> Researchers are hard at work trying to find ways to test the CCC+TL model.
It’s not a scientific theory unless it’s testable. I’m going to withhold judgement on this and take it for what it is: an interesting idea, and nothing more.
Although the Big Bang is widely referred to as a theory, cosmologists actually categorize it as a model not a theory. Does that mean it's not scientific? No. It's just that a lot of cosmology isn't testable, per se. The same is true for the historical sciences in general (evolutionary biology, geology). Given the time scales involved, there's no way to design tests or experiments.
Testable hypotheses are at the core of the scientific method, yes. But that's not just limited to the actual testing of hypotheses. All the work that goes into formulating hypotheses is also explicitly part of the scientific method.
Worth noting, too, that the paper outlines several possible experiments. It also specifically mentions some relative shortcomings of the model, and lists existing observations that they haven't tried to reconcile with it yet.
This is how theoretical physics has worked for quite some time - someone figures out a hypothesis that works mathematically, and the experimentalists then prove or disprove it.
Is there a plausible experiment that can falsify dark matter? The study here used observational data and it didn't do that. (Deducing that non-existence of dark matter is plausible given what else was observed isn't the same thing.)
> “There are several papers that question the existence of dark matter, but mine is the first one, to my knowledge, that eliminates its cosmological existence while being consistent with key cosmological observations that we have had time to confirm,” Gupta confidently concludes.
Of course it is. It already passed many tests (for example gravitational lensing) while some dark matter candidates (WIMPS, primordial black holes) have effectively been ruled out through tests.
Dark matter is not a theory, per se. There are many, many theories that attempt to explain dark matter. Some of them have yet to produce testable hypotheses, others have already been tested.
It's not, but it's accepted as it is the theory that best fits the observations. It has holes, but not as much as others. It will continue to be the accepted model until another one is an even better fit to the data or we can prove/disprove the existence of dark matter.
I wonder if CCC would also explain the Fermi paradox: We're alone because physical laws are exactly right for life only here, even the smallest change reduces the probability of intelligent life significantly
The distances are so great and the duration + resources that it takes to cover that distance with high function and accuracy is so ridiculous, that it ends up being pointless to attempt it. Intelligent life expires long before it spreads widely.
The answer to Fermi is that there's no point to expanse, which culls the effort given enough time (the exploration effort is very expensive in exchange for rapidly diminishing returns for most civilizations). Intelligent life that makes it to our stage and beyond chooses to go inward long before it spreads super wide outward. There is vast, unlimited, easy, lower cost satisfaction inward (virtual space), there is nothing of great value outward at any reasonable cost of resources and time (humanity doesn't grasp this widely yet, it's still in the naive, neighborhood exploration stages). The only thing out there is disappointment, once you discover it's almost all low value repetition (extraordinarily vast repetition of very low value entities).
This entire theory seems to be based on only current technology.
Tell someone in the 1600s about the concept of cellphones and they would say it’s impossible to ever instantaneously communicate with someone around the world.
It’s so energy intensive with our current technology, which isn’t really an answer to fermi.
I hadn't thought of it that way. My personal explanation for the Fermi Paradox is that it's darn-tootin' hard overcoming our economic and political systems' unsustainability: once a certain amount of hurt and/or distrust is exchanged, people are almost irreversibly coaxed on hate spirals.
We're not smart enough — collectively — to recognize we need to work on our feelings... even if our collective existence depended on it.
Source: Points at the geopolitical theater. (What a shame that our dumb systems and shallow leaders allow for so much hurting over petty squabbles. It's deplorable.)
I wonder if there are any solar systems with multiple habitable planets where an intelligence is more likely to colonize and tackle space travel.
Imagine if Mars and Venus were just habitable from the start, with plants, animals, and resources. We would probably have colonies there. Some intelligence somewhere probably had such a predicament.
If there is one universe, and we're the only life, that's remarkable.
If there are many universes (multiverse), then it's plausible only 1 instance of life forms in a few of them, and we might be the only life in the entire visible universe.
Is there a name for this theory?
I share this because I frequently see assumptions that there must be other life somewhere.
Interesting. How do we explain the missing mass in the galaxies then (the observed rotation curve of galaxies needs a bigger mass than that of the stars that it is made of)?
I haven't read the original paper, but my assumption is that if their model suggests the universe is much older and that things like light speed actually decay over distance, then maybe they are suggesting that some of the other constants of the universe are also decaying leading to the different observed rotations. But, I'm not a physicist.
Speed of light decay should be fairly easy to disprove.
Anything that contradicts Special Relativity requires an exceedingly compelling argument or preponderance of evidence in favor, and Tired Light does not have it.
Readit News
New research suggests that our universe has no dark matter - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41760006 - Oct 2024 (36 comments)
It’s not a scientific theory unless it’s testable. I’m going to withhold judgement on this and take it for what it is: an interesting idea, and nothing more.
Worth noting, too, that the paper outlines several possible experiments. It also specifically mentions some relative shortcomings of the model, and lists existing observations that they haven't tried to reconcile with it yet.
> “There are several papers that question the existence of dark matter, but mine is the first one, to my knowledge, that eliminates its cosmological existence while being consistent with key cosmological observations that we have had time to confirm,” Gupta confidently concludes.
The answer to Fermi is that there's no point to expanse, which culls the effort given enough time (the exploration effort is very expensive in exchange for rapidly diminishing returns for most civilizations). Intelligent life that makes it to our stage and beyond chooses to go inward long before it spreads super wide outward. There is vast, unlimited, easy, lower cost satisfaction inward (virtual space), there is nothing of great value outward at any reasonable cost of resources and time (humanity doesn't grasp this widely yet, it's still in the naive, neighborhood exploration stages). The only thing out there is disappointment, once you discover it's almost all low value repetition (extraordinarily vast repetition of very low value entities).
Tell someone in the 1600s about the concept of cellphones and they would say it’s impossible to ever instantaneously communicate with someone around the world.
It’s so energy intensive with our current technology, which isn’t really an answer to fermi.
We're not smart enough — collectively — to recognize we need to work on our feelings... even if our collective existence depended on it.
Source: Points at the geopolitical theater. (What a shame that our dumb systems and shallow leaders allow for so much hurting over petty squabbles. It's deplorable.)
Imagine if Mars and Venus were just habitable from the start, with plants, animals, and resources. We would probably have colonies there. Some intelligence somewhere probably had such a predicament.
Deleted Comment
If there are many universes (multiverse), then it's plausible only 1 instance of life forms in a few of them, and we might be the only life in the entire visible universe.
Is there a name for this theory?
I share this because I frequently see assumptions that there must be other life somewhere.
Deleted Comment
Anything that contradicts Special Relativity requires an exceedingly compelling argument or preponderance of evidence in favor, and Tired Light does not have it.
Dead Comment
Deleted Comment