Great bedtime reading! I hope I dream about intergalactic machinations tonight.
This experiment is also self-calibrating. You can introduce an object that should have no effect on the measurement according to traditional physics. If that object does have an effect, outside of its gravitational disturbance, then you have something right there.
Or. Dark energy and dark matter may be simply our inventions to explain observations that don’t otherwise fit our theories. This may be a problem with our theories, not the universe.
The present consensus is that for our theories to work, roughly 95% of the total energy and matter in the universe must be “dark.”
Which might very well be true. However, there is something really odd about developing a theory about 95% of the universe based solely on observations of the remaining 5%.
IOW, if your theories don’t agree with observations by 95%, you should reconsider your theories, not automatically postulate incredible amount of undetectable mass and energy to make your sums come out right.
I realize many scientists are doing just that, and I’m not trying to say there’s a conspiracy to hide the truth. Only that dark energy and matter appear to have a great deal in common with the older notions about ether and such.
I work with precise measurements a lot in manufacturing. We do a fair amount of gage reproducibility and repeatability (o=operator, e=equipment). You’d be amazed at the resistance to this basic activity.
I’ve often wondered why many papers do not print their gage r&r results for the equipment they are using in their experiments. I think sometimes if they did show the results it might lead to the paper’s results likely being debunked.
It makes me wonder if the physics might be easier to resolve or could arrive at a different result if it was considered.
The fact that this writer mentions the precision of the equipment tells me that he is at least aware of it.