https://greekreporter.com/2024/03/16/universe-dark-matter/

Our Universe Has No Dark Matter, New Research Suggests

A new study from the University of Ottawa shakes up our
understanding of the universe. Published in The Astrophysical
Journal, the study challenges what we thought we knew about
the universe’s makeup.

Rajendra Gupta, a physics professor at the Faculty of Science,
came to this conclusion by using a model that blends two
theories: covarying coupling constants (CCC) and “tired
light” (TL).

The CCC+TL model combines ideas about how natural forces
change over time in the cosmos and how light loses energy
during long travels.

This model has been put to the test and has been found to
align with various observations, like the distribution of
galaxies and the evolution of light from the early universe.

.. . .

So ... there's now a mathematical basis - that aligns
with actual observations - which says that DM just
isn't necessary. Other forces may SEEM like DM, but
it's an illusion.

DM always sounded like the magical "luminiferous
aether" from long back ... a "fill-in" theory
until more data/math arrived.

Dark ENERGY ... that MIGHT be real. I'm gonna
suggest the "big bang" never stopped banging -
the energy input is just now spread out over
a much larger hypervolume and thus less obvious.

The "tired light" theory is also very interesting.
I'd always suspected that light would slowly lose
energy over great time/distance. This puts a lot
of our redshift-based calx in question.

Le 2024-03-17 à 01:56, 68hx.1805 a écrit :
> https://greekreporter.com/2024/03/16/universe-dark-matter/
>
> Our Universe Has No Dark Matter, New Research Suggests
>
> A new study from the University of Ottawa shakes up our
> understanding of the universe. Published in The Astrophysical
> Journal, the study challenges what we thought we knew about
> the universe’s makeup.
>
> Rajendra Gupta, a physics professor at the Faculty of Science,
> came to this conclusion by using a model that blends two
> theories: covarying coupling constants (CCC) and “tired
> light” (TL).

Those are NOT theories but hypothesis.
BOTH have been disproved over 20 years ago.

>
> The CCC+TL model combines ideas about how natural forces
> change over time in the cosmos and how light loses energy
> during long travels.
>
> This model has been put to the test and has been found to
> align with various observations, like the distribution of
> galaxies and the evolution of light from the early universe.
>
> . . .
>
>   So ... there's now a mathematical basis - that aligns
>   with actual observations - which says that DM just
>   isn't necessary. Other forces may SEEM like DM, but
>   it's an illusion.
>
>   DM always sounded like the magical "luminiferous
>   aether" from long back ... a "fill-in" theory
>   until more data/math arrived.
>
>   Dark ENERGY ... that MIGHT be real. I'm gonna
>   suggest the "big bang" never stopped banging -
>   the energy input is just now spread out over
>   a much larger hypervolume and thus less obvious.
>
>   The "tired light" theory is also very interesting.
>   I'd always suspected that light would slowly lose
>   energy over great time/distance. This puts a lot
>   of our redshift-based calx in question.
That CCC can't explain how the velocity of stars is so high in the outer
parts of most galaxies, but, that there are a few ones where the outer
stars travel at almost the velocity that pure Newtonian mechanics predict.
CCC can't explain why there is places where we find gravitational
lensing where there is not enough visible mater present for the observed
effect.

So, the news of the «demise» of dark mater are greatly exaggerated.