Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper aims to explore whether astrophysical observations, primarily galaxy rotation curves, result from covarying coupling constants (CCC) rather than from dark matter. We have shown in earlier papers that cosmological observations, such as supernovae type 1a (Pantheon+), the small size of galaxies at cosmic dawn, baryon acoustic oscillations (BAO), the sound horizon in the cosmic microwave background (CMB), and time dilation effect, can be easily accounted for without requiring dark energy and dark matter when coupling constants are permitted to evolve in an expanding Universe, as predicted by Dirac, and the redshift is considered jointly due to the Universe’s expansion and Zwicky’s tired light (TL) effect. Here, we show that the CCC parameter α is responsible for generating the illusion of dark matter and dark energy, which we call α-matter and α-energy, and is influenced by the baryonic matter density distribution. While cosmologically α is a constant determined for the homogenous and isotropic Universe, e.g., by fitting Pantheon+ data, it can vary locally due to the extreme anisotropy of the matter distribution. Thus, in high baryonic density regions, one expects α-matter and α-energy densities to be relatively low and vice versa. We present its application to a few galaxy rotation curves from the SPARC database and find the results promising.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".