please reply me on astrophysics@rocketmail.com

Dr.Navinchandra K.Shah.

First of all, everyone who works in the astronomy field does not agree with the standard model. To my knowledge, nobody has lost their job because of their view one way or the other.
I will say MOST do believe in it, because of the overwhelming evidence supporting it. Yet, the standard model does hang by a few threads (of theory), and if any one of them are found to be incorrect, then the standard model of today is thrown out the window. One of the biggest being gravity is constant.

My undergraduate degree is in computer science, and I've help build a few models in my time. So in a very short spurt of words…. Remember, these models are working with figures which are largely based on theory, which is based on the affects of gravity. Since gravity seems to be anywhere matter is, naturally the models are going to come out pretty close to the way the universe is today.

So dark matter simply being matter which exists, but not in atoms; and we have never actually seen this… the only way to model it is by assigning gravitational variables to it.
So its possible there are different types of "dark matter" out there, but we are classifying it the same. Who says all these particles are the same mass?

So in short, the models do a great job of proving gravity exists wherever there is mass; but it doesn't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt there is dark matter. You can get similar results if you plug in variable gravity. Could dark matter be some odd form of gravity? Is there other forces other than gravity that we cannot see? Perhaps if we could artificially create it, we'll figure this out.

Its truly a shame, we exist in this universe for a very short time.

History has shown we don't always get it 100% correct. However, we do seem to get a large percentage of it right. So the truth of the standard model is probably some crazy mix between all beliefs out there.

You may think from my post above that I despise computer modeling. I don't. I despise the importance being placed on it's role and the results it produces.

A jeweler may chose to make a wax model of an item he is about to craft. But the wax model is nothing more than a crude representation of the final piece of art produced by the jeweler. And there is actually very little information this wax model can actually give us about the finished piece.

We can only really understand the jeweler's skill and mastery when we see the actual piece of jewelry.

It was important for the jeweler to create that model and use it to understand what his final item would be. His results are likely greatly enhanced by the understanding of symmetry and placement the model gave him.

But at no time is he ever inclined to sell that model as if it were the real item of jewelry.

In modeling phenomenon we have not observed or can not observe or even have observed but do not understand, we create a wax mock-up that is then sold as the real thing. And this is because there is no real, existing phenomenon to sell. Only the rough wax figure that conveys so little about the real thing.

Worse yet, this wax mock-up of these computer models are built without any idea of how they are supposed to look. It's like seeing a copy of the 'Mona Lisa' painted by someone who has only had the real 'Mona Lisa' described to him. The eye's will most likely not follow you around!!

The importance of computer models is much overrated, not only in cosmology but in other areas of science too, such as climate modeling.

I'm against passing off crappy copies of the 'Mona Lisa' as the real thing. That's all. A model of the Big Bang is not proof of the Big Bang and does very little in forwarding the hypothesis like empirical observations would. And oddly enough, the Big Bang is strong in modeling but rather weak observationally!

Ok, the Big Bang is still a hypothesis that is riddled with holes and is on VERY weak feet empirically. We don't know what the CMB is, though many competing theories as to it's origin have less holes than the current dogma and make more sense.

Even black holes have never gotten past the hypothetical stage as the observational evidence of them has several different interpretations, though the black hole hypothesis of this phenomenon is the strongest one at this point in time. I suspect that black holes do exist, personally.

So we are studying mathematical constructs that may or may not actually be real. And we use computer models to study these phenomenon because we have no other way to observe them (real or not they are at the very least mathematical phenomenon once modeled).

To paraphrase Stanislaw Ulam, a lead mathematician on the Manhattan Project, "Give me 15 free parameters, and I can draw an elephant. Give me 16, and I can make it dance."

So a model can be brought in line with observational evidence and then a claim can be made that the model predicted it or a flavor of it. Or if you do several runs of any model and randomly tweak the data fed to the simulation you can pretty sure at least ONE of the runs will match some observational data now or in the future.

Do I hate scientists and computer modelers (which BTW aren't always the same!)?? No, I don't hate them.

But I am appalled to see what amounts to unproven rumor being funded to the detriment of real science and real problem solving. We are building a house of cards that will topple and we'll enter a dark age of cosmology much like happened in 1887 (and even before that when all that time and effort was wasted determining the effects of 'aether' and the modeling of it's effects, etc).

Decades of set back because arrogant scientists refused to believe their pet hypotheses could be wrong. It's a case of trying NOT to work yourself out of job or the status that comes with being right…

And history is full of this, from the flat earth to the earth centered solar system, aether and on and on. Hold onto a well funded idea and you hold onto power. You're usually the last one to smell your own BO, and many scientists in the big leagues are the last to smell a rotten idea if it's one they hold close.

And here I'm not talking about the little guys who's careers aren't made or broken on such things, though I suppose it's normal for the little guys to see themselves as bigger than they really are. Mediocrity doesn't drive science though, it merely feeds it. You're job isn't in danger!

But we are repeating these mistakes of the past.

I personally DO NOT understand the phenomenon that 'dark stuff' was invoked to explain. But I DO understand that we do not know enough about the basis of this phenomenon (gravity) to know that a phenomenon even exists. Maybe we are trying to solve a problem that isn't really a problem!!

Recently light was slowed down in a laboratory to ~38mph (MILES PER HOUR) under conditions very similar to deep space. Is red shift in light from other galaxies really because they are moving away, or even moving at all? There are good reasons to suspect that red shift may have other explanations.

The whole basis for 'dark stuff' unravels under even minor scrutiny, and the proof offered by computer models is not proof in an any sense of the word.

Cut the scientists some slack. Geez.

As for the first positing of dark matter, that would actually be the positing of a hidden planet to explain orbital irregularities of Uranus.

I don't understand this comment. Are you saying that you ignore the discipline of cosmology in order to undertake the freedom of exploring alternative theories?

@"I can plant any interpretation on the data I wanted too and there is NO WAY anyone can say it's wrong because 'dark stuff' is taken as an article of faith in cosmology!!"

I don't understand this comment, either. Even the mainstream "celebrity" personalities in the field do not ascribe faith to their position–it's a hypothesis yet to be disproven (or proven).

Since you claim to have the freedom to explore alternative theories, then please publish a paper utilizing the same standard of research as those that you disagree with and advance an alternative theory.

I'm not convinced that dark matter is a convenient fiction invented by large numbers of people with advanced degrees. They've spent a fair amount of time thinking it, and the odds are in their favor that they're on to something. Otherwise, we are left with the nasty conclusion that large numbers of people don't do anything when they appear to be doing something and are engaged in a conspiracy to promote doing nothing all day. Of course, that would suggest that they are in fact doing something and that is just plain confusing. The simpler conclusion is that they are doing something and have come up with something worth thinking about…in this case dark matter.

Please explain!

But have you ever wondered what would happen if the dogma of the day was discredited?

Look up 'aether' and the Michelson/Morley Experiment (1887) if you aren't familiar with it.

For years they thought that 'aether' HAD to exist as the ONLY explanation of how light propagated thru space (they thought light waves were kinetic, like sound waves).

For years and years the 'aether' theory dominated and then Michelson & Morley created an experiment to answer the prevailing question of the time "Did the Earth move thru the aether, or did it drag the aether along with it?".

The result of the experiment was the only result they had never anticipated. Null. Nada. Nothing. They never figured for a moment that 'aether' might not exist!!

So cosmology was stalled for decades because of this 'aether' dogma, despite no empirical proof that it existed and massive failure of the experiments designed to detect it. But they made many measurements of it's effects, despite the fact it didn't exist (see how the report in the article above fits in here).

And all because they thought light needed a medium to travel thru like sound waves. It was an idea intended to explain a phenomenon that they failed to understand (despite Maxwell's work on electromagnetism, which Einstein pointed to as the explanation for the failure almost 20 years later) and the 'aether' idea was finally put to rest in 1935.

We are now using 'dark stuff' as an idea intended to explain a phenomenon that we are failing to understand – GRAVITY!!

General Relativity is only a partial explanation and Quantum Theory fails miserably at explaining gravity. Newtonian Gravity is still the best understood, but is severely flawed and hundreds of years old. Yet it's the best we got, and at about the same level of understanding as the 'aether' proponents were in understanding light. Yes, it's happening all over again, even the sins of arrogance…

Read the history, look at the fall-out. Look at how the scientific peers who discounted 'aether' were treated. It took a generation of scientists dying off to move ahead again.

Now we see the same thing in 'dark stuff'.

I have an idea. If you work in this scientific field, I have a joke for you to pull.

Go to your supervisor (or whoever is senior to you, department head, etc) and tell him that you feel that 'dark stuff' doesn't exist and that you've discovered an alternate theory that seems to explain things better (if you aren't familiar with an alternate theory, find one and familiarize yourself with it so you cam sell this joke). Do it with a straight face and when he's bought it let him in the joke and both can have a good laugh.

I bet you won't do it, even joking about it could spell trouble for your career unless you're tenured. And then it would spell trouble for lab funding and other stuff. Yeah, somethings you just don't want to joke about.

That's my point…

"I'm not forced to either acknowledge ideas as 'dark matter' or 'dark energy' or lose my paycheck!"

Wow… I'm left wondering if you understand what science and research is actually about.