Chapter 13 – The assumed Expansion of the Universe, a Dark Matter
GALAXIES For Intelligently Designed Minds (NOT For ‘Standard’ Model DUMMIES)
The two Galaxies we are most familiar with are not expanding, but approaching each other
TINA: We have discussed a number of events for which the ‘Standard’ Model offers poor answers, partly because ‘the force of gravity’ is not understood clearly and partly because of their zeal to defend the assumed ‘only valid and accepted model of the evolution of the universe’. As they insist in defending the narrative they cooked up, the one that the universe started as a non-intelligently designed tiny dot that grew to the almost infinite cosmos we witness today, they have to compromise more and more the understanding of what they witness in order to protect their favored poorly conceived theory. Are there more events that they are interpreting upside-down for this reason?
TIM: We will discuss later the assumptions on which the expansion of the universe are based, which are quite weak and mainly based on narrow interpretations of Hubble’s observation that distant galaxies are or look red shifted. The concept of bubbles undermines the interpretation that the red shift observed proves that the universe is expanding, or that the blue shift observed in a few galaxies proves that those galaxies are in a collision course.
TINA: ‘Standard’ Model cosmologists claim that Andromeda and the Milky Way will collide in a few billion years. However, how could they know that when less than one hundred years ago they didn’t know that Andromeda is a galaxy? How could they predict what would happen in 4,000,000,000 years to something they didn’t even know it existed one century ago?
TOM: It has been established almost unanimously by the scientific community that Andromeda and the Milky Way will collide into each other sooner or later, in about 4 billion years; no question about that. The blue shift observed in Andromeda is an irrefutable proof of it.
TIM: Just because two galaxies might be approaching each other at a given time and for a couple hundred years, or even for a couple million years, it doesn’t mean that they will continue to do so for four billion years. Possibly, they assume that because they ignore the engine that keeps galaxies in their own orbits, just as planets are kept in their orbits by the engine of their solar system.
TINA: Do you mean that their assumption about the collision is the same as if they would claim that two planets would crash into each other because they are apparently approaching while following their orbits?
TIM: Exactly. In spite of seeing that planets keep to their orbits closely, they still don’t understand or want to admit that galaxies throughout the universe do so also.
Usual ‘Standard’ Model Procedures to Save Face
TINA: Perhaps, they think that those galaxies will crash into each other because of their poor understanding of the gravitational balance of galaxies.
TIM: I think it is also embarrassing for ‘Standard’ Model cosmologists to admit that the two galaxies we are the most familiar with are approaching each other, instead of expanding as they have decreed the whole universe is doing.
TINA: So, they condemned those two galaxies to collide as a punishment, just because they are approaching each other temporarily.
TIM: They have surmised and concluded that the reason for this is that the two ‘rogue ‘galaxies are in a crash course and will smash into each other. As mentioned, later we can discuss how the blue shift observed might not even mean that those galaxies are approaching each other that much. In addition, the poor conclusion shows that their understanding of galaxies’ orbits is poor.
TINA: When we see two planets approaching each other in the night sky, we don’t assume that they will crash. This is because it is rightly understood that planets have definite paths they follow, orbits, and although they approach each other, they never do so to a point of collision, but they will part ways again.
TIM: Yea, this is a basic notion of astronomy and it should be for cosmology; galaxies also have orbits. Although considering that until about one hundred years ago astronomers weren’t even sure about the existence of other galaxies, it is perhaps understandable that the knowledge of how galaxies operate is still in its baby stage. In addition, while planets in our solar system complete their orbits around the sun in just a few years, galaxies’ take much longer in completing their orbits around their barycenter.
TINA: The longest known orbit of the planets in our solar system is about 160 years, as it is the case of Neptune.
TIM: In contrast, even to observe the full orbit of our sun around the center of the Milky Way would take millions of years, how much more the orbit of a galaxy.
TINA: This is because a planet is a tiny event circling a star, while a galaxy is so massive that it might have 100 billion to a trillion stars and take millions of years just to make one revolution.
