We're asked to believe "dark matter" exists because stars in the outer reaches of galaxies orbit the centre of mass of the galaxy faster than expected. If something inexplicable occurs science posits whatever needed to make-right the observation and places the word "dark" in front. Thus "dark matter". Hubble and James Webb telescopes sees through the dark matter thought to be an invisible halo around galaxies. But matter unfound in vicinity of planet earth. Now right there, without reference to scientific literature most anybody could call the notion of dark matter tin-foil-hat. But with the science literature most, including myself, most often choose to be silent deferring to tenured scientists who have brought forward the definition of dark matter just outlined. Something invisible but with gravity.
Moving on then, "dark energy" we're asked to believe permeates the volume of the visible Universe facilitating the expansion of the visible Universe. Further we're asked to believe, contrary to basic physics and conservation of mass & energy, said "dark energy" increases in step with the volume of the expanding Universe facilitating the expansion. Philosophically inelegant and even worse we start reading about messy notions of a "fabric" of empty space stretching.
The beginning of the visible Universe can most often be compared to an explosion and go on to describe the outcome. The characteristics of an explosion you might find in a controlled military detonation. The constituent particles of an explosion race away from each other with a speed directly proportional to the distance between any two particles. Now galaxies and clusters of galaxies aside, all formed later and hold together by gravity essentially constitute the particles in the explosion colloquially called the "big-bang". The clusters of galaxies in view of James Webb telescope become "redder" with increasing distance, to the point of appearing in the infrared portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. James Webb essentially an infrared telescope and great care must be taken to shield the James Webb from local heat sources.
Now I want to speak about the explosion itself. Analogies only go so far. We must posit how & why an explosion happens at all and what could be different. We've heard or read about "black holes" also called singularities where gravity becomes so intense light cannot escape. For a beginning Universe we must posit a singularity as massive as the visible Universe including the so called dark matter. Most singularities we read about form from relativity much smaller objects. From stars only 20 to 30 times as massive as the Sun. Minuscule compared to the mass of the Universe.
To understand the explosion you have to start looking at the nucleus of matter. The protons and neutrons themselves composed of smaller yet particles called quarks each spinning with vast amounts of energy. Three quarks in each proton and neutron and with electrons orbiting the nucleus we now have the atom. The atom been compared to a soccer field with the football, the nucleus, sitting in the centre of the field and bumblebees, the electrons flying around the perimeter of the soccer field. Analogies aside, when a star accrets matter in a binary star system one star becomes heavy enough to collapse. The space between electron & nucleus drops to zero. The electrons get crushed into the positively charged protons and become neutrons. The catastrophic collapse into the centre of the star bounces in the middle blowing off 90% of the matkter into a supernova full of newly formed elements heavier than iron. The remaining matter forming a dense black hole and if smaller a neutron star.
Now knowing what happens in a singularity we can posit, in a larger singularity or nacient Universe, the energetically spinning quarks getting crushed together. Albert Einstein's General Relativity, entirely a mathematical model, posits singularities as finite points with infinite density. Physics suggests, though not measured, singularities contain some volume. The gross energy of spinning quarks marshalled together transferring energy to the gross volume of compressed matter. Incredibly hot, the vibration exceeding the force of incredible gravity. Thus the explosion or "big-bang".
From here I want to come back to the "dark energy" discussion. If the outer reaches of the Universe appear to be accelerating then the initial impedice of the big-bang, lasting fractions of microseconds at the beginning of the big-bang were somewhat greater than the part of the explosion microseconds later. Supplying greater velocity to the outer reaches of the visible Universe. The so called "dark energy" posited.
Now as for the "dark matter" purportedly surrounding galaxies. Just seems to me measuring slow velocities of stars in the outer arms of the galaxy could be a daunting task subject to errors. And in the formation of galaxies, seen in the smaller diagram, the tails of two merging clumps of stars come to orbit each other with enough velocity so the outer arms orbit in unison with the inner arms of the galaxy.
Thank you for your attention. Long live Hubble and James Webb telescopes.
