Replies

You just don't like science you don't understand?

There is NO science involved here. Dark Matter is a mathematical conjecture to "attempt" to make up for the fact that observations (which is the PRIMARY tool of science) do NOT jive with the Big Bang Theory in ANY of the predictive models of the BB.

And, yes, I believe in protons and electrons because you can observe electrons and protons even if you can't see them.

I also deny the existence of Black Holes. Once again, they are ONLY a mathematical conjecture. The irony is that the assumption that BB is true and that BH's are possible, leads to the conclusion that the ENTIRE universe IS a black hole!! Which it is not. Of course, then you got Stephen Hawking claiming that the universe is a web of quantum-sized universes that exist inside their own BH's of universes.... It is MORE arcane that Ptolemy's epicycles. No, I have no problem with science. But Math ain't science! And a lot of Mathematicians/Cosmologists think it is, in fact, some of them worship it as a religion ala Pythagorean Mysticism.

You are using this Internet and writing your remarks BECAUSE the predictions with quantum physics work. There is a quantum field and it started expressing when dimension space and dimension time left the ground (rest) state. The quantum field is the residual state of space and time mixed sustaining a field of energy not in equilibrium. Quantum mechanics adequately predicts what matter will do, how it will interact with the quantum field, and what can be done to matter to gain use from the quantum field. It ain't magic, but if you don't have a basic understanding of how the quantum field generates the interactions as a medium for matter and forces then it must look like magic and something you don't want to believe in. But you will continue to be blessed with developments which come about because someone DOES have a fundamental understanding which allows them to predict and utilize. Enjoy, stop scoffing and enjoy!

Dark Matter is a mathematical conjecture to "attempt" to make up for the fact that observations (which is the PRIMARY tool of science) do NOT jive with the Big Bang Theory in ANY of the predictive models of the BB.

No, actually Dark Matter is used to explain the observed paths of stars in galaxies, and in no way depends on the Big Bang or any other explanation for the origin of the universe itself. See "Astronomy," July 2006.

Dark Energy is a candidate explanation for the observations of the speed of expansion of the universe over time. It fits the observed evidence and is consistent with mathematical descriptions of the universe (i.e. General Theory of Relativity) that also fit with observed evidence and can be used to make testable predictions. Fitting with observations and tested theory is not automatically proof, but it's a place to start.

By your standards, we can indeed 'observe' black holes even though we can't see them. And the black hole itself is not only a mathematical conjecture, but a very consistent expression of mathematically observable data. (Stars in orbit around an unseen mass, whose mass and maximum radius can be observed/calculated from the orbit of the visible star, demonstrate an object with mass and radius sufficient to have an escape velocity greater than the velocity of light.) Whether there is an actual 'singularity' at the heart of the black hole is mathematical conjecture, but not the existence of bodies with escape velocity greater than the speed of light.

Extensions beyond the observed data, such as Hawking's conjecture that the universe is a web of quantum-sized universes (not his claim, actually, just a conjecture to explain what the current theory allows but does not require) are not the evidence for black holes.

And in fact, the apparent accelerating expansion of the observable objects in our universe would indicate that the universe is not a black hole. In contrast, instead of being closed where nothing can escape, most things in the universe seems to have a high enough velocity to escape, or at least to expand to a rest state without falling back toward the net center of mass.

You don't have to accept explanations that are consistent with observed data and with testable theory, but the burden of proof is on those who propose alternate explanations. What's your explanation, and what's your proof?