 |
| Whirlpool Galaxy M51 |
The FLRW Model depends (more or less) on the argument that one cannot prove a negative -- that is, we cannot prove that Dark Energy and Dark Matter do not exist, so they could exist. Accepting that much, if you then accept a lot of other supporting, yet also unproven, theories, the Concordance Model might be correct.
The primary motive behind this is to support the "Multiverse Theory," which is largely a hobbled-together hypothesis based on Schroedinger's Cat and Uncanny X-Men comics, stating (loosely) that there is an infinite number of universes in which all possibilities occur. There are other reasons for the theories of Dark Energy and Matter, but the Multiverse Theory is what kicked it off and gave it traction. Again, there is no way to disprove this, but there is absolutely no proof of it, either!
It's Faith-based Science on a universal scale.
We can see in large scale structures, such as forming galaxies and their collapse, the same patterns we see in cell formation, and the collapse and formation of cellular networks. As numerous "spirituality"-based memes suggest, this is no coincidence -- and, in that at least (more usually, at most), they're correct.
The similarities do not end there; we have innumerable cases to which we can point in which small scale structures reflect large scale structures in both form and formation, and often degradation. This appears to suggest that matter follows the same patterns during formation and dissolution, regardless of the structure's scale, and possibly regardless of atmospheric constraints -- such as a lack of oxygen, gravitational fields, et. al.
It is because of this, but not this alone, that I discount the FLRW Model in favor of MOND.
I am not suggesting that Dark Energy and Dark Matter conclusively do not exist, as a rule, nor even that a multiverse is impossible; I am saying their existence has yet to be proven, so we cannot take their existence on faith. In fact, I willingly concede that "empty," or "Dark," space likely has some measurable weight, even if only at a sub-atomic level. This makes perfect sense, as we also know factually that many particles are too small to be seen with the naked eye or even powerful devices, and these should then both occupy space and have measurable weight (if not mass) -- but the leap in logic from that concession to the Concordance Model is pure fantasy.
The processes we have observed appear to closely follow Newtonian Principles, with some forgiveness for atmospheric conditions, including the weight of "empty" space, so this is a more provable -- and more viable -- theory than the FLRW Model. In fact, you have to accept a byzantine structure of auxiliary theories to even make the mathematical gymnastics of the FLRW Model work!
Until there is a functional way to literally prove the existence of Dark Energy and Dark Matter and/or the existence of a multiverse, it's detrimental to teach it to children, and it's astounding that it has found such wide acceptance in the scientific community -- especially in such a short time.
This is a case-in-point as to why so many question the "Religion of Science" -- and a damn good one, IMO!
As I favor the theory of Mu/Pangaea over the more accepted, but also thoroughly lacking, theories concerning disappearing isthmuses, I favor MOND over FLRW. Just because you cannot prove a negative does not mean any fantastic theory need be entertained, especially at the scientific level. And, since the Concordance Model fails to meet the Scientific Method, it should never have been accepted as anything more than the less preferred theory -- particularly when compared to Modified Newtonian Dynamics.
© The Weirding, 2018
