We need to consider alternatives to dark matter that better explain cosmological observations
theconversation.com
Cosmology does not need dark matter or dark energy in an expanding universe that allows the constants of nature to evolve, and light loses energy as it travels vast distances.

edit: title was modified to call attention to the discussion in the comments

The article is by Rajendra Gupta, Adjunct professor Physics @ L’Université d’Ottawa/University of Ottawa

First few lines:

Do constants of nature — the numbers that determine how things behave, like the speed of light — change over time as the universe expands? Does light get a little tired travelling vast cosmic distances? It was believed that dark matter and dark energy explained these cosmological phenomena, but recent research indicates that our universe has been expanding without dark matter or dark energy.

Doing away with dark matter and dark energy resolves the “impossible early galaxy problem,” that arises when trying to account for galaxies that do not adhere to expectations regarding to size and age. Finding an alternative to dark matter and energy that complies with existing cosmological observations, including galaxy distribution, is possible.

“We need to consider alternatives to dark matter that better explain cosmological observations” (see comments for discussion)

  • wholookshere
    3·
    4 months ago

    That’s still a lot of words to say nothing of actual value. Are you sure you’re not a. LLM?

    For the record, it doesn’t matter if my ideas are better, it’s yours has to be better than the currently available models.

    So again, with out any kind of testable theory, how can yours be better?

    There is nothing stopping you from publishing a paper on this. But you can’t just postulate something to sound smart.

    • lost_faith@lemmy.ca
      4·
      4 months ago

      That’s still a lot of words to say nothing of actual value. Are you sure you’re not a. LLM?

      Dude, what part of NOT A SCIENTIST don’t you grasp? lol and stop with the LLM shit, it is not conducive to constructive discussions.

      For the record, it doesn’t matter if my ideas are better, it’s yours has to be better than the currently available models.

      Why exactly do I have to scientifically back up my spit balling? That is for the PhD types with big wrinkly brains and access to technology I can’t access.

      So again, with out any kind of testable theory, how can yours be better?

      Time will tell if I am correct, close, or not even in the same universe

      There is nothing stopping you from publishing a paper on this. But you can’t just postulate something to sound smart.

      Well, the fact I am not a scientist would be a huge factor in my not publishing a paper. As for trying to sound smart? lol I am smart enough to know my limits, sometimes a great idea pops into my head and other times it is complete hogwash.

      BTW did I stumble into a community that is for science experts only?