Cosmic Inflation Evidence No Go - Stardust

[♦ ficino ♦]

It seems as though the heralded evidence for Cosmic Inflation (right after the Big Bang) has turned out to be interference from star dust and not echoes of gravitational waves from the BB.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/31/us/a-speck-of-interstellar-dust-rebuts-a-big-bang-theory.html?_r=0

 

If the scientists were fundies, they'd just say that doubters doubt because they love sin.  And they'd say they found special kinds of gravitational echoes that are indistinguishable from interstellar dust.

 

But, sigh, they're scientists, so they have to admit that their original conclusions were not supported by the data after all.

[Thought2Much]

Well, it's sad to hear that the results weren't what they thought.

 

But science marches on. Which is why I prefer science.

[mymistake]

Ha!  I knew it!  The universe is only 6,000 year old!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(/sarcasm)

 

So how does this change affect our current model?  I'm not a Cosmologist so in layman's terms . . . ?

[duderonomy]

I'm gonna quit worrying about the dust in my house. God's universe is so dusty we can't see straight. 

[WarriorPoet]

 

So how does this change affect our current model?  I'm not a Cosmologist so in layman's terms . . . ?

I'm not a cosmologist either, but the impression that I'm getting from the article is that it doesn't actually change our model at all.  Inflation is still the leading hypothesis.  All this article is pointing out is that what scientists thought was "smoking gun" level evidence isn't actually the evidence they were looking for.  It's just time to go back to the drawing board and figure out new methods of looking for the evidence that will eventually prove or disprove inflation.

 

A paragraph from near the end of the linked article:

 

Max Tegmark, an M.I.T. expert on the cosmic microwaves, said, “It’s important to remember that inflation is still alive and well, and that many of the simplest models predict signals just below this new limit.” The next few years will be interesting, he said.

[pantheory]

Ha!  I knew it!  The universe is only 6,000 year old! (/sarcasm)

 

So how does this change affect our current model?  I'm not a Cosmologist so in layman's terms . . . ?

 

As WarriorPoet put it , this conclusion does not change the multiple versions of the Inflation hypothesis nor challenge their possible validity. For decades astronomers have been searching for additional evidence to support the Big Bang model and the Inflation hypothesis. New findings could help support the Inflation hypothesis which is the prevailing hypothesis concerning the beginning of the universe. The alleged polarization of the microwave background also could have been additional support for the Big Bang model.

 

By concluding that interstellar, intergalactic dust, cannot be excluded as a cause of this polarization of light, the search will continue to find evidence to support the Inflation hypothesis and additional evidence to support the Big Bang model. 

[Joshpantera]

BAA, in three, two, one.....

[bornagainathiest]

I'll go with what Pantheory wrote (with a few additions)...

 

As WarriorPoet put it , this conclusion does not change the multiple versions of the Inflation hypothesis nor challenge their possible validity. For decades astronomers have been searching for additional evidence to support the Big Bang model and the Inflation hypothesis. New findings could help support the Inflation hypothesis which is the prevailing hypothesis concerning the beginning of the universe. The alleged polarization of the microwave background also could have been additional support for the Big Bang model.

 

By concluding that interstellar, intergalactic dust, cannot be excluded as a cause of this polarization of light, the search will continue to find evidence to support (or rule out) the Inflation hypothesis and additional evidence to support (or rule out) the Big Bang model.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[25YearsLater]

Well, it's sad to hear that the results weren't what they thought.

No it's not.

 

By concluding that interstellar, intergalactic dust, cannot be excluded as a cause of this polarization of light, the search will continue to find evidence to support (or rule out) the Inflation hypothesis and additional evidence to support (or rule out) the Big Bang model.

+1. Red bits QFT

[bornagainathiest]

Further news about how the latest observations are ruling out certain cosmological models.

.

.

.

In Alan Guth's 1997 book... http://www.amazon.com/The-Inflationary-Universe-Alan-Guth/dp/0201328402 ...he mentions that Inflationary theory is not a single theory, but a class of theories that attempt to explain the very early universe.  At the time of writing this book he was aware of at least forty (40) distinctly different Inflationary theories.

