Is This Really Science?

I just recently read an article on a supposed reputable science website. Read on to see if this really qualifies as a bonafide science presentation.

The 11 Biggest Unanswered Questions About Dark Matter

Dark Matter

The article is titled, “The 11 Biggest Unanswered Questions About Dark Matter”. It sounds scientific, but, is it?

Let’s dive into the text.

In the 1930s, a Swiss astronomer named Fritz Zwicky noticed that galaxies in a distant cluster were orbiting one another much faster than they should have been given the amount of visible mass they had. He proposed than an unseen substance, which he called dark matter, might be tugging gravitationally on these galaxies.

It begins with a factual statement. Zwicky did site galaxies that did what he said they did. But, when he could not fit that into his worldview of how the universe forms and acts, he made up a “fairy tale”. He had no proof and no natural way to explain the phenomenon, so he made up a story. So began the fairy tale of “dark matter”. There were other ways of explaining what he found, but the other main way did not fit his world view. Now, I ask you, “Is that good science?”

Let us continue into the darkness

What scientist in his right mind would make this kind of statement. He says that “it is six times more abundant than the normal matter that makes up ordinary things like stars and people. Yet despite seeing dark matter throughout the universe, scientists are mostly still scratching their heads over it.”

Once again, I ask you, “What scientist in his right mind would entertain such a thought?” Still, again, it goes to his worldview. (A person’s worldview will determine how he or she will interpret certain phenomenon.)

Let’s continue on our journey of “fairy tale science”.

First and perhaps most perplexingly, researchers remain unsure about what exactly dark matter is. Originally, some scientists conjectured that the missing mass in the universe was made up of small faint stars and black holes, though detailed observations have not turned up nearly enough such objects to account for dark matter’s influence.

One would think that a real scientist would try to attain some level of certainty before speaking about something that cannot be observed. But, these guys apparently have “license to lie” degree. To begin by saying they have no idea what it is, and then move on to conjecturing seems more like “storytelling” than science. “Conjecturing” is not science. It is alright to “conjecture”, but please have something “real” to support your “conjecture”.

The writer then tries to distract the reader from his “conjecture” with this.

 Yet, this conjecture has only led to more questions.

He has no idea what “dark matter” is and he continues down the path to less and less knowledge of what it is. One candidate for “dark matter” is the WIMP. ( Weakly Interacting Massive Particle, or WIMP). But, again, he concludes his statement about WIMPs thusly.

Yet, this conjecture has only led to more questions.

More Statements

The following statement was made by Andrey Katz of Harvard University.

“There is no good reason to assume that all the dark matter in the universe is built out of one type of particle,” 

Now, we find that more and more “science” is founded upon assumptions. I thought science was empirical. You should be able to see it and repeat the experiment and get the same results. When assumptions abound, “fairy tales” are in abundance.

Real matter versus dark matter

Dark Matter

Real, or ordinary matter is detectable and predictable. But, dark matter is not so. Something that supposedly makes up 85% of the mass in the universe cannot be observed. It is sounding more and more like a witch’s brew in the making than a science paper.

The writer goes on to conjure up “dark protons”, “dark electrons”, and “dark atoms”. Does he present any proof? No! But he is a “scientist”? Is this real science?

Another conclusion

He concludes this section with this statement.

While such proposals have increasingly been imagined in physics labs, figuring out a way to confirm or deny them has so far eluded scientists.”

Is this real science? Maybe it eludes them because there is not such thing.

Another unseen and undetected is “dark photons”. As with the others, there is no way to test for them. Are we really talking science?

Here we go again

“As physicists increasingly fall out of love with WIMPs, other dark-matter particles are starting to gain favor.”

Consider the above statement. Since they cannot use science to prove their world view, they are pushing consensus. In science, the facts should promote the theory, not favor or consenses.

Are these real scientists?

I am not sure if the people who wrote this paper understand science or not. Consider the following.

Astronomers discovered dark matter through its gravitational interactions with ordinary matter, suggesting that this is its main way of making its presence known in the universe. But when trying to understand the true nature of dark matter, researchers have remarkably little to go on.

They almost admit that they have no idea what they are doing.

Real science

I come back to real science. There are several real science ways to explain the phenomenon that “fairy tale scientists” invoke dark matter to explain. One of the main reasons they must invoke dark matter is the speed of the rotation of galaxy arms. If the arms of spiral galaxies are moving at the speed they say, the galaxy would have flung itself apart if the universe were as old as their worldview says.

But, there is a worldview that does not need to invoke “dark matter” and “dark energy” for the galaxies to be just the way they are. But, that would mean that the humanistic naturalism would be wrong. And they cannot allow that.


To show you how flip-flop this “science” is, consider the following.

Because it so massively outweighs ordinary matter, dark matter is often said to be the controlling force that organizes large structures such as galaxies and galactic clusters. So, it was strange when, earlier this year, astronomers announced that they had found a galaxy named NGC 1052-DF2 that seemed to contain hardly any dark matter at all. “Dark matter is apparently not a requirement for forming a galaxy,” Pieter van Dokkum of Yale University told at the time. However, over the summer, a separate team posted an analysis suggesting that van Dokkum’s team had mismeasured the distance to the galaxy, meaning its visible matter was much dimmer and lighter than the first findings and that more of its mass was in dark matter than was previously suggested.

The writer then goes on to make a few more conjectures, for which there is no scientific proof.

As the article draws to a conclusion, they state this.

Given the difficulties that scientists have faced trying to detect and explain dark matter, a reasonable questioner might wonder if they’re going about it all wrong. For many years, a vocal minority of physicists have pushed the idea that perhaps our theories of gravity are simply incorrect and that the fundamental force works differently on large scales than we expect.

Will they come clean?

You almost have the feeling that they are going to recant. You would be wrong.

No way!

This is how the article concludes.

 Yet the detractors have yet to convince the larger field of their ideas. And the latest evidence? It also suggests that dark matter is real.

Throughout the whole article there was not one empirical fact to support any of the “dark” stuff they were pitching. If those “scientists” who, promote such “snake oil” as “dark matter”, “dark energy” and “dark photons”, were paid according to their production of facts, they would be broke.

It is time to call the “dark sciences” what they are. They are fakes. They are thieves taking our tax dollars and producing nothing.

I end this article as I began it.

Is this really science?

[All quotes are taken from an article at the live science website at this link:

Share the knowledge

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.