Posted on 06/13/2026 5:43:37 AM PDT by MtnClimber
The uncertainty of science: In two somewhat self-righteous press releases today from two different academic organizations, scientists who have been for three decades touting the somewhat uncertain evidence that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, thus requiring the ad hoc creation of something they label “dark energy” to explain it, insisted that their theory is still right despite publication of a paper last year that said their evidence was weak and unconvincing.
The headlines of the first press release is especially insulting to the very concept of the scientific method:
- Royal Astronomical Society: ‘Crisis averted’ as experts confirm universe’s expansion IS accelerating
- University of Southhampton: Universe expansion still accelerating say astronomers
Both press releases have an arrogant attitude to those questioning the theory of dark energy, but the first is truly egregious. It is filled with bombastic claims, such as calling it “a crisis” for anyone to dare question the theory. It also uses a reliance on authority to justify its position (“The researchers … include two Nobel Laureates and represent institutions worldwide”). And finally, it demands that such questioning end, so “we can get back to trying to understand what this dark energy actually is, rather than wondering if it exists at all.”
The 2025 study that questioned the existence of dark energy — claiming the universe’s expansion rate was not accelerating — was actually part of a string of similar results. It did not occur in a vacuum, and actually stemmed from the overall uncertainty of the original supernova data.
Scientists in the 1990s had begun by assuming the brightness of a certain type of supernova is always the same, no matter when or where it happened. They then measured such supernovae in the early universe and found their brightness suggested the universe was expanding faster than predicted.
Since then, multiple studies have noted the weakness of that basic assumption. We don’t know enough about these supernovae, nor do we know enough about the environment in which they occur in the early universe.
The bottom line: The theory of dark energy might fit the facts as we have them now, but those facts remain uncertain and open to doubt. It is perfectly reasonable to question those facts, and to try to stifle that questioning violates the very fundamentals of the scientific method, which demands you question everything, that you search for truth wherever it may lead.
Sadly, this pattern of arrogance by cosmologists is not new. It has grated on my nerves since my first interview with a cosmologist in 1995, when she got insulted and huffy because I dared ask her some tough questions. This arrogance has gotten so bad that in 2022 24 scientists signed a petition protesting the censorship of their work for questioning the Big Bang theory.
Meanwhile, the data remains uncertain and actually contradictory. One set of data says the Hubble constant (the expansion rate) is one number, while another equally trustworthy data set says the constant is another number. And almost a decade of intense research has failed to resolve the conflict.
This new work might have proven the dark energy theory is still viable, but the press releases do little to convince anyone.
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you,
Jim
“how would hairdressers know about dark energy?”
my first thought as well ...
Let me sum this up for those who want to know.
1) We have a cosmological explanation that we NEED to apply to fit the Big Bang model.
2) The big bang model needs a certain amount of mass (and subsequently energy) to exist in the universe for it to have even a chance of occurring.
3) The actual observations are showing we are missing large numbers of orders of magnitudes to mass and energy for the big bang to have happened.
4) Since there is no better explanation than the Big Bang - science has clung to what they know is not probable
5) To defend their beliefs (without evidence), they created Dark Matter and Dark Energy - the idea is that it’s and Invisible Mass and Energy at immense scale - far more matter and energy that we see in all the galaxies.
6) They have searched to try to prove it exists, but can’t.
What’s funny is they have painted themselves into a logical corner! How so? They have to have prove that something exists that they claim they cannot observe. Now you may say that they can see the impact of that on an observable thing....Which is like saying I can prove God’s existence by His impact on people’s lives. They find this very distasteful...
Warning: This contains crude language, but makes a hilarious point!
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/qJguU6sLR-8?feature=share
The further back you look the bigger the Universe seems when it is actually getting smaller the further back you look!
This not only magnifies objects the further back you look but makes them dimmer as well...giving the illusion they are further away than they are! Your standard candles become dimmer over time as a result making the universe look like it is expanding at a growing rate the further back you look!.
All this conjecture about an accelerating expansion is built on a faulty foundation!
Anti-matter has positive mass, just like regular matter.
I like your explanation. I think Dark Energy is like Phlogiston theory or the Philosophers Stone. A theory that many believed was true at the time but was later proved to be wrong.
But math is racist anyway!
“It sucks in light.........”
Anything that sucks in light will appear dark.
I was just reading how black holes radiate Hawking Radiation outward which creates a physics paradox.
Anything that is created must have an opposing force that balances it out. This is a characteristic of wholeness.
Thus, masculine is balanced with feminine, protons are balanced with electrons. In the grand scheme of things, just as God created Life, there is a balancing energy that we call evil that is anti-life. Evil is also a creation of God and exists within God.
Many years ago I had a vision. In the vision, the closer I got to Heaven, the more my body wobbled.
I kept expanding my consciousness away from the Light of Heaven and found myself going through the black hole at the center of the Milky Way Galaxy.
What I saw and experienced was the exact reverse of our Galaxy, spinning in the opposite direction, balancing out our reality. It was a dark universe that balanced our Light universe. When I expanded into it, I became “whole” and stopped wobbling as total peace and calm came over me.
On the opposite side of the black hole, dark matter was expanding and our Light was viewed as evil in that realm. Just as dark energy is perceived as evil in this realm.
I have never fully understood the vision.
No I do not do drugs, legal or otherwise. 😁
Good summary—the deeper you dig into “science” cosmology the more ridiculous it is.
Most of these “scientists” are arrogant con artists.
Proposing a force that has not been proven for such a long time could be an example of extrapolating theory from weak assumptions or axioms. It might also indicate that our “explanation” i.e. dark energy is incorrect.
It won’t be science, if we insist something exists when we have no direct evidence for it.
If we can’t derive information below Plancks distance, and Heisenbergs uncertainty principle hampers us further it may well be that we have hit our physical proof limits.
IMHO
What you say is true.
However, if mass and energy are directly related, would not negative energy correlate with negative mass?
Forgive me if this is a stupid question on my part.
My next thought is, How does consciousness enter into the formula? For me, consciousness has mass. I feel and often see its various frequencies and densities.
You’re going to make him blush.
Maybe what you are doing is trying to fit obtuse scientific concepts into the vernacular of common societal notions. Giving it common clothes to wear.
But sleep might help also.
Freegards.
It is idiots and morons like these that give people the WRONG idea about science. Fire these idiots.
Neutrinos. The universe pumps out these particles in massive amounts but there is not much out there that can remove them. My theory is something slows them down and they merely go into orbits just like ordinary matter. That is the Dark Matter out there.
I misread it at first also.
And much that we never will know.
Im oddly bothered by the use of the word “theory” when Whats being discussed is a hypothesis that may be correct but needs to be tested. If a researcher cannot devise a valid test, it’s still a hypothesis. I have no problem with the idea of dark energy but my hypothesis is that if the phenomenon is ever fully understood it will be somewhat different.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.