I'm not sure what you mean by "phantoms in the data". The distribution of stress-energy is a free parameter in GR; it has to be inferred from observations.
The terms "dark matter" and "dark energy" are just names for, respectively, "stress-energy that acts like the matter we can see, but we can't see it", and "stress-energy that acts like a cosmological constant". Neither of those things poses any problem for GR, since both types of stress-energy are allowed for in the theory.
"Dark matter" poses a problem for particle physicists, who have so far been unable to find any fundamental particles that would produce the observed properties. "Dark energy" only poses a problem if for some reason you don't like having a nonzero cosmological constant.
>"Dark matter" poses a problem for particle physicists, who have so far been unable to find any fundamental particles that would produce the observed properties.
It's clear to me why we haven't made any new discoveries in cosmology in the past two decades. It's this exact attitude of "the model is the truth". All models are wrong. The data can help you improve it, but you have to at least want to improve it.
The true reason we have made little progress in the past 20 or so years (and a 20 year slouch is historically nothing unusual) is that pretty much all data we collected in that time frame confirmed the standard model. It's the one big dilemma cosmology has. The standard model (LambdaCDM) works unreasonably well. Our problems with it are largely theoretical. New data is also hard to come by. Look at how long it took to plan, build and launch Euclid, cosmology's big hope of finding new physics. The hubble tension from the OP's article is already the most interesting discovery since 1998 when evidence for dark energy was first seen.
And trust me, all scientists know that all models are wrong. This isn't some unique insight that is beholden to amateur scientists on the sidelines.
> we haven't made any new discoveries in cosmology in the past two decades
Is that true?
At least for my hobbyist understanding of the progress of cosmology, quite a lot seems to have happened in the past two decades. Confirmation of the Higgs Boson at CERN [0] kept me up all night to watch the press conference; I found it extremely exciting. (Maybe you count this strictly as observational particle physics and not cosmology, but I might appeal for it to be allowed in the context of your critique).
And what of TFA? Isn't what we're reading now a new discovery in cosmology?
What about the rush of exoplanet discoveries?
What about the dramatically different galactic properties now observed in increasingly strange corners of the observable universe (including some which perhaps give insight into some of the properties of "dark matter" or whatever it ends up being)?
Yes, it's true. Mainstream science refuses to accept anything radically new because of huge baggage. Nobody wants to look stupid, then relearn, recalculate, republish, reteach everything, or lose their tenures, grants, etc. It's why science advances in small incremental steps. AFAIK, there is a team of scientists secretly working on radically new set of theories (I got contact but cannot join because of war).
That notion is ridiculous. Finding something radically new is every scientist's dream. Look at how Einstein is perceived, who arguably found one of the most radically new theories. Nobody thought he looked stupid or lost tenure. No one goes into science hoping to simply confirm what everybody already thought was true.
What evidence do you have that what they are doing now doesn't work, and does the all the evidence of how they work support your hypothesis?
Be detailed, because your comment just has some motivational speaker nonsense but no depth. For example, in the last 20 years cosmology has:
+ Refined its model of stellar formation based on observational data of the number of planets found observationally, and used this to validate and invalidate several model adjustments.
+ Observed galaxies that appear not to have dark matter, and by their existence and behavior validate some theories of dark matter, and validated others, which predict such galactic behavior. (e.g. some theories attempting to update gravity).
+ Run simulations of stellar and glactic formation that predicted structures in the universe that were later observed.
Everywhere they look they are finding things the models don't explain well, and refining the models - that is literally using the data to improve the models.
If you think you can come up with something better, then do it - all you gotta do is make up some mumbo jumbo and write down any old equation. It probably should:
- provide the same results as were observed when the plugging in the experimental parameters of existing experiments.
- explain "wierd stuff" in the data that existing models couldn't.
- predict future observations of the known phenomena with the same or better accuracy as the old model
- predict currently unobserved and unpredicted phenomena
Go ahead and take a stab real quick - I'm sure you can do it. I mean Gallieo did it, so did Newton and Einstein. Next up is willis936.
But in this case you and your friend are not right about the process. There was a claim that "the models aren't being updated based on the new data" which is categorically false. It's not that they pointed out problems in the process, it's that they flat out lied about things - such dishonesty doesn't help solve any problems you imagine you see, its just trolling.
Then why are there phantoms in the data that need dark matter and dark energy to make the supposed working model fit them?