Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Fermilab Reports Dark Energy Not Needed

Posted by Hemos on from the like-inflation-in-gas-prices dept.

An anonymous reader writes "A Fermilab press release reports that the expansion of the universe may be explainable without the need for dark energy or a cosmological constant. Apparently, ripples from inflation in the early universe may account for the observed expansion rate of the universe."

5 of 416 comments (clear)

  1. Dark Tomatoes and Universal Expansion by Mulletproof · · Score: 0, Troll

    "Apparently, ripples from inflation in the early universe may account for the observed expansion rate of the universe."

    Can't we just admit we don't have a freakin' clue and move along? "Well shoot, I think TOMATOES might explain the expantion of the universe! LOTS and LOTS of TOMATOES! That are, um, dark. Which is why you can't see them. And they ripple. And stuff."

    --
    You need a FREE iPod Nano
  2. question about usenet (legal/illegal) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    Hi, I just started using usenet for porn and saw that theres a lot of child porn posted. I did not download any images but you can guess what it is by just looking at the message subjects.

    Should I stop using usenet just because some jackass posts child porn into other (legal) porn newsgroups??

    suppose some pictures get downloaded into my computer. can i be in trouble?

    please advise.

    This exact comment has been posted. Try to be more original.....

  3. Why don't we just ADMIT IT?! by Cryofan · · Score: -1, Troll

    We don't know WHAT the fuck is going on when it comes to understanding the universe. We will, someday. But right now, we just need to assume that the universe will go on forever. That is the safest assumption to make, cuz all these wild assed guesses are just ruining science's credibility...

    --
    eat shiat and bark at the moon
  4. And they call me crazy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    People diss me for believing in God. They say "How can you believe in something that you can't see? How can you believe without proof?"
    I point to the many miracles performed over the ages, the miraculous cures, the signs at Lourdes, at Fatima, at Guadalupe, etc.
    But my unbelieving friends just keep saying that it can't be proof of God cause, at heart we don't want it to be and besides it's not scientific.

    Then along comes an argument like this. Gee we science types have data that all our science says doesn't make sense, so to explain it we'll postulate unexplained varying physical sates for the Universe that start for no reason we can nail down and then end for no particular reason we can give (Expansion), invisible energy that no one seems able to find (Dark Matter), or unprovable ripples that just happen to be beyond our ability to find or prove (Cosmic Irregularity Theory?).
    And our evidence for this? Well it makes our math look good (just as long as you use our equations to do the math with, anyway)

    So which of us believes in things that they can't prove again? I think I lost track of who was being sillier then whom in that one.

  5. Re:So basically by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    [T]he chances of seeing Secular Humanism in the US during my lifetime appear to be nil.

    Thank God! :-)