You're totally misunderstanding this whole thing, unfortunately. I don't really know how to do a point by point rebuttal of every line here since each one is bu

You're totally misunderstanding this whole thing, unfortunately. I don't really know how to do a point by point rebuttal of every line here since each one is building on top of that misunderstanding. This article calls into question whether or not the expansion of the universe is accelerating - it does not call into question whether or not it is expanding. There is basically zero scientific debate on whether or not the universe is expanding - the evidence that it is huge. We know that light redshifts. We can observe it. It is experimentally verified. That means that we have verified that energy is not conserved. Dark energy is not required for the universe to expand and we knew that the universe was expanding long before we had any idea that it (might/might not) be expanding at dynamic rate. It is possible that our key indicator about the expansion accelerating was in error. It is not at all remotely an indicator that expansion is not happening. We have known the universe was expanding since 1929. Mountains of evidence have been piling up further confirming it ever since then. It wasn't until the 90s that we found evidence that that expansion was accelerating, and that is what ultimately lead to the hypothesis of dark energy. In fact, this new research wouldn't even be usable without taking into account expansion, and uses Cepheid variable stars as the control to figure out where we might have gotten things wrong when measuring supernova in distant parts of the universe. The Cepheid variable stars are exactly how we figured out the universe was expanding in the first place. And, to be clear, there's other evidence for dark energy, including the CMB and how galaxies cluster when we look at things on very very large scales. This is hardly a case of nailing up the coffin for dark energy, but if it pans out this is all accurate, it does call things into question. But it does not cast any doubt on if the universe is expanding, on light redshifting, or the idea that energy isn't always conserved - without those things being accepted as true this research couldn't even exist.