Original article: Marginal evidence for cosmic acceleration from Type Ia supernovae...the researchers have found that the evidence for acceleration may be flimsier than previously thought, with the data being consistent with a constant rate of expansion...
- Posts: 1002
- Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm
- Posts: 1701
- Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
- Location: Mt. Shasta, CA
This really does have exactly the same feel as the supposed 750 GHZ particle physics "bump" that was later shown to be a statistical anomaly by larger data sets.
It's really been a rough decade and an exceptionally bad year for LCDM theory.
It's worth looking as some famous last words:
https://www.darkenergysurvey.org/the-de ... /overview/
Ooops.Brian Nord wrote:
We're not trying to figure out if dark energy exists, we're not trying to find it. We know dark energy exists.
- Posts: 1002
- Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm
where they fumble with some statistics and make dark energy seem plausible again.
Is the expansion of the universe accelerating? All signs point to yes
Statistics saves the mainstream.
(there are lies, bigger lies and statistics)
To me it seems that these scientists combine different papers using slightly different models of the expansion.
That way, the observations in the other paper can be classified as insignificant.
The overall problem with all these papers is that no-one questions the dogma of redshift=> speed at all.
It is somehow a forbidden topic in mainstream science.
If we look in the laboratory on earth we can see that:
Redshift => speed + material-redshift + source-redshift.
If there are certain regions of space that have more redshift than others,
it might simply be that there is more of certain material in that place.
In another post I have even shown a map of the distribution of this material.
This is still assuming most other redshift is due to speed.
If we also take into account that in other places some redshift might
be caused by material properties or even source properties, we can include the observations
of Halton Arp, who shows with good examples how many quasars are misinterpreted in redshift.
- Posts: 250
- Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2013 6:16 am
- Location: Liverpool, UK
https://phys.org/news/2019-11-evidence- ... osmic.html
https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/pdf/2 ... 373-19.pdf
"The observed acceleration of the Hubble expansion rate has been attributed to a mysterious "dark energy" which supposedly makes up about 70% of the universe. Professor Subir Sarkar from the Rudolf Peierls Centre for Theoretical Physics, Oxford along with collaborators at the Institut d'Astrophysique, Paris and the Niels Bohr Institute, Copenhagen have used observations of 740 Type Ia supernovae to show that this acceleration is a relatively local effect—it is directed along the direction we seem to be moving with respect to the cosmic microwave background (which exhibits a similar dipole anisotropy). While the physical reason for this acceleration is unknown, it cannot be ascribed to dark energy which would have caused equal acceleration in all directions."
"When we then employed the standard maximum likelihood estimator statistic to extract parameter values, we made an astonishing finding. The supernova data indicate, with a statistical significance of 3.9σ, a dipole anisotropy in the inferred acceleration in the same direction as we are moving locally..."
- nick c
- Posts: 2483
- Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
- Location: connecticut
I don't think so. It seems to me that dark energy and dark matter really don't have anything in common with dark mode plasma other than the word "dark."JP Michael wrote:Dark energy & dark matter = dark mode plasma throughout the universe?
But the "dark" has a very different meaning.
Dark plasma.... exists and is detectable but is not apparent to the human eye. The three modes of plasma - arc, glow, and dark are only distinguished by their relationship to human visual perception. They are a continuum of known plasma processes categorized by what we can perceive using our biological visual apparatus.
Dark energy and dark matter are not perceived for very different reasons.....they only exist because without them the gravity only paradigm would have to be abandoned. Other than gravitational effects or the lack thereof, there is no means to detect their existence. They are ad hoc patches to the fact that the gravity only paradigm does not explain various galactic motions. They have a wild card factor in that they can be inserted wherever needed to make observations consistent with what is predicted by a gravity only analysis. The fact is that observations of galactic rotations and motions of and within galactic clusters do not conform to what is expected by a gravitational analysis. Dark matter and energy are a last ditch attempt to salvage a failing paradigm.
Furthermore, it would be my guess that if there were enough dark mode plasma to account for the missing mass then it would not be dark. Like all matter (protons, electrons, neutrons) in the cosmos it would form detectable nebula and stars.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests