G4v Gravity Theory: Why does this get rid of Dark Energy? Earlier this year, Carver Mead of CalTech published a paper which seems to be garnering a lot of attention:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1503.04866 
http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw180.html 
http://www.geekwire.com/2015/after-100-years-einsteins-general-relativity-faces-a-big-party-and-a-big-test/ 
I also watched the video of his talk at CalTech:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdiG6ZPib3c
The Q&A at the end of this talk seemed to indicate that he may be misapplying GR equations for tasks for which they may not have been designed or for which they need proper manipulation.
The G4v theory claims, among other things, that it does away with the need for a Cosmological constant (which, based on the gravitational wave uses, I can understand) and also DOES AWAY with Dark Energy. It seems future LIGO experiments could provide supporting or refuting evidence for G4v.
My Question:
How/why does this theory do away with the need for Dark Energy?
Does it invalidate prior calculations that the univerise is expanding at an accelerating rate?  Or does it just describe the accelerating expansion without the need for the cosmological constant?  If the latter, that still requires something accelerating the expansion, so I'm confused.
 A: Carver Mead's version of the G4V theory includes a 2nd order term in the equation for inertial momentum which is proportional to the integral of the velocity of all relativistic energy in the universe divided by its distance from the body of interest.  The term is expressed as being proportional to the inertial vector potential.  It provides a description of a mechanism which, if found to exist, would embody Mach's principle.  Because of its sign, it would also tend to explain the currently unexplained expansion observed in macroscopic regions of the universe which is currently ascribed to "dark energy."  It contains no "fudge factor" analogous to the intermittently-hypothesized cosmological constant.
     The LIGO experiment should imminently provide data of sufficient accuracy to differentiate between G4V and GR, which is cause for excitement.  For an initial foothold, see:
https://youtu.be/XdiG6ZPib3c
A: John G. Cramer discussed G4V in a recent Analog Alternate View Column (Mar. 2016), and how Advanced LIGO data could possibly falsify G4V, General Relativity or even both of them (Their predicted gravity wave signatures signatures differ.)
Cramer also stated that there would be no dark energy since G4v explains distant receding Type IIa supernova dimming as partially due to relativistic beaming leaving no need for a cosmological constant.
In other words, the accelerated expansion is an illusion because more distant Type IIa supernovas appear dimmer than previously predicted if G4V is correct. 
A: Gravity is assumed to be attractive only. the cosmoconst/dark energy is Assumed to exist in order to explain the observed accelerating expansion.  
