This graphic is a great illustration of how people can be too wedded to a theory. From Zerohedge.
So, 68 + 27 = 95% of the universe is comprised of theoretical components - dark energy and dark matter - which nobody has ever observed?
Only 0.5% of the universe is comprised of stars - the obvious massive things that astronomers largely observe?
To explain this in simple terms: Astronomers study the movement of stars, and other radiation that is detectable with telescopes. They also have a presupposition (hypothesis) that the universe began in a big bang billions of years ago - i.e. everything started at one point and has been moving out from that. Astronomers try to make mathematical equations that explain what they observe, and conform with the hypothesis of an ancient big bang.
The actual observations do not fit the hypothesis.
When this happens, a scientist has two options:
In this case, their mathematical models differ so much from the actual observations of the movement of stars, that the only way they can make the equations work is to imagine that there is actually 74 times as much matter out there than they can actually see (dark matter is 74x the mass of the stars in the above graphic). That really means the models are wrong and they have no idea what's actually going on.
"Dark matter" is like hypothesising that female rabbits have one baby per year. So you get a pair of rabbits, leave them to their business, and by the end of the year have dozens of rabbits. You could conclude that your hypothesis was wrong - rabbits must breed at a faster rate than that. Or you could hold onto the original hypothesis (one baby per year per female), and conclude that there must be dozens of invisible rabbits in the cage that you can't observe which are responsible for all of the additional offspring. Which is more reasonable?
Now, I am not an astronomer. I don't know what the reality is here - maybe "dark matter" and "dark energy" really do exist, and maybe there is a lot of it. However, I do know a thing or two about the scientific method - and science studies what we can observe and test. If your theories don't work unless you imagine the intervention of massive invisible forces you cannot observe or test, forces that are far greater than the natural forces that you can actually observe - you're moving outside the bounds of science, and moving into faith.
In fact, how is this different than concluding that astronomy doesn't work unless there has been the intervention of a massive invisible personal force - a god - greater and more powerful than the observable parts of the universe?
Astronomy shows us that there must be something far greater out there. People only disagree on what that is.
So, 68 + 27 = 95% of the universe is comprised of theoretical components - dark energy and dark matter - which nobody has ever observed?
Only 0.5% of the universe is comprised of stars - the obvious massive things that astronomers largely observe?
To explain this in simple terms: Astronomers study the movement of stars, and other radiation that is detectable with telescopes. They also have a presupposition (hypothesis) that the universe began in a big bang billions of years ago - i.e. everything started at one point and has been moving out from that. Astronomers try to make mathematical equations that explain what they observe, and conform with the hypothesis of an ancient big bang.
The actual observations do not fit the hypothesis.
When this happens, a scientist has two options:
- Use the scientific method: Conclude that the hypothesis is wrong (e.g. there was no big bang, the universe originated differently), or
- Use faith: Keep believing the hypothesis anyway, and make up stuff to explain it.
In this case, their mathematical models differ so much from the actual observations of the movement of stars, that the only way they can make the equations work is to imagine that there is actually 74 times as much matter out there than they can actually see (dark matter is 74x the mass of the stars in the above graphic). That really means the models are wrong and they have no idea what's actually going on.
"Dark matter" is like hypothesising that female rabbits have one baby per year. So you get a pair of rabbits, leave them to their business, and by the end of the year have dozens of rabbits. You could conclude that your hypothesis was wrong - rabbits must breed at a faster rate than that. Or you could hold onto the original hypothesis (one baby per year per female), and conclude that there must be dozens of invisible rabbits in the cage that you can't observe which are responsible for all of the additional offspring. Which is more reasonable?
Now, I am not an astronomer. I don't know what the reality is here - maybe "dark matter" and "dark energy" really do exist, and maybe there is a lot of it. However, I do know a thing or two about the scientific method - and science studies what we can observe and test. If your theories don't work unless you imagine the intervention of massive invisible forces you cannot observe or test, forces that are far greater than the natural forces that you can actually observe - you're moving outside the bounds of science, and moving into faith.
In fact, how is this different than concluding that astronomy doesn't work unless there has been the intervention of a massive invisible personal force - a god - greater and more powerful than the observable parts of the universe?
Astronomy shows us that there must be something far greater out there. People only disagree on what that is.
Last edited:
