Jose B. Almeida wrote:

... Then they will have to delve deep into the issues as to what could be
changed in gr so as to resolve the clash with quantum theory, without
upsetting the body of correct theory in the classical correspondence.
Maybe then they will have some insight into observational problems in
current cosmology.

Well Narlikar has put forward a variable particle mass theory. That
would seem to have all the elements required to me, but I am not an
expert. Why is this not taken more seriously by physicists and cosmologists?

There is a choice to have a universe that is evolving, or particles that
are evolving. Why the preference for the universe? If QT tells us
anything, it is that "particles" are not things but processes. There is
therefore no reason why particle properties should not depend on local
conditions and evolve over time. We are only sampling a very tiny
proportion of the universe locally and so cannot hope to detect these
differences in the laboratory.

--
Ray Tomes
http://ray.tomes.biz/
http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/