Is Dark Matter the Unknown God?

Published in Creation magazine 37(2):22-24, 2015.

Over years of researching cosmology and astrophysics, I have argued that ‘dark matter’ is a sort of ‘god of the gaps’,1 the ‘unknown god’. It is proposed mainly to rescue the standard big bang model from problems when a mismatch is found between the theory and some observations. However, secular cosmogonists (scientists who study the beginning of the universe) usually believe the big bang worldview to be correct as well as all its associated astrophysics. So they must postulate something invisible to explain the discrepancy. This ‘something’ is ‘dark matter’, a hypothetical substance that emits no light or radiation, so cannot be seen.

Several years ago, astronomers claimed that they now had direct empirical proof of the existence of ‘dark matter’.2 This was dutifully repeated in the popular media.3 It was claimed that this demolishes the criticisms of ‘dark matter skeptics’. The section entitled “Dark Matter Proof?” (below) explains this further, and shows how there are many competing explanations for the same evidence.

However, even if those alternate gravity theories were disproven, this would still not prove dark matter. Let’s be clear: ‘dark matter’ is not an explanation for what we see; it’s an admission that no one has an explanation. Perhaps a more accurate headline would have been, ‘Scientists have proved that they haven’t got a clue what the universe is made of’, rather than, ‘Dark matter revealed!’4 because it isn’t revealed. But if you give a name to an admission of gross ignorance—‘dark matter’, ‘dark energy’—then you may eventually believe you have explained something!

Fudge factor eliminated by correct physics

Dark matter is also invoked to explain certain motions in galaxies that appear not to follow the laws of physics. In spiral galaxies, outer stars often orbit faster than inner ones, unlike the solar system where inner planets orbit faster because of the stronger gravity close to the sun. Most astronomers propose a dark matter halo around the galaxy to explain these anomalies.

But dark matter is reminiscent of the scientific proposal, popular in the late 1800s to early 1900s, about the existence of another planet, Vulcan. No, not the home of Mr Spock, but a hidden planet that allegedly perturbed Mercury’s orbit and thus explained why it did not follow Newtonian physics. But the proposed planet Vulcan could not be observed, because it was postulated that it orbited such that the sun would always hide it from observers on the earth. But that makes no sense, since any planet near Mercury must orbit the sun much faster than Earth does.

Nowadays, this proposal is regarded as quaint, because Einstein’s theory of general relativity explained the anomaly in the orbit of Mercury. That is, rather than introducing a fudge factor that really explained and predicted nothing, what was needed was new physics that both explained observations at the time and predicted new ones.

I am not the only modern physicist/cosmologist who thinks that ‘dark matter’ is the Vulcan of today. It is a ‘god of the gaps’ for modern astrophysicists. It is a ‘fudge’, with unknown properties, and strange behaviour, such as being in a non-collapsing spherical halo around galaxies, and concentrated outside the galaxy more than in its centre. In fact, it is invoked many times in big bang cosmology to explain away anomalies.

The equivalent of general relativity in the Vulcan saga, i.e. the new physics required to do away with this whole ‘dark matter fudging’, could well be a new theory such as that proposed by the late Israeli cosmologist /physicist Moshe Carmeli. His 4D space-velocity metric explains the flatness of the universe (the fact that the universe has Euclidean geometry)5—without dark matter or other fudge factors. It also explains perfectly the anomalous galaxy rotation issues mentioned earlier.6 Just as Einsteinian relativity did to Newtonian physics, Carmelian relativity encompasses today’s physics but explains more data.

Dark matter—vital for big bang believers

The most powerful driver and motivator behind the ‘dark matter’ proposal is the perceived need to prop up the failing paradigm of the standard big bang cosmology. This includes not only the hypothetical beginning of the universe in a ‘big bang’, but also its structure and evolution.

For example, the big bang would result in hot gas, which could not form stars, galaxies and galaxy clusters without dark matter to help condense the gas. Also, testing of the big bang model with type Ia supernova measurements supposedly shows accelerating expansion where dark energy is also needed.7 Dark matter is also invoked to explain tiny irregularities in the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation, allegedly the fireball from the big bang. Also, without dark matter, big bang nucleosynthesis (formation of light elements like helium and the hydrogen isotope deuterium in the hot big bang fireball) won’t work, either.8

In short, to get the big bang theory to work, the matter content of the universe must comprise 85% dark matter, hence only 15% normal matter, like protons and neutrons. That’s you, me, the magazine you’re reading, everything—to which add 85% dark matter.9 So there is a huge incentive to prove that the dark-matter skeptics (like me), who dispute the existence of the stuff, are wrong.

