Has Dark Energy Been Debunked? Probably Not.

rod

Oct 22, 2019
737
143
560
Researchers claim to have found serious fault with the existence of dark energy, but not everyone is buying into it.

Has Dark Energy Been Debunked? Probably Not. : Read more
Good report. Dark energy is debated like this recent report, https://phys.org/news/2020-01-evidence-key-assumption-discovery-dark.html or this report from 2016, http://phys.org/news/2016-10-universe-rateor.html Building a database of Type Ia SN spectrums and comparing to support dark energy or debunk - I think is challenging.
 
Jan 9, 2020
1
0
10
Hello Folks,
I am new here so forgive me if I appear shy.
Dark Energy and Matter does exist however we seem to be looking for the evidence the wrong way. First, is isn't dark we just cannot see it as it does not come directly into our sensors in the limited forms we are observing with them. Dark Energy and Matter can be explained by the photons we already must know that exist and have existed for at least 13.7 Billion years as they travel in every direction and at every wavelength we can even imagine. These photons carry both an equivalent mass energy and momentum which would account for all of the properties attributed to the "Dark" theory. From the CMB to the acceleration of the expanding of the universe. Simply do the Math, I have and anyone else can if they wish.
Bob
 
Dec 20, 2019
32
11
35
Have you ever been walking in your house at night without the lights on and run into a door ? If so you just ran into dark matter. Dark matter is called dark matter because we can't see it. Until we develop the technology to see it we can only see it's effect. The bumps on scientists heads proves it's there.
 
Jan 7, 2020
105
36
110
Good report. Dark energy is debated like this recent report, https://phys.org/news/2020-01-evidence-key-assumption-discovery-dark.html or this report from 2016, http://phys.org/news/2016-10-universe-rateor.html Building a database of Type Ia SN spectrums and comparing to support dark energy or debunk - I think is challenging.
Dark energy is not required if you do not believe Relativity. That is why I call relativity a religion, as it seeks to explain the origin of all things, while ignoring observable facts that disagree with the theory. It would also cost a lot of people their job and that is why they keep going at it. It is as if a theory of the creation of the universe is more important than observable fact. I am not making an argument for god or religion, to be clear. Science seems to be trying to prove God wrong with the Big Bang and they cannot let go of their beliefs, even willing to the point of violence (just like a religion that they hate for its unproven belief).
 
  • Like
Reactions: rod

rod

Oct 22, 2019
737
143
560
Dark energy is not required if you do not believe Relativity. That is why I call relativity a religion, as it seeks to explain the origin of all things, while ignoring observable facts that disagree with the theory. It would also cost a lot of people their job and that is why they keep going at it. It is as if a theory of the creation of the universe is more important than observable fact. I am not making an argument for god or religion, to be clear. Science seems to be trying to prove God wrong with the Big Bang and they cannot let go of their beliefs, even willing to the point of violence (just like a religion that they hate for its unproven belief).
Dark energy is based upon Type Ia supernovae spectrum studies, their light curves as standard candle and redshifts documented along with their distances obtained. Relativity as Einstein defined it is very specific. "According to the theory of relativity, action at a distance with the velocity of light always takes the place of instantaneous action at a distance or of action at a distance with an infinite velocity of transmission.", p, 48., Relativity, The Special and the General Theory, A Clear Explanation that Anyone Can Understand by Albert Einstein, Crown Publishers, inc., 1961.

Type Ia SN spectrums do not show the supernovae violating Relativity.
 
Jan 7, 2020
105
36
110
A lot of that was done using light measurements and we did not discover we were in a cloud of interstellar gas until 1970. Einstein also said we could not violate the speed of light and acted as if space is a perfect vacuum (which his theories require).
Also I keep forgetting how much of a big deal the low energy transmutation seen in SAFIRE is and how much it actually breaks, seriously look into it.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTaXfbvGf8E&t=1471s
 

rod

Oct 22, 2019
737
143
560
Einstein did not claim an unlimited domain like quantum mechanics and velocities that may be observed at the quantum level. Astronomers across the universe measure that c is finite velocity like the discovery of the finite speed of light in the 1670s while observing the Galilean moons. Before that, light was considered infinite velocity. Lunar laser ranging measurements of the distance between Earth and the Moon shows this too, as well as radar measurements and ham radio measurements or NASA space probes like New Horizons transmissions. Light echoes are routinely documented in astronomy that show Special Relativity is correct too. Quantum measurements may vary including index of refraction for a medium and velocity of c in a medium but in the solar system and beyond like binary star orbits, etc., Relativity holds up. The problem is claiming an unlimited domain for Relativity like in quantum mechanics and measurements or claiming quantum mechanics governs how the heliocentric solar system works. Star spectra obtained show alpha, the fine structure constant is not changing and documenting that c is slowing down for example or speeding up. Some tests attempted this but failed. Remember, Newtonian classical physics works like kinetic energy but for a limited domain. Relativity works too in many particle accelerator experiments and across macro measurements in astronomy.

