"Dark energy" -- a "groundbreaking" "discovery" from 1998/1999 that led to a Nobel prize in physics. But that research was based on extremely flimsy foundations and assumptions along with a ridiculously insufficient and small set of data in terms of number of supernovae observed (around 100).

One assumption that has been questioned is the Chandrasekhar limit of the supernovae observed, as many supernovae have since been observed that violate this limit. The number of abnormalities observed has led to peer-reviewed studies in mainstream journals showing that the limit does likely vary depending on galaxy age and composition. This dependency nicely aligns with the "evidence" for dark matter. In other words, this alone provides sufficient doubt about the existence of dark energy as one of its key assumptions is simply wrong.

Perhaps there's an alternate explanation that still upholds the evidence for dark energy, so let's look elsewhere: that pitifully small sample from the original studies happens to align with the direction of the movement of the solar system relative to the CMB. This means that this flimsy "evidence" for dark energy is merely an effect of the Doppler shift. Larger sample sets (400+ supernovae) looking in all directions account for this effect and show no evidence for dark energy.

Okay, that last one is harder to ignore, but let's go further: the isotropic model of the universe only applies at the largest scales, but not at the scales used in the observational data from dark energy research. Without this isotropic assumption, it's uncontroversial to assume that different parts of the universe may be expanding at different rates depending on density. The "evidence" for dark energy fits the model of our region of space simply being slightly under-dense.

More recent, automated dark energy surveys have been partially and quietly released that contradict the "dark energy" model.

Is it possible to revoke a Nobel prize? libs? do you still fucking love science?

TLDR: the "discovery" of dark energy was extremely premature, based on very faulty assumptions with a pitifully small set of data, and just flat-out wrong. Physics is fraud.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5823055&forum_id=2most#49595356)

Note that my screed is based on mainstream, peer-reviewed publications and not crackpots on the internet.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5823055&forum_id=2most#49595387)

That "fudge factor," AKA the cosmological constant, was simply a largely undefined placeholder needed to balance out Einstein's equations until "dark energy" neatly explained it. However, the value and meaning of the fudge factor has been questioned due to the reasons I listed.

The latest research into "dark energy" involves automated surveys of huge numbers of stars, galaxies, etc. This research is ongoing and only some data has been released, but what it indicates is there are significant deviations from the "dark energy" model that could likely be explained without the need for dark energy; it could merely be a result of minor variations in density across the scales needed to measure "dark energy," as I mentioned in the OP.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5823055&forum_id=2most#49595468)

Physicists are not good at statistics. There were around 100 supernovae total between the two research groups, so around 50 each. n = ~50 is simply not large enough to confidently make complicated cosmological predictions like dark energy.

The samples did not account for something as simple as Doppler shift.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5823055&forum_id=2most#49595517)