https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0009d2b

One of the topics on this show was a small snippet of conversation about The Universe.

The Einsteinian formulae for assessing how much matter is available in the universe was discussed

How all assessments mainstream today suggest that the mass of matter observed to be available in the universe is about 5% of what is considered to be the requisite amount needed so to account for actual gravitational forces. In a space time curved and distorted by physical objects.

This 5% assessment has been the original cause for the postulation of Dark Matter being present and this Dark Matter is to account for the remaining 95% - of non observable matter.

Dark Matter has never been empiricaly identified (there has been only a sort of reasoning, but no empirical nor by any observational evidence scientifically affirmed).

An unsophisticated parallel would be perhaps a boy with a bag of sweets who has been sold twenty coughdrops. He counts the bagful and there is only one in it. The sweetshop owner tells the boy that yes there are twenty coughdrops in his bag. That the other nineteen are there indeed because the bag weighs as if twenty were in it.

The presenters of this Omnibus 4 show affirmed that it is considered in the mainstream science community more or less certain that Dark Matter exists. They added also that it is possible, or perhaps more strongly, there’s a likelihood, that Dark Matter is not in fact observable by humans.

And so, if these are the facts, it does not take Einstein to deduce that Dark Matter is no more than a hypothesis; a suitable expedient postulation which fits the bill to make the sums come out right. Just as was in its time phlogisten, or else Ptolemaic epicycles.

The affirmation by the presenters and the alleged consensus of the scientific community on Dark Matter are then no more than protestations, backed only by an act of faith.

Now I’m not against protestations and acts of faith – but I am angry and upset about these same grounds which apply to God, i.e. not likely to be scientificaly observable and yet needed to fit the bill to explain everything, are cast aside by the many of the same persons, including last night’s presenters, for whom Dark Matter is their idolatry.

In fact I dare to say there is much more, much better, evidence for God than there is for Dark Matter. Scientific empirical evidence even. In fact from my own point of view, and from mainstream orthodoxy’s, there is nothing which is not evidence for God. Three prominent religions look to the Hebrew Scriptures – Islam, Christianity, and Judaism – all of them accept the terms of The Book of Genesis - broadly speaking each agrees that God made all that we are and see and sense.

As for Dark Matter, it is much prophesied, much waited on for confirmation of its existence – though it has not one thing existing that supports it as a thesis excepting a circumstantial piece of negative arithmetic.

Like those banks in the 2008 crisis the Dark Matter thesis is at present considered ‘too big to be allowed to fail’. So much work, hope, kudos, belief, faith, peripheral hypotheses, and reputation have been invested in it for it to be acknowledged a damp squib. The tyrrany of science and of scientific pride

Further, the programme went on to discuss the idea of scientists doing ‘science for science’s sake’ - and holding this phrase up as another shibboleth for idolators.

Such talk is loose and dangerous; it takes no account of the very mixed motives for scientists doing science; just the same as the rest of us have mixed motives. It is mythmaking. A form of gratuitous flattery and self-delusion. It is clear to me that science for the most part is carried out to push technological and scientific uses for devices, tools, machines, methodologies, and so on.

It is clear to me that the scientists in places of academic learning are engaged in great internicine rivalries and power struggles. Getting of money as a motive affects us all – no less the guys and galls in the ivory towers of academe. Maybe reputational sometimes overtakes money motives?

There’s probably very, very, few scientists who come anywhere near to doing their work ‘for the sake of science’. The conception is a lie broadcast so as to maintain the priestly caste of scientists in their pole postion of awe and respect. It is propaganda and it is part of the power struggle scientists play off against those rivals in other walks of life whose own prowess poses a threat to their secure positions in the popular consciousness.

This postulation of Dark Matter is, as is science for its own sake, either a living lie or if believed by any scientists, self-delusion.

The backwater of belief that somehow what human activities, discoveries, inventions, theories, theses, are revealing to the world and its peoples today, are the final and best statements of the workings of natural order of things – this is pure naked self-regard and is false almost by definition.

I rarely buy books which have been written since 1900. Many of my books were first published at much earlier dates. I consider that these early books of mine can and do tell me more of lasting value, and of use, and of truth, and of the right way to live, than do 99.9% of books being published currently – on or offline.

‘We all like sheep

Have gone astray

Every one to his own way’