No, the Universe is not expanding at an accelerated rate, say physicists


#1

Back in 2011, three astronomers were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics for their discovery that the Universe wasn’t just expanding - it was expanding at an accelerating rate.
The discovery led to the widespread acceptance of the idea that our Universe is dominated by a mysterious force called dark energy, and altered the standard model of cosmology forever. But now physicists say this discovery might have been false, and they have a much larger dataset to back them up.

No, the Universe is not expanding at an accelerated rate, say physicists - ScienceAlert

I can not even imagine the logistics it would take to pilot a space craft from one place to another considering that the final destination will change over the long haul.

In science fiction they talk about warp drives which some scientists are presently developing.


#2

They have been tweaking their “Standard Model” for decades to match observed data. They make two crucial assumptions which have never been proved. One of them been disproved at every step of the way as our overview of the universe gets bigger. That assumption is:

On a sufficiently large scale the universe is homogeneous.

The present map of the universe is anything but homogeneous. There are super immense structures (or lack of) like The Great Wall and the Bootes Void.

The second one, while plausible, is probably unprovable:

We are located at a “typical” location in the universe.

Anyway, they postulate “dark matter” and “dark energy” with the flimsiest of evidence. It is reminiscent of Ptolemy’s model of the universe with the Earth at the center and celestial spheres and epicycles to account for the peculiar motions of celestial objects. While I don’t doubt the motives of these researchers, their claims must be taken with a grain of salt. Spectacular claims get more public interest and result in more funding and grants.


#3

**No, the Universe is not expanding at an accelerated rate, say physicists **
.
My belief is that they would have found that it was expanding at an accelerated rate IF they could have gotten more grant money to study it.


#4

Grant money only comes if it has something to do with global warming, or if there is a way to raise taxes or enact more regulations.


#5

Grant money pours in when you make the cover of Scientific American with headlines like “Theory of Everything just around the corner”, or anything to do with parallel universes.


#6

Calling you out on this, as I have a love for general and astrophysics. Please explain, in scientific detail why you believe that dark matter does not exist. I’m sure you came to this conclusion because you very directly understand gravitational lensing, velocity curves, the microwave background, etc etc.

Go


#7

I won’t try to prove that it doesn’t exist. It doesn’t work that way. My point was that dark matter is yet another unobserved band-aid to make the Standard Model work. The most audacious assumption of the Standard Model is that the universe is homogeneous. They don’t even have a decent definition or measurable scale to gauge homogeneity except that it is “on a sufficiently large scale”. Unfortunately that is a moving target. New inhomogeneities seem to arise as our picture of the observable universe expands; galaxies, then clusters of galaxies, then clusters of clusters, the Great Wall, the Bootes Void and other structures on an almost unimaginably large scale. I am not saying that the universe is not homogeneous on a sufficiently large scale only that nobody has a f-ing clue as to what that scale ultimately is. The use of the FLRW metric in the domain that most observable data is taken is wholly unjustified. Why do they cling to it? Homogeneity gives simple solutions in closed form, approximating inhomogeneities is intractable with pencil and paper calculations and pushes the limits of even the most powerful supercomputers. The easy way out is postulating unobservable band-aids or tinkering with a myriad of new theories of gravitation. So my opinion is that present day cosmology is at the point of development of Ptolemy awaiting the arrival of Kepler.


#8

I think I see your point: The unobservable is supported by various solutions which may or may not be the real answer. As time has gone by the solutions or justifications continue to morph into what ever supports the conclusion.

Everybody wants to be an Einstein so they toss out a possible answer, then support it with more theoretical solutions tailored to support the fabricated answer. Works great if nothing is observable. That said even if its observable then one had to be careful in connecting the dots…leaves fall from the trees every Fall because the NFL plays football.


#9

None of them know what they are talking about. The sensors they get the data from at the edge of our galaxies great spiral arm have not been calibrated in decades.


#10

I believe that what we know as our “UNIVERSE” is nothing more than a dust mote on the lapel of God’s suit jacket!