Conclusion

The solution is simple—dark matter never existed in the first place. That is why it is missing. It is invisible because it is not there. The standard big bang universe formation theory is wrong. Dark matter is needed to form stars and galaxies in the big bang theory. But galaxies don’t form naturalistically by themselves. They can’t.

The Bible says that on Day 4 of Creation Week, God “… made the stars also.” (Genesis 1:16) That means God created the stars, and hence the galaxies also, at that time.

Dark matter (an unknown god) is not needed when you have the Creator.

References and notes

  • Evolutionists wrongly accuse creationists of invoking a ‘god-of-the-gaps’, claiming ‘God did it’ where current science is uncertain, i.e. a ‘gap’ in our knowledge. But as science expands, supposedly these gaps shrink more and more. In reality, informed creationist arguments are based on what we do know about chemistry, information, genetics, catastrophic geology, etc. See also Weinberger, L., Whose god? The theological response to the god-of-the-gaps, Journal of Creation 22(1):120–127, 2008; creation.com/gaps
  • Clowe, D., et al., A direct empirical proof of the existence of dark matter, Astrophysical J. 648(2): L109, 2006, arxiv.org/pdf/astroph/0608407v1.pdf.
  • Cain, F., Galaxy Collision Separates Out the Dark Matter, universetoday.com, 21 August 2006 (accessed 8 September 2014).
  • Roach, J., Dark matter revealed! nbcnews.com, accessed 8 September 2014.
  • Oliveira, F.J. and Hartnett, J.G., Carmeli’s cosmology fits data for an accelerating and decelerating universe without dark matter or dark energy, Foundations of Physics Letters 19(6):519–535, November 2006, arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0603500v5.pdf.
  • Hartnett, J.G., Spiral galaxy rotation curves determined from Carmelian general relativity, International Journal of Theoretical Physics 45(11):2118–2136, November 2006, arxiv.org/pdf/astroph/0511756v3.pdf.
  • Hartnett J.G., Big bang fudge factors, December 24, 2013.
  • Nucleosynthesis refers to the generation of new atomic nuclei from particles such as neutrons and protons. Big bang nucleosynthesis refers to the belief that certain nuclei formed in the early stages of the supposed big bang. See Hartnett, J.G., Dark Matter and the Standard Model of particle physics—a search in the ‘Dark’.
  • Not to mention dark energy, which is even stranger than dark matter.
  • Dark Matter Proof?

    Image: The famous Bullet cluster where one smaller sub-cluster (the bullet) appears to have passed through a larger cluster. Source: NASA/CXC/CIA/STSci/ Magellan /Univ. of Ariz./ESO.

    The authors of one study claimed that the Bullet cluster (shown below) is a unique merger of two clusters, and that their analysis has “… enable[d] a direct detection of dark matter … .” The supposed evidence comes from visible arcs seen in and around galaxies in the two Bullet sub-clusters. The arcs were interpreted as the result of gravitational lensing from unseen matter.1

    Gravitational lensing is a prediction of Einstein’s general theory of relativity. It describes the situation where a foreground galaxy (or cluster of galaxies) acts like a giant light lens and focuses the light of a more distant background galaxy and hence magnifies it like a normal lens would do. According to the theory, the lens distorts the galaxy image, often looking like a cross or a ring around the closer ‘lensing’ galaxy.

    Is it really dark matter?

    ‘Direct proof’ was claimed. But that seems to be stretching things a bit, to put it mildly, given the many assumptions and interpretations necessarily involved. In this case they were out to disprove some alternate gravity theories that purport to explain the anomalies without the need to invoke ‘dark matter’. However, another researcher claims that they are mistaken and that at least one of the alternate theories can explain the arcs observed in this cluster—as gravitational lensing, yes, but without the need for ‘dark matter’.2 And another refutes3 their claims by introducing new physics, while yet another cautioned against “simple interpretations of the analysis of weak lensing in the bullet cluster”.4 In short, cosmology is not operational science5 and there may be many competing explanations for the same evidence. (Ironically, the section below entitled “The Detection of ‘Missing’ Dark Matter” highlights another situation where gravitational lensing was used to detect the non-existence of dark matter in a lensing galaxy.)

