Welcome to the list Ron.

Could someone please explain dark energy in simple terms : newtonian terms + mass-energy equivalence for example using equations such as
 F= Gm1m2/r^2,  F=ma and  E=mc^2 . Could such equations describe to a first approximation the forces and accelerations involved when negative mass/energy is present?


Ron McFarland wrote:
Thank you list for the welcome. I look forward to many congenial 

On 2 Nov 2003 at 22:05, Joao Leao wrote:
On Nov 2, 2003, at 5:16 PM, Ron McFarland wrote:

Greetings list members. This is my joining post.

Recent headlines indicate that there is empirical evidence now 
our known universe is about 13 billion years old, it is 
flat, and that space/time continues to be inflationary (we are in 

continuing big bang state) after experiencing an initial 
phase originating from a singular point -- followed a few billion
years later by some sort of phase change that cause the universe 
change from a slowing down expansion rate to a speeding up 
rate. The properties of "dark energy" are postulated now to be 
cause of continued and ever increasing in rate expansion of
space/time, the continuing big bang state.

The properties of dark matter are postulated to be the cause of
observed gravitational interactions within the universe as a 
and where there is insufficient observable "normal" matter to

for the observations. Dark matter is now said to greatly exceed 
amount of matter that we are able to measure and verify as 

I am sorry but you seem to contradict yourself below!
You state, quite correctly as far as I can tell, what the
outcome of the most recent cosmic observations on
our universe is. But them you state that

Neither dark energy nor dark matter has been proven by experiment 

measurement to exist. Both seem as pure postulates at this 
Both "dark matter" and "dark energy" express little more than our
puzzling with two sets of consistently observed effects which we
aren't able to accommodate in the so-called "concordance model" of
standard cosmology. What these terms designate are not (yet) 
entities so it is a bit early to even call them postulates. 
have sought to explain these effects along several distinct
hypothetical lines but the word is still out on which one of those
will prevail.

Correct, and I did not define my terms. By "postulate" I mean the 
_expression_ of an idea not yet represented by a defining mathematical 
statement. By theory I mean an idea supported by mathematical 
statement but not yet verified in all possible ways by apparent 
empirical evidence. By law I mean an idea supported by a mathematical 

statement that can not be ruled out by empirical evidence.

To me, dark energy seems to be the more important postulate. It
appears to me that if the universe will forever keep expanding at 

ever increasing rate then within a non infinite time period no
elementary particle of matter will be able to interact with 
What makes you think so?

The supposition that redshift is an observable component of inflation 

of the universe. It is not the distance that contributes, it is the 
relative rate of expansion that contributes to the apparent redshift 
(all other factors that can contribute to redshift being ignored for 
the purpose of concentrating only on the affect caused by inflation 
itself). The further something is away from us, relatively speaking, 
then the faster it is moving away from us. With inflation being on an 

ever increasing rate, there comes a point in finite time when the 
expansion rate reaches a level that causes the entire universe to 
appear dark and at absolute zero in temperature in reference to all 
its matter relative to itself.

In other words, the redshift at all points within the universe will 
have shifted to a level of absolute zero observable energy at some 
future time because the universe is then expanding (at every point 
within itself) at or beyond a rate that would allow energy to find 
anything in the universe that it could be relative to. In that 
situation a particle would never be able to travel from any point A 
to any point B, although it might try to do so for as long as it 
existed.  Eventually the particle could no longer exist, because it 
itself would loose coherency as its integral parts moved away from 
each other as a consequence of the space it occupies continuing to 
inflate, and thereby move its parts away from each other until 
nuclear forces could no longer maintain the attraction that keeps the 

particle (of any type whatsoever) from totally disintegrating.

That condition seems to indicate that relativity would thus be
meaningless when that point in time occurs. To my logic this

appears to violate conservation of energy law. If the argument is
nonetheless true, then it follows that said law is not a real law

that our entire theory structure is faulty at a fundamental 
That may very well be the case but it is again, to early to tell. 
you have probably heard General Relativity has always had an "open
place" for something like Dark Energy, namely the cosmological 
So it may be worth our while to re-examine its implications. If our
Universe is already dominated by Dark Energy as it seems than the
continued acceleration may very well express the peculiar
de-localization of energy that made GR suspect for so many years.

If you refer to the disputed cosmological constant, then I would say 
that it might indeed exists but perhaps not as a constant. It might 
instead be an _expression_ related to the ever increasing rate of the 
expansion of the universe. If that be the nature of reality then the 
laws of physics as we know them are predictable but not knowable at a 

distance, unless all points of the universe are inflating at the same 

exact rate (something that doesn't seem likely considering the 
apparent lack of homogeneous matter distribution in the universe - 
and for which we owe our very existence).

And now the rest of the story, a postulate by my above terms! Our 
universe is indeed one of potentially many universes within a so 
called meta-universe. No new thoughts there! But, a meta-universe 
that is at a temperature of absolute zero. Still, virtual particles 
do form within it much as they do in our own universe. Sometimes 
enough form, simultaneously and in one place and by pure chance with 
more "normal" matter being at point A than is at point B, and an 
expanding bubble results with a universe being born in the process.

But this is no free lunch, the apparent abundance of energy in our 
observable universe is an illusion from the viewpoint of the meta-
universe. The expansion and resultant heat death of our universe is 
one method of how the zero energy balance is maintained in the meta-
universe. This dark energy is the vehicle by which energy in our 
universe is returned to the meta-universe.

Our universe is not flat, it is open. Energy can not be returned to 
the meta-universe if a bubble were flat, because it would require 
that a very precise number of particles exist in a universe for it to 

actually be a flat universe. That number of particles is equivalent 
to zero because it requires that equal amounts of both normal and 
anti matter virtual particles exist within the bubble, so when a 
"flat" universe spawns then the meta-universe becomes the universe 
that just spawned (in result, it never happened). And in a closed 
universe the energy is returned to the meta-universe by the other 
available path for it to do so by - a big crunch. In our universe 
some energy is returned that way, by way of black holes.

Black holes are always shrinking to a singularity, effectively 
increasing distance between themselves and everything else that 
exists in our universe. It's just a localized area of space/time 
inflation. The matter that goes into a black hole becomes energy 
returned to the meta-universe. What remains is not a "black hole" as 
we think of one being, but a sort of energy potential portal into the 

meta-universe. These portals are what exhibit the affect that is 
being labeled dark matter. It's an attraction by the meta-universe, 
its attempt to reclaim its zero energy balance.

Dark energy is the expansion of the universe into a state of zero 
energy. They are but different sides of the same "thing", with the 
meta-universe being what the interior of what the "thing" is made up 
of. The meta-universe is made up of absolutely nothing. Only the 
bubbles that it spawns contain something. A something that we call 
matter/energy and space/time.

There, now I feel better after having gotten that all out of me!
Ron McFarland


Reply via email to