> the universe's expansion isn't accelerating at all?
The measurements aren't suggesting that. They only indicate the acceleration might be slowing. That's it.

File: Screenshot_20251111_03534(...).jpg (164 KB, 1399x328)

164 KB JPG

>>16843217
It literally says non-accelerating universe in the title.

>>16843219
That's just the clickbait title, the article itself lists that as just one possible option. Same as the DESI one did earlier in the year.

>>16843214
>Give me one good reason why we should take anything physicists say seriously anymore.

Vaccine, mobile phones, cars, electricity, plumbing, condoms, etc.

>>16843267
We have those thanks to engineers, not scientists.

>>16843214
Is there an actual paper, or just a clickbait title to a youtube video?

>>16843277
Where do you think the laws that govern engineering came from?

>>16843219
authors: ching chong ding dong wang wu wing fing flong bing bong

>>16843214
The data to understand that there might be an age bias in type 1a standard candles didn't exist until DESI gathered it, which only started in 2021. Looking for any kind of bias in the supernova brightness has been a concern since the 90s, everything before DESI looked unbiased. New technology, new experiments overturn old understandings.
>>16843281
See >>16839310

>>16843217
>acceleration might be slowing.
The word for that is deceleration and it means its not accelerating which is the opposite of accelerating.

>>16843286
Physicists literally just rewrite the "laws" every time some engineer comes along and builds something that proves them wrong, hence the need for quantum physics.

>>16843214
Cosmologists anon. Astronomy is a distinct PhD from physics. Blaming this on physicists is like COVID experimenters proponents of evolution.

>>16843214
Cosmologists should be awarded the Nobel prize in literature at this point, not physics

>>16843349
How could they be understandings if they were wrong?

>>16843605
>>16843612
/thread