Taken at face values, the luminosity evolution of SN is significant enough to question the very existence of dark energy. When the luminosity evolution of SN is properly taken into account, the team found that the evidence for the existence of dark energy simply goes away (see Figure 1).
Source: New evidence shows that the key assumption made in the discovery of dark energy is in error
I don’t know what the graph is supposed to represent, but… no “dark energy.” You know, the bedrock idea that has undergirded all astronomical research for the past couple decades. You know, the thing that has never been observed or measured; only assumed, in order to make the math work. All just chucked out the window, based on some new observations.
Like whether eggs are good for you, or going to be the grisly death of you, depending on the year, maybe this will go back and forth for awhile.
Please don’t wonder why I have a hard time taking what’s reported in the news about biology (evolution), cosmology (Big Bang), or climate (death of the planet by “change”) to be gospel. Excuse me while I give such things a couple hundred years to be proven out.
My problem isn’t with the research, or the invalidation of previous results. My problem in all of this is there’s no objectivity in the papers or the reporting. So as we try to answer a fundamental question like: “Is the universe going to eventually collapse onto itself, and start the Big Bang all over again, or did it happen in a way that can never be repeated?” I wish, instead of stating, “Yes, and it will happen 13.72343 billion years from now,” papers would summarize their findings like, “We think so, and perhaps a dozen billion years from now, given these critical assumptions, and within this confidence interval.” Then I could start taking it all much more seriously.
Until then, all I can see in our current system are shocking headlines in a bid for page views, and preposterous statements in a grab for more grant money for the next study.