03-25-2024, 03:34 PM
I seem to be collecting these ... I promise I cannot say I actually agree (or disagree) since the math eludes me.
From ScienceDaily: New research suggests that our universe has no dark matter
A University of Ottawa study published today challenges the current model of the universe by showing that, in fact, it has no room for dark matter.
In cosmology, the term "dark matter" describes all that appears not to interact with light or the electromagnetic field, or that can only be explained through gravitational force. We can't see it, nor do we know what it's made of, but it helps us understand how galaxies, planets and stars behave.
The article makes a strangely unfamiliar point to me I had commonly heard the age of the universe to be some 13.8 billion years old... yet within this article is a quote that differs...
"The study's findings confirm that our previous work ("JWST early Universe observations and ΛCDM cosmology") about the age of the universe being 26.7 billion years has allowed us to discover that the universe does not require dark matter to exist," explains Gupta. "In standard cosmology, the accelerated expansion of the universe is said to be caused by dark energy but is in fact due to the weakening forces of nature as it expands, not due to dark energy."
(bold is mine)
When did I fall so far behind... 26.7 billion years? I thought that JWST information was rejected by scientists. I definitely missed something big... or is this just research 'tug of war?'
From ScienceDaily: New research suggests that our universe has no dark matter
A University of Ottawa study published today challenges the current model of the universe by showing that, in fact, it has no room for dark matter.
In cosmology, the term "dark matter" describes all that appears not to interact with light or the electromagnetic field, or that can only be explained through gravitational force. We can't see it, nor do we know what it's made of, but it helps us understand how galaxies, planets and stars behave.
The article makes a strangely unfamiliar point to me I had commonly heard the age of the universe to be some 13.8 billion years old... yet within this article is a quote that differs...
"The study's findings confirm that our previous work ("JWST early Universe observations and ΛCDM cosmology") about the age of the universe being 26.7 billion years has allowed us to discover that the universe does not require dark matter to exist," explains Gupta. "In standard cosmology, the accelerated expansion of the universe is said to be caused by dark energy but is in fact due to the weakening forces of nature as it expands, not due to dark energy."
(bold is mine)
When did I fall so far behind... 26.7 billion years? I thought that JWST information was rejected by scientists. I definitely missed something big... or is this just research 'tug of war?'
