Big Bang Theory
There is an issue with galactic rotation that Big Bang Theory addresses by fabricating “dark matter”.
Actually, the real issue is the density of the universe has to be a very specific value for the Big Bang Theory to be remotely plausible. The theory does not permit the universe to be any other value but “Omega”. If the density of the universe is not “Omega”, then the theory proves itself to be irrelevant to our universe; self-refutation. The measured density of the universe is was ~3% of what it “should” be. So, for BBT to work at all, it was ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY to find the missing mass… or walk away from the theory.
The galaxy rotation issue gave BBT theorists fair reason to fabricate that missing matter/energy because spiral galaxies rotate faster than gravity alone can account for. Plus, if you fabricate enough “dark matter”, arbitrarily pick exactly how and where to distribute it, you can mimic the angular velocity of spiral galaxies reasonably well. Later we observed red-shifts that were too extreme to be accounted for through that model and dark energy was born.
First of all, we know why galaxies move like they do. It’s a matter of plasma physics. -explained on the Plasma Cosmology essay. Secondly, there was a astronomer who got labeled “the modern day Galileo”. Halton Arp arguably got thrown under the bus for researching “anomalous galaxies” because their traits have potential to undermine BBT. His work was applicable to intrinsic redshifts of celestial bodies not accounted for by prevailing paradigm. It’s still applicable. Structures like NGC 7603 and NGC 4319 demonstrate the way redshift is interpreted by prevailing physics and the ways they manifest in the universe are not always the same.
Also curious is how BBT cannot explain the formation of accretion discs, at all, yet assumes them in their models because their so ubiquitous in the universe. I trust you understand the implications of: the universe cannot build accretion disks with gravity. The physics of gravity does not have the capacity to organize anything into a disk. Every spiral galaxy in this universe is a clear and utter refutation of the physics of BBT.
Disks are ubiquitous in our universe because they’re a plasma physics phenomenon. Solar systems, spiral galaxies, all of the universe’s accretion discs arose through plasma physics. The denial of plasma physics in favor of an exclusively gravitational model makes accretion disks against the laws of physics put forth by BBT. [To be sure, planetary systems, once formed, are stable with gravitation alone, however the fact remains gravity alone cannot build them.]
Do you know how to determine if theories are worthy? They make predictions that we can then test. BBT has never made an accurate prediction. NEVER! Ever, nada, zip, zilch, none. There is no question that circumstance is related to taking the weakest of all forces, effectively determining it’s the only force in the universe then building a model out of it. It sounds just as suspect as it is. One should certainly not assume we’re gonna get a reasonably accurate picture out of such an approach.
BBT is the story of fabricating physics when you should be paying attention to existing / known physics. NGC 7603 and many others severely compromise the interpretation of doppler “expansion”. Thus a fair amount of that mass needed to make Omega = ~1 is compromised. Furthermore, plasma physics says we don’t need to dark matter to account for galactic motions. Galaxies are plasma! -plasma physics along with gravitation explains their motions perfectly! This, of course, removes the dark matter conjecture and now BBT is left with an omega value that proves its own inconsistency.