(Illustration: ironical citation applying the work by R. A. Di Ieso)

There is No Dark Energy

..but spacetime goes on without being forced going on

This is a response to What the hell is going on with Dark Energy?. — As always in such articles physicist pretend their science is open to everything, physicists are allowed to question Einstein’s standard model etc. (In fact in this case a physicist would lose his reputation immediately.)

As always in such articles the utter confusion of arguments is caused by fundamentally wrong premises:

  • The article suggests in the concept of the bubble universe “dark energy” would only be needed to explain accelerated expansion.
    In fact already linear expansion assumes “dark energy”.
    (Well, both assumptions are wrong.)
  • The article suggests evidence for acceleration is not certain enough and could be a fluke of the data.
    In fact scaling of space (linear or not and no matter how tiny its rate is) means always exponential moving-away of galaxies. That means in large distances the “speed” of moving away is always faster than light — in even larger distances even a billion times faster than light.
    How much more accelerated should the universe be so that these physicists are “overwhelmingly” satisfied with reality?
  • The article describes the Oxford physicist’s Subir Sarkar’s view: Awarding of the Nobel Prize (2011) to the ‘theory of dark energy’ was more a political decision.
    Well, the article should instead clarify this: The whole (century-long) process of establishing Einstein’s Standard Model of Cosmology was a political one. (And scientific truth isn’t in it.)
  • The article cites Sarkar: “We could have a more complicated universe than the simple one Einstein assumed in the 1930s. And dark energy might just be an artifact of those simplifications.”
    The opposite is true. The unnecessarily complicated assumption of “dark energy” is caused by Einstein’s unnecessarily complicated assumption the world should be a sphere with a radius — just to fulfil his field equations (which are actually not developed for this purpose).

Furthermore Sarkar is cited: “I don’t think any of us should be arrogant enough to think our sense of physics should dictate the nature of the universe.” — Unfortunately Sarkar doesn’t realize, exactly this is what happens to himself. He is on the side of those who dictate the Einstein doctrine for one hundred years now. Sarkar argues cosmology should start from scratch and not from Einstein’s model. — But in the end he doesn’t dare.


My verdict is you don’t have to read Wilkins’ article. There is no other content in it than blether, vapouring and “gut feeling” of some academic bumble — excuses for their mantra “we don’t know”.
In fact the article is simply a guidance not to think and to preserve the status quo in physics (to preserve the Einstein doctrine).
Everyone who thinks gets the simple logical conclusion: There can’t be “gravity of the universe”.

Scaling of space isn’t about momentum (gravity/ energy/ dark energy). Scaling of space is a property of spacetime itself, like speed of light is, like curvature of spacetime is, like dilation of time is, like going-on of time is.

There is no “dark energy”, there is no “cosmological constant”, there is no “bubble universe”. — 
In particular there is no sense in it to apply the field equations to the universe as a whole (as a “bubble”).

More in my article Einstein’s Voodoo of the Bubble Universe.