(August 29, 2011 at 11:08 pm)Diamond-Deist Wrote: Well actually I believe they do not exist at all it would be the equivalent of me saying I believe in fairy dust and then going to search for it.
Great, now you have to account for the observed red-shifts of type 1-a supernovae, please present your math. As it stands, 'Dark energy', some anti-gravitational force leading to spatial expansion, is our best explanation - If you think you've got a better way to account for the observed phenomenon it's up to you to show that this explanation is more plausible.
Quote:This is my issue when you try to prove something you do so on evidence, what you do not do is have an idea then seek to find evidence which is not there to back your wrong idea ..... myself and a number of scientists believe this is exactly what is happening with the BB theory.
Dark Energy was proposed to explain an observation, the evidence is for some phenomenon that is causing the accelerated expansion of space, for now that is all we know and we have extremely good evidence supporting the existence of this phenomenon.
Also, there WAS a big bang theory prior to the proposal of Dark Energy, so even there is some other better explanation for the observations it DOES NOT rule out a big bang - It might change the age of the universe and give us a different picture of the total percent of components of the universe but that's about it.
.
