Did Astronomers Just Prove Dark Energy is an Illusion?

Excellent video, very interesting.
Btw, it is "chinks" in the armor, not "kinks". A chink is a weak spot, through which a sword or arrow might penetrate, a kink is a twist, curve, or bend in something that is otherwise straight (like a road, or piece of wire).

I just can’t wait for the memes we’ll get when dark energy is disproven ☺️

Its like adding oil to the soapy water, it accelerates artificially for a small period of time due to the surface tension being broken.

All of the theories we come up with are based on "observations," many of which are not truly observed, but deduced based on other factors. We therefore are off to a bad start when trying to figure out the "BIG" picture, because we can only see such a small part of existence, and therefore have to "guess" at what we are seeing. We came up with "dark energy" and "expanding universe" because we were trying to figure out why certain things were happening. This is wrong - instead of simply observing and noting, we jumped right to drawing conclusions, and hence made up a whole lot of nonsense about dark energy (which nobody has any way of detecting or proving, may as well say "God made everything" since that is equally unprovable...) And the universe most likely is NOT expanding, it essentially a static void of nothingness sprinkled with a very small (proportionately) amount of matter and light energy. We thought red shift was because light was moving away from us, like a siren sound gets higher pitch as it approaches you, then lower pitched as it moves away? Please... That's like comparing bacteria movement to the speed of sound - sound and light speeds are so different you cannot say that this effect is because of relative movement! Not at speeds galaxies spread apart from each other, even from the same point - even if it was hundreds of KM/second, light travels at 300,000 km/s, and appears to still be travelling at the speed of light even if moving away from us - so no red shift because of moving away. More like red shifting over time and space as light "travels," similar to the "tired light" theory. Imagine light travelling billions or trillions of light years - do you think it will go on forever without losing energy? That would imply light is a perpetual motion machine, which is impossible due to the conservation of energy. If light never lost energy, we would still be seeing light from trillions of light years away at full brightness, i.e. no night darkness, you would look up at night and see a white background everywhere. So as light travels it loses energy - but still travels at the speed of light, so something has to give - it therefore must be frequency. We all know ultraviolet light has much more energy than visible light, which has more energy than infra red, which has more than radiation, then radio waves. As waves slow they lose energy, but still travel at the speed of light. So all the background microwave radiation is in fact just light that has travelled a VERY long time and distance. Likely from other "big bangs" that have and continue to happen all over the entire universe. This in itself proves that the entire universe is MUCH older than the 13 billion years we think it is. Why would our local observable universe be ALL there is in the entire universe? Nope, if it happened once, it happened over and over, all over the universe. So if we stopped trying to use facts to prove or disprove unrelated facts we know, we might be closer to finding the actual truth. The assumption that the background radiation was from the Big Bang itself is laughable - how could we "detect" energy that is travelling at the speed of light, 13 billiion years later, from all arouund us? To claim it is because the universe is expanding, and the radiation is detected in all directions, just sound stupid. If it did, we would have had to expand faster than the speed of light to stay ahead of it so that the energy is only just now reaching us? Or maybe it was just an exploding black hole that made our galaxy and perhaps a few others travelling in different directions, and most of the other galaxies we see, especially those travelling in strange directions like the Andromeda galaxy which is heading for us, came from other mini bangs? If a grenade explodes, you will never get a piece of shrapnel cross the path of another piece - they all explode out in a straight line from the centre. So no galactic mergers would ever be possible under a single Big Bang, yet we know they exist - in fact we will be merging with Andromeda in the future, proof that there was more than one big bang. We now see fully developed galaxies so far away from us that they couldn't possibly have formed in our big bang - further proof of other big bangs. Sometimes we see a "star" that disappears, or goes bright then disappears - could that be a new big bang creating a new galaxy? Once we start looking at the data instead of trying to fit everything into one neat box, we will be able to start to understand our universe. We may one day be able to formulate how much "shifting light does over time and space, and "look" at distant light sources, to determine how old our extra local universe actually is. Even radio waves could be weak older light just reaching us now from trilliions of light years away. And that may just be the tip of the iceburg as they say - we may find out there are other planes of existence and we are just one of many.

"Kink in the armour" is not a phrase.

Good, I'm happy there's progress on this. I've always hated dark energy and dark matter to a lesser degree

Dark energy exists alright, but closer observation reduces it to an explanation for math equations, and math doesn't explain anything. It's like masturbation. It feels like the real deal, but it ain't. Gleefully staring oneself blind at math without demanding it to provide true understanding, is an addiction that's very hard to get rid of.

The measuring of the supernovae was wrong, and has been shown.

The universe is not expanding at an accelerated rate.

"Dark energy" wasn't science to begin with. It was a metaphysical conjecture.

Does jawline correlate with phd in astronomy???? Who are these gigachads wtf

are you trying to tell me that scientists that talk in pure hypothetical jargon are talking out of their ass for the past 80+ years without anything to show for it? no way - i can't believe it, someone please tell me that is not the case please

astronomers??? ok.
I just came here to say, no , they did not.

So apply timescape to the problem with spiral galaxies having faster movement on the outer regions.
it's the lack of matter in that region causing a relatively faster flow rate of time, less mass.

