From Newsgroup: talk.origins

https://phys.org/news/2026-05-dark-energy-equation-mathematicians-standard.html

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/rspa/article/482/2338/20250912/481920/The-instability-of-critical-and-underdense

The paper claims that the Einstein-Euler equations (without Einstein's cosmological anti-gravity constant) explain the current behavior of the universe. Dark energy may not exist, and is not required.

The Phys.org article also claims that the result calls into question the Copernican principle.

QUOTE:
Rethinking the Copernican principle?

Temple and his colleagues found that the accelerating expansion of the universe is a direct consequence of the Einstein-Euler equations without
the insertion of a cosmological constant or dark energy.

The math also calls into question the Copernican principlerCothe idea that Earth's location does not occupy a special place in the universe.

"Both the Lambda-cold dark matter model and a spherically symmetric
spacetime produce a special place where we must lie for the model to be physically plausible," Temple said. "If this principle rules out one, it
has to rule out the other."
END QUOTE"

It doesn't seem to me that the Copernican principle has to be rethought.
All the observations supporting it are not altered by claiming that
dark energy isn't needed to explain the accelerated expansion of our
universe.

Ron Okimoto

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On Thu, 28 May 2026 16:02:09 -0500
RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:

https://phys.org/news/2026-05-dark-energy-equation-mathematicians-standard.html

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/rspa/article/482/2338/20250912/481920/The-instability-of-critical-and-underdense

My poor old browser won't run their anti-AI trawling scripts.

The paper claims that the Einstein-Euler equations (without Einstein's cosmological anti-gravity constant) explain the current behavior of the universe. Dark energy may not exist, and is not required.

The Phys.org article also claims that the result calls into question the Copernican principle.

QUOTE:
Rethinking the Copernican principle?

Temple and his colleagues found that the accelerating expansion of the universe is a direct consequence of the Einstein-Euler equations without
the insertion of a cosmological constant or dark energy.

The math also calls into question the Copernican principlerCothe idea that Earth's location does not occupy a special place in the universe.

Hmm specialist location not so good.

"Both the Lambda-cold dark matter model and a spherically symmetric spacetime produce a special place where we must lie for the model to be physically plausible," Temple said. "If this principle rules out one, it
has to rule out the other."
END QUOTE"

It doesn't seem to me that the Copernican principle has to be rethought.
All the observations supporting it are not altered by claiming that
dark energy isn't needed to explain the accelerated expansion of our universe.

Ron Okimoto

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 5/29/2026 2:42 AM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:

On Thu, 28 May 2026 16:02:09 -0500
RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:

https://phys.org/news/2026-05-dark-energy-equation-mathematicians-standard.html

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/rspa/article/482/2338/20250912/481920/The-instability-of-critical-and-underdense

My poor old browser won't run their anti-AI trawling scripts.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.14228

This may be their paper before it passed peer review.

Ron Okimoto

The paper claims that the Einstein-Euler equations (without Einstein's
cosmological anti-gravity constant) explain the current behavior of the
universe. Dark energy may not exist, and is not required.

The Phys.org article also claims that the result calls into question the
Copernican principle.

QUOTE:
Rethinking the Copernican principle?

Temple and his colleagues found that the accelerating expansion of the
universe is a direct consequence of the Einstein-Euler equations without
the insertion of a cosmological constant or dark energy.

The math also calls into question the Copernican principlerCothe idea that >> Earth's location does not occupy a special place in the universe.

Hmm specialist location not so good.

"Both the Lambda-cold dark matter model and a spherically symmetric
spacetime produce a special place where we must lie for the model to be
physically plausible," Temple said. "If this principle rules out one, it
has to rule out the other."
END QUOTE"

It doesn't seem to me that the Copernican principle has to be rethought.
All the observations supporting it are not altered by claiming that
dark energy isn't needed to explain the accelerated expansion of our
universe.

Ron Okimoto

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 5/28/2026 4:02 PM, RonO wrote:

https://phys.org/news/2026-05-dark-energy-equation-mathematicians- standard.html

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/rspa/ article/482/2338/20250912/481920/The-instability-of-critical-and-underdense

The paper claims that the Einstein-Euler equations (without Einstein's cosmological anti-gravity constant) explain the current behavior of the universe.-a Dark energy may not exist, and is not required.

The Phys.org article also claims that the result calls into question the Copernican principle.

QUOTE:
Rethinking the Copernican principle?

Temple and his colleagues found that the accelerating expansion of the universe is a direct consequence of the Einstein-Euler equations without
the insertion of a cosmological constant or dark energy.

The math also calls into question the Copernican principlerCothe idea that Earth's location does not occupy a special place in the universe.

"Both the Lambda-cold dark matter model and a spherically symmetric spacetime produce a special place where we must lie for the model to be physically plausible," Temple said. "If this principle rules out one, it
has to rule out the other."
END QUOTE"

It doesn't seem to me that the Copernican principle has to be rethought.
-aAll the observations supporting it are not altered by claiming that
dark energy isn't needed to explain the accelerated expansion of our universe.

Ron Okimoto

Has a Nobel Prize award ever been found to be in error?

Apparently the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics was based in part on the
claims about Dark Energy, but this paper claims that Dark Energy does
not need to exist in order to explain the expansion of the Universe. Apparently, some Bloggers are questioning the Nobel Prize.

Ron Okimoto

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:

On 5/28/2026 4:02 PM, RonO wrote:

https://phys.org/news/2026-05-dark-energy-equation-mathematicians-
standard.html

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/rspa/
article/482/2338/20250912/481920/The-instability-of-critical-and-underdense >>
The paper claims that the Einstein-Euler equations (without Einstein's
cosmological anti-gravity constant) explain the current behavior of the
universe.-a Dark energy may not exist, and is not required.

The Phys.org article also claims that the result calls into question the
Copernican principle.

QUOTE:
Rethinking the Copernican principle?

Temple and his colleagues found that the accelerating expansion of the
universe is a direct consequence of the Einstein-Euler equations without
the insertion of a cosmological constant or dark energy.

The math also calls into question the Copernican principlerCothe idea that >> Earth's location does not occupy a special place in the universe.

"Both the Lambda-cold dark matter model and a spherically symmetric
spacetime produce a special place where we must lie for the model to be
physically plausible," Temple said. "If this principle rules out one, it
has to rule out the other."
END QUOTE"

It doesn't seem to me that the Copernican principle has to be rethought.
-aAll the observations supporting it are not altered by claiming that
dark energy isn't needed to explain the accelerated expansion of our
universe.

Ron Okimoto

Has a Nobel Prize award ever been found to be in error?

Well, The 1949 prize for Physiology or Medicine was awarded to Ant||nio Egas Moniz for the "discovery of the therapeutic value of leucotomy in certain psychoses" that is "lobotomy". That hasn't aged well...

G

Apparently the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics was based in part on the
claims about Dark Energy, but this paper claims that Dark Energy does
not need to exist in order to explain the expansion of the Universe. Apparently, some Bloggers are questioning the Nobel Prize.

Ron Okimoto

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 6/23/2026 12:58 PM, G wrote:

RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:

On 5/28/2026 4:02 PM, RonO wrote:

https://phys.org/news/2026-05-dark-energy-equation-mathematicians-
standard.html

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/rspa/
article/482/2338/20250912/481920/The-instability-of-critical-and-underdense >>>
The paper claims that the Einstein-Euler equations (without Einstein's
cosmological anti-gravity constant) explain the current behavior of the
universe.-a Dark energy may not exist, and is not required.

The Phys.org article also claims that the result calls into question the >>> Copernican principle.

QUOTE:
Rethinking the Copernican principle?

Temple and his colleagues found that the accelerating expansion of the
universe is a direct consequence of the Einstein-Euler equations without >>> the insertion of a cosmological constant or dark energy.

The math also calls into question the Copernican principlerCothe idea that >>> Earth's location does not occupy a special place in the universe.

"Both the Lambda-cold dark matter model and a spherically symmetric
spacetime produce a special place where we must lie for the model to be
physically plausible," Temple said. "If this principle rules out one, it >>> has to rule out the other."
END QUOTE"

It doesn't seem to me that the Copernican principle has to be rethought. >>> -aAll the observations supporting it are not altered by claiming that
dark energy isn't needed to explain the accelerated expansion of our
universe.

Ron Okimoto

Has a Nobel Prize award ever been found to be in error?

Well, The 1949 prize for Physiology or Medicine was awarded to Ant||nio Egas Moniz for the "discovery of the therapeutic value of leucotomy in certain psychoses" that is "lobotomy". That hasn't aged well...

G

Lobotomy seems to be the only candidate. All the other suggestions
Google put up were about initial experiments that did not turn out the
way the researchers had planned, but turned out to lead to a better understanding of what they were trying to figure out.

Ron Okimoto

Apparently the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics was based in part on the
claims about Dark Energy, but this paper claims that Dark Energy does
not need to exist in order to explain the expansion of the Universe.
Apparently, some Bloggers are questioning the Nobel Prize.

Ron Okimoto

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 23/06/2026 17:00, RonO wrote:

Has a Nobel Prize award ever been found to be in error?

Here are a few candidates.

https://malevus.com/when-nobel-prize-winners-were-wrong/
--
alias Ernest Major

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2