TIM: Yes. It is estimated that our solar system takes about 250 million years to make one rotation around the center of the galaxy, or something like that.
‘Standard’ Cosmologists Assumption that Andromeda and the Milky Way will collide in another 4 billion Years is based on a 1 in 40,000,000 Chance
TINA: So, just because two galaxies while following their orbits approach each other for a number of years, it doesn’t mean that they will crash 4 billion years later. They couldn’t have observed the galaxies approaching each other for more than one hundred years, if as mentioned, not long ago people still believed that there was only one galaxy, the Milky Way, and that everything in the universe was inside it.
TIM: Correct. The conclusion, whoever arrived to it, that the two galaxies will collide is either very amateurish, and I don’t want to offend amateur astronomers who often do remarkable work and discoveries, or the conclusion is purposely misleading. It is also strange that apparently none or few from the ‘Standard’ Model camp have objected to the extremely weak evidence offered for the even poorer conclusions and assumptions.
TINA: But galaxies and other celestial events do collide sometimes, isn’t it?
TIM: They do merge sometimes but it seems that it only happens when one of the events involved is failing or decaying and can't perform its normal functions. Therefore, for Andromeda and the Milky Way to merge, either one of them would have to be decaying or losing its electromagnetic field and bubble of energy or both of them would.
TINA: Considering that cosmologists made the prediction of their assumed collision based on observations made on the course of a few decades, they couldn’t remotely have enough data to claim they are observing an irreversible phenomenon that would take a four billion year span.
TIM: That type of extrapolation is ridiculous, as it assumes that what was observed over the period of less than one hundred years will continue unchanged for billions of years to come. Partly, they do that because of the non-intelligent evolutionary ideas they try to apply to understanding the super-intelligent universe.
TINA: Possibly out of duty to defend their ‘only valid and accepted’ contradictory theories, as they did with the invention of the dark matter.
TIM: Yep. We have discussed that already. The dark matter became part of the official lore after cosmologists realized a couple of BIG cracks on their ‘Standard’ theories. One of the cracks is that the assumed expansion of the universe wasn't actually possible, because there is not enough mass at the edge of the visible universe to generate any expansion in the frame of their theory of gravity. The other big crack in the theory was to find that stars near the edge of galaxies move too fast and that there is not enough mass there to justify that speed. Specifically, stars near the edge move at relatively the same speed as the ones near the center of a galaxy, which contradicts their views.
Nothing is too big of a Challenge or too hard to invent for imaginative and only valid ‘Standard’ Minds
TINA: However, instead of questioning the ‘Standard’ Model, they adopted the existence of dark matter and energy at a rate of about 95 percent dark matter to 5 percent visible matter in the universe. Then they placed their new invention especially concentrated towards the universe’s edge and the edges of galaxies.
TIM: Nothing is too big of a challenge for imaginative and only valid ‘Standard’ minds. Nothing is too hard to invent, whether it is singularities, inflations, baryogenesis, or hot-plasma primordial soups. Add to that, fragments of stones bunching together and generating the engines of planets and solar systems, plus collisions and explosions! Nothing is too wild, big or pseudo-scientific for ‘Standard’ Model ‘valid creativity’. In fact, that’s one of their fortes, to invent more theories for their ‘only valid’ science, and for which they are rewarded generously.
TOM: Look who is talking!
TINA: They are reassured that as long as their new theories support the ‘Standard’ status quo, there is nothing to fear and there is no idea too wild to add to their repertoire. However, when Intelligent Design people provide scientific experimental hard evidence that something could have not happened by the ‘Standard’ claimed evolutionary chain of accidents, the ‘Standard’ crowd howls that the ID people are pseudo-scientific and blinded by myths and legends.
TOM: As they in fact are. Those people are not real scientists, but just a bunch of religious opportunists. Their trying to throw mud to the ‘Standard’ Model of cosmology and to real science more than proves their real intentions. That’s the only goal of the so-called Intelligent Design people, to try to besmirch true science, just as you do.
