Black Hole Singularities and the Possibility of Two Dimensional Gravity

According to general relativity, in a 3-D universe with time, the gravitational field of all compact objects behaves as if the objects are point masses and the field strength must decline as 1/r². In a 3-D universe, therefore it is said, it is impossible to support a hyperbolic 1/r gravitational field. But, black holes are different.

 
Why bother with the whole concept of black holes if they are not different? Collapse of matter into a black hole must not only create a singularity (within the limits imposed by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle) but, the spin rate or orbital frequency of in-falling matter of the black hole must also increase without bound as radius r decreases to values near zero below the event horizon. Attempts to explain away these singularities on the basis of a non-existent quantum gravity scheme are vacuous extrapolations of tentative hypotheses that amount to pure conjecture.

 
Black hole singularities exist. Einstein through Schwarzchild and others say so. Who claims to be more brilliant than these fellows? I appeal to authority here only because it seems to be the only thing that impresses some. If you want to claim that BH singularities are mere artifacts of an inadequate theory, show me the Math.

 
Black holes are different. When matter and energy collapse under an infinitely strong gravitational field to a point mass that is as tiny as may be necessary to explain its properties (not necessarily to zero, the true meaning of infinity), the result is a phase change. Spacetime phase changes are S.O.P. in the repertoire of theoretical cosmologists, like Alan Guth. Let us adhere to the hydrodynamics metaphor used by Einstein in his development of GR. Flat spacetime is a massless superfluid. Helium IV is a superfluid but, it is not massless.

 
To extend the metaphor, it is not hard to imagine that spacetime could undergo a phase change, just as helium IV may. In a black hole this change involves a reduction in dimensionality. This is about the only change available to it. Analysis of the equations of GR shows that gravitational strength, F_g is proportional to 1/r^(n-1) where n = number of spatial dimensions. In a 3-D universe, F_g declines as 1/r². In a 2-D universe, F_g declines as 1/r.

 
So, a black hole must use the gravitational energy of in-falling matter to raise its gravitational potential, the gravitational energy level, to the 2-D “state”. We are starting to talk quantum language now.

 
The shape of this singular BH gravitational field strength diagram, as it is a 2-D entity embedded in a 3-D space, is a nominally flat disk or platter with a potentially infinite radius. Unlike Kerr, I call this topology of the event horizon a “spin disk” because it arises from the infinite rotational and orbital spin rate of matter that has in-fallen toward the singularity. As a spacetime entity, this new phase ignores the event horizon and propagates outward to beyond the edge of the galaxy. It emanates from the central core of the galaxy wherein resides any central supermassive black hole.



Here is one of the non-intuitive consequences of GR. It is known that matter in-falling toward the event horizon must experience time dilation. From our external perspective, we would perceive time for this matter as having slowed and even stopped at the event horizon. Viewed from any point outside the event horizon, time really does stop there. But from its own perspective time does not stop and such matter does indeed drop through the event horizon where it may take part in whatever processes it might (time reversed or not).


There is simultaneously an inverse square gravitational field set up by this time-frozen matter at the event horizon and an inverse gravitational field set up by this same matter that has already in-fallen to the singularity. There is no violation of conservation laws here because no object can feel these separate effects simultaneously. If an object orbits the galactic center in the plane of the galactic disk, it feels the inverse 1/r field. If it orbits on a trajectory not aligned with the galactic plane, if it orbits chaotically, it feels the inverse square 1/r² field.


This has consequences for the analysis of the orbital motion of close-in Milky Way bulge stars like S2 for the determination of the MW’s supermassive black hole mass according to Kepler’s laws. Kepler is valid for the 2-D case as well as for the 3-D case. But, it has to be adjusted for the 1/r gravitational field as does Newton’s law. No deep relativistic calculations are needed. One can determine what changes must be made in Newton’s law and Kepler’s laws by inspection.


Above, I explained how a 2-D gravitational field can exist in our 3-D universe. It must be associated with a black hole having an infinite spin rate as well as infinite density and infinite gravitational field strength. Within the bounds of Heisenberg uncertainty, these singularities must exist. There is no point in trying to explain them away using some kind of unfalsifiable overly advanced unintelligible gravitational quantum sophistry.

 
I show that the hyperbolic 1/r inverse gravitational field can exist as a spin disk surrounding any black hole with said disk extending far beyond the event horizon toward infinite radius. This explains MOND and the anomalous velocity dispersion because hyperbolic 1/r gravity means that orbital velocity, v, around a galactic center containing a black hole, v = (GM_bh)^1/2. That is, v becomes constant dependent only on M_bh and G. This v is not only constant for a given galaxy, it is constant from galaxy to galaxy. This means that GM_bh must itself be a constant, a new fundamental physical constant.


But, G may not be the same G that applies in 3 dimensions. So, I call it G*. Besides by an extension of GR, one might get G* from the M‑sigma relation as well as by the anomalous velocity dispersion. But, the mass of the central galactic supermassive black holes must first be refigured on the basis of the hyperbolic field if very many of the orbits of the bulge stars that were used to get M_bh were coincident with the galactic plane. If all or most of these orbits were chaotic and not aligned with the galactic plane, the BH mass determinations may be okay.


The new fundamental physical constant should actually be written G*M_bh such that G* and M_bh are not independently variable but together form this constant that I call Ḡ. Ḡ is constant only under the influence of the gravitational field of a given black hole.

 
The meaning of the hyperbolic gravitational field of black holes is that MOND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics, suggested by Mordehai Milgrom) is explained without recourse to Dark Matter or to modifications of Newtonian dynamics. Newton and Kepler must be understood in two dimensions, that is all.

 
All of the observations that are said to support Dark Matter as being, say, a huge halo of WIMPs engulfing galaxies and galactic clusters also support the hyperbolic (1/r) gravitational field postulate, even the Bullet Cluster effect.  Dark Matter 3-D maps obtained by analysis of gravitational lensing also follow logically from the Postulate.

The hyperbolic (1/r) supermassive black hole gravitational field is indeed a postulate. This means that there can be no argument against it. It must be taken at face value and carried to its logical extreme whereupon it will be either reduced to absurdity or else found to be correct.

 
When extrapolated to the entire universe, the hyperbolic field mimics Dark Energy too. If Alan Guth’s inflaton particle originated in 2-D space and began to roll down its own hyper-gravitational super-potential slope toward a lower energy 3-D state, the higher energy 2-D potential energy would be progressively transformed in a time dependent quantum-like transition to the new 3-D “ground state”. This potential energy would show up as apparently increasing kinematic momentum of all stars and galaxies in the universe. That is, the universe would appear to be expanding at an accelerating rate.

 
This is an exciting idea because the whole universe is thus to be regarded as a quantum object. It may provide a route to a falsifiable certifiable theory of quantum gravity because 2-D gravity does not lead to a gravitational catastrophe as r tends to 0, and it is renormalizable, a prerequisite for any quantum theory of gravity. This Postulate may point to a means to prove the existence of the multiverse. If Guth is right, Hugh Everett could be right.

 

 

Black-Hole Gravitational Field

The Hyperbolic

Black-Hole Field Anomaly

Supermassive black-holes pervade the universe. In the field of our view, within the light cone of our observational limit, there are over 200 billion supermassive black holes residing at the centers of large galaxies. There are probably many more large naked black holes residing in enormous dust clouds or simply standing alone as bald singularities in elliptical galaxies and globular clusters and within galactic clusters and superclusters. These invisible black-holes simply have not had enough time to accumulate a large cloak of glowing matter that emits light by virtue of its in-fall to their event horizons. Therefore, they are truly black.

Black-holes and their hyperbolic gravitational fields fully account for the dark matter necessary to keep galaxies spinning at their observed rates and to bind galactic clusters and superclusters. If there are large enough numbers of such black holes to do this job, then the assumption of the Cosmological Principle is dead wrong by this fact alone.

It is as though the universe is made of Swiss cheese and we have assumed it is made of white cheddar. It is well known that a medium filled with small bubbles or tiny solid particles behaves very differently toward the propagation of any type of energy through it. Numerous small bubbles, for instance, lower the speed of sound and affect the way a medium like water absorbs microwaves. Shock waves propagate so differently that the behavior of the explosion front in the conventional chemical explosive has to be taken into account in the design of nuclear weapons. Bubbles and dispersed solids must be avoided.

When assumptions are made regarding the type of "perfect fluid" of which the universe is made we cannot disregard exceptional circumstances like the presence of a froth of black-holes embedded within it. It matters little that there are good reasons for using approximations like the Cosmological Principle. Something must be done to allow the formulation of comprehensible theory giving the means for tractable calculation. But, this theory and such calculation must be regarded as only approximate. Unless steps are taken to greatly refine theory and bring calculations up to a much higher standard, there shall be no such thing as "precision cosmology".

The hyperbolic black-hole (HBH) gravitational fields, stemming from supermassive black-holes at the centers of galaxies, extend far beyond the visible boundaries of the galaxies themselves. The Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) effect shows that these fields may be virtually infinite in extent. If this is so, the spacetime continuum that is actually present in the universe is very different from the one that Einstein assumed. These oversimplifications are implicit in the Friedmann LeMaitre Robertson Walker metric that Friedmann used to formulate the form of the General Relativity equations that cosmologists commonly use. In other words, the whole structure upon which is built the argument for acceleration of the rate of expansion of the universe and the existence of dark energy (not to mention dark matter) is deeply suspect.

It is just too bad, so sad, that so many physicists have devoted whole careers to mastering the mathematics of General Relativity from the perspective of the FLRW metric and the Friedmann equations. These anachronistic personalities will simply have to die off or retire before we can make progress. After all, there is some truth in the saying about physicists who see everything in terms of some simplifying assumption. "First, we assume a perfect sphere." is not how to do critical science deserving of massive funding.

Only spacetime itself is homogeneous and isotropic. But, once it becomes filled with supermassive black-holes and other dark naked singularities, it cannot be treated this way with any degree of precision or accuracy. Some investigators have already picked up on this fact. They are formulating new cosmologies with different metrics and are abandoning the oversimplified assumptions that were designed to make calculations easy. Much too easy. They have come to appreciate the power of supercomputers and advanced mathematical logic programs to handle more realistic models of the universe. This twenty-first century trend is only just beginning. The real revolution in cosmology has yet to come. It will be a counterrevolution, for the twentieth century is dead.
　
　
　

Modified Newtonian Dynamics

MODIFIED NEWTONIAN DYNAMICS AND THE BLACK-HOLE HYPERBOLIC GRAVITATIONAL FIELD

Albert Einstein easily derived and wrote a relativistic differential equation that was guaranteed to reproduce Newton's Law of Gravity when it was integrated. He could have just as easily written a differential equation that reproduced MOND, but he didn't. He just didn't. He had no reason to do so since the various MOND observations had not been made. So, let no-one say that MOND contravenes relativity.

So, relativistically speaking, if we consider the definition of a black-hole, it must be accompanied by a very characteristic and very different gravitational field. Because it is a singularity, a single point-mass with infinite density (at the limit as the center is approached), it must possess a gravitational field that is defined and determined by its single point, its singular property. Its gravitational field must therefore approach an asymptote at radius = 0 and, and by symmetry, it must approach another asymptote at radius = infinity. This is the definition of a hyperbolic field, NOT one that follows Newton's inverse square law, which is parabolic.

If black-holes posses hyperbolic gravitational fields, then there is no mystery in MOND. No big deal. Look at this image of a whiteboard derivation of the hyperbolic black-hole (HBH) gravitational acceleration and velocity profile near a galaxy containing a supermassive black-hole at its center. On the whiteboard, I also have written a synopsis of the MOND development.

NOTE: In the HBH segment, r must be multiplied by k. Here, k = 1m (S.I.) for dimensional integrity. In other words, F = GMm/kr, k = 1m (S.I.) all the extensions of F have the same caveat.

GO TO

HTTP://WWW.LONETREE-PICTURES.NET/

AND PRESS THE MOND BUTTON TO VIEW A BETTER VERSION OF THIS IMAGE.

Use the backarrow button <<--- to return here or else

you might close out of NEO-COSMOS

Of course, something must be done to compensate for the fact that (GM)^1/2 does not have the dimensions of a velocity, G x M not being divided by r. This could be resolved with the adjustable parameter ratio b/d having a dimension the same as 1/r. OR, better yet, multiply r by the absolute value of the unit vector of r, retaining the unit. This would be a mathematical acknowledgement that we are dealing with a singularity.

