What about the galaxies?
We have already seen that all attempts by cosmologists to squeeze the Universe into the narrow framework of their materialistic ideas have led to nothing. Moreover, their theories do not even correspond to their own ideas about the structure of the Universe. For example, the big bang theory cannot explain the existence of galaxies. Imagine a brilliant scientist who thoroughly knows all modern cosmological theories, but does not have a clue about astronomy. Can he predict the existence of galaxies? Not. Modern versions of cosmological theories predict only the appearance of a uniform cloud of gas. The density of this cloud by now should be no more than one atom per cubic meter – a little better than vacuum. To get something more, you need to adjust the initial state of the Universe, which is very difficult to scientifically substantiate. By tradition, a physical theory is considered acceptable only if it has predictive power. The value of a theory that needs to be adjusted for a long time in order to squeeze some predictions out of it is very doubtful.
S. Weinberg in his book “The First Three Minutes” writes: “The theory of the appearance of galaxies is one of the most difficult problems of astrophysics, problems that are still very far from being resolved.” “But then he immediately makes a reservation:“ However, this is a completely different story. ” Why is it different? This is exactly the story! If the Big Bang theory cannot explain the origin of not only the Universe itself, but also one of the main components of the Universe – galaxies, then what does it explain at all? Apparently, not too much.
One of the unsolved secrets of the Universe: scientists suggest that galaxies can be surrounded by a halo of invisible matter, whose mass is nine times their own.
The theory of the “big bang” should, in theory, explain the structure of the Universe, but the trouble is that many characteristics of the Universe are still not well understood so that they can be explained. One of the intriguing mysteries is the problem of “missing mass.” “By measuring the light energy emitted by the Milky Way, we can approximately determine the mass of our galaxy. It is equal to the mass of one hundred billion Suns. However, studying the patterns of interaction of the same Milky Way with the nearby Andromeda galaxy, we find that our galaxy is attracted to it as if it weighs ten times more, ”explains David Schramm, professor at the University of Chicago. Thus, the difference in mass determined by the two methods is 90%. To explain this, scientists decided to attribute the lack of mass to ghostly subatomic particles called “neutrinos”. Initially, neutrinos were considered weightless, but, when required, they were credited with mass in order to “discover” the missing mass of the galaxy. Very comfortably.
Even if we postpone the question of the origin of the Universe and turn to its structure, we will see that here, too, not everything is going well. Scientists confidently declare that the Universe extends for X light years and that its age – At billions of years. They claim that they know the nature of all the main cosmic objects: stars, galaxies, nebulae, quasars, etc. At the same time, we do not even have a clear idea of the Milky Way galaxy to which we belong.
For example, in the journal American Science, the famous astronomer B.J. Bock writes: “I recall the mid-seventies, when my colleagues, researchers of the Milky Way, were absolutely confident in myself … At that time, nobody could come to my head is that very soon we will have to reconsider our ideas about the size of the Milky Way, increasing its diameter by three times, and the mass is ten times. ” Even if such parameters were so radically changed after decades of observation and research, what can be expected from the future ?! Do not we have to even more radically change our views?
Even our own solar system remains a mystery to us. The traditional explanation of the origin of the planets, according to which the planets were formed during the condensation of clouds of cosmic dust and gas, has a rather shaky foundation, since the equations describing the interaction of gas in these clouds have not yet been solved. W. McRae, professor at the University of Sussex, former president of the Royal Astronomical Society, writes: “The problem of the origin of the solar system continues to be perhaps the most significant of all the unresolved problems of astronomy.”
We hope that all of the above is enough to convince any unbiased reader of the groundlessness of the claims of cosmologists that the strategy of materialistic reductionism has helped them successfully explain the origin and nature of the universe. We have no reason to assert that all answers to questions of cosmology must be described by a simple mathematical expression. The quantitative method often cannot be applied even to phenomena that are much simpler and more accessible than the giant Universe.