TINA: Today, the prevalent scientific view is that the existence of dark matter and dark energy is ‘proven’ by the obvious lack of enough visible matter to support the ‘Standard’ views.
TIM: As mentioned, it should be obvious to cosmologists that a star and a planet are different and therefore have different engines and mechanisms.
TINA: That fact would be nothing to be surprised at for intelligently designed minds, however, for ‘Standard’ Model minds, it might be difficult to question their deep-rooted beliefs and narrative, ‘just because’ the evidence contradicts it.
TIM: Instead of questioning their invented ‘Standard only valid’ science, they just invented more of it.
TINA: They turned the possible evidence against their narrative into a ‘new glorious’, somewhat dark, chapter of the same, a ‘Standard’ new invention.
TIM: Today, fifty years after the dark invention, still a large part of the investment, resources and time devoted to cosmological research are earmarked to find the elusive dark matter and apparently, the trend will continue at full throttle for decades to come, as Tom pointed out.
TINA: To put it simply, the evidence exposes that the expansion of the universe is not possible, that stars move too fast towards the edge of galaxies contradicting their model of gravity, and that at the edge of galaxies and of the visible universe, there is no enough mass to support their expansive ‘Standard’ Model of cosmology.
TIM: The simple fact is that their narrative fails and it is not supported neither by the evidence, nor even by the ‘Standard’ accepted math in use.
TINA: Instead of questioning their narrative, they invented the existence of an extra 95 percent amount of dark matter and energy to defend their dead legends and evolutionary myths.
TIM: Exactly! Therefore, today the ‘only accepted and valid’ narrative is that the universe is made of about 5 percent visible and perceivable mass and the other 95 percent is made of the invented dark matter and dark energy that nobody can find try as they may, which is also known as the only valid and only accepted Lambda-CDM model of cosmology.
TINA: No discrepancies brought up by the evidence are presented as if something is wrong with their narrative, but instead as ‘supporting evidence’ for further inventions, such as the dark matter and energy. They were added to the math of the universe just to justify the accepted views of cosmologists without casting doubts to their narrative.
Circular Non-Thinking in the ‘Standard’ Model Narrative
TIM: In the mentioned case of Andromeda and the Milky Way approaching each other, their claims of the future clash of the galaxies seem completely unfounded considering the short time involved in observation, less than 100 years compared to the 4,000,000,000 years prediction. The phenomenon it would be similar to someone observing a comet traveling towards the sun in the course of a few minutes and then predicting that the comet will continue in that path for millions of years and then crash into such and such remote celestial event.
TINA: The conclusion would ignore the fact that the comet’s orbit would take it around the sun and back to where it came from in its usual orbit circling the star, repeatedly and with an amazing punctuality. The assumption of the collision of those two fine galaxies ignores the facts that there is no enough evidence to map the future trajectory of those galaxies and that galaxies, just as planets and stars do, approach each other at times in the course of their orbits, but they don’t crash.
TIM: Yes. In addition, those poorly thought assumptions are used to try to validate previous and future poor assumptions in a clear case of circular thinking.
TINA: Such as, ‘we know that the universe is expanding because we know there is 95 percent dark matter and energy at the edge of the universe’ and ‘it is clear that there is 95 percent dark matter and energy at the end of the universe because the universe is expanding’. They forget to clarify that they invented the assumed expansion of the universe to justify their big bang and that when they discovered that it was impossible for the expansion to take place according to the evidence, they invented the dark matter.
TIM: Then, they add, ‘we discovered that the two galaxies we are most familiar with are not expanding but instead approaching each other, but don’t worry, after observing them for a few years we already know that they will crash into each other in 4,000,000,000 years. No worries our expansion theory is sound and safe’.