For MOND, Newtonian gravitational acceleration is denoted aN. The variant acceleration due to MOND expresses aN in terms of an acceleration that is modified by the function μ(a/a0), which is equal to 1 when the radius from the center is small enough for the overall gravitational acceleration to be large relative to the MOND constant, a0. When the putative acceleration is small relative to a0, μ is equal to a0 such that the equations on the lower left are satisfied. This happens when radius r is large enough for a2/a0 = aN = GM/r, and the total force of gravitational attraction enters the MOND regime. These values for r are equal to and beyond the point where the velocity distribution of stars encircling the galaxy in its outer regions becomes constant.

Remember, M = the mass of an entire galaxy with its black hole. M2 = the supermassive black-hole mass while M1 = mass of the stars in the disk inside the radius r, to a given star. This radius might enclose more than 95% of all the stars in the disk and so may as well be considered to enclose all of them. But, a graphical model would have to take a sliding percent enclosure into account in order to plot a theoretical velocity distribution. So, it will be a little while before I actually do this. Maybe I’ll just assume a Gaussian distribution for the number of stars with a given average velocity in the disc and a different Gaussian for the stars in the spheroidal bulge. The bulge must be chaotic and so it would follow different statistics. This is why the net velocity fades to zero in the bulge.

According to Newton’s inverse square law, velocity should fall off rapidly toward zero in this outer zone as the periphery is approached. But, observations show that it does not. Instead, it falls off much more slowly and becomes constant according to the vMOND equation on the lower right.

But, the hyperbolic field contribution to the overall galactic gravitational field shown as the blue curve, y2, in the graph above, gives precisely the same result. Thus, vMOND = vHBH. If it is admitted that black-holes are different, that they have special properties, among them that they are gravitational singularities, then this is not too surprising. In fact, it should have been thought of before, and it probably has. But, it is now being overlooked. I hope this effort on my part may prevent this oversight from being propagated indefinitely. Sorry, there will never be a Nobel for MOND.

Note that the usual depiction of the velocity profile of a spiral galaxy shows velocities rising to a maximum as one moves toward the center whereupon they fall off virtually to zero as one gets very close to r = 0. My simpler velocity distribution profile is for just one or for a very few stars. The standard picture of a maximum and fall-off in velocity occurs because stars get crowded approaching the center and their orbital paths become chaotic. As one moves closer in, just as many stars move clockwise as move counterclockwise (and on more nearly perpendicular trajectories relative to the galactic plane) and the net velocity declines. The stellar distribution becomes more spheroidal too, resulting in the classic galactic “bulge”. When I formulate my model, I will have to take all this into account as well. This is going to be fun.

It is interesting to imagine what a galaxy would look like if purely Newtonian F = ma = GMm/r2 ≠ GMm/r for large r. Then, v∞ ≠ (GM)^1/2 = constant. Instead, rotational velocity would rapidly fall off toward zero as r increases without bound. The stars would lag much further and further behind and the spiral arms would wrap around the center much more tightly, like the mainspring of an old wind-up clock. So, one can actually see the MOND effect by just looking.

This means that there may well be no such thing as dark matter or twin matter or any such Baroque complications festooning the simple picture of the universe that we, as scientists, should be looking for. It is in the nature of human beings to overdo. Dark matter and MOND are in danger of becoming vastly overdone.

So, now let me engage in a little bit of my own overdoing.

If this version of MOND is correct, there will never be a measurement of a0 obtained in the laboratory in a supersensitive Cavendish experiment. That is, not unless we can produce some sufficiently long-lived black-holes in the lab. Nor will evidence be found inside or just outside the solar system. HBH MOND requires participation of a black-hole. This prediction will never go over very well with a lot of important people, so it will not be readily accepted.

In elliptical and globular galaxies wherein the MOND effect may be observed, HBH MOND will require that one or more supermassive black-holes shall be found, naked black-holes at that. The intragalactic black-hole presence in galactic clusters and superclusters may not be enough to account for MOND in these objects either, so some naked black holes may well be found to be embedded within them too. Nobody is looking for them now, so it is not surprising that they have not yet been found.

