Cosmologists Are Lost In the Dark

Ever since two rescue theories such as dark matter and dark energy were proposed and have been studied many times over using some of the most advanced and expensive equipment known to man has yet to lead to any sort of breakthrough. Many articles have been appearing lately in the last few months about their “lack” of knowledge and their inability to directly detect it.

Here are just a few of them…

The search for dark matter

“What we do know about dark matter comes from the ways it’s influenced the universe nearly as far back as the Big Bang. Like paw prints left by an elusive animal, the cosmos is full of signs of dark matter’s existence, but we haven’t actually seen the creature itself.”

“So far, not a single experiment has yielded a definitive trace of dark matter.”

Dark Matter Just Got Murkier

“We have never directly observed dark matter, but we know a great deal about what it must be: It must be massive (because it affects the rotation of galaxies); it must be electrically neutral (because we can’t see it); it must be different from ordinary matter (because we see no evidence for it interacting with matter in the usual ways); and it must be stable (because it has existed since the dawn of the universe). These properties are unequivocal.”

“However, we don’t know exactly what it is.”

The dark universe

“The existence of dark matter has been inferred from the motion of stars since the 1930s, but its nature remains a mystery. The dark-matter particle posited by the most popular theory has not been shown to exist — if it is to make an appearance, it may be now or never. The search is narrowing and the possibilities are dwindling; physicists may soon have to move on to alternative explanations”

“Explaining dark energy is even tougher. The discovery of the accelerating expansion of the Universe in 1998 called for a driving force that opposes the pull of gravity (S205). At the heart of attempts to characterize this energy is a deceptively simple question: is dark energy constant? Finding out will require looking back in time, to the birth of the Universe” 

Something is wrong with dark matter

“The LUX measurement is simply the most recent and most powerful of a long line of searches for dark matter. They found no evidence for the existence of dark matter and were able to rule out a significant range of possible WIMP properties and masses.”

Dark Matter and The Big Bang

This may surprise some but it wasn’t proposed by an atheist nor an agnostic, nor some sort of special interest group but rather a Belgian Jesuit priest living in the 1920s, who was an astronomer, and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Leuven. He was the first to propose the expansion of the universe. A couple of years later it was Edwin Hubble who declared the expansion of the universe which was predicted by Einstein’s theory of gravity, and general relativity, more than a decade earlier. However, this caused a problem for those who believed the universe was eternal which including Einstein. So he did was like what most evolutionists do in this situation when observational data conflict with their theory, Einstein came up with a rescue hypothesis ( cosmological constant ) in order to keep the universe eternal.

But the rescue hypothesis didn’t hold up instead evolutionists began to propose “constant density” whereby increases in the matter just pops into existence spontaneously. Eventually, it changed in 1965 with the discovery of the cosmic microwave background (CMB), a low-level, nearly uniform radiation permeating the universe from all directions.

The Big Bang Theory took hold and replaced the old theory in the mid 60’s after the discovery of CMB despite opposition from those like  Fred Hoyle who said…

“[The Big Bang] is an irrational process that cannot be described in scientific terms … [nor] challenged by an appeal to observation.”

Changing The Big Bang Theory Back To Eternal

The reason for the opposition much like Einstein was the fact that the Big Bang Theory gave the universe a beginning and when you have a beginning, you require a cause for that beginning to happen whereas eternal, there is no such cause required because it’s always there and things can evolve from it. This type of explanation for how the universe evolved are much easier to create a storyline when the tools and material are already created into existence. For example, Stephen Hawking came up with the idea of universal quantum singularity, where there was no origin in time which makes it basically eternal. He described our universe having many different histories (multi-universes) and we are supposedly just some of them! Unlike in Creationism where there was a beginning and will be an end, this is called, “finite”.

By no means does these newer theories solve anything as far as the Big Bang goes…Major questions remain and are just a few of them…

  1. How did nature choose the specific laws which control the universe, as deduced from observation?”
  2. How did the universe start off with an initial state in such a high degree of homogeneity?”
  3. Why, after 13.8 billion years since the big bang, is not the universe in thermal equilibrium?”


What about Dark Energy?

Dark energy was invented because the universe was moving apart faster than astronomers had predicted, and dark energy was created in order to explain the mystery. This is very common in theories pertaining to its supposed evolution. When observational data doesn’t match up with their beliefs, they involve new things to solve problems in their story but that doesn’t make it factual in fact it opens up more complexity as we shall see in a moment.

In Conclusion

The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed despite all the new technology—inflation, dark matter, and dark energy which is what holds the whole theory together because without them there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory.

