3 votes

Arizona Professor Challenges Popular Dark Energy Theory

January 10, 2013

A popular theory that relies on dark energy, thought to be the main contributor to the accelerating expansion of the Universe does not fit newly obtained data with regards to one fundamental constant – the proton to electron mass ratio.

Rodger Thompson, a University of Arizona astronomy professor, disclosed his findings Wednesday at the American Astronomical Society (AAS) meeting in Long Beach, California. He argues that dark energy theories, which have emerged as variations on Einstein’s theory of general relativity, do not support newly obtained results on the relative masses of protons and electrons during the earliest stages of the Universe.

He computed the ratio predicted by dark energy models, a hypothetical form of energy believed to be found throughout space, and found that these theories (which add a scalar field to Einstien’s equations to account for the acceleration o the Universe) did not fit the new data. Thompson’s findings “impact our understanding of the universe and point to a new direction for the further study of its accelerating expansion,” the university said in a recent statement.

read more http://www.redorbit.com/news/space/1112761648/dark-energy-th...




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

If you really look into it with objective eyes ...

... you just might come to the conclusion that mainstream astronomy is dogma, not science.

The Big Bang Theory rests on one assumption (not proven fact, but assumption) that observable redshift is caused by a similar thing as doppler effect in sound.

This is an assumption. The problem is, over the years just about everything the BBT should predict is not found in the evidence.

Things like dark matter and dark energy are NOT observable. They are THEORIES that came into being precisely BECAUSE the BBT has NOT accurately predicted what astronomers should find.

IOW: astronomers figure that, based on BBT being true, they SHOULD find x, y, and z. But when the look for x, y, and z, then ALWAYS find something different -- something that DOES NOT fit the BBT.

So, rather than questioning their assumptions, they come up with NEW theories, such as dark energy, etc. to "explain" why the BBT did not produce expected results.

When MOST of the evidence does NOT conform to a theory, do you create new theories to "save" the existing theory, or do you consider the possibility that there is a false premise in your theory?

Today's astronomers, funded directly or indirectly by government, just churn out more and more theories to explain away why their main theory (BBT) does not explain the evidence.

So, this news is to be expected. It should not be a surprise.