My recommendation. For those who want to throw out Relativity follow the example of the heliocentric solar system astronomers who won the debate against the geocentric teachers. Develop a better model and better math. However, if you throw out the *math magicians*, you can claim anything about *How the Universe Works* :)
 
Jan 7, 2020
105
36
110
Are you missing the stars and other features that should not exist? Seriously. You are ignoring a lot of mistakes and the fact that light can be slowed down. Gravity is not a constant. Again, you ignore the dust cloud and claim that we can get accurate spectra from within a dust storm. The only thing I am not trying to explain is how it came to be. I am trying to explain what it is doing, as every time something that doesn't agree with parts of the original theory all that is done is an exception is created. Some of them are inconsistent with each other. You are unwilling to look at it critically. Next you will say radio waves are not affected, but ignore that ham radio is affected by that and weather. Space is not a vacuum, also show me evidence of gravitational collapse star formation and proof for the Oort cloud. Show me a picture of a comet that is a dirty snowball. Explain the star older than the big bang.
Actually here I forgot about this.
 
Jan 7, 2020
105
36
110
To clarify, I am concerned with explaining what we see, not what happened at the beginning of time. Once you understand what is going on, you can figure out if it is possible to look back in time and see how everything started. In seeking to explain the beginning, based on old theories that came before Einstein, science has erred as he did not have half of the information we have today. We have exponentially progressed technologically, but refuse to update our theories that are disproven in part, acting as if theories that were created with no proof are still otherwise valid. Thought experiments that are taken as being true, just because someone invented an algorithm that produces an answer. If different projects all run into issues with the theory and they keep forcing it, eventually you will build a "religion" that people have to believe in or their life's work is useless and a waste. I think we passed that already.
 

rod

Oct 22, 2019
737
143
560
Are you missing the stars and other features that should not exist? Seriously. You are ignoring a lot of mistakes and the fact that light can be slowed down. Gravity is not a constant. Again, you ignore the dust cloud and claim that we can get accurate spectra from within a dust storm. The only thing I am not trying to explain is how it came to be. I am trying to explain what it is doing, as every time something that doesn't agree with parts of the original theory all that is done is an exception is created. Some of them are inconsistent with each other. You are unwilling to look at it critically. Next you will say radio waves are not affected, but ignore that ham radio is affected by that and weather. Space is not a vacuum, also show me evidence of gravitational collapse star formation and proof for the Oort cloud. Show me a picture of a comet that is a dirty snowball. Explain the star older than the big bang.
Actually here I forgot about this.
Okay, if there are problems, those who make the experiments, others must be able to repeat too. You said "Again, you ignore the dust cloud and claim that we can get accurate spectra from within a dust storm. The only thing I am not trying to explain is how it came to be."

The dust cloud does not mean much to me, starlight can have a reddening extinction. If the dust cloud is so bad for astronomy measurements - why do I see so many stars at night, like Orion? :) If the dust cloud was so bad, there would be absorption bands in spectra of starlight too.

You do not want Relativity to be a factual basis for modern astronomy and measurement and that is the bottom line. Your team needs to follow the heliocentric solar system model example against the geocentric teachers and win the argument. Modern astronomy is founded upon Special Relativity and General Relativity. Do the math and develop a better set of tools for modern astronomy to use - that is a must. When it comes to velocity of c, this can be measured so variations must be documented, others must be able to repeat the claims to verify. That is how the scientific method works. So far I have read various reports involving particle accelerators and measurements in astronomy going back nearly 100 years showing Special Relativity is correct including General Relativity. Exactly how many experiments and measurements show it is wrong, and others repeated the experiments and obtained the same results is upon in the air in my thinking. You cannot have a small group claiming to overthrow Special Relativity without other groups verifying the results. Do the math and replace Special Relativity but the math model must be done to explain the observations astronomers document.
 
