Redshift, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, etc., etc.

[[serious]]

.

 

[[serious]]

Who me? I propose no such thing, it's accepted fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronvolt
"Historically, the electron volt was devised as a standard unit of measure through its usefulness in electrostatic particle accelerator sciences because a particle with charge q has an energy E = qV after passing through the potential V; if q is quoted in integer units of the elementary charge and the terminal bias in volts, one gets an energy in eV...

...By mass–energy equivalence, the electronvolt is also a unit of mass. It is common in particle physics, where units of mass and energy are often interchanged, to express mass in units of eV/c2, where c is the speed of light in vacuum (from E = mc2). It is common to simply express mass in terms of "eV" as a unit of mass, effectively using a system of natural units with c set to 1...

...A photon with a wavelength of 532 nm (green light) would have an energy of approximately 2.33 eV. Similarly, 1 eV would correspond to an infrared photon of wavelength 1240 nm or frequency 241.8 THz."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_charge

"The electric charge is a fundamental conserved property of some subatomic particles, which determines their electromagnetic interaction. Electrically charged matter is influenced by, and produces, electromagnetic fields."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy

"In physics, energy is a property of objects which can be transferred to other objects or converted into different forms, but cannot be created or destroyed."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass–energy_equivalence#Background

"In a collision process where all the rest-masses are the same at the beginning as at the end, either expression for the energy is conserved. The two expressions only differ by a constant which is the same at the beginning and at the end of the collision. Still, by analyzing the situation where particles are thrown off a heavy central particle, it is easy to see that the inertia of the central particle is reduced by the total energy emitted. This allowed Einstein to conclude that the inertia of a heavy particle is increased or diminished according to the energy it absorbs or emits."

But I guess you really didn't understand "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" did you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity
"The Lorentz transformation of the electric field of a moving charge into a non-moving observer's reference frame results in the appearance of a mathematical term commonly called the magnetic field. Conversely, the magnetic field generated by a moving charge disappears and becomes a purely electrostatic field in a comoving frame of reference...

.... Maxwell's equations are thus simply an empirical fit to special relativistic effects in a classical model of the Universe. As electric and magnetic fields are reference frame dependent and thus intertwined, one speaks of electromagnetic fields. Special relativity provides the transformation rules for how an electromagnetic field in one inertial frame appears in another inertial frame."

You are just proceeding down the wrong road is all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_generation

"In theoretical physics, a mass generation mechanism is a theory that describes the origin of mass from the most fundamental laws of physics. Physicists have proposed a number of models that advocate different views of the origin of mass. The problem is complicated because mass is strongly connected to gravitational interaction, and no theory of gravitational interaction reconciles with the currently popular Standard Model of particle physics."

It's not my fault you refuse to accept standard physics and prefer a theory that has no basis in the data.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_mechanism
"In the Standard Model, the phrase "Higgs mechanism" refers specifically to the generation of masses for the W±, and Z weak gauge bosons through electroweak symmetry breaking.[1] The Large Hadron Collider at CERN announced results consistent with the Higgs particle on March 14, 2013."

thats a lot of copy/paste. in your own words, what are you trying to say?

 

[[serious]]

Now, let's follow:

True, but we can demonstrate electric charge has some effect on gravity or mass,

Then you cite:

E = qV

now yes, charge appears in a formula for energy.

Now, you objected to me saying lift (a force) was an equivalent to that statement.

In the same way that wing shape affects gravity or mass?

Well, let's look at that:
Well, a joule (energy) = 1 coulomb (charge) * 1 volt as you pointed out.
But wait, a joule = 1 Newton (force) * 1 meter as i was pointing out

 

[Michael]

You really are against learning and progress, aren't you?

Say what? The *entire* basis for their claims about "dark energy" have been shown to be based upon a pure fallacy, namely that *all* SN1A supernova events *are the same*. It turns out that they are *not* the same. Furthermore, when we look at *more data points*, their whole claim about "dark energy" falls apart:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150411091607.htm

The team, led by UA astronomer Peter A. Milne, discovered that type Ia supernovae, which have been considered so uniform that cosmologists have used them as cosmic "beacons" to plumb the depths of the universe, actually fall into different populations. The findings are analogous to sampling a selection of 100-watt light bulbs at the hardware store and discovering that they vary in brightness.

