Changes

[[Image:DarkMatterNASA1.jpg|350px300px|right|thumb|Implausible view of the universe by [[atheist]]ic scientists.]]'''Dark matter''', in is never-seen [[astronomymatter]]<ref name="CSR">{{cite book |author=Moshe Carmeli|title=Cosmological Special Relativity, The Large-Scale Structure of Space, Time and Velocity, 2nd Edition|publisher=World Scientific Publishing|year=2002|pages=22|url=http://www.creationbookpublishers.com/products/Without-Excuse.html|isbn=9-789-02-4936-5|quote=Remark on Dark Matter: As is any well known much of the support for the existence of the dark matter is due to the observed very high velocities of gas molecules or galaxies. For example galaxies in the far-off Coma-cluster are observed whirling around one another faster than the laws of physics would allow. So is the mysteriously rapid rotation of spiral galaxies. Equation (2.25) clearly shows that the observed velocity by us is not the velocity measured by a local observer at a relative time <math>t</math> with respect to us. He measures a smaller velocity, and the more back in time the more the velocity decreases. Does this mean that the hypothetical dark matter can be abolished as the "luminiferous ether" was proved to be superfluous by special relativity? }}</ref> that [[matteratheist]] that is not directly detectable but which astronomers ic [[astronomer]]s infer when the actual mass of any an observed celestial object is not sufficient insufficient to account for an observed gravitational ostensible [[gravitation]]al effect. {{#tag:ref|cf. "...much of the support for the existence of the dark matter is due to the observed very high velocities of gas molecules or galaxies. For example galaxies in the far-off Coma-cluster are observed whirling around one another faster than the laws of physics would allow. So is the mysteriously rapid rotation of spiral galaxies."<ref name="CSR"/>|group=note}} It is one of two concepts (the other is [[dark energy]]) that conventional [[evolution]]istic astronomers invoke to account for observations that conventional old-[[universe]] cosmologies, including the [[Big Bang]], cannot explain. The term was introduced by Swiss astronomer Fritz Zwicky who hypothesized that it must be the gravity of unseen ''dark matter'' that holds fast moving galaxies together in [[Galaxy cluster|cluster]]s.<ref>{{Cite web |author=F. Zwicky |title = Die Rotverschiebung von extragalaktischen Nebeln |year = 1933 |publisher = Helvetica Physica Acta |volume = 6 |pages = 110–127|url=http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1933AcHPh...6..110Z|language=German}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Dark Matter, Dark Energy and Inflation: The Big Mysteries of Cosmology|author=Michail S. Turner |publisher=Arizona connection, Lectures series|pages=0h:37min:00sec/1h:11min:39sec|accessdate=2012-10-14|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWaOyy3WfWk|quote=So how he did discover the Dark Matter? He was the first astronomer to study the clusters of galaxies. Clusters of galaxies are joint collections of 2000 or 3000 galaxies. F.Zwicky measured how fast these galaxies are moving. ...thousands of km per second ...He asks himself if these galaxies are moving so fast, what keeps the clusters together? And the answer is: Should be gravity, the gravity is a universal glue that holds things together. The planets in our solar system move fast, not quite this fast, and it is the gravity of our Sun that holds the Solar system together. There was little problem though: If you add up all the gravity of all the stars in all the galaxies it is not enough to hold the clusters together - it is off by factor of 50. Zwicky was bold enough to say that clusters must be held together by the gravity of unseen material, "Dark Matter".}}</ref>  '''''Dark matter is an example of something unseen, far-fetched, and unverified by laboratory experiments which is fully believed by [[atheist]]ic college professors''''', and required of many science students to believe. ''Dark matter'' is also the title of a fact-based [[Greatest Conservative Movies|great conservative movie]] having fabulous acting and top stars, but which was apparently buried by [[liberal]]s due to its unflattering portrayal of [[liberal]] academia. Nowadays there is an ongoing controversy taking place about the detectability status of Dark Matter. While proponents of the Friedmann Big Bang cosmologies supplied several papers (the most recent one (2012) published in [[Nature (journal)|journal ''Nature'']]<ref name="Nature">{{cite web|author=Zeeya Merali|title=Dark matter’s tendrils revealed: Direct measurement of a dark-matter ‘filament’ confirms its existence in a galaxy supercluster.|date=4 July 2012|issue=|publisher= journal Nature|doi=10.1038/nature.2012.10951|url=http://www.nature.com/news/dark-matter-s-tendrils-revealed-1.10951|quote=The team's computer simulations suggest that roughly another 10% of the mass could be due to visible stars and galaxies. The bulk, therefore, must be dark matter, says Dietrich.