Jan 7, 2020
105
36
110
You wanted numbers and specifics address real criticism from experts then. That is my evidence you are wrong.
 
Jan 9, 2020
4
0
10
Researchers claim to have found serious fault with the existence of dark energy, but not everyone is buying into it.

Has Dark Energy Been Debunked? Probably Not. : Read more
"a universe without dark energy would have a lot of structure " - it would have little to no structure as the "energy' is just the flip side of what they're calling dark matter and without such the matter in the universe would just collapse into a singularity again.

Related;

Space is no longer smooth, it's lumpy now, so Hubble will not be a constant. The ironic part is they're using gravitational lensing, which is non-constant space to try and prove a constant. What needs to be examined is if gravity is the deformation of time-space itself or another force that's affected by the deformation. Another point, does gravity act linearly through space-time or does it act through the foreshortened distortion in space time? This could account for the missing dark matter aspect by itself.
We know that space-time is expanding, attributing it to an independent energy is likely a mistake, we look at gravity as a force of attraction, why wouldn't time-space itself be the balancing force of repulsion and the gravity we observe the leftover?
For what's being discussed, whether space-time is an "aether", field or particles is immaterial as these include assumed properties, just the actions and reactions are necessary. Enough properties are collected and then the greater characteristics of space-time may be hypothesized, it may not match any of these.
One of things we know is that space-time is positively affected by gravity from the lensing. Given the speed of light is a hard limit for space-time and extra energy is changed to mass, we can deduce that it has a negative affinity for energy. So how much do those high energy particles "push" space-time to expand?
Space-time deforms with mass and may cause gravity, if the deformation causes gravity it would be instantaneous, if it's deformed by gravity instead of mass itself that leaves room for a rebound to the distortion. The reason I bring this up is photon time travel, where a photon triggers both paths but only finishes one, could be an indication of time-space rebound.
 

Eve

Jan 10, 2020
1
2
10
I am a professional astronomer. Adam Riess is seriously misleading the readers. A few data points in some unexpectd region on the graph is normal in science because of measurement errors. More importanty, having read their original paper, I noticed that the authors even did not use this diagram! Also, open circles are simply to illustrate abnormal early-type galaxies with emission lines that should be excluded. Finally, Rose et al. data is based on photometry. They are not comparable to very high-quality spectra used in the paper being discussed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ty2010b and rod

rod

Oct 22, 2019
737
143
560
I am a professional astronomer. Adam Riess is seriously misleading the readers. A few data points in some unexpectd region on the graph is normal in science because of measurement errors. More importanty, having read their original paper, I noticed that the authors even did not use this diagram! Also, open circles are simply to illustrate abnormal early-type galaxies with emission lines that should be excluded. Finally, Rose et al. data is based on photometry. They are not comparable to very high-quality spectra used in the paper being discussed.
Good to see a pro astronomer onboard. I use a 90-mm refractor and 10-inch Newtonian, dob mount and enjoy stargazing.
 
Jan 26, 2020
1
0
10
Hello Folks,
I am new here so forgive me if I appear shy.
Dark Energy and Matter does exist however we seem to be looking for the evidence the wrong way. First, is isn't dark we just cannot see it as it does not come directly into our sensors in the limited forms we are observing with them. Dark Energy and Matter can be explained by the photons we already must know that exist and have existed for at least 13.7 Billion years as they travel in every direction and at every wavelength we can even imagine. These photons carry both an equivalent mass energy and momentum which would account for all of the properties attributed to the "Dark" theory. From the CMB to the acceleration of the expanding of the universe. Simply do the Math, I have and anyone else can if they wish.
Bob
I don't actually think Dark Matter or Dark Energy exists in the sense of what scientists are looking for. I find it frustrating to the best part too. If someone said a ghost existed we're told prove it, no evidence etc. HOWEVER there is about the same evidence for ghosts as there are for Dark Matter/ Dark Energy. So like said ghost unless there is real evidence forthcoming and not just circumstantial we should treat it the same instead of scientists pushing it because they have no other answers. To be honest what I think is much more likely is a FIFTH force of nature that we do not understand yet and if you want to call this Dark Matter/ Dark Energy so be it but actual hidden elements/ particles that create most of reality not so much. We have done extensive tests and still we go over the same things to disprove Einstein or Galileo or whoever. Let's admit it's a nice idea but flawed beyond belief with no results forthcoming.
 
