If one applies a bit of common sense physics, and first makes the major distinction between dark matter and dark energy … then the inevitable semantics problem becomes more focused. Some of the confusion is due to the glaring mistake of awarding the Nobel to Perlmutter, Schmidt and Riess. But – think about it - many awards are a mistake, in hindsight, and never retracted.
Dark energy has always been controversial, while dark matter has not, yet the two are comingled as one. This is because the rate of universal expansion has been a strong point of contention, Nobel prize notwithstanding (there were only 50 data points used to make the case). Now it looks like there is no need for dark energy, but still there is a need for dark matter. Even there, the need is less since it looks like the number of stars in any galaxy has been grossly underestimated in the past. From: David Roberson Does this mean that a few Nobel prizes were awarded a bit premature? Are they ever recalled once proven in error? -----Original Message----- From: Eric Walker The following article describes a study calling into question one experiment upon which the notion of dark energy is based: http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2016/1023/Is-dark-energy-a-real-thing-Maybe-not-new-study-suggests Also of interest, two articles discussing a study that says that the rotation of spiral galaxies does not seem to require dark matter (not sure whether these have been mentioned before): http://phys.org/news/2016-09-spiral-irregular-galaxies-current-dark.html https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/09/160921085052.htm Eric