R.I.P
Dark energy.

In my largely unecudated mind in the field I had thought, is time dilation over large distances taken into account for determening the acceleration? Surely, that must be an obvious thing. I guess not? What? How?

I’ve never liked dark matter and dark energy as explaining so many observations. Timescape sounds much better to me. The fact we have no direct way to test dark matter/energy always troubled me. Looking forward to alternative theories gaining traction

I always thought "dark matter" sounds more like a "space holder" for "we just don't know".....

No they didn't

Great work bro. Now if you can just stop confusing the global warming nonsense with the fact that we are exiting a cooling period, we will be all good.

Of course it's wrong. It could literally just be that the Universe is flowing into the lack of something outside of it. Like a true vacuum pulling on a false vacuum. The fact we can't see what's outside of the observable universe means we are just guessing anyways. Dark matter always seemed like a band aid that's not actually correct.

By the end of his career, Hubble was more convinced of light losing energy than he was of expansion. Expansion and dark energy are pure BS.

I've never bought the dark energy theory, even when it really seemed to work.

Ive never liked the "dark" in dark enery or dark matter. It gives impression that its actually true.

Dark matter and dark energy don't explain the rotation of galaxies.

Its obvious that it was wrong. Okkams razor, cant see it, cant detect it, only exists to make equations balance.....err perhaps its a fudge factor.

Love this Christmas present, Cool Worlds

Yawn.

Ive always wondered, and haven't received a great response (keep in mind im not a physicist)-- if we know Newtonian physics breaks down at the quantum scale, how are we so sure it operates the same on the super-macro?

Shocking. Ad hoc hypothesis proven to be made up all along

Which is dark energy. All it is is just for example instead of having a negative electronic you have a positive electron and where the proton is positive there is no positive proton it said it's either negative or there's just none, and the neutrons has a charge and it's actually a positive. 😊😊😊 Let me just put it in simple terminology a photon is negative and anti photon is positive.

David looks like an even geekier version of Harry Potter I love it

We should bring back the mond-meter!

I have been saying that dark energy isn't causal to the acceleration of celestial bodies and formations near the edge of the local big bang, because the attraction comes from UCM (Universal colloidal matter) which is the regular baryonic stuff you get when quark/quantum particles decompress and start forming proton and neutrons, which can then subsequentially fuse into heavier elements during that decompression. Since the decompression of quark/quantum cloud that is formed by a local big bang decompersses from high denity to low density, the first to emergent will be protons and neutrons, despite an extreme pressure within the cloud, but far below the HMBH limit (hypermassive black hole, so massive it crushes it's mass constituents, baryons mostly, into quark/quantum substructures, thus halting gravity, and then going local big bang) and then since teh pressure is still very great forcing some of those to merge into heavier elements. Most of these will then start to fission again, but some that are more stable emerge next,s ince the prssure is going down continuously.

Dark energy and dark matter are artificial solutions to mathematical problems that could not be solved. They are fraudulent constructs added to equations to impose the desired results on the scientific community. Other definition: fraud.

My corrections it's called positrons. positrons are converted to an anti photon. A prime example of this is producing antihydrogen pair to scientists use a way called CERN to produce the antihydrogen.👍🏾👍🏾👍🏾👍🏾

a cope of astronomical proportions?

and you know, sonetimes things just make sense…especially when it explains it self rather than just being “an assumption” which is all lambda seems to be

The problem with scientists (not science) is that too many of them discuss theories as if they were proven. Which they are not. They often also only discuss the evidence in favor of a theory, and ignore the assumptions that were made and any evidence against the theory. In short they act more like politicians or shamans than scientists. Of course people rightfully pick up on this and come to the conclusion that it is all a scam. Which isn't true, but understandable when so many scams are passed off as scientific.

It’s been scary to think “we don’t know what it is” makes up over 2/3s of the observable universe. The more beautifully named “Timescapes” would be a more welcome and less dreadful explanation!

Of course it's fucking wrong. It always has been. It's a plugin to save equations that can't work without it's inclusion

It always seemed unreal so not surprising. Next is the collapse of the wave function

Glad at least some areas of science are still allowed to be questioned

Alternative theories which challenge "the established scientific consensus" do not receive research funding. The 'Big Bang Theory' is just that- a theory. None of the phenomenon the Big Bang model predicted came true. The James Webb Telescope continues to find ancient, yet mature galaxies where they were "impossible" to be. The specious claim that 96% of the universe are made of two two we can't see or detect is the astrological equivalent of believing "ill humours" cause disease and must be extracted with leeches.

Betteridge's Law of Headlines says no.

What I learned from this video is that observing red shift from Earths gravitational well is creating blue shift. Well if that’s the case it’s best to observe from the void itself maybe between earth and mars. Somewhere there’s no gravitational influence.

How would this alter the fate of the universe? No heat death?

Eric Weinstein is right. A lot of the modern scientists are high on their own farts. And riding on the coattails of real geniuses of times past

Fantastic video and thanks for the shout out! Cosmology is going to be an exciting field over the next few years with all the new data that is coming.