TINA: They take those statements at face value because everybody knows that’s their bosses ‘only valid theory’. They have to defend the expansion to defend the explosion of the tiny singularity. However, given the extraordinary leeway they enjoy to produce narratives, wouldn't it had been smarter for them to choose a contraction of the universe instead of an expansion. In that case, they could have claimed that the imbalance in the matter of the universe and the concentration of it towards the center of galaxies and of the cosmos prove that the contraction has started. As a bonus, they neither would have to find the dark matter they invented to justify the expansion not even to justify why stars farther away from the center of the galaxy move faster and not slower according to the way planets move in the solar systems. They could have claimed that while the center of system is already compressed, at the edge of galaxies and of the universe, there are still some hyperactive left-behind stars still free to move faster. However, perhaps asking for smarter narratives would be too much to ask from ‘Standard’ Model minds.
TIM: Yes, don't expect them to think too much, although they could have saved themselves from the graviton and dark matter embarrassment.
The Bubble's Concept View on why the two Galaxies are approaching each other and what the Outcome would probably be
TINA: Anyway, how would you explain what is happening with the two galaxies?
TIM: It is very possible that the two galaxies are just following their ordinary paths, which sometimes brings them closer together and then it separates them again, just as planets do within the bubble of energy of the solar system. As mentioned, later we can discuss how the bubbles concept explains the red shift and blue shift observed in galaxies, which could further clarify the phenomenon.
TINA: I can hardly wait to hear about it.
TIM: In any case, most probably, the galaxies could be approaching each other in their paths not only for a few thousand but even for a few million years, and then veer their courses from each other’s paths again.
TINA: Exactly! The establishing of the collision paths between the two galaxies is quite sloppy to say the least, probably guided by their poor understanding of how galaxies and gravitational balance in the universe work.
TIM: In addition, many in the ‘scientific community’ and their financial sponsors would latch to such illogical explanations to try to save the already sinking ship of the ‘Standard’ theories, such as the assumed expansion of the universe, while taking the opportunity to identify ‘more chaos and lack of intelligent order at any level of the universe’.
Messengers of Doom: The ‘Standard’ Model imagines a Universe of monstrous Black Holes and impending Cataclysms, much as some People of Antiquity imagined the open Seas were
TOM: Your assumption that the ‘Standard’ Model is any sort of sinking ship is so off and uneducated, typical of messengers of doom! For your information, the ‘Standard’ Model is growing from strength to strength and accumulating daily evidence for its correctness!
TIM: Talking about messengers of doom, the ‘Standard’ Model of cosmology constantly portrays the universe as illogical, dangerous, dumbly organized and unreliable, as all branches of evolution do also. In that sense, they cook up and peddle countless stories to frighten kids and grown up ‘Standard’ adults alike. Their narrative is full of how everything could be destroyed at the blinking of an eye by asteroids, black holes, supernovas, the formation of new singularities or even by evil aliens or any other perceived or imagined ‘threats’. All those mostly mythological horror stories are taken out of context and misinterpreted by ‘educators’ and media, which only generate more fear of the unknown and ultimately of our wonderful universe.
TINA: We see this all the time in the media and textbooks, how dangerous and unpredictable and chaotic the universe is assumed to be.
TIM: It’s a reminiscence of some of the people of antiquity who believed that beyond the horizon in the open seas, there were demons, monsters and abysmal infernos waiting for anyone that ever dared to sail losing sight of the shore. I don’t mean to say that all people of antiquity were ignorant, but I refer to some of them. Some of the scientists and people of antiquity were very intelligent and enlightened.
TINA: Were the ‘ignorant’ people found mostly among western or eastern people?
TIM: The people of coastal Asia and Africa seemed to have been familiar with the monsoon seasonal winds that blow along the line from South Asia to the eastern coast of Africa. They blow six months in one direction, and six months in the opposite one. Those winds naturally aided them in developing transcontinental navigation and in venturing into the seas. Many of those nations in the Indian Ocean developed maritime trade much earlier in history than the colonial western powers developed their armadas to try to control the spice and opium, the slave trade and to try to impose their will on everybody else by using their canons and guns. In addition, in the Pacific Ocean, the trade winds had a similar effect although, I think those winds always blow in the same direction towards the equator, so although they favor discovery and spreading of the population, they didn’t favor so much traveling back and forth and trade.