Dark energy is such a stupid term. You can tell it's a term designed to court funding, and garner intrigue.
If they used the term "unknown energy" instead, review boards would look at the grant proposal and just shake their heads. Maybe "unexplained/anticipated energy" would stand a better chance as a term. For added excitement, the three letter acronym UAE could be used to foster an impression of technical expertise and mystery.
You are right of course. And I have to accept why scientists refuse reading my blog post. It's indeed not research in its own right - it simply tells what 1+1 gives.
Dark energy is not only a stupid term, it's a stupid topic. -- Even I can write spectacular papers on "dark energy".
My main statement: -- There are two opposing assumptions concerning measured increase of distances between galaxies (redshift): a) Redshift is about velocity of masses IN space (about force, momentum, energy) or b) it is about scaling OF space itself (a factor like time is, not about force, momentum, energy).
For nearly a century physicists know the latter is true, but calculate and argue with the former assumption (called 'dark energy' later on). -- Not because they are idiots but because they think people are and will not notice Einstein was wrong. -- More:
http://ow.ly/MrQgyhttp://ow.ly/LGgJo
If they used the term "unknown energy" instead, review boards would look at the grant proposal and just shake their heads. Maybe "unexplained/anticipated energy" would stand a better chance as a term. For added excitement, the three letter acronym UAE could be used to foster an impression of technical expertise and mystery.