What if Dark Energy is weakening?

*"If confirmed, the hints that dark energy might be weakening would bring the first substantial change in decades to the generally accepted theoretical model of the Universe. And if dark energy is not constant, that would hold implications for theories of how the Universe has evolved and for

Re: NYTimes.com: A Tantalizing ‘Hint’ That Astronomers Got Dark Energy All Wrong

On Sun, Apr 14, 2024 at 5:53 PM Jesse Mazer wrote: *> "The article > at > https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/04/dark-energy-might-not-be-constant-after-all/ > <https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/04/dark-energy-might-not-be-constant-after-all/> > says: 'One a

Re: NYTimes.com: A Tantalizing ‘Hint’ That Astronomers Got Dark Energy All Wrong

The article at https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/04/dark-energy-might-not-be-constant-after-all/ says: 'One alternative theory proposes that the universe may be filled with a fluctuating form of dark energy dubbed “quintessence.” There are also several other alternative models that assum

Re: NYTimes.com: A Tantalizing ‘Hint’ That Astronomers Got Dark Energy All Wrong

On Thu, Apr 4, 2024 at 6:00 PM Brent Meeker wrote: > "*The next question will be what causes DE to change?"* That is a very good question but nobody has a very good answer, but at least now we know that's the correct question to ask. Assuming of course this result holds

Re: NYTimes.com: A Tantalizing ‘Hint’ That Astronomers Got Dark Energy All Wrong

"If the work of dark energy were constant over time, it would eventually push all the stars and galaxies so far apart that even atoms would be torn asunder,..." That's not true.  The estimated strength of dark energy, w=-1, implied that galaxy clusters and any smaller groups

NYTimes.com: A Tantalizing ‘Hint’ That Astronomers Got Dark Energy All Wrong

Explore this gift article from The New York Times. You can read it for free without a subscription. A Tantalizing ‘Hint’ That Astronomers Got Dark Energy All Wrong Scientists may have discovered a major flaw in their understanding of that mysterious cosmic force. That could be good news for the

Re: Dark energy-powered devices

On Monday, April 8, 2019 at 4:03:19 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 3:29 PM Mason Green > wrote: > > >> >> *> Here’s another idea I just came up with, that doesn’t harness dark >> energy itself so much as the Hawking radiation of t

Re: Dark energy-powered devices

rness dark energy itself so much as the Hawking radiation of the de Sitter horizon. A civilization could build a sphere around a cold black hole (I.e., a rotating or charged black hole whose Hawking temperature is lower than that of the cosmological horizon; such a black hole would need to be

Re: Dark energy-powered devices

On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 3:29 PM Mason Green wrote: > > *> Here’s another idea I just came up with, that doesn’t harness dark > energy itself so much as the Hawking radiation of the de Sitter horizon.A > civilization could build a sphere around a cold black hole (I.e., a > r

Re: Dark energy-powered devices

Here’s another idea I just came up with, that doesn’t harness dark energy itself so much as the Hawking radiation of the de Sitter horizon. A civilization could build a sphere around a cold black hole (I.e., a rotating or charged black hole whose Hawking temperature is lower than that of the

Re: Dark energy-powered devices

On Sun, Apr 7, 2019 at 7:35 PM Lawrence Crowell < goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote: >> There are important differences that need to be explained. You can solve >> the problem of figuring out if Schrodinger's Cat is alive or dead simply by >> opening the box and looking, but there is no box

Re: Dark energy-powered devices

On Sunday, April 7, 2019 at 5:03:07 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 7, 2019 at 2:26 PM Lawrence Crowell > wrote: > > >> > there is no comprehensive axiomatic system for Diophantine equations. >> Quantum numbers as Gödel numbers for integer solutions to Diophantine >> equations are

Re: Dark energy-powered devices

On Sun, Apr 7, 2019 at 2:26 PM Lawrence Crowell < goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote: > > there is no comprehensive axiomatic system for Diophantine equations. > Quantum numbers as Gödel numbers for integer solutions to Diophantine > equations are then not entirely computable and there can't

Re: Dark energy-powered devices

: > > > On 3 Apr 2019, at 01:36, John Clark > > wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 5:23 PM Mason Green > wrote: > > *> It appears as though it would indeed be possible to build a device >> powered by dark energy. Such a device could keep running forever (as l

Re: Dark energy-powered devices

In 1972 Bennet showed that a universal Turing machine could be made both logically and thermodynamically reversible,[7] and therefore able in principle to perform arbitrarily much computation per unit of physical energy dissipated, i

Re: Dark energy-powered devices

> On 3 Apr 2019, at 01:36, John Clark wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 5:23 PM Mason Green <mailto:masonlgr...@hotmail.com>> wrote: > > > It appears as though it would indeed be possible to build a device powered > > by dark energy. Such a device could kee

Re: Dark energy-powered devices

ect kicks in. This is not exactly eternal, for eventually these ETs will run out of resources in their galaxy, but it does seem to suggest dark energy could be mined. There is however no "free lunch" per se here. https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/257476/how-did-the-univ

Re: Dark energy-powered devices

ld run a heat engine with that and get work out of it. As we got closer to the Big Rip the rod would get shorter because Dark Energy would start to tare it apart, but that's OK because even though the rod is shorter the acceleration is greater so the heat production would (perhaps) be constant.

