Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Explores gravity's role in cosmic expansion, indicating new cosmological paradigms.
This paper proposes the third great baseline inversion in the history of physics. Galileo corrected Aristotle's baseline (rest → uniform motion): the machinery of "sustained force for motion" dissolved.Copernicus corrected Ptolemy's baseline (Earth stationary → Earth moving): epicycles dissolved.We correct Einstein's 1917 baseline (static universe → expanding universe): dark energy (Λ) dissolves. The central argument begins with standard cosmology's own analogy. The Friedmann equations were derived from the escape velocity condition. But a rocket that reaches escape velocity turns off its engine and coasts forever — no continuous fuel required. The cumulative cost of escape is finite (GMm/R) and the cost rate vanishes (dE/dr = GMm/r² → 0). The Big Bang was the engine. It fired once, 13.8 billion years ago. Since then, the universe has been coasting on inertia. Dark energy is the ghost of a misread analogy. The underlying error is a baseline assumption invisible for a century: current cosmology treats the static Minkowski spacetime as the zero-cost default, and requires dark energy to explain why the universe expands. We invert this. Expansion is the zero-cost state (C_expansion → 0 as R → ∞). Static configurations cost energy (C_static = GM²/R > 0, always). The lazy propagation principle — developed in the companion paper v4.0 — selects the zero-cost state as the natural default. Expansion needs no explanation. Stasis does. In the expanding baseline:- Gravity is resistance to expansion: g = a_expansion − a_actual = H₀r − a_actual- The flat galactic rotation curve (g ∝ 1/r) emerges from spherical geometry in the expanding baseline — an independent derivation of the v4.0 result- E = mc² is the energy cost of maintaining mass at rest in an expanding universe- The equivalence principle (m_inertial = m_gravitational) is the identity of two resistances to baseline departure, no longer a mysterious coincidence- MOND's empirical scale a₀ ≈ cH₀ is the natural acceleration of the expanding baseline — the scale at which gravity and expansion balance- The observable universe radius equals the Schwarzschild radius of its total mass (r_s ≈ r_H) as the critical balance condition, not a coincidence- The Hubble tension is the difference in baseline deviation between early and local universe- DESI's w(z) ≠ −1 is predicted: Λ_apparent(t) = (8πG/c²)·ρ_feedback(t) evolves as voids grow- Observed accelerated expansion is weakening deceleration, not a new energy field- The Big Bang is a laziness threshold violation (r_s > d_max); inflation is baseline recovery- Cyclic cosmology without black holes: feedback builds structure, lazy propagation grows voids, uniform state is unstable, new threshold violation begins new aeon Einstein's 1915 field equations without Λ already gave an expanding universe. The equations were correct. Einstein added Λ in 1917 because he assumed the static state should be the solution — the Aristotelian instinct applied to cosmology. The 1998 reintroduction of Λ repeated the same assumption. Both Λ's are epicycles. No new physics is required. Einstein's original equations are sufficient. The universe was never dark. The assumptions were. Companion paper: Gravitational Flux Transport Networks v4.0 (dark matter resolved by geometric correction A_eff = 4πHr).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
JongJin Ma (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: