Mordechai Milgrom is a reputable careful worker. His data are used to support the idea of Dark Matter, not MOND. Not by him, though, he still teaches MOND. Where do we get Dark Matter from GR or from the standard theory of particle physics? Where?
WIMPS are even more hypothetical and unfalsifiable. DM itself is just a patch used to fill in the blanks in Friedmann. If one can derive Newton from GR, then one can derive the hyperbolic (1/kr) black-hole galactic gravitational field using the right assumptions. These would be interesting in themselves...
Unfalsifiable hypotheses cannot be used to refute facts. TeVeS theory is such an hypothesis like such quantum/GR hybrids all are. They have never predicted one single unique item and no such prediction has ever been verified. A theory that does not predict competently is not a theory and does not deserve the attention of mathematicians nor scientists.
All math, all science, is metaphor. All language is ultimately just metaphor including, and especially, Scripture. It is impossible to fully capture reality with any kind of human language. Prodessionals' neglect of this principle is what many people mean when they claim that scientists are insufferably arrogant and grossly naive. These critics go too far, though. Then they claim science is Myth. They create this Myth. Let us endeavor NOT to do so ourselves.
Gak
No cynic is happy.
Showing posts with label acceleration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label acceleration. Show all posts
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Monday, March 15, 2010
INEXPLICABLE REVISIONISM
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 http://www.lonetree-pictures.net/Graphical%20Model%20of%20the%20Universe.htm .
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.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Dark Energy, Dark Matter, Quintessence, Cosmological Constant
Click on the title of this post and navigate to another forum or blog concerning origins of the universe.
George LeMaitre suggested that the universe should be expanding at a steady rate in the present time, and has been doing so for eons. Edwin Hubble discovered that the universe is indeed expanding at a rate that he determined and this rate has been called "the Hubble Constant".
It is now well established that the universe is expanding, but not at a constant rate. I believe that the universe's expansion is slowing down, or decelerating. Other scientists think it is accelerating.
My equations or the MODEL that I have developed, suggests that deceleration is the only way to explain all the facts and that acceleration, the model favored by many cosmologists, is not such a good account of reality.
Acceleration is concluded from a particular interpretation of some observations. It is not necessary to choose this interpretation.
In order to explain this acceleration, ad hoc postulates have been offered. These kinds of off-the-cuff explanations do not explain anything. They complicate matters instead. One of the complications this causes is that there must be some sort of "Dark Energy". DE might stem from Einstein's cosmological constant which he slap-dashedly stuffed into his theory of relativity.
DE is supposed to pervade the universe and is forcing it to expand at an ever increasing rate. Then, if there is such a thing, the total mass & energy inventory of the universe must be so much larger than was thought that this surprise has to be explained too. The trail of ad hoc postulates gets longer and longer as more band-aids are applied to a wound in the logic of the acceleration model.
Very recently it was found that the evolutionary development of galaxy clusters and superclusters is slowing down. This would be expected if the develoment of the whole universe is slowing down (decelerating). But, in order to keep the acceleration idea alive in the face of this fact, more band-aids are needed. More ad hoc fixes are required to make sense of this galactic cluster develpment retardation effect.
It's crazy.
There is no Dark Energy, never was and never will be.
George LeMaitre suggested that the universe should be expanding at a steady rate in the present time, and has been doing so for eons. Edwin Hubble discovered that the universe is indeed expanding at a rate that he determined and this rate has been called "the Hubble Constant".
It is now well established that the universe is expanding, but not at a constant rate. I believe that the universe's expansion is slowing down, or decelerating. Other scientists think it is accelerating.
My equations or the MODEL that I have developed, suggests that deceleration is the only way to explain all the facts and that acceleration, the model favored by many cosmologists, is not such a good account of reality.
Acceleration is concluded from a particular interpretation of some observations. It is not necessary to choose this interpretation.
In order to explain this acceleration, ad hoc postulates have been offered. These kinds of off-the-cuff explanations do not explain anything. They complicate matters instead. One of the complications this causes is that there must be some sort of "Dark Energy". DE might stem from Einstein's cosmological constant which he slap-dashedly stuffed into his theory of relativity.
