astronomers-from-australia

"… one does not expect a . To my mind, I was genuinely surprised because when you make a discovery of acceleration–well, what causes the acceleration? Well, we give it a name–'–but we don’t understand it yet. I would not be surprised if we don’t understand it during my lifetime. Without understanding it, I felt it wouldn’t be worthy of a Nobel Prize. The fact that it was given pretty timely–you know, I was only 44 last year–was a bit of surprise."

"As we discover , we suffer from a variety of s, both in our nearby and distant searches. The most significant effect is – a selection effect which leads brightness limited searches finding brighter than average objects near their sensitivity limit. This bias is caused by the larger volume in which bright objects can be uncovered compared to their fainter counterparts. Malmquist bias errors are proportional to the square of the intrinsic dispersion of the distance method, and because SN Ia are such accurate distance indicators, these errors are quite small – approximately 2%. We use s to estimate these effects, and remove their effects from our s."

"With the as an anchor, theory converged on a standard model of the universe, which was still in place in 1998, at the time of our discovery of the . This standard model was based on the theory of general relativity, and two assumptions. assumption one was that the , and assumption two that it is composed of normal , i.e. matter whose density falls directly in proportion to the volume of space, which it occupies. Within this framework, it was possible to devise observational tests of the overall theory, as well as provide values for the fundamental constants within this model – the current expansion rate (), and the average density of matter in the universe. For this model, it was also possible to directly relate the density of the universe to the rate of cosmic deceleration and the geometry of space. it stated that the more material the faster the deceleration, that above a critical density the universe has a and below this a ."

"MOND works far too well! In fact, just as planetary systems are Keplerian objects, galaxies are Milgromian objects. Milgrom’s discovery of a0 is likely as epochal as Planck’s discovery of h."

"The current standard model of cosmology (SMoC) requires The Dual Dwarf Galaxy Theorem to be true according to which two types of dwarf galaxies must exist … The Dual Dwarf Galaxy Theorem is falsified by observation and dynamically relevant cold or warm DM cannot exist. It is shown that the SMoC is incompatible with a large set of other extragalactic observations."

"The existence of dark matter particles can never be disproven by direct experiment because ever lighter particles and/or ever smaller cross sections just below the current detection threshold may be postulated for every non-detection. There exists no falsifiable prediction concerning the DM particles."

"Galaxies are observed to be simple systems following laws that result from scale-invariant dynamics which do not emanate from the haphazard merging history of halos of exotic dark matter."

"The first step is that we need to revisit the validity of Newton’s universal law of gravitation. Starting in the 1980s, Mordehai Milgrom at the Weizmann Institute in Israel showed that a small generalisation of Newton’s laws can yield the observed dynamics of matter in galaxies and in galaxy clusters without dark matter. This approach is broadly known as MOND (MOdified Newtonian Dynamics). Milgrom’s correction allows gravitational attraction to fall off with distance more slowly than expected (rather than falling off with the square of distance as per Newton) when the local gravitational acceleration falls below an extremely low threshold. This threshold could be linked to other cosmological properties such as the ‘dark energy’ that accounts for the accelerating expansion of the Universe.These links suggest a deeper fundamental theory of space, time and matter, which has not yet been formulated."

"Community Reactions: "You are un-hireable" My (counter)Reaction: 1) "There is something not quite right with the community" 2) "Once one leaves the dark matter framework, real and correct predictions become possible""

"... MOND is the one theoretical description of gravitation which offers the greatest number of predictions which have been verified ..."

"The existence of of cosmological relevance has been ruled out with extreme (>5sigma) confidence using tests ..."

"The existence of exotic dark matter particles outside the standard model of particle physics constitutes a central hypothesis of the current standard model of cosmology (SMoC). Using a wide range of observational data I outline why this hypothesis cannot be correct for the real Universe."

"The currently (2010) widely accepted/believed description of the birth and evolution of the universe and of its contents is "Lambda Cold Dark Matter Concordance Cosmological Model" (LCDM CCM) … My own research was very much confined to the early version of the LCDM CCM (mid-1990's) when I began performing numerical experiments on the satellite galaxies of the Milky Way. I was quite happy with the CCM, as everyone else, and did not bother with the fundamental issues raised by some. With time, however, it became apparent that the LCDM CCM accounts poorly for the properties of the satellite galaxies and their distribution about the Milky Way. Warm dark matter models fared no better."

"For me MOND is just as nonstandard as ΛCDM."

"I may be a minority of one in advocating that one should NOT separate science and politics—partly because I am old enough to remember the Weimar Republic before 1934..."