A new study argues that dark matter and dark energy might be illusions caused by the universe’s forces fading over time.
For many years, scientists have thought that dark matter and dark energy make up most of the cosmos. A new study, however, challenges that long-held belief by proposing that these mysterious components might not exist at all. Instead, what appears to be dark matter and dark energy could actually result from the gradual weakening of the universe’s fundamental forces as it grows older.
The research, led by Rajendra Gupta, an Adjunct Professor in the Department of Physics at the University of Ottawa, suggests that if the core strengths of nature’s forces (like gravity) change slowly across time and space, they could account for the puzzling behaviors astronomers see—such as how galaxies rotate, evolve, and how the universe continues to expand.
Challenging established concepts
“The universe’s forces actually get weaker on the average as it expands,” Professor Gupta explains. “This weakening makes it look like there’s a mysterious push making the universe expand faster (which is identified as dark energy). However, at galactic and galaxy-cluster scale, the variation of these forces over their gravitationally bound space results in extra gravity (which is considered due to dark matter). But those things might just be illusions, emergent from the evolving constants defining the strength of the forces.”
He adds, “There are two very different phenomena needed to be explained by dark matter and dark energy: The first is at cosmological scale, that is, at a scale larger than 600 million light years, assuming the universe is homogeneous and the same in all directions. The second is at astrophysical scale, that is, at smaller scale the universe is very lumpy and direction dependent. In the standard model, the two scenarios require different equations to explain observations using dark matter and dark energy. Ours is the only one that explains them with the same equation, and without needing dark matter or dark energy.”
He adds, “What’s really exciting is that this new approach lets us explain what we see in the sky: galaxy rotation, galaxy clustering, and even the way light bends around massive objects, without having to imagine there’s something hiding out there. It’s all just the result of the constants of nature varying as the universe ages and becomes lumpy.”
New model applied at Astrophysical Scale
Last year, Professor Gupta challenged the existence of dark matter in the universe in his cosmological-scale study. In this astrophysical-scale work, he questioned the current theoretical models for the galaxy rotation curves.
- In the new model, the parameter often denoted α emerges from allowing the coupling constants to evolve. In effect, α behaves like an extra “component” in the gravitational equations that produces effects similar to what astronomers attribute to dark matter and dark energy.
- On cosmological scales, α is treated as a constant (e.g., determined by fitting supernovae data). But locally (on astrophysical scale), in a galaxy, because the standard matter (black holes, stars, planets, gas, etc.) distribution varies drastically, α varies, causing the extra gravitational effect to depend on where such matter is. So the new theory predicts that in regions where there’s a lot of standard matter, the extra gravity effect is less, and where detectable matter density is low, it is larger.
- In effect, instead of adding dark matter halos around galaxies, the extra gravitational pull comes from α in the new model. It reproduces the observed “flat rotation curves” (stars moving faster than expected in the outer parts of galaxies).
Implications for astronomy
Professor Gupta believes this idea could solve some of the biggest puzzles in astronomy. “For years, we’ve struggled to explain how galaxies in the early universe formed so quickly and became so massive,” he says. “With our model, you don’t need to assume any exotic particles or break the rules of physics. The timeline of the universe simply stretches out, almost doubling the universe’s age, and making room for everything we observe.”
Effectively, the stretched-out timeline for how stars and galaxies form, makes it much easier to explain how big, complex structures like galaxies and black holes could have appeared so early in the universe.
This theory could completely change how we think about the universe. It even hints that searching for dark matter particles, something scientists have spent years and billions of dollars on, might not be necessary after all. Even if the exotic particles are experimentally found they would need to constitute about six times the mass of the standard matter.
“Sometimes, the simplest explanation is the best one. Maybe the universe’s biggest secrets are just tricks played by the evolving constants of nature,” Professor Gupta concludes.
Reference: “Testing CCC+TL Cosmology with Galaxy Rotation Curves” by Rajendra P. Gupta, 11 September 2025, Galaxies.
DOI: 10.3390/galaxies13050108
Never miss a breakthrough: Join the SciTechDaily newsletter.
Follow us on Google and Google News.
12 Comments
As a lone senior lay American male discoverer I’ve been demonstrating the true nature of gravity with online videos since 2012; that the mere rotation of various individual objects (mostly steel wheels; now aluminum disks) within a larger ambient field intensifies the strength of their own individual field of externally induced radiant pulsing coherent angular lines of attractive force; gravity. With my fourth, latest, video (June, 2025: https://odysee.com/@charlesgshaver:d/5Gravity:c), I additionally demonstrate inertia in two aluminum disks with their individual fields of gravity disengaging and re-engaging with earth’s ambient field of gravity, with differing levels of effects in opposite directions. If ‘seeing isn’t believing’ enough, my demonstrations are cheaply and easily replicated; no dark matter/energy required.
