Study: Dark matter doesn't exist, the universe is 27B years old

Re:Study: Dark matter doesn't exist, the universe is 27B yea... by abakker on Tuesday October 15, 2024 @09:24AM (#41848323)

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Study: Dark matter doesn't exist, the universe is 27B yea... by slowmovintarget on Tuesday October 15, 2024 @12:30PM (#41850292)

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Study: Dark matter doesn't exist, the universe is 27B yea... by abakker on Wednesday October 16, 2024 @03:18PM (#41862785)

I'm not a physicist, but, why should this be fairly easy to disprove? The person proposing this theory seems relatively informed and obviously still published, so it's obviously not trivial.

My (naive) assumption reading the article was that he wasn't proposing that a photon loses velocity over long distances, but that the value C was not constant on a multi-billion year time horizon. I don't see an easy way to prove that it is not changing if the rate of change is functionally unobservable.

But, maybe I am way too uniformed to speculate on this.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Study: Dark matter doesn't exist, the universe is 27B yea... by wtcactus on Wednesday October 16, 2024 @04:29AM (#41856847)

But we observe this everywhere, even in the Andromeda galaxy, so, universe age is not a factor for the rotation curve of galaxies.

[ Parent | on HN ]