can only mean one thing: dark energy makes up 70% of the universe.
“The existence of the cluster can only be explained with dark energy,” one spokesman said. How can that be, since dark energy is invisible? It depends on a theory of galaxy evolution. “To test dark energy, scientists compare frequency of these massive clusters today with earlier times,” the article said. “If there were no dark energy, they would expect clusters to grow relatively quickly, so the largest clusters we see now would be very small at half the age of the universe, and there would be no gigantic clusters.” The cluster exists, so voilà – dark energy is real. “Without dark energy we would observe much more massive clusters and many more of these massive clusters than we actually do.”
Another example is found in an article by National Geographic News. Some University of California astronomers divined large quantities of dark matter from the orbits of small satellite galaxies of the Milky Way. “Basically galaxies like our own wouldn’t have formed if we didn’t have dark matter,” one said. How he knows this, never having watched a galaxy form, and never having seen dark matter, is somewhat of a dark secret. He did hedge his bet at the end of the article. “If you don’t find something [about dark matter] in the next five to ten years,” he said, “there’s something very wrong with all the theories we have.”
These are egregious examples of pronouncements made as fact when they are indistinguishable from theory. They observed a bright cluster at a certain distance, that’s all. The others observed dwarf galaxies in orbit, that’s all. This does not justify appealing to imponderable substances and occult forces.
Cosmologists today have lost all shame. They make theoretical pronouncements as statements of fact. It would be an improvement if they began each statement with “According to our belief system, such and such is suggested by certain obscure and indirect observations.” But no; they feel empowered to speak ex cathedra on things they cannot possibly know. This is what happens when you let scientists, who put their pants on the same way as the rest of us, promote themselves to guru status.