Far out cosmology: dark energy may not exist (Introduction)

by David Turell @, Tuesday, December 03, 2019, 05:19 (8 days ago) @ dhw

http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/11/dark-energy-might-not-exist-after-all.html

DAVID: To briefly remind you, dark energy is what speeds up the expansion of the unive

QUOTES: "If what they say is correct, then it is unnecessary to postulate dark energy which means that the expansion of the universe might not speed up after all.”

"Why didn’t Perlmutter and Riess come to this conclusion? They could not, because the supernovae that they looked were skewed in direction. The ones with low redshift were in the direction of the CMB dipole; and high redshift ones away from it. With a skewed sample like this, you can’t tell if the effect you see is the same in all directions.”

QUOTE: "This paper, I have to emphasize, has been peer reviewed, is published in a high quality journal, and the analysis meets the current scientific standard of the field. It is not a result that can be easily dismissed and it deserves to be taken very seriously, especially because it calls into question a Nobel Prize winning discovery. This analysis has of course to be checked by other groups and I am sure we will hear about this again, so stay tuned."

DAVID: The original Nobel prize paper predicted that the universe was expanding faster and faster. This paper says the Hubble Constant of expansion is the same steady rate we thought it was. Wow. True science is self-correcting. I wish Darwinism was.

dhw: Thank you for this very important article.The existence of dark matter (i.e. matter which nobody knows anything about) has been questioned for years, as has the theory of speeding expansion. I recall many articles on the subject published by the Society for Interdisciplinary Studies – an organization much derided by the scientific establishment precisely because they kept challenging orthodox views. Eventually no doubt scientists will question the theory of the Big Bang. Your customary snipe at Darwinism is totally unnecessary and irrelevant, and in any case many scientists have challenged Darwin’s ideas on random mutations and gradualism.

Real science is self-correcting as the article shows. You fell into the same stance as always. I point out that Darwinism scientists keep defending what cannot be longer defended using this articled as an example. Dawkins, Coyne, Graur and many others are still blathering. Do you realize Darwinism is a religion? That's what I'm complaining about. And to your point, there are many articles challenging the Big Bang. I read one yesterday.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum