Yes, you’ve found a handful of critiques. There are also many critiques of conventional theories. The most controversial thing here is your claim that – despite the fact that critiques exist on both sides – that this is nevertheless not a controversy.
We can get a better idea of the depth of thought that you’ve put into this by taking a closer look at one of your sources, while asking the question: How many additional controversies are you failing to mention for your audience?
From your source, “Convincing a Young Scientist that Dark Matter Exists”:
A classic example is Einstein’s theory of gravity, general relativity.
The big idea was that matter and energy curved spacetime, and that
this curved spacetime was the cause of all the effects we attribute to
But it didn’t just explain all of the things that the old theory,
Newton’s gravity, explained. It also predicted an anomaly in Mercury’s
orbit, which had been observed but was hitherto unexplained. But
additionally, it also made a brand new prediction: that near very
massive objects, starlight would appear to bend!
This is unfortunately the textbook story of what happened. The more nuanced historical story which philosophers debate involves an additional photographic plate which was in conflict with Einstein’s prediction.
I learned how to measure the distances to different objects, both in
and out of our galaxy.
It’s worth pointing out that parallax only works to 1% the diameter of the Milky Way. Everything beyond that is inferred based upon the principles of the paradigm itself – in this case, redshift.
The conclusion drawn from that? The more distant objects were, the
faster they were receding away from us.
This seemed to be the story until it turned into a controversy. The documentary, “Cosmology Quest”, on YouTube runs through a small snippet of the timeline surrounding Halton Arp’s claim to discover all sorts of problems for the theory.
Although many alternatives are plausible based on Hubble expansion
alone, the Big Bang was the theory that made the correct predictions
for phenomena like the Cosmic Microwave Background and the abundances
of the light elements, while the alternatives fell by the wayside.
The idea that the CMB can only be explained with one paradigm is an extraordinary claim which Fred Hoyle went out of his way to disagree with …
“There is no explanation at all of the microwave background in the Big
Bang theory. All you can say for the theory is that it permits you to
put it in if you want to put it in. So, you look and it is there, so
you put it in directly. It isn’t an explanation.”
Jean-Claude Pecker agreed …
“Actually, the 3 degree radiation, to me, has not a cosmological
value. It is observed in any cosmology: in any cosmology you can
predict the 3 degree radiation. So it is a proof of no cosmology at
all, if it can be predicted of all cosmology.”
These would seem to be important arguments that have been completely left out here.
According to dark matter, there’s a diffuse, massive halo around every
gravitationally bound structure, while according to modified versions
of gravity, the laws only become different at very small
Both versions provide an explanation for rotating galaxies, and to be
completely honest, the modified gravity version is slightly better at
that. But how do we decide which one’s right?
If gravity is not the fundamental force, then neither is the case. That is the case being made by the EU: that filaments of plasma can exert an incredible force upon the surrounding matter, as a consequence of conducting charged particles. This is explained in depth within the Electric Universe Essential Guide. These are not exactly cosmological ideas; most of these ideas stem from observations which have been made within the plasma laboratory. Comparisons of large-scale plasma discharges to much smaller activity within Tokamak’s suggests that plasmas simply scale over enormous magnitudes.
Second, we can look at the large-scale galaxy distribution. How do
these galaxies cluster? There seems to be not enough mass to produce
the structures that we see, unless we either include dark matter or
Actually, many people have noticed the similarity in the large-scale universe structures to that of neuronal networks within the brain – and possibly for good reason.
So I was in favor of dark matter, but I wasn’t entirely convinced. I
wanted a “smoking gun” piece of evidence for dark matter. Something
that was an entirely new prediction that we could look for — much like
that 1919 eclipse was for general relativity — and decide whether dark
matter predicts what we’re going to see.
The author then goes on to describe the bullet cluster inference for dark matter.
Let’s take a look at what the mass — due to observations of
gravitational lensing (a verified prediction of general relativity) —
is telling us […]
This only works if there’s some extra type of matter that doesn’t
smash together and collide like normal matter (i.e., protons,
neutrons, and electrons) does.
The author is making an incredible claim that there exist no unconceived alternatives, and to make that claim, there is a very delicate chain of cosmological claims which must each be individually true from start to finish – including galactic collisions, dark matter, gravitational lensing (which oftentimes, in turn, requires dark matter), as well as the notion that redshift is necessarily a reliable measure of velocity and distance. We are being asked to accept an elaborate, delicate structure of hypotheses as though it’s the result of experiment.
Left completely unmentioned is the alternative Arpian view for why lensing is invoked in the first place, from http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/060904bulletcluster.htm …
The Big Bang, which fails to take the electrical properties of plasma
into account, assumes that redshift must be an indicator of distance.
As a result, it projects the high-redshift filaments and arcs far into
the background. In order to account for the association of these
features with foreground galaxies, gravitational lensing must be
invoked to “explain away” the number of features as multiple images of
only one “distant” QSO.
There is enormous danger to building an elaborate theoretical structure, failing to inform your audience of the alternatives which are presented by critics, and then pretending that this is no different from doing laboratory experiments by failing to use words like “theory”, “hypothesis” or “interpretation”. The fact is that conventional thinkers desperately need critics to point out the controversies that they themselves have ignored.
This piece you’ve presented is exactly the kind of pseudoscientific journalism that the Thunderbolts group have very successfully warned the public of. We will simply not get to accurate theories in cosmology through this type of journalism. We must acknowledge the controversies where they exist, so that critical thinkers can make up their own minds.