The hyperbolic field concept can be extended to the entire universe, too. If it can be verified, it may go a long way toward an accounting for the mistaken interpretations of acceleration and dark energy in the universe. This would require that the primordial black-hole, the mother of all black-holes or MOAB, must have persisted in some form, probably greatly diminished, for a long time after it started to decay into the universe that we see now. In other words, the highly excited inflaton particle may have taken some time to deconvolve, decompose and collapse, so it may even still persist today, along with its hyperbolic field in which we may still be embedded.

But, if the inflaton paticle decayed and its hyperbolic gravitational field collapsed with it, a transitional Newtonian field rose up to replace it almost instantly. These would be other cases where entities expanded or contracted at many times the speed of light. In other words, the inflation process had reflections or reverberations that we still see today. The old hyperbolic field is not finished collapsing. The new Newtonian field is not finished rising. This would have subtle relativistic effects in their own right.

Let’s just hitch a ride on a really fast space-ship heading on a straight line for deep space in any direction with a destination rather more than 13.72 billion light years away and we just may be able to find out. But, it will take us considerably more than 13.72 billion years. More than 27.44 billions years. Still, surely by then, the MOAB hyperbolic field will have completely dissipated with little or no residual effects.

The good news is, if strange, weird science is needed to justify grant funding, this is it.

Inflationary Quantum Hot Big Bang

So many people believe the Hot Big Bang hypothesis (HBB) because there is an overwhelming amount of incontestable evidence in its favor. There will be Nobel Prizes for some investigators who were most responsible for its discovery and proof.

Those who disbelieve and diss the work that has already lead to its acceptance by the vast majority of physical scientists continually demonstrate, they truly prove well beyond any reasonable doubt, nothing more than their own ignorance!

There are at least three utterly independent lines of logic that support the Hot Big Bang hypothesis of cosmogenesis. The first is measurements of cosmic distances by redshifts, by relativistic redshifts, no less, by the way. The second is measurement of cosmological distances by means of luminosity.

If the speed of light is not constant, the only plausible objection to the redshift conclusion put forth so far, then the luminosity data acts to back the same argument. If luminosity somehow gets disqualified, the redshifts take up the burden. One has to debunk BOTH simultaneously to have a hope of knocking the HBB off its pedestal.

But wait! There is the data from at least three separate probes of the cosmic microwave background. This huge data set also suppports the HBB hypothesis. Furthermore, the very existence of the cosmic microwave background is near perfect proof of the HBB hypothesis all by itself!

There is not the chance of a snow storm in Hades to cross-off all three lines of reasoning without self-contradiction.

Specially designed spectrometers are used to measure redshifts. They may use electronics or photographic film and involve the use of prisms or diffraction gratings. They depend on measurements of wavelength.

But, on the other hand, light intensity for photometric luminosity measurements can be done with a simple photocell or it may use photographic film or light sensitive transistor sensors. The latter are arrays of a particular kind of light sensitive Charge Coupled transistor logic gate assembled as a single Device on a small silicon crystal wafer or "chip" - CCDs. The relative brightness of identifiably defined bright stars or galaxies is used to calibrate the method. It is completely independent of wavelength.

These three approaches each have interferences and weaknesses that have to be accounted for. But, they result in measurements that have been subjected to mathematical, rigorous statistical error analysis which tells the investigator how good her data is and how reliable her conclusions from it may be. This depends on an accurate assessment of where there may be certain kinds of error or inaccuracy in the data. Taken one step at a time, however, this is not so very difficult to do.

In the physical sciences, measurements that are within 95% confidence limits are the norm. This means that all subsequent measurements done in the same way will be likely to give results that deviate very far from the average only 5% of the time. Confidence limits of 98% are common.

But outright interferences are another matter. These much degrade the reliability of many astrophysical measurements. But, investigators are certain that they have identified all potential killer interferences. It would be the near impossible task of detractors to somehow reinstate them for all three lines of argument. This too must be done without self-contradiction.

But, of course, they do not do this. Instead, they rely on specious and hairbrained substitute hypotheses of their own. They prove nothing at all except the naysayers' total ignorance of the true nature and proper practical application of the scientific method.

Either kind of distance measurement results in descriptions of both nearby and very distant galaxies as receding from one another at a rather constant rate. Edwin Hubble was the first to reason that one may extrapolate from this apparently constant recession rate, called H naught or H subscript zero, to earlier times when the galaxies must have been much closer together.