DE is supposed to pervade the universe and is forcing it to expand at an ever increasing rate. Then, if there is such a thing, the total mass & energy inventory of the universe must be so much larger than was thought that this surprise has to be explained too. The trail of ad hoc postulates gets longer and longer as more band-aids are applied to a wound in the logic of the acceleration model.
Very recently it was found that the evolutionary development of galaxy clusters and superclusters is slowing down. This would be expected if the develoment of the whole universe is slowing down (decelerating). But, in order to keep the acceleration idea alive in the face of this fact, more band-aids are needed. More ad hoc fixes are required to make sense of this galactic cluster develpment retardation effect.
It's crazy.
There is no Dark Energy, never was and never will be.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
"radius_1" Depiction, Acceleration Scenario, multiple plots
RADIUS_1 DEPICTION
The next figure in the following post describes the case wherein the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate in the present era. Note that the Hubble parameter curve does not intersect t=1 at a reasonable point and that there are few points of multiple intersection.
By the way, the equations for the derivative curves were found by using the Mathematica website that features a free utility that finds derivatives. Of course, the first derivative represents the speed of expansion and the second derivative stands for the acceleration or deceleration.
Graphically, this scenario displays less symmetry and does not much illustrate Noether's theorem. Remember, these equations are semi-theoretical as well as based on phenomenology. So, being theoretical in part, they should be potentially able to respect Noether's theorem.
Monday, April 30, 2007
Dark Energy Debunked Still More
Re: Dark Energy Debunked
O.K. Suppose the expansion of the universe is accelerating against all previous hypotheses that it should be decelerating. How could it be?
Well, Dark Energy is one explanation. Dark Energy is supposed to act, physically and mathematically, like negative pressure. It is as if the universe was immersed in a big vacuum, except that it is already a vacuum. But, it may be what is called a "false vacuum" with many more quantum entities seething just below the level of detectability (without huge accelerators probing muon decay, that is).
The true vacuum would act on our false vacuum universe the same way that a vacuum would act on a balloon, and, as the membrane got thinner, it would weaken. This is because the tension or overall force had surpassed the elastic limit and the expansion rate of the balloon would therefore accelerate. The tension seems to have surpassed the elastic limit of our universe about 9 billion years ago, it is said.
But this is just analogy. It is meaningless if it does not lead to a testable result or deduction. We cannot apply a force to the universe as a whole nor to spacetime. We cannot stretch spacetime in an experimental apparatus.
Perhaps spacetime stretches naturally as a result of the expansion that has already gone before. Then, as the receding galaxies recede faster from one another depending on their distance, it constitutes increased stretching of spacetime. As a matter of fact, the relativistic redshift is said to result from a "stretching" of spacetime.
But, I am only restating my analogy in different words (dodging or begging the question). This is not experimental or observational proof.
We need to put spactime in a sort of tensiometer to stretch it until it deforms more rapidly or else breaks. We need to find a way to rip spacetime. And hope that we do not tear a hole in the universe that will swallow us up!
This is all unproductive speculation. It would be more productive to follow the lead that this Dark Energy conclusion, reached by reductio ad absurdum, has given us. Carrying an argument to its extreme this way, to the point where an absurd contradiction occurs, is a standard method of proving logical falsehood.
Dark Energy proves itself false.
Let's work on this!
Then the calculations that indicate that the theoretic prevalence of heavier nuclei in the early universe are wrong, and the premises leading to this conclusion of too few heavy nuclei, need to be revised. Furthermore, the premises behind the interpretations of observations of too little "grey dust" that is made of such heavy nuclei (Be, B, C, N and O with traces of Mg, Al and Si) must also be wrong. There is a goldmine of research opportunity here!
Yes, scientists have made an 180 on the deceleration/acceleration trajectory of their thinking. And, yes, there could indeed be 1,000 million big bangs and other even weirder local parcels in a truly infinite universe. So, what is so special about it, even if our packet of the universe's expansion rate is accelerating. Who gives a rat's ass?
