S
silylene old
Guest
I have been seeing some serious (and good) papers being published which are criticising the "dark energy" theory as being founded upon sloppy curve fitting and lack of statistical rigor.<br /><br />Here are a couple which appear also on the web:<br />http://lib.stat.cmu.edu/~genovese/talks/stanford-04.pdf<br />http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0401/0401198.pdf<br /><br />According to fits of the WMAP data, the universe is made up of:<br />4% "normal" matter<br />23% "dark matter"<br />72% "dark energy"<br /><br />Here is the fit to the data. The data fit to the second hump is questionable, and the data fit to the third hump is a fantasy.<br /><br />If the "dark energy" theory gets retracted, this will be humiliating for some. <br /><br />Or am I misunderstanding the debate ? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><em><font color="#0000ff">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -</font></em> </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><font color="#0000ff"><em>I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function.</em></font> </div> </div>