 

This 2014 paper... http://ptep.oxfordjournals.org/content/2014/6/06B104.full ...constrains (rules out) a host of inflationary models by combining the 2013 Planck data with other data sets from other experiments, leaving a shortlist of contenders that make the cut.  As listed here...

Our analysis includes models such as potential-driven slow-roll inflation, k-inflation, Starobinsky inflation, and Higgs inflation with non-minimal/derivative/Galileon couplings.

 

Now I regularly check out Peter Woit's blog... http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/ ...because he's the Internet's sternest (and possibly the best qualified) critic of String theory and the Multiverse.  If something passes muster with him then I reckon it's worth paying attention to.  If you scroll down to his Feb 5 post (Planck Data Out) and click on the 'comments' link, you'll see Urs Schreiber... 

http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Urs+Schreiber ...coming down in favor of the Starobinsky model.

.

.

.

More about the Starobinsky model.

 

http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Starobinsky+model+of+cosmic+inflation

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/1312.1155

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0606018

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexei_Starobinsky

.

.

.

Schreiber's comments are (quite rightly) challenged by Anonymous, because the issue isn't anywhere near settled yet.

However, as an amateur astronomer who understands nothing about these equations I'm nevertheless very pleased to see clear progress being made in this field.  

 

Certain inflationary models are being ruled out by the latest data.  

Even though the 2015 release of Planck data shows no clear evidence of B-mode polarization caused by primordial gravitational waves (undermining the March 2014 claims made the BICEP2 team) the error bars are being narrowed down.  With new data sets from other teams working on measuring the CMB in ultra-fine detail, we can expect further progress in the near future. 

 

Other CMB experiments.

 

http://bolo.berkeley.edu/polarbear/

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmology_Large_Angular_Scale_Surveyor

 

http://pole.uchicago.edu/

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atacama_B-Mode_Search

 

http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/CMB/keckarray/

 

http://www.astro.caltech.edu/~lgg/spider/spider_front.htm

.

.

.

In a way the progress being made in this field parallels the methodical search for the Higgs boson, begun in the 90's, which culminated in the LHC's (Large Hadron Collider) announcement of the discovery of a Higgs-like particle in 2012.  I recall reading reports from CERN about how they'd been able to rule out where the Higgs couldn't have been hiding.  By the patient process of elimination the LHC team were eventually able to pin down exactly where it could be.  Then they combed thru their terabytes of data and millions of particle collisions and found the signal of a particle that had just the right characteristics as the theory suggested.

.

.

.

It's my hope that before too long (perhaps in the next five years?) we'll have a definitive answer about the origin of the universe.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Isn't it neat the way scientific theories help construct hypotheses, which in turn suggest where to look for experimental confirmation?  Then the theory can be strengthened by  instances of its predictive power in action.

 

You just need to find the spot in Genesis that talks about the phenomenon, look around to see where the Bible is guiding your research to go, and presto! you find experimental confirmation. 

[pantheory]

Further news about how the latest observations are ruling out certain cosmological models.

.

.

.

In Alan Guth's 1997 book... http://www.amazon.com/The-Inflationary-Universe-Alan-Guth/dp/0201328402 ...he mentions that Inflationary theory is not a single theory, but a class of theories that attempt to explain the very early universe.  At the time of writing this book he was aware of at least forty (40) distinctly different Inflationary theories.

 

This 2014 paper... http://ptep.oxfordjournals.org/content/2014/6/06B104.full ...constrains (rules out) a host of inflationary models by combining the 2013 Planck data with other data sets from other experiments, leaving a shortlist of contenders that make the cut.  As listed here...

Our analysis includes models such as potential-driven slow-roll inflation, k-inflation, Starobinsky inflation, and Higgs inflation with non-minimal/derivative/Galileon couplings.

 

Now I regularly check out Peter Woit's blog... http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/ ...because he's the Internet's sternest (and possibly the best qualified) critic of String theory and the Multiverse.  If something passes muster with him then I reckon it's worth paying attention to.  If you scroll down to his Feb 5 post (Planck Data Out) and click on the 'comments' link, you'll see Urs Schreiber... 

http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Urs+Schreiber ...coming down in favor of the Starobinsky model.

.

.

.

More about the Starobinsky model.

 

http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Starobinsky+model+of+cosmic+inflation

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/1312.1155

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0606018

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexei_Starobinsky

.

Schreiber's comments are (quite rightly) challenged by Anonymous, because the issue isn't anywhere near settled yet.

However, as an amateur astronomer who understands nothing about these equations I'm nevertheless very pleased to see clear progress being made in this field.  

 

Certain inflationary models are being ruled out by the latest data.  

Even though the 2015 release of Planck data shows no clear evidence of B-mode polarization caused by primordial gravitational waves (undermining the March 2014 claims made the BICEP2 team) the error bars are being narrowed down.  With new data sets from other teams working on measuring the CMB in ultra-fine detail, we can expect further progress in the near future. 

 

Other CMB experiments.

 

http://bolo.berkeley.edu/polarbear/

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmology_Large_Angular_Scale_Surveyor

 

http://pole.uchicago.edu/

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atacama_B-Mode_Search

 

http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/CMB/keckarray/

 

http://www.astro.caltech.edu/~lgg/spider/spider_front.htm

.

In a way the progress being made in this field parallels the methodical search for the Higgs boson, begun in the 90's, which culminated in the LHC's (Large Hadron Collider) announcement of the discovery of a Higgs-like particle in 2012.  I recall reading reports from CERN about how they'd been able to rule out where the Higgs couldn't have been hiding.  By the patient process of elimination the LHC team were eventually able to pin down exactly where it could be.  Then they combed thru their terabytes of data and millions of particle collisions and found the signal of a particle that had just the right characteristics as the theory suggested.

.

It's my hope that before too long (perhaps in the next five years?) we'll have a definitive answer about the origin of the universe.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

Thanks also to you, BAA,

 

As always you put much valuable time, effort, and thought into your postings in this forum, particularly those in this section.

 

IMO looking for commonality of ideas can be very productive concerning their discussion.  As you know, I am skeptical concerning some scientific theories as nearly all here are concerning religions in general. For this same reason I always suggest caution to those who have ever believed in anything as being the truth concerning reality.

 

Let me diverge a little hoping for your acquiescence concerning my thoughts.

 

As your last posting suggests, there are a great many Inflation hypothesis. Although most assert they can solve Big Bang "problems," Inflation hypothesis as a collective could be a bigger problem in cosmology today them the problems they are trying to solve.  Whenever a  fault is found with one Inflation model,  another can be brought into play or a new one invented to match observations without end, without any basis in observable reality in consideration of the scientific method.

 

Referring to my own related paper on this matter (myself and another author) http://www.aijcrnet.com/journals/Vol_4_No_9_September_2014/2.pdf

 

One of the criticisms in this paper concerning all Inflation hypothesis in general is that:

 

-- "the theoretical physics used to explain any model of Inflation is functionally "invented" and has no counterpart in observed reality. These hypothetical physics can therefore never be ultimately tested, and newer Inflation physics can always be invented and proposed if the other models fail to explain a particular phenomenon. Valid hypotheses must be testable. The Inflation hypotheses (in its many forms) are untestable speculation that can only claim observational support by (their) its own implications."

 

I am not promoting my own ideas necessarily, or tooting my own horn, but hope to be providing food for thought. IMO religion promotes many absolutely ridiculous ideas such as the literal interpretation of the Bible. Science is much more sophisticated but it may be no better than religion if the ideas it promotes are entirely wrong, which could be the case for Inflation theories as a whole, and/or other related theories and hypothesis. .

 

I suggest all readers should be skeptical concerning "information" from any source and be willing to consider more than one possibility concerning the foundations of reality, to let the evidence over time, and your own logic rule, rather than giving extra weight to "expert" views and opinions, regardless of their claimed authority. In religion the authority is the consensus of the leaders of the church, in cosmology and physics the authorities are the respected mainstream theorists. IMO no one necessarily has a valid insight into reality,  a valid perspective,  or a valid insight into the "truth."

 

As Benjamin Franklin said: "Believe nothing of what you hear (or read), and only half of what you see"       parenthesis added.

[mymistake]

Scientific experts have done the work and been recognized as experts by their peers.  Religious leaders are part of a confidence scam.  These are very different things.  Could scientists be wrong about any particular theory?  Of course!  However when they find evidence to that effect they will self correct.  So our current best model is still our current best model.

[pantheory]

Scientific experts have done the work and been recognized as experts by their peers.  Religious leaders are part of a confidence scam.  These are very different things.  Could scientists be wrong about any particular theory?  Of course!  However when they find evidence to that effect they will self correct.  So our current best model is still our current best model.

 

Good thoughts IMO but our current best model, based upon "experts" opinions, may be no better than religion concerning "reality." IMO most religious leaders are honest, of course with exceptions, everybody is entitled to their own opinon of this. I am an optimist and humanist, in that I believe most people are inclined toward empathy in the long run, rather that solely having self-interests. Of course the "truth" of religious people may be no better than the opinions of children, still their motives IMO, for the most part, are pure, true and honest, like my opinion of all people. Yes, the ideas of the Bible are no better than a joke (not even a good one), but that has been the inheritance of most people that believe IMO, and not their fault.

 

Yes, in the long run science will self correct, but unfortunately every time-frame such as ours, will think that their own time frame is special. Since all are entitled to their own opinion, in mine we are part of a step backwards in science concerning our understandings of reality, as compared to our technology. IMO in 50 years most all of modern physics theories will almost entirely be replaced.  My expectation is that reality itself is vastly simpler than what is presently perceived concerning present-day cosmology and theoretical physics.

[mymistake]

 

Scientific experts have done the work and been recognized as experts by their peers.  Religious leaders are part of a confidence scam.  These are very different things.  Could scientists be wrong about any particular theory?  Of course!  However when they find evidence to that effect they will self correct.  So our current best model is still our current best model.

 

Good thoughts IMO but our current best model, based upon "experts" opinions, may be no better than religion concerning "reality."

 

Patently untrue.

 

I can't take you seriously if you are going to talk this way.  Our current model is a thousand years better then religion.  There are predictions which can be tested.  For example GPS wouldn't work if we couldn't measure time down the the nanosecond and we also didn't understand how relativity affected time.  You have an axe to grind against science and that is why you put the word experts in quotes.

 

 

Yes, in the long run science will self correct, but unfortunately every time-frame such as ours, will think that their own time frame is special

 

Nope.  Science is evolutionary.  This time right now is not special.  It is only the foundation for whatever humans discover after we are gone.  Every generation of scientists stands on the backs of those who came before them.

 

 

 

IMO in 50 years most all of modern physics theories well be almost entirely be replaced.

 

Of course.  Most of it will be replaced twice.  Today the things I learned in college astronomy have become obsolete.  That is simply how the learning curve works.  We can't even imagine what we will learn in a 100 years.

 

 

My expectation is that reality itself is vastly simpler than what is presently perceived concerning present-day cosmology and theoretical physics.

 

Of course.  That doesn't justify your attitude about scientists.  They are the ones who are going to get humanity to the wonders we will understand 100 years from now.

[RogueScholar]

Really? So, classical mechanics will be replaced? You mean to tell me that F=ma will fail to make great predictions in a macroscopic, non-relativistic world? What about general relativity or quantum mechanics? Do you really think that current quantum theory will fail to predict the emission lines of a Hydrogen atom or relativity will fail to adequately predict gravitation lensing around massive objects such as the sun in 100 years? I fail to see how current models will fail to be just as good at making predictions in their regime 100 years from now. We very well may have models that can make predictions about processes and observations that we currently do not understand, but I think our current models will still be valid within a certain regime.

[pantheory]

Really? So, classical mechanics will be replaced? You mean to tell me that F=ma will fail to make great predictions in a macroscopic, non-relativistic world? What about general relativity or quantum mechanics? Do you really think that current quantum theory will fail to predict the emission lines of a Hydrogen atom or relativity will fail to adequately predict gravitation lensing around massive objects such as the sun in 100 years? I fail to see how current models will fail to be just as good at making predictions in their regime 100 years from now. We very well may have models that can make predictions about processes and observations that we currently do not understand, but I think our current models will still be valid within a certain regime.

 

I said that I expect that nearly all of "modern physics" will be replaced IMHO, not classical mechanics or physics. Modern physics is almost the opposite of classical mechanics. It includes both theories of Relativity, Particle theory and related physics, Quantum Theory, and Big Bang cosmology -- theories of the 20th century.  In my view nearly all theories of classical mechanics will continue to pass the tests of time. 

 

Predictive ability has little to do with the theories themselves. Modern physics is built on a long history of observation so many of the derived equations have been tested and shown to be generally predictive.  But the theories themselves are words used to try to explain the derived math.  This is what I expect will fall, the explanations which try to explain the theory.  For this reason the theories can completely fall while much of the predictive math of the theory can remain with a replacement theory.

[mymistake]

You mean to tell me that F=ma will fail to make great predictions in a macroscopic, non-relativistic world? What about general relativity or quantum mechanics? Do you really think that current quantum theory will fail to predict the emission lines of a Hydrogen atom or relativity will fail to adequately predict gravitation lensing around massive objects such as the sun in 100 years? 

 

Those questions do not seem to follow.  Did pantheory argue something to that effect in another thread?

[ExCBooster]

(Another thing to notice about this article is this: "When the galactic dust is correctly subtracted, the scientists said, there was indeed a small excess signal — a glimmer of hope for inflation fans? — but it was too small to tell if it was because of gravitational waves or just experimental noise." This, right here, casual science readers, is the difference between throwing darts at a board of beliefs, and actual cosmology. They use statistical analysis, which means that any result must beat a quantifiable threshold of probability, before it's considered more than a statistical anomaly.)

[pantheory]

(Another thing to notice about this article is this: "When the galactic dust is correctly subtracted, the scientists said, there was indeed a small excess signal — a glimmer of hope for inflation fans? — but it was too small to tell if it was because of gravitational waves or just experimental noise." This, right here, casual science readers, is the difference between throwing darts at a board of beliefs, and actual cosmology. They use statistical analysis, which means that any result must beat a quantifiable threshold of probability, before it's considered more than a statistical anomaly.)

 

Yes,  these present findings do not preclude the possibility that at least some of this polarized micro-wave background radiation was produced by gravity waves, and if so that at least some of these gravity waves might go back to an Inflation era. They are simply saying that dust particles in our galaxy seem to be the most likely explanation for what has been observed.

 

It might be noted that one of the original arguments against the old Steady State theory was that the microwave background radiation, at the time, had no known polarization which would be a requirement if that radiation was simply evenly redistributed starlight, which was a Steady-State contention. One of the primary causes for the polarization of EM radiation results from its absorption and re-radiation at progressively decreasing energies and frequencies.

[pantheory]

 

 

Scientific experts have done the work and been recognized as experts by their peers.  Religious leaders are part of a confidence scam.  These are very different things.  Could scientists be wrong about any particular theory?  Of course!  However when they find evidence to that effect they will self correct.  So our current best model is still our current best model.

 

Good thoughts IMO but our current best model, based upon "experts" opinions, may be no better than religion concerning "reality."

 

Patently untrue.

 

I can't take you seriously if you are going to talk this way.  Our current model is a thousand years better then religion.  There are predictions which can be tested.  For example GPS wouldn't work if we couldn't measure time down the the nanosecond and we also didn't understand how relativity affected time.  You have an axe to grind against science and that is why you put the word experts in quotes.

 

 

Of course we can all agree that the scientific method is light-years ahead of religion, but if a particular science theory is completely wrong, then in that way science is no better than religion if/when it is teaching theory as fact.

 

No, I have no axe to grind against science; it has been science which has brought illumination to the world, both physically and mentally. Mine was a cautionary suggestion based upon a quote by Benjamin Franklin, "believe nothing of what you hear (or read), and only half of what you see." parenthesis added -- this applies to science as well as everything else IMO. Or this quote by Richard Feynman: Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.

 

Extensive personal study along with formal education is far better than either by themselves.

[mymistake]

. . .  but if a particular science theory is completely wrong, then in that way science is no better than religion if/when it is teaching theory as fact.

 

 

I strongly disagree.  Being correct is not what makes science superior to religion.