Well, we do, because we are here. And we do indeed live in a universe that just happens to have physical constants that support its existence and the existence of intelligent life. Presuming that we are indeed intelligent, that is. So, it matters to us because such conundrums fascinate. The irony is irresistible.
Another explanation of accelerating expansion is that spacetime is exploding. The negative pressure that shows up in relativistical equations is itself only relative. From the outside, looking in - even with an explosion - the pressure is negative. Just as energy is negative if it is released from the inside to the outside. The result is the same as before.
Except it is more like the original "phase change" that the "false vacuum" underwent at the time of the Big Bang. When water begins to boil, the expanding bubble drinks in more vapor at an accelerating rate because its surface area is increasing so rapidly that it ensnares more and more liquid, allowing it to turn into vapor. The false vacuum returns to its ground state, the true vacuum state, releasing energy that goes to accelerate the expansion rate. The bubble of spacetime that is our universe increases in size at an exponentially increasing rate, like a bubble of steam that grows larger so fast that it almost explodes out of the tea kettle.
These two scenarios are called the "quintessence" hypothesis and the "cosmological constant" hypothesis, respectively. Not only do we have to prove Dark Energy exists, but we have to distinguish between these two alternatives!
It would be much simpler to suppose that the premises underlying theoretical calculations and observational interpretations about the disparity between luminosity distances and redshift distances to far off type 1a supernovae are wrong.
Another alternative would be that the universe is growing. Spacetime may be reproducing itself and it is doing so at the usual exponentially increasing rate typical of a population of living organisms. The spacetime population underwent an initial accelerating increase initially (the BB), slowed down when waste products (like neutrinos) accumulated and sped up again when the volume increased sufficiently (and neutrino density decreased enough) for a new growth spurt to begin. Perhaps the conclusion should be, from this if it is true, that the universe is alive!
Gary Kent
O.K. Suppose the expansion of the universe is accelerating against all previous hypotheses that it should be decelerating. How could it be?
Well, Dark Energy is one explanation. Dark Energy is supposed to act, physically and mathematically, like negative pressure. It is as if the universe was immersed in a big vacuum, except that it is already a vacuum. But, it may be what is called a "false vacuum" with many more quantum entities seething just below the level of detectability (without huge accelerators probing muon decay, that is).
The true vacuum would act on our false vacuum universe the same way that a vacuum would act on a balloon, and, as the membrane got thinner, it would weaken. This is because the tension or overall force had surpassed the elastic limit and the expansion rate of the balloon would therefore accelerate. The tension seems to have surpassed the elastic limit of our universe about 9 billion years ago, it is said.
But this is just analogy. It is meaningless if it does not lead to a testable result or deduction. We cannot apply a force to the universe as a whole nor to spacetime. We cannot stretch spacetime in an experimental apparatus.
Perhaps spacetime stretches naturally as a result of the expansion that has already gone before. Then, as the receding galaxies recede faster from one another depending on their distance, it constitutes increased stretching of spacetime. As a matter of fact, the relativistic redshift is said to result from a "stretching" of spacetime.
But, I am only restating my analogy in different words (dodging or begging the question). This is not experimental or observational proof.
We need to put spactime in a sort of tensiometer to stretch it until it deforms more rapidly or else breaks. We need to find a way to rip spacetime. And hope that we do not tear a hole in the universe that will swallow us up!
This is all unproductive speculation. It would be more productive to follow the lead that this Dark Energy conclusion, reached by reductio ad absurdum, has given us. Carrying an argument to its extreme this way, to the point where an absurd contradiction occurs, is a standard method of proving logical falsehood.
Dark Energy proves itself false.
Let's work on this!
Then the calculations that indicate that the theoretic prevalence of heavier nuclei in the early universe are wrong, and the premises leading to this conclusion of too few heavy nuclei, need to be revised. Furthermore, the premises behind the interpretations of observations of too little "grey dust" that is made of such heavy nuclei (Be, B, C, N and O with traces of Mg, Al and Si) must also be wrong. There is a goldmine of research opportunity here!