For instance, In 1978, Princeton physicist Bob Dicke along with other scientists noticed the universe is finely tuned, “too perfect” in their opinion for something to have been created by random natural causes. A little bit too much, the universe tears itself apart, a little bit too less of an expansion and the whole universe collapses. It had to be finely precise without a reason to do so. Sounds complicated? Indeed! One of the things I have always stressed in this blog when a theory becomes more and more complex, it is usually an indicator that the theory is not based on reality.


Romans 1:21 KJV

Cosmology guru Alan Guth eventually invented the hypothesis known as “inflation” however, he was unable to figure out how to stop it once it got started. Over time others joined in and came up with ideas of their own. What seemed to be the greatest problem-solving idea which kept the Big Bang Theory alive was falsified a year later when it failed to produce a smooth universe. This was not the end for inflation rather it required a rescue device to save it. So inflation which is needed to keep the Big Bang alive needed saving itself. Otherwise, as Guth knew but despised, the evidence does in fact point to an intelligent designer namely God :)

Astronomy and Cosmology: Where Are They Now?

Next month is going to be exciting because for the first time in man’s history, we are going to get some secular pictures from the space probe, “New Horizons” . Currently the probe is less than 30 million miles away and has already transmitted some historical pictures of Pluto.

“We can also see that every face of Pluto is different and that Pluto’s northern hemisphere displays substantial dark terrains, though both Pluto’s darkest and its brightest known terrain units are just south of, or on, its equator…”  

-says New Horizons Principal Investigator Alan Stern.

This project without its planetary evolution conclusions is good science. The more probes that are out there, the better we learn what is going on in space. It’s exciting! Star formation on the other hand has been used to mislead the public. There is no doubt that Nature News along with Science Daily and certain Astronomers have committed fraud, perhaps but not exclusive to, for the reason of helping fund these types of projects.

Let’s begin by displaying the headlines:

The first one is from Nature News which is also found in Scientific American as well as in other publications.

“Astronomers Claim to Take First Glimpse of Primordial Stars”

In the Southern European Observatory where the discovery took place makes and even more profound statement in their science release.

“Best Observational Evidence of First Generation Stars in the Universe” 

Wow, it sounds as though a major discovery was made, this could be the hard evidence that certain scientists were looking for, but the question remains. Is it really? Let’s go back to Nature News again…

“Now astronomers think they may have spied a late-blooming cluster of such stars, in the brightest distant galaxy observed to date. The stars, seen as they were when the Universe was around 800 million years old, appear to be primordial in compositionbut also to have formed more recently than some second-generation stars.”

How can these Astronomers claim this discovery to be first generation of stars? ‘Appearing’ to be primordial in composition is not the same as being first generation! These stars are considered younger than second-generation of stars! Not only that, but these stars were discovered in a galaxy which has elements that according to their theory could only have formed well after the first generation of stars!

“That primordial stars should turn up in such a large and already-evolved galaxy presents a challenge to the group’s interpretation.” 

Indeed, but these Astronomers used the classic “fit the data into a theory technique” rather than let the data speak for itself. Here is how they answered the challenge which make stars younger than second generation into first generation…

“Sobral and colleagues suggest that the primordial stars may be late-developers, formed from a cloud of pristine and uncontaminated gas that was prevented from cooling and coalescing by the heat of strong radiation from earlier-blooming stars. “We think we’re seeing the last episode of Population III star formation,” he says.” 

This is a prime example on how some scientists (not all) are misleading the public with their so-called discoveries in Astronomy. There is no real evidence here that would make any logical person to conclude that these stars are first generation. None! The headlines are a bunch of lies!

Moving on to Cosmology…

“As is your habit, you are reading Science at breakfast (today’s treat: an omelet made with dodo eggs). But as soon as you finish this paragraph, a carnivorous wombat crashes through the door into your apartment and chomps angrily on your prehensile tail. Right … now” (No this isn’t Star Wars -emphasis mine).

“Ridiculous? Certainly—here. But it’s true somewhere in the universe, according to many scientists. An increasing number of mainstream physicists have espoused an almost unspeakably bizarre picture of the cosmos, one filled with mirror worlds and parallel universes, with doppelgängers and alternate histories. In many of these parallel universes—countless ones—an exact duplicate of you is doing exactly what you’re doing: reading this article in Science magazine. In others, you exist with subtle (and not-so- subtle) changes from your present-day life—you sport horns or speak in Latin or make a living by juggling hedgehogs at cocktail parties.”

This is a classic of opening your mind to fiction because it may be reality someday. Some of this is used in Hollywood. Bob Berman, wrote a very thought-provoking article in Astronomy magazine (July 2004, page 16) which I quoted some of it once before in 2012, it certainly applies to what is going on now with Cosmology. In fact, he gives a pretty good science lesson.

