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.

[–] yesoutwater@lemm.ee 6 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Couldn't the same be said for the proof of dark matter?

They were able to make some observations fit with their theory with dark matter yes, but not all of them

[–] bitcrafter@programming.dev 9 points 7 months ago

Couldn’t the same be said for the proof of dark matter?

No, dark matter is actually a great explanation for lots and lots of observations; the only problem with it is that we don't know anything about it other than that it is such a good explanation for these observations.

[–] 0ops@lemm.ee 9 points 7 months ago

Generally for a new theory to be accepted, it needs to explain everything that the old theory did plus something more

[–] captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works 3 points 7 months ago

I'm a workshop kind of guy that enjoys space documentaries. For my part, I see "dark matter" as a known hole in our current understanding of cosmology, and I bet when we figure out how it does actually work it'll lead to some really cool TV shows.

[–] AFaithfulNihilist@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

If light got tired, wouldn't everything get blurry the further away it were?

[–] swab148@startrek.website 7 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I'm nearsighted, so that happens anyways

[–] AFaithfulNihilist@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago

Me too but I always knew that it was my eyes not the maximum draw distance of the universe that was to blame.

[–] Daft_ish@lemmy.world -4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] acetanilide@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I get what you're saying, but peer review isn't exactly all that rigorous either

[–] Daft_ish@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

They meet the bare minimum of at least being a peer in their field of research.

[–] Endward23@futurology.today 1 points 7 months ago

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.

Thats not what the posting claimed to be. You missunderstand. Either intentionally or just as a fact.