Evidence that the key assumption made in discovery of dark energy is in error
Good. Science is meant to be a honest search for facts: data, knowledge and wisdom. Being wrong is a feature. &quot;I don&#x27;t know&quot; is an acceptable starting point with no shame attached. Being certain means a mountain of data to back it up. Being allowed to be wrong is a requirement. Anyone saying a scientist can&#x27;t ever be wrong is likely placing oddball limits on progress that will only damage and limit the future[1]. How can you experiment if you can never be wrong?<p>It would be good if people knew about the mountain-of-data aspect of science. Even with that mountain, subtleties creep in and plenty of surprises still remain.<p>Even something like water probably has properties we are clueless about. Interesting aspects that might redefine science itself and create entirely new approaches to medicine or manufacture or whatever. Maybe if you change temperature and pressure enough in the right way you end up with exotic metallic &#x2F; bonding properties. Or some new water-based ion structure having other properties. Who knows? Maybe not. Perhaps water is what it is and there is not much more to learn. Asserting we already know everything about water leads to dogma[2] and inflexibility. That&#x27;s just one example.<p>Dark matter&#x2F;dark energy may be a rounding error for all I know. Good. Now we know about the error. We* likely asked a bunch of other questions as well and now we have new answers about to appear because now that error has been confirmed.<p>* not me.<p>[1] being wrong about bridge structure is unhelpful as you drive over it. That kind of wrong is related but I&#x27;m not directly addressing that.<p>[2] dogma has expectations, rules and consequences. Science has plenty of people who forget this and turn their understanding into dogma. That too is a experience generating moment that will catch up with them later. Mountain-of-data + knowledge + wisdom.