It's usually pretty easy to tell which new theories can be discarded because they don't explain all the observations that lead us to the dark matter theory in the first place (like e.g. the Bullet Cluster). Or it would be easy if media wasn't full of uncritical clickbait fluff pieces like this that rather make sensationalist claims than contextualizing how a new study fits into the existing science.

So far this is just a hypothesis, with no empirical evidence to back it up. On the other hand the standard model is supported by lots of evidence. It says this pretty clearly at the bottom of the article.

It's possible this guy is right but he has a long way to go to prove it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, as Carl Sagan would say.

It's probably not these guys, since I'm pretty sure nobody believes the "tired light" hypothesis.

it’s hard to tell who’s right

At a superficial level, sure. But that's in large part because of the nature of the problem. Dark Matter is the quintessential Unknown Unknown. It comes from the argument that we have a universe that is accelerating in its rate of expansion in a way that doesn't follow the understood shape of the universe.

Dark Matter / Energy solves the problem by positing a large invisible mass that's been compressed, like a spring, and is still being released following the Big Bang, propelling SpaceTime out in front of it.

But because all our measurements are occurring in a relatively small timeframe (relative to the history of the universe) and because we're working from a very limited perspective (not like we can pop over to the other side of the universe and confirm our findings), we have to make a lot of estimates and assumptions. Introducing/Dismissing some of these assumptions can "solve" certain problems very easily. But on closer inspection, they raise a bunch of new questions that can just as easily be debated.

Even the Nobel prize committee said fuck it

That's more because AI is "hot" right now and astrophysics isn't paying anyone's bills.

I’m not a fan of dark matter

When you consider how many astrological phenomenon have been discovered in the last century, or even the last decade, its not hard to believe there's a large lump of matter we simply haven't identified yet.

I'm more prone to believe the mechanics of physics are solved and certain volumes of mass are occluded than that physics is wrong and all mass is accounted for.

Me too.

I am interested if we can prove that the speed of light is a constant or not. We only know it's consistent there and back, what if it's slower one way or the other.

Supercollider? I just met her!