The Universe Is NOT Expanding At An Accelerated Rate

[haidut]

Yet another one of the "breakthrough" discoveries like dark matter, dark energy, and gravitational waves appears to be false and prematurely hailed. The work of Halton Arp and Jayant Narlikar wastes away in obscurity, while the well-funded frauds of physics proliferate their fake knowledge.
Halton Arp - Wikipedia
Hoyle–Narlikar theory of gravity - Wikipedia

While it does not completely refute the expansion of the Universe theory, this new study says that at the very least the claims that it is expanding at an accelerated rate are false. But I doubt that the Nobel prize awarded in 2011 for the "discovery" of accelerated expansion will be revoked. Too much money is at stake for the continued duping of the masses.

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

"...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. For a bit of background on the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics, it was shared between cosmologists Saul Perlmutter from the University of California, Berkeley; Adam Riess from Johns Hopkins University; and Brian Schmidt from the Australian National University."

"...By all accounts, the discovery was a solid one (Nobel Prize solid) but it posed a very difficult question - if the collective gravity from all the matter expelled into the Universe by the Big Bang has been slowing everything down, how can it be accelerating? Since scientists first proposed dark energy, no one's gotten any closer to figuring out what it could actually be. But now an international team of physicists from institutions say don't worry about it, because it probably doesn't even exist, and they've got a much bigger database of Type 1a supernovae to back them up. By applying a different analytical model to the 740 Type Ia supernovae that have been identified so far, the team says they've been able to account for the subtle differences between them like never before. They say the statistical techniques used by the original team were too simplistic, and were based on a model devised in the 1930s, which can't reliability be applied to the growing supernova dataset."

"...Now, to be clear, this is just one study, and it's a big, extremely controversial claim that a Nobel Prize-winning discovery is fundamentally wrong. (Because I don't have to tell you that Nobel Prizes aren't given out lightly.) But replication of results is everything in science, and if we have a larger dataset to go on than we did five years ago, we should use it to support - or correct - previous discoveries."

 

[michael94]

Density! Say haidut...have you read through much of anatoly fomenkos work? I know you posted about him ( unless I'm mistaken ).

 

[Kyle M]

I'm fascinated with astro-physics, but I have a question: what is the goal or drive pushing the field towards these theories you disagree with? In biomedical it's more clear, the biological theories that support the current pharma industry monopoly are emphasized in the field, but what's going on with physics?

 

[haidut]

Density! Say haidut...have you read through much of anatoly fomenkos work? I know you posted about him ( unless I'm mistaken ).

Yes, I know about Fomenko's work and his books are quite popular in Eastern Europe. While I don't have enough evidence to accept all of his claims, in my opinion he does present enough evidence to falsify legends of the Trojan wars, and a lot of ancient Greece "events". I think this is the post you are referring to, right?
Is Officially Taught History An Invention Of The Rich?

 

[jaa]

I think it's a bit premature to revoke a Nobel Prize. One study is just one bit of evidence. I don't mean that in a dismissive way. I think this study should be weighted accordingly and further investigation needed. But it's not a slam dunk according to a few cosmologists haunts online (yeah yeah orthodoxy and such).

I'm going to quote a comment pulled from elsewhere since the best I can do is read opinions of people who understand this stuff much better than I do.

This paper makes me angry, no one should be publishing a press release like this. It's sensationalist nonsense.

All they have done is re-analyse the cosmological constraints from only supernova data and the find the errors they get are a bit bigger than what people got in the past. They are not claiming the data favours no acceleration, they're just saying it isn't totally excluded to high significance by this one test. Ok, very few cosmologists will care because a single cosmological test on it's own isn't very powerful, it will have degeneracies in it's constraints. The constraints from supernovae alone are very poor but it's the combination of other data sets that makes modern cosmology so powerful. What they do here is just dismiss all those other tools as indirect, it's a cheap dismissal and it's not justified ignoring most of cosmological information we have and claiming to know anything. But fine whatever, it's their paper. But then they spout this:

There is other data available that appears to support the idea of an accelerating universe, such as information on the cosmic microwave background – the faint afterglow of the Big Bang – from the Planck satellite. However, Professor Sarkar said: ‘All of these tests are indirect, carried out in the framework of an assumed model, and the cosmic microwave background is not directly affected by dark energy. Actually, there is indeed a subtle effect, the late-integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect, but this has not been convincingly detected.

In one simple paragraph they have sunk their paper. The first is subtitle, they dismiss the CMB powerspectrum as an indirect test of dark energy, true. But supernovae have a degeneracy between the matter density and dark energy, a prior on the matter density will massively improve their constraints on dark energy making the detection significant.

Secondly the ISW hasn't been detected at 5 sigma true, because it is a hard measurement as the primordial fluctuations on the CMB are much brighter. However the ISW has been detected at 3 sigma in many independent surveys, that information should have been combined with their constraints which would have improved their evidence making it significant. They didn't do this and they don't justify it. Even by their standard that indirect tests don't count their conclusions are bunk.

For this reason I think the paper is a waste of time, the conclusions are simply wrong. Nobody cares if you study one cosmological test in isolation if it doesn't make strong conclusions, the cosmological information they have chosen to exclude from this study vastly outstrips the information they have studied. I've heard this stuff before and I don't think it will make any difference in cosmology.

 

[haidut]

I think it's a bit premature to revoke a Nobel Prize. One study is just one bit of evidence. I don't mean that in a dismissive way. I think this study should be weighted accordingly and further investigation needed. But it's not a slam dunk according to a few cosmologists haunts online (yeah yeah orthodoxy and such).

I'm going to quote a comment pulled from elsewhere since the best I can do is read opinions of people who understand this stuff much better than I do.

I wonder what these cosmologists would say about the Narlikar theory of gravity linked to above. Even Richard Feynman said it was his best bet for a correct theory of Universe evolution. There are plenty of models consistent with evidence that predict a stable-state Universe. The observed redshift can be cause by many other events, not just expansion of space-time.

 

[jaa]

I wonder what these cosmologists would say about the Narlikar theory of gravity linked to above. Even Richard Feynman said it was his best bet for a correct theory of Universe evolution. There are plenty of models consistent with evidence that predict a stable-state Universe. The observed redshift can be cause by many other events, not just expansion of space-time.

That's cool. I like Feynman and his opinion is valuable. But it can only add a minuscule amount of weight to the H-N theory. And who knows what Feynman would think today if he were alive after the large bits of evidence in favour of an accelerating universe came in.

This is a very interesting result and my opinion has shifted towards the linear expansion model, but on a whole it's still with the consensus view. From my perspective, it appears people are poking holes in the methodology and criticizing extrapolating the result from just supernova, and not being able to fit the data to supernova, CMB data, and baryon acoustic oscillation at the same time. I don't even know how to evaluate that outside the surface examination that some guy who sounds like he knows what he's talking about on a physics forum said that and others agreed.

Anyway thanks for posting this. I always enjoy your physics posts. The theories that were unknown to me help expand my mind (maybe or maybe not at an accelerating rate) whether or not they'll turn out to be true in the end.

 

[jaa]

Read an interesting article from Scientific American about this paper today.

Have Astronomers Decided Dark Energy Doesn't Exist?

Once you read the article, however, it’s safe to say there is no need to revise our present understanding of the universe. All the paper does is slightly reduce our certainty in what we know—and then only by discarding most of the cosmological data on which our understanding is based. It also ignores important details in the data it does consider. And even if you leave aside these issues, the headlines are wrong anyway. The study concluded that we’re now only 99.7 percent sure that the universe is accelerating, which is hardly the same as “it’s not accelerating.”

Furthermore, the overwhelming confidence astronomers have that the universe is expanding faster now than it was billions of years ago is based on much more than just supernova measurements. These include tiny fluctuations in the pattern of relic heat after the Big Bang (i.e., the cosmic microwave background) and the modern day imprint of those fluctuations in the distribution of galaxies around us (called baryon acoustic oscillations). The present study also ignores the presence of a substantial amount of matter in the Universe, confirmed numerous times and ways since the 1970’s, further reducing the study confidence. These other data show the universe to be accelerating independently from supernovae. If we combine the other observations with the supernova data, we go from 99.99 percent sure to 99.99999 percent sure. That’s pretty sure!

So they're saying that even if you grant the CMB and baryon oscillations can be attributed to theories that don't call for an accelerating universe, this study still concludes there's a 99.7% chance that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. If you grant that the standard theories of CMB and baryon oscillating stand even a tiny 10% chance of being true, this pushes an accelerating expansion universe odds to well over 99.999%. You can be really mean and cut that back by orders of magnitude to 99.99%. That's still a big hurdle to overcome and corresponding requires a lot of evidence to prove wrong. It's unlikely anything short of a prediction that linear expansion makes that conflicts with accelerated expansion is going to do the trick.

 

[EndAllDisease]

If one was to apply a William Blake-esque philosophy to cosmology and look at things based solely on observations gathered from their own experience, their conclusions would be as follows:

1. Nothing in my own experience suggests the earth has curvature
2. Nothing in my own experience suggests the ground beneath my feet is spinning
3. The sun and moon appear small and make daily circles not far above the clouds
4. All I know about the stars is that they are tiny orbs of light in the sky. Planetary bodies? Maybe.

Yet instead of these simple observations being looked at as common sense, we're told to reject our own experience and submit to the worldview of 'authorities'. The same thing that happens in nutrition happens in cosmology.

 

[Drareg]

If one was to apply a William Blake-esque philosophy to cosmology and look at things based solely on observations gathered from their own experience, their conclusions would be as follows:

1. Nothing in my own experience suggests the earth has curvature
2. Nothing in my own experience suggests the ground beneath my feet is spinning
3. The sun and moon appear small and make daily circles not far above the clouds
4. All I know about the stars is that they are tiny orbs of light in the sky. Planetary bodies? Maybe.

Yet instead of these simple observations being looked at as common sense, we're told to reject our own experience and submit to the worldview of 'authorities'. The same thing that happens in nutrition happens in cosmology.

On point 1 ,humans with their experience have created cameras that we send into space and send back video images. Humans also use geometry,we know formsfrom this.
On point 2 ,the sun moving across the sky suggest otherwise.
Point 3 answers point 2.
Point 4 requires your to read a bit more or in the spirit of Blake buy a telescope for experiencing the tiny orbs through a lense.

If want more views and hits for you theory you would do well to take the holographic theory of reality angle,essentially everything being projected from 2d.
It's the lenses of the senses creating/projecting 3D, you will then be "guru"and wealthy from your YouTube subscribers friend.

 

[raypeatclips]

Too much money is at stake for the continued duping of the masses.

I see the whole reason for big pharma duping, what serious money is there to be made with theories on the universe?

 

[haidut]

I see the whole reason for big pharma duping, what serious money is there to be made with theories on the universe?

Most of current cosmology is a direct outgrowth of medieval religious teachings. Big Bang, unseeable and unfathomable reality (Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics), random behavior of the Universe (and evolution/genes), decaying matter, your fate is fixed, increasing entropy, etc. All of these are heavily influenced by theology and some are even directly borrowed from religious texts. All of science up until today is mostly done in service of some power.
It's not so much about the money to be made with fake theories, it's to justify the status quo.

 

[WestCoaster]

The funny thing is, there is a lot about our world and so called universe people dont' know, despite the answers being right under the noses yet refuse to believe them, as Flat earth member said so bluntly. Being this is a Ray Peat forum I figured this was nutritional conversation/study based....

If we want to go down that rabbit hole, thermal imaging scopes do prove there is no curve because they only operate in a straight line. This due to the fact thermal scopes cannot detect mirages are finite in detail. They come in ranges as short as 50m up to over 300 miles (military grade). If you look at the curve calculator based on the circumference of 40,075km, it comes out to 8 inches per mile squared. This means that basically after 3 miles you've got an alleged 3-5ft drop which is easily detectable with a thermal scope over water (because water is flat). It's enough to make a shoreline disappear or a hull of a boat disappear or distort. 3 mile thermal scopes are abundantly available in military surplus stores, spy stores, or attachments to smart phones. People have the capability to prove the shape of the planet quite easily. Longer range scopes are available but cost quite a bit of moolah, but might be obtainable if you can convince the seller you want to test it. Getting a hold of a 60 mile thermal cam can immediately put the chicago skyline over lake Michigan mirage fiasco to rest. That technically should be 2200ft below eye level, but as one can see with a thermal scope, that isn't the case. These scopes are so finite in detail, it can detect your eyeballs easily from 60 miles away, or even if you've wet yourself. The Navy uses these scopes over 300 miles.

I'm not going to delve into it more than that because it's not mine (or anyone else's job) to convince anybody; much like everyone else who sees the truth now, they need to seek the evidence on their own and come to their own informed conclusion.

What happened to me, I came into it very confident thinking I was right, simply because the pictures, we have so many pictures from space, or did we. Until someone asked me this ridiculous question "dude, did you ever even bother to look up whose responsible for the pictures of earth". Me "No, but NASA obviously". "But who at NASA is responsible for those pictures? Look it up". So I look it up, sure enough a name comes up "Robert Simmons", and his blog is linked right to the NASA website, and the guy said read it, read it out loud. After reading it, there was many damning things in that write up, but there was one particular sentence in that blog that was the the straw that broke the camel's back, and here is what it says which you can even find now if you look it up:

"Then we wrapped the flat map around a ball. My part was integrating the surface, clouds, and oceans to match people’s expectations of how Earth looks from space. That ball became the famous Blue Marble."

After reading that a few times, it immediately pops into my head "so where is the photograph then?" Not only that, why are we supplied a picture/painting/photoshop of earth based on our expectations and not an actual photograph? So of course if you look up actual photographs of earth, everything that's returned is, well, these photoshopped images. So at this point, that's when things turned, because obviously something was amiss here. Once you go down that rabbit hole, you realize there is a a lot more going on than people think. The evidence is overwhelming supporting a flat plain or at the very minimum no globe, but it's immediately killed with a thermal imaging scope because it is a scientific method to prove the actual shape. It's so damning in fact that it caused Neil Degrasse Tyson to immediately kill one of his live Q&A feeds, and it also caused a physics forum to shut down once these physics geeks got a hold of these scopes and prove it to themselves.

But as I said, it's nobody's job to convince anyone of anything; people need to form their own conclusions and opinion. All I've done is given the main sticking point in the debate and that's the pictures. Once people see where the pictures come from and they aren't actual photographs but mere photo-shopped images, that's when people start looking deeper if they truly are curious. They realize there are no actual pictures, then the question of why if we have all those satellites up there and the ISS.. well when people start looking deeper into that, they come to more revelations. Some people don't care, some do, research it if you care and form your own opinion.

Once people start researching it fully, they hit another sticking point, 2 actually. 1) How could such a lie be pulled off by so many people.. well the thing is, it doesn't take a lot, it's called compartmentalization. 2) They can't believe why such a lie occurred. Which if you do enough research, it will become very apparent as to why. Ultimately if you guys and gals care, you'll look all this stuff up yourself.

Going back to the original post of a universe that is or isn't ever-expanding, how can one even believe there is a universe or even space period if we cant even be supplied simple photographs of our planet? If they lie about one thing, what else are they exactly lying about? Have fun looking that portion of it up too, you guys may come to some interesting revelations of what you now know vs what you thought you knew.

 

[raypeatclips]

@WestCoaster Howcome all the other planet we can actually see with our own eyes are round and earth isn't?

 

[jaa]

Most of current cosmology is a direct outgrowth of medieval religious teachings. Big Bang, unseeable and unfathomable reality (Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics), random behavior of the Universe (and evolution/genes), decaying matter, your fate is fixed, increasing entropy, etc. All of these are heavily influenced by theology and some are even directly borrowed from religious texts. All of science up until today is mostly done in service of some power.
It's not so much about the money to be made with fake theories, it's to justify the status quo.

All of these seem like theories with the most evidence behind them (if you switch the Copenhagen form of QM to Many Worlds). I see how you could think the big bang is rooted in creation theology, but it's based on evidence of inflation. How are the others related to religious texts?

 

[meatbag]

Most of current cosmology is a direct outgrowth of medieval religious teachings. Big Bang, unseeable and unfathomable reality (Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics), random behavior of the Universe (and evolution/genes), decaying matter, your fate is fixed, increasing entropy, etc. All of these are heavily influenced by theology and some are even directly borrowed from religious texts. All of science up until today is mostly done in service of some power.
It's not so much about the money to be made with fake theories, it's to justify the status quo.

Haidut, have you checked out Miles Mathis' work; Homepage for Miles Mathis science site ? (found him through Twy)

 

[haidut]

All of these seem like theories with the most evidence behind them (if you switch the Copenhagen form of QM to Many Worlds). I see how you could think the big bang is rooted in creation theology, but it's based on evidence of inflation. How are the others related to religious texts?

The medieval religious idea of "corruption of the body" was the primary motivation behind the second law of thermodynamics, decaying matter, etc which then led to the idea of inherent randomness even though most of the evidence now points to the Universe being an open system, and as such entropy always non-decreasing is only relevant to artificially isolated systems. I think we don't have a solid idea yet of what matter is and how it evolves. I don't think we have a solid idea of space either. The space as flexible rubber sheet which bends under the influence of gravity is a very poor idea and no physicist has been able to explain why the bending would not create an opposing force of equal magnitude due to the third Newtonian law, which will equalize the "pressure" from gravity. I am not saying there is no evidence for any of the current theories, I just think they are a very poor explanation of reality and require exorbitant amount of "normalizations" (as in Feynman's QED) to make them work. I think Milo Wolff's ideas have a lot more merit then mainstream press likes to ascribe to them.
http://wsminfo.org/articles/GREIT6Oct06.htm
And the guy is not some wacko self-taught herbalist that came up with a TOE in one of his tonic-infused deliriums. He is physicist and has a legitimate and testable explanation of how reality truly works. Not saying he is completely correct either, but he is definitely on more correct path (IMO) than most of the physics people I have ever talked to. String theorists are the worst (no offense meant to anybody here who may be one). Everybody who claims that reality is unfathomable and unknowable should not be allowed to call themselves physicist. Sounds like something a medieval monk would say.
Anyways, enough of my rant. Hopefully with the recent confirmations of Bohm's theory predictions (which are surprisingly close to Wolff's above) physics can resume on the more sensible path.

 

[haidut]

Haidut, have you checked out Miles Mathis' work; Homepage for Miles Mathis science site ? (found him through Twy)

Yes, I have been reading his website lately. Very interesting, and I will probably follow up with some posts on his TOE.

 

[meatbag]

Yes, I have been reading his website lately. Very interesting, and I will probably follow up with some posts on his TOE.

Awesome!!!

 

[Regina]

Most of current cosmology is a direct outgrowth of medieval religious teachings. Big Bang, unseeable and unfathomable reality (Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics), random behavior of the Universe (and evolution/genes), decaying matter, your fate is fixed, increasing entropy, etc. All of these are heavily influenced by theology and some are even directly borrowed from religious texts. All of science up until today is mostly done in service of some power.
It's not so much about the money to be made with fake theories, it's to justify the status quo.

What about, Newton who came up with his 3 laws of motion when he was only 23? He refused to take the Holy Orders of the COE. And then there's Galileo who almost got burned at the stake.