In terms of taking this description to task:
"Eleven years ago results were first presented indicating that most of the energy in our universe is not in stars or galaxies but is tied to space itself. In the language of cosmologists, a large cosmological constant is directly implied by new distant supernovae observations. Suggestions of a cosmological constant (lambda) were not new -- they have existed since the advent of modern relativistic cosmology. Such claims were not usually popular with astronomers, though, because lambda is so unlike known universe components, because lambda's value appeared limited by other observations, and because less- strange cosmologies without lambda had previously done well in explaining the data. What is noteworthy here is the seemingly direct and reliable method of the observations and the good reputations of the scientists conducting the investigations. Over the past eleven years, independent teams of astronomers have continued to accumulate data that appears to confirm the existence of dark energy and the unsettling result of a presently accelerating universe. The above picture of a supernova that occurred in 1994 on the outskirts of a spiral galaxy was taken by one of these collaborations."
"Eleven years ago results were first presented indicating that most of the energy in our universe is not in stars or galaxies but is tied to space itself."
Yes, I agree, there is considerable electric and magnetic field energy in space, and it is not able to be interpreted as 'matter' in our observations.
"In the language of cosmologists, a large cosmological constant is directly implied by new distant supernovae observations."
The problem here is that redshift is not caused by recessional velocity alone, and there is substantial evidence to support this statement, but mainstream science ignores the data. So they reach incorrect conclusions about true distance to observed objects, and refuse to acknowledge any reevaluations.
"Suggestions of a cosmological constant (lambda) were not new -- they have existed since the advent of modern relativistic cosmology. Such claims were not usually popular with astronomers, though, because lambda is so unlike known universe components, because lambda's value appeared limited by other observations, and because less-strange cosmologies without lambda had previously done well in explaining the data."
Again, mainstream's misinterpretation of redshift lies at the bottom of their assumptions of an expanding universe. The universe is NOT expanding. It is only a lack of understanding about what redshift is and how it occurs that leads to the erroneous concept of Lambda in the first place.
"What is noteworthy here is the seemingly direct and reliable method of the observations and the good reputations of the scientists conducting the investigations."
This is due to the fact that anyone going against the grain of mainstream science and the ideological tenets put forth and enforced by The Church/Big Bang Theory adherants, is ostracized and in danger of losing their authoritative position of employment. So good reputationed scientists find it professionally advantageous to go along with the wacky theories that mainstream science promotes, like dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, redshift as an absolute indicator of distance, and Lambda as indicator of an expanding universe.
"Over the past eleven years, independent teams of astronomers have continued to accumulate data that appears to confirm the existence of dark energy and the unsettling result of a presently accelerating universe."
The reason we observe the rotational properties that galaxies have, is because electric fields and magnetic fields surround galaxies and are the main progenitor of galactic rotational properties, not gravity. The electric field and magnetic field forces supply the missing 'dark energy' and 'dark matter' forces necessary that mainstream astrophysics is looking for. It is only mainstream astrophysics' stubborn blind refusal to listen to or even investigate Electric Theory's postulations about how electric and magnetic fields influence galactic rotational properties that the erroneous concepts of dark matter and dark energy are even entertained.
http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/M ... rames.html
http://plasmascience.net/tpu/downloadsC ... TPS-II.pdf