> As I read that paragraph, I thought to myself that the author should read Sabine Hossenfelder's recent book Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray.
The author is Sabine Hossenfelder :)
The author is Sabine Hossenfelder :)
Otherwise, why not just say that the missing mass is unicorns? And the energy driving the accelerated expansion of the universe is the energy of their love? There's no shortage of radical explanations for dark mass/energy. The scientific community takes them seriously to the extent that they are compatible with past observations and make testable hypotheses that distinguish them from other theories.
That's not uncommon. In their early development, most theories don't make testable predictions, especially when they attempt to expand the status quo, and not just add some incremental detail...
No. Her main argument is, the way I read her article, is:
"Farnes in his paper instead wants negative gravitational masses to mutually repel each other. But general relativity won’t let you do this. "
The way I understand it, the author of the paper fails to be compatible with the theory that was confirmed time and again during the last 100 years. She just avoided to formulate that so bluntly.