Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: OT: Dark energy 'does not exists'
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2025 10:46:50 +0000
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <vm06iq$145qk$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vlvkjc$25o9j$1@solani.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2025 11:46:50 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a6d57c908484d1fb14afa17ae80fdde2";
	logging-data="1185620"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18aPvHblnxlbyLnR90y2PFeYeb716n7eO6Cw76qhO8vPQ=="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:9Z1WMMgaR0V6zAZoo7Nith66J4s=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <vlvkjc$25o9j$1@solani.org>
Bytes: 2448

On 12/01/2025 05:39, Jan Panteltje wrote:
> Dark energy 'doesn't exist' so can't be pushing 'lumpy' Universe apart
>   https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/12/241220133038.htm
> Source:
>   Royal Astronomical Society
> Summary:
>   One of the biggest mysteries in science -- dark energy -- doesn't actually exist,
>   according to researchers looking to solve the riddle of how the Universe is expanding.
>   For the past 100 years, physicists have generally assumed that the cosmos is growing
>   equally in all directions.
>   They employed the concept of dark energy as a placeholder to explain unknown physics
>   they couldn't understand, but the contentious theory has always had its problems.
>   Now a team of physicists and astronomers are challenging the status quo,
>   using improved analysis of supernovae light curves to show that the Universe
>   is expanding in a more varied, 'lumpier' way.
> 
> All about clocks running faster in empty space....

More accurately about clocks running slower in deep gravitational 
potential wells, but that effect seems to me way too small to account 
for the apparent acceleration seen in galaxies at ultra high redshift.

The original paper is online here free access (all 24 pages of it):

https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/533/3/2615/7737665

Not an easy read. lambdaCDM still fits at least as well...

-- 
Martin Brown