Some real crankery at Phys.org this morning.
How did this nonsense get published? This is some wild stuff.
New models of gravity and cosmology could also be premised on Lษ
. In cosmology, the energy released from the gravitational energy of the entire universe due to Lษ
can function as Einstein’s original cosmological constant ษ
, preventing cosmic collapse into a singularity. Gravity can be modeled as just the flipside of this process.
No it definitely cannot and is not! What in the hell.
This clown treats โenergy released from gravityโ (turned into heat/light) as if it could play the role of the cosmological constant. It simply cannot. As any Physics 101 book will tell you, heat and light is ordinary energy that thins out as the universe expands. On the other hand, the cosmological constant is a special kind of โvacuumโ effect that does not dilute the same way at all. That’s why it’s called a frickin’ “constant!”
The article also assumes thereโs a single, well-defined โgravitational energy of the entire universeโ that you can draw down like a bank account. In standard general relativity for an expanding universe there isn’t this kind of energy bookkeeping, so this makes no sense right at the outset.
It also implies this process could act like a constant background term. But anything tied to the expansion rate and to the universeโs changing mass distribution would vary over time, which is the opposite of what โacts like the cosmological constantโ means for any observation.
And what the heck does, โGravity is the flipside of this processโ mean? No! It really isn’t! That’s a cereal box slogan, not a theory. Unless itโs backed by precise equations that reproduce what gravity demonstrably does (lensing, time dilation, gravitational waves, equivalence principle, etc.), it’s all absolute crap.
And then I looked the guy, Matthew Edwards, up. He’s a librarian. Not a physicist, not a cosmologist. And he has a whole passel of papers that are all absolutely lunatic.
Please keep this garbage out of Phys.org.