Dark Energy About to be Debunked

Gary Kent

The Skeptical Cosmologist

...............................Extraordinary claims

........................................require

................................extraordinary proof

A few prominent astrophysicists and cosmologists have hijacked the process of the scientific method by their skillful use of the media. Technologically illiterate journalists are their accomplices. There is no excuse for the current mad rush to a messy consensus and the cockeyed conclusion that some weird stuff that they call dark energy makes up the bulk of the universe. Dark energy is truly miraculous stuff and qualifies as an unscientific supernatural explanation of deep space observations!

IT IS BUNK!

Those with the ability must recalculate the main assumption that underlies the dark energy conclusion. This conclusion is based on the interpretation of the real distances to Type 1A supernovae. They are interpreted to be farther away than their redshifts would indicate. The original estimate of the most serious interference to this interpretation, that there may or may not be more or less dust in the early universe than was thought, must be in error.

This currently "calculated" assumption is that there would not have been enough extra dust to cause the effect. (The effect itself is a result of an interpretation that may well also be wrong.) This apparent effect or "phenomenon" is that since these exceedingly distant supernovae are farther away than the distances indicated by their redshifts, then the universe must have begun expanding at an accelerating rate in recent epochs.

The only thing that some prominent astrophysicists can think of that might explain this is the unscientific postulate of dark energy. All subsequent observational interpretations are biased to favor the assumption of dark energy to begin with, because workers are trying so very hard to prove it, having a vested interest in "weird science". So, it is not surprising that they tend to succeed. They do no "critical experiments", make no "critical observations".

They have only circumstantial evidence that could all be reinterpreted!

There has been no effort to go back and recalculate the relative prevalence of "metals" in the earliest phases of the universe's development. If mathematical assumptions are changed sufficiently, the concentration of heavy nuclei could easily rise to the point that more dust formed than was thought. Presto! There is much more dust present to dim the images and, the supernovae in question are as close by as their redshifts indicate.

Why there is not more skepticism about that contradiction between luminosity distances and redshift distances in the first place completely escapes me!

These so-called scientists are so gullible that I think they should not be allowed to refer to themselves as having Ph.D.s. They have not done their professional homework. They neglect easy solutions in favor of a complex and difficult ad hoc theorem that raises more questions than it solves!

In a future post I will present my most favored model for the inflationary expansion of the universe. It shows how the data should properly be interpreted.

There is no dark energy.

Gary Kent

See my blog at

neocosmology. blogspot. com.

drbillg

Ever since the birth of science and physics in ancient Greece, even before Plato, natural philosophers have been attempting to explain the nature of the universe. However, when they tried to explain the cause of certain unexplained natural phenomena, such as the way light propagates, they resorted to an imaginary and undetectable, yet ubiquitous substance that they called aether. It wasn't until the early 20th century, when Einstein's Theory of Relativity showed that light can travel in a vacuum and gravity is caused by the curvature of space by mass, that aether became obsolete.
When Einstein published his General Theory of Relativity, his Gravitational Field Equations predicted that the universe would collapse under its own gravity. For some philosophical reason, Einstein couldn't accept the concept of a contracting universe, so he invented the Cosmological Constant which opposes the force of gravity. Thus even Einstein succumbed to the temptation of the creation of undetectable phenomenon in order to explain mathematical discrepancies and preserve his theories. Einstein was forced to shelve the Cosmological Constant when his contemporary, Edwin Hubble, measured the periodicity of variable stars and red-shifts of distant galaxies and demonstrated that the universe was expanding in every direction.
Since then astrophysicists have been observing the motions of stars and estimating the mass of the galaxies that these stars reside in. Sometimes the estimated mass of a galaxy is too small to explain the motion of the stars within those galaxies. These astrophysicists have postulated the existence of "Dark Matter" to explain the motion of stars. Dark matter is incredibly dense matter that neither emits nor reflects light. Black holes are a popular example of dark matter.
In the last decade, astrophysicists have been studying certain Supernovas which they feel represent a standard candle for brightness in the universe. Their observations along with the assumption that these supernovas represent a standard candle have led them to conclude that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. In order to account for this, they have revived the concept of the Cosmological Constant but have renamed it Dark Energy.

Jana

The Mirage: Model of the Universe——— March 2002

The Red Shift is an optical illusion of “perspective” caused by the 3D bending of spacetime in all directions.

Spacetime “appears” to be expanding because what we see of the universe is “radiant” bodies, whose “light” it is we perceive. That light is more red shifted towards the perimeter of the observable universe because of the curvature of spacetime….increasing in curvature toward the event horizon. The further a light source is from us the greater the degree of that curvature which the light passes and consequently the greater the red shift...giving the “appearance” of the stars acceleration away from us. The red shift is created not from the acceleration of light away from us, but from an ever increasing “bending” of light. (And perhaps the apparent widening of the light “beam” relative to us as it approaches the event horizon.)

