Anything being women and cosmology for the purposes of this article series. Keep in mind “Scientists” doesn’t mean all scientists, or even most of them. I am assaulting the shadowy figure known as the “scientific consensus” or “scientific community” in general. As many Youtube Comments would simply say; “scientists.”
Real science is a beautiful thing and an essential element in understanding reality. The minority of scientists which practice such a thing is not the victim of this article.
This article, yielding the findings and latest renovations to cosmological theory based on data from the European Space Agency’s Planck mission, has decided that much of what scientists had previously thought about the universe is false based on actual data. Is this surprising? No. This happens all the time in science.
Scientists are much like Mitt Romney or Obama in this regard, frequently “evolving” (cough flip-flopping) their stance on the most important of topics.
Specifically the article claims that the universe:
1 The Universe is 13.82 billion years old.
2 The Universe is expanding a bit slower than we expected.
3 The Universe is 4.9 percent normal matter, 26.8 percent dark matter, and 68.3 percent dark energy.
4 The Universe is lopsided on a vast scale!
What their claims mean:
1.A) Scientists don’t know how old the universe is. I would suppose that the revision from about 13.7 B to about 13.8 B years isn’t that big of a deal except one thing. They claim the data is based measurements from when the universe was only 380,000 years old. How old was it really, given that we have an error range of “only” 100 M years?
1.B) Scientists calculate universal age incorrectly. The age is calculated based on the expansion rate of the universe. Which is stupid because that rate changes over time. Uniformitarianism is bogus and because of this most scientific measurements of the age of the universe are all a joke. A joke proven by the fact that they keep changing their numbers.
2.A) The rate of expansion predicted in the study is different than other calculated rates. Historically, the Hubble Constant has been claimed as the correct rate. They claim that the new measurements are better and their views have “evolved.” What if the old measurements were also correct? Is it that hard for scientists to admit that universal expansion is variable? Of course it is. Because if it were variable it might turn out that the universe is very, very young.
3.B) Isn’t dark matter just a “Science-God of the Gaps argument”? It says according to the general theory x amount of matter or energy should be observed, but we only observe y amount, so there must be (x-y) unobserved dark energy or matter of course! This is not science. Science is based on what we CAN observe. According to the data the observed matter only constitutes less than 5% (normal matter) of the “data.” This is crappy philosophy and theology.
4.A) In the article’s own words: “Right now, we don’t know, and there are far more ideas for why this would happen than we have data to test for. It could mean dark energy is changing over time, for example. Another idea, and one that is terribly exciting, is that we’re seeing some pattern imprinted on the Universe from before the Big Bang.”
4.B) How could dark energy change over time? Expand and contract? Accelerate and decelerate? Any of these would show that the rate of universal expansion is variable. Not a Hubble Constant.
4.C) A pre-Big Bang pattern imprint? Why yes. That makes sense. Glad scientists are moving toward a design explanation.
That concludes this post. 1/2 in a short series. We will pick up with science on sexuality in the next article. It turns out that bleeding-edge scientists have made exciting discoveries including the fact that women are more emotionally expressive than men! Can you believe it?
I will leave you with one more video on a somewhat recent discovery of an allegedly giant quasar. The quasar is so large that it undermines the big bang theory and the general model. Or else it only undermines the modern method of measuring quasar size based on red shift, which in turn would invalidate most of the measurement data which has been used to back up the big bang theory and the general model. In either case it shows that these theories are far from sound: