Dwarf Galaxies Call Standard Model Into Question

Phys.org reports:

Satellite dwarf galaxies at the edges of the Milky Way and neighboring Andromeda defy the accepted model of galaxy formation, and recent attempts to pigeon-hole them into the model are flawed, an international team of scientists reports.

The mismatch raises questions about the accuracy of the standard model of cosmology, which is the widely accepted paradigm for the origin and evolution of the universe, the astrophysicists say.

A preprint of the research paper, accepted for publication by the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, is online at arxiv.org.

The standard model, also called the “lambda cold dark matter model,” says that satellite dwarf galaxies in the Milky Way and Andromeda are expected to behave a certain way: The galaxies would form in halos of dark matter, be widely distributed and would have to move in random directions, said Marcel Pawlowski, a postdoctoral researcher in the astronomy department at Case Western Reserve University and lead author of the new study.

“But what astronomers see is different,” Pawlowski said. “We see the satellite galaxies are in a huge disk and moving in the same direction within this disk, like the planets in our solar system moving in a thin plane in one direction around the sun. That’s unexpected and could be a real problem.”

Pawlowski goes on to say, “The chance to have two galaxies with such huge disks of satellite galaxies is less than one in 100,000.

The article goes on to quote Pavel Kroupa, a co-author of the study and a professor at the University of Bonn in Germany, who says, “There’s a very serious conflict, and the repercussion is we do not seem to have the correct theory of gravity.


Of course, I’m confident this evidence will be thoroughly ignored by everyone. 100,000 to 1 odds? pffffffft. We’ve already had papers showing 3,000,000,000 to 1 odds of the standard model being incorrect. The high priests of science will go on spewing their fake gravitational religion, conjuring up infinite densities and invisible matter, like misguided Medieval alchemists.

For those who want a real explanation for what we observe in space, watch this:

  • Deus ex machina

    Can you please explain this to me: http://youtu.be/xoY2s3l3c9g?t=20m28s

    Are they saying this electric capture of the earth/proto-Saturn
    happened recently? I’ve watched around 5 hours of their videos and I’m
    fairly certain that I’ve seen it claimed that this event is the cause of
    the ice ages and all sorts of tribal art/myths. (This sounds f’ing
    insane to me. It kicked me so hard in the my BS detector that I’m seeing
    stars.) I may be mistaken though, but I can’t imagine this without mass
    extinctions and the like.

    2) Why Saturn?

    Frankly it
    sounds plausible, seeing that the moons of many of the gas giants in the
    solar system are covered in ice and liquid hydrocarbons, which explains
    conditions of earth. I hate science.gov with a passion, but I need help
    getting over my skepticism.

    • I tend to look at it this way.

      There is only ONE place in the universe that we KNOW is capable of covering a planet sized object with water, and that is the plasma coma of a dwarf star.

      Is it more likely that the Earth got its oceans because it was orbiting inside the plasma coma of a dwarf star, or is it more likely that the Earth got its oceans by being bombarded by comets?

      The comet theory is a joke, especially when you start digging into the scientific papers on planet formation and find out that its virtually impossible for an undifferentiated ring of gas and dust to collapse into a planet by gravitation alone.


      Further, why does Saturn have a ring system? It shouldn’t be there if Saturn and the Earth formed at the same time. If the proto-disk that created the planets vaporized in that time frame, surely Saturn’s rings should have vaporized long before that. Those rings are young. Don’t be fooled by the propaganda claiming they are 4 billion years old. That shit just doesn’t add up.

      • Deus ex machina

        I really do understand the reasoning behind all of that! In my mind those things give it creditability.

        What is perplexing me is why this guy and Steve Crothers (?) are saying that this happened in the relatively recent past. It sounds like they are saying these events happened 10-50 thousand years ago. I cannot imagine that we swapped stars without more evidence laying around. Maybe if they claimed it happened during the times of the several mass extinction events during earth’s history, but I’m baffled.

        I’m guessing your perspective is that the general theory makes sense, but whether these more… esoteric assertions turn out to be true or not isn’t a huge concern. It’s “less wrong” and that is what counts. Am I guessing correctly?

        • That’s right. The exact timeline is disputable, but the general theory of how things played out is not.

          For an alternative timeline of events, look here:


          Use the arrow icons to navigate. It’s an old page, but it’s a great read. Still relevant today.

      • Saturn has such a defined ring system because its poles are aligned with it’s magnetic field.

  • James Wyss

    The Saturnanian and general electric universe theories explain things quite well. In fact, I think it helps resolve a lot of differences between standard evolutionary theories and some of the other fringe theories. It might explain Noah’s Ark. It’s kind of a theory of everything. It might even explain climate change. If the Earth did change stars then the climate could still be stabilizing.

  • Pingback: Gold Produced From Ground Up Beer Bottles | Libertarian News()

  • Pingback: Einstein Was Wrong | Libertarian News()

  • Pingback: Einstein Was Wrong | Libertarian News()