Dark Matter

129 posts / 0 new
Last post
Sheldon's picture
I have made some cursory

I have made some cursory research, and I'm inclined to agree. Also this "science can be wrong" polemic is too reminiscent of Breezy and creationist denials of the fact of species evolution. If the theory were ever validated by science I'd accept it, but to be honest it just seems to contradict too many scientific facts, and doesn't seem to have any evidential basis.

Like Breezy it's proponents want to attack science, when their claims are rejected as unevidenced. If we go down that route we could believe literally anything.

David Killens's picture


"Dark matter, as well as dark energy, is an example of making things up as you go along, to fit your theory."

Dark matter and dark energy were made up, yes. As things go along, yes. But those labels were applied because the data did not match current theories. In fact, the astronomers and physicists were very happy with their previous misconceptions and were merrily humming along believing in a completely different theory. But the data made a mess of things, this data was not wanted, and scientists had to deal with this new problem.

This is what science is, the best explanation with available data. And science constantly creates questions that must be explained.

Dark matter seems to be "clumpy" while dark energy appears to be smooth and unchanging across the universe. Scientists are narrowing down possibilities and constantly revising their models. But this electric universe stuff? Not valid.

NewSkeptic's picture
From Rationalwiki for anyone

From Rationalwiki for anyone else who, like me, was ignorant on the electric universe "theory"

"Electric Universe (EU)[note 1] is an umbrella term that covers various pseudo-scientific cosmological ideas built around the claim that the formation and existence of various features of the Universe can be better explained by electricity and magnetism than by gravity alone. As a rule, EU is usually touted as an aether-based theory with numerous references to tall tales from mythology.[2][3] However, the exact details and claims are ambiguous, lack mathematical formalism, and often vary from one delusional crank to the next."

Sheldon's picture
Thanks, yeah I read that as

Thanks, yeah I read that as well, I tried multiple sources and they all pretty much said the same. The claims are not validated by anyone or anything but its adherents. The clincher for me was the link to mythology, it has no scientific basis it seems, and as Nyarl says is widely contradicted by much of our current scientific understanding of the universe.

shiningone's picture
Hey Sheldon,

Hey Sheldon,

Speaking of absolutes, do you not consider constants in the laws of physics to be absolute ?
Things such as, the speed of light, Planks constant, and the mass of protons and electrons.

Sheldon's picture
These are facts for science

These are facts for science to evidence. I'm not sure why you use the word absolutes, all scientific facts no matter how well evidenced must remain tentative. A method for humans to understand reality is useless if it can't admit of an error when the evidence requires it. As of course religions have shown, by clinging to erroneous myths over scientific facts like evolution.

shiningone's picture
@ Sheldon

@ Sheldon

I agree. Also, I used the word absolutes because you used it in a previous comment.

Sheldon's picture
Ok, I'd have to see in

Ok, I'd have to see it in context to understand what I said, as I don't recall using it to be honest.


Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.