But, Fred Hoyle hypothesized that this could be happening in a universe that constantly renews itself by the steady formation of new stars and galaxies through quantum fluctuations that produce new hydrogen atoms. This is called the Steady State Hypothesis (SSH).

The only real alternative, so far, to the SSH, is the HBB. This hypothesizes that by extrapolating backward in time far enough, the galaxies would have had to spring from an apparently infinitely dense, infinitely hot, single point, a singularity. We cannot comprehend what this means so, philosophically it is undesirable.

The sudden appearance of the universe as a single, ultradense point of some kind of quantum hybrid between matter and light (which would have had to be more like light) resulted in what is the misnomer of the "Hot Big Bang". This hypothetical HBB is NOT an explosion. It is the appearance of a bubble of matter/energy in a pure vacuum of spacetime somewhat similar to the phase change that occurs when water boils to form bubbles of steam.

It is quite well established that a "pure" vacuum is anything but empty. Quantum mechanics is the best, most fully validated principle or set of principles in all of science. Experiments are going on all the time in hundreds of laboratories all around the world that have yet to find any discrepancy. We are constantly learning new things about it, however.

Because of the spectacular success of quantum mechanics, it is quite plausible that the universe resulted from a quantum fluctuation in an otherwise empty vacuum of spacetime. This notion has further implications too. For instance, formation of a long lived virtual particle means production by a high energy state vacuum called a "false vacuum". Virtual particles are ordinarily produced in particle/antiparticle pairs that self-annihilate almost immediately. The main way that virtual particles produce real particles that last a substantially long time is by means of their location very very near the event horizon of a black hole. This implies that the observable universe may be part of a much larger polydimensional surface of an even larger black hole that is undergoing expansion.

The potential observation of some sort of direct evidence for this could help solve the problem of missing mass without invoking dark energy. The data seem to imply that the total mass inventory of the full universe may be many times the experimentally verified mass inventory for the observable universe.

By the way, Fred Hoyle's SSH has been shown to be false. For one thing, the power law or energy distribution that the CMB would have to follow would be all wrong.

There is a much higher probability that a "particle" or matter/energy bubble will appear by quantum fluctuation in a very very high energy state than at a lower one by mere statistical chance. So, it is plausible that the universe began in such an extremely energetic condition that it enclosed the stupendous quantity of matter/energy that we see today.

Quantum particles are often characterizable as single points whose exact location cannot be well known. Still, they are describable as points. Statistically, this is not a problem. But, we have only one universe to study. It is mathematically incorrect to apply probabilistic principles to individual events. So, we have a subtle philosophical problem here.

Nonetheless, I think that the HBB has a lot going for it and Alan Guth has solved the most serious objections to the idea with his inflationary universe scenario. Philosophically, the inflationary HBB is now the most tenable scenario of cosmogenesis.

The universe did not have to arise from an infinitely dense and energetic origin, only from an exceedingly high and intense one. There is no objection from a religious perspective either.

Cosmogony and cosmogenesis cannot be discussed adequately and our brothers' question cannot be answered fully unless we include a word about philosophy and the religious perspective on this question. Only an intolerant atheist would disagree.

This thread cannot and should not be restricted to atheists!

God said (it was written into the nature of spacetime) "Let there be light!". And there was light. Or a light-like "stuff" that begat the whole rest of creation. It is written that God spoke. His Word was His Son and vice versa, as St. John declared. We share in the nature of the Son of God, therefore in the nature of God Himself.

We are Responsible, as God is Responsible for the existence of spacetime and for the existence of existence itself. Some philosophical concepts can indeed be referred to themselves, after all.

This is the real metaphorical significance of Jesus' whole message! You can indeed believe in theistic evolution of both life and the universe itself. Christians have nothing to fear from modern science as long as they keep an open mind.

http://neocosmology.blogspot.com/

http://neochristianity.blogspot.com/

http://hometown.aol.com/nuchristianrabbi/

http://www.luckyboyproductions.org/ Available May, 2007.

I hope that it may be judged that this comment has enough "redeeming social and intellectual importance" that these citations to my websites may be forgiven. They are not advertisements. I do not sell anything.

Gary Kent

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.