The Dark Energy Controversy: Debunking the Accelerating Expansion Myth

While cosmologists commonly believe in the existence of dark energy to explain the accelerating expansion rate of the universe, this article delves into the criticisms against this concept. Drawing on profound statements by S?ren Kierkegaard, we explore why the traditional view of an accelerating universe is flawed and propose an alternative explanation based on the true shape and expansion rate of the universe.

The Flawed Belief in Dark Energy

According to current cosmology, the expansion of the universe is accelerating, leading to the assumption that a mysterious force called dark energy is at play. However, this widely accepted notion is fundamentally flawed. As S?ren Kierkegaard famously said, 'There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.'

Instead of accepting the true shape and expansion rate of the universe, as proposed by the author, cosmologists continue to adhere to the accelerating expansion myth. By assuming the universe is expanding faster than it should, they fall into the trap of believing in something that is not true.

The True Expansion Rate and Shape of the Universe

The author suggests that the universe has the shape of the surface of a 4-sphere, where the radius is increasing at the speed of light (c). By using the formula H c/R, one can calculate the expansion rate of the universe at any given age. This approach reveals that the current expansion rate is 70.90 km/s/Mpc, and 5 billion years ago, the expansion rate would have been 111.2 km/s/Mpc, which is 1.57 times faster than today's rate.

However, the current view holds that the expansion rate was less than 74 km/s/Mpc 5 billion years ago when it started accelerating. This discrepancy highlights the need for a more accurate understanding of the universe's true shape and expansion rate.

Bad Science and Incorrect Assumptions

The author argues that the determination of the expansion rate in the past was based on flawed methodology. By examining redshifts and light intensity from fewer than 100 type Ia supernovae and making incorrect assumptions, cosmologists arrived at an inaccurate conclusion.

Instead of using observational data to support their theories, these scientists relied on assumptions that do not hold up under scrutiny. This approach has led to the propagation of the accelerating expansion theory, which, according to the author, is a result of bad science, bad assumptions, and ultimately, bad scientists.

Conclusion

The debate surrounding the existence of dark energy and the accelerating expansion of the universe is far from settled. While current cosmology relies on an accelerating expansion model, the author argues for a more empirical and theoretically sound approach.

By adhering to the true shape and expansion rate of the universe, one can dispel the myth of dark energy and propose a more logical explanation for the observed phenomena. The time has come for cosmologists to acknowledge the limitations of their current models and seek a more accurate understanding of the universe's true nature.