Jan 29, 2020
1
1
10
I’m new to this page and not qualified in physics so forgive me if I sound naive or replying to a person rather than the source post.

Now everything I have read about space indicates it is NOT ”nothing” containing mass but rather a “thing” described as “spacetime”. Given that the universe is expanding, and that it arose from the “singularity“, why are we looking for a “force” “pushing” matter apart? Doesn’t it fit the spacetime model better if we imagine that the universe was originally “compacted” by a force? Using this concept, the expansion of spacetime does NOT occur due to “dark energy” but is rather the result of spacetime “losing” energy as it unfolds. Think of a spring that is compressed by a force and then released - it will initially accelerated as the force is “released” - it won’t spring apart due to new forces being input into the system.

Is this useful or ridiculous?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ty2010b
Jan 9, 2020
4
0
10
I’m new to this page and not qualified in physics so forgive me if I sound naive or replying to a person rather than the source post.

Now everything I have read about space indicates it is NOT ”nothing” containing mass but rather a “thing” described as “spacetime”. Given that the universe is expanding, and that it arose from the “singularity“, why are we looking for a “force” “pushing” matter apart? Doesn’t it fit the spacetime model better if we imagine that the universe was originally “compacted” by a force? Using this concept, the expansion of spacetime does NOT occur due to “dark energy” but is rather the result of spacetime “losing” energy as it unfolds. Think of a spring that is compressed by a force and then released - it will initially accelerated as the force is “released” - it won’t spring apart due to new forces being input into the system.

Is this useful or ridiculous?
Something along those lines, I think it's a definitional error that's lead to false presumptions of properties.
 
Feb 8, 2020
6
0
10
To balance the expansion of the universe as shown to be true in the WMAP investigations we need a dark energy force that is 95% stronger than gravity. That force could be electrostatic but we cannot see or measure the electric or magnetic field in space as we have no fixed reference point to measure from.
We know that planetary matter is enclosed in electron shells and is therefore fully negatively charged. It is possible that stars are positively charged so they can emit energy to us planets but note the stars will all repel each other electrostatically. It could be that the electrostatic repelling force between stars is 95% stronger than gravity??
 

Dwight Huth

BANNED
Oct 22, 2019
93
52
110
Scientists going against the theory of Dark Matter and Dark Energy existing are really no different than scientists who say that they have proof that the Earth is flat, hollow or the Universe is a holographic computer simulation.

They work for the anti-science thesis and have one job of demoting new scientific discoveries that have the potential to re-write scientific bases with new facts that would invalidate a political aspect of keeping scientific data and discoveries regulated to old wording.
 
Jan 9, 2020
4
0
10
To balance the expansion of the universe as shown to be true in the WMAP investigations we need a dark energy force that is 95% stronger than gravity. That force could be electrostatic but we cannot see or measure the electric or magnetic field in space as we have no fixed reference point to measure from.
We know that planetary matter is enclosed in electron shells and is therefore fully negatively charged. It is possible that stars are positively charged so they can emit energy to us planets but note the stars will all repel each other electrostatically. It could be that the electrostatic repelling force between stars is 95% stronger than gravity??
That's assuming all the rules/properties of time-space exist within time-space as we experience it. It makes more sense to start clean slate, e=mc^2. The mere 3d presence of matter is expansive energy as it resists gravity, high energy particles have more mass and would be pushing for more expansion as well as gravitational drag in their direction of travel.
The main thing is that dark energy and matter are placeholders and should remain as such until more fundamental questions are answered as to the nature of time-space itself. I never even got a satisfactory answer as to whether the distance gravity acts through is always measured in time-space itself or if the shortened distance of compressed time-space was used. Kind of a big deal as it would greatly affect mass calculations for dense objects as black holes and neutron stars.
 
Feb 8, 2020
6
0
10
Hopefully, the Parker probe will answer some of the questions about the sun. I am not sure whether the probe instruments can sense whether it is composed of anti-matter but they should surely be able to assess the suns weight and density which when revealled will surely surprise everyone.
 
Nov 27, 2019
168
71
160
Galaxies don't lie, something more than we see keeps them from flying apart.
IMO dark energy and dark matter will be impossible to find direct evidence because both only exist as temporary items of quantum fluctuation.
Temporary particle creation/matter creation and the temporary energy of that creation i believe will hold the answer to the mystery.

Dark flow being the thing that is pulling apart the universe faster and faster.
Easy answer (our neighbor universes gravity) now bigger influence than our universes own gravity.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts