Reading the headline the enlightened physicist doesn't need to learn more. He stops at this point ( but misses the ›› core of this article ).
Just as the Holy Office didn't need to read more than "Earth is not the center".
How stupid can physicists be?
The guys at the Stockholm University measured (2013-12) supernova 1a candles and did find: the slowdown of the expansion of the universe they expect (because of gravitation) is actually not there, in fact there is rather the opposite: an acceleration (watch the linked video!). – So, what's their conclusion?
"There must be a force that surpasses the gravity of the universe with reverse impact!"
We know they call it "dark energy".
And we all know the only purpose of this dark fiction is to hinder the truth. These physicists twist and baulk for years and years now, just to not having to admit There is no gravity of the universe.
Well, physicists are stupid, but not that stupid actually. The whole story has historical reasons. The real inhibition and difficulty is to say Einstein was wrong. For the "international clique" who controls preload="none" science in the Western world (you know what I mean) the sentence 'Einstein was wrong' would be an offense. Einstein is a symbol of their pride and their dignity. And the world would be embarrassed (with good reason) to offend their feelings.
OK. what about me? — I have to struggle with inhibitions I guess more than anyone else (for example I can't use the J word, never. - I have seen too many bad things in the TV news in 50 years). – But in regard to the name Einstein I feel free. His in some respect wrong assumptions caused trouble for a period of time that only can be compared with the Spanish Inquisition.
Here are two reasons why I stay with my verdict: Assistant of Voodoo. To put it more fair I should say: Einstein was sadly not able to resist when first others (A. Friedmann et al.) suggested to turn his equations (more precisely: equations inspired by David Hilbert's discovery of the General Theory of relativity ) into cosmic Voodoo - into the 'standard model of cosmology'. 
a) Philosophy at the beginning of the 20th century was more advanced than today's physicists may think. In physics the universe was limitless and eternal with elaborated scientific implications. So it was not self-evidence (for many a regression rather) to introduce the bubble universe and to establish the applicable premises. There was a lot of demagogy as a factor (and of course of anti-Semitism on the opposing side). — Don't tell me Einstein was clear of demagogy and tactics in this worldview power play. 
b) You don't need to measure supernova 1a candles (you don't need today's apparatus) in order to know there is no gravity of the universe. A simple thought gives the evidence (see my explanation).
This thought and the explanation were rather natural at the beginning of the 20th century and no attainment. You can be sure Einstein was no stranger to this thought. — Therefore we have to call it ruthless and selfish today when he extended his successful equations wrongfully to the universe as a whole. — A verdict not from the base of having a broader knowledge today. But Einstein could have known already then the bubble universe was purely speculative (arranging everything to fit) - it was pseudoscience from the beginning. Einstein's contribution to the bubble universe was not about science but about influence, vanity and ideology.
Historians will have to figure out what part of Einstein's personality and of his publications was auto-suggestion and honest belief (in a wrong matter) and what was intended misleading (for suppressed base motives). 
Einstein's idea of spacetime and his theory of gravitation are great. But his cosmological model is voodoo (untrue) - or is it rather funny when young physicists still in the 21st century ask: "what's wrong with the Einstein equations in cosmic scale" – and look for answers in nirvana land? – see the Stockholm YouTube video above.
Ideology and philosophy in service of intended global dominance - that's not new in history. More modern is the propagandistic importance of science (and physics in particular) in this strategy.  The U.S. academic group Foundations of Physics names it's interests 'conceptual, philosophical and historical issues in the foundations of physics'.
The concept and philosophy of physics as dominated and controlled by the U.S. elite utilizes as figurehead the brightest name available: Albert Einstein.
The one hundred years of Einstein adaptation  can be subdivided into three phases:
- 1915-1990 continuing consolidation of global acceptance
from E = m c^2 to the atomic bomb, to the standard model of cosmology
- 1991-2005 suppression of criticism and alteration
by controlling universities, foundations, publishers, peer reviews, arXiv.org etc.
- 2006-present controlled softening
toleration and even promotion of strange and obfuscatory theories and of disorientation in cosmology in general 
The last point is disturbing. — What changed the view of the ruling circles in U.S. science (not only their tactics but their strategic goals)? Isn't it dangerous for retention of power? Couldn't a whole house of cards collapse there – not only in science but in the political system?
Yes. And yes, it's about nothing but power.  — They need to prepare the world's opinion softly. It is not really dangerous when some of Einstein's core ideas are fundamentally wrong. But dangerous would be this:
A) The disenchanting truth comes out abruptly and for all applicable fields at once. Thousands of science books and chairs at universities are suddenly about nonsense, Nobel prizes, NASA mission's goals etc. — It could cause impeachment of global dominance not only in physics but in general.
B) The disenchanting truth comes from outside of that ruling circle of organized pseudoscience. (It would be perhaps the end of ruling.) So disenchantment and clarification in foundational physics has to be hindered until the big sea change comes from inside and in the name of the ruling power. — A new name has to be groomed (Max Tegmark rather not, he was hired for the opposite, for the 'controlled softening' job).
The dominance is hermetic. But how relieving would it be man could say it loud:
after 100 years of intellectual darkness the certainty we live in a limitless and open Universe is back in the possession of mankind. It's like deliverance.
What are the theories of foundational physics where Einstein was wrong ? 
- Discrete Shape of Metric Space for the Universe
The most popular and most debunking shape is the "early pea-sized universe" (especially when depicted floating in nirvana land). 
This assumption is physically and philosophically nonsense – not because 'only God could view the universe from outside' but because even God can't view the universe from outside.  God is sense. The universe is sense — outside the universe is no sense (e.g. no space, no physics, no math). There is no outside. 
Even when the universe was shrunk to such an extent there was no room for a wavelength and laws of physics were not more than a rudimentary potential the universe was just as immeasurable huge as it is today — Not because the universe wouldn't have been immeasurable more dense and immeasurable downscaled in the past, but because there is never a shape (see next point) and no measure.
- Gravity of the Universe (the field equations)
There is no such thing as "gravity of all the combined objects in the universe". Saul Perlmutter (quote) thinks there is and so do all the others who believe in Einstein's cosmological model.
But since there is no "outside the universe" there is no center of mass of the universe and therefore no gravity of the universe. – Even if the universe would have limited mass and capacity (loop structure) there is no outside, no border. Without an available border there is no shape and without a shape there is no center (of mass). 
As a planet can't orbit the universe (there is no outside) the universe itself isn't an object of gravity within itself. To put it another way: Just as "gravity of the universe" can't take effect outwards it can't take effect inwards. Or, even more plain: The center of 'Everything' is everywhere. 
- Expansion of the Universe
There are two opposing assumptions concerning measured increase of distances between galaxies (redshift): a) Redshift is about velocity of masses in space (about force, momentum, energy) or b) it is about scaling of space itself (a factor like time is, not about force, momentum, energy).
For nearly a century physicists know the latter is true, but calculate and argue with the former assumption (called 'dark energy' later on). — Not because they are idiots but because they think people are and will not notice Einstein was wrong.
- Equations of Thermodynamics Applied to the Universe
State equations of thermodynamics can only be applied to something that forms a system. The equations can't be applied to something that has no reference values (no relation of system / surroundings) and no boundary. Therefore for theoretical physicists the first necessity in the 1920s was to claim the universe has a certain mass and energy, a certain shape (metric) etc... the universe is a bubble. — Not because that would be true (in fact the universe is neither a closed system nor an open system) but because otherwise these physicists would have no chance to see their equations in the science books and to establish a doctrine they control.
— This is the most spectacular example in history of mankind for what is not science: adaptation of reality to the theory – the biggest swindle/ pseudoscience ever.
Knowing this the question is: For what purpose does a certain clique force a false and misleading world model on mankind?
The answer is: For this clique it's not about truth or science but about occupying strategic positions, it's about securing one thing – The cosmos, the future is ours, not yours.
The world's willingness to worship the wrong god is the indicator of succeeded global dominance – the mission of this clique.
A less important question is (to work off the actual reason for my article - see subtitle): What forces today's European scientists to forget their dignity and clear values in favor of a subservient career at FQXi meetings? 
Sabine Hossenfelder doesn't really name it in her review but sets a telling example how physicists can learn tricks from North America (tricks interpreted in my words):
- Offense is the best defense. — Physicists know it: measurements, data and sprawling equations are sometimes used as a pretense, an excuse not being able to get to the true nature of the subject (deceiving oneself). What to do when that is not convincing?: Blame the public not to understand equations and therefore not to understand the nature of reality!
- Complexity is best cover-up tactics. — For any swindle (not only in foundational physics  ). – "Buzz off when you question my equations/ don't understand them." — In fact those equations often tell not more than 1=1 and nothing about the nature of the subject.
- Don't hold back and be regardless. — "You can tell people anything. The vast majority will believe it." – When physicists stick with their kind and have a discussion (in an online forum or in their papers) it's sometimes as if you accidentally witness an old couple on a park bench: awkward nonsense. (Physicists. You don't believe so, but we can hear you.)
OK, don't take it seriously. It's just like in politics: People can shake their head in disapproval – and what else? Nothing. 
I wrote more on the topic here:
 Scientific foundations provide authority
Also the communist world tried to justify its system by scientific foundations and called it Scientific Marxism.
 Einstein / –Bubble Goebbels–
It sounds politically incorrect, but it isn't. – It is perhaps not a cool idea to replace "Zealot" by "Goebbels" (the sense doesn't become accessible instantly). – But actually it's simple and ok.:
- "Zealot" is an accusation for someone who is a fanatic priest of an ideology – just as the accusation "Goebbels" is.
- Zealot became a murderer for his ideology – just as Goebbels (by his words).
- The "Bubble" ideology is –more than "ANTI-QUANTUM"– a world-spanning threat to mankind (Of course Leifer is not anti-quantum – and I'm as well not).
- This is 21st century. To prove Einstein was wrong is as thrilling as stale bread.
- It's for a T-shirt, it has to be a bit strange and insider-style.
- Je suis Charlie. ( I admit to connect Goebbels with the A-bomb is unfair.)
- Without provocations these ignorant priests of Einstein's bubble universe will stay with their lies to dominate mankind until the end. – I know, my little Goebbels provocation will simply be ignored (or maybe I will be caused by a dirty squad to vanish..). – But stronger guys than me will follow!!!
 Exemplary Einstein adaptation has a name: Lämmerzahl
In 2015 the 100th anniversary of Einstein's contribution to the General Theory of Relativity is celebrated. ( >> Sitzungsbericht Nov 25th 1915 , >> in English)
In Germany the big national radio station Deutschlandfunk broadcasts the ambitious didactical serial Einstein auf dem Prüfstand. (list of all episodes, in German).
(Added 2015-06-08): It seems even the clear parts of Einstein's papers cause confusion among today's physicists (not only those rel. to the bubble universe).
Already the first of the 15 Deutschlandfunk episodes disseminates a misleading perception of Einstein's theory of gravitation: "We still don't know why to concider the equivalence principle as true [the equality of inertial and gravitational mass]." (Prof. Dr. Claus Lämmerzahl, University of Bremen, 2015, cited in the episode)
When I hear something like that I get emotional (I desperately need to use the word 'physicist' as an invective) – I wrote down my criticism (in German) >> here.
 Promotion of odd things
An unsorted list of links about science policy and it's newly promotion of odd things:
- Research Libraries / Open Access
- Physical Review Letters
- Information Practices in the Physical Sciences .. added 2015-10
- Munich: Ideas of modern physics are potentially untestable .. added 2015-12
- [ .. ]
(I should delete the point, I don't like to collect this stuff.. What the list currently starts with is in fact rather rational and not odd. – But a lot of strange papers were published on arXiv.org recently.)
 Physics and cosmology are sociology
Alexander Unzicker's perspective of foundational physics (even though he doesn't question the idea of the bubble universe and the legitimacy of it's today's ideological source): "Zu sehr krankt die heutige Physik an der Meinungsführerschaft durch vermeintliche Experten, welche in Wirklichkeit nur Spielfiguren in einem überwiegend soziologischen Prozess sind." (from 'Kosmische Inflation der Wissenschaftspreise', 2015-03)
 Physics of the bubble universe exist only for political reasons
I wrote my main article on the Einstein-was-wrong topic exactly two years ago: Pop Bang Cosmology. Since then my theses in physics haven't changed at all but it seems my view on the purpose of the internationally controlled science policy and my feelings about its serving physicists have been radicalized, according to my experiences (e.g. my correspondence 2013 with MPE Garching, SciAm ..).