    References and notes

  • American astronomer Halton Arp (1927–2013) suggested that these arcs, which are very prominent in the Abell 2218 cluster, are not the result of gravitational lensing but ejections of galaxies and matter from other clusters. Of course that flies in the face of standard big bang cosmology, which assumes all matter originated in the initial big bang. See H. Arp, Seeing red, redshifts, cosmology and academic science. Montreal: Apeiron, 1998; and review, Hartnett, J.G., The heavens declare a different story! Note also that the redshift of the Bullet cluster is near 0.3 which is one of the discrete values that Arp claims is associated with ejection events of one galaxy giving birth to another.
  • Moffat, J., Gravitational Lensing in Modified Gravity and the Lensing of Merging Clusters without Dark Matter, 30 August 2006, arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0608675v1.pdf.
  • Milgrom’s perspective on the Bullet Cluster, (accessed 8 September 2014).
  • Angus, G.W., Famaey B. and Zhao, H., Can MOND take a bullet? Analytical comparisons of three versions of MOND beyond spherical symmetry, MNRAS 371(1): 138–146, 2006, arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0606216.pdf.
  • James Gunn, cited in Cho, A., A singular conundrum: How odd is our universe? Science 317:1848–1850, 2007; creation.com/gunn.
  •  The Detection of ‘Missing’ Dark Matter

    Image: The claimed gravitationally-lensed galaxy seen as an irregular ring of radiation around the distant galaxy in the centre of this 2.2-micron CCD photograph, made with the 10-meter Keck telescope on Hawaii. Credit: ESA and the W. M. Keck Observatory

    Recently, several earth-based radio and optical telescopes and the Herschel Space Observatory were used to image an object, shown here (right), where a gravitational lens (the middle and lower galaxies) is claimed to image a very distant galaxy, allegedly still in early formation. This is the faint ring around the central galaxies.

    The central ‘lensing’ galaxy was found to radiate much more far-infrared radiation than the model predicts. So they reported that the central lensing galaxy “… contains an unexpectedly low fraction of mysterious dark matter ….”.1

    Here is a situation where according to the standard big bang model and the theory of galaxy formation more unseen dark matter should exist in the lensing galaxy than expected from modelling the lensing galaxy. No dark matter is actually seen, but the missing matter is mostly missing. Thus, whereas gravitational lensing was used as part of the claimed ‘direct’ detection of the existence of dark matter in the Bullet cluster (See Section “Dark Matter Proof?” above) here it is used to detect its non-existence in a ‘lensing’ galaxy.

    References and notes

  • Herschel Space Observatory is key to discovery of spectacular gravitational lens, astronomy.com, 13 June 2014. See also Missing matter mostly missing in lensing galaxy.
  • Recommended Reading

    Follow me

    To be notified by email put your email address in the box at the bottom of your screen. You’ll get an email each time we publish a new article.

    Click this image to make a secure Donation (Stripe) !

    #BigBang #BigBangTheory #CosmicMicrowaveBackgroundRadiation #DarkEnergy #DarkMatter #Einstein #GeneralRelativity #MosheCarmeli #theUnknownGod #Universe
    The instability of critical and underdense Friedmann spacetimes at the Big Bang as an alternative to dark energy: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/rspa/article/482/2338/20250912/481920/The-instability-of-critical-and-underdense -> Taking #DarkEnergy Out of the Equation: https://www.ucdavis.edu/blog/taking-dark-energy-out-equation - UC Davis Mathematicians Challenge the Standard Cosmological Model of the Universe.

    Weekly Update from the Open Journal of Astrophysics – 23/05/2026

    It’s Saturday once again, so time for another update of activity at the Open Journal of Astrophysics. Since the last update we have published a further six papers, bringing the number in Volume 9 (2026) to 110 and the total so far published by OJAp up to 558.

    I will continue to include the posts made on our Mastodon account (on Fediscience); these announcements also show the DOI for each paper.

    The first paper to report this week, published on Monday 18th May in the folder Instrumentation and Methods for Astrophysics is “Edges In Coadded Images” by Erin Sheldon (Brookhaven National Laboratory, USA). This paper describes a study exploring how image discontinuities and noise impact weak gravitational lensing measurements, finding no significant biases under typical conditions. Biases occur only in extreme cases, but can be mitigated.

    The overlay for this paper is here

    You can find the officially accepted version on arXiv here and the announcement on Fediverse here:

    https://fediscience.org/@OJ_Astro/116594222032390191

    The second paper for this week, also published on Monday 18th May but in the folder Cosmology and Nongalactic Astrophysics, is “Joint cosmological fits to DESI-DR1 full-shape clustering and weak gravitational lensing in configuration space” by A. Semenaite (Swinburne Institute of Technology, Australia) and 72 other authors from all round the world. This paper presents a cosmological analysis of correlations between the DESI-DR1 Bright Galaxy Survey and Luminous Red Galaxy samples and overlapping shear measurements from various weak lensing surveys.

    The overlay for this one is here:

    The official version of the paper can be found on arXiv here and the Fediverse announcement here:

    https://fediscience.org/@OJ_Astro/116594256215421009

    Next one up, the third paper of the week, and the third published on Monday 18th May, and in the folder Cosmology and Nongalactic Astrophysics is “Probing Dark Energy Microphysics with kSZ Tomography” by Julius Adolff, Selim Hotinli and Neal Dalal (all of the Perimeter Institute, Canada). This paper explores how kinetic Sunyaev-Zel’dovich tomography and galaxy clustering can enhance our understanding of dark energy and its effects, potentially revealing its microphysical properties in future surveys.

    The overlay for this one is here:

    The final, accepted version can be found on arXiv here and the Mastodon announcement is here:

    https://fediscience.org/@OJ_Astro/116594304124291605

    The fourth paper this week, published on Wednesday May 20th is “A Census of Variable Radio Sources at 3 GHz” by Yjan A. Gordon, Peter S. Ferguson, Michael N. Martinez and Eric J. Hooper (all of the University of Wisconsin, USA). This article, published in the folder Astrophysics of Galaxies, uses data from the Very Large Array Sky Survey to analyze variability in the radio sky, finding most changes consistent with blazars and quasars.

    The overlay is here:

    The officially accepted version can be found on arXiv here and here is the Mastodon announcement:

    https://fediscience.org/@OJ_Astro/116607468481260244

    The fifth article of this week was published on Friday 22nd May in the folder Instrumentation and Methods for Astrophysics. The title is “Uncovering the Next Galactic Supernova with the Vera C. Rubin Observatory” by John Banovetz (Lawrence Berkeley Lab., USA), Claire-Alice Hebert & Peter B. Denton (Brookhaven National Lab., USA), Dan Scolnic (Duke University, USA), Anze Slosar (Brookhaven) and Chris Walter (Duke). The paper presents a study simulating how effectively the Vera C. Rubin Observatory can localize supernovae using neutrino triggers, finding a 57-97% success rate based on stellar mass density predictions.

    The overlay is here:

    You can find the authorized version of this paper on arXiv here and the Fediverse announcement is here:

    https://fediscience.org/@OJ_Astro/116617293753093751

    Last, but by no means least, this week we have “Pulsar timing solutions for 17 pulsars at 150 MHz from the Irish LOFAR station” by David J. McKenna (ASTRON, The Netherlands), Evan F. Keane (Trinity College Dublin, Ireland), Peter T. Gallagher (DIAS, Ireland) and Joe McCauley (Trinity). This was published on Friday 22nd May in the folder High-Energy Astrophysical Phenomena. It presents a demonstration of the use of international Low Frequency Array (LOFAR) stations in tracking and characterizing pulsars, providing new insights into these neutron stars’ emission properties.

    The overlay for this one is here:

    You can find the authorized version of this paper on arXiv here and the Fediverse announcement is here:

    https://fediscience.org/@OJ_Astro/116617404344791486

    And that concludes this week’s update. I’ll do another one next Saturday.

    #arXiv250800976v2 #arXiv250906929v3 #arXiv251105653v2 #arXiv251215961v2 #arXiv260112094v2 #arXiv260522516v1 #AstrophysicsOfGalaxies #blazars #cosmicShear #cosmologicalSimulations #CosmologyAndNonGalacticAstrophysics #DarkEnergy #DarkEnergySpectroscopicInstrument #DarkEnergySurvey #DiamondOpenAccess #DiamondOpenAccessPublishing #galaxyClustering #HighEnergyAstrophysicalPhenomena #InstrumentationAndMethodsForAstrophysics #kineticSunyaevZeDovichEffect #LOFAR #OpenAccess #OpenAccessPublishing #PointSpreadFunction #pulsars #quasars #radioAstronomy #stackedImages #SunyaevZeDovichEffect #supernova #supernovae #Tomography #VeraCRubinObservatory #VeryLargeArray #weakGravitationalLensing

    #cosmology, #darkmatter, #darkenergy, #science, #physivs, #Universe

    “Beyond ΛCDM: How the SLRPS Field Replaces Dark Matter and Dark Energy Through Present‑Tense Electromagnetic Propagation in NACM Cosmology.”

