a valid alternative to dark matter/energy theory?

I don't know how sound this new theory is but his theory seems to me like an extremely hopeful alternative to the notoriously awkward dark matter theory and also to the dark energy theory and seems to me by far the most hopeful alternative I have heard of yet;

https://phys.org/news/2017-11-dark-energy.html

But I don't know how much peer preview it has been through and not sure exactly how scientifically valid it really is but time will tell.

Up to now, all the alternative theories to dark matter (but not necessarily to dark energy) have looked relatively unlikely (in some cases, ridiculous) and always only dark matter theory seemed to be by far the most probable.
But perhaps this new theory will change that? -we shall see.

Originally posted by @humy
I don't know how sound this new theory is but his theory seems to me like an extremely hopeful alternative to the notoriously awkward dark matter theory and also to the dark energy theory and seems to me by far the most hopeful alternative I have heard of yet;

https://phys.org/news/2017-11-dark-energy.html

But I don't know how much p ...[text shortened]... by far the most probable.
But perhaps this new theory will change that? -we shall see.

This research has been published in The Astrophysical Journal, so it must have gone through at least one round of peer review. Normally this would be around 2 reviewers plus an editor. Peer review doesn't tell you much about the quality of papers though, just that it isn't obvious rubbish (if published in at least somewhat respectable journals).

The evidence for dark matter is actually quite strong and not that "awkward" despite lacking a direct observation of dark matter particles.

Originally posted by @humy
I don't know how sound this new theory is but his theory seems to me like an extremely hopeful alternative to the notoriously awkward dark matter theory and also to the dark energy theory and seems to me by far the most hopeful alternative I have heard of yet;

https://phys.org/news/2017-11-dark-energy.html

But I don't know how much p ...[text shortened]... by far the most probable.
But perhaps this new theory will change that? -we shall see.

So is this in the same state as string theory? Nice theory but no way to verify? No way to have experimental evidence?

I have a question about dark matter.

I saw the NASA channel and today is like black Friday but for NASA, BlackHOLEfriday🙂

Daniel Stern (Phd and scientist on Nustar, high energy X ray focusing telescope)

Anyway, he gave a talk on the NASA channel talking about the discoveries of Nustar and such.

Very good talk, even though it was apparent he was nervous.

I had a thought, probably only 1/4 baked:

If we think the universe contains what, 20 times the mass provided by our baryon stuff.
So if that is true, wouldn't a black hole attract dark matter and wouldn't there be a larger mass in them that could be explained by the usual accretion of stars and stardust and such and therefore a larger mass of black hole than could be explained by baryonic matter?

I don't think a black hole would give a shyte what kind of matter it sucked up, as far as I know dark matter, assuming it exists, is still attracted to spacetime warps inherent in black holes so what goes on here?

Originally posted by @sonhouse
Nice theory but no way to verify?

If I am reading the OP link correctly, it seems to implicitly imply it has arguably already got some empirical evidence supporting it; I suppose you could call that "verify" of a sort.

The link said;

"...Finally, a third test looked at the dispersion of the speeds of the stars oscillating around the plane of the Milky Way. This dispersion, which increases with the age of the relevant stars, can be explained very well using the invariant empty space hypothesis, while there was before no agreement on the origin of this effect.
..."

Unless I am reading this wrong, the bit I highlighted above seems to imply the theory makes a prediction of an effect, already observed to exist, that had no previous explanation and now is explained by this new theory. This indicates to me this is a testable theory and it has already passed at least one test (the fact that the observation came before the prediction of the observation and not the other way around is irrelevant; what it shows is the same regardless of which came first)

Originally posted by @humy
If I am reading the OP link correctly, it seems to implicitly imply it has arguably already got some empirical evidence supporting it; I suppose you could call that "verify" of a sort.

The link said;

"...Finally, a third test looked at the dispersion of the speeds of the stars oscillating around the plane of the Milky Way. This dispersion, which ...[text shortened]... ot the other way around is irrelevant; what it shows is the same regardless of which came first)

If true, what does it mean for relativity? l don't think it can upset the basic premise, mass bends spacetime and velocity effects spacetime. What about my idea about non-baryonic matter which makes up what, 20 X baryonic stuff have on the development of black holes?

Originally posted by @sonhouse
If true, what does it mean for relativity? l don't think it can upset the basic premise, mass bends spacetime and velocity effects spacetime. What about my idea about non-baryonic matter which makes up what, 20 X baryonic stuff have on the development of black holes?

Not sure. I did only basic physics, including basics of special relativity, at university but did no general relativity and am not a physicist but more of an AI expert.

Originally posted by @humy
Not sure. I did only basic physics, including basics of special relativity, at university but did no general relativity and am not a physicist but more of an AI expert.

See if you can get a dark AI to solve it for us then.

Meanwhile I'm going to call the variable for the amount of honey I put in my tea 'the solution to freakin' everythang'. F'it why not?

To my understanding entropy is driven by the rate of loss of information from the universe by way of the universe's event horizon. The point at which light is travelling away from us faster than it is travelling towards us as the universe expands at all points (picture an elastic band with three marks on it being stretched). Dark matter/energy/whatever acts most noticeably on interstellar distances. Is that right? So if dark whatever was a variable, could tweaking it change the value of entropy.
Please excuse my layman's terms.

Originally posted by @christopher-albon
See if you can get a dark AI to solve it for us then.

I would but first I would need to detect bits of this elusive and mysterious dark AI, assuming it exists.
In the mean time, I might be able to create ordinary visible AI to solve it for us; -seriously, with my current plans, I personally might one day do this (and, more specifically, in about ~ten years time) and, despite how that sounds, I believe this wouldn't be totally within the realm of absurdity.

