Leigh Brasington
/ 
/ Revised 20 Dec 24
This strikes me as rather ridiculous! There is a much simpler explanation - but one that will definitely upset physicist of all persuasions: the universal constants such as the speed of light and the gravitational constant are not constant, that is they vary over time (and perhaps place) in the universe. This is a very disquieting suggestion - because it make it really, really difficult to the math (unless of course you know the rate of change of the inconstant constants). But certainly postulating that the constants are not really forever and everywhere constant is a much simpler thing than postulating the existence of some exotic energy that can't be detected but that makes up most of the universe.
After all, what else in the universe is really constant - besides these assumed constants. Well, not really anything. Change seems to rule everywhere and for all time. So why should anything actually turn out to be constant. It's true that the universe is not a simple place - but it really doesn't seem to be made up of imaginary forces - just a huge amount of inconstant processes.
I know Occam's Razor is no proof, but it certainly gives a good hint of the direction in which an explanation most likely lies - and it's certainly less complex to conjecture that nothing in the universe is constant than to conjecture some weakly interacting force that nonetheless is tugging harder at galaxies than gravity can.
I got first dibs on the Noble Prize in Physics for this!
Oops, somebody seems to have another very plausible idea:
Repulsive gravity as an alternative to dark energy
Sounds good to me!
From New Scientist: Strength of gravity shifts – and this time it's serious
I still call dibs on the Nobel Prize in Physics!
Neil deGrasse Tyson: We don’t know what [dark matter] is, but it’s there and we’ve measured it in multiple ways. But a problem arises—someone called it “dark matter.” It should really be called “dark gravity.” There’s this thing that accounts for 85 percent of the measured gravity of the universe—a verified measurement. Its manifestations aren’t going to go away. The same goes with dark energy. It shouldn’t even be called "dark energy."
Well whatdaya know - G (the gravitational constant) might just not be constant: 'Einstein's Biggest Blunder' May Have Finally Been Fixed
Do gravatons exist? Do they have mass? If so, dark energy is no longer needed.
Has physicist's gravity theory solved 'impossible' dark energy riddle?
Very good video on this topic (or at least on the gravitational constant G) from Dr. Becky Smethurst: Is the strength of gravity really CONSTANT? | Solving the crisis in cosmology
There’s a glitch at the edge of the universe that could remake physics
The fine-structure constant and the nature of the universe
New modification to gravity may explain the cosmological constant
The universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, or is it?
Theoretical battle: dark energy vs. modified gravity
New Simulations Suggest Dark Energy Might Not Exist
Expansion Of Universe Driven By Quantum Fluctuations—Not Dark Energy
New supernova analysis reframes dark energy debate
Do dark matter and dark energy exist?
Doing without dark energy: Mathematicians propose alternative explanation for cosmic acceleration
Very Existence of Dark Energy Cast in Doubt After New High Precision Data
The Expanding Universe Might Not Depend On How You Measure It, But When
Hubble’s Paradox –“Constant in Space, Not in Time”
| Back to Leigh's Home Page | Site Map | Site Search |
Leigh Brasington
/
/ Revised 20 Dec 24