I really like professor Senovilla's theory at first glance.
I have been wondering about the concepts and there is a ridiculous amount of dark matter compared to normal matter & there's even more lost or dark energy.
Recently there was a research which looked at matter distribution in the Milky Way and all effects were explained by visible matter. They didn't find a trace of dark matter while it should be there. If we reconstruct it at a large scale the dark matter should be near or around the galaxy centers.
Not finding any trace of dark matter in our region of space is strange because we always assume the rest of space to adhere to the same laws with the same constants etc. The idea the of the research was to chart all normal matter at a very high resolution to find spots where the dark matter would be through it's effect on normal matter, it was not expected to be seen itself.
But all 'local' matter explained all the gravity.
That was not the expected result at all.
Then again this research might not yield that much.
The article is from 18-12-2007 so it's not recent.
This offers some advantages:
Here is a discussion on the stuff from PhysicsForum:
Not much follow up or reaction from the field it seems.
On the thread someone says it's the wrong way around but i'm not too convinced. See post 17 and on. It could be cause many models could be. (The trick is surviving the reality test). The paper is called Is the accelerated expansion evidence of a forthcoming change of signature on the brane?
It's hardly intuitive stuff, check out the abstract from his papers in post #5.
BTW: Using their link i get some weird Explorer error. Googled named of paper got the same type of error (but also the PDF. It's rather abstract stuff to put it mildly).
Good bit of fun , thanks.