}}</ref><ref name="Dietrich">{{cite web|author=Jörg P. Dietrich et al.|title=A filament of dark matter between two clusters of galaxies|date=12 July 2012|issue=487|pages=202–204|publisher= journal Nature|doi=10.1038/nature11224|url=http://www.nature.com/news/dark-matter-s-tendrils-revealed-1.10951|quote=}}</ref>) making bold claims that the Dark Matter has been 'directly' observed or detected,{{#tag:ref|cf."However, to get the [Big Bang] theory to work, a universe comprising 22% dark matter is an absolute must."<ref name="clamour of claims">{{cite web|title=Has ‘dark matter’ really been proven? Clarifying the clamour of claims from colliding clusters|author=John Hartnett|publisher=Journal of creation|volume=20|issue=3|year=2006|accessdate=2012-10-14|url=https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j20_3/j20_3_6-8.pdf|quote=Halton Arp suggested that these arcs, which are very prominent in the Abell 2218 cluster, are not the result of gravitational lensing but ejections of galaxies and matter from other clusters. Of course that flies in the face of standard big bang cosmology, which assumes all matter originated in the initial big bang. See Arp, H. C., Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science, Apeiron, Montreal, 1998; and review, Hartnett, J.G., The heavens declare a different story! J. of Creation 17(2): 94–97, 2003. Note also that the redshift of the Bullet cluster is near 0.3 which is one of the discrete values that Arp claims is associated with ejection events of one galaxy giving birth to another.}}</ref>|group=note}} their opponents including [[John Hartnett|J.Hartnett]] however express their strong reservations and suggest that it ''"seems to be stretching things a bit, to put it mildly, given the many assumptions and interpretations necessarily involved."'' According to J.Hartnett the very essence of the ‘dark matter’ concept is that we have no explanation for what we observe and the whole dark matter scenario is in his view the result of incorrect physics being applied to the dynamics of astronomical bodies requiring ad hoc assumptions to be introduced to the norm. As an alternative explanation based on applying [[Occam’s razor]] for phenomena leading to dark matter hypothesis is proposed a new theory by late Israeli cosmologist/physicist [[Moshe Carmeli]] whose 5D space-time-velocity metric explains both galactic rotation curves and the flatness of the universe—without dark matter or other fudge factors and explains more of the data. [[Halton Arp]] also in the past suggested that observed arcs in vicinity of clusters are not the result of [[gravitational lensing]] but ejections of galaxies and matter from other clusters, i.e. the filament connecting the clusters of galaxies<ref>{{cite web|title=Detection of hot gas in the filament connecting the clusters of galaxies Abell 222 and Abell 223|author=N. Werner et al.|publisher=Astronomy and Physics|volume=482|isse=3|pages=L29 - L33|date=1 April 2008|url=http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=com_article&access=standard&Itemid=129&url=/articles/aa/full/2008/18/aa09599-08/table1.tex|doi=10.1051/0004-6361:200809599|accessdate=2012-10-14|quote=About half of the baryons in the local Universe are invisible and - according to simulations - their dominant fraction resides in filaments connecting clusters of galaxies in the form of low density gas with temperatures in the range of 105 < T < 107 K. This warm-hot intergalactic medium has never been detected indisputably using X-ray observations.}}</ref> might be associated with ejection events of one galaxy giving birth to another.{{#tag:ref|cf."There is much evidence that galaxies, quasi-stellar objects (quasars), etc. are generated and ejected from galactic nuclei (as Arp has shown), and not from initial density fluctuations in the universe shortly after the Big Bang. The observed rapid release of large amounts of energy from galactic nuclei could conceivably come from creation process that are occurring in the present-day universe."<ref name="DismantlingBB">{{cite book|author=Alex Williams, John Hartnett|title=Dismantling the Big Bang|publisher=Master Books|location=Green Forest, AR, USA|year=2005|page=284|pages=346|isbn=978-0-89051-437-5|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=FR7basoxkSwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=hartnett+dismantling+the+big+bang&hl=en&sa=X&ei=JvNwT_6nJJOP4gTP6fG_Ag&sqi=2&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=hartnett%20dismantling%20the%20big%20bang&f=false|quote=}}</ref>|group=note}} Such hypothesis undermines the standard big bang cosmology which assumes all matter originated in the initial big bang.<ref name="clamour of claims"/>

The first recorded instance of the invocation of anything similar to dark matter was the hypothesis of a [[planet]] named [[Vulcan (planet)|Vulcan]]in the mid-1850s. This planet was supposed to be inside the orbit of [[Mercury]] and yet was never directly observed from [[Earth]], for reasons that no astronomer ever explained. Astronomers inferred the existence of this planet because Mercury precessed in its orbit around the Sun by 43 arc-seconds per century faster than its own mass, and that expected by Newtonian physics. Many apparently observed transits of unidentified objects across the [[sun]], would predictwere thought to be this undiscovered planet.

Then in 1915, [[Albert Einstein]] solved the problem. He showed that Mercury, at [[apsis|perihelion]], passes close enough to the Sun for [[General Relativity]] to require a second-order correction. He published the correction and accounted exactly for the precession in the orbit of Mercury, without the need for any planet, [[asteroid]] belt, or other object or objects inside that orbit.<ref name=Hartnett>Hartnett, John. ''[[Starlight, Time and the New Physics]]''. Creation Book Publishers, 2007. ISBN 9780949906687.</ref>This is considered one of the first strong proofs of relativity, of many.

In solving the orbit of Mercury, Albert Einstein followed [[Occam's Razor]]. Future cosmologists would not heed his advice. == Modern conventional concept The current problem ==[[Image:Sky wmap.jpg|100px|left]]The present concept of dark matter dates from current problem involving a mass deficit in astronomical observations has been known since the 1930's1930s, when astronomers first found serious differences between the masses they inferred by examining orbital speeds and the masses they inferred by measuring stellar, galactic, and other visual magnitudes. === The mathematical problem ===This classic gravitational equation, derived from the theory of [[gravity]] of Sir [[Isaac Newton]], gives the total dynamical mass in any system that is inside the orbit of any given body (for example, a particular star in its galaxy):

[[Jan Oort]] first determined that the total mass of our [[galaxy]] was insufficient by a factor of at least two to account for the galaxy's rotational speed.<ref name=Thompson>Thompson, Tim. "[http://www.electric-cosmos.org/darkmatter.htm Missing 'Dark' Matter]." ''[http://www.electric-cosmos.org/indexOLD.htm The Electric Cosmos], n.d. Accessed July 28, 2008.</ref> The swiss Swiss astronomer Fritz Zwicky is also credited with the discovery of the discrepancy between dynamical and luminous mass, in 1933. Zwicky examined the Coma supercluster, and found that its dynamical mass exceeded the luminous mass by a factor of ten.<ref name=Silk>Silk, Joe. "[http://astro.berkeley.edu/~mwhite/darkmatter/essay.html Dark Matter]." Department of Astronomy, University of California-Berkeley, ca. 1995. Accessed July 28, 2008.</ref><ref name=Soter>Soter S and deGrasse-Tyson N, eds. "[Fritz Zwicky's Extraordinary Vision]." Excerpt from ''Cosmic Horizons: Astronomy at the Cutting Edge'', New Press, 2000. ISBN 978-1565846029 Accessed July 28, 2008.</ref><ref name=Miller>Miller CM. "[http://www.eclipse.net/~cmmiller/DM/ Cosmic Hide and Seek: the Search for the Missing Mass]." 1995. Accessed July 28, 2008.</ref>

