Monday, March 15, 2010


Some of Our Best Scientists

Have Shown Genius Level Negative IQs

Recently there has been an inexplicable reversal in the usual recitation of facts that scientists have been giving regarding the evidence for dark energy. Here is a quote from a current article on dark energy and dark matter that appears on a NASA website: "Then came 1998 and the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) observations of very distant supernovae that showed that, a long time ago, the Universe was actually expanding more slowly than it is today."

This is grossly untrue. If this is what Saul Perlmutter and Adam Riess have been saying, it is a gross distortion. In them, I am disappointed almost to tears. But, what else can I expect from the antigeniuses among us?

I have been tracking measurements of the Hubble constant for many years. The Hubble Space Telescope has measured H0 for the deep space SNe 1a as the highest yet recorded except for H0 determined for the cosmic microwave background radiation, which is even more "distant" and even older. As one plots H0 measurements against the average distances from Earth to the midpoints of the ranges of objects used in the observations, one obtains a very precise straight line in this scatter diagram. This linear regression line has a very high correlation coefficient (0.98) and a NEGATIVE slope stretching from the origin at t = 0 to now at t = 1.

Given that H0 is not really a constant, older accepted data along with current measurements of H0 show that H0 for very distant and old objects is larger than for nearer and younger objects. Nowhere in any of the peer reviewed publications of Perlmutter nor Riess is there explicit argument for acceleration or dark energy that does not subtly assume what it purports to prove. They never explain exactly how the reversal of common sense occurs that says the universe expansion rate is accelerating in the present era. They do not even acknowledge the reversal.

Commonly accepted facts have to be rewritten to accommodate this circular conclusion. History has to be revised. Accepted data clearly show that the expansion rate is decelerating. See .

There is lots of evidence against dark energy. Recent papers casting doubt on the Cosmological Principle should be taken seriously. If we should be prepared to accept the many patches and ad hoc band-aids that dark energy requires, why can we not entertain some patches to explain away the so called "evidence" for it and help save the Scientific Method?

One does not validate a scientific principle by accumulating circumstantial evidence. Such are just anecdotes. One must formulate an antithesis; an opposite or negative hypothesis, and attempt to perform a critical or crucial experiment that would confirm or deny it. If this “null hypothesis” is confirmed, the original hypothesis is falsified or nullified. Dark energy is incapable of falsification and is thus as ineligible as a scientific hypothesis as Santa Claus or God Himself. To hold otherwise is to open the gate to superstition.


Gary Kent said...

Please do not post spam!

Anonymous said...

The big problem with the "scientific community" is that its academic machiavellism is incompatible with the scientific method. Please check out Pure science Wiki. That is an Internet platform for the real scientific method.

Martin J Sallberg