Yes, scientists have made an 180 on the deceleration/acceleration trajectory of their thinking. And, yes, there could indeed be 1,000 million big bangs and other even weirder local parcels in a truly infinite universe. So, what is so special about it, even if our packet of the universe's expansion rate is accelerating. Who gives a rat's ass?
Well, we do, because we are here. And we do indeed live in a universe that just happens to have physical constants that support its existence and the existence of intelligent life. Presuming that we are indeed intelligent, that is. So, it matters to us because such conundrums fascinate. The irony is irresistible.
Another explanation of accelerating expansion is that spacetime is exploding. The negative pressure that shows up in relativistical equations is itself only relative. From the outside, looking in - even with an explosion - the pressure is negative. Just as energy is negative if it is released from the inside to the outside. The result is the same as before.
Except it is more like the original "phase change" that the "false vacuum" underwent at the time of the Big Bang. When water begins to boil, the expanding bubble drinks in more vapor at an accelerating rate because its surface area is increasing so rapidly that it ensnares more and more liquid, allowing it to turn into vapor. The false vacuum returns to its ground state, the true vacuum state, releasing energy that goes to accelerate the expansion rate. The bubble of spacetime that is our universe increases in size at an exponentially increasing rate, like a bubble of steam that grows larger so fast that it almost explodes out of the tea kettle.
These two scenarios are called the "quintessence" hypothesis and the "cosmological constant" hypothesis, respectively. Not only do we have to prove Dark Energy exists, but we have to distinguish between these two alternatives!
It would be much simpler to suppose that the premises underlying theoretical calculations and observational interpretations about the disparity between luminosity distances and redshift distances to far off type 1a supernovae are wrong.
Another alternative would be that the universe is growing. Spacetime may be reproducing itself and it is doing so at the usual exponentially increasing rate typical of a population of living organisms. The spacetime population underwent an initial accelerating increase initially (the BB), slowed down when waste products (like neutrinos) accumulated and sped up again when the volume increased sufficiently (and neutrino density decreased enough) for a new growth spurt to begin. Perhaps the conclusion should be, from this if it is true, that the universe is alive!
Gary Kent
Dark Energy Debunked Some More
Re: Dark Energy Debunked
There is always some emotional component in our effort to think. Humans are never perfectly logical. When we unconsciously perceive that a concept may be beyond comprehension, we cough it up, like a snake that has swallowed an oversize egg. And we recoil from it.
The visceral reaction against it is like a reflex that protects our emotional hearts from choking.This business about dark energy and dark matter involves concepts of immense numbers, "curved" space and such long periods of time that we cannot fully comprehend them.
It is what the author meant when he complained of people's incurable "innumeracy". We do not and can not fully acknowledge how ignorant we are of the ultimate implications of the enormously large or incredibly small aspects of reality. It makes me uncomfortable too.
But, at the same time, I experience a fascinating addiction to it! This is why I bother with this blog in the first place.
It is said that even if all the dark matter in the universe is accounted for, there would still not be enough matter and/or energy in the universe to "close" it. I guess that astrophysicists can apply statistical analysis to the pattern found in the cosmic microwave background to extract a mathematical "power law" that describes the distribution of high and low intensity areas in the sky. That power law is consistent with the pattern's being projected onto the sky from a flat source, I think.
This means that space is flat to within a very small percentage. So, the universe is, in fact, closed or at least it is poised delicately on the borderline between open, or ever expanding, and completely closed, eventually to contract.
But very distant type 1a supernovae SEEM to be more distant, by luminosity measurements, than they SEEM to be by redshift measurements. So, the universe should be older by luminosity than it is by redshift.
If one extrapolates redshift versus distance or time back toward zero, one obtains an intersection with the ordinate axis that is short of the origin (as determined by luminosity). The only way that this could occur is if the radial velocity of expansion line is curved upward, is concave rather than convex. This is the same as saying the universe expansion rate is accelerating.
But, then it is not closed or poised on the borderline. If it is poised, it would show a leveling off, an asymptotic approach to a plateau. So CMB data show a picture that is at odds with the supernova data.
It is not all consistent, in other words. And the rush to a conclusion is surely premature.
There is much evidence in support of the inflationary model of the evolution of the universe. Alan Guth's inflation says that the universe should have a flat curvature to within an exceedingly small percentage. But, again, an accelerating universe is not flat.
Cosmologists seem to want to have it both ways and the alternatives are mutually contradictory. And, they insist on referring to a Hubble CONSTANT. If the universe is doing anything but expanding at a constant rate, if it is slowing down or speeding up, we have a Hubble parameter, not a constant. And then one cannot use linear regression analysis to determine H naught.
That the the latter point is missed may be due to sloppy journalism. The way these issues are discussed in the popular press is confusing. When journalists do not know that an overturned tanker of liquid nitrogen cannot explode like liquid hydrogen or promote an exposion like liquid oxygen, we cannot trust their scientific judgement.
Your visceral reaction against all of this is just a reaction to reality. It is all really very disgusting! Let us continue to watch the soap opera. Maybe there will be some kind of conclusion after all.
Gary Kent
There is always some emotional component in our effort to think. Humans are never perfectly logical. When we unconsciously perceive that a concept may be beyond comprehension, we cough it up, like a snake that has swallowed an oversize egg. And we recoil from it.
The visceral reaction against it is like a reflex that protects our emotional hearts from choking.This business about dark energy and dark matter involves concepts of immense numbers, "curved" space and such long periods of time that we cannot fully comprehend them.
It is what the author meant when he complained of people's incurable "innumeracy". We do not and can not fully acknowledge how ignorant we are of the ultimate implications of the enormously large or incredibly small aspects of reality. It makes me uncomfortable too.
But, at the same time, I experience a fascinating addiction to it! This is why I bother with this blog in the first place.
It is said that even if all the dark matter in the universe is accounted for, there would still not be enough matter and/or energy in the universe to "close" it. I guess that astrophysicists can apply statistical analysis to the pattern found in the cosmic microwave background to extract a mathematical "power law" that describes the distribution of high and low intensity areas in the sky. That power law is consistent with the pattern's being projected onto the sky from a flat source, I think.
This means that space is flat to within a very small percentage. So, the universe is, in fact, closed or at least it is poised delicately on the borderline between open, or ever expanding, and completely closed, eventually to contract.
But very distant type 1a supernovae SEEM to be more distant, by luminosity measurements, than they SEEM to be by redshift measurements. So, the universe should be older by luminosity than it is by redshift.
If one extrapolates redshift versus distance or time back toward zero, one obtains an intersection with the ordinate axis that is short of the origin (as determined by luminosity). The only way that this could occur is if the radial velocity of expansion line is curved upward, is concave rather than convex. This is the same as saying the universe expansion rate is accelerating.
But, then it is not closed or poised on the borderline. If it is poised, it would show a leveling off, an asymptotic approach to a plateau. So CMB data show a picture that is at odds with the supernova data.
It is not all consistent, in other words. And the rush to a conclusion is surely premature.
There is much evidence in support of the inflationary model of the evolution of the universe. Alan Guth's inflation says that the universe should have a flat curvature to within an exceedingly small percentage. But, again, an accelerating universe is not flat.
Cosmologists seem to want to have it both ways and the alternatives are mutually contradictory. And, they insist on referring to a Hubble CONSTANT. If the universe is doing anything but expanding at a constant rate, if it is slowing down or speeding up, we have a Hubble parameter, not a constant. And then one cannot use linear regression analysis to determine H naught.
That the the latter point is missed may be due to sloppy journalism. The way these issues are discussed in the popular press is confusing. When journalists do not know that an overturned tanker of liquid nitrogen cannot explode like liquid hydrogen or promote an exposion like liquid oxygen, we cannot trust their scientific judgement.
Your visceral reaction against all of this is just a reaction to reality. It is all really very disgusting! Let us continue to watch the soap opera. Maybe there will be some kind of conclusion after all.