    This paper introduces SLRPS — a structural EM signature that replaces the photon‑centric assumptions behind dark matter and dark energy.

    I built this model independently.

    https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20347374

    Beyond ΛCDM: How the SLRPS Field Replaces Dark Matter and Dark Energy Through Present‑Tense Electromagnetic Propagation in NACM Cosmology

    This paper provides a new perspective on the nature around dark matter and dark energy.  These aspects of modern cosmology has had an elusive stranglehold on observations.  This paper offers a new vantage point into understanding the nature of electromaganism and "SLRPS": (stellar, lumenistic, radiative, propogation, signatures).  These are stellar and bright-point and dim-point natural signatures in the known natural Universe.

    Zenodo
    New 3D map of Universe by Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (#DESI) could solve #darkenergy mystery
    Analyses of DESI data from earlier runs have already produced exciting hints of new physics—namely that the Universe’s dark energy, rather than being constant, might vary over time. The latest data must still be analyzed but could help definitively confirm or disprove those hints within the next couple of years.
    https://arstechnica.com/science/2026/04/desi-completes-its-3d-map-of-universe-right-on-schedule/
    New 3D map of Universe could solve dark energy mystery

    Latest data must still be analyzed but could help determine if dark energy is constant or varies over time.

    Ars Technica
    File:NASA Interview Opportunity- Catch Last Look at NASA’s Newest Space Telescope (SVS15040).jpg - Wikimedia Commons

    Weekly Update from the Open Journal of Astrophysics – 16/05/2026

    It’s Saturday once again, so time for another update of activity at the Open Journal of Astrophysics. Since the last update we have published a further five papers, bringing the number in Volume 9 (2026) to 104 and the total so far published by OJAp up to 552. It took us until late July to pass 100 last year.

    I will continue to include the posts made on our Mastodon account (on Fediscience) to encourage you to visit it. Mastodon is a really excellent service, and a more than adequate replacement for X/Twitter (which nobody should be using); these announcements also show the DOI for each paper.

    The first paper to report this week, published on Monday 11th May in the folder High-Energy Astrophysical Phenomena is “Triaxial magnetars as sources of fast radio bursts” by Jonathan I Katz (Washington University, USA). This paper suggests that the mysterious properties of Fast Radio Bursts (FRB) could be explained by triaxial magnetars, with their activity levels influenced by precessional time scales.

    The overlay for this paper is here

    You can find the officially accepted version on arXiv here and the announcement on Fediverse here:

    https://fediscience.org/@OJ_Astro/116554775791392800

    The second paper for this week, published on Tuesday 12th May in the folder Astrophysics of Galaxies, is “The Abundance of Thin Dwarf Galaxies: a Challenge for Cosmological Simulations” by Jose Benavides & Laura V. Sales (UC Riverside, USA), Julio F. Navarro (U. Victoria, Canada), Simon D. M. White (MPA Garching, Germany), and Carlos S. Frenk, Kyle A. Oman & Shaun Cole (U. Durham, UK). Depending on mass up to 40% of galaxies are intrinsically flat, a fraction that numerical models of galaxy formation struggle to reproduce suggesting the models are incomplete.

    The overlay for this one is here:

    The official version of the paper can be found on arXiv here and the Fediverse announcement here:

    https://fediscience.org/@OJ_Astro/116560106342500157

    Next one up, the third paper of the week, also published on Tuesday 12th May but in the folder Cosmology and Nongalactic Astrophysics is “Cosmological peculiar velocities in general relativity” by Chris Clarkson (Queen Mary, University of London, UK) and Roy Maartens (U. Western Cape, South Africa). This paper refutes claims that the 1+3 covariant approach to cosmological perturbation theory predicts stronger growth of galaxy peculiar velocities, arguing that standard treatments are correct and fully relativistic.

