To celebrate the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics I have written the post Accelerating Expansion Without Dark Energy? on the new home at The World as Computation of My Book of Knols.
More about the dark age of physics as presented by the Nobel Laureates here.
Inlägg
So instead of dark energy you have an ad hoc disappearance of the expansion force, for which you have no explanation. Not very convincing.
SvaraRaderaYes, maybe the need of an expansion force is just
SvaraRaderaan illusion. May it is simply an effect of non-homogeneity.
I find it amazing that nearly every week you manage to prove large ideas wrong with simple toy model and simple calculations. On nearly all subjects in physics, one after the other, invalidating work down by people who spent years with deep involvement in the data and theory.
SvaraRaderaHas it ever occurred to you that they probably thought of your objections on day 2 of their work and have perfectly good refutations for them, and you just don't know these arguments? That you are only skimming the surface of knowledge? That you never cite their work or their many papers were all the details are worked out? That the science community doesn't just overlook simple things and these issues are all hashed out in long, involved arguments?
Your enthusiasm is commendable. But your approach is not.
Thanks. Yes, I am surprised myself, but of course I may have missed something essential. And I do not pretend to have the truth. Just some simple thoughts on my blog. You can skip it if you don't get anything out or have some substantial objections.
SvaraRadera@margolin Cite these refutations.
SvaraRaderaSaying something is simple while not proving it shows that you cannot make your case, and that you are full of hot air.
You make the appeal to headcount fallacy, appealing to the "experts" and how they can never be wrong. That is an act of faith. You do not seem to express an ounce of skepticism; you take every paper as truth.
You'd be surprised that the scientific community does, indeed, overlook simple things. As with the AGW hysteria. If a theory can be proven wrong, it is wrong. Nothing more, nothing less. Love of theory is bad science.
Your attempt at arguments is nice. But they do not exist and as you cannot prove your point, you have nothing to say. Deifying science is the worst mistake you can make.
Oh, and margolin? Where's the case for dark energy? If we don't know anything about it, how can we prove it exists? Ah ha, see what I did there? Loving theories doesn't make you a skeptical person!