Dark Energy may not actually exist

[StevenJay]

Dark energy may not actually exist, scientists claim
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/6043 ... claim.html

The concept of dark energy was created by cosmologists to fit Albert Einstein's General Theory of Relativity into reality after modern space telescopes discovered that the Universe was not behaving as it should.

According to Einstein's work, the speed at which the Universe is expanding following the Big Bang should be slower than it actually is and this unexplained anomaly threatened to turn the whole theory upside down. In order to reconcile this problem the concept of dark energy was invented. [Interesting choice of words. Emphasis mine - SJ]

But now Blake Temple and Joel Smoller, mathematicians at the University of California and the University of Michigan, believe they have come up with a whole new set of calculations that allow for all the sums to add up without the need for this controversial substance. [Leave it to a couple of rascally mathematicians to figure out how to do away with that crusty ol' virtual substance bandage and replace it with a new and improved, substance-free bandage.]

[solrey]

Dark Energy may not actually exist.

According to Einstein's work, the speed at which the Universe is expanding following the Big Bang should be slower than it actually is and this unexplained anomaly threatened to turn the whole theory upside down. In order to reconcile this problem the concept of dark energy was invented.

Erroneous assumption numero uno:
The universe is expanding

Erroneous assumption part deux:
Dark energy to fill in the gaps

But now Blake Temple and Joel Smoller, mathematicians at the University of California and the University of Michigan, believe they have come up with a whole new set of calculations that allow for all the sums to add up without the need for this controversial substance.

A promising concept quickly devolves into more theoretical math, which is based on this nonsense:

The new research, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, is likely to be equally controversial as the work it purports to challenge especially as it relies on our galaxy being at the centre of the Universe - a concept that has been generally disregarded in modern science.

Accepted and published, no less!

Sometimes, the refutations are even crazier than the theories they contradict.

This kind of tripe is accepted for publication, yet the Electric Universe is ignored, nay...ridiculed!
What The BLEEP?
What the bleepity jumpin jebus on a pogo stick kind of bleep is that?

The final nano-shreds of my hope that modern science might finally get their bleep together have now evaporated.
POOF


Yet I scream at the darkness
I extend my tongue in defiance
eyes wide open
nature bellows,
"I will not be broken!"
the awakening of my senses
destroying pseudo-science

[mharratsc]

Now that the uncontrollable chuckling has stopped...

I wouldn't worry too much about those old publications. Like the stand-alone Standard Theory, they will go the way of the dodo soon enough.

I really do think that other venues will spring up eventually, across the Web. Until then, there's always the IEEE Plasma Cosmology papers... as few and far between as they are currently. :\ No complaints against the gents doing the work there! Just wish there were more of you!!

Mike H.

[solrey]

I wish there were more of all of us EU types, Mike.

The details are, hmmmm, well...I don't even know where to begin at this point.

The Big Wave Theory.

Surf's up dude.

According to the new proposition, the universe is not accelerating, as observations suggest. Instead, an expanding wave flowing through space-time has caused distant galaxies to appear to be accelerating away from us. This big wave, initiated after the Big Bang that is thought to have sparked the universe, could explain why objects today appear to be farther away from us than they should be according to the Standard Model of cosmology.

Heavens to murgatroyd...

The researchers derived a set of equations describing expanding waves that fit Einstein's theory of general relativity, and which could also account for the apparent acceleration. Temple outlines the new idea with Joel Smoller of the University of Michigan in the Aug. 17 issue of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Wait for it....

Temple compared the wave to what happens when you throw a rock into a pond. In this case, the rock would be the Big Bang, and the concentric ripples that result are like a series of waves throughout the universe. Later on, when the first galaxies start to form, they are forming inside space-time that has already been displaced from where it would have been without the wave. So when we observe these galaxies with telescopes, they don't appear to be where we would expect if there had never been a big wave.

Deliver punchline,

For the universe to appear to be accelerating at the same rate in all directions, we in the Milky Way would have to be near a local center, at the spot where an expansion wave was initiated early in the Big Bang when the universe was filled with radiation.

Temple concedes that this is a coincidence, but said it's possible that we are merely in the center of a smaller wave that affects the galaxies we can see from our vantage point - we need not be in the center of the entire universe for the idea to work.

(emphasis mine)

Just the center of our little corner of the visible universe, eh?

ROFLMAO x 10250