[[Image:HubbleDarkMatterRing.jpg|thumb|300px|left|Image of galactic cluster with ring of alleged dark matter around it]]Since that time, astronomers have assumed that some form of matter, which gives off no measurable radiation, is nevertheless present in various galaxies and galactic clusters that clearly spin faster than their measured luminous masses would predict.<ref name=Harvard>Authors unknown. "[http://xrtpub.harvard.edu/xray_astro/dark_matter.html Dark Matter Mystery]." ''Field Guide to X-ray Astronomy'', Chandra X-ray Center, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, August 29, 2006. Accessed July 28, 2008.</ref> They acknowledge, however, that the notion of a new, non-luminous form of matter is difficult to accept. Yet many astronomers insist that they have observational evidence for which dark matter remains the only plausible explanation. One such communication comes from the Chandra X-ray Center, whose astronomers stated in 2006 that they had observed two galactic clusters for hundreds of hours, and that each one clearly showed a rotational speed consistent with far more mass than was visible.<ref name=Chandra>Hupp E, Roy S., and Watzke M. "[httphttps://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/aug/HQ_06297_CHANDRA_Dark_Matter.html NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter]." [[NASA]], press release 06-297, August 21, 2006. Accessed July 28, 2008.</ref>

[[Image:Cosmos percent comp.jpg|200px|right]]The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) team at [[NASA]] has used measurements of cosmic microwave background radiation<ref name=WMAP>Hinshaw GF, and Griswold, B. "[http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/news/index.html WMAP Mission Results]." [[NASA]], April 17, 2008. Accessed July 26, 2008.</ref> to determine that the universe is geometrically flat. According to standard cosmology, the universe should then be at a critical mass density of 9.9 * 10^-27−27kg/m³. The actual mass density of the universe is more than twenty times less than that.<ref name=WMAP2>Hinshaw GF, and Griswold B. "[http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_matter.html WMAP - Content of the universe]." [[NASA]], April 17, 2008. Accessed July 28, 2008.</ref>

Dark matter filaments on the galactic scale have been directly measured, and are considered to be a major factor in the super-galactic structure of the universe.<ref>http://www.nature.com/news/dark-matter-s-tendrils-revealed-1.10951</ref>=== Candidates Proposed explanations for dark matter ===Conventional Evolutionistic astronomers have generally focused on the following explanations for the discrepancy between dynamical and luminous mass:

# New, previously unknown forms of matter. Many cosmologists have formed hypotheses that suggest entirely new particles of matter. They call these Weakly Interactive Interacting Massive ParticleParticles, or WIMPs.<ref name=WMAP2Silk/><ref name=SilkMiller/><ref name=MillerWMAP2/> Other cosmologists have suggested other types of particles, named ''axions''.<ref name=Hartnett/><ref name=axionnote>The name ''Axion'' is a registered trademark of the Colgate-Palmolive Company ([[USA]]) and was the name of a once-popular brand of laundry detergent used to pre-soak heavily-soiled garments before washing them with a conventional detergent. The astrophysicists who coined this name suggested that axions performed some kind of cosmic cleansing.</ref> The recently sought Higgs boson is another candidate for a proposed dark-matter elementary particle.

Tim Thompson<ref name=Thompson/> has recently suggested yet another possibility to which most conventional astronomers pay scant attention. He suggests that the major attractive force that allows galaxies and systems == Criticisms of higher mass to rotate with such excessive speed is not gravity at all, but electrostatic forces. He reminds his readers that electrostatic forces are stronger than gravity, and also that the strength of a magnetic field varies inversely as the first power, not the square, of the distance from the center. This is very close to Milgrom's MOND, with the advantage of having an underlying theory to explain it,<ref namedark-matter concept ==Thompson/> which Milgrom's system does not have.<ref name=Hartnett/> == Creationist perspectives == Creationistic criticism ====In 2000, Don DeYoung, writing in the [[Creation Research Society Quarterly]], challenged the notion of dark matter as a fanciful concept with little justification.<ref name=deYoung>DeYoung DB. "[http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/darkmatter.html Dark Matter]." ''Creation Research Society Quarterly'', 36(4), March 2000. Accessed July 28, 2008.</ref> He pointed out that none of the conventional explanations popular at the time were satisfactory:

