2019 - the year Dark Energy died

[questfortruth]

In a very old and reputable journal, entitled Astronomy & Astrophysics, the article was published in 2019 that debunked (without the need for additional calculations) the 2011 Nobel Prize for the accelerated expansion of the Universe. After all, as stated in the abstract of this paper, with a probability of 1.4 sigma (that is, 80%), there is neither Dark Energy nor acceleration. This directly contradicts the 2011 Nobel Prize, which with a probability of much more than 95 percent stated that there is acceleration.

The essence of such a refutation of the 2011 work is in the additional magnitude of the redshift that arises due to the fact that the objects move relative to a stationary observer - the peculiar speeds of the galaxies. The paper contains strict and solid calculations and stylish graphics.

“Dark Energy might not exist after all”

 

[ChristineM]

I am pretty sure no one ever said it exists. What they have said is the dark energy is a hypothetical idea that explains much of the action of the universe.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I am pretty sure no one ever said it exists. What they have said is the dark energy is a hypothetical idea that explains much of the action of the universe.

Well, yeah-- if you leave out "Magic" that is.

 

[shmogie]

One thing you can bet on in science, is that theory A will be refuted by theory B.

 

[ChristineM]

One thing you can bet on in science, is that theory A will be refuted by theory B.

So whats refuted gravity A?

Also note the difference between theory and hypothesis

 

[ChristineM]

Well, yeah-- if you leave out "Magic" that is.

Well magic!!! Of course, that goes without saying..?

 

[shmogie]

So whats refuted gravity A?

Also note the difference between theory and hypothesis

I understand the difference between a theory and a hypothesis. Gravity was first described as a power within the planet which draws all matter to it.

Einstein said it was about the effect of objects on space time, warping space time to create gravity.

Perhaps both are true, yet Einstein contradicted previous scientific descriptions of gravity.

 

[ChristineM]

I understand the difference between a theory and a hypothesis. Gravity was first described as a power within the planet which draws all matter to it.

Einstein said it was about the effect of objects on space time, warping space time to create gravity.

Perhaps both are true, yet Einstein contradicted previous scientific descriptions of gravity.

Also the difference between description and theory.

 

[Ouroboros]

Well, there is some force or energy they can't explain (I think it had something to do with galaxies being "pushed" apart, or something), hence the name "dark". If "dark energy" is dead, it would because they've figured out what kind of energy or force it is and it's not in the dark anymore.

 

[shmogie]

Also the difference between description and theory.

Defining a theory, hypothesis, idea, thought, whatever by description may or may not result in a theory, hypothesis, idea, thought may be different from another theory, hypothesis, idea thought, or whatever.

Einsteins description of gravity described a force different from the previous understanding of the force, ergo, it was a different theory.

 

[Twilight Hue]

In a very old and reputable journal, entitled Astronomy & Astrophysics, the article was published in 2019 that debunked (without the need for additional calculations) the 2011 Nobel Prize for the accelerated expansion of the Universe. After all, as stated in the abstract of this paper, with a probability of 1.4 sigma (that is, 80%), there is neither Dark Energy nor acceleration. This directly contradicts the 2011 Nobel Prize, which with a probability of much more than 95 percent stated that there is acceleration.

The essence of such a refutation of the 2011 work is in the additional magnitude of the redshift that arises due to the fact that the objects move relative to a stationary observer - the peculiar speeds of the galaxies. The paper contains strict and solid calculations and stylish graphics.

“Dark Energy might not exist after all”

Dark energy or dark matter?

 

[Heyo]

I understand the difference between a theory and a hypothesis. Gravity was first described as a power within the planet which draws all matter to it.

Einstein said it was about the effect of objects on space time, warping space time to create gravity.

Perhaps both are true, yet Einstein contradicted previous scientific descriptions of gravity.

Einstein didn't contradict Newton, he expanded on the previous theory. Einstein's formulas can be reduced to Newton's for the special case that no fast movement and no big mass is involved. NASA does it's calculations for space probes with Newtonian physics.
And that is what usually happens in science. A theory gets refined but none has been refuted for the last 100 years.

