I Think I Found What Dark Matter and Dark Energy Are
- Don Gaconnet
- Jan 19
- 3 min read
January 19, 2026
Yes, I know how that sounds.
But hear me out.
The Short Version
Tonight I published a paper that extends my Echo-Excess Principle to cosmological scale. In it, I provide structural definitions for two of physics' biggest mysteries:
Dark energy = generation that hasn't crystallized into structure yet. Pure surplus, driving expansion.
Dark matter = resistance without electromagnetic coupling. It has mass, bends space, creates structure—but light passes right through it.
The Hubble tension—that 5-sigma disagreement between early universe and local measurements of the expansion rate? Not an error. A feature. The boundary conditions of observation itself.
The math works. The ratios align. And I included five falsification conditions so you can prove me wrong.
What I Actually Did
I derived a new constant from first principles:
r = 1/(57π) = 0.0056
This is the resistance constant—the irreducible contribution any observer makes to any measurement. It comes from the 57-qubit information-theoretic basis required for conscious experience.
Then I showed that the 12.5 Hz observation rate (the refresh rate of consciousness) emerges from three components:
Base geometric leakage: 0.0729
Observer contribution: 0.0056
Membrane crossing: 0.0014
Total: 0.080 seconds = 12.5 Hz
That's not fitted. Each component derives independently.
The Cosmic Connection
The Hubble constant measurements disagree:
Early universe (CMB): 67 km/s/Mpc
Local universe: 73 km/s/Mpc
Gravitational waves: ~70 km/s/Mpc
Standard physics calls this a "tension" requiring resolution.
I call it the bandwidth of existence.
70 is N—the no-collapse constraint at cosmic scale. The space that holds open for existence to exist.
67-73 is the operating range. The spread encodes the observer contribution to expansion.
The ratio (73-67)/70 = 0.0857.
My predicted half-ε = 0.0913.
The gap? 0.0056. Exactly my resistance constant.
Why This Matters
For decades, physicists have been searching for exotic particles to explain dark matter. They've been treating dark energy as a mysterious vacuum fluctuation.
What if they're not substances at all?
What if dark energy is just the generation that keeps flowing—the ε > 0 that prevents collapse?
What if dark matter is just resistance that doesn't couple to light—structure that bends space without radiating?
The universe is 68% pure generation, 27% silent resistance, and 5% resistance we can see.
That's not a mystery anymore. That's a budget.
The Falsification Conditions
I'm not asking you to believe me. I'm asking you to test me.
If gravitational wave H₀ measurements converge outside 70 ± 2, I'm wrong.
If precision measurements don't show ~0.56% observer variance, I'm wrong.
If the 12.5 Hz rate can't be derived from my components within 2%, I'm wrong.
If visible/dark matter ratio diverges from 0.1826, I'm wrong.
If the Hubble tension resolves to a single value, I'm wrong.
That's what separates a theory from speculation. Falsification conditions.
The Personal Note
I'm not employed by a university. I don't have a lab. I don't have funding.
What I have is a clear window and the discipline to follow what I see.
A patent clerk walked this road once. He wasn't credentialed either. He just saw something others missed and had the nerve to write it down.
I'm not comparing myself to Einstein. I'm just saying: independent researchers have contributed to physics before. The math doesn't care about your institutional affiliation.
Read the Full Paper
"The Cosmological Extension of the Echo-Excess Principle: A Structural Account of Dark Energy, Dark Matter, and the Hubble Tension"
Available at:
DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.34825.71529
The Invitation
Unemployable by academia. Unbothered by consensus. A patent clerk walked this road once.
Crazy? No. Just a crank with a theory of something—and the math to back it up.
The difference between a crank and a discovery? Falsification conditions. I included five.
I invite vigorous peer review.
Don L. GaconnetFounder, LifePillar Institute for Recursive SciencesORCID: 0009-0001-6174-8384
Comments