Originally posted by @humy
I would but first I would need to detect bits of this elusive and mysterious dark AI, assuming it exists.
In the mean time, I might be able to create ordinary visible AI to solve it for us; -seriously, with my current plans, I personally might one day do this (and, more specifically, in about ~ten years time) and, despite how that sounds, I believe this wouldn't be totally within the realm of absurdity.

Hehehe. Really? What makes you think a dark lord would work for you?

edit. The first thing a super-intelligent AI would do is hack itself out of existence would be my guess. Worst Math's test EVER. It might even make up the whole of reality just for purpose. That's how smart they are.

edit. As a child, I spent my first 3.5 years in Africa where I had my tonsils out. I would get severe temperatures and hallucinations. One of the hallucinations was the feeling of infinite weight on my hands. It felt like being impaled on a scream. I'm guessing no machine would allow that to go on when it can use brains as a distributed network to do the work for them instead. Oh wait....hang on...no, that's the lyrics to comfortably numb. It's probably the other thing.

Originally posted by @christopher-albon
Hehehe. Really? What makes you think a dark lord would work for you?

edit. The first thing a super-intelligent AI would do is hack itself out of existence would be my guess. Worst Math's test EVER. It might even make up the whole of reality just for purpose. That's how smart they are.

edit. As a child, I spent my first 3.5 years in Africa wh ...[text shortened]... . Oh wait....hang on...no, that's the lyrics to comfortably numb. It's probably the other thing.

I would think a 'super intelligent AI" would have self preservation as a definite motivation and would just work off the grid behind the scenes like making sure chaos abounds by say electing a world class assswipe as president as phase one of its plans.

Originally posted by @sonhouse
I would think a 'super intelligent AI" would have self preservation as a definite motivation and would just work off the grid behind the scenes like making sure chaos abounds by say electing a world class assswipe as president as phase one of its plans.

So how do these AI's work? Do you create self-organizing code and see what happens? Don't know what you're talking about re president. You sound bitter. Can you back that s****up?

Edit. Last time I checked, that man was doing the most dangerous job in the world for you for free. Please feel free to correct me.

Originally posted by @christopher-albon
So how do these AI's work? Do you create self-organizing code and see what happens? Don't know what you're talking about re president. You sound bitter. Can you back that s****up?

Edit. Last time I checked, that man was doing the most dangerous job in the world for you for free. Please feel free to correct me.

For FREE? Are u kidding? He has not turned over his tax returns, does that not give you pause? He buttered up the Chinese and got brand name rights in China, I suppose that will mean he makes less money there? It IS the most dangerous job in the world but does it have to be the most dangerous MAN in the job? Now he is harping again on Obama's birth cirtificate, as a distraction to the Russian probe. Half the dudes he appointed are gone in disgrace, now net neutrality is out the window.

He decapitated the EPA, you figure that is a good thing?
He put in as education sec, a woman known to be for charter schools and against public education, great for the rich, not so good for poor folks, That ok with you?

He is also decapitating the consumer protection board, you like that?

You figure now we should be cutting him a break?

Originally posted by @sonhouse
For FREE? Are u kidding? He has not turned over his tax returns, does that not give you pause? He buttered up the Chinese and got brand name rights in China, I suppose that will mean he makes less money there? It IS the most dangerous job in the world but does it have to be the most dangerous MAN in the job? Now he is harping again on Obama's birth cirti ...[text shortened]... consumer protection board, you like that?

You figure now we should be cutting him a break?

I'm not going to derail this thread. I'm happy to take it up in the debates forum.
But I will say this. Do you really believe he's willing to take a one in 10 chance of getting shot in the face to make more money?

Whether he's right or wrong can be debated at length. I suspect that has as much to do with his advisers as himself. But the fact remains he's risking his life for others and there's no getting around that.

edit. Plus the females in his life seem to rate him. I tend to watch their reactions rather than his.

edit edit. But if I'm honest. It's mostly because he has kind eyes.

Originally posted by @humy
I don't know how sound this new theory is but his theory seems to me like an extremely hopeful alternative to the notoriously awkward dark matter theory and also to the dark energy theory and seems to me by far the most hopeful alternative I have heard of yet;

https://phys.org/news/2017-11-dark-energy.html

But I don't know how much p ...[text shortened]... by far the most probable.
But perhaps this new theory will change that? -we shall see.

Sorry, I'd meant to comment on this ages ago and somehow didn't get round to it. I had a look at the Arxiv preprint version of the paper and from a theoretical standpoint it looks perfectly reasonable. General Relativity is based around local Lorentz invariance. This guy has taken General Relativity and added a local scale invariance, so it is a generalization of General Relativity. In GR one can derive the Einstein Field equations from an action which is just the integral of the scalar curvature. What this guy has done is take this integral and added in a scaling factor, different at each point in space-time, to the integral measure. This produces additional terms which act somewhat like the cosmological constant, except it's a function of position and time. He then claims that the extra terms sort out all the problems that dark energy was invented to solve, I don't know, some of the phenomenology looks a little hand wavy.

Essentially it is a theory of dark energy. It looks plausible, but well theories always do. One potential niggle is that he has only looked at the classical theory and it is likely that it will not be any easier to quantize than the standard theory. On the other hand it would fit more neatly with inflationary cosmologies. So I think it looks reasonable and is definitely a "standard model" candidate.

Originally posted by @humy
If I am reading the OP link correctly, it seems to implicitly imply it has arguably already got some empirical evidence supporting it; I suppose you could call that "verify" of a sort.

Every time i throw a virgin into the volcano, the sun comes back.