Slashdot Mirror
Supernovae May Not Be Standard Candles; Is Dark Energy All Wrong?
StartsWithABang writes: The accelerated expansion of the Universe — and hence, dark energy — was discovered by taking the well-understood phenomenon of type Ia supernovae and measuring them out to great distances. The results indicated that they were fainter than expected, and hence more distant, and hence the Universe's expansion must be accelerating. But new results have just come out, showing that supernovae may not be standard after all. Does this mean dark energy may not be real, or that it may just be slightly weaker than we previously thought?
even the big bang theory, commonly accepted, was formulated by a belgian priest: it's basically genesis from the bible. someone stuck abrahamic religion in the middle of "science" and no one seems to question the shaky foundations.
Unlike politics where you need to reject ideas because it came from an opposing group, science doesn't care where the idea comes from if it works. The foundations of the Big Bang theory is not its history, but general relativity and the observations that back up things like the FLRW metric. History is only indirectly important in science, in that it is a great pedagogical tool for showing how an idea developed, why some ideas worked and why others failed, for teaching students the process.
Dark Energy is not a cheat, it is a placeholder. Assuming our measurements are correct, which the discussion of standard candles is challenging, some unknown source of energy is causing our Universe to expand, and that takes a lot of energy. It takes so much energy, that this energy needs to represent 80% of the Universe's total energy.
Unless you plan on challenging the First Law of Thermodynamics.
The neutrino was in the same state for a while -- a hypothesized, unobserved entity needed to make the equations balance. Now we have three different neutrinos plus their antiparticles.
That link starts off interesting, and by about the 5th or 6th page becomes just polemic. You need to rewrite every page after the 1st, giving more attention to your theory and less attention to lambasting others.
I *am* of the opinion that when you do this you will end up with many fewer pages, but quite possibly with some decent questions that need to be addressed. E.g., how does your theory account for the proportions of Hydorgen and Helium in the universe. Etc. Don't concentrate quite so much on problems that current theories have trouble with, and pay more attention to deriving the solutions that the current theories have apparently valid answers for. Yes, you need to point out places where your theory is better, but it's even more important to show that you can answer correctly everything that the current theories have correct.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.