The problem with these people, besides being so addicted to an easy but crowded lifestyle, is they believed what they were told – and have set about to assemble it. Unfortunately, what they are trying to assemble is fantasy. Nature is simply different than the house of cards they’ve built.
“Billions of dollars wasted? Sounds like String Theory !
Two and a half years ago I submitted a paper to NASA solve, and my models predicted the results of the DESI findings. There is also observational evidence to support my work.
Professor Gupta’s work seems to back up my papers’ conclusions.
Nobody is stating the obvious. Dark Energy is temporal in nature. This field is lumpy because of dilation.
Its lumpy because in areas of less dense space time moves faster meaning even less density exponentially and taken to the extreme – voids form. Now extrapolate that out from the supposed beginning and here we are.
B Memo 2510080313_Source 1. Reinterpreting []
Source 1
https://scitechdaily.com/dark-matter-and-dark-energy-dont-exist-new-study-claims/
1.
New study claims that dark matter and dark energy do not exist.
Provided by the University of Ottawa, October 7, 2025
_New analysis suggests that the universe’s “missing” mass and energy may be the result of slowly changing fundamental bonds.
_New research suggests that dark matter and dark energy may be an illusion, created by the weakening of cosmic forces over time.
1-1.
_For a long time, scientists believed that dark matter and dark energy make up the bulk of the universe.
_However, new research challenges this long-held belief, suggesting that these mysterious components may not exist at all.
_Rather, what appears to be dark matter and dark energy may be the result of the fundamental forces of the universe gradually weakening as the universe ages.
【If we look at the birth of our universe, it was born from a superstring quantum point, a massive gravitational universe with vast space-time processes.
>>So, is the result a point that leads back to the Big Bang? Or is it the tip of an ever-increasing space-time? Why on earth do they arise, disappear, or grow ever larger? Wouldn’t a valid argument require context?
】
1-1.
_According to research led by Rajendra Gupta, an adjunct professor in the Department of Physics at the University of Ottawa, if the strength of the core forces of nature (such as gravity) varies slowly over time and space,
【If we observe nature, we see little evidence of slow-changing gravity.
>>James Webb’s recently discovered data from the deep universe shows that the early galaxies were incredibly massive and grew rapidly. Slowed gravity is rare in the universe, and it seems like a false claim that the entire universe is static, overlooking the local, busy events within the jar.
>>[_It seems like it could explain the puzzling phenomena observed by astronomers (such as the rotation and evolution of galaxies and the continued expansion of the universe).]
>>>>But can it be explained? It’s laughable…
】
2. Challenging Existing Concepts
_Professor Gupta explains, “The forces of the universe actually weaken on average as it expands.”
_This weakening gives the appearance of a mysterious force (identified as dark energy) that is accelerating the expansion of the universe.
_However, at the scale of galaxies and galaxy clusters, this change in force results in additional gravity (believed to be due to dark matter) in gravitationally bound space.
_However, this phenomenon could be an illusion, arising from the evolution of the constants defining the strength of the force.”
2-1.
_He adds: “There are two very different phenomena that need to be explained by dark matter and dark energy.
The first is on cosmological scales, that is, on scales larger than 600 million light-years, where the universe is assumed to be homogeneous and uniform in all directions.
The second is on astrophysical scales, where the universe is very lumpy and directionally variable.
In the Standard Model, these two scenarios require different equations to explain observations using dark matter and dark energy. Our model is the only one that explains both scenarios with the same equations, without involving dark matter or dark energy.”
2-2.
He adds, “What’s really exciting is that this new approach allows us to explain what we see in the sky—the rotation of galaxies, the clustering of galaxies, even the way light bends around massive objects—without having to imagine something hidden beyond them.
All of this is simply a result of natural constants changing as the universe ages and becomes more compact.”
ㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡ
B2-2. A New Model Applied to Astrophysical Scales
Last year, Professor Gupta questioned the existence of dark matter in the universe through a cosmological-scale study. In this astrophysical-scale study, he questioned the current theoretical models of galactic rotation curves.
In the new model, a parameter, often denoted α, arises by allowing the coupling constant to evolve. In effect, α acts as an additional “building block” in the gravitational equation, producing effects similar to those astronomers attribute to dark matter and dark energy.
2-3.
On a cosmological scale, α is treated as a constant (e.g., determined by fitting supernova data).
However, locally (at an astrophysical scale), α varies significantly in galaxies due to the distribution of standard matter (black holes, stars, planets, gas, etc.), and this causes the additional gravitational effect to vary depending on the location of that matter.