[RogueScholar]

I'm glad we agree on the efficacy of classical mechanics some 300+ years after this frame work began to be developed. Regarding quantum mechanics, my question still remains. Will our current, general understanding and application of quantum mechanics be null and void a century from now? Will it no longer make the astonishing predictions that it currently makes? Will it no longer be able to replicate the Balmer series when I solve the Schrodinger equation? Do you believe future frameworks will not be quantised?

 

If you are so confident that our current framework is so inadequate and in need of revision, you need to show us. Not some second rate pharmacological science grad student on a public form, but the greater scientific community. This is not about my ego or personal investment either. People are dying and suffering and the best tool box for understanding the most complex chemical problems is quantum mechanical as far as I can tell. True, classical molecular dynamics simulations have been helpful but when it comes to figuring out how proteins fold and how we can directly manipulate molecular "machinery," the fundamental understanding of the chemistry that underpins the nature of the chemical bond cannot even be approximated well without quantum mechanics. Sure, VSEPR theory and Lewis dot structure is reasonably good in an undergraduate chemistry class, but these approximations completely derail off the failroad when used to solve complex problems.

 

If you have better answers and a better framework, present it, convince us, help bring about a renaissance. Otherwise, there are significant problems that need to be solved and I cannot see any other way than to use and refine our current methods. I am willing and able to change my mind, but I am certainly not compelled to do so right now.

[pantheory]

I'm glad we agree on the efficacy of classical mechanics some 300+ years after this frame work began to be developed. Regarding quantum mechanics, my question still remains. Will our current, general understanding and application of quantum mechanics be null and void a century from now? Will it no longer make the astonishing predictions that it currently makes? Will it no longer be able to replicate the Balmer series when I solve the Schrodinger equation? Do you believe future frameworks will not be quantised?

 

If you are so confident that our current framework is so inadequate and in need of revision, you need to show us. Not some second rate pharmacological science grad student on a public form, but the greater scientific community. This is not about my ego or personal investment either. People are dying and suffering and the best tool box for understanding the most complex chemical problems is quantum mechanical as far as I can tell. True, classical molecular dynamics simulations have been helpful but when it comes to figuring out how proteins fold and how we can directly manipulate molecular "machinery," the fundamental understanding of the chemistry that underpins the nature of the chemical bond cannot even be approximated well without quantum mechanics. Sure, VSEPR theory and Lewis dot structure is reasonably good in an undergraduate chemistry class, but these approximations completely derail off the failroad when used to solve complex problems.

 

If you have better answers and a better framework, present it, convince us, help bring about a renaissance. Otherwise, there are significant problems that need to be solved and I cannot see any other way than to use and refine our current methods. I am willing and able to change my mind, but I am certainly not compelled to do so right now.

 

Of course this is a matter of opinion. Mine is that at the heart of quantum mechanics today is the statistical and mathematical equations that it uses to make predictions. This is based upon about a 90 year history of observations in the quantum world. IMO a century from now much of this will remain in place, but the understandings of it all will be very different and far simpler.

 

You can find all my theories in any search engine concerning The Pan Theory. The book about it is about 380 pages long with many decades of original theory, generally quite different from present theories in modern physics, but also based in the same way upon similar observations.  The theory relates to this thread in that it is for one thing an entirely different theory of cosmology so there would be no Big Bang, no Inflation epoch, no dark matter, dark energy, etc. It is all explained by a far simpler theory IMO with its own related equations which much better match observed reality based upon observations of supernova and other observations.

 

This thread relates to present ideas of differing Inflation hypothesis which can be discussed here, but for other discussions contact me at my website at pantheory.org if you are interested, and I will be glad to discuss other physics. .

[mymistake]

 

 

You can find all my theories in any search engine concerning The Pan Theory. The book about it is about 380 pages long with many decades of original theory, generally quite different from present theories in modern physics, but also based in the same way upon similar observations.  The theory relates to this thread in that it is for one thing an entirely different theory of cosmology so there would be no Big Bang, no Inflation epoch, no dark matter, dark energy, etc. It is all explained by a far simpler theory IMO with its own related equations which much better match observed reality based upon observations of supernova and other observations.

 

 

Ah, the aforementioned axe that you claim you don't have to grind.  This is what puts the quotation marks around the scientific experts.