Releasing the Truth

Digging for knowledge…

The restless quest for “magic” dark matter continues!

Year after year, researches keep it up their  impossible mission-like struggle (without Tom Cruise, of course) to find the totally hypothetical substance (or whatever it may be) called dark matter! What would it be?

“In astronomy and cosmologydark matter is a type of matter hypothesized to account for a large part of the total mass in the universe. Dark matter cannot be seen directly with telescopes; evidently it neither emits nor absorbs light or other electromagnetic radiation at any significant level.[1] Instead, its existence and properties are inferred from its gravitational effects on visible matter, radiation, and the large-scale structure of the universe. According to the Planck mission team, and based on the standard model of cosmology, the total mass–energy of the Universe contains 4.9% ordinary matter, 26.8% dark matter and 68.3% dark energy.” Wikipedia

Is it clear for you, now? It’s, to date, a fantasy! Following a reverse, upside down scientific methodology, the BBT proponents faced some inexplicable facts, example, a 3D view of the Universe shows a numberless of galaxies separated from each other by gigantic VOIDS! This cosmological “scratchiness ” poses an enormous conundrum to naturalistic theories of origins.

According to standard cosmologies, an explosive beginning such as the Big Bang should have distributed matter more smoothly across the universe. Shaun Thomas, lead author of the research appearing in the journal Physical Review Letters, told Wired Science, “This potentially could be one of the first signs that something peculiar is going on.” (

This month (June) edition of the Nature reports a ambitious (and quite expensive, of course!) project to build up a ground-based telescope array to detect and analyse high-energy γ-rays, as the title affirms:

High-energy γ-ray astronomy comes back to Earth

With Earth’s atmosphere acting as a near-total shield against high-energy γ-rays, astronomers have traditionally relied on space telescopes to detect them. But plans that will be presented in early July at the International Cosmic Ray Conference in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, indicate that γ-ray astronomers are betting their future on an ambitious ground-based telescope. On dark, moonless nights, the proposed Cherenkov Telescope Array (CTA) would capture the fleeting trails of blue light that are produced when γ-ray photons, emitted by collapsing stars or gas-guzzling black holes, are absorbed in the upper atmosphere.

“For high-energy γ-ray astronomy, the future is on the ground,” says Rene Ong, an astroparticle physicist at the University of California, Los Angeles, who is part of the CTA consortium of more than 1,000 physicists and engineers from 27 countries. Proponents of the CTA say that it would be able to solve two mysteries: the origin of ultra-high-energy cosmic rays and the nature of dark matter. The facility could also test theories of quantum gravity, they say.

In the 1950s, astronomers pioneered the technique of tracking γ-rays by their atmospheric signature (see ‘Tell-tale trails’). Three operational ground-based arrays consisting of just a few telescopes have since identified more than 150 high-energy γ-ray sources.

Source: Nature

The CTA would have the energy range, sensitivity and angular resolution to find many more. It would consist of two sites, one in the Northern Hemisphere and one in the Southern, each with dozens of telescopes spread over about ten square kilometres. Together, they could identify an estimated 1,000 high-energy γ-ray sources. With a construction start in 2015, the facilities are projected to carry a price tag of €200 million (US$268 million).

The arrays would build on the range of energies up to 100 gigaelectronvolts (GeV) already mapped by the Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope, and could cover energies up to 100,000 GeV, a region that has never before been imaged. To achieve the same coverage in space, “you would have to fly an instrument the size of a football stadium,” says CTA spokesperson Werner Hofmann of the Max Planck Institute for Nuclear Physics in Heidelberg, Germany. But the CTA’s upper-energy limit is still only one-millionth of the highest energy cosmic rays detected so far.”

US$268 million easily spent with this useless mission shows one more reason for why the mainstream scientists keep clinging to these standard (nonetheless flaw, unsatisfactory) theories: “streams” of money (paid with our painstaking taxes….) runs easier for them! How much money has been wasted with BBT, evolution, “primordial soup” and another fanciful hypothesis is mind-blowing!

Another lame effort, by the way, earlier researches have totally failed, as we read in a Wired Science article:

“The result could mean cosmologists need to reassess their understanding of dark energy, the mysterious force that drives the universe outward at an ever-increasing rate. Dark energy itself is supposed to be almost perfectly smooth, but clumps of dark energy could draw clumps of visible matter around them.

The extra lumps could also mean dark energy doesn’t exist at all. Instead, gravity could behave differently on very large scales than it does on smaller scales, meaning Einstein’s theory of general relativity needs an overhaul.”


No one has a clue what these (dark matter, dark energy) are. This huge appeal to hypothetical stuff is making many uncomfortable. Richard Panek, in a March 11, 2007 New York Times article, quipped, “‘You get to invoke the tooth fairy only once,’ meaning dark matter, ‘but now we have to invoke the tooth fairy twice,’ meaning dark energy.” In an April 11, 2007 article in Nature, Jenny Hogan described the mood at a recent cosmology conference; one astronomer said, “There is a sense of desperation…. The standard model is horribly ugly, but the data support it.” Dark energy was called “a profound problem from the viewpoint of fundamental physics.”

It remains to be seen if cosmologists will be able to establish the existence of dark matter and dark energy to everyone’s satisfaction. But it becomes difficult to defend against charges of pseudoscience when the bulk of your model depends on imponderable substances. If they only serve to shield a model from being falsified, appeals to dark things seem occult in more than one sense.

God bless you!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: