From the University of Geneva and the “soon we’ll have ‘dark climate’ as a way of explaining the pause” department comes this bit of science which is fascinating, but like future climate predictions, is only as good as the assumptions and input to the model he created. Still, I trust astronomers more than I trust climate scientists, because they don’t have that “save the planet” paradigm going on.
A University of Geneva researcher has recently shown that the accelerating expansion of the universe and the movement of the stars in the galaxies can be explained without drawing on the concepts of dark matter and dark energy
For close on a century, researchers have hypothesised that the universe contains more matter than can be directly observed, known as “dark matter”. They have also posited the existence of a “dark energy” that is more powerful than gravitational attraction. These two hypotheses, it has been argued, account for the movement of stars in galaxies and for the accelerating expansion of the universe respectively. But – according to a researcher at the University of Geneva (UNIGE), Switzerland – these concepts may be no longer valid: the phenomena they are supposed to describe can be demonstrated without them. This research, which is published in The Astrophysical Journal, exploits a new theoretical model based on the scale invariance of the empty space, potentially solving two of astronomy’s greatest mysteries.
In 1933, the Swiss astronomer Fritz Zwicky made a discovery that left the world speechless: there was, claimed Zwicky, substantially more matter in the universe than we can actually see. Astronomers called this unknown matter “dark matter”, a concept that was to take on yet more importance in the 1970s, when the US astronomer Vera Rubin called on this enigmatic matter to explain the movements and speed of the stars. Scientists have subsequently devoted considerable resources to identifying dark matter – in space, on the ground and even at CERN – but without success. In 1998 there was a second thunderclap: a team of Australian and US astrophysicists discovered the acceleration of the expansion of the universe, earning them the Nobel Prize for physics in 2011. However, in spite of the enormous resources that have been implemented, no theory or observation has been able to define this black energy that is allegedly stronger than Newton’s gravitational attraction. In short, black matter and dark energy are two mysteries that have had astronomers stumped for over 80 years and 20 years respectively.
A new model based on the scale invariance of the empty space
The way we represent the universe and its history are described by Einstein’s equations of general relativity, Newton’s universal gravitation and quantum mechanics. The model-consensus at present is that of a big bang followed by an expansion. “In this model, there is a starting hypothesis that hasn’t been taken into account, in my opinion”, says André Maeder, honorary professor in the Department of Astronomy in UNIGE’s Faculty of Science. “By that I mean the scale invariance of the empty space; in other words, the empty space and its properties do not change following a dilatation or contraction.” The empty space plays a primordial role in Einstein’s equations as it operates in a quantity known as a “cosmological constant”, and the resulting universe model depends on it. Based on this hypothesis, Maeder is now re-examining the model of the universe, pointing out that the scale invariance of the empty space is also present in the fundamental theory of electromagnetism.
Do we finally have an explanation for the expansion of the universe and the speed of the galaxies?
When Maeder carried out cosmological tests on his new model, he found that it matched the observations. He also found that the model predicts the accelerated expansion of the universe without having to factor in any particle or dark energy. In short, it appears that dark energy may not actually exist since the acceleration of the expansion is contained in the equations of the physics.
In a second stage, Maeder focused on Newton’s law, a specific instance of the equations of general relativity. The law is also slightly modified when the model incorporates Maeder’s new hypothesis. Indeed, it contains a very small outward acceleration term, which is particularly significant at low densities. This amended law, when applied to clusters of galaxies, leads to masses of clusters in line with that of visible matter (contrary to what Zwicky argued in 1933): this means that no dark matter is needed to explain the high speeds of the galaxies in the clusters. A second test demonstrated that this law also predicts the high speeds reached by the stars in the outer regions of the galaxies (as Rubin had observed), without having to turn to dark matter to describe them. Finally, a third test looked at the dispersion of the speeds of the stars oscillating around the plane of the Milky Way. This dispersion, which increases with the age of the relevant stars, can be explained very well using the invariant empty space hypothesis, while there was before no agreement on the origin of this effect.
Maeder’s discovery paves the way for a new conception of astronomy, one that will raise questions and generate controversy. “The announcement of this model, which at last solves two of astronomy’s greatest mysteries, remains true to the spirit of science: nothing can ever be taken for granted, not in terms of experience, observation or the reasoning of human beings”, conclued André Maeder.
###
““In this model, there is a starting hypothesis that hasn’t been taken into account, in my opinion”, says André Maeder, honorary professor in the Department of Astronomy in UNIGE’s Faculty of Science. ”
I like this guy. When a theory has problems it never hurts to back to ground zero and make sure all the assumptions are valid and that none have been overlooked.
+1
Oh, there will be hot defence of the cumbersome stealth matter and energy –
Planck’s other famous theory is that “science advances one funeral at a time”. I’ve taken issue with the dark theory because it is one of those “what else could it be” type theories, like the very one that anchors catastrophist climate theory. In both cases “what else could it be” is the lifeboat of a dull pupil.
Next to go (with the requisite funerals) is String Theory. I believe what happened here is all the juicy stuff in physics was discovered in the 350yrs prior to 100yrs ago by physicist’s who numbered far fewer than annual PhD grads from California. So you have a lot of smart people picking up crumbs or going into what I call performance physics, like we have in music. I guess with only 12 notes and 3 or 4 usable octaves all the finest melodic and harmonic work has long been completed. Of course, jazz and Blues added pizzazz to music, but in reaching and stretching for new sounds, we got weirder and weirder.
I sort of see physics at the rap- heavy (dark) metal stage and climate has disintegrated into what Anthony Watts brilliantly calls “Dark Climate”. ‘What else could it be?’ The spaghetti graphs, I suppose are their “Strings” Climate has broken new ground for sure, though. With all their failed predictions, CAGW has shifted to Climate Change, a bullet proof everything theory that can’t be falsified. Also, their finest innovation is, “Observations don’t fit the theory, change the observations”. Hmm… most of these guys call themselves physicists. How long will it be before physicists see the benefits of elastic empirical data? It’s only a small step from having phenomena that aren’t detectable!
There has been a lot of good observational, experimental and theoretical physics in the past century, but I see your general point.
Granted, quantum mechanics gradually arose from the necessity of discrete energy values in Max Planck’s solution in 1900 to the black-body radiation problem, and from the necessary correspondence between energy and frequency in Albert Einstein’s 1905 paper, which offered a quantum-based theory to explain the photoelectric effect. However, early quantum theory was profoundly re-conceived in the mid-1920s by Erwin Schrödinger, Werner Heisenberg, Max Born and others. From this period stems the modern theory, formulated in various specially developed mathematical formalisms, in one of which a mathematical function, the wave function, provides information about the probability amplitude of position, momentum, and other physical properties of a particle.
Only in 1920 did Rutherford name the H nucleus “proton”, and it was not until 1935 that Chadwick discovered the neutron. Nuclear fission of heavy elements wasn’t discovered until December 1938 by Otto Hahn and his assistant Fritz Strassmann, and explained theoretically in January 1939 by Lise Meitner and her nephew Otto Robert Frisch.
I could keep going on physics advancements in the 1940s to 2010s, but you get the idea.
Gabro, I get your point too. Ive become a curmugeonly sort these days. I think it was Dark Climate wot done it and the APS, Royal Society in the hands of moles for the destruction of the Enlightenment spirit.
Curmudgeonly is good. You’re entitled after such a long and distinguished career.
The return on investment of science does indeed appear to be decreasing.
dark climate.
That would be the “cause” of warming that skeptics cant sem to find.
the rest of us know its GHGs
Dark matter/energy is to cosmology what water vapour feedbacks are to AGW.
Both will eventually be shown to be nonexistent.
How exactly do you “know” this?
Warming from c. 1977 to the late ’90s was no different from the early 20th century warming. Hence, no CO2 “fingerprint”. And earth cooled dramatically from the ’40s to the PDO flip of 1977, despite rising CO2. Again, no CO2 effect.
So please state how you know that warming since the ’40s or whenever is due to GHGs. Thanks.
There is plenty of “dark matter” in climate science which is usually present alongside a pungent odour. Some say it is a good fertiliser too.
The paper on which all the discussion is based https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.11425
It’s an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us and penetrates us; it binds the galaxy together.
Am I describing dark matter/energy or the force?
Just published by Sabine Hossenfelder: Astrophysicist discovers yet another way to screw yourself over when modifying Einstein’s theory (http://backreaction.blogspot.be/2017/11/astrophysicist-discovers-yet-another.html).
For those of you who merely want to know whether you should pay attention to this new variant of modified gravity, the answer is no. The author does not have a consistent theory. The math is wrong.
She is correct the maths is garbage.
English is evidently not your first language which leads me to wonder regarding your expertise in the mathmatical language. Note, also, in the paper indicated above by RG that the term “standard model” is used in reference to cosmology, for which you attempted to belittle me for using in a previous comment I made indicating it was a term confined to particle/quantum physics. Not so! There are many on this site who attempt to show their brilliance with multitudes of comments. Quantity does not make up for poor quality.
Thank you for posting a review by someone, Dr. Hossenfelder, who actually understands the physics and math issues of GR and is qualified to review the paper.
Was waiting for such a review by her.
Sabine Hossenfelder sounds like a cosmo-dominatrix who likes bossing people.
If that is how you interpret the review of a theoretical physicist who specializes in general relativity,
then that’s your issue.
Now Maeder can work on the ‘dark gases’: how N2 and O2 – 99% of the atmosphere – do not interact with electromagnetic infrared radiation, at any temperature; contradicting QM and thermodynamics.
+1
It is astounding how Einstein proponents on the gravitational aspects of relativity 1. get really bitchy when you mention real problems with the theory and 2. How much they dont actually know about the theory they are defending!!
LOL
Anyone who believes the following are insane
There is this exceptionally contorted area of spacetime curvature around their body, different at head compared to feet, different at arse compared to elbow. << if you believe this, you should not be in the internet without adult supervision.
Geometry cannot overlap without there being a cancelling out. It makes no sense geometrically for the earth to have pull on the sun, but it makes sense in terms of two objects pulling on each other WITH FORCE
Newton says FORCE, Einstein says GEOMETRY so combining both is JUNK SCIENCE
I am not saying Einstein was just wrong on everything or even most things, clearly that is not the case, as some complete cut and paste type above throwing spam questions at me seems to imply
I’m sorry but my list of points were not cut and paste but basic observations that cannot be explained using Newton’s theory but are explained using Einstein’s Theories of Special and General Relativity. That doesn’t make Einstein the end point but at least a step along the road of understanding how the universe works. My style of presentation was simply to mimic your own approach as I thought you might feel comforted by one bite oneliners.
As for my own view, somewhere in the morass of Spin networks, String Theory, Twistor Theory and Everett’s Many Worlds Interpretation there is some hope of unifying the Quantum World with General Relativity as the next step in understanding what it all means and how it all fits together and works.
It’s all just steps down the road of logically consistent possibilities which may or may not be the road to follow. Certainly better than the nihilism of many of the comments I’ve read here.
I’m sure the answer will turn up on the Dark Web.
😀
The answer to what?
The question in the title.
My main issue with Einstein is one words used in his work to accompany equations (Empty universe with static field (Static = no energy no mass)
Gravitational waves are decoupled from mass. Einstein would say that is bollocks and even Einstein was having none of this black hole junk science
My main issue with Einstein is one words used in his work to accompany equations (Empty universe with static field (Static = no energy no mass) and then inserting mass with words.
The others are space time, Space is an area defined by a set of encompassing coordinates, nothing more, time is a human concept to measure procession.
To make these physically real is retardation beyond measure
This nonsense is so pervasive that we have people like de Grasse Tyson (uber hack) calling Interstellar the movie, “scientifically accurate” 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀
The “giving skeptics a bad name” comments for putting forward arguments against mainstream theories, from people who are against mainstream climate theory and suffer insults as a result, is rather ironic and shows the echo chamber affects everywhere.
Mental weakness folks. The lack of arguments to compliment these moronic comments is also noted.
Believers on here too it seems. I dont have belief, I have questions, and those that cannot answer them should just shut up I would suggest, instead of engaging in making it personal. My replies are not personal, they are observations, with reasoning for them laid out as to why the replies were moronic and the posters of said comments, idiots.
Essentially @Gabro, you are personally affected by my arguments?, your character is attacked by them as a skeptic? I am giving you a bad name by sharing what I think?
You follow it up by claiming I know nothing about something you know nothing about? that’s too funny. How could you know I am wrong? oh yeah, “consensus”, silly me, I should know better, just I expected more on here, but I guess the cognitively limited (an observation) occupy all spaces online.
You really cannot see how ridiculous such comments are?
I must shut up and not post lest you feel you get a bad name, and all skeptics get a bad name? even though I am merely being skeptical
How funny is it that you need to look up the meaning of “skeptical”:D
@Gabro here, for you “having doubts or reservations”
I have doubts and reservations and I put forward arguments for said, right or wrong, the fact you just dismiss and then claim I give all those who having doubts or reservations a bad name, lol.
You are obviously out of your depth, those that are often bring in their emotions.
Pathetic really if I am honest that so called skeptical people sink so low
I haven’t brought in any emotions, unlike you. All I’ve brought in is physics, which you really ought to study before presuming to comment upon the subject out of total ignorance. You’re not just out of your depth, but have none at all.
From the article: “For close on a century, researchers have hypothesised that the universe contains more matter than can be directly observed, known as “dark matter”.”
I think there is no doubt about it, there is more matter in the universe than we can observe. There are comets, and asteriods, all sorts of planets, neutron stars, brown dwarfs, black holes.
The question is how much of this dark matter is out there. How much of a solar system’s material is flung out into interstellar space as the solar system forms? How many black holes are there in the universe?
Can we get rid of the Copenhagen interpretation also? Just because Neils Bohr was a cool dude is not a scientific reason to believe him. No more parallel universe or multiverse, it’s not even good sci fi
The Copenhagen interpretation is the one where the wave function magically collapses when observed by humans. The many worlds interpretation is the alternative, in which the wave functions just propagate through all scales.
Pilot wave, another alternative
Only you can actually experimentally demonstrate the collapse, which give you a slight problem.
Setup this experiment:
a.) Put a single photon dot in the centre of a room.
b.) Place a series of single photon detectors around the room … you can use humans 🙂
So first up turn on only one random detector, if you have using humans only one faces the dot everyone else turns away. The detector should always see the photon. You have convinced yourself the photon can be seen by any detector at any position around the room.
Now turn on all the detectors … or get all the humans to look at the dot 🙂
Guess what happens … good luck explaining it.
Would’nt dark matter and dark energy balance each other, so that you can skip both.
Well, dark matter was invented to explain the movements in galaxies, and then dark energy was invented to explain the galaxies relative movements. Nice if we can get rid of these things nobody has observed.
If gravitational attraction is such a powerful force than how is an accelerating expansion of the universe possible?
“I trust astronomers more than I trust climate scientists, because they don’t have that “save the planet” paradigm going on.”
They have the same “need more funding” paradigm going on. They compete for the same tax dollar. And if you don’t believe in the Dark force religion no university wants you.
Gravity is a very weak force.
It’s possible however that the alleged acceleration of expansion is an artifact, caused by observer error.
Gabro
November 26, 2017 at 11:08 am
“It’s possible however that the alleged acceleration of expansion is an artifact, caused by observer error.”
———————————
Maybe so,,,, no trying a contradict it, but a simple thing as simply put…..A constant radius expansion still can be seen and interpreted as an accelerating volume expansion, in the case or the model of an expanding bubble, especially when physics of the expansion in this case tightly related and aimed at explaining mass and volume change, rather than radius…:)
cheers
If there is expansion is it because it is pushed or because it is pulled. There has to be a force to continue the expansion.
Whitten,
Two teams in 1998 independently observed apparent acceleration in the expansion of the universe. Despite confirmatory evidence found in baryon acoustic oscillations and analyses of the clustering of galaxies, the possibility still exists that this at the time surprising result is a big mistake.
Gabro
November 26, 2017 at 10:30 pm
Gabro, what I was trying a point at is simple, expansion in the term of radius versus expansion in terms of matter and volume…. (even as in case of an accelerating expansion)
Still in principle and concept of the expansion of universe, in terms of radius, it could be rightfully considered as a constant one, regardless of the accelerating expansion view point in terms of mass (matter) and volume considered at some point.
From where I stand, from my point of understanding, this seems to be the most obvious error in astrophysics.
Still the radius expansion of the universe is constant, regardless of the mass volume accelerating expansion contemplated as per the approach at this point.
The means of physics and maths involved, as far as I can tell, still points clearly at this condition.
A further persistence in ignoring it, as far as I can tell, will lead to some thing worse than as in the case of a Run Away Global Warming in climatology.
According to observations and the data thus far, as much as I can tell, ignoring the radius expansion of the universe may lead to really incomprehensible and contradictory conclusions.
Yes this kind of approach is very challenging, in most ways contemplating it, but still observation and data does force it through at some point…..
Ignoring the basic radius expansion of the universe, as per the observations, leads to a fresh clean black board approach, a proper reset, when most of all the observations must be cancelled and ignored, and not really relied upon, and cherry picking rules or will have to rule the day, if I may put it that way..
Still, anyway you try to, or any one else tries to, still the radius expansion still could and will be constant, regardless, of the mass volume accelerating expansion in any case or model that deals with a three dimensional bubble expansion, anywhere any time……..regardless of any ones wishes, or any ones wishful thinking…
Then, as I have to contemplate this kind of thing, “cruelty”, I still got to ask…..
What prevents you to be “cruel” against this position and claim????? 🙂
Just kinda of kidding, if you get the meaning of it! but still this question stands……..
cheers
Svend Ferdinandsen
November 27, 2017 at 12:36 pm
The question is if it is accelerating.
———————–
Svend.
The actual question in this case is if it is expanding, if the universe is expanding or not,, the acceleration of it,,,, the acceleration of that expansion, holds no much meaning at all at this point…..
That is what I am trying a say, or put forward….
The whole universe of probability, points out clearly that if there is an expansion in a three dimensional medium, regardless of physics or any other hyper science approach explanation,,, in all probable outcomes, the expansion will be seen and considered as an accelerating one by default, in all probable cases, if addressed by and through the point of mass (matter) volume…….a simple undeniable geometry, in concept and principle..
The accelerating expansion of universe can not even count as a discovery or a scientific achievement….it simple stands as a means pointing out that the expansion could and most probably is real….that is all about it…..It always will be unavoidable as a matter of probability, always the same, an accelerating expansion, if the expansion is real…and in the same time simply being addressed through the point of mass (matter) volume clause.,,
no much merit there for the astrophysics from this point of view…thus far.
cheers
The question is if it is accelerating. Distant objects moves faster because, else they would not be distant. They had the speed from the beginning, so to speak.
And concidering that distant objects are seen as they were for millions of years ago, they had really a good speed in the beginning.
Unfortunately you can not in any way see the actual speed now, unless you wait millions of years.
Mark Helsinki
Why is Einstein’s philosophical theory wrong?
Well physics is why, there can be no physically real static field if there is no matter, no masses, it means there is no physics
Pure bunk
Are you a real climate skeptic or a 5th columnist / plant?
You are making the WUWT community as a whole look very stupid and irrational.
Cut through all the survivalist “deny every scientific theory just for the hell of it” and read the actual abstract:
Dynamical Effects of the Scale Invariance of the Empty Space: The Fall of Dark Matter?
Andre Maeder
Published 2017 November 10 • © 2017.
The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 849, Number 2
Abstract
The hypothesis of the scale invariance of the macroscopic empty space, which intervenes through the cosmological constant, has led to new cosmological models. They show an accelerated cosmic expansion after the initial stages and satisfy several major cosmological tests. No unknown particles are needed. Developing the weak-field approximation, we find that the here-derived equation of motion corresponding to Newton’s equation also contains a small outward acceleration term. Its order of magnitude is about $\sqrt{{\varrho }_{{\rm{c}}}/\varrho }\ \times $ Newton’s gravity (rhov being the mean density of the system and ${\varrho }_{{\rm{c}}}$ the usual critical density). The new term is thus particularly significant for very low density systems. A modified virial theorem is derived and applied to clusters of galaxies. For the Coma Cluster and Abell 2029, the dynamical masses are about a factor of 5–10 smaller than in the standard case. This tends to leave no room for dark matter in these clusters. Then, the two-body problem is studied and an equation corresponding to the Binet equation is obtained. It implies some secular variations of the orbital parameters. The results are applied to the rotation curve of the outer layers of the Milky Way. Starting backward from the present rotation curve, we calculate the past evolution of the Galactic rotation and find that, in the early stages, it was steep and Keplerian. Thus, the flat rotation curves of galaxies appear as an age effect, a result consistent with recent observations of distant galaxies by Genzel et al. and Lang et al. Finally, in an appendix we also study the long-standing problem of the increase with age of the vertical velocity dispersion in the Galaxy. The observed increase appears to result from the new small acceleration term in the equation of the harmonic oscillator describing stellar motions around the Galactic plane. Thus, we tend to conclude that neither dark energy nor dark matter seems to be needed in the proposed theoretical context.
This could well kill dark matter and energy, which would be a good thing. They have always been an ugly artefact of cosmology.
What Maeder says about redshift?
?Ne ponimayu
Why, exactly, don’t you understand plain English?
How Maeder explains the redshift?
If you know something about it, tell me, If you don’t, say so.
https://youtu.be/EckBfKPAGNM
I know, how Arp explains it, I’ve read three of his books.
What I would like to know is how redshift is explained in terms of Maeder’s theory.
Or maybe the expansion of the universe isn’t really accelerating.
https://phys.org/news/2016-10-universe-rateor.html
If we live in an expanding universe why is andromeda moving towards the milky way? And why is the milky way not moving away from it? Or are we moving in the same direction but andromeda goes faster?
>>
If we live in an expanding universe why is andromeda moving towards the milky way?
<<
Galaxies are arranged in clusters. Some clusters, like the Local Group are small. The local group includes the Milky Way, M31 (Andromeda), and a number of dwarf galaxies (maybe 54 total). (In turn, our local cluster may be a member of the Virgo super-cluster.) Other clusters are huge–containing hundreds of members. Within a cluster, galaxies are held together by gravity–they may collide, orbit, etc. It’s the clusters that are moving away from each other.
So M31 (Andromeda) is blue shifted and is moving towards the Milky Way.
Jim
There is a lot of dross in this discussion, even people dissing physics.
Physics is not a religion, it is a classification of observations that have been assigned a one to one correspondence with the real numbers , a data base of measurements. It has advanced from Euclidean geometry which was the result of classifying with algebra observations in measuring lands in the valley of the Nile, to quantum mechanics : the result of using sophisticated mathematics to fit the data ( photoelectric, spectra, black body radiation).,
Mathematics are self consistent, they have axioms, theorems derived from axioms which can interchanged with them in alternate mathematical formulations and are subject to “proof” and Quod Est demostrandum. Physics models can either be validated by the new predictions they make, or falsified, never “proven”
A physics framework is a complete system as far as possible, which has a thorough self consistent mathematical and physical description starting with mathematical “axioms” adding “laws”, “principles” , “postulates” , and ending up with differential equations that predict and describe experimental results.
Frameworks in physics are hierarchical, i.e. a type of meta levels, one morphing into the others given certain magnitudes of the basic variables. When the errors in measurements overlay any mathematical predictions, the usefulness of that theoretical model stops at those variable limits.
Here goes :
There is an underlying General Relativity level ( large curvatures) leading to a Special Relativity (flat space) level which at the limit of small velocities becomes classical mechanics ( velocities much smaller than velocity of light)
Classical mechanics is one level which leads to statistical mechanics at the many body formulation which leads to thermodynamics as continuum. .
In parallel there is classical electromagnetic theory
which morphs to quantum electrodynamics the only QED in physics models
and general quantum theory, which some believe may lead to
String formulation in Quantum mechanics ( GR included) leading to Quantum electrodynamics and quantum field theory which goes into quantum statistical mechanics which will also go into thermodynamics at the continuum level.
The interface between these levels is smooth and can be shown to be consistent. See for example https://motls.blogspot.gr/2011/11/how-classical-fields-particles-emerge.html .
In the present case a new model in describing the cosmological observations is proposed. As it has been peer reviewed I will accept that the mathematics is consistent. It can either be a radical new proposal which must give predictions that measurements can falsify , or an alternative mathematical structure, which may be easier to progress understanding, or not really useful. It should at least be able to fit all the current observations/measurements that require the existence of dark energy and dark mass.
So we have to wait and see what the future is for this model, and rely on peer reviewed papers and not comments thrown around . ( peer review is still working well for particle and cosmology physics in contrast to climate papers)
+1
So we have to wait and see… until somebody else comes up whith new ideas, meanwhile quoting mantras from college books and lecturing everybody around about things everybody knows. Yawn.
And no, peer review doesn’t work and never worked in any controversial field of science, cosmology prominently included.
There is one observation about the Universe that is often overlooked. We are told that motion is relative, that there is no “preferred” or “zero” frame of reference, but this can plainly be seen to be false.
Rotation is not relative. Rotation of the galaxies appears relative to a common “zero”. This observation yields different predictions for modified gravity versus dark matter/energy.
What is required is a formalized solution to the Mach Principle.
I find the notion of faster than light “inflation” to explain the big bang to be on the same level as dark energy and dark matter. fanciful inventions to explain the observations that violate known science.
we have strong evidence that the speed of light is a true limit, yet we have a theory that can only be explained by breaking this limit. what this tells us is that the big bang is wrong. we are missing some information about the true nature of creation.
and now we have dark matter. but it isn’t truly dark, because dark matter does not interact with light or magnetism. it isn’t simply transparent. It is matter that isn’t matter. which is not consistent with any sort of matter.
a better name for dark matter is pseudo matter. At least this would prevent the layman’s confusion in thinking that dark matter is simply dead suns that are not giving off light. Dark matter is incapable of giving off or reflecting light. Better yet, call dark matter false matter or not matter, because that is how it acts.
Predictions made on the basis of the inflation model have been confirmed. Thus, so far, the hypothesis hasn’t been shown false. It’s an instance of science at work.