Emphasis mine. They *assumed* they had exactly the same bulb everywhere, but they never did. It was all based upon a *false assumption* to begin with!

Worse yet, when we look at more data points, the whole thing goes to hell in a handbasket:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1506.01354

The `standard' model of cosmology is founded on the basis that the expansion rate of the universe is accelerating at present --- as was inferred originally from the Hubble diagram of Type Ia supernovae. There exists now a much bigger database of supernovae so we can perform rigorous statistical tests to check whether these `standardisable candles' indeed indicate cosmic acceleration. Taking account of the empirical procedure by which corrections are made to their absolute magnitudes to allow for the varying shape of the light curve and extinction by dust, we find, rather surprisingly, that the data are still quite consistent with a constant rate of expansion.

So basically their entire claims was based upon A) a false assumption about "standard candles" that aren't "standard" in the fist place, and B) a *very limited data set*. When put into a *larger context*, the whole claim falls apart even *before* we note the fact that SN1A events are not always "standard" to begin with! The whole claim in pure nonsense.

What "progress"?

If we look at "dark matter", it's even based on *worse* assumptions. Every stellar mass estimate they made in that 2006 lensing study has been shown to be flawed by factors of between 3 and 20, and in 2012 they found more mass than all the mass in ordinary baryonic material than all the mass they had discovered prior to 2012. There never was any need for any exotic forms of matter. They simply botched the mass estimates of galaxies by *huge amounts*. Every so called 'experiment' has falsified every "popular" brand of magic matter theory. The whole claim is based on *flawed galaxy mass estimates*.

What "progress" could you possibly be referring to?

What exactly did we "learn" over the last 10 years other than the fact they are *pitiful* at galaxy mass estimation techniques, and they based 70 percent of their claims on a *false assumption*?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Now, let's follow:
Then you cite:


now yes, charge appears in a formula for energy.

Now, you objected to me saying lift (a force) was an equivalent to that statement.

Well, let's look at that:
Well, a joule (energy) = 1 coulomb (charge) * 1 volt as you pointed out.
But wait, a joule = 1 Newton (force) * 1 meter as i was pointing out

And a Newton is, go ahead, finish the comparison:

"1 Newton is the force needed to accelerate 1 kilogram of mass at the rate of 1 metre per second squared."

So a Newton is merely a force that causes acceleration. I need not point out the only force known to accelerate particles do I?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_accelerator

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force

"In physics, a force is any interaction which tends to change the motion of an object."

So a Newton applies to any force whatsoever. What, you thought it only applied to gravity in a closed mindset?

"In the special theory of relativity, mass and energy are equivalent (as can be seen by calculating the work required to accelerate an object). When an object's velocity increases, so does its energy and hence its mass equivalent (inertia). It thus requires more force to accelerate it the same amount than it did at a lower velocity."

 

[[serious]]

And a Newton is, go ahead, finish the comparison:

"1 Newton is the force needed to accelerate 1 kilogram of mass at the rate of 1 metre per second squared."

So a Newton is merely a force that causes acceleration. I need not point out the only force known to accelerate particles do I?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_accelerator

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force

"In physics, a force is any interaction which tends to change the motion of an object."

So a Newton applies to any force whatsoever. What, you thought it only applied to gravity in a closed mindset?

"In the special theory of relativity, mass and energy are equivalent (as can be seen by calculating the work required to accelerate an object). When an object's velocity increases, so does its energy and hence its mass equivalent (inertia). It thus requires more force to accelerate it the same amount than it did at a lower velocity."

At this point, you seem to be just throwing random quotes from wikipedia out there rather than addressing the issue at hand. Let's recap:

You: electric charge has some effect on gravity or mass [photo of oil drop experiment]
Me: In the same way that lift has some effect on mass or gravity
You: E = qV
Me: and E = Fd. lift is a force. (kinda my point. Energy can be expressed as the product of force and another variable just as it can be expressed as the product of charge and another variable.)
You: the only force that accelerates particles is electricity

At this point, let's just stop and think about that. Let's pull the exact quote just to be sure I'm being entirely fair:

"I need not point out the only force known to accelerate particles do I?"

Yeah, you kinda do. You seem to think that gravity does not accelerate particles.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

At this point, you seem to be just throwing random quotes from wikipedia out there rather than addressing the issue at hand. Let's recap:

You: electric charge has some effect on gravity or mass [photo of oil drop experiment]
Me: In the same way that lift has some effect on mass or gravity
You: E = qV
Me: and E = Fd. lift is a force. (kinda my point. Energy can be expressed as the product of force and another variable just as it can be expressed as the product of charge and another variable.)
You: the only force that accelerates particles is electricity

At this point, let's just stop and think about that. Let's pull the exact quote just to be sure I'm being entirely fair:

"I need not point out the only force known to accelerate particles do I?"

Yeah, you kinda do. You seem to think that gravity does not accelerate particles.

Tell me, what causes the "force" of gravity, when gravity is not a force at all?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity

"As intriguing as geometric Newtonian gravity may be, its basis, classical mechanics, is merely a limiting case of (special) relativistic mechanics.[21] In the language of symmetry: where gravity can be neglected, physics is Lorentz invariant as in special relativity rather than Galilei invariant as in classical mechanics."

"in general relativity; there is no gravitational force deflecting objects from their natural, straight paths. Instead, gravity corresponds to changes in the properties of space and time, which in turn changes the straightest-possible paths that objects will naturally follow"

Ahhh, so now it is magical bending nothing objects are following and not responding to a force at all. Make up your mind what you believe. Is it a force or isn't it?

 

[[serious]]

Tell me, what causes the "force" of gravity, when gravity is not a force at all?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity

"As intriguing as geometric Newtonian gravity may be, its basis, classical mechanics, is merely a limiting case of (special) relativistic mechanics.[21] In the language of symmetry: where gravity can be neglected, physics is Lorentz invariant as in special relativity rather than Galilei invariant as in classical mechanics."

"in general relativity; there is no gravitational force deflecting objects from their natural, straight paths. Instead, gravity corresponds to changes in the properties of space and time, which in turn changes the straightest-possible paths that objects will naturally follow"

Ahhh, so now it is magical bending nothing objects are following and not responding to a force at all. Make up your mind what you believe. Is it a force or isn't it?

Yes, we all know you can look stuff up on wikipedia. What you need to demonstrate is how what you are quoting relates to the topic at hand.

Once again, energy can be expressed as the product of charge and another variable, or it may be described as the product of force and another variable. As such, that energy can be used to balance acceleration due to gravity (lift keeping a plane in the air, charge keeping an oil droplet suspended in a field.)

Gravity does affect particles. they are not magically immune to it.

As far as your latest "quick! post a quote from wikipedia and hope it sounds smart!", describing gravitation's effect on a mass as a force vs space time curvature has not yet been discussed in this thread. I'm fine treating it either way as it's irrelevant to any point I've made. If you think it has some relevance, please elaborate. Right now it looks like blindly scrabbling for something that at least vaguely resembles an argument to try and distract from the gaping holes in your previous arguments.

 

[The Cadet]

Say what? The *entire* basis for their claims about "dark energy" have been shown to be based upon a pure fallacy, namely that *all* SN1A supernova events *are the same*. It turns out that they are *not* the same. Furthermore, when we look at *more data points*, their whole claim about "dark energy" falls apart:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150411091607.htm

Yes, instead they found that they are essentially separable into two separate types that are both useful for explaining the universe. For some reason, I don't see cosmology collectively dumping the dark energy hypothesis based on this discovery. Why? Because they all missed the significance? I'd personally argue it's a little more likely you didn't get it

 

[Michael]

Yes, instead they found that they are essentially separable into two separate types that are both useful for explaining the universe.

They found that such events come in *at least* two varieties, even though all their claims were based upon just one. The *foundation* of their claim has been *falsified*.

For some reason, I don't see cosmology collectively dumping the dark energy hypothesis based on this discovery. Why?

Why? Because it's *much* harder to accept *fact* than it is to simply 'make up' whatever they want. Did you *really* expect them to immediately admit that they blew it after handing out all those Nobel Prizes for "dark energy"?

Because they all missed the significance? I'd personally argue it's a little more likely you didn't get it

It's more like I'm not emotionally, personally, or professionally attached to their "dark energy" claims, whereas they are emotionally and professionally invested in those claims.

I think you must have missed the second link that I posted. Not only do SN1A events *not* come in just one single flavor as their claims are based upon, the use of a larger data set actually *refutes* their claims!

http://arxiv.org/abs/1506.01354

The `standard' model of cosmology is founded on the basis that the expansion rate of the universe is accelerating at present --- as was inferred originally from the Hubble diagram of Type Ia supernovae. There exists now a much bigger database of supernovae so we can perform rigorous statistical tests to check whether these `standardisable candles' indeed indicate cosmic acceleration. Taking account of the empirical procedure by which corrections are made to their absolute magnitudes to allow for the varying shape of the light curve and extinction by dust, we find, rather surprisingly, that the data are still quite consistent with a constant rate of expansion.

Emphasis mine. When they did their initial studies, they used a *much smaller* data set. As we look at *more data points*, their entire claim about observing acceleration in these SN1A events falls apart entirely. More data points ultimately *killed* their claim!

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Yes, we all know you can look stuff up on wikipedia. What you need to demonstrate is how what you are quoting relates to the topic at hand.

Quite on topic, just wish you could look anything up instead of on blog sites.

Once again, energy can be expressed as the product of charge and another variable, or it may be described as the product of force and another variable. As such, that energy can be used to balance acceleration due to gravity (lift keeping a plane in the air, charge keeping an oil droplet suspended in a field.)

What gravity? Gravity IS NOT A FORCE in the modern description of gravity. If you want to admit it is wrong, fine, I'll agree with that. But as long as you hold to the modern description you need to stop treating a force which is not a force as a force.

"charge keeping an oil droplet suspended in a field." Which field existed prior to the experiment. Those particles were already falling in the voltage field of the earth. It takes acceleration or energy to go against that electrical gradient.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_electricity
"In 'fine weather', the potential, aka 'voltage', increases with altitude at about 30 volts per foot (100 V/m), when climbing against the gradient of the electric field.[3] This electric field gradient continues up into the atmosphere to a point where the voltage reaches its maximum, in the neighborhood of 300,000 volts."

So in the experiment they simply increased this voltage field in a limited area, they did not add anything that did not already exist. You just ignore the earth's existing voltage field in any of your thought processes is all, and so come to flawed conclusions.

Gravity does affect particles. they are not magically immune to it.

Sure they aren't, because gravity is merely how particles with equal numbers of electrons and protons react to the EM forces versus charged matter - plasma. And has nothing to do with magical bending, expanding nothing.

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/302l/lectures/node73.html

No magical bending nothing required, just you accept the forces EM fields and charge applies. And those electrical currents that are the cause of all magnetic fields.

As far as your latest "quick! post a quote from wikipedia and hope it sounds smart!", describing gravitation's effect on a mass as a force vs space time curvature has not yet been discussed in this thread. I'm fine treating it either way as it's irrelevant to any point I've made. If you think it has some relevance, please elaborate. Right now it looks like blindly scrabbling for something that at least vaguely resembles an argument to try and distract from the gaping holes in your previous arguments.

Gaping holes you can do nothing but run from?

It is not fine either way and is quite relevant. Either it is a force and affects things, or it isn't a force at all and is composed of magical bending nothing. I asked you to make up your mind on what you believe - apparently you still have yet to do that. Apparently you are trying to worm your way out of stating your beliefs or subscribing to any theory at all so you can make any claim you like from any theory at any given time as it suits you. Even when they conflict with one another.

 

[[serious]]

What gravity? Gravity IS NOT A FORCE in the modern description of gravity. If you want to admit it is wrong, fine, I'll agree with that. But as long as you hold to the modern description you need to stop treating a force which is not a force as a force.

OK, but what's your point?

 

[Michael]

After the exotic dark matter snipe hunts at LHC, LUX, PandaX, etc, and all the revelations since 2006 about all the normal baryonic matter that they had not accounted for in their 2006 galaxy mass estimation models in 2006, followed by the Bicep2 fiasco last year, I was wondering what else might go wrong for mainstream Lambda-CDM theory.

Based on that last study of SN1A data sets using a large set of data, it's apparent that the dark energy claims of Lambda-CDM seem to the next pillar to fall in Lambda-CDM this year, and that makes up nearly 70 percent of their entire theory! Wow! It's been a really bad decade for Lambda-CDM. That lame theory apparently hit it's supernatural peak in 2006. Since then, almost every empirical and observational "test" of their claims in higher resolution images, and larger data sets has proven to be *devastating* to mainstream theory. It's supernatural elements turn out to not only be impotent on Earth and irrelevant to any other branch of physics, they're evidently not even necessary in cosmology theory either.

Let's see:

The CDM parts of Lambda-CDM claims have been falsified by numerous revelations of serious mass underestimates since the famous 2006 lensing study. They botched the stellar mass estimates by a whopping factor of between 3 and 20 depending on the type of galaxy and the size of the star. This probably explains why a lot of the so called "dark matter" found in that 2006 study tracked with the stellar mass infrastructure.

In 2012 they found a huge mass halo around the galaxies that contain more mass than all the mass that is known to exist in the stellar infrastructures themselves, and it was found in ordinary baryons in the form of million degree plasma.

To date, all the empirical experimental tests of exotic matter theory at LHC, LUX, PandaX, ect, have all failed to produce the predicted results of the most popular brands of exotic matter theory, whereas all the predicted particles of the *standard* particle physics theory have now been observed in the lab thanks to LHC, and the *standard* particle physics model is now complete.

All the grandiose media commentary last year about finding evidence of inflation turned to dust in mere months, and those falsely advertised claims bit the dust during the peer review process. The mainstream evidently has no shame or remorse when it comes to hyping and over hyping their claims.

Now we find out that dark energy claims aren't actually supported by larger SN1A data set studies, and even the whole *assumption* about all SN1A events being "standard candles" has been falsified by later and more exhastive studies of supernova events. We now know that there are at *least* two different types of SN1A events, and perhaps more variation potential for all we actually know.

Is there *anything* really usefully 'predictive" about Lambda-CDM that holds up to any scrutiny over the long haul? It sure has been a dud in the lab to date, and it's failed nearly every "test" in larger data set studies over the last 10 years.

I'd be *embarrassed* to be trying to sell the Lambda-CDM model to unsuspecting naive students after that whole last dark energy revelation. If the universe isn't accelerating, what's the use of "dark energy" at all?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Say what? The *entire* basis for their claims about "dark energy" have been shown to be based upon a pure fallacy, namely that *all* SN1A supernova events *are the same*. It turns out that they are *not* the same. Furthermore, when we look at *more data points*, their whole claim about "dark energy" falls apart:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150411091607.htm


Emphasis mine. They *assumed* they had exactly the same bulb everywhere, but they never did. It was all based upon a *false assumption* to begin with!

Worse yet, when we look at more data points, the whole thing goes to hell in a handbasket:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1506.01354



So basically their entire claims was based upon A) a false assumption about "standard candles" that aren't "standard" in the fist place, and B) a *very limited data set*. When put into a *larger context*, the whole claim falls apart even *before* we note the fact that SN1A events are not always "standard" to begin with! The whole claim in pure nonsense.

What "progress"?

If we look at "dark matter", it's even based on *worse* assumptions. Every stellar mass estimate they made in that 2006 lensing study has been shown to be flawed by factors of between 3 and 20, and in 2012 they found more mass than all the mass in ordinary baryonic material than all the mass they had discovered prior to 2012. There never was any need for any exotic forms of matter. They simply botched the mass estimates of galaxies by *huge amounts*. Every so called 'experiment' has falsified every "popular" brand of magic matter theory. The whole claim is based on *flawed galaxy mass estimates*.

What "progress" could you possibly be referring to?

What exactly did we "learn" over the last 10 years other than the fact they are *pitiful* at galaxy mass estimation techniques, and they based 70 percent of their claims on a *false assumption*?

It's like you have only this one subject you can talk about.
I'ld tell you to take it to an expert forum on cosmology, but you already did that and got banned for being stubborn and not honestly answering questions...

So, have you already submitted a paper to an appropriate journal, showing the current mainstream scientific community to be completely wrong?

 

[Michael]

It's like you have only this one subject you can talk about.

If you pay closer attention, you'll notice that I start lots of threads on other topics.

I'ld tell you to take it to an expert forum on cosmology, but you already did that and got banned for being stubborn and not honestly answering questions...

