Scientific ParadigmsScience is highly biased by the current GroupThink. Current Theories and Paradigms prevail and the focus of scientific investigation in the present history is highly correlated to these Paradigms. EVEN WHEN THESE PARADIGMS ARE WRONG!!!! Read the many good books on the History of Science to see that what I'm saying is true. Apply your skepticism to ANYTHING you hear or read in the media. Do NOT absorb what you hear and read as gospel and do NOT regurgitate this certitude of dogma when you are discussing science with others.
Dark Matter GroupThinkDark 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. Instead, its existence and properties are inferred from its gravitational effects on visible matter, radiation, and the large-scale structure of the universe.
Dark Matter was invented to solve the problem of galaxies rotating faster than they should. Galaxies should just fly apart because there isn't enough mass to hold it together. So what do you do when you don't understand? Just like the ancient Greeks with their "ether" you invent some magical invisible thing that explains it all. Yikes. So today we have Dark Matter which now allows our spinning galaxy to hold itself together. Hmmm. I don't think so.
Isn't it just possible that we don't understand gravity at the galactic scale? Perhaps matter that has collapsed from the classic proton/electron structure into a soup of elementary particles exhibits a different amount of gravity. This could explain some experimental results from our own sun. Maybe gravity has a longer range effect than we know? Since we fundamentally do not know what gravity really is, I don't see why any of these questions can be answered yes or no.
Big Bang GroupThinkBig Bang is a theory that the universe originated by a tiny single point of existence exactly 12 billion years ago. If the only version you hear is the media version and the only scientist you hear is the media scientist then it must be true, right? Well, if you believed the earth was flat during the middle ages then the answer is YES, the Big Bang has to be true. The Big Bang does feed theological points of view nicely. The "beginning" can be attributed to a deity and the science agrees. How convenient.
The basic Big Bang scenario is that the tiniest pinpoint of existence burst forth and expanded into the universe we know today. Remember, E=MC2, which means that tiny point either had almost infinite mass or infinite energy depending on how you want to look at it. Hmmm. Seems rather absurd to me.
The red shift of the most distant galaxies shows they are nearly the conjectured age of the universe. However, Hubble has shown these galaxies to be quite evolved and full of heavy metals which according to Big Bang physics should not even be possible since the galaxies are so young. There are experiments showing that more than receding velocity of galaxies can account for red shift. Gravity affects light transmission profoundly. We can look at our own nearby sun and detect red shift solely due to gravity.
I think it is more reasonable to conclude that the universe is indeed huge, it has been this way for a VERY long time, and we have no way of knowing how it came to be. I see the universe as more like a giant web of interconnected masses. The actual origin of matter I suspect has something more to do with the nature of galaxies than it does with some giant cataclysm.
Gravity GroupThinkGravity has long been the greatest mystery in physics, and it still is. Physics currently seems dead set on using a "graviton" to explain the forces of gravity. Somehow in some absurd way this undiscovered particle is supposed to instantaneously [greater than the speed of light!!!!] pull one object toward another across vast distances. hmm. I don't think so.
Planetary orbits in the classic view are also finely balanced things. No other forces are involved. Just the tiniest perturbation can drive the orbit off balance. So how do solar systems survive the epic galactic disturbances happening over millions of years?
Maybe, just maybe, orbits are self-balancing systems of the two competing forces. We have direct evidence of such orbits by looking at Saturn and Jupiter. They oscillate closer and further to each other as they orbit the sun. How could this be possible without some type of resonance between opposing forces? As they get farther apart, the gravity-push force decreases, the gravity-pull force starts taking over, and the planets start drawing nearer to each other again. I suspect it is some electromagnetic force that is working in unison with the pull of gravity.