Peter,
If the reference was to my debate over dimensionlessness, that was more logic, than physics, as in whether describing something as dimensionless is a useful abstraction, but overlooks the aspect of eliminating spatial dimensionality, then insisting space arises from the resulting geometry. Is geometry a mapping of space, or the platonic foundation of it? The old map versus territory debate.
As for Dark Energy, I do go into that in my own essay. Since BBT uses spacetime to explain why space itself is expanding, yet overlooks that this means the speed of light is no longer Constant to the ruler of the cosmic frame, then possibly an optical explanation for redshift might be considered, given we are at the center of our point of view. Then if this effect was compounding on itself, that would explain the parabolic increase in the rate of redshift, out from our point of view, rather than the assumed sudden drop off and leveling out, from the edge of the universe position, that requires Dark Energy for explanation.
My instinct suggests there is a cosmic convection cycle, with one side being expanding radiation and the other being coalescing wave lengths, aka gravity and mass as part of that spectrum. So Dark matter is more a function of mass being part of the gravitational spectrum, than gravity being a property of mass.
Think that Einstein originally proposed the Cosmological Constant as a way to balance gravity collapsing space to a point. What if what Hubble found, with redshift, was actually evidence of that original CC?
Consider it in terms of the rubber sheet and ball analogy for gravity. Logically, from Einstein's point of view, there would be no flat sheet, where there is no ball, as that would be assuming the absolute space he dismissed. So put the sheet over water, so that when the ball is placed on it, the sheet rises in the unweighted areas, equal to what it sinks in the weighted areas. That rise would be the analogy for the CC. Now consider that we measure this effect by light crossing it and redshifting, because the light is constantly expanding and we are only sampling the front of this expanding wave, not a particular photon traveling billions of years.
Which does to the two papers I linked, Rieter's entry on the loading theory of light and Christov's paper on the redshifting of multi spectrum "packets," due to distance alone.
So what you have, is an overall balance between light out and gravity in.
Then compare this possibility to current theory, where every gap between theoretical prediction and measured evidence gets filled with some enormous new force of nature and no one mentions Popper, that possibly this should be considered a falsification of the theory, not evidence of invisible forces.
It will be interesting to see how the judging goes, as assigning credence to entries like yours, or Edwin's, would raise foundational questions and I'm a bit too cynical to see that happening anytime soon. String theory and multiverses are much safer topics for the tribe.
Regards,
John
