Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing.

World's most powerful digital camera opens eye, records first images in hunt for dark energy

Not a single astronomer knows where dark energy comes from, let alone has any clue how to control it, but that never stops them from making absolutely absurd and ridiculous claims about the capabilities of their new toys.

What "dark energy camera"? They aren't "seeing" or taking images of "dark energy" to begin with, nor is any camera capable of imaging 'dark energy'. What a bunch of false advertizing.

 

You can't blame the reporter! They called it a 'dark energy *camera*', when in fact it's nothing more than system designed to measure *redshifted photons*! Implicit in the name they selected is the implied existence of *dark energy*, and the term "camera" is utterly misleading! Ya, blame the reporter.

Sure, I'll be happy to do that for you:

"The achievement of first light through the Dark Energy Camera begins a significant new era in our exploration of the cosmic frontier," said James Siegrist, associate director of science for high energy physics with the U.S. Department of Energy. "The results of this survey will bring us closer to understanding the mystery of dark energy, and what it means for the universe."
​

"The Dark Energy Survey will help us understand why the expansion of the universe is accelerating, rather than slowing due to gravity," said Brenna Flaugher, project manager and scientist at Fermilab. "It is extremely satisfying to see the efforts of all the people involved in this project finally come together."
​

"We're very excited to bring the Dark Energy Camera online and make it available for the astronomical community through NOAO's open access telescope allocation," said Chris Smith, director of the Cerro-Tololo Inter-American Observatory.
"With it, we provide astronomers from all over the world a powerful new tool to explore the outstanding questions of our time, perhaps the most pressing of which is the nature of dark energy."
​

Emphasis mine. Every single word that I highlighted and underlined is blatantly misleading, and ultimately just a bunch of false advertizing for mainstream theory. Everywhere that you see the term 'dark energy' should read "cosmic redshift survey". The only thing they might ever hope to measure is *redshift* and/or signal broadening, not "dark energy". The very names and terms that astronomers use are meant to A) hide the facts from the public that there are other known empirical causes of redshifted photons and signal broadening, B) ignore the fact that all we actually *observe* is redshifted photons and the signal length of those photons, not the cause of that process, and C) imply a *cause* that has never actually been empirically demonstrated (inflation + dark energy = expanding universe)! All of those terms are utterly and completely misleading and those terms are not the fault of the reporters! They are the fault of the myopic viewpoints of mainstream astronomers, and their pitiful attempt to sweep all plasma redshift options and laboratory observations under the rug!

Without empirical laboratory experiments to back up those observations? No! Pure observation cannot and never will settle the issue of "cause". Astronomers keep asserting a *cause* of the redshift by the very names they select to describe it and by the terms and assumptions they use during the interviews. They never mention plasma redshift options, nor show any signs of a professional sense of 'doubt' about anything they say.

It's cheaper (and far more personally satisfying) to simply point out their horse-pucky on public forums.

 

Here's how it "should" read:

That would have have been a professional interview. That isn't what the reporters got.

 

It's a camera that images standard photons and maybe the amount of redshift. It doesn't image "dark energy", nor is it a "dark energy camera". The name they selected is bogus from the start!

No, that's not it. They called it a 'dark energy camera', implying *cause* in the very *name* they gave to the camera!

Right. They stilled called a "dark energy camera". Not a single "scientist" bothered to mention the fact that all they actually observe is cosmic redshift and at least three empirical forms of plasma redshift have been observed in the lab. All they did it *assume* a cause, claim a cause, and state a cause, but other than that, they were entirely blameless!

They can't determine the 'nature of dark energy', just the nature and/or cause of "cosmic redshift". The term "dark energy" implies a cause that is not in evidence.

cosmologystatement.org

FYI there was a growing group of disenfranchised scientists complaining about BB theory even before I got involved in EU/PC theory. Something "weird" has been going on since BB theory gave way to Guthanity.

They don't even know if dark energy actually exists! They only know that redshift happens. They have no idea as to the 'cause' of that pattern of redshift. There isn't even solid evidence of 'acceleration', let alone any evidence that 'dark energy did it'.

