I guess people are going to act like I'm a lunatic, but of course it's wrong. Dark Energy violates basic conservation of energy, and the evidence for it has never been strong or convincing. Lots of us have been saying this since forever.
Evidence that the key assumption made in discovery of dark energy is in error
61–70 of 295 posts
Re: Evidence that the key assumption made in discovery of dark energy is in error
#62To know if the universe is expanding, we need to know the following: how far away things are, and whether they're moving away from us. In an accelerating universe, there's evidence that things were moving away from us slower in the past. The evidence that things are moving away from us is that as the universe expands, the wavelength of any light travelling through it also expands, shifting it towards the red end of t…
I'm not an astronomer, but "tired light" makes more intuitive sense to me to explain the redshift. In effect, we already know that matter can affect light through gravitational interaction. Since light is travelling so fast and far it seems intuitive thst interstellar matter, as fleeting as it is, could act to slow light down over these great spacetime distances.
This doesn't make much sense to me. The speed of light is a constant, right? Gravitational interactions may change the directional component, but the speed would remain constant, no?
Re: Evidence that the key assumption made in discovery of dark energy is in error
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If these are both overturned it will be a huge blow to "scientists" credibility This is nonsense. Scientists have been wrong in several occasions, it is just part of the profession. For example, in the years leading to the discovery of relativity, many physicists believed there was something called "ether" that worked to fix the speed of light that they had evidence to be the same in all directions.
Generally called aether, believe that ether is a misspelling which has lingered. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories
I believe it's just a regional spelling issue (like paediatriction/pediatriction or encylopaedia/encyclopedia)
Re: Evidence that the key assumption made in discovery of dark energy is in error
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. Dark matter is assumed to exist from the excessively quick rotation of stars around the cores of galaxies. Dark energy is/was assumed to exist in anomalous expansion of the universe based on redshifts.
>Dark matter is assumed to exist from the excessively quick rotation of stars around the cores of galaxies. That's what initiated Zwicky's notion in the '30s. It is far from being the only, or even the main, evidence for dark matter (which can be read as "mass effects we can detect not associated with matter we can currently detect").
More accurately: motion dynamics not compatible with both General Relativity and the mass we can see and reasonably infer. There is of course a stupendously huge amount of mostly invisible "interstellar medium", and even more "intergalactic medium", mostly ions of loose atoms and small molecules, and we use estimates of how much of that there must be. If its motion has anything to do with plasma fluid dynamics, all bets are off, because those equations are what mathematicians call intractable, and physicists would call career-limiting.
They will happily declare 3x more unknowable Dark Matter than normal stuff before allowing plasma dynamics to have any effect on anything. Can hardly blame them.
Re: Evidence that the key assumption made in discovery of dark energy is in error
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not an astronomer, but "tired light" makes more intuitive sense to me to explain the redshift. In effect, we already know that matter can affect light through gravitational interaction. Since light is travelling so fast and far it seems intuitive thst interstellar matter, as fleeting as it is, could act to slow light down over these great spacetime distances.
This doesn't make much sense to me. The speed of light is a constant, right? Gravitational interactions may change the directional component, but the speed would remain constant, no?
Constant in a vacuum. Read about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherenkov_radiation
Re: Evidence that the key assumption made in discovery of dark energy is in error
#66Sabine Hossenfelder comments on this paper:
Dark Energy might not exist after all
Re: Evidence that the key assumption made in discovery of dark energy is in error
#67To know if the universe is expanding, we need to know the following: how far away things are, and whether they're moving away from us. In an accelerating universe, there's evidence that things were moving away from us slower in the past. The evidence that things are moving away from us is that as the universe expands, the wavelength of any light travelling through it also expands, shifting it towards the red end of t…
Thanks for the explanation, but I'm stuck on the last sentence of this part: >evidence of accelerating expansion is that based on the redshift of nearby objects, we would expect distant objects to have a higher redshift than they actually do. I think what you mean is "than we'd expect them to."
Right. They have the red shift we would expect to find in more distant objects than they seem to be, just based on how bright their supernovas are. But if the brightness is off, the anomaly might disappear. Or get bigger, all bets are off.
Re: Evidence that the key assumption made in discovery of dark energy is in error
#68To know if the universe is expanding, we need to know the following: how far away things are, and whether they're moving away from us. In an accelerating universe, there's evidence that things were moving away from us slower in the past. The evidence that things are moving away from us is that as the universe expands, the wavelength of any light travelling through it also expands, shifting it towards the red end of t…
I'm not an astronomer, but "tired light" makes more intuitive sense to me to explain the redshift. In effect, we already know that matter can affect light through gravitational interaction. Since light is travelling so fast and far it seems intuitive thst interstellar matter, as fleeting as it is, could act to slow light down over these great spacetime distances.
Tired light is a very natural and intuitive hypothesis, it just doesn't work when you try to make it match up quantitatively.
Re: Evidence that the key assumption made in discovery of dark energy is in error
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If these are both overturned it will be a huge blow to "scientists" credibility This is nonsense. Scientists have been wrong in several occasions, it is just part of the profession. For example, in the years leading to the discovery of relativity, many physicists believed there was something called "ether" that worked to fix the speed of light that they had evidence to be the same in all directions.
Generally called aether, believe that ether is a misspelling which has lingered. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories
If you care what sort of ether you're on about, you say "luminiferous ether".
Re: Evidence that the key assumption made in discovery of dark energy is in error
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's how I understand it. But maybe there are other standardizable objects. The sense I got from TFA is that there aren't .
There are actually. There is a class of star in the "tip of the red giant branch" (TRGB) which have also been used to calibrate luminosities of type Ia supernovae[0] to form a "cosmic distance ladder". I believe they have been used to confirm the accelerated expansion results (though less strongly). I am not super well versed in stellar evolution, but I believe that the TRGB should make this calibration method indepe…
Of course these could have the same, or a related, problem.