Hi, George. I'm sorry for the lateness of my reply; thankfully I've been very busy.
I find your thoughts interesting in that they seem distantly relative to fractional charges we attribute to some things, such as quarks, although one might argue that they are only fractional because they were not the 1st items to have been assigned values! I tend to try to formulate my thoughts upon logic rather than mathematics, though, since I'm of the opinion that mathematics is limited to a digital interpretation but logic encompasses both the digital and the analog. When dealing with the very large and the very small, I think mathematics is inherently inaccurate when trying to describe an analog condition and that is why it can not accurately represent infinity in a practical way. My thoughts, on what "dark matter" and "dark energy" really are, are not mainstream and they seem inconsistent with your general equation involving them. I've argued in this topic that both of those things are really not matter/energy, and that they are both the same thing. I've basically agreed with a strange idea that "dark energy" is what we see when the force of "gravity" is relavistically below a threshold value and that it is the engine which is causing an accelerating expansion space/time within our entire open universe. I've gone further to say that the equivalent flip side of that concept is expressed when the force of "gravity" exceeds a threshold value and a black hole forms in result. I've argued that a black hole, in seeking to be a singularity, is forever moving away and distancing itself from all other objects in our universe and that the process is nothing more than another but localized expression of an ever increasing rate of space/time inflation. I've argued that the force of "gravity" related to a black hole is what "dark matter" is. Based upon that logic, I've argued that dark matter and dark energy are really the same things, an inflating region of space/time. Building more on that logic, I've argued that "gravity" is not matter/energy and it instead is an expression of space/time. I've argued that space/time and matter/energy are two differing things, and that they can not be unified into one term. I've argued that space/time is the absence of matter/energy, it is an infinite nothingness. But I've argued that matter/energy and space/time do affect each other nonetheless, and that the affect is expressed in a concept that we refer to as relativity. And I've argued that matter/energy is but a chance quantity and arrangement of a spontaneous appearance of virtual particles in what I've termed a "meta universe". I like that the term "meta universe" to distinguish it from similar but non identical concepts. I've argued that it just so happened that enough virtual particles appeared close enough together that an expanding bubble formed and which our entire known universe resides within. All of our measurements are constrained within that bubble, they are not relative to the meta universe because on the average and over infinity there is nothing in the meta universe - all virtual particles return their energy back to the meta universe which thereby keeps its state of thermal equilibrium (that state being at a temperature of absolute zero, not even a fraction above). >From the viewpoint of an eternity in the meta universe, all space/time and matter/energy that we perceive in our bubble universe simply does not exist and it is but an illusion. Although our universe does exist relative to its constructs composed of what to us are real particles but what to the meta universe are but virtual particles, our universe does not really exist relative to the meta universe because there is no point of relative reference in the meta universe which is but, on the average throughout eternity, composed of absolutely nothing at all. I've argued that both at the cosmic and at local scales, in our universe, space/time continues to inflate at an ever accelerating pace. I've argued that where there be matter/energy then inflation slows down locally, but it is never completely inhibited. I've argued that inflation itself is the process by which the apparent energy in our universe is returned to the meta universe, that inflation is a sort of "tension" or a sort of attraction mechanism that seeks to and ultimately will return the virtual particles to a ground state (a zero energy state) in the meta universe. And so that logic also had me argue that "gravity" does not have a force carrier, it will never be found because gravity is just a relative expression of inflationary space/time itself and gravity is not composed of matter/energy. I've argued that at some point where inflation locally exceeds the speed of light then the very atomic bonds become unbound due to their component parts being forced away from (and thereby distancing themselves from) each other, and that this is the mechanism by which all matter will eventually decay to zero energy and exhibit infinite red shift. I've argued that in local regions where the rate of inflation, relative to any particle within that region, has exceeded the speed of light then it is not possible for matter/energy therein to interact with other points of matter/energy anywhere therein or thereout, because exchange of energy can not travel faster than light. This is but another indicator, relative to the rest of our universe, that decay has occurred - the matter/energy is no longer relative and indeed relativity has then lost all meaning. If you can not measure it due to light speed constraint then there is no relativity and so there can be no interactions, and such a particle could only be relative to itself and nothing else. My arguments are circular and that is what gives them consistency. Break the chain of logic then the premise is found to be faulty. So far, I think my arguments have held up pretty good to disassembly attempts. They are not really my own arguments, individually; but maybe just the way I've assembled the arguments is a little unique. Ron McFarland ====== On 14 Nov 2003 at 10:52, George Levy wrote: Ron, I am not a physicist, just a dabbling engineer philosopher, however, the idea of dark energy is intriguing. I asked a question a few weeks ago, whether dark (mass) energy is identical to negative (mass) energy and what the implications would be in terms of Newton mechanics. The reason for my question was that, on purely philosophical grounds, because of symmetry and of conservation laws, I was expecting the amount of positive (mass) energy in the universe to be exactly equal to the amount of negative (mass) energy. Therefore, I was expecting the amount of dark energy to be exactly equal to the amount of mass energy in the universe. However, in recent article, Tegmark stated that the amount of dark energy has been measured to be 67%. This data shoots down my bipolar symmetry conjecture. However, pursuing the idea of symmetry in the complex plane, it may imply that there are two kinds of dark energy each 33% of the universe. The symmetry would then be three-fold: 1/3 real matter, 1/3 (-0.5 + isqrt(3)/2) dark energy and 1/3 (-0.5 - isqrt(3)/2) dark energy. Can any one figure out what the implications of this conjecture would be? How would dark energy interact with itself and how would it interact with ordinary matter? George