Re: Dark energy-powered devices

On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 2:15 AM Mason Green wrote: > *> Actually now that I’m thinking about the spring idea some more, it > seems like you might be right about it not working. Dark energy will change > the shape of the potential energy/displacement curve for sure, making the >

Re: Dark energy-powered devices

Uh oh, looks like the “giant atom” idea might not work either. I had been under the assumption that dark energy would cause two orbiting bodies to spiral apart. But on second thought, it seems like what would actually happen is that an orbit affected by dark energy would still be stable, it

Re: Dark energy-powered devices

Actually now that I’m thinking about the spring idea some more, it seems like you might be right about it not working. Dark energy will change the shape of the potential energy/displacement curve for sure, making the spring strongly anharmonic. However it doesn’t look like it will result in

Re: Dark energy-powered devices

in a gravitational field like Earth’s the force pulling down on the spring is constant (it’s the weight of the spring itself and whatever is attached to it, which doesn’t vary significantly with height over the distances we observe). With a constant rather than an oscillating force, you won’t

Re: Dark energy-powered devices

gh that dark energy becomes significant). At such a distance, dark > energy would cause the objects’ orbits to spiral further and further apart. > On the other hand, because the objects are charged, they radiate away > energy as they orbit, and this radiation provides a braking force that > wo

Re: Dark energy-powered devices

I saw a discussion on Physics Forums about an idea similar to yours (involving spools of string steadily unrolling due to dark energy. One poster asked what would happen once the string ran out, the other person said you could just create more length of string with the energy you generated

Re: Dark energy-powered devices

On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 5:23 PM Mason Green wrote: *> It appears as though it would indeed be possible to build a device > powered by dark energy. Such a device could keep running forever (as long > as the universe keeps expanding forever and vacuum decay doesn’t occur) and > be abl

Dark energy-powered devices

It appears as though it would indeed be possible to build a device powered by dark energy. Such a device could keep running forever (as long as the universe keeps expanding forever and vacuum decay doesn’t occur) and be able to survive (or prevent) the heat death of the universe. Even proton

Re: It's possible dark energy isn't as powerful as we thought

On 4/15/2015 2:00 AM, LizR wrote: Assuming there isn't a future discovery that supernovae operated differently in the early universe, then yes these results mean dark energy isn't as powerful as thought, but it's still there. I'm not sure what the flatness measurement in

Re: It's possible dark energy isn't as powerful as we thought

Assuming there isn't a future discovery that supernovae operated differently in the early universe, then yes these results mean dark energy isn't as powerful as thought, but it's still there. I'm not sure what the flatness measurement indicates, in terms of global deceleration

Re: It's possible dark energy isn't as powerful as we thought

n years old for most of that time it was actually decelerating, it only started to accelerate 5 billion years ago. This makes sense because long ago the matter density of the universe was greater than now so matter's gravity would tend to slow the expansion, and Dark Energy which works in th

Re: It's possible dark energy isn't as powerful as we thought

st < > everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> Or not powerful enough to keep the universe expanding unto dissipation? >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: LizR >> To: everything-list >> Sent: Mon, Apr 13, 2015 6:40 pm >&g

Re: It's possible dark energy isn't as powerful as we thought

Yes, but the WMAP nobelists in 1997 claimed that it proved an increased acceleration. My head is flat so based on that... -Original Message- From: LizR To: everything-list Sent: Mon, Apr 13, 2015 7:25 pm Subject: Re: It's possible dark energy isn't as powerful as we tho

Re: It's possible dark energy isn't as powerful as we thought

l 2015 at 10:42, spudboy100 via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > Or not powerful enough to keep the universe expanding unto dissipation? > > > -Original Message- > From: LizR > To: everything-list > Sent: Mon, Apr 13, 2015 6:40 pm > Subject

Re: It's possible dark energy isn't as powerful as we thought

Or not powerful enough to keep the universe expanding unto dissipation? -Original Message- From: LizR To: everything-list Sent: Mon, Apr 13, 2015 6:40 pm Subject: It's possible dark energy isn't as powerful as we thought ...or maybe nonexistent, even???

It's possible dark energy isn't as powerful as we thought

...or maybe nonexistent, even??? http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-universe-might-be-expanding-a-lot-slower-than-we-thought -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

On Monday, December 1, 2014 5:05:43 AM UTC, yanniru wrote: > > Zibby, > > They may be interested, but they cannot publish such an interest and put > their careers at risk. > It is only emeritus types like myself that can put such speculations in > print. > What they can publish is the math behi

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

Zibby, They may be interested, but they cannot publish such an interest and put their careers at risk. It is only emeritus types like myself that can put such speculations in print. What they can publish is the math behind the limited conclusion. David Deutsch is the exception. Zappy On Sun, Nov

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

On Monday, December 1, 2014 4:24:38 AM UTC, yanniru wrote: > > That is exactly the same kind of correlation that Motl, Gharibyon, Penna > and I are talking about. > It is a form of cosmic entanglement. > how do we know when an idea like cosmic entanglement is a good scientific idea or a catch-

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

That is exactly the same kind of correlation that Motl, Gharibyon, Penna and I are talking about. It is a form of cosmic entanglement. However, if you recall I extrapolated from G&P's paper that black holes must be intelligent to be monogamus. And in a post to Bruno I speculated the particle wave

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

On Monday, December 1, 2014 2:30:05 AM UTC, yanniru wrote: > > I have read that reference. It is obvious that you have not. > But then almost everything you post here is baloney. > So it may not matter if you read the paper or not. > Richard > I read and we even exchanged about it. But there are

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

I have read that reference. It is obvious that you have not. But then almost everything you post here is baloney. So it may not matter if you read the paper or not. Richard On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 9:25 PM, wrote: > > > On Monday, December 1, 2014 2:14:33 AM UTC, yanniru wrote: >> >> I posted a r

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

On Monday, December 1, 2014 2:14:33 AM UTC, yanniru wrote: > > I posted a reference here that suggested how distant black holes could > become correlated. > http://arxiv.org/pdf/1308.0289v1.pdf > I saw / have seen the argument...always read things you reference if see them. What I would say is

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

ery small relative to >> the mass of a galaxy we wouldn't see any noticeable effect. Is it supposed >> to be relatively negligible? >> > > Liz - I've got to admit I've only just now seen your point in > terms of your actual line of inference. You are ab

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

t supposed >> to be relatively negligible? >> > > Liz - I've got to admit I've only just now seen your point in > terms of your actual line of inference. You are absolutely right of > course. How can a piece of data involve a dark energy / dark matter >

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

your point in terms of your actual line of inference. You are absolutely right of course. How can a piece of data involve a dark energy / dark matter interplay, with a calculated implication for the expansion of the universe, if the same data cannot at least say something about smaller scales. You are

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

OK, I'm just curious to knowI don't know what plausible answers were provided, I don't recall any that addressed this point. Maybe I missed them, I don't have a lot of time to spend on this forum (or any forum...) I suppose if the amount of DM being annihilated is very small relative to the ma

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

On Friday, November 28, 2014 8:49:33 PM UTC, Liz R wrote: > > The point is that galaxies should be expanding in relation to bound > systems like stars and the solar system, in a similar manner to the > universe though for a different reason (so almost certainly not at the same > rate). And tha

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

On 29 November 2014 at 11:59, Richard Ruquist wrote: > I have wondered if space is expanding by adding on more space, keeping the > space of say our galaxy intact. > Or is the actual space within our galaxy getting bigger, along with each > of us. > And if the latter, how would we know.? > > The

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

Richard Ruquist wrote: I have wondered if space is expanding by adding on more space, keeping the space of say our galaxy intact. Or is the actual space within our galaxy getting bigger, along with each of us. And if the latter, how would we know.? Richard Space is expanding uniformly. But th

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

I have wondered if space is expanding by adding on more space, keeping the space of say our galaxy intact. Or is the actual space within our galaxy getting bigger, along with each of us. And if the latter, how would we know.? Richard On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 5:12 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > LizR w

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

LizR wrote: The point is that galaxies should be expanding in relation to bound systems like stars and the solar system, in a similar manner to the universe though for a different reason (so almost certainly not at the same rate). And that should be visible as we look back in time. So it's an

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

The point is that galaxies should be expanding in relation to bound systems like stars and the solar system, in a similar manner to the universe though for a different reason (so almost certainly not at the same rate). And that should be visible as we look back in time. So it's an acid test for thi

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

On Thursday, November 27, 2014 8:49:02 PM UTC, Liz R wrote: > > Still no comment on the fact (if it is a fact) that if galaxies are losing > mass thru dark matter annihilation, they should be expanding. > It's a fact, Bruno's estimate levels are too low at present obviously reasonable & accept

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

LizR wrote: Still no comment on the fact (if it is a fact) that if galaxies are losing mass thru dark matter annihilation, they should be expanding. The reports I have seen about possible detection of dark matter annihilation events suggest a rate that is far too low to have any appreciable e