DeYoung then concluded ==== Secular criticism ====Tim Thompson<ref name=Thompson/> has recently suggested that the hand of [[God]] was responsible for holding rapidly spinning major attractive force that allows galaxies and larger systems together, despite the observed of higher mass deficitsto rotate with such excessive speed is not gravity at all, but electrostatic forces. But [[John Hartnett]] has recently produced a solution He reminds his readers that requires no continuing miracleelectrostatic forces are stronger than gravity, but derives from a new understanding and also that the strength of a magnetic field varies inversely as the creation and expansion first power, not the square, of the heavensdistance from the center.This is very close to Milgrom's MOND, with the advantage of having an underlying theory to explain it,<ref name=HartnettThompson/> Hartnettwhich Milgrom's system builds on does not have.<ref name=Hartnett/> More to the earlier work of Carmelipoint, who Thompson suggests that the quality that allows galaxies to spin so rapidly is not mass, but electric charge. However, c and he has never been able to publish them in 1996 proposed an extension any reputable publication. == Controversy over detection of Einsteinian relativity dark matter ==Several attempts has been made by proponents of Big Bang cosmology paradigm to establish the cosmic scale existence of dark matter as fact and demolish the criticisms of ‘dark matter sceptics’.<ref name="direct empirical proof">{{cite web|author=Douglas Clowe et al.|title=A direct empirical proof of the existence of dark matter|publisher=Astrophys.J.|date=19 Aug 2006|issue=648|pages=L109-L113|url=https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0608407|doi=10.1086/508162|quote=We present new weak lensing observations of 1E0657-558 ([[Cosmological Relativity]]z=0.296), a unique cluster merger, that enable a direct detection of dark matter, independent of assumptions regarding the nature of the gravitational force law. The Hartnett systemDue to the collision of two clusters, the dissipationless stellar component and the fluid-like X-ray emitting plasma are spatially segregated. By using both wide-field ground based images and HST/ACS images of the cluster cores, we create gravitational lensing maps which show that the gravitational potential does not trace the plasma distribution, the dominant baryonic mass component, but rather approximately traces the distribution of galaxies. An 8-sigma significance spatial offset of the center of the total mass from the center of the baryonic mass peaks cannot be explained more fully in his work ''[[Starlightwith an alteration of the gravitational force law, Time and thus proves that the New Physicsmajority of the matter in the system is unseen.}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|author=Fraser Cain|title=Galaxy Collision Separates Out the Dark Matter|date=2006-8-21|acessdate=2012-10-14|url=http://www.universetoday.com/502/galaxy-collision-separates-out-the-dark-matter/}}</ref> The latest claim published in [[Nature (journal)|journal Nature]](4 July 2012) is that ''"A ‘finger’ of the Universe’s dark-matter skeleton, predicts which ultimately dictates where galaxies form, has been observed for the first time."'' Despite the bold statement that an expanding universe will produce rapidly spinning ''"Researchers have directly detected a slim bridge of dark matter joining two clusters of galaxies and larger systems "'', the declaration seems self-contradictory as at the same time it has been admitted that the results were obtained by usage of computer simulations and astrophysicists are still faced with necessity to identify what the dark matter is made of. It has been proposed that this mysterious invisible substance that should dominate the space all around us in concentrations six or seven times more than normal matter could be either:*a consequence cold (slow-moving) particle or *a warm (fast-moving) one, like a [[neutrino]].{{#tag:ref|cf."Researchers have directly detected a slim bridge of dark matter joining two clusters of galaxies, using a technique that could eventually help astrophysicists to understand the expansion'' structure of the Universe and not due identify what makes up the mysterious invisible substance known as dark matter...Refining the technique could also help to gravity pin down the identity of dark matter — whether it is a cold (slow-moving) particle or any other forcea warm (fast-moving) aloneone, like a neutrino — because different particles will clump differently along the filament."<ref name="Nature"/>|group=note}}<ref name="Nature"/>  [[John Hartnett|J.Hartnett]] commented on similar occasion that there are many assumptions and interpretations necessarily to be involved, and these kind of arguments typically all hinge on the interpretation of the [[gravitational lensing]] evidence, i.e. whether the correct physics has been applied. He points out that some claim dark matter comprises heavy neutrinos. If it was standard neutrinos, there would need to be about 10 billion times the amount of the normal [[matter]] made from [[proton]]s and [[neutron]]s. Hence the need to look for a massive neutrino. But there are supposed to only be about 20 particles per cubic centimetre! It seems more than prudent to adopt a ‘wait and see’ approach on this alleged ‘proof’. J.Hartnett concludes that whether or not the dark matter in some form turns out to be real stuff, its ‘existence’ at present appears to be largely based on an underlying motive to keep a belief system that is fundamentally flawed.<ref name="clamour of claims"/> ==See also==[[Tully-Fisher relation]] ==Notes==<references group=note/> {{Relativity}}

[[Category:PhysicsCosmology]]