Is Dark Energy Falsifiable?

TL;DR

This paper questions the physical validity of dark energy by arguing that observational evidence for cosmic acceleration can be explained by turbulence and scattering effects, challenging the need for dark energy in cosmology.

Contribution

It proposes a turbulence-based alternative explanation for cosmic acceleration, suggesting that dark energy is unnecessary and that observational effects mimic acceleration.

Findings

Turbulence at Planck temperatures explains the big bang.

Supernova dimming is caused by light scattering in planetary atmospheres.

Dark energy is rendered unnecessary by turbulence effects.

Abstract

Is the accelerating expansion of the Universe true, inferred through observations of distant supernovae, and is the implied existence of an enormous amount of anti-gravitational dark energy material driving the accelerating expansion of the universe also true? To be physically useful these propositions must be falsifiable; that is, subject to observational tests that could render them false, and both fail when viscous, diffusive, astro-biological and turbulence effects are included in the interpretation of observations. A more plausible explanation of negative stresses producing the big bang is turbulence at Planck temperatures. Inflation results from gluon viscous stresses at the strong force transition. Anti-gravitational (dark energy) turbulence stresses are powerful but only temporary. No permanent dark energy is needed. At the plasma-gas transition, viscous stresses cause fragmentation of plasma proto-galaxies into dark matter clumps of primordial gas planets, each of which falsifies dark-energy cold-dark-matter cosmologies. Clumps of these planets form all stars, and explain the alleged accelerating expansion of the universe as a systematic dimming error of Supernovae Ia by light scattered in the hot turbulent atmospheres of evaporated planets surrounding central white dwarf stars.