Missing Mass 1 -- Science Disproves Evolution

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Imagine seeing several rocks in outer space, moving radially away from Earth. If the rocks were simultaneously blasted away from Earth, their masses, changing velocities, and distances from Earth would have a very precise mathematical relationship with each other. When a similar relationship is checked for billions of observable galaxies, an obvious conclusion is that these galaxies did not explode from a common point in a huge �big bang� (a). It is even more obvious that if such an explosion occurred, it must have been much, much less than billions of years ago.

Evolutionists try to fix this problem in two ways. They assume the universe is filled with at least ten times as much matter as can be seen. This is maintained even though three decades of searching for this �missing mass� have turned up nothing other than the conclusion that it does not exist (b).

a. This problem was first explained by R. H. Dicke, �Gravitation and the Universe: The Jayne Lectures for 1969,� American Philosophical Society of Philadelphia, 1970, p. 62. Alan Guth�s attempt to solve it led to the �inflationary big bang theory.

b. This missing mass is called dark matter, because it cannot be seen and, so far, has not been detected. Candidates for �missing mass� include neutrinos, black holes, dead stars, low-mass stars, and various subatomic particles and objects dreamed up by cosmologists simply to solve this problem. Each candidate has many scientific problems.

One study of two adjacent galaxies shows they have relatively little dark matter. [See Ron Cowen, �Ringing In a New Estimate for Dark Matter,� Science News, Vol. 136, 5 August 1989, p. 84.]

Another study found no missing mass within 150 million light-years of Earth. [See Eric J. Lerner, �COBE Confounds the Cosmologists,� Aerospace America, March 1990, pp. 40�41.]

A third study found no dark matter in a large elliptical galaxy, M105. [See �Dark Matter Isn�t Everywhere,� Astronomy, September 1993, pp. 19�20.]

A fourth study found no dark matter in the main body of our galaxy. [See Alexander Hellemans, �Galactic Disk Contains No Dark Matter,� Science, Vol. 278, 14 November 1997, p. 1230.]

A fifth study, after cataloging the positions and distances of 100 million galaxies, concluded that the needed mass does not exist. [See Ron Cowen, �Whole-Sky Catalog,� Science News, Vol. 155, 6 February 1999, pp. 92�93.]

A sixth study, the most sensitive ever conducted on Earth, found no dark matter. [See Charles Seife, �Once Again, Dark Matter Eludes a Supersensitive Trap,� Science, Vol. 304, 14 May 2004, p. 950.]

�Of all the many mysteries of modern astronomy, none is more vexing than the nature of dark matter. Most astronomers believe that large quantities of some unidentified material pervade the universe. ... Yet this dark matter has eluded every effort by astronomers and physicists to bring it out of the shadows. A handful of us suspect that it might not really exist, and others are beginning to consider this possibility seriously.� Mordehai Milgrom, �Does Dark Matter Really Exist?� Scientific American, Vol. 287, August 2002, p. 43.

�Even the most enthusiastic cosmologist will admit that current theories of the nature of the universe have some big holes. One such gap is that the universe seems to be younger than some of the objects contained within it. Another problem is that the observed universe just doesn�t appear to have enough matter in it to explain the way it behaves now, nor the way theorists predict it will evolve.� Robert Matthews, �Spoiling a Universal �Fudge Factor,�� Science, Vol. 265, 5 August 1994, pp. 740�741.