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

Still no comment on the fact (if it is a fact) that if galaxies are losing mass thru dark matter annihilation, they should be expanding. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

On Thursday, November 27, 2014 2:52:48 AM UTC, Liz R wrote: > > > On 26 November 2014 at 22:05, > wrote: > >> >> On Tuesday, November 25, 2014 6:50:00 PM UTC, Liz R wrote: >>> >>> And I said that it seemed to me that if dark matter was being destroyed >>> galaxies should be expanding, and asked

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

On 26 November 2014 at 22:05, wrote: > > On Tuesday, November 25, 2014 6:50:00 PM UTC, Liz R wrote: >> >> And I said that it seemed to me that if dark matter was being destroyed >> galaxies should be expanding, and asked if there was any observational >> evidence to support this. >> > > Liz, you

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

ut the point is only valid one time. What you reason above restates the same point in a different form. Based on the current worldview, the idea of dark energy gobbling dark matter, causing expansion to slow down.is nonsensical. Can't be adjustedcan't be made into sense.

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

And I said that it seemed to me that if dark matter was being destroyed galaxies should be expanding, and asked if there was any observational evidence to support this. On 25 November 2014 at 23:44, Richard Ruquist wrote: > The article was about the bad fit. > > -- You received this message be

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

The article was about the bad fit. On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 5:58 PM, LizR wrote: > On 25 November 2014 at 11:53, Richard Ruquist wrote: > >> The continuing tests have been done. The results are in. That is what the >> article is about. >> >> I only saw references to a bad fit with CMBR measureme

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

On 25 November 2014 at 11:53, Richard Ruquist wrote: > The continuing tests have been done. The results are in. That is what the > article is about. > > I only saw references to a bad fit with CMBR measurements, there was no mention of expanding galaxies. -- You received this message because yo

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

The continuing tests have been done. The results are in. That is what the article is about. On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 5:32 PM, LizR wrote: > Shouldn't this be testable? If DM is disappearing then galaxies should be > expanding as there is less mass holding them together, surely? (And large > scale

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

Shouldn't this be testable? If DM is disappearing then galaxies should be expanding as there is less mass holding them together, surely? (And large scale structure may also be different now from what it was in the past.) Is there evidence of this sort of change? On 25 November 2014 at 10:48, wrot

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

On Monday, November 24, 2014 9:17:09 PM UTC, yanniru wrote: > > Isn't this news a few months old? > dunno, I just saw it now on the Mind list on yahoo groups -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group a

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

Isn't this news a few months old? On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 2:05 PM, wrote: > http://www.space.com/27852-dark-energy-eating-dark-matter.html > > my comment is testimony. my worldview predicted this. honest. > > > -- > You received this message because you are subsc

Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

http://www.space.com/27852-dark-energy-eating-dark-matter.html my comment is testimony. my worldview predicted this. honest. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emai

Some seemingly obvious and visually confirmed thoughts on dark energy and matter

Some seemingly obvious and visually confirmed thoughts on dark energy and matter 1) Dark matter is potentially energy via E= mc^2. Dark energy is already energy. Regular matter is also potentially energy via E = mc^2 2) So everything is energy or potentially energy. 3) It is known that the

What are monads ? Can they help us to understand the dark energy universe ?

What are monads ? Can they help us to understand the dark energy universe ? I don't know about you, but I have trouble seeing how it all works from just particle physics. Monads or substances or concepts are a possible starting point of viewing the universe in the large instead

Re: [Fwd: The Brain's Dark Energy Scien amer]

On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 2:52 PM, Charles wrote: > On Feb 23, 9:02 am, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > But recent analysis produced by neuroimaging technologies has revealed > something quite remarkable: a great deal of meaningful activity is occurring > in the brain when a person is sitting back and do

Re: [Fwd: The Brain's Dark Energy Scien amer]

On Feb 23, 9:02 am, Brent Meeker wrote: > But recent analysis produced by neuroimaging technologies has revealed > something quite remarkable: a great deal of meaningful activity is occurring > in the brain when a person is sitting back and doing nothing at all. The best way to come up with an

[Fwd: The Brain's Dark Energy Scien amer]

As long thought, consciousness is only a small part of what the brain does - maybe even only a small part of "thinking". Brent Original Message The Brain's Dark Energy ( Preview ) Brain regions active when our minds wander may hold a key to understandi

Re: dark energy

Hi George: I discussed time origins in an earlier post on 1/9/2008. I see no need for a "physical" grounding. No entity is required to ask the question, it is asked by the mere fact that Nothings are members of the "member of itself" nested Everything. It is the question itself and the inabil

Re: dark energy

Hi, Hal: ">... I used "motivator" in the sense that a gas engine is a motivator of dynamics" < Indeed? does a gas engine 'work' without dynamics - what is supposed to be motivated by