|
Hm, I fundamentally agree dark energy doesnt exist but for differing reasons. This acceleration of the universe has never sat well with me with how its "proven" with recent observations of ever older galaxies, which to me they are just seeing back in the past when accelaration from the "big bang event" would have been greater than now as I'd expect.
A lot of all this relies on measurements and constants that I feel are not accurate enough yet either, just too much guesswork going on it seems. Admitedly my maths isnt up to the task of even attempting to understand, let alone work through any of these papers.
I have encountered the assumption that figure rounding has no bearing on a simulation, it still gets you in the ballpark. In a venus transit project I contributed data on I was able to show that the simulation software was rounding a value from two to one decimal places and instead of projecting a straight path for venus across the sun it was an obvious banana curve which was clearly wrong and using actual observation data showed the rounding had to be present in their equation values even though it shouldn't have had any appreciable difference.
So I expect someone will take the time to review from scratch how to calculate the expansion rate accurately, then take precise data from observations to as good a precision as possible, and likewise to constants (which arent) and run the equations with full values until the very final result. Is there even s single source of truth data set in existance? I know things like the number of stars in a galaxy is an ever shifting estimate so if someone needs that value for a paper what would they use? We need a dataset that people can work through and add to that produces a final "cuurently accurate as of today" value instead of different groups having to redo the entire estimate in isolation every time.
|