There are two parts to this:

(1) Explaining dark energy (and dark matter)

(2) A decent quantum gravity formulation.

There is now a lot of mileage for quantum gravity deriving the structure of spacetime (and hence also gravity) from some sort of quantum process. Not the way everyone would go but it is as I see it. In which case blurred universal time is obvious, though this idea shows from another direction, independent of how you unify QM and gravity, that you cannot have your cake and eat it here.

Dark energy/matter is the great unsolved question that (I, and I guess many others) believe will fall out in the wash when we have a proper understanding of the relationship between QM and gravity. My view would be that it will come from QM first making spacetime as an emergent property, but other things are possible. It is fascinating but till we have the big picture we cannot tell which of the many tantalising hints are part of the big picture, and which are leading us up the wrong garden path.

Quote from MikeFid

We investigate the gravitational property of the quantum vacuum by treating its large energy density predicted by quantum field theory seriously and assuming that it does gravitate to obey the equivalence principle of general relativity. We find that the quantum vacuum would gravitate differently from what people previously thought. The consequence of this difference is an accelerating universe with a small Hubble expansion rate H∝Λe−βG√Λ→0 instead of the previous prediction H=8πGρvac/3−−−−−−−−√∝G−−√Λ2→∞ which was unbounded, as the high energy cutoff Λ is taken to infinity.

MikeFid : In 1995 Mills published the first findings of GUT-CP, which included a new metric for ART (yes Minkovski is mostly of no use..). He calculated (very accurate Hubble rate!), that the universe must expand before the expansion has been correctly measured.

I will therefor no longer read Physics papers that are based on outdated theories, unless I have enough free time.

Nuclear physics has the same problem. Unless they don't adapt the new metric, they will never be accurate. Everytime they are close, we hear a hurra! But 9999/10000 times they are far off, where far means >2%.

May be, that after the proton charge radius debacle, they will start to think again!

The use of time, in the large is a sound method, but for small dimensions there is no time - mathematically spoken no free variable "time" with a linear behavior...To make it short SU(3,1) is dead!

The scientists should understand the expansion first - just after then they can understand its seeming change with distance. Fortunately both phenomena have the same origin in dense aether model: the scattering of light at quantum fluctuations of vacuum. Currently the scientists only gradually converge into this understanding, so that they're presuming, that the vacuum fluctuations are responsible only for acceleration of this expansion with distance, not for expansion as such.

But there is no reason for not to presume, that the vacuum fluctuations are doing it all: both Hubble red shift, both dark energy effect. Actually we have multiple observational evidence for both already. And here I explained, how the same principle can even also explain the inflation.

Quote from Max Nozin

before considering any theory one should ask how appropriate it is to derive any explanation from the theory which conceptualizes time as a dimension and has terms such as 'spooky action at a distance' and for some reason postulates that a wave propagates with constant speed regardless of the medium carrying it.

A decent derivation of spacetime from some underlying pre-quantum mechanism would provide precise reasons for all those things!

Quote from Max Nozin

check out Lipinski gravity theory being mentioned in this forum in particular.

Their experiments could not confirm their theory. The peaks were way off the point (223eV) they calculated.

But as you mention gravity theory is wrong. ART has the wrong metric, what still allows to make most calculations more or less accurate... (because space is almost empty and close to be flat..) But at nuclear level ART is way off.