Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
AnchorSteam

Punching another hole in "Dark Energy"

6 posts in this topic

I KNEW IT!

 

Cosmic Expansion, the whole foundation of the Theory, is now looking more doubtful.

 

Quote

 

According to a paper published this week in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, we might just be wrong about all of this. The accelerating expansion may just be a sort of illusion driven by an incorrect assumption about the nature of the distribution of mass across the universe. As cosmological assumptions go, it's a big one: The universe will remain, on average, smooth and uniform in all locations and from all perspectives. 

Maybe not?

In more technical terms, we're talking about the cosmological properties of isotropy and homogeneity. Together, they form the cosmological principle, which is mostly supported by the apparent uniformity of the cosmic microwave background. What the authors behind the current study suggest is that maybe the cosmological principle is bunk, and, if this is the case, then observations of distant supernovae take on a different meaning because we can no longer assume that the universe looks about the same for every observer in every location.

 

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/ne7wkb/new-supernova-analysis-questions-dark-energy-cosmic-acceleration

(link to the original article is in this one)

 

And I never knew that they were depending on a "smooth universe" for all that. It sounds a little ridiculous to me, how could you expect the product of an explosion to be smooth and uniform in the first place!?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

If accelerating expansion is bunk, that would suggest an entirely different universe altogether.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just reading the abstract of that discussion paper (it's not a peer reviewed paper, by the looks), I don't at all get the impressions loudly proclaimed by the "Motherboard" website opinion piece...

From the abstract, the authors say this about their 'Timescape' model:

Quote

Irrespective of which model ultimately fits better, we argue that as a competitive model with a non-FLRW expansion history, the timescape model may prove a useful diagnostic tool for disentangling selection effects and astrophysical systematics from the underlying expansion history.

It all sounds a bit vague and non-ground-breaking to me, and we already know that their are lots of assumptions in current models anyway.

Can you quote anything more exciting from the actual paper?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

...

Can you quote anything more exciting from the actual paper?

Well, no, sorry there is nothing more dramatic than that. 

What it does do, thanks to the Nova, is show that there is good rason to doubt the "standard model", and remind us that saying that the science is settled just ain't so.

 

This is the standard model-

 

See how much can change if all that Dark stuff leaves the picture?

Also, and this is the biggie, that does NOT look like a smoothly contoured and regularly spaced cosmos to me, which is why I have always been skeptical of accelerating  or even consistent Universal expansion. 

I always thought that far too much was being assumed with just a little data, considering the scale of all this.

 

15 hours ago, Wes4747 said:

If accelerating expansion is bunk, that would suggest an entirely different universe altogether.

Yes, that is exactly the point! :D

 

 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't say I fully understand the full spectrum of the debate but its been teetering on the totter for a few years now ...

Quote

 

~

The Expansion of the Universe Debunked

www.physicsmyths.org.uk/expansion.htm
The Hubble law for the large scale redshift of galaxies (i.e. redshift proportional to distance) is usually taken as evidence (if not proof) for the picture of an expanding universe in general and the Big Bang theory in particular. ... On my sister site plasmaphysics.org.uk I have ...
~

Universe is Not Expanding After All, Controversial Study Suggests ...

www.sci-news.com/astronomy/science-universe-not-expanding-01940.html

May 23, 2014 - According to a team of astrophysicists led by Eric Lerner from Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, the Universe is not expanding at all. This image ...

~

No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning

https://phys.org › Physics › Quantum Physics

Feb 9, 2015 - This is an artist's concept of the metric expansion of space, where space (including hypothetical non-observable portions of the universe) is ...

~

The universe is expanding at an accelerating rate—or is it? - Phys.org

https://phys.org › Astronomy & Space › Astronomy

Oct 21, 2016 - It led to the widespread acceptance of the idea that the universe is ... named 'dark energy' that drives this accelerating expansion. Now, a ...... Verschuur's claims were debunked a long time ago with a simple cross-correlation.

~

No, the Universe is not expanding at an accelerated rate, say ...

Oct 24, 2016 - Back in 2011, three astronomers were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics for their discovery that the Universe wasn't just expanding - it was ...

~

 

~

 

[00.07:07]

~

  • Halton C. Arp Homepage Link

 

~

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It isn't Expansion itself that I have a problem with, but rather, it is the notion that expansion is ever-accelerating and speeding up at such a rate that the whole Cosmos will fly apart and vanish into the void at some point in the distant future.

There was never any way to explain it in concrete terms, so they invented this "Dark Energy" stuff... an invented item that they have spent vast amounts of time and energy on during the last couple of decades ... and presumably have been paid for.  I think that the vast improvement in the data that they can collect has not been matched by an improvement in their ability to interpret that data. This is NOT their fault, progress is not an across-the-board event, there will be lags here and there. 

But, now that we have scientists that have a path to becoming pop-stars, and some of them are too eager to pop-off with something new and edgy.

 

I am more in the camp that believes that Gravity will eventually overcome momentum and everything will eventually collapse back in on itself. Instead of the "Big Rip" you get a Big crunch that pulverizes everything right down to the atomic level. Everything goes BOOM again, but "everything" is just Hydrogen and Helium and the whole creation thing starts over from zero again, in about half a trillion years or many more.

Maybe not the most elegant idea, but it makes sense. 

Dark Energy never really did, nor did Dark Matter, but that is a different thing entirely. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.