“The problem in cosmology is that facts are few and the imaginations of people who cook up theories are fertile. We have known for nearly seventy years that the cosmos is expanding. Every measurement made of galaxies showed that everything is moving away from everything else. The picture looked very much like what happens when a firecracker explodes, with material on the outside edge of the object that exploded moving the fastest and material to the inside moving less quickly.

“The term “big bang” or “inflation” was at least partially rooted in this observation. Temperature measurements of intergalactic space supported the theory by being exactly what they should be if the cosmos was infinitely hot and cooled during the expansion of the cosmos. What banged or who banged it was not knowable, and that is where all the theories came from. It is interesting that the Bible agrees with the observation of the expanding universe. Numerous passages in the Bible describe the cosmos as an expanding entity. “God who created the heavens and stretched them out” appears in one way or another over and over in scripture (see Isaiah 42:5; 40:22; 44:24; 45:12; 48:13; 51:13; Job 9:8; 37:18; Psalm 104:2; Jeremiah 10:12; 51:15; Zechariah 12:1).”  

“Many atheists had a problem with the “big bang” concept because it suggested a beginning, and if there was a beginning there had to be a cause which suggested a causer. To get around this problem, it was recognized that since gravity seemed to be a property of mass, everything in the cosmos was attracting everything else, and that meant that eventually gravity would stop the expansion of the universe and pull everything back to a central point. The fact of gravitational attraction seemed sure and the fact that things were coasting from the initial process seemed unquestionable. One could theorize that whatever caused the big bang could happen over and over. This theory was called the oscillating universe theory, and was heavily promoted by leading atheists.”

“There were lots of scientific problems with the oscillating universe theory. Only mass would be affected by gravity and much of the energy in the cosmos was in the form of light which would not be gravitationally susceptible. It also seemed that some objects on the outer edge of the expansion were traveling so fast that they would never be significantly affected by gravity. In spite of these and other problems, the oscillating universe theory was in textbooks and even used by Carl Sagan in his famous Cosmos series in which he compared it to the Hindu concept of reincarnation.”

“In the late 1990s another observation was made by astronomers that totally disrupted this whole picture. It was discovered that the cosmos was not slowing down in its expansion as gravitational effects would have been expected to do, but that the cosmos was actually accelerating in its expansion. This observation has been confirmed by several different methods and is now considered to be a fact. The problem is that the fact that the cosmos is accelerating in its expansion is at odds with everything we can do in the laboratory.”

“What does a good scientist do when confronted with such an astounding fact? The answer should be to propose explanations that are testable and for which experiments can be conducted to see whether or not the proposal is consistent with scientific experiments. The problem with today’s public speakers on this subject is that proposals are being made that have no possible way of being tested, and each pronouncement is made with such pomp and flair that the average reader assumes that not only has the theory been tested, but it has been successful on every point.”

“One proposal has been that 70% of the universe must be made of an antigravity force called dark energy (* which has been adjusted since this article has been written to 95% of the universe. * -emphasis mine). No one knew what it was or how it could exist, but the concept has appeared in hundreds of magazines and newspapers that we have seen. Recently we have seen statements that the dark energy loses its power over time, so eventually the acceleration will stop and the universe will collapse as the oscillating universe theory suggested. There is no evidence of this, and no way of testing it.”

“Some periodicals have said that Einstein’s cosmological constant is what is causing the acceleration of the cosmos. This is a constant that Einstein threw into his equations to make them fit his opinions about the cosmos–an act that he later called his greatest blunder. The problem is that no one has any idea what the constant would represent or be caused by. Now it is fashionable to refer to the “Big Rip.” This is a theory that says that eventually everything will explode–even atoms. Another theory is called “string theory” which assumes that there are eleven spacial dimensions and then suggests that membranes from these other dimensions sometimes touch each other explosively creating things like our universe.”

“Suddenly, we’re imbedded in a frothy quantum foam of unlimited possibilities. It’s a free-for-all where each solemnly presented theory is soon changed or rebutted.. Throw the math this way, that way, tweak the equations, set fire to the physics building, nothing matters. It’s Alice in Wonderland meets Stephen Hawking.”

New proposals about dark matter come out all the time, New Scientist actually asked a valid question, “How long can we keep looking for dark matter?” 

“WE HAVE been aware of the need for dark matter since the 1930s. Without this stuff, we can’t make sense of the rotation of galactic clusters, or how galaxies formed in the first place. And yet, to date, we have found nothing. Even CERN’s Large Hadron Collider, our best and by far most expensive tool for finding it, has so far drawn a blank. How much longer can we keep looking?”

