Don’t get too excited, this is a pretty fringe theory that doesn’t really have experimental evidence. They were able to make some observations fit with their theory without dark matter yes, but not all of them. The tired light part in particular has a lot of contradictions with observation that they don’t explain.
So interesting, but far from definitive.
These type of comments always throw me through a loop.
Scientist:
Makes hypothesis, does analysis, writes paper, and presents work for other academics to review.
Lemmy poster:
Logs into lemmy. Posts “i think not mr scientist”. Recieves upvotes.
While I would certainly like to say I understood any of this. This post has not met any rigorous standard of debunking the researchers findings.
It’s fine if you have knowledge on this particular subject but it kinda seems like you’re just throwing shade.
I went and read the research.
I’m not an expert and as such can’t really analyze it fully. But what I took away is that it aimed to test a part of new theory by with a very narrow measurement, using early-universe density oscillations. They left dark matter out of the equation with the new model, and it was a smashing success if you’re willing to overlook that it requires the universe to be a completely different age than it is… In short, this is shenanigans.
edit: I’m fine being wrong if I am, I’d love to know more from informed readers. That’s just what I took away https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ad1bc6#apjad1bc6s3
edit2: It also presumes the “tired light theory” is true. Tired light is the flat earth of astrophysics/cosmology. Yeah, there are contrarian knuckleheads in every discipline.
