Basically no, but maybe. Either dark energy is the cosmological constant - understanding its value is a real problem in physics. Or dark energy is something else like a scalar field like quintessence or moduli fields, again these are not really well-understood. A cosmological constant would be something constant and uniform throughout the Universe. Scalar fields would be dynamical and change in space and time. They could lead to more interesting phenomena than a cosmological constant.

Another possibility is that general relativity does not work on cosmological scales. I think this is a less popular potential solution. For one general relativity works so well at other scales. Secondly, I am not aware of any theory that removes this dark energy problem and reduced to general relativity at the scales we know it works well.

Stefan Bernhard Rüster

" GR (General Relativity) does not contain a gravitational potential energy-momentum density tensor. "

It is well-known that, although the gravitational field carries energy and momentum, that no local tensor-like object that describes this - at least within a metric theory of gravity.

" The essential ansatz in my theory is the usage of the gravitational potential energy density, which is totally neglected in GR. "

I am a little worried that as Newtonian gravity comes in a limit of GR, that you should be able to do the same with your theory with the "extra" gravitational potential included.

I don't mean to be dismissive, but I am very skeptical here.

Stefan Bernhard Rüster I am far from an expert in Lie algebras!

But thanks for the suggestion.

Yes, there is, but it was oppressed and did not receive any media momentum.

"The Inner Universe Theory of Dark Energy Interpretation"

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354354403_The_Inner_Universe_Theory_of_Dark_Energy_Interpretation

.

Simple change in the beginning of the universe.

A simple change in the way the universe was created leads to amazing results, consistent with most observations.

The universe created as a result of energy leakage (dark energy) from a very small point, not as a result of a big bang. This leakage leads to the emergence of our current universe. Through a specific leakage mechanism, can get a new equation explaining the acceleration of the universe expansion. According to the new equation, acceleration rates for the future can be obtained. And it will become clear to us that dark energy does not exist, the dark energy is just a property of space-time, which is considered as a result of the effect of the fifth-dimension (inner universe).

The energy leakage from the center (the inner universe) led to the creation of the current universe. As a result of this leakage, the center’s rotation speed increased around itself at a fixed point, and with the passage of time this leakage leads to a decrease in its energy and center mass, and because of the lack of friction and resistance. The increased rotation causes more dark energy to leak out as a wave that forms an acceleration, causing its outer circumference to increase, causing the universe to expand further and further accelerating the spacing of the galaxies on it.

A decrease in energy from the center leads to a decrease in mass, which leads to more rotation and so on. This rotation causes the expansion of spacetime, which leads to a direct proportional relationship between the acceleration of the expansion of the outer universe and the increase in the rotation of the center of the universe around itself at a fixed point. This results in the law of accelerating the expansion of the universe. The acceleration of the expansion of the universe is directly proportional to the increase in the rotation of the center of the universe around itself at a fixed point. So we now have two places, and not a single place expanding, as the theory of the big bang assumed, thus, we solve the singularity problem of the big bang model and solving horizon problem, because the beginning of the leakage is gradual, giving the universe enough time to unify its properties. Also we agree with the observations and give an explanation for why the cosmic acceleration anisotropy.

Scientists do not care about the media. It's not how we disseminate information.

Excuse my trolling but i have a theory that the universe does NOT accelerate , because such was a conclusion based on evaluating data under the assumption that present theories are correct and complete . However i feel close to certain we have no appreciated a factor of red-shift which stems from the density of the fabric of space in which light is a traveling disturbance being greater in the past , just as it is greater at my feet . But so light was bluer in the past . But if i consider the red-shift relation to be the same as the matter density relation , with the same set of data we'd conclude a deceleration curve ! I think this hideous result should have made us think out of the box and served as a wake up call that our worldview isn't right or complete , rather than state "the universe accelerates" .

A problem i see is that once a nobel prize has been given we are facing a monster of a dogma that no matter how false will be difficult to correct .

It really starts with getting our worldview right in the guts where Einstein went so wrong . The existence of the fabric of space (of change) in which light is a traveling - and restmatter a standing disturbance (pattern of change) . Everything can be simply modeled from there , i.e. equations are a bit more complex than SR but solve every problem SR solves and better and more and this is just the beginning .

Lawrence Krauss so had a theory that the fabric of space has a repulsive force . So i guess if you have 2 units between 2 points originally , and they double at a rate , and then 4 double each at the same rate etc. the speed at which our 2 points fly apart increases exponentially .

If the universe even accelerates though ... i doubt it does . If we forgot a factor of redshift which i think we did , evaluating the same data will lead to deceleration .

Light is bluer in denser space - i.e. at my feet than my head , closer to matter ... but then in the early days of the universe matter (galaxies) were closer so over time light also redshifted due to this factor i think has not been accounted for .

Is it enough to decellerate the expansion ? I do not know - but the factor certainly exists .

Its sad that no one thought out of the box but everyone bowed to a conclusion drawn from incomplete theory .

Hanna Edwards I would be very happy if there were some definitive proof that there is no acceleration. Expansion seems to be on a pretty firm foundation, but introducing a mysterious repulsive force is not very satisfying.

There has been a recent publication that provides at least one explanation for why there may be no acceleration (I don't have it handy, but it had something to do with averaging over a larger part of the sky, rather than the small area where the Type Ia SN were observed). One other item someone should investigate is how Type Ia SN explode for stars that are very far away, and whose composition might be very different (fewer metals in the material being accreted). I haven't been able to find an open source code for this kind of SN.

Timothy M. Lawlor - i'm working on an experiment to measure observer motion relative to an RF signal in a novel approach . Its built , but i am still experimenting to develop the final experiment (i made discoveries on the way that may have no explanation in today's known physics - one involving clock orientation wrt each other associated to a preferred direction in space) and do not know if i will succeed to measure the effect in isolation by my own strength . But if i do or someone else does - there will be consequences onto our understanding as of there being a fabric of change in which light is a traveling disturbance (restmatter a standing one) . But then light is bluer at your feet because the fabric is denser and a slower speed causes blueshift . But in the far back universe matter was denser so the fabric was denser , and then light got redshifted as the fabric got less dense - by this additional phenomenon that adds an additional factor of redshift (to ie. the graph taught in i.e. ANUx which related the supernova to redshift) such that it will accelerate less or even decelerate .

I want to literally see the fabric of reality since i am a child when i held 2 magnets in my hand repelling each other (and i felt/saw the fabric) and my experiment is meant to do that and i want it to bear fruit and build more to see this fabric .

I have top of their range in short-term-stability atomic clocks from Morion and a phasemeter from liquidinstruments . Under full experimental conditions I achieved stability of