Gary Kent
Sunday, March 25, 2007
The Skeptical Cosmologist
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof
A few prominent astrophysicists and cosmologists have hijacked the process of the scientific method by their skillful use of the media. Technologically illiterate journalists are their accomplices. There is no excuse for the current mad rush to a messy consensus and the cockeyed conclusion that some weird stuff they call dark energy makes up the bulk of the universe. Dark energy is truly miraculous stuff and qualifies as a supernatural explanation of deep space observations!
Bunk!
Those with the ability must recalculate the main assumption that underlies the dark energy conclusion. This conclusion is based on the interpretation of the real distances to Type 1A supernovae. They are interpreted to be farther away than their redshifts would indicate. An estimate of the most serious interference to this interpretation, that there may be much more dust in the early universe than was thought, must be in error.
The currently calculated assumption is that there is not enough extra dust to cause the effect. The effect itself is a result of an interpretation that may itself also be wrong. This apparent "phenomenon" is that since these exceedingly distant supernovae are farther away than the distances indicated by their redshifts, then the universe must have begun expanding at an accelerating rate in recent epochs. The only thing that some prominent astrophysicists can think of that might explain this is this unscientific postulate of dark energy. All subsequent observational interpretations are biased to favor the assumption of dark energy to begin with, so it is not surprising that they tend to prove it.
There has been no effort to go back and recalculate the relative prevalence of "metals" in the earliest phases of the universe's development. If mathematical assumptions are changed sufficiently, the concentration of heavy nuclei could easily rise to the point that more dust formed than was thought. Presto! There is much more dust present to dim the images and the supernovae in question are as close by as their redshifts indicate.
Why there is not more skepticism about the contradiction between luminosity distances and redshift distances in the first place completely escapes me!
These so-called scientists are so gullible that I think they should not be allowed to refer to themselves as having a Ph.D. They have not done their professional homework. They neglect easy solutions in favor of a complex and difficult ad hoc theorem that raises more questions than it solves!
In a future post I will present my most favored model for the inflationary expansion of the universe. It shows how the data should properly be interpreted.
There is no dark energy.
A few prominent astrophysicists and cosmologists have hijacked the process of the scientific method by their skillful use of the media. Technologically illiterate journalists are their accomplices. There is no excuse for the current mad rush to a messy consensus and the cockeyed conclusion that some weird stuff they call dark energy makes up the bulk of the universe. Dark energy is truly miraculous stuff and qualifies as a supernatural explanation of deep space observations!
Bunk!
Those with the ability must recalculate the main assumption that underlies the dark energy conclusion. This conclusion is based on the interpretation of the real distances to Type 1A supernovae. They are interpreted to be farther away than their redshifts would indicate. An estimate of the most serious interference to this interpretation, that there may be much more dust in the early universe than was thought, must be in error.
The currently calculated assumption is that there is not enough extra dust to cause the effect. The effect itself is a result of an interpretation that may itself also be wrong. This apparent "phenomenon" is that since these exceedingly distant supernovae are farther away than the distances indicated by their redshifts, then the universe must have begun expanding at an accelerating rate in recent epochs. The only thing that some prominent astrophysicists can think of that might explain this is this unscientific postulate of dark energy. All subsequent observational interpretations are biased to favor the assumption of dark energy to begin with, so it is not surprising that they tend to prove it.
There has been no effort to go back and recalculate the relative prevalence of "metals" in the earliest phases of the universe's development. If mathematical assumptions are changed sufficiently, the concentration of heavy nuclei could easily rise to the point that more dust formed than was thought. Presto! There is much more dust present to dim the images and the supernovae in question are as close by as their redshifts indicate.
Why there is not more skepticism about the contradiction between luminosity distances and redshift distances in the first place completely escapes me!
These so-called scientists are so gullible that I think they should not be allowed to refer to themselves as having a Ph.D. They have not done their professional homework. They neglect easy solutions in favor of a complex and difficult ad hoc theorem that raises more questions than it solves!
In a future post I will present my most favored model for the inflationary expansion of the universe. It shows how the data should properly be interpreted.
There is no dark energy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
