The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
"Dark energy" is probably flame and not real
Poast new message in this thread
Date: January 16th, 2026 8:29 PM Author: cucumbers This might sound like a hot take at first glance, but it really is true.
"Dark energy" -- a "groundbreaking" "discovery" from 1998/1999 that led to a Nobel prize in physics. But that research was based on extremely flimsy foundations and assumptions along with a ridiculously insufficient and small set of data in terms of number of supernovae observed (around 100).
One assumption that has been questioned is the Chandrasekhar limit of the supernovae observed, as many supernovae have since been observed that violate this limit. The number of abnormalities observed has led to peer-reviewed studies in mainstream journals showing that the limit does likely vary depending on galaxy age and composition. This dependency nicely aligns with the "evidence" for dark matter. In other words, this alone provides sufficient doubt about the existence of dark energy as one of its key assumptions is simply wrong.
Perhaps there's an alternate explanation that still upholds the evidence for dark energy, so let's look elsewhere: that pitifully small sample from the original studies happens to align with the direction of the movement of the solar system relative to the CMB. This means that this flimsy "evidence" for dark energy is merely an effect of the Doppler shift. Larger sample sets (400+ supernovae) looking in all directions account for this effect and show no evidence for dark energy.
Okay, that last one is harder to ignore, but let's go further: the isotropic model of the universe only applies at the largest scales, but not at the scales used in the observational data from dark energy research. Without this isotropic assumption, it's uncontroversial to assume that different parts of the universe may be expanding at different rates depending on density. The "evidence" for dark energy fits the model of our region of space simply being slightly under-dense.
More recent, automated dark energy surveys have been partially and quietly released that contradict the "dark energy" model.
Is it possible to revoke a Nobel prize? libs? do you still fucking love science?
TLDR: the "discovery" of dark energy was extremely premature, based on very faulty assumptions with a pitifully small set of data, and just flat-out wrong. Physics is fraud. |
Date: January 16th, 2026 8:30 PM Author: https://i.imgur.com/ovcBe0z.png It's probably neighboring universes squeezing up against ours (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5823055&forum_id=2.#49595362) |
 |
Date: January 16th, 2026 8:36 PM Author: cucumbers It's actually probably not even a real thing, and further research into it is probably a waste of resources and time at this point.
Note that my screed is based on mainstream, peer-reviewed publications and not crackpots on the internet. |
|
Date: January 16th, 2026 8:48 PM Author: dupa driving a champagne 2005 lexus rx 330 yeah, probably. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5823055&forum_id=2.#49595405) |
|
Date: January 16th, 2026 8:40 PM Author: Bronus Swagner "Scientists" gave themselves a medal for inventing a magical concept that explains why their models are wrong (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5823055&forum_id=2.#49595392) |
|
Date: January 16th, 2026 8:49 PM Author: Online Men It’s a $CAM! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5823055&forum_id=2.#49595408) |
|
Date: January 16th, 2026 8:42 PM Author: UN peacekeeper isn't dark energy the fudge factor needed to account for the calculated rate of accereleration of the expansion of the universe? are you questioning the accuracy of that calculation? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5823055&forum_id=2.#49595398) |
|
Date: January 16th, 2026 8:51 PM Author: Yummy Phase Pol Pot I think there's a decent chance the acceleration calculations are wrong. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5823055&forum_id=2.#49595419) |
|
Date: January 16th, 2026 9:13 PM Author: cucumbers One underlying point I'm making is that there is more than sufficient evidence to question that the "acceleration of the expansion of the universe" is even happening.
That "fudge factor," AKA the cosmological constant, was simply a largely undefined placeholder needed to balance out Einstein's equations until "dark energy" neatly explained it. However, the value and meaning of the fudge factor has been questioned due to the reasons I listed.
The latest research into "dark energy" involves automated surveys of huge numbers of stars, galaxies, etc. This research is ongoing and only some data has been released, but what it indicates is there are significant deviations from the "dark energy" model that could likely be explained without the need for dark energy; it could merely be a result of minor variations in density across the scales needed to measure "dark energy," as I mentioned in the OP. |
|
Date: January 16th, 2026 8:50 PM Author: chopped and screwed millennial unc (guy who is subscribed to "Sabine Hossenfelder" on youtube) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5823055&forum_id=2.#49595411) |
|
Date: January 16th, 2026 9:14 PM Author: cucumbers Do I sound like I fucking love science and follow physics YouTubers? Modern physics is mostly fraud. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5823055&forum_id=2.#49595470) |
|
Date: January 16th, 2026 8:50 PM Author: [deleted by poaster] (my rich inner screens) lets make up something invisible and call it something and challenge everyone else to prove it wrong. or right. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5823055&forum_id=2.#49595412) |
|
Date: January 16th, 2026 8:51 PM Author: Candy Ride But the scientists said it was real. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5823055&forum_id=2.#49595418) |
|
Date: January 16th, 2026 8:55 PM Author: fairy knight what’s the deal on that small sample from the original studies? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5823055&forum_id=2.#49595430) |
|
Date: January 16th, 2026 9:29 PM Author: cucumbers Two problems with that small sample:
Physicists are not good at statistics. There were around 100 supernovae total between the two research groups, so around 50 each. n = ~50 is simply not large enough to confidently make complicated cosmological predictions like dark energy.
The samples did not account for something as simple as Doppler shift. |
|
Date: January 16th, 2026 9:47 PM Author: fairy knight a lot of what these cosmologists and physicists don’t realize is you can’t simply build a “model” of God or understand Him from scientific observation alone. Attempting to do so will only cause further frustration. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5823055&forum_id=2.#49595551) |
|
Date: January 17th, 2026 8:56 AM Author: cucumbers This limitation has been identified since Newton developed his laws of gravitation, but not by everyone. Newton himself admitted it. David Hume appears to be the first influential philosopher to advance this idea. But it's too broad of a philosophical topic to be widely acknowledged by physicists and other scientists. The result is that physicists operate with the wrong mindset, which could unsurprisingly be the explanation for the lack of any significant advancements in physics beyond general relativity and quantum mechanics in around 100 years. There have been minor tweaks to the theories and new, practical uses, but from a broader theoretical standpoint, the field is largely stale despite being obviously very incomplete. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5823055&forum_id=2.#49596096) |
|
Date: January 16th, 2026 8:57 PM Author: Online Men I lold at the scientists when they said reconciling relativity with our observations requires the assumption that 95% of the mass in the universe is not observable. Lol. Maybe relativity is wrong, dumfucks. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5823055&forum_id=2.#49595433) |
|
Date: January 16th, 2026 9:07 PM Author: Candy Ride *angrily rips up pokemon card* (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5823055&forum_id=2.#49595455) |
|
Date: January 16th, 2026 9:54 PM Author: ALZABO (Guy who never got a Ricky blank bump) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5823055&forum_id=2.#49595568) |
|
Date: January 17th, 2026 9:09 AM Author: cucumbers some people used to think Ricky and I were the same person not flame (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5823055&forum_id=2.#49596108) |
|
Date: January 17th, 2026 9:03 AM Author: cucumbers Everything I've stated is not flame and not by any means a "unique" opinion; there are some autistic physics PhDs who share these views, but they're not prominent voices in popular science discussions. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5823055&forum_id=2.#49596105) |
|
Date: January 17th, 2026 9:06 AM Author: cucumbers Relatedly, a lot of "science communicators" appear to be kind of dumb and probably went down the communicator/popularizer route after failing in academia or whatever their original goal was. This could partially explain why what I've stated, despite being published in mainstream, peer-reviewed journals, has not been communicated effectively. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5823055&forum_id=2.#49596106) |
|
Date: January 17th, 2026 9:21 AM Author: cucumbers What's more readily acknowledged, although with the premature assumption that dark energy is indeed a real, is the large gap between what quantum theories predict to be the amount of energy in "empty" space through the existence of virtual particles and the observed "dark energy." I don't remember the exact discrepancy, but it's enormous: a difference of at least a factor of 10^20 (perhaps higher, but my knowledge is rusty). (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5823055&forum_id=2.#49596118) |
|
Date: January 17th, 2026 9:27 AM Author: https://i.imgur.com/ovcBe0z.png One of Einstein’s students asked him: “What does logic mean?”
Einstein said: “I will answer you with a question.”
“Suppose two workers enter a chimney to clean it. One comes out with a dirty face and the other with a clean face. Who will go wash their face?”
The student immediately and without hesitation replied, “Of course, the one with the dirty face.”
Einstein said: “Your answer is incorrect. The one who will wash their face is the one with the clean face, because he looked at his colleague’s face and assumed that his own face was as dirty as his colleague’s. The one with the dirty face will not wash his face, thinking it is clean like his colleague’s.”
The student said: “That is correct and logical.”
Einstein replied: “No, it is not correct, because the question itself is illogical. It is not logical for two men to enter the same chimney at the same time and for one to come out clean and the other dirty.”
In a few words, logic itself can collapse, so sometimes the problem is not in the answer but in the flawed question itself.
https://x.com/i/status/2012174150488469918 |