Joshua Minton’s Online Pulpit : Dark Matter Pisses Me Off and Why I Think It’s Wrong as a Cosmological Constant

Dark Matter Pisses Me Off and Why I Think It’s Wrong as a Cosmological Constant

Posted by Joshua Bradley Minton in August 22nd, 2006

I spend so much time tearing down religious and social institutions on this blog that I rarely turn my hydra-headed attention span to the world of science so excuse me while I fix my sniper scope here. Ok, got it. In the crosshairs today are the astronomers and cosmologists who are searching relentlessly for proof of “dark matter” which is needed in order to justify the current scientific model of the Universe.

Scientists are some of the most hard-headed sumbitches on the planet–way more hard headed than even our President whose head is made out of granite and whose will to change is as obstinate as a Viagra hard on at the Moonlight Bunny Ranch.

Scientists don’t like change which is why Einstein, to justify his model of the Universe, came up with some bullcheet he called The Cosmological Constant in order to keep a stationary universe as the hub of his scientific worldview. He was as wrong as whatever dumb ass movie studio decided to remake Adventures in Babysitting as a black (as in people) comedy. Einstein was wrong because the galaxies are in motion and in fact are gaining speed the further they progress in time and distance.

So he was wrong. It happens. Geniuses fuck up. Brilliant men cheat on their wives and ruin their families all because the brain in the little head thinks in microwaves while the brain in the big head thinks in the radio portion of the spectrum.

But here’s the thing that none of these astronomers are thinking about–light moves in both particles and waves and a wave is spread out. Perhaps the galaxies we see as distinct and separate are spread out as well.

Consider what would happen if we accepted the notion that the Universe is much smaller than we believe it is and what seems to be “billions and billions” of galaxies are actually thousands and thousands but we are looking at the entire period of their movement in time from one single vantage point–this moment!

This would account for the missing matter in the universe and show that things are as they should be mass-wise without having to go to the basement and pull some stinky shit called “dark matter” out of our arses in order to explain why birds fly and babies cry.

Perhaps we are seeing the same galaxy at different points in space and time and our senses are telling us they are distinct but in actuality it is the same matter in different stages of progression through time.

So while it may seem that the universe is huge; perhaps we are once again limited by our senses and by the structure of thought which is deeply rooted in time and founded upon the division of objects into temporal phenomenality.

It is possible that the Universe is much smaller and far more intimate that we have given it credit for–but we may just have to step outside our own egos in order to see it.

RELATED LINKS:

Supposed Proof of Dark Matter
Einstein’s Cosmological Constant Blunder
The Voyager 1 Space Probe is Now 100 AU from the Sun (that’s 100 times the distance from the Earth to the Sun for those of you that didn’t watch Star Trek)

TAGS:
Astronomy, Cosmology, Dark Matter, Einstein, Cosmological Constant

[Post to Twitter] Tweet This

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

You Should Also Check Out This Post:

More Active Posts:

6 Users Responded In This Article

Subscribe To This Post's RSS Feeds Or Leave A Trackback

jdallen Said in August 23rd, 2006 @8:31 am

I think that would mean (part of what you said, that is) that the red-shift method of determining distance is totally incorrect. I agree that it may not be perfect, truth is, I have no idea how it can be PROVEN to be accurate, but it seems to be the best available technique.

So - I reckon they are not too far off on the size of the place. They may have a problem counting the windows and furnishings and all, but the floor space, they are probably about right.

Joshua Minton Said in August 23rd, 2006 @8:52 am

Now, I’m digging back about seven years here but isn’t the red shift methodology of measuring the velocity at which galaxies are traveling away or toward each other (blue is if they are heading toward us and red is away if I remember correctly) basically just a doppler shift for the eyes?

If I have my eyes closed and hear the whistle of a train come rolling past and all I can hear is the whistle (not the wheels on the tracks, etc.) would that shift in pitch as the whistle approaches, meets my position, and blows past it be any indicator of how long the train was or how many box cars it contained?

I think there is a fundamental opportunity here to re-evaluate our view of the universe in terms of its size and physical workings on both the macro and micro scales. After all, it hasn’t even been a hundred years since Einstein’s Theory of Relativity was proven valid. Newtonian physics was around for 300 years or so before it had to be modified.

I always loved the maxim that the Universe isn’t as strange as we imagine–it’s stranger than we can imagine.

jdallen Said in August 23rd, 2006 @4:40 pm

Yeah - but I think everything (stellar object-wise) is red-shifted, because everything is receding. And they use only supernovae, because they “believe” they know the spectrum thet should be given off by them. Hard to measure red-shift when you don’t know what it’s shifted from, I guess.

My son could fill you in on this, but he’s off the net, I think.

Joshua Minton Said in August 23rd, 2006 @6:42 pm

I think I remember something about some galaxies being blue-shifted meaning they were coming towards our own but that the majority of galaxies were going away from us so they were all red shifted. I know the Hubble Constant is based on the red shift of galaxies because that’s what was easiest for him to study.

Boy, how would like to be Einstein and find out that all that work you did was rendered null and void because some jack with a telescope bothered making actual observations instead of theorizing. I bet the day he found out about the Hubble constant was a real pisser for him.

Fantastic Bastard Said in August 24th, 2006 @3:27 pm

Now, I’m not as schooled in this topic as you two seem to be, however, ponder this: Could it not also be said that dark matter in regards to our theories of space, even if it were only existent in theory, could be comparable to a significant portion of the periodic table when it was first being theorized?

Joshua Minton Said in August 24th, 2006 @3:46 pm

Yeah, I think you’re right in that scientists are lumping all dark matter under the same banner much as past scientists would have said “other elements” for the elements in the periodic table which had yet to be identified–that’s actually a good analogy because there could be many different types of dark matter if there is any at all.

But what I was getting at was the fundamental worldview of how big we have estimated the Universe to be and, in this estimation have had to presuppose a certain amount of “other matter” in order to ascertain whether the Universe would expand “forever” or collapse back in on itself. My supposition here is why not reconfigure the assumption instead of continue to search for the justification–it’s Achem’s razor.