 

[Heyo]

Dark energy or dark matter?

Only Dark Energy. Dark Matter is a completely different thing.

 

[ChristineM]

Defining a theory, hypothesis, idea, thought, whatever by description may or may not result in a theory, hypothesis, idea, thought may be different from another theory, hypothesis, idea thought, or whatever.

Einsteins description of gravity described a force different from the previous understanding of the force, ergo, it was a different theory.

It was not a theory, it was a hypothesis. It became a theory when Einstein's work was shown to be valid

A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.

 

[shunyadragon]

I am pretty sure no one ever said it exists. What they have said is the dark energy is a hypothetical idea that explains much of the action of the universe.

Actually more a hypothesis to explain the missing matter/energy in the observed universe. Science is descriptive of the universe, and of course Dark Matter and Energy as such may or may not exist.

 

[PureX]

In a very old and reputable journal, entitled Astronomy & Astrophysics, the article was published in 2019 that debunked (without the need for additional calculations) the 2011 Nobel Prize for the accelerated expansion of the Universe. After all, as stated in the abstract of this paper, with a probability of 1.4 sigma (that is, 80%), there is neither Dark Energy nor acceleration. This directly contradicts the 2011 Nobel Prize, which with a probability of much more than 95 percent stated that there is acceleration.

The essence of such a refutation of the 2011 work is in the additional magnitude of the redshift that arises due to the fact that the objects move relative to a stationary observer - the peculiar speeds of the galaxies. The paper contains strict and solid calculations and stylish graphics.

“Dark Energy might not exist after all”

I've been poking around, and so far I am not seeing a consensus on this, at all. It does not appear to me that anyone has "debunked" anything, yet.

 

[Revoltingest]

Einsteins description of gravity described a force different from the previous understanding of the force, ergo, it was a different theory.

We should note that the new theory was based upon what one might call a change
in "description", ie, Newton's observations matched his theory, but later observations
conflicted with Newton's theory, eg, Mercury's orbital precession. New observations
are dark matter & dark energy (which are labels to describe phenomena rather than
"things" fully described). A new theory of gravity could take those into account along
with general relativity. And then there are quantum mechanics & singularities to integrate.
This should keep PhD candidates busy for eons.

 

[shunyadragon]

In a very old and reputable journal, entitled Astronomy & Astrophysics, the article was published in 2019 that debunked (without the need for additional calculations) the 2011 Nobel Prize for the accelerated expansion of the Universe. After all, as stated in the abstract of this paper, with a probability of 1.4 sigma (that is, 80%), there is neither Dark Energy nor acceleration. This directly contradicts the 2011 Nobel Prize, which with a probability of much more than 95 percent stated that there is acceleration.

The essence of such a refutation of the 2011 work is in the additional magnitude of the redshift that arises due to the fact that the objects move relative to a stationary observer - the peculiar speeds of the galaxies. The paper contains strict and solid calculations and stylish graphics.

“Dark Energy might not exist after all”

'Might not' does not conclude Dark Energy does not exist.

I belief your overstating selective sources that do not represent the consensus of scientists. There are numerous references that support the origins and expansion of the universe from a singularity.

More to follow . . .

 

[MichaelMD]

The acceleration of celestial bodies at the farthest limit of our Universe is due to the pull of an ever-closer approach of other universe. This would be part of a creational design in which an older "tired" universe like ours gets re-energized by another younger, "stronger," universe. This means a certain number of universes were created and emplaced in such a way that when one universe becomes depleted of its internal energy, and outside energies start to take over, relatively speaking, a comparatively-sized cosmic entity (another universe) becomes attracted to it, and on colliding with it, will re-energize the tired universe. In this connection, iy's worth noting that galaxies have been observed colliding.

(In a previous thread, I presented my model of how universes are created, by projection of quantal electrons into a "virgin" ether region, which chain-reactionally sets off wave-like processes that lead to larger and larger energy units, all the way up to quantum units like protons, neutrons, and atoms. This was done to create a quantum macrocosm, more magnetically stable, for quantized entities, than the preceding ether macrocosm.