I would prefer to discuss the world model topic simply as a topic of physics and not of science policy (what I indeed tried e.g. by sending my first draft naively to Peter Woit by e-mail).
But that's impossible as I learned in this two years. I was blocked completely and I learned why. So it's not me who made it a political issue. In other words: now I know, physics of the bubble universe exist only for political reasons. You can't solve one without the other. You can't have enlightenment in physics without fighting political darkness.
 Zealotic. – Saying fraught with meaning: 'pea-sized'!
Today's physicists who serve the bubble pseudoscience invoke the following as a justification:
- "We don't use the term bubble universe in the literal sense but as a simplification and metaphor to communicate the topic to the public."
- "Singularity is only a theoretical limit of a function. We don't mean it as strictly as it sounds."
You may be sure, they know full well both justifications are pretended. Without the literally meaning of the terms "size of the universe" and "Big Bang" (as a point location) their whole house of cards —their equations— would collapse.
And we would miss the funny sign made with thumb and finger toward the TV camera saying (fraught with meaning): 'pea-sized'!
 Big Crunch - You can't retract light once emitted
Another form how physicists propagate the belief in miracles is, gravity could cause a collapse of the universe ("contraction", "Big Crunch"). – The truth is: Not even 100bn SMBH (Supermassive black holes) combined in one could retract light once emitted back to its source. – It's simply Einstein Voodoo.
Some will object : what about the ultimate curvature of spacetime there? Wouldn't it suck up everything, including space? – Curvature of spacetime is another way to describe gravity. The fact stays the same: You can bend light by gravity but you can't retract light once emitted. (Having the event horizon left behind is forever.)
(Erwin Schrödinger's paper (1950) on spacetime (PDF) backs Einstein's theory of gravity and relativity. But holds aloof from Einstein's cosmological speculations.)
Collaborators of the bubble pseudoscience allege, without dark energy in the universe this retraction of light would happen anyway. – This is only one example of today's darkness in physics and it is frightening. Look at @maxplanckpress of the German Max-Planck-Gesellschaft with its friendly attitude "We are all one world of enlightened human beings". Behind that veneer their subservience to a dark global dominance is almost invisible.
 U.S. Tactics: Skew Pre-Einstein Cosmology
For the U.S. strategy one field is domination of research policy in Europe. - The other field is ideological control of the public opinion. In Germany TV documentaries like "Das Universum - eine Reise durch Raum und Zeit" were broadcasted over and over again for years (similar to this, but www.zdfinfo.de, www.n24.de and others).
U.S. propaganda knows how to establish a lie (and Europe has to obey).
Apart from all the bubble universe nonsense one big lie of these documentaries is: Physics at the beginning of the 20th century was assuming the universe ends beyond Milky Way. This way the priests of the bubble universe could allege their idea was broadening the view and was not a regression. (In fact it was the opposite of broadening! – Physics at the beginning of the 20th century were assuming the universe is limitless – even though it was not known then it's galaxies that make the main structures out there.)
 Success by covering up
"Complexity" is often intended and faked complexity. The financial crisis of 2008 is in its core a banal and simple blackmail of $1 Trillion against the community (state capitalism in its purest form).
 The world exists only from inside
Philosopher Markus Gabriel follows the same line of thought. It's impossible (even with godlike capabilities and no matter the world is limitless or not) to zoom out in a way you can view the world as a whole. Therefore the world can't be other than ideational and exists only from inside.
(Added 2015-06-30): Professor Andrew Truscott stated in a paper (published online 2015-05-25): "Reality does not exist if you are not looking at it." – I appreciate this kind of clarity. It confirms the positions I take in The Universe as Manifestation of Sense:
- "The universe exists as a feedback of sense and can't exist without a feedback of sense [without looking at it]."
- "The universe and it's cognitive mapping [e.g. measurement in an experimental set-up] together form reality." – One does not exist without the other.
- "The basic rule of nature [when you intend looking at it]: what is not enforced (is not necessary to keep sense) doesn't happen."
As I described in my paper other universes are possibly made of different laws of nature and even of something else than space and time. Anyway, other universes (other systems of sense) can definitely not interact with our.
To be clear, other universes are not outside of this universe but are not there and can not be there for this universe.
(To experience how far disorientation in this matter can go read Max Tegmark or this article from Perimeter Institute – In both cases it is not stupidity, it's calculated obfuscation to preserve the status quo in foundational physics, the wrongful idea of the bubble universe.)
 Promoting darkness + deriding people for living in darkness
Hossenfelder's report prompted feelings again. (After I did resign already - my stance in physics was blocked in press and completely downvoted in forums.) Hossenfelder's position (and the purpose of her blog) reminded me strongly of a movie I saw in 1988: My Friend Ivan Lapshin.
It was the scorn and arrogance of those Stalinist flunkeys who repeat again and again what the authorities want to hear and who are not only too narrow to understand how bitter it is for decent people to live in darkness but who even deride people for living in darkness (like Hossenfelder does with her 'quack' accusations).
 Einstein's paper of 1930: The universe is a Sphere
A. Einstein, Zum kosmologischen Problem der allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie, 1930, (translation and analysis)
Einstein calls in this paper the universe a "spacial spherical world" and calculates a radius. Physicists of later generations tried to save this (quite naive) model by modifying the equations – by replacing 'radius' by the term 'radius of curvature' of the universe ( - in the end with the intention to obfuscate - the basic problem stays the same).
As I've shown in The Universe as Manifestation of Sense the universe can't be other than a thinkable universe. The universe is expanding. But a universe with a certain (expanding) radius is for sure not thinkable - because there is no outside, no shape. (Maybe I'm the only one, but when I think of space the dimensions are without a limit from the first millisecond on.) Space is or is not. (Universe = Thinking the Universe)
Einstein's position "Because there is a formula that describes a sphere the universe is a sphere" is voodoo.
 Einstein's political attitude in his science paper
It's important at this point to distinguish between Einstein's conduct as a citizen/ physicist and the attitude of the cosmological theory itself. Einstein's tactics to express what he thinks of the community he lives in are well known (his Nobel speech 1923 in Gothenburg instead of Stockholm, to build his summer house in Caputh from own resources instead of a donated one in Berlin, to celebrate his success abroad as a statement against those who bankrolled his professorship in Berlin, his sympathy for institutions (gangs) which organised immigration of tens of thousands in the 20's from East Europe toward Berlin etc.).
But that's not what this essay is about. The only interest here is the attitude in science. — The fact Einstein's cosmological model refuses to refer to existing 'alien' models even with one word. It tells:
Your cosmos is not our cosmos. We are out of touch with your shabby 'limitless' world.
 The sentence is borrowed from my essay Pop Bang Cosmology.
 Einstein: "God does not play dice." . . But God does in Einstein's view play marbles with the 'universe marble'. – In both aspects (quantum mechanics and cosmology) Einstein was wrong.
 Einstein called his addition of a cosmological constant to the field equations later the "biggest blunder" of his life. (Instead of calling in general the application of the field equations to the universe a crime against science.) – Einstein's diction ("Eselei") indicates his flippancy in such questions, so it's rather about auto-suggestion than intended misleading. Einstein couldn't expect this will ruin the life and mission of thousands of scientists of later generations.
(The H-bomb is a different case. There he could indeed expect tens of thousands of women and children burning alive. That was not auto-suggestion.)
 added 2015-12 In his paper of 1917 Einstein tried to abolish spatial infinity of the universe while he introduced the idea of a "focal point" (verbatim on page 143) of the universe. All this on the ground that otherwise the application of the field equations to the universe wouldn't work. (That's the opposite of the scientific method.) Einstein wrote:
"..ein mit unendlicher kinetischer Energie begabter Himmelskörper [könnte] das räumlich Unendliche unter Überwindung der Newtonschen Anziehungskräfte erreichen."
This is again an example (apart from the equations themselves) Einstein's entire cosmology is based on the absurd assumption the universe as a whole causes gravity. — But the center of Everything is everywhere. There is no gravity of the universe.