3 ms·

Ok, then I don't understand the claim that the measurement plus a fudgefactor matches perfectly. Well, I don't know shit about the topic, I'll go back to my co

• acqq 9y ago
  Just one example why it's actually more than a "fudge factor": When you have an alternative hypothesis (like, "it's not really the energy") it's not that you just have to say so, you have to model your assumption with the formulas, the formulas then can be calculated and compared with the measurements, just like the calculations of the hypothesis "it's a real energy" can. The result is that the formulas that are described to those who just want the description as "it's a real energy" match the best with the measurements: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/04/11/no-dark-energy-isnt-an-illusion/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/04/11/no-d... See the "Ned Wright, based on the latest data from Betoule et al." illustration in the text. It's significantly more than "I say, he says."