But the "mystery" isn't actually "dark energy", it's "cosmic redshift".

Sure:
http://vixra.org/pdf/1105.0010v1.pdf

No, I don't have to rely upon pure observation, I can experiment in the lab to determine the *correct* type of redshift(s) that might result in such pure observations from space. That's way more than can be said for expansion claims based in invisible sky entities galore that fail to show up in any lab experiments.

I'll admit, it is actually easier (and cheaper) to simply complain. I'd have to pay actual money to a court and/or a layer to sue them. It's much more fun and gratifying to publicly point out their nonsense.

Why not? If they can sit around from the safety of their armchair and claim dark energy is responsible for redshifted photon patterns without lifting a finger in the lab to prove it, I can certainly threaten to sue them from the safety of my armchair too.

 

There's one small problem with your logic. You don't hear me complaining about any other branches of "science", just astronomy and Guthanity. I'm fine with particle physics theory, evolutionary theory, and QM theory. You don't hear me complaining about electrical engineers, that's for sure. In fact you'll never hear me complain about a branch of science that produces useful tangible goods, but alas nothing at Walmart runs on dark energy, inflation or exotic brands of matter. What a shock!

 

From my perspective inflation and dark energy theories can only be "disproven" by finding empirical evidence of plasma redshift which has already been done. How else would one "disprove" such concepts? Simple SUSY theories *were* falsified at LHC and the Higgs was found at an energy state that makes SUSY theory irrelevant. That's about as much as one might every 'disprove' and idea that utterly lacks empirical support.

As I see it, plasma physics explains what we observe quite nicely *without* any need for exotic forms of matter and energy.

Interesting. I feel exactly the opposite. It's now impossible for me to put any "faith" in claims about exotic matter and energy, particularly now that empirical alternatives exist. It's not impossible for me to 'put faith' in a Pantheistic view of the universe and the concept does in fact 'make sense' from my perspective, including making sense of human experiences of God on Earth.

I really see no evidence at all that 'dark energy' exists, let alone that it has any empirical effect on anything, including photons.

 

On the contrary. If a consumer product fails to work for you as advertized, you have every legal right to take it back and to sue if necessary. I guarantee you that the camera in question is absolutely and entirely incapable of imaging "dark energy", in spite of calling it a "dark energy camera".

 

I'm not much of a fan of YEC, but I suppose it depends on what you mean by 'intelligent design".

 

Maybe not. Then again, a proposed source of neutrinos was identified *before* anyone claimed "neutrinos did it".

 

I'm already infamous inside astronomy circles as it is. A paper undermining the entire BB theory isn't likely to get published in mainstream journals I'm afraid. The next paper that I attempt to publish will likely be related to SDO images and solar physics. Rome wasn't built in a day, and the mainstream has to start to learn to walk (electric suns) before they can run (electric universe).

I understand and I agree. For me the first evidence was of a "personal" nature.

In terms of the physics, once I lost my faith in invisible sky entities, and I learned more about plasma physics, there was no way for me to ever return again to a dark sky religion, just as I could never go back to being a "fundy" Christian. Physics tends to trump all religious (and pseudoscientific) viewpoints IMO.

As a former editor of a High School newpaper who was guity of butchering more than a few details, I hear you. On the other hand, the very name they selected for the program "Dark energy camera" was misleading from the start. It's a bit unfair to blame the media for the confusion. It's a little like the Government taking away my civil liberties and calling it "The Patriot Act". If it's 'dark', it can't be seen in a "camera". That's a bit like calling it an 'invisible unicorn camera" and expecting the media to understand what you mean.

The "mystery" is not "dark energy". The mystery is a pattern of redshift and signal broadening/time dilation observations, and how to best go about explaining them in terms of physics. IMO that has already been 'settled' the moment that several forms of plasma redshift were identified in the lab. On those days, inflation and dark energy became empirically useless, and obsolete. In terms of SUSY theory, that idea was falsified at LHC IMO. IMO it's time for the mainstream to wake up and smell the coffee and at least *acknowledge* that empirical forms of plasma redshift have been identified and they need to be accounted for.