The universe is not making sense for those who believe in non-design. This usually happens when a theory is not true. Does the article answer its own question? No! Rather, it looks for remedies to find dark matter. This is the problem. It is true, it would be hard to pin point an exact time frame but looking more than 80 years with very expensive tools, I would say it is time to move on. There are so many other things in science which requires work that may turn out to be fruitful. I can’t wait till next month! Pluto, here we come! :)

An Ugly Theory Destroyed By A Beautiful Fact

Back in the late 1970’s, evidence for a young universe was very strong (and still is today) but this put secular scientists in a difficult position as National Geographic writes…

“In 1978, he learned in a talk by Princeton physicist Bob Dicke of a problem with the universe—it was too perfect. All sorts of factors, from the workings of atoms to the gravity holding stars together, seem too exquisitely fine-tuned for creating a cosmos in defiance of both rational explanation and what chance would predict.”

“One second after the big bang—and I’m pretty sure that is the example he used—the expansion rate had to be just right to an accuracy of 14 decimal places or our universe would look nothing like it does now.” Just a smidge more expansion and the universe would have blasted itself apart. A tiny bit less and it would have fallen in on itself. Instead it had unfolded just right, balanced on a universe-friendly knife-edge, seemingly for no reason.”

Secular Cosmology was in a major crisis, the evidence was leading towards a purpose which is in the direction of intelligence rather than some random act with no reason. And if it was a random act, then the universe should have been full of cosmic defects which it doesn’t have. This mean their theory wasn’t being endorse by the facts, rather the evidence is leading towards a young universe no older than 10,000 years old!

“In fact, these defects should have been so numerous and so massive that if they actually existed, the age of the universe “would turn out to be about 10,000 years,” Guth says, with a laugh. “This doesn’t turn out to be the case, scientifically.”

Guth knew the evidence could fit into the Biblical time frame but believed explanations (rather than science) were required to skew the evidence out of that direction. You see, science isn’t really disproving the Bible, science is not really at odds with the Bible, only those who reject the Biblical framework have that problem and thus use ‘science’ as a pretext to insert their illogical disbelief.

With a need to force the data into their illogical belief, Guth came up with a solution, one he thought would solve the flatness problem and the horizon problem. This solution was called, “inflation”  but it wasn’t easy at first because he came across his first dilemma and that was how to stop inflation once it got started!

In 1981, his inflation theory was falsified because the universe did not turn out to be smooth as predicted. But this ugly theory wasn’t about to die with a beautiful fact that falsified it, many caught on, producing even crazier ideas in order to keep it alive. These crazier ideas cannot be confirmed with normal science methods because they are out of the realm of reality as it invokes other universes.

There is no confirmation on more than one universe let alone many of them! Yet, this is where the theory of inflation has lead them because they deny the real evidence that is showing (as an estimate) the universe to be no older than 10,000 years old. Sounds more like something out of Hollywood rather than coming from scientists themselves.

But his imagination might win him a Nobel Prize award because it doesn’t allow scientists to follow the evidence rather it allows scientists to follow a fictional story that is fitted. It is one of the biggest bluffs of all time! But there is no way getting around the evidence, which does confirm the frame work of the Bible :)

Does Cosmology Require Knowledge Of Reality?

Since the universe has been designed with a mind that has purpose much like how a house it built, reprogramming adult stem cells, building an engine, or a machine. Today’s secular Cosmologists have entered the non-reality zone!

Cosmologist Sean Carroll would like to get rid of the idea of reality, to him it’s not important if reality can verify it or not, rather what is believed to be real or not. Carroll writes

“Modern physics stretches into realms far removed from everyday experience, and sometimes the connection to experiment becomes tenuous at best. String theory and other approaches to quantum gravity involve phenomena that are likely to manifest themselves only at energies enormously higher than anything we have access to here on Earth. The cosmological multiverse and the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics posit other realms that are impossible for us to access directly. Some scientists, leaning on Popper, have suggested that these theories are non-scientific because they are not falsifiable.”

A question comes to mind from one of my expert readers who he himself is a Cosmologist. If God is impossible for us to use man-made tools to detect Him directly to explain what we see in the universe, then how can the likes of Caroll and perhaps yourself, believe in other realms that are impossible to access directly?

Is reality important in your research? Stephen Hawking, who is considered one of the smartest men to ever exist, embraces non-reality because he says, “I don’t demand that a theory correspond to reality because I don’t know what it is.”  If you don’t know what reality is, how do you know if it’s true or not? Because now your entering the occultic realm where reality is just an illusion and as a result of reality not conforming to its premise, an inference is carefully crafted and shaped for reality which is then fitted for the occultic realm as truth.

Do non-reality realms (something one would find in science fiction movies) such as a belief in multi-universes make predictions, advance math or even technology? It certainly advances the imagination of man but for what purpose? Promote atheism? Is string theory for example, just a faith-based theory in order to defend atheism?

Cosmology does require a knowledge of reality, though it may not have the whole picture as man continues to learn about the universe but embracing anti-real based theories is not scientific.

Albert Einstein, once said, “The man of science is a poor philosopher.”