Dark energy theory is based on scientific quicksand......

[Michael Mozina]

https://phys.org/news/2020-01-evidence- ... -dark.html

Taken at face values, the luminosity evolution of SN is significant enough to question the very existence of dark energy. When the luminosity evolution of SN is properly taken into account, the team found that the evidence for the existence of dark energy simply goes away (see Figure 1).

Commenting on the result, Prof. Young-Wook Lee (Yonsei Univ., Seoul), who led the project said, "Quoting Carl Sagan, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but I am not sure we have such extraordinary evidence for dark energy. Our result illustrates that dark energy from SN cosmology, which led to the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics, might be an artifact of a fragile and false assumption."

It's rather amusing that pretty much every "new discovery" made in astronomy is based upon dubious assumptions, and yet the mainstream continues to peddle the big bang model as being the only viable cosmology model. It seems to me that even mainstream scientists are starting to see some of the tattered edges of the BB model these days.

[Michael Mozina]

By the way, there are actually *two* recent papers that poke huge holes in the dark energy claim:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1912.04903

https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.04597

https://youtu.be/oqgKXQM8FpU

https://youtu.be/yqokbIxDvIw

The two videos by Sabine Hossenfelder give a brief explanation of the two new dark energy papers. The first paper analyzed the large set of SN1A data based on the relative ages of stars in a given galaxy and it makes the case that more distant galaxies are "younger" and suggests that "dark energy" is simply a misunderstanding related to age aspects of various galaxies.

The second paper is based on the observation that our solar system and galaxy are in relative motion compared to various SN1A events, and reanalyzes the larger set of SN1A with that relative motion in mind. It also comes to the same conclusion that dark energy isn't real, it's simply a misunderstanding related to relative motion. As Sabine points out in the first video, the SN1A events used to provide evidence of dark energy are all bunched in a single direction, which happens to be opposite the motion of our galaxy, giving a skewed result. Again, both papers suggest that dark energy isn't real.

[Zyxzevn]

It is telling how many astronomers keep on attacking all this evidence against Dark Energy.
And keep affirming that Dark Energy is true.
Even if it would exist, it is clear that these astronomers are not really scientists at all.
I think that science will only advance, after all modern astronomy is dropped into the trash-bin.

[Michael Mozina]

It is telling how many astronomers keep on attacking all this evidence against Dark Energy.
And keep affirming that Dark Energy is true.
Even if it would exist, it is clear that these astronomers are not really scientists at all.
I think that science will only advance, after all modern astronomy is dropped into the trash-bin.

It's the blatant confirmation bias that is most disturbing IMO. In spite of the fact that exotic matter claims have failed tens of billions of dollars worth of empirical (laboratory) "tests" over the past decade, and in spite of all the recent studies that show how poorly the mainstream has estimated the ordinary mass in our universe, astronomers continue insist that they "know" that exotic forms of dark matter exist.

In spite of the fact that newer SN1A "tests" based on *much larger data sets* show that there is absolutely no SN1A evidence to support dark energy, they'll just ignore it. The second study/paper from that previous post even "explained" that the original SN1A study used as evidence to support dark energy was inherently flawed because all the SN1A data points used in the original study came from a single direction in the sky which happens to coincide with the movement of our galaxy through the universe.

In spite of the fact that LIGO is now 0 for 50+ in terms of duplicating any type of multimessenger results in their 03 run, and 0 for 6 in BNS mergers, and in spite of the fact that most of the time only two of the three detectors (sometimes only one of them) "see" anything, LIGO keeps insisting that they're measuring gravitational waves anyway. If these were "real" GW wave events, all three detectors would see them every time, and they'd have dozens of examples of mutlimessenger confirmation of their claims by now. Nope. still just one "lucky" break from 2017.

Astronomy today is a completely corrupt form of pseudscience. Astronomers are completely disinterested in engaging in honest dialog about alternatives to their metaphysical crap. Instead, they ban anyone and everyone from their websites who dares to point out the problems with the LCDM model or their methodology, and they consistently sweep all the failed tests of their model right under the rug. It's the Ptolemaic problem all over again.

It's pretty amazing to me how poorly the LCDM model actually holds up to any serious scrutiny. I can't even recall a single "test" that the LCDM has passed reliably over the past several decades. Distant galaxies and quasars are far too mature and massive to be explained by the big bang model. Nothing about the LCDM model is viable or holds up to any serious scrutiny.

[neilwilkes]

What is even more worrying is the statement in Sabine Hossenfelder's book "Lost In Math" where she is talking to George Ellis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_F._R._Ellis) and he is stating "There are now physicists saying we don't have to test their ideas because they are such good ideas" and goes on to qualify this by saying that they are effectively trying to turn the clock back 1,000 years by removing the Empirical Method. He further says that Theoretical Physics is "supposed to be the bedrock, the hardest rock, of all the sciences, showing how it can be completely trusted" (please remember this book was published in 2018, so is by now several epic fails in the Concordance (LCDM) model out of date)
He then goes even further by saying that certain - apparently well respected - ideas are not even pseudoscience, but science fiction.

When will the fundamental assumptions be revisited?
The problems started with the STR and it's resulting infinities, which are an absurdity. A great place to start is the paper by Dr Alzofon "The Unity of Nature and the Search for a Unified Field Theory ", in which he manages to get - and I quote - "unification of the fundamental forces, a solution to the wave/particle problem, elimination of infinities from field equations and quantum electrodynamics, and an operable definition of the gravitational force that yields engineering applications.".
I can highly recommend this paper, and it's follow-ups - this man knew his stuff.

[Cargo]

https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdf/10.2514/6.1981-1608

$25 can get you that. Which includes/reference the Unity of Nature paper(also $25)

[4realScience]

Re: Prof Claudia de Rham’s ‘massive gravity’ theory about why universe is expanding

https://www.theguardian.com/science/202 ... rgy-riddle


Where she theorizes that the force carrier particles of Gravity, the gravitons Themselves also have mass and this is the dark matter.

This reminds me of a theory of Bad Breath I once heard in the early 1980s on NPR by a mister Dr. Science. He explained bad breath same way. He said Germs cause bad breath because germs Have bad breath.

[EtherQuestions]

If theoretical physics was grounded in objective reasoning Special Relativity and all subsequent theories would have been dropped long ago.

There are hundreds of reasons why Special Relativity alone is impossible and also contradictory. It's a shame we need hard "in your face" cosmological proof to actually make the relativists finally accept reality. Even then the cognitive dissonance is often to great.

Any famous natural philosopher from the 19th century would think we've lost our minds: light invariance, space-curvature (even without a reactive force), length of objects can now contract just one observer, objects can gain mass at sub-luminal velocity but not for another observer moving with them or relatively slower producing a different observed force interaction (as there is no rest frame in relativity and velocity is only observer dependent).

Madness. Contradictions. Fallacies. All completely unnecessary and not needed to explain any real observable effects.

[Michael Mozina]

FYI Sabine Hossenfelder has a pretty good video out on the topic of dark energy, and the fact that the original SN1A events were all aligned with the CMB dipole, and skewed by the movement of our own galaxy. In short Subir Sarkar destroyed the original evidence that was used to support the so called "discovery" of dark energy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1mwYxk ... e=emb_logo

[neilwilkes]

https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdf/10.2514/6.1981-1608

$25 can get you that. Which includes/reference the Unity of Nature paper(also $25)

I already spent my money a long time since on these papers, but I appreciate the link regardless.
Great to know someone else is also reading this.