> Two years ago, I told you about a paper by Subir Sarkar and his colleagues, that showed if one analyses the supernovae data correctly, without assuming that t

> Two years ago, I told you about a paper by Subir Sarkar and his colleagues, that showed if one analyses the supernovae data correctly, without assuming that the cosmological principle holds on too short distances, then the evidence for dark energy disappears. That paper has been almost entirely ignored by other scientists. I suppose she's referring to the things discussed in her interview with Sarkar here -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1mwYxkhMe8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1mwYxkhMe8 . I can't claim I understand the details of what Sarkar is talking about since I dabbled in cosmology only very briefly but I at least made sure to forward the interview to my former advisor (whose name is on several hundreds of papers on cosmology and astrophysics, including those of the PLANCK collaboration and several others) and his response was along the lines of: > I appreciate Subir Sarkar very much but I'm afraid I don't agree with barely any of his statements. He never looks at the full picture but only individual pieces and then he ends up modifying those until look prettier individually but no longer fit the rest of the cosmological model.