Tired Light Explains Away Dark Matter

[SLD]

JWST early Universe observations and ΛCDM cosmology

ABSTRACT. Deep space observations of the JWST have revealed that the structure and masses of very early Universe galaxies at high redshifts ($z\sim15$), ex

academic.oup.com

So this model, and it is still controversial, basically argues that JWST observations of the early universe show too many galaxies already formed and operating 300 million years after the Big Bang. This contradicts galaxy formation models. There is also an issue with their angular sizes. But I wonder if that has to do with gravitational lensing.

The model postulates that light ones energy over vast distances and thus the universe is actually twice as old as previously thought. The author postulates that instead of dark matter and dark energy, the data can be shown to be the result of the weakening of the forces of nature over vast distances.

However the author does not discuss the galaxy rotation issue. So I’m not sure how that can be explained away.

Two other articles about the findings are here.

The Universe Could Be Twice As Old if Light is Tired and Physical Constants Change

A new paper argues that the universe is 26.7 billion years old. But the model only works by assuming tired light and changing physical constants.

www.universetoday.com

New research suggests that our universe has no dark matter

A new study challenges the current model of the universe by showing that, in fact, it has no room for dark matter.

www.sciencedaily.com

The author though admits that his model cannot account for the CMB and its anisotropic nature, or the supernova data, but hopes further refinements and data will fix that.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

There is also MOND. Modified Newtonian Dynamics. The theory that Newtonian physics
we have relied on may be a spacial case, not applicable to the Universe taken as a whole.

 

[Swammerdami]

There is also MOND. Modified Newtonian Dynamics. The theory that Newtonian physics
we have relied on may be a spacial case, not applicable to the Universe taken as a whole.

With 20th-century physics increasingly being called into question, the advice Max Planck received as an undergraduate is increasingly ironic:

When 16 year old Max Planck started college in the 1870’s, he told a professor at the University of Munich that he wanted to major in physics. The professor replied by warning him that it was probably a bad idea: “In this field, almost everything is already discovered, and all that remains is to fill a few holes.” Young Planck ignored the advice, saying he didn’t care if he discovered anything new, he just wanted to understand the known laws of physics at a deeper level.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

JWST early Universe observations and ΛCDM cosmology

ABSTRACT. Deep space observations of the JWST have revealed that the structure and masses of very early Universe galaxies at high redshifts ($z\sim15$), ex

academic.oup.com

So this model, and it is still controversial, basically argues that JWST observations of the early universe show too many galaxies already formed and operating 300 million years after the Big Bang. This contradicts galaxy formation models. There is also an issue with their angular sizes. But I wonder if that has to do with gravitational lensing.

The model postulates that light ones energy over vast distances and thus the universe is actually twice as old as previously thought. The author postulates that instead of dark matter and dark energy, the data can be shown to be the result of the weakening of the forces of nature over vast distances.

I ponder whether LIGO tosses this in the trash heap though. They have detected black hole collisions via LIGO and capturing gamma waves, and the detections were about the same time. It'd seem funky that forces would equally weaken.

However the author does not discuss the galaxy rotation issue. So I’m not sure how that can be explained away.

It doesn't sound like he explained anything away. Generally these grandiose redefinitions disappear with scrutiny. It'd seem more likely that either our understanding of galaxy formation or our interpretation of ages could be off.

 

[SLD]

JWST early Universe observations and ΛCDM cosmology

ABSTRACT. Deep space observations of the JWST have revealed that the structure and masses of very early Universe galaxies at high redshifts ($z\sim15$), ex

academic.oup.com

So this model, and it is still controversial, basically argues that JWST observations of the early universe show too many galaxies already formed and operating 300 million years after the Big Bang. This contradicts galaxy formation models. There is also an issue with their angular sizes. But I wonder if that has to do with gravitational lensing.

The model postulates that light ones energy over vast distances and thus the universe is actually twice as old as previously thought. The author postulates that instead of dark matter and dark energy, the data can be shown to be the result of the weakening of the forces of nature over vast distances.

I ponder whether LIGO tosses this in the trash heap though. They have detected black hole collisions via LIGO and capturing gamma waves, and the detections were about the same time. It'd seem funky that forces would equally weaken.

However the author does not discuss the galaxy rotation issue. So I’m not sure how that can be explained away.

It doesn't sound like he explained anything away. Generally these grandiose redefinitions disappear with scrutiny. It'd seem more likely that either our understanding of galaxy formation or our interpretation of ages could be off.

Your last point is exactly what he’s arguing. The universe is far older, twice as old, as previously thought. The need for tired light comes in to explain that weakening of forces over vast distances that gives us the appearance of a much younger universe. The author admits it takes some tweaking of various parameters to get the results needed. But that’s what models do.

 

[SLD]

There is also MOND. Modified Newtonian Dynamics. The theory that Newtonian physics
we have relied on may be a spacial case, not applicable to the Universe taken as a whole.

MOND was postulated to explain the galaxy rotation problem. The paper doesn’t address that. I thought though that MOND had been ruled out by other observations several years ago.