Image of the day
"X" Marks the Spot
New to Astromart?Register an account...
Scientists Find a Way to Scientifically Explain Why Dark Matter is not There
Galaxy NGC 1052-DF4 is very unusual in that it is missing almost all of its dark matter. Recently acquired data from the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope provides evidence for tidal disruption in this galaxy and this new result is being used to explain why this galaxy is missing most of its dark matter. But is it possible that dark matter simply does not exist? History provides us with many examples where scientists have invented ideas out of thin air to help explain away things that are just not understood. In some ways, dark matter (and dark energy) bring to mind another imaginary concept -- the so called "Aether Wind" of the 1800s. Back then, everybody just "knew" that space was filled with an "Aether Wind." The problem was that no one had ever seen it or measured it. Will the concepts of dark matter and dark energy meet the same fate as the Aether Wind of the 19th century? Time will tell.
I am conflicted by realizing that the majority of cosmologists and astrophysicists use the existence of “dark matter”, as a default mechanism, to defend their argument and thus gain peer acceptance. We live in a world where the majority of scientists are either atheists or agnostics, simply because they cannot believe in a “higher power” whose existence cannot be proven. Why then do they spend years on theories, mathematics, and observations only to conclude the theory to be valid by defaulting to the unproven existence of “dark matter”? What is the point of all this? How can they continue to “cook the books”?
When Einstein was near death, he told his wife that his only regret was he failed to find the “constant” for the universe..
Fifteen years ago, I read Faster Than the Speed of Light, by Joao Magueijo. At that time, this was a very controversial book. Today, more and more theoretical physicists have moved over to his camp. If an atheist or agnostic can use “dark matter” to “fix” their theory, then it should be acceptable to propose a “variable speed of light”. Maybe Einstein failed to find the constant for the universe because there is none.
I recommend this book for an optional approach to cosmological reasoning.
Thanks again, looking forward to your next article.
Thanks for the kind words.
I hope all of the folks on Astromart enjoy reading these news items as much as I enjoy posting them. I try to select topics related to discoveries that are unique and often not expected -- Those are the ones that interest me the most. At times I try to explain the science behind the discoveries as best as I can, but frankly even the experts who "live and breathe" this stuff often have a difficult time reconciling their findings with what they "think" they know.
It seems that the more we learn about the Universe, the more we realize how little we really do know.
BTW -- I find Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder to be one of the best "down to Earth" and practical explainers of some of the most complex topics in advanced physics. I am always on the lookout for her new YouTube postings.
To your point, I am familiar with the book "Faster Than the Speed of Light" by Joao Magueijo. He (together with a few other leading physicists) has the audacity to question parts of General Relativity and suggest that the speed of may be variable. In doing so, he is showing that some of the current mysteries of physics simply disappear. These types of assumptions are viewed as heresy to the physics community because the unwritten scientific dogma states that the speed of light must be a constant. I can't comment on the validity of some of Magueijo's assumptions (because I am simply not smart enough), however I do believe he should have the freedom to think things through without outside criticism and interference -- That's the only way advances in Science can occur.
Here's one of my postings from 2016 where a researcher suggests an extension to the Standard Model with three right-handed neutrinos with certain masses, which could explain dark matter and baryon asymmetry of the Universe. His "heredical" assumption adds just a tiny bit of mass to the "massless" neutrino. In the process he shows how five of the biggest problems in modern physics can be solved in one stroke.
Again, I can't comment on the validity of these assumptions, but I do believe the researcher should have the freedom to think things through without outside criticism.