Assuming the universe is composed solely of ordinary matter [controlled by gravity or composed of Standard Model mass], msbase.galaxy appears.
>>>If we assume that these expanded gravitationally without dark matter, the expansion of the universe can be explained solely by the product of msbases.
>>However, this expansion is a massive expansion of ordinary matter, with no gravitational influence. Could the Big Bang universe truly expand infinitely using only Standard Model elements?
[Therefore, the new theory predicts that the additional gravitational effect is small in regions rich in standard matter, and larger in regions with low detectable matter densities.]
>>>>They argue as if the concept of dark matter is unnecessary due to the difference in matter density caused by the distribution of matter.
>>This is a mass distribution limited to msbase.galaxy. It seems to argue that the distribution of gravity varies with the size of the mass, making dark matter unnecessary.
>>This is merely a discussion of the product-of-multiplication operation within msbase. It doesn’t actually describe an expanding universe, either internally or externally. It’s simply the distribution of a single, gravitationally trapped magic sum, the acceleration limit of spacetime created by the Big Bang. Since the Big Bang events couldn’t have occurred consecutively, the gravitational acceleration energy that sustains the universe is extremely limited. The aftershocks of the explosion don’t produce a continuous energy increase in the form of msbase.
>>>At this point, at the point of energy depletion of the Big Bang, oser.wimp appears. msoss dark matter, where sample4.zerosom.charge is established, appears, providing a larger expanding universe around ordinary matter. Oh, my.
>>[_In fact, in the new model, instead of adding a dark matter halo around a galaxy, the additional gravity comes from α.]
>>>>That α is oser.wimp. It’s a parameter value that describes a new material system, a dark matter system. It’s an electromagnetic property, not a gravitational one.
>>[_This reproduces the observed “flat rotation curve” (the phenomenon where stars move faster than expected in the outer reaches of galaxies).]
>>>> That’s right. Sorry… In sample4, the acceleration due to gravity increases to the power of 2^43. This can’t be explained by the gravity of ordinary matter. Hmm
sample4.msoss(standard)
zxdxybzyz
zxdzxezxz
xxbyyxzz
zybzzfxzy
cadccbcdc
cdbdcbdbb
xzezxdyyx
zxezybzyy
bddbcbdca
】
3. Implications for Astronomy
Professor Gupta believes this idea could solve some of astronomy’s greatest mysteries.
_”For years, we’ve been trying to explain how galaxies in the early universe formed so quickly and grew so massive,” he says.
“With our model, there’s no need to assume exotic particles or violate the laws of physics.
The timeline of the universe simply stretches, nearly doubling its age and creating space for everything we observe.”
In fact, by understanding the long timescale of star and galaxy formation, it’s much easier to explain how large, complex structures like galaxies and black holes emerged in the early universe.
3-1.
This theory could completely change our understanding of the universe. It even suggests that the years and billions of dollars scientists have spent searching for dark matter particles may eventually become unnecessary.
Even if an exoplanet were experimentally detected, its mass would have to be about six times the mass of standard matter.
【If there’s no dark matter, what’s the use of sample4.msoss? If there’s no dark energy, where would we put sample2.qqms.nwvix.qcell? >>>>There’s no multiverse, so how can you explain the super-atomic particles that exist there, each with a mass 600 billion times that of the standard universe? Are you crazy enough to claim that our universe was created in a single, random Big Bang event? How pathetic.
>>>>I can’t understand this at all. Get out of here!!
】
_”Sometimes the simplest explanation is the best. Perhaps the universe’s greatest secret is a trick played by the constants of evolving nature,” Professor Gupta concludes.
Next to go is the Big Bang, then black holes, neutron stars, and other mathemagical theories. But not until those who won’t let go are finally left behind.
So if the universe is aging and getting weaker, why can’t the speed of light diminish through time giving us that wavelength shift, the red shift for the older light. Back to the tired light theory……..And if Planck’s constant should get old and weary with time, with the constant in the older versions of the universe constantly changing……?
We already know.
Those concepts were silly to begin with, anyway.
I’ve seen a few interviews of Gupta, interesting fellow. His background is electrical engineering, yet he is now adjunct professor at Ottawa, which initially did not have any graduate astrophysics program. I suspect much of his astrophysics research (theoretical and modeling/simulation of modifications of Friedmann equations with dynamical co-moving couplings and ‘tired light’) is/was self-funded. Interestingly, peer reviewers at MNRAS and other high profile journals wanted this work exposed, even though tired light has significant observational problems. His model solves some problems, yet not others. At least we can see what such ‘gymnastics’ of the equations do predict, at least hypothetically.
black holes are proven, not theories anymore. They even Have photos of the Event horizons of the black holes. neither are neutron stars, those are not theories either