    The overlay for this one is here:

    The final, accepted version can be found on arXiv here and the Mastodon announcement is here:

    https://fediscience.org/@OJ_Astro/116560224426499932

    The fourth paper this week, published on Wednesday May 13th “Possible evidence for a pair-instability supernova nature of ultra-early JWST sources” by Andrea Ferrara & Stefano Carniani (Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa, Italy), Takahiro Morishita (California Institute of Technology, USA), and Massimo Stiavelli (Space Telescope Science Institute, USA). Published in the section Astrophysics of Galaxies. This paper argues that recent observations challenge early galaxy formation models, suggesting that the bright source, Capotauro, could be a supernova from a massive, metal-free star, not a luminous galaxy as initially thought.

    The overlay is here:

    The officially accepted version can be found on arXiv here and here is the Mastodon announcement:

    https://fediscience.org/@OJ_Astro/116566147448743997

    The fifth and final article of this week was also published on Wednesday 13th May but in the folder Cosmology and Nongalactic Astrophysics. The title is “Evolving and interacting dark energy: photometric and spectroscopic synergy with DES Y3 and DESI DR2” and it is by Maria Tsedrik and Benjamin Bose (University of Edinburgh, UK). The study investigates the Dark Scattering interacting dark energy scenario, using data from various sources. Results show no evidence of dark-sector interaction and a preference for the Chevallier-Polarski-Linder parametrisation.

    The overlay is here:

    You can find the authorized version of this paper on arXiv here and the Fediverse announcement is here:

    https://fediscience.org/@OJ_Astro/116566165139100860

    And that concludes this week’s update. I’ll do another next Saturday.

    #arXiv251211035v3 #arXiv260104953v3 #arXiv260107374v3 #arXiv260314511v2 #AstrophysicsOfGalaxies #Capotauro #ChevallierPolarskiLinder #cosmicShear #cosmologicalSimulations #CosmologyAndNonGalacticAstrophysics #DarkEnergy #DarkEnergySpectroscopicInstrument #DarkEnergySurvey #DarkScattering #DiamondOpenAccess #DiamondOpenAccessPublishing #dwarfGalaxies #fastRadioBursts #galaxyFormation #generalRelativity #HighEnergyAstrophysicalPhenomena #JWST #Magnetars #OpenAccess #OpenAccessPublishing #peculiarVelocities #supernova
    Hernandez Hypothesis V2
    https://zenodo.org/records/20125972
    Updated with some of the latest available data.
    #DarkEnergy
    #Cosmology
    THE HERNANDEZ HYPOTHESIS A Unified Phenomenological Model of Density-Dependent Vacuum Dynamics V2

    We present a phenomenological framework in which quantum vacuum fluctuations are governed by local matter density, producing observable consequences across three physical regimes: cosmological expansion, galactic dynamics, and solar coronal heating. The central ansatz posits that the effective virtual particle recombination rate is exponentially suppressed by local baryonic matter density. This suppression operates through gravitational and electromagnetic channels, resolving the energy-scale conflict between cosmological and stellar applications. In cosmic voids, unimpeded vacuum fluctuations drive accelerated expansion via a dynamical effective cosmological constant, consistent with DESI 2024 results and the Running Vacuum Model of Moreno-Pulido and Solà Peracaula, which provides the QFT-in-curved-spacetime foundation for geometry-dependent vacuum energy. In galactic halos, density gradients source a Gross-Pitaevskii scalar field with ultralight quanta mass in the range 10^-22 to 10^-20 eV/c^2, situating the model within the fuzzy dark matter parameter space. In the low-density solar corona, magnetic energy converts continuously to plasma heat at a volumetric rate consistent with observed temperatures. This prediction produces a density-switch signature — heating anti-correlating with local density independently of field topology — distinguishable from the nanoflare model and testable with existing Parker Solar Probe and Solar Orbiter data. The framework is phenomenological; the suppression ansatz is motivated rather than derived from first principles. Directions for a QFT derivation within the RVM framework, CMB compatibility testing via axionCAMB, SPARC rotation curve fitting, and a specific Parker Solar Probe analysis protocol are outlined as priority future work.

    Zenodo

    #KnowledgeByte: Combining the #DarkEnergy Spectroscopic Instrument (#DESI) data with other experiments shows signs that the impact of dark energy may be weakening over time — and the standard model of how the #Universe works may need an update.

    https://knowledgezone.co.in/posts/Is-Dark-Energy-Getting-Weaker-67f3f552da225d23b99cb17a