Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Dark energy is based on a dubious assumption.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Michael" data-source="post: 74619234" data-attributes="member: 627"><p>I haven't read both papers yet, but assuming that you're correct about their findings not contradicting one another, it is technically possible that they both could be true. </p><p></p><p>Both papers only further demonstrate the inherent weakness of the dark energy argument. Depending on how one chooses to subjectively interpret the SN1A data, not only is it possible that the universe isn't accelerating at all, but it's technically possible that it's even decelerating.</p><p></p><p>It's also worth noting that both papers apparently assume that expansion is the underlying cause of redshift, yet neither of them finds evidence of acceleration, so even a subjective interpretation of redshift as being caused by expansion doesn't automatically result in the need for dark energy.</p><p></p><p>So much for any claim that there's "objective" evidence of dark energy. The whole metaphysical concept is built on quicksand, and it's 70 percent of the whole LCDM model!</p><p></p><p>When was the last time the LCDM model actually passed a real "test"?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Michael, post: 74619234, member: 627"] I haven't read both papers yet, but assuming that you're correct about their findings not contradicting one another, it is technically possible that they both could be true. Both papers only further demonstrate the inherent weakness of the dark energy argument. Depending on how one chooses to subjectively interpret the SN1A data, not only is it possible that the universe isn't accelerating at all, but it's technically possible that it's even decelerating. It's also worth noting that both papers apparently assume that expansion is the underlying cause of redshift, yet neither of them finds evidence of acceleration, so even a subjective interpretation of redshift as being caused by expansion doesn't automatically result in the need for dark energy. So much for any claim that there's "objective" evidence of dark energy. The whole metaphysical concept is built on quicksand, and it's 70 percent of the whole LCDM model! When was the last time the LCDM model actually passed a real "test"? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Dark energy is based on a dubious assumption.
Top
Bottom