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)
Well, I have never been accused of being an llm, also never used any of them.
Scientists are trying to figure out what is causing these effects and with no readily available answer they give it a place holder name, it could be a single particle type in larger amounts that do not get affected by the light we see. I think there is a lot they are getting wrong with the age and consistency of the universe over time using the current methods, tho I do accept it as the best we can come up with due to our limited knowledge and data gathering abilities. Every time a new bigger better equipped telescope comes out we learn that we had something wrong and now we can “see” it. With our tenacity we will discover what it all is, or we will get wiped out, one day.
The scientists have not shrugged their shoulders, they are trying to figure it out, atoms were a hypothesis, molecules were a hypothesis, viruses and bacteria were also a hypothesis until we saw them with technology. This hypothesis of mine has been rattling around in my head for years along with the possibility that inside black holes are entire universes like ours. But I am no scientist so even using hypothesis is a strong word. I do watch certain astrophysicists to learn what I can without delving into the maths.
I would guess that my multiple overlapping universes that cannot see or physically interact with each other would be a source of gravity we cannot find the source of that makes our universe the way it is with the spiderweb of matter that was mapped.
What is your hypothesis?
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.
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.
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.
Time will tell if I am correct, close, or not even in the same universe
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?