It’s Over: Dark Energy Was Fake Science
It’s being called the Worst Theoretical Prediction in the History of Physics. Dark energy, and its cousin dark matter, are not showing up in any empirical tests.
This is big. Secular cosmologists have been teaching for nearly two decades that “dark energy” makes up 68% of the universe, and dark matter another 28%, leaving only 4 or 5 percent as normal matter. They had no idea what either dark entity was, but “science says” this mysterious unknown stuff had to be real. Now, they are reluctantly coming to realize it never was real at all, though some are still hanging on to the old assumptions.
CEH has been reporting since its beginning in 2000 on the non-detection of dark matter. Now, it seems that cosmologists are at a tipping point. Here’s a sample of the news about these dark things, which also bear on Big Bang theory.
The Worst Theoretical Prediction in the History of Physics (Real Clear Science, republished by Live Science). Ross Pomeroy quotes media darling astronomer Neil de Grasse Tyson admitting, “Yes, we’re clueless.”
How crashing neutron stars killed off some of our best ideas about what ‘dark energy’ is (Thomas Kitching at The Conversation). You may have heard the celebrations about the detection of gravitational waves assumed to have come from the collision of two neutron stars. Kitching reports that, contrary to theoretical predictions, light arrived virtually simultaneously. This kills off a popular model for what dark energy might be:
Cosmology is in a bit of a pickle. We have a great model that can explain the evolution of the universe from a fraction of a second after the big bang, until now approximately 14 billion years later. The problem is that in order to explain all the observations, a mysterious energy called “dark energy” must be added to the models. Dark energy is a huge problem, it accounts for about 70% of all the energy the universe, and we have absolutely no idea what it is.
Study finds ‘dark matter’ and ‘dark energy’ may not exist – here’s what to make of it (Kevin Pimbblet at The Conversation). We may be looking at the wreckage of a monumental theory collapse. Now what? Pimbblet, who has taught astronomy and physics classes, showing students the typical pie charts of dark energy, dark matter and normal matter, feels the pain. He is scrambling for answers:
Suppose for a moment that both dark energy and dark matter are too strange a pill to swallow. What would the alternatives be? One way out would be to suppose that our understanding of the universe is at fault [well gollll-eee!]. Perhaps gravity and general relativity do not work in quite the way that we think they do.
In the same way that Newton’s laws – which we long thought told the whole story about movement – are a simplification of the more complicated theory of relativity, perhaps our understanding of relativity is a simplification of something else? More fundamentally, perhaps we have made some error of judgement about the assumptions that underpin the equations we deal with? Maybe we need to modify the equations of gravitation?
As a stopgap measure to avoid being completely clueless, he considers the new ideas of André Maeder, who needs neither of these dark things to get his model of the universe to work. Time will tell. When given lemons, make lemonade:
While we are not there yet, ultimately, the pie chart of mass and energy density of the entire universe may need to be revisited to scrub out the two biggest parts! It’s an exciting time to be a cosmologist.
ALMA finds massive primordial galaxies swimming in vast ocean of dark matter (Science Daily). This headline is misleading. Astronomers did not see or detect dark matter. They inferred it from theory-laden observations of distant stars that they believe would have required a “dark matter halo” to exist so that stars would not fly apart.
Colliding galaxies may be evidence in support of new candidate for universe’s elusive dark matter (Science Daily). Notice the “may be evidence” in the headline. It masks a junkyard of failed theories. Scientists have pretty much given up on dark matter candidates: MACHOs, WIMPs, etc. Now some are running a new one up the flagpole: SIMPs (Strongly Interacting Massive Particles). That sounds fishy, though; if they are “strongly interacting”, wouldn’t they be detectable here at Earth?
The usual way of hunting dark matter may be all wrong (Leah Crane at New Scientist). This article also proposes a different approach, to look at strongly interacting particles. It must be discouraging news to the institutions that have built expensive detectors deep underground (all of which have failed to detect dark matter) to find out they were on the wrong track all along. The new proposal, however, doesn’t sound any more promising. If the snipe ain’t out there, looking in a different direction ain’t gonna help.
Findings present a puzzle as to how such a huge object could have grown so quickly (Science Daily). A “Goliath” black hole 800 million times the sun’s mass has been detected almost 13 billion years old, too soon after the big bang to have formed. “It has an extremely high mass, and yet the universe is so young that this thing shouldn’t exist,” astronomers say. “The universe was just not old enough to make a black hole that big. It’s very puzzling.” Leah Crane at New Scientist agrees: “Most distant quasar ever seen is way too big for our universe.”
Doing Without Dark Energy (UC Davis). With the collapse of dark energy, mathematicians at UC Davis are looking for alternatives. They are proposing an alternative explanation for cosmic acceleration by taking a new look at the equations for General Relativity. They did not like using Einstein’s ‘cosmological constant’ as a fudge factor to explain dark energy, so they set to work. They have decided that the popular Friedman universe from relativity is unstable. In a new paper, Blake Temple and colleagues say the cosmological constant is unnecessary. “What we should expect to measure instead are local space-times that accelerate faster,” he claims. “Remarkably, the local space-times created by the instability exhibit precisely the same range of cosmic accelerations as you get in theories of dark energy.” Whether this new proposal gains traction is less important than the observation that cosmologists are now scrambling to understand something they were claiming they understood. They even called their models “precision cosmology” (4/13/07). How can a model be precise when at least 68% of it, maybe even 96% of it, is fake science relying on inexplicable unrealities?
Do you see a trend here? From their theoretical big bang to their theoretical human ancestor, evolutionists have been wrong, wrong, wrong. All this time they have been bluffing about how smart they are compared to “people of faith.” Now we see see they are nothing more than People of Fluff. While we respect observational astronomy and empirical evidence, most of secular cosmology has trusted in phantoms—dark, occult things that are declared real only because their favored theories require them. If they finally give up on these phantoms, astronomy will be better off. But we had best learn the lesson from the philosophy of science, that experts can be completely off base, despite their bluffing assertions, powerful detectors, and abstruse mathematical models. If you start on the wrong foundation, you will never understand reality, no matter how smart you are and how hard you try. Suggestion: try some cosmology starting with information as the fundamental reality of the universe. We know that information is real. We use it ourselves all the time. Unlike dark things, information is like light; it enlightens the mind and the understanding. Try it and see what happens.