The spacetime curvature reaches its zenith at the event horizon so that light beyond the event horizon cannot reach us, for it is beyond the event-horizon of our perspective-bubble of spacetime. Spacetime curves away from us in all directions to create an apparent bubble from our singular perspective at the center of the bubble. Things only “appear” to be receding away from us because their radiant light is warped into a red shift by the "curvature" of spacetime… Light is not only shifted red by the curvature of spacetime, it doesn’t travel in a linear curve, but takes a spiral path*. Spacetime and therefore the universe itself is spiral, light is spiral and travels in a spiral path.

However all these effects are simply a mirage. If we could simultaneously see from every vantage point in the universe in one instant, we would see there is no curvature, no redshift, no receding universe. These effects are simply the play of light in spacetime from the "myopia" of our singular point of view. We are effectively using our science to “prove” what is merely a play of light, space, time and perspective. If we can see the mirage first, then our entire cosmology will change along with our science.

This mirage illusion of red shift arises from our relative perspective at the center of our Universe-spacetime bubble. In short… spacetime is curved, and we exist in an apparent bubble of universe in which spacetime curves away from us and over the event horizon at which light no longer is seen…it is this curvature that causes the red shift which makes it appear that the universe is expanding.

asclepius

Well, then Einstein, I believe it was he, was right in that our universe(s) are neither contracting nor expanding, but are a sustained steady state in which energy is both expended and generated in a balanced manner.

Whoa Confused

, if this is true then whither goest the big bang? Could we ever be satisfied with an complex energy system that appears both without a beginning or end?

Gary Kent

drbillg says that the redshift observed for very distant cosmological objects could be due to the influence of the curvature of spacetime on the wavelengths and frequencies that we observe when we see light from these very distant sources. He says that there could be a serious effect due to our observation of light that has originated near an "event horizon", which he says happens when we measure light from near "the edge" of our universe.

But, we are not observing light that has originated near an event horizon. It is a mistake to characterize the universe in terms of analogies or metaphor taken from phenomena that occur or could occur within it. The universe is not merely a huge black hole. And, If the universe had an event horizon 13.7 billion years ago, then it still does, and we are still inside the horizon, not observing from outside of it.

Besides, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity specifically takes into account the curvature of spacetime. There is a distinction between relativistic redshift and what may be termed the "Doppler Redshift". Astronomers use the equations of Relativity to estimate relativistic redshifts. Doppler redshifts must be considered too. But, this is all taken into account already.

Furthermore. the reason that the high z supernova results are so intersting is not that they show an accelerating universe in and of themselves, but that they prove that the light from distant objects is not attenuated by "grey dust" and that they are in fact as far away or farther than their redshifts would indicate based on Hubble's Law.

Then, other observations are free of this possible criticism and the acceleration scenario seems more believable. What I don't understand is why the interpretation must be that the universe is accelerating NOW, rather than that it has accelerated THEN. Seems to me that if it was THEN that acceleration occurred, we are decelerating NOW and there is no controversy.

asclepius

Seems NASA is about to make a public announcement about dark matter. One wonders if this is a continuation of the current inexplicabilities (my word) in the behavior of the universe.

What if the universe is a steady state energy transference system that in form is a twisting torus the also inverts within itself due to gravitational forces? What we think we see is affected by the relative structure of the universe at the time of our observation or measurement. Individual observations of phenomena (stars, galaxies, etc.) are essentially accurate, but the concepts of expansion and contraction are distorted by the toroidal structure of the universe. Space-time too is affected.

Individual elements within the universe die and are born, blowup and expand and in the process create. Galaxies cluster and these clusters cluster in turn into superclusters. All of this is an ongoing energy process that is endless, and black holes are simply an energy conversion, not a dissipation process. We just do not know how and where that converted energy from the black hole goes, but it is not lost because the system is in stasis. In fact, as Einstein believed, it always has been.

If any of this turns out to be true, then what a glorious, everlastingly mysterious universe we live in. There will always be questions demanding answers. Very Happy

lcascio

To be humble, all we currently know about gravity is how it behaves locally (e.g. how much force and direction a body of mass will create). We still have no clue as to (1) how it is propogated (e.g. a particle) (2) how fast it propogates (is it speed of light, instantaneous, etc...) and (3) how it relates to the other forces of nature. We are still using the age old geometric formulas Newton gave us to describe gravity. Yet when we see "anomolous" gravitational behavior in the edges of spiral galaxies, the red shifting of distant super novas, even how long it takes our own craft to exit the solar system, rather than consider that maybe our meager understanding of gravity needs to be re-visited, we invent this exotic dark matter and energy that are supposed to far outweigh all other matter and energy in the universe but somehow we can't see it, yet it causes all these affects. Dark matter and dark energy do seem to be the proverbial tail wagging the dog.

Dark Energy About to be Debunked

Forum Options

Register