Sheldon, our physics color commentator, writes to say, “I’ve mentioned before that Subir Sarkar at Oxford has questioned the existence of “dark energy” and by implication, the award of the 2011 Nobel prize. Sabine Hossenfelder’s blog links to a 7 minute summary of the Nobel prize and Sarkar’s work:
But even more compelling is her 45 minute interview with Sarkar here:
In the 45 minute interview, note (29:30) how cosmologists assume dark energy in order to prove dark energy. It is a logic popularized by Darwinists but in my experience, it is also endemic in all fields of physics. For some reason, in all the effusive praise for the scientific method by both educators and scientists alike, no one ever mentions the need for elementary logic.
Rob Sheldon is the author of Genesis: The Long Ascent and The Long Ascent, Volume II .
See also: Rob Sheldon: Are “multiple measurements ”closing in on dark energy? Nope.
Researchers: Either dark energy or string theory is wrong. Or both are. But dark energy is so glitzy! Isn’t it a line of cosmetics already?
Researchers: The symmetrons needed to explain dark energy were not found
Rob Sheldon: Has dark energy finally been found? In pop science mags?
Are recent dark energy findings a blow for multiverse theory?
Science at sunset: Dark energy might make a multiverse hospitable to life… if it exists
Follow UD News at Twitter!
3 Replies to “Rob Sheldon on dark energy: Does it exist?”
once one considers the strongest science (highest probability explanation of the empirical observations) using basic science, as presented in the SPIRAL cosmological model, we need not predict, nor require, the missing dark energy and matter, that the current entrenched consensus SCM-LCDM requires, to have even a chance of being a valid hypothesis. So the ‘5% regular/normal matter’ is near 100% of all matter. We also find the entire universe approximates the visible universe, no ongoing cosmic expansion, and a max radius of 4B LY vs consensus 46.5B LY).
Once studied, fairly considered and disseminated, the math and science should dictate SPIRAL will replace SCM-LCDM as the new standard.
reference SPIRAL in volume II of the YeC Moshe Emes series for Torah and science alignment. here is the infographic that compares the two competing cosmological models on several issues: SPIRAL vs SCM info-graphic: http://www.academia.edu/36013854
This makes the Nobel prize committee look really bad, doesn’t it?
How could they give the prestigious prize for something that is not solidly proven ?
Of note: Hugh Ross comments on the extreme headache that “dark energy’ is giving atheistic astrophysicists at the 6:09 minute mark of the following video