1.0 Fight! Fight!
In 1992, Eric Lerner published The Big Bang Never Happened, a book that pissed off the powers that be big
time. In it Lerner rails against the poppycock known as General Relativity and by extension against
contemporary Science. He puts forth at least three arguments:
- • Big Bang is a creationist theory in disguise
• the spherical universe that the stupid morons who follow Einstein concocted is irrational
• it is ludicrous to believe that an equation is superior to an experiment (thus insinuating
- that Math is not the language of Physics)
Of course, Lerner was too polite to tell Einstein's idiots what he really thought about them and their theories.
Not so in this site.
The point from Lerner's book I want to talk about here and which relates to the subject at hand (black holes) is
the nonsense known as dark matter, an ad hoc hypothesis that relativists were compelled to introduce to cover
up for the shortcomings of their theory. Unfortunately, Lerner invokes undefined terms such as infinity and time
to make his case against dark matter and Big Bang. He also misuses the word exist in his sweeping statement
that 'there is no evidence that dark matter exists.' [1] What is commendable is that he places more weight on
intuition and common sense than on equations and statements of authority issued by celebrities coming out of
a college Theoretical Physics Department. Lerner is obviously not an individual who allows himself to be pushed
around. This is exemplary in today's environment. He is not fooled by statements of authority or swayed by
functions and variables. You shouldn't either. One has nothing to do with the other.
On the other side of the coin we have Ned Wright defending the nonsense propounded by the establishment.
Wright counter-argues that Lerner's objections fall short of their mark primarily in three respects, all having to do
with experiments and observations:
" 1. The existence of superclusters of galaxies and structures like the "Great Wall"
- which would take too long to form from the "perfectly homogeneous" Big Bang.
- 2. The need for dark matter and observations showing no dark matter.
3. The FIRAS CMB spectrum is a "too perfect" blackbody." [2]
- Therefore, there is no need to review the arguments on either side since they are conceptually flawed. Existence
is not something we prove with an experiment or certify with an observation. Whether dark matter exists is
strictly a conceptual issue. The physical objects are not part of a theory. The objects that underlie a theory are
introduced during the exhibits phase of the hypothesis. Wright's reply merely exposes his ignorance of the
scientific method.
2.0 Proving the existence of dark matter
For the purposes of Science, exist means physical presence. This is not scientific because I like the definition.
It is scientific because this the only definition of the word exist that can be used consistently (i.e., scientifi-cally).
Of course, Wright would prefer if we allow him to run with the definition used in Christianity and ordinary speech.
He incongruously wants to prove the existence of the leprechaun by touching or observing the little elf.
For the purposes of Science, dark matter either has physical presence or it doesn't irrespective of whether
humans evolve on planet Earth or not. We don't 'prove' dark matter in Science by sending a probe into space or
by looking through a telescope any more than we prove the existence of this chair by touching it. What we do in
Science is compel Einstein's idiot to conceptualize dark matter for us before we even design the experiment. If
the moron of Mathematics cannot illustrate the object or medium at the center of his dissertation, his talk is over.
A mathematician who attempts to bypass this process is trying to pull a fast one: invoking a ghost to cover up
for his ineptitude, plain and simple.
So now, does dark matter exist? Does it have physical presence in space? Or is this just another fantastic
invention of the religion of Mathematical Physics comparable to magical virtual particles and surrealistic many
worlds?
Do the following experiment at home (always in the presence of a certified relativist). Swing a ball at the end of a
string and check the speed. Now make the string longer and swing it again. You should verify that a longer string
results in a longer orbit of the ball.
Here's a comparable observation. Consider that the Earth completes a revolution around the Sun in 365 days.
Mars takes 686 days to make its orbit because it is one and a half times farther from the Sun than the Earth. You
should conclude that orbital speed is a function of distance from the center of gravity.
Inexplicably, this is not the case with stars at the edge of galaxies. For a couple of decades now, the astronomers
have observed that a galaxy works more or less like a carousel. Stars lying on the periphery revolve around the
center of the galaxy at about the same speed as those near the center. [1] This observation has falsified General
Relativity and opened up an enormous can of worms.
Of course, rather than discard the nonsense of relativity, the mathematicians instantly looked for ways to
incorporate the anomaly within the theory. GR may never be allowed to fail. At any cost! What would this say
about the lost man-hours? The mathematicians merely invent more nonsense to plug in ever more holes. The
result is the ridiculous Ptolemaic world they live with today and write about in 'scholarly' journals such as Nature
and Science.
In order for the horsies at the edge to travel at the same speed as the buggies nearer the center of the carousel,
there necessarily had to be some enormous ‘mass’ on the outskirts of the carousel. Ergo, the mathematicians
invented ‘dark matter’, an exotic, invisible type of matter that surrounds a galaxy (Fig. 1).
- “ Our galaxy and other galaxies, however, must contain a large amount of 'dark matter'
that we cannot see directly, but which we know must be there because of the influence
of its gravitational attraction on the orbits of stars in the galaxies.” (p. 45) [2]
“ The existence of dark matter is by now well established. The most direct evidence comes
from comparing the luminous mass of a galaxy or cluster to its total mass, inferred by
indirect means. Measurements of galactic rotation curves indicate that the mass of
galaxies must be greater and more spread out than the luminous matter they contain” [3]
- “ dark matter is matter, not directly observed and of unknown composition, that does not
emit or reflect enough electromagnetic radiation to be detected directly, but whose
presence can be inferred from gravitational effects on visible matter.” [4]
“ The normal matter in the cosmos —atoms that make up stars, planets, air and life—
accounts for only a small fraction of what must exist, based on the fact that without an
additional source of gravity, galaxies would fly apart and galaxy clusters could not
hold together as they do. Nobody knows where all that gravity comes from, so
scientists say there must be some invisible stuff out there, which they call dark matter.” [5]
The idiots of Mathematics continue to invent new names for inexistent leprechauns because they cannot match
observations with their equations. They call this speculation a 'proof.' They've been doing 'science' like this since
the days of Newton.
But you should be able to detect a false prophet by now. The test is simple. He tells you on the one hand without
even blinking that dark matter has been interviewed and resolutely confirmed and verified. Then he asks you for
money so that he can continue looking for it. If dark matter is already a done deal, what is there to search? What
is there to argue?
The truth is that astronomers can’t see or detect dark matter, but it makes the calculations come out right. That’s
what is important to them. So they just continue to invent more and more stuff and develop each new invention
to the limits of idiocy and to babble about these ghosts amongst themselves. When they run up against a wall,
they invent something new, give it a flashy name, and continue to babble on and on. Now all the morons of
Mathematics are searching the sky not only for inexistent black holes, but for inexistent dark matter and
inexistent dark energy (a ‘negative’ energy that opposes gravity) as well. That's what you pay them for. All these
guys are ultimately funded by the government. The mathematicians prefer to invent all these unseen spirits to
plug holes created by observation rather than relinquish their long held beliefs and traditions. Of course, it is not
surprising that no one has been able to falsify GR. We have a case where the wolves are guarding the sheep.
Is it possible to falsify the existence of Santa Claus? If you don't bring the bearded man from the North Pole on a
sleigh, does he not exist? Should we continue to theorize like Wright does that Saint Nick exists because we get
presents every Christmas? This is the sad state of 'Science' today. These are the leaders of the 'scientific' world.
- Module main page: Why black holes don't exist
Pages in this module:
- 1. How can a black hole exist if it is an abstract concept?
2. What is the hole into?
3. How black holes form: escape velocity vs. spiraling photons?
4. A black hole behaves inconsistently
5. Is there proof of the existence of black holes?
6. This page: Since they couldn't explain it with black holes, they invented dark matter
Fig. 7.20 Dark Matter |
| I don't understand it, Bill! Why is it that the horsies on the outside orbit as fast as the buggies on the inside? |
| Uh duh! Did you ever consider that they could be interconnected, Al? |
| The Theory of General Relativity has already been falsified by several observations. One of these is that stars at the outer edge of a galaxy orbit about as fast as those near the center. This phenomenon cannot be described or modeled with relativity’s field equations. Rather than discard GR as required by the scientific method, the mathematicians postulated yet another ad hoc (and conveniently unverifiable) variable they call ‘dark matter’, a ‘mass’ -- a concept -- that makes the equations come out right. This miraculous ‘substance’ is self-servingly transparent (because it does not mask stars in the background) and very heavy for no reason other than to prevent anyone from falsifying relativity in the short run. It is also for this reason that dark matter is |
| not white or red.This would have been too easy to detect, and research funds would have dried up quickly. By making dark matter conveniently 'dark' and mysterious, the 'researchers' are able to justify funding for years to come. Now all that the astronomers have to do to win a Nobel is discover what the mainstream has decreed is a necessity. In a nutshell, the mathematicians believe that the luminous stuff (stars, galaxies, gases) we see with our telescopes only constitutes 4% of all the matter in the Universe. The rest consists of invisible dark matter (23%) and mysterious dark energy (73%). And then, of course, we should not forget that the whole of space within which all this matter sits is also made of particles. The only things which are not made of particles are black holes. They are 100% 'mass.' The mathematicians are looking for those too. I mean, they have already found those too. Contrast this with photons, which have 0 mass and 0 size, which miraculously we can see as well. That's the state of the relativistic universe in a nutshell for you. |
| This dark matter stuff smells like poppycock, and it sure looks like Dodo shit to me! |
| I think that we have finally found the dark matter we have been searching for all these years! |
| Since they couldn't explain it with black holes, they invented dark matter |
| Adapted for the Internet from: Why God Doesn't Exist |
| E. Lerner, The Big Bang Never Happened, Vintage (1992). E. Wright, Errors in the ' The Big Bang Never Happened', (1997-2003). E. Lerner, Dr. Wright is Wrong, The Big Bang Never Happened (2007). |
| Relativists are a bunch of Dodo Birds! I suspect that they will soon become extinct! |
3.0 Epilogue
Once you piss off the establishment big time, you are in for serious persecution. Galileo found out about that
400 years ago. Lerner found out about that just a decade ago. Rennie may not appreciate my analogy, but
Lerner is one of those guys the establishment does everything possible to burn at the stake.
Two of the 'authorities' who have commented on Lerner and his book are Paul Davies and Victor Stenger. To
the mathematical physicists it is very important to know what the leading names have to say about a topic (or
about you). That way they can quote authority when they address your skepticism and win the debate.
This is what these two celebrities have to say about Lerner:
Davies: "I accept that Mr. Lerner's book reports work that is largely due to Hannes
Alfven, but this does not render it immune from criticism." [6]
Stenger: "The big bang may be wrong, but Lerner can't seriously expect to prove
it in a popular book... Lerner uses the kinds of arguments one often hears in public
discourse on science, but rarely among professional scientists themselves." [7]
Davies and Stenger must have been spanked a lot when they were kids. It looks like they don't go to the
bathroom unless their respective masters give them the OK. The peers of relativity give lip service to the claim
that we shouldn't follow authority and then they turn around and invoke authority in all of their writings. Is
Lerner's theory not scientific if the secret review board comprised of relativists, mechanics, and string theorists
does not bless it? Would Stenger have approved Lerner's book for publication if he had been one of the secret
reviewers? Who cares what the idiots known as 'professional scientists' talk about if the 'professional scientists'
talk about time travel, many worlds, virtual particles, dark matter, and Big Bang? What a lame argument these
two 'authorities' raise in their comments!
But let's peer review the peer reviewers and see whether they deserve their celebrity status in the first place.
Davies is that fellow who won the Templeton Prize, a prize that is given to those who 'research':
" various ways for discoveries and breakthroughs to expand human perceptions
of divinity and to help in the acceleration of divine creativity" [8]
Davies is one of those 'scientists' who work to unify religion and Science. He is also the guy who wrote a book
'about time' where he talks about space-time and about time travel. As all relativists, he has yet to define the
word time, and tells us candidly that:
- " Thus the flow of time... hangs as a tantalizing mystery" [9]
In other words, Davies writes a 316-page book (and talks) about a subject he knows nothing about. Then, he
has the nerve to criticize someone who threatens his religion.
Stenger, for his part, is not a physicist or even less a scientist. This is false advertising. He is really just a
mathematician.
Oh, I'm terribly sorry, professor. I probably didn't do justice to your good name. Stenger is not a measly old
associate professor just making ends meet. He is Professor Emeritus of Physics and Astronomy at some
university somewhere in the Pacific. (Oh what a stupid fool I am, professor. How could I have confused His
Eminence for a commoner?) Therefore, he has the authority to trash Lerner. You don't.
So if we're going to look at credentials, let's see what this 'emeritus' writes about to see whether he deserves
his impressive title. Stenger says that he doesn't believe in the existence of God. He recently published a book
subtitled: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist.
Science can prove that this chair exists? Surely, you jest, Dr. Stenger?
Stenger must have downed a lot of vodka when he wrote his book. The only thing his book shows 'scientifically'
is that Stenger writes about topics he understands nothing about. Stenger belongs to the old guard, still trying
to prove definitions with an experiment. He comes from the prehistoric days of functional and operational
definitions.
In another of his best-sellers, The Unconscious Quantum, Stenger purports to debunk popular misuses of
Quantum Mechanics, yet he bases his argument on wave-particle duality. Stenger has no trouble believing that
a photon can be simultaneously a particle and a wave. He justifies his belief with magic and miracles such as
Uncertainty and Complementarity. Stenger just has trouble believing in God and angels.
This is also the guy who swears on his mother's grave that retroactive motion is what a graviton delivers to you
to pull you to the center of the Earth.
- " to a particle physicist raised on a diet of Feynman diagrams, motion backward in
time is not all that disturbing" [10]
- Yeah! I don't doubt that for one bit! It is a scientist and a rational person who is disturbed by it.
- So what can we say objectively about these two celebrities of the establishment? Do they have any right to
censure or criticize manuscripts that they review in secret?
I say that these two individuals should be kicked out of Science. They have the gall to call themselves 'scientists.'
For the combined amount of grey matter that they have, they should be cleaning latrines! That's how much their
'authoritative' opinions are worth in Science!
- ________________________________________________________________________________________
- Copyright © by Nila Gaede 2008