Although the Standard Model (SM) is widely accepted as being correct -there are a number of renowned scientists, philosophers and cosmologists that disagree with the model. This is mostly due to the fact that 90% of the universe is not observable and the SM has to create unknown matter and energy to explain it. However, this is not a total fabrication because its influence on observable matter can be seen?
The SM has beautiful computer simulations that accurately show/predict the formation of our universe. However, the non believer’s view point is that anyone can create a computer simulation to show anything they want. For example, if I say that I saw a pink elephant and someone creates an image of one on a computer -does that make it anymore believable that I saw a pink elephant? Also, to suggest a simulation that you see on a computer accurately resembles the universe then you are implying that the universe has to be governed by the same laws as a computer and most would agree that this simply is not possible. And likewise observational data can fit many different theories.
So to prove the SM correct one needs to find dark matter/energy and prove its existence. I think the concept of “dark energy” derives from the fact that observations show that our universe is expanding –thus an energy source is needed to explain it – I maybe wrong? So what is dark matter? If I understand it correctly, it must have mass and it cannot be made of atoms. It has to be everywhere yet invisible –at least to our eyes and all known technology.
What do all of you think of this: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060824.html
Is it a smoking gun for dark matter?
My last question is this….What awaits the person(s) who finds and proves dark matter exists? What are the rewards, consequences and implications?
And to you Harry –would dark matter’s unquestionable discovery put you and others like yourself back on the BB wagon
![Question :?:](./images/smilies/icon_question.gif)