Physicists Suggest Dark Matter Is An Illusion

Dark matter has never been observed, nor detected other than measuring gravity but even that is a bit of a stretch. It is presumed to exist in 73 percent of the total mass energy in the entire universe.  Scientists have also presumed the proposal of dark matter was the source for increasing the expansion of the Universe.

The concept has caused some discomfort among scientists because this alleged energy virtually makes up the entire universe, but they don’t have any solid data to back it up. It was however, hyped up by the media and in the scientific community with numerous details of this unseen phenomena created by such sources as computer simulations and some measurements of gravity.

Generally, the hype I believe was trying to convince the public it was using government grant money wisely and to promote more funding for the research which wasn’t producing any solid evidence for dark matter’s existence. As the old saying goes, when an old gap is filled, new gaps are created, the cycle is endless.”

In a shocking revelation by some physicists…


No doubt, there might be a shift in the hypothesis to other proposals as physicists at Oxford University continue with more testing of the Copernican principle. This principle is full of assumptions as well, but since evolution is based on such things as chaos with no purpose in mind, it’s likely to be around a long time and go unchallenged by evolutionists.

As creationists we know and believe the Universe has purpose and there is more evidence for that than ever before which I hope to highlight in future posts. Will there be another proposal to take the place of “dark matter” since it’s considered an illusion? Most likely in the coming years, “yes.” But in the meantime…

“Scientists who have pursued dark matter, hunted for undiscovered planets and advanced nanotechnology were being touted Monday as candidates for the 2008 Nobel Prize in physics.”  AP

Even though, physicists for research of dark matter has lost to spontaneous broken symmetry, as the story just broke after this post was written, there is still some fame left and possible prize in the research to find the invisible dark matter…


8 thoughts on “Physicists Suggest Dark Matter Is An Illusion

  1. Just a quick comment: you completely mix up “dark matter” and “dark energy”,
    terms used for quite different things. They also behave quite differently: dark energy
    usually accelerates the expansion of the Universe (depending on the model parameters), while dark matter decelarates. Their relative importance, which changes with time, then determines what is happening.
    Don’t just copy headlines (and if you do, use the right words): read some basic cosmology text book, please.

  2. You still haven’t edited your post, which still mixes up dark matter and dark energy. There is lots of evidence for dark matter, and quite a bit (but less) for dark energy, which is a more recent discovery, after all.

    There is no evidence (at all) for creationism: or perhaps you care to show that, instead of saying ‘we know’.

  3. I corrected it, it’s dark matter which I was referring to, not dark energy. Thanks for letting me know. So what is all the evidence you believe that is able to detect or show evidence for dark matter?

  4. Eh, I pressed ‘reload’ on my browser, and nothing changed. The “Science Daily” article actually is about dark energy. So you’d have to remove all that …

    Can you please do your own reading on dark matter ? Why do you want me to do your homework ? It is fine if you disagree with me, but looking up the observations yourself is very easy indeed. There are whole books on the topic, and many research papers. My own research has involved gravitational lensing by galaxy clusters, which produces spectacular images. This won’t work without dark matter in galaxy clusters. No arcs, no strong magnification without dark matter. That is just one example.

  5. I have not only done my homework, but continue to work on more. True science is not lazy, but progresses. The only evidence you think you have is gravity, that is it. Something that is big as 73 percent of the Universe should have more than just gravitational lensing. Dark matter was invented to explain other phenomena.

  6. You have not done your homework, obviously.

    Dark matter only interacts through gravity. So that is the only way to observe it! That’s how it was found to exist. And you are *still* confusing dark energy (your 73 percent) with dark matter (just over 20 percent). They both seem to exist.

    Dark matter wasn’t invented, it is observed. The observational evidence for dark energy is weaker, as the observations are more recent, but the evidence is hard to ignore.

    If you keep on refusing to read even the most basic background material on cosmology, and therefore even get the basic terminology wrong, then you open yourself up to ridicule, especially if you claim that you “know” things.

  7. Well if dark matter exists, why isn’t it randomly spread around the Universe? It should not be in any way depended upon visible matter. I’m not sure if you researched alternatives but it’s starting to catch on a bit with physicists…

    “Several recent papers argue that the universe’s expansion is in fact decelerating as expected; it’s just that gravitational effects arising from the distribution of galaxies create the illusion of acceleration. This is a controversial idea, to be sure, but if proven correct it would mean far more than just rethinking our models: a whopping 70 per cent of the universe will have just turned up.”

    Another problem space is not smooth as predicted instead we have observed lumpiness…

    “Through recent projects like the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, however, astronomers have created 3D maps of space, and they have come to realise that the universe simply isn’t smooth”

    Even though space has been observed as “lumpy” Professor Sean Carroll who gives lectures on Dark Matter still claims the universe is smooth and expanding. As you know, since you done some research. Dark energy goes by Einstein’s general theory of relativity to calculate the overall behavior of the universe with the assumption the universe is smooth. Gravity depends on how matter is distributed throughout space that is why it’s important to know if space is lumpy or smooth! But as stated before, research shows the universe is not smooth, it’s lumpy! I disagree with your assumption that dark energy is like a proven fact. It’s not, there is major problems with it.

  8. Oh dear – first start reading !!! You are again displaying severe ignorance in physics. Both dark and visible matter interact through gravity, of course. In fact, dark matter might just be the same as visible matter, but simply: dark. You know, when it doesn’t radiate light. You are dark matter, in that sense. A brick is.
    The real distinction is between baryonic and non-baryonic matter. They both interact through gravity, but baryonic matter interacts in other ways as well.

    You are quoting random bits of text, and if you would read some very basic cosmology text books, you’d understand that only on the very largest scales the Universe appears smooth. The lumpiness on megaparsec scales (also called large-scale structure) has been observed for a long time.

    At the end you are *again* (it is getting tedious) confusing dark energy and dark matter: I have not said dark energy is proven. I said that dark matter is well-observed, and that there is good evidence for dark energy.

    Sean Carroll writes pretty good science reviews, so I’m surprised you still don’t get any of this. Have you properly read it, or are you just scanning ?

Leave a Reply


You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture


Facebook photo


Google+ photo


Connecting to %s