(Stillness in the Storm Editor) For those who’ve plumbed the depths of scientific study in modern times, it becomes obvious that there are major problems that have yet to be addressed. One being that—seemingly as a result of the infusion of advanced mathematics and the assumption the universe is a mechanistic and material creation at its foundation—scientists across all areas often confuse their models and formulas about reality with reality itself. It is an understandable circumstance when one considers that philosophy—the backbone of science—has been deliberately purged, or at least corrupted, in the halls of academia and higher education. Without working knowledge of philosophy, particularly epistemology and the study of what knowledge is and how we acquire it, the scientist is left wandering in the dark, groping for insights that they likely won’t completely comprehend even if they are fortunate enough to find them. One example of this is the theory of Dark Matter and Dark Energy that emerged out of astronomy in the mid 20th century.
Scientists measured the speed and position of stars in galaxies looking to understand how they maintain such well organized orbital positions. They discovered that the stars were moving much faster and in more stable orbits than their models predicted—models based on gravitation as the only force in operation. Instead of reconsidering their models, identifying errors and reworking them to better reflect observed reality, they assumed that their theories were correct—despite obvious mistakes.
“Well, we can’t be wrong about gravity being the only force acting at large scales (like those seen in outer-space), so there must be something else out there we can’t see.” [dramatization]
That “something else” is Dark Matter and Dark Energy.
The theory asserts that there must be more “stuff” out there in the universe we can’t see or detect, specifically 90% of the universe appears “dark”—hence dark matter. Thus dark matter is itself a completely fictional concept, a theory, that there is actually dark matter out there. But despite billions of dollars spent trying to find evidence that dark matter is real, they can’t find it. Dark Matter’s cousin, Dark Energy was theorized to explain why the universe seems to be expanding at accelerating speeds, which again, gravitation alone can’t account for.
Buy Book A Beginner’s View of Our Electric Universe
Both these theories are a kind of ghost or specter sourced from a less than effective theory of cosmological interaction (general relativity).
The following video discusses this fall of Dark Matter theories in detail.
While mainstream cosmology went on what could be described as a wild-goose chase, alternative researchers, like those in the field of Electric Universe theory, suggested that the problem isn’t our capacity to observe the universe—that we can’t detect Dark Matter and Energy—but that presupposition to the theory, which is that gravitation is the only force in cosmology, is wrong.
Decades later, mainstream science, after ignoring other critics, seems to be finally admitting that their theories are indeed in error.
But don’t start singing songs of praise yet. They’re still trying to cling on to the gravity only premise for explaining cosmological phenomena.
The new theory, proposed by André Maeder, honorary professor in the Department of Astronomy in UNIGE’s Faculty of Science suggests that the scalability of the properties of space-time, as proposed by Einstein’s theory of general relativity, may account for effects observed in the cosmos.
Empty space plays a primordial role in Einstein’s equations as it operates in a quantity known as a “cosmological constant,” and the resulting model depends on it. Based on this hypothesis, Maeder is now re-examining the Standard Model of the universe, pointing out that the scale invariance of empty space is also present in the fundamental theory of electromagnetism.
When Maeder carried out cosmological tests on his new model, he found that it matched observations. He also found that the model predicts the accelerated expansion of the universe without having to factor in dark energy. In short, it appears that dark energy may not actually exist since the acceleration of the expansion is contained in the equations of the physics. (source)
Could this be a veiled reference to Electric Universe theory? Perhaps, but a more detailed examination of the new theory needs to be conducted first.
What can be said is that the new theory, although ostensibly a better explanation, may not be wholly accurate either.
This raises another issue that science today has yet to grapple with, which is that science is an evolutionary feature of consciousness that will forever require revision and reexamination, mainly due to the fact phenomena emerge and with each new emergence, pre-existing models must be adapted. Science is essentially the social evolution of collective intelligence via the process of observing and describing reality in an objective fashion, embedded within an object and observer recognition of subjectivity. This means the work of science is never over because new things are constantly being discovered and the framework used to explain it all also has to change.
Another issue is that of fundamental assumptions.In this instance, the assumptions are that the universe at all scales and modes of action is fundamentally material and mechanistic in makeup. But there’s a glaring fallacy with this viewpoint, which is that almost every model of science assumes there is a space-time reference system (empty space) and matter or material acting therein—the billiard ball on a pool table viewpoint. It might not be obvious, but no one has been able to prove or demonstrate that an object is truly and utterly independent of the location where it exists. In other words, there is a contradiction at the heart of science, that the realm of objects and the realm of space are two completely independent things—a dualistic universe. This is logical fallacy is partially responsible for the great divides in science, particularly how mind or consciousness relate to material reality.
Buy Book The Electric Sky
All this being said, the point isn’t that science has problems, and we shouldn’t bother with it. The point is to remember that it is evolving, much like a human being’s intelligence grows with time—provided the right steps are taken. Similarly, while there are problems to deal with in the realms of science, the idea or form itself need not be discarded.
The processes of discovery, in principle, have always been the same. But humankind, at various epochs and stages of its development, can forget about or ignore these principles in their zeal to find answers.
All who read this and know the pangs of truth discovery in their own lives should be able to recognize that the quest for ultimate truth is not one made in haste. Patience, humility, and honesty are required, else the half-cocked and imperfect knowledge of the past is exalted as dogma in the future—to the great peril of the truth-hungry everywhere.
As a science-minded person, I have come to terms with these inadequacies, entering into the discussion when I am able. It is tempting to rage against the ignorance and incompetence of other scientists, but such things do not engender the cooperation needed to move forward in the quest for truth.
The paradigm of Dark Matter and Energy might be coming to an end, but there is much work left to do.The truth is an infinite emergent reality and the quest for it is an endless adventure of discovery, much improved as each individual finds their place in the chorus of truth-seekers.
– Justin
by Staff Writer, November 22nd, 2017
Researchers have hypothesized that the universe contains “dark matter.” They have also posited the existence of “dark energy.” These two hypotheses account for the movement of stars in galaxies and for the accelerating expansion of the universe. But according to a researcher at UNIGE, these concepts may be no longer valid, as universal phenomena can be demonstrated without them. This research exploits a new theoretical model based on the scale invariance of empty space. This research is reported in The Astrophysical Journal.
In 1933, the Swiss astronomer Fritz Zwicky claimed there is substantially more matter in the universe than we can actually see. Astronomers called this unknown matter “dark matter,” a concept that was to take on yet more importance in the 1970s, when the U.S. astronomer Vera Rubin invoked this enigmatic matter to explain the movements and speed of the stars. Scientists have subsequently devoted considerable resources to identifying dark matter in space, on the ground and at CERN, but without success. In 1998, a team of Australian and U.S. astrophysicists discovered the acceleration of the expansion of the universe, earning the Nobel Prize for physics in 2011. However, in spite of enormous science resources, no theory or observation has been able to define this energy that is allegedly stronger than Newton’s gravitational attraction. In short, dark matter and dark energy are mysteries that have stumped astronomers for decades.
A new model based on the scale invariance of empty space
The way physicists represent the universe and its history are described by Einstein’s equations of general relativity, Newton’s universal gravitation and quantum mechanics. The consensus at present is that of a Big Bang followed by expansion. “In this model, there is a starting hypothesis that hasn’t been taken into account, in my opinion,” says André Maeder, honorary professor in the Department of Astronomy in UNIGE’s Faculty of Science. “By that, I mean the scale invariance of empty space; in other words, empty space and its properties do not change following a dilatation or contraction.”
Empty space plays a primordial role in Einstein’s equations as it operates in a quantity known as a “cosmological constant,” and the resulting model depends on it. Based on this hypothesis, Maeder is now re-examining the Standard Model of the universe, pointing out that the scale invariance of empty space is also present in the fundamental theory of electromagnetism.
When Maeder carried out cosmological tests on his new model, he found that it matched observations. He also found that the model predicts the accelerated expansion of the universe without having to factor in dark energy. In short, it appears that dark energy may not actually exist since the acceleration of the expansion is contained in the equations of the physics.
In a second stage, Maeder focused on Newton’s law, a specific instance of the equations of general relativity. The law is also slightly modified when the model incorporates Maeder’s new hypothesis. Indeed, it contains a very small outward acceleration term, which is particularly significant at low densities. This amended law, when applied to clusters of galaxies, leads to masses of clusters in line with that of visible matter (contrary to what Zwicky argued in 1933). This means that no dark matter is needed to explain the high speeds of the galaxies in the clusters. A second test demonstrated that this law also predicts the high speeds reached by the stars in the outer regions of galaxies (as Rubin had observed), without having to resort to dark matter to describe them. Finally, a third test looked at the dispersion of the speeds of the stars oscillating around the plane of the Milky Way. This dispersion, which increases with the age of the relevant stars, can be explained very well using the invariant empty space hypothesis, while there was before no agreement on the origin of this effect.
Maeder’s discovery paves the way for a new conception of astronomy that will raise questions and generate controversy. “The announcement of this model, which at last solves two of astronomy’s greatest mysteries, remains true to the spirit of science: nothing can ever be taken for granted, not in terms of experience, observation or the reasoning of human beings,” concluded André Maeder.
Explore further: New insights on dark energy
More information: Andre Maeder. Dynamical Effects of the Scale Invariance of the Empty Space: The Fall of Dark Matter?, The Astrophysical Journal (2017). DOI: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa92cc , iopscience.iop.org/article/10. … 847/1538-4357/aa92cc , On Arxiv: arxiv.org/abs/1710.11425
Journal reference: Astrophysical Journal 
Provided by: University of Geneva
Stillness in the Storm Editor’s note: Did you find a spelling error or grammar mistake? Send an email to [email protected], with the error and suggested correction, along with the headline and url. Do you think this article needs an update? Or do you just have some feedback? Send us an email at [email protected]. Thank you for reading.
Leave a Reply