Dark Energy, Dark Matter, Dork Science

Bang! It is just a theory, you know. It’s not the only theory, it is in many ways not the best theory, but it sure explains a few things we otherwise would have no explanation for. Unfortunately, explaining a thing does not make it so. Remember that science is as much religion as religion is science, and the big bang theorists are a rather religious lot. But we are not here to discuss the merits of that theory, no, rather we are here gathered to lay to rest at least one fable used as foundation to the theory of big bangs: The need for Dark Things to explain the accelerating expansion of our universe. I am not sure if I want to get into the whole shebang here, you probably just want a snippet, so here goes:

We know the universe is expanding because the colours of distant stars show too much red, explained by the same effect that causes a car passing you at speed to sound “wheeeeeeee-eeerrr—ooooo”, or a train whistle coming past as “twee-youuu”. A star coming past would look “blueeee-white-reeeddd”. The wise ones then further pronounce that the further the star is away from us, the redder it looks, therefore the faster it is moving. The original theories made an observation  that we know the big bang threw the stars away from the centre, but sooner or later they must slow down, and all fall back into the big bang where they came from. Clever maths was employed to show that the gods added a Cosmic Constant to keep us all floating still. Then they found the redshift thing, which means we are expanding. Then newer instruments showed that, the further the stars are, the redder they are, the faster they must be moving, so they are accelerating! The ‘only’ explanation was that there is waaay more mass and energy available in our universe than we see; from there, Dark Matter/Energy. This model puts us, on earth, solidly in the centre of an expanding universe. The big bang happened on the corner of Fourth and Mavis streets, you can still see the splatmarks…. even better proof humanity is still firmly rooted at the centre of the universe...

Today is 8 March 2018, any of you cosmologist nerds want to take this further, please note that copyright is mine, I will smear you if you plagiarise me without permission and credit. Cash, no credit, cash. And credit. Here are some unconsidered simple truths for cosmologists, from an African subsistence farmer:

The redshift is a dead giveaway. In an expanding, accelerating, isotropic universe, where everything looks exactly the same in all directions, the redshift cannot be isotropic. Further, redshift has other causes than relative velocities. Also, in a universe created into an absolute vacuum, the debris (stars) would be falling into the vacuum. Falling, get it? Falling things accelerate, who knows where to in this case. That would be an explanation, should you convince me the acceleration exists. There is, however, an easy rebuttal to the current theory, demonstrated by a thought experiment: Image standing halfway between the original Bang, and the outer limit of our universe. Now, look at star colours, the slowest ones towards the Bang will be redshifted, because we are going faster than them, obviously, we have moved further in the same timeframe. Looking towards the outer limit, we again see redshift, as those are the stars flying faster than us. The further they are, the faster they are moving, the redder they are, no acceleration needed. So far so good, but what of the stars that move more or less at our speed? They should be pure white, because we are moving together. There has to be an entire spherical field around the Bang centre, moving at the same speed as us, and you should be able to recognise them from very far away, even though they are further from us than the redshifted stars we left behind us, nearer the Bang epicentre. Whether we are accelerating or not, that hollow ball of stars will accompany us always, or at least till the end of the universe.

“So why the observed acceleration?” Easy, the whole concept of redshift/blueshift is dependent upon understanding the Newtonian model of light, where the three primary colours are red, green blue, which together make up white. This is a valid theory, and we have found much use from it, like building colour televisions. There is another, more interesting colour theory produced by a man who hated Newton’s obnoxious face (his words), Johann Goethe. Herr Goethe shows us what happens to light in many more combinations and circumstances, it is really something worth reading. The cosmologists should also familiarise themselves with Goethe’s work, then they would realise that the increased redshift of faraway stars is due to a simple effect of a not-quite-pure medium that allows white light to freely pass. Such light is always reddened, whereas a medium that diffracts (refracts?) white light tends to turn it blue, like in glacier ice. Goethe uses a black transluscent marble to demonstrate. Outer space is not empty, you see, of course light from far away gets scattered by cosmic particles, just like in a milky white glass marble, as Goethe showed. No acceleration needed, the medium causes the redshift.

So, will the Dark Mutterers please save their Dork Energy for real science, instead of wasting research grants on fanciful misinterpretations of data heavily biased by the instrumentation available, and the (good but biased) intellects using those instruments. Now use those telescopes properly: How far is Planet X?