If you're talking about Cosmoquest, formerly "Bad Astronomy", I answered questions there for *months*. I got "banned" for not towing the party line. That place is ridiculous. They have different rules for anyone that disagrees with them. They even hold *witch hunts* at that forum, that's how draconian it is!

So, have you already submitted a paper to an appropriate journal, showing the current mainstream scientific community to be completely wrong?

Yep, several times in fact. Evidently they'd rather play around with supernatural magic stuff that fails to show up in the lab.

 

[DogmaHunter]

If you're talking about Cosmoquest, formerly "Bad Astronomy", I answered questions there for *months*. I got "banned" for not towing the party line. That place is ridiculous. They have different rules for anyone that disagrees with them. They even hold *witch hunts* at that forum, that's how draconian it is!

Yes, yes, sure.

Yep, several times in fact. Evidently they'd rather play around with supernatural magic stuff that fails to show up in the lab.

So, have your papers turned cosmology upside down?

"they" being "the scientific community"?
Is there a conspiracy against your über-brilliant ideas?

 

[Michael]

Yes, yes, sure.

Yes, really. Come on. They even have *completely different* forum, and completely different rules there for those who *disagree* with them, vs. those who agree with them. What childish nonsense.

So, have your papers turned cosmology upside down?

Apparently not. At least I tried.

"they" being "the scientific community"?
Is there a conspiracy against your über-brilliant ideas?

Conspiracy? Nah. They're mostly just completely inept, which explains why the whole lot of them can't name a single source of 'dark energy', and it makes up the vast majority of their theory. That's also why they struck out at LHC, LUX, PandaX, the electron roundness tests, etc and all the galaxy mass estimates were blown out of the water since 2006.

In terms of selling EU/PC theory, If Alfven didn't sway them *after* they gave him a Nobel Prize, it's not exactly "likely" that they care much about anything other than their own dogma.

It's definitely not a conspiracy however since they keep shooting their own theory in the foot about every 6 months or so.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yes, really. Come on. They even have *completely different* forum, and completely different rules there for those who *disagree* with them, vs. those who agree with them. What childish nonsense.

You mean the forum specific for wild ideas against the mainstream?

I think you're just upset that you had to post your ideas there.

Conspiracy? Nah. They're mostly just completely inept, which explains why the whole lot of them can't name a single source of 'dark energy', and it makes up the vast majority of their theory. That's also why they struck out at LHC, LUX, PandaX, the electron roundness tests, etc and all the galaxy mass estimates were blown out of the water since 2006.

Right, right,...
They are all incompetent, the whole lot of them.

Yes, yes.

 

[Michael]

You mean the forum specific for wild ideas against the mainstream?

I think you're just upset that you had to post your ideas there.

Ya, virtual witch hunts are a bit of a drag. It's funny that their own theory wouldn't hold up to any scrutiny in that same forum. They failed so badly they had to change the rules and close all threads after 30 days! LOL!

Right, right,...
They are all incompetent, the whole lot of them.

Yes, yes.

Well let's see how they've done over the past decade:

A) Their galaxy mass estimates that they erroneously used in that 2006 "dark matter" lensing study were shown to be utterly and completely worthless. They botched the stellar mass estimates by 3-20 times!
B) Their Bicep2 fiasco last year was *hysterical*. Their grandiose inflation claims turned to dust in *months*.
C) They struck out with exotic matter at LUX, LHC, PandaX, and the electron roundness "tests" of their claims.
D) Dark energy claims were falsified by a larger data set study, *and* their entire basis for their claim was also falsified since SN1A events come in *at least* two flavors, not one.
E) Planck revealed hemispheric differences that *defy* inflation theory.

In five straight ways over the past decade they falsified every single claim that the mainstream ever made about dark matter, dark energy and inflation. They've been a bit like the Keystone Cops over the past decade.

Note that your blind faith in their supernatural "dark" dieties doesn't jive well with the fact that not a single one of them can name so much as a single source of dark energy, even after a whole *decade* of online debates about it. Worse for your blind faith routine, that last study with a larger data set *refutes* their original claims about any need for dark energy to start with!

[sarcasm]Sure, they're real *dark experts* alright.[/sarcasm]

 

[Justatruthseeker]

OK, but what's your point?

My point was quite clear - stop treating it as a force if it is not a force. Stop talking about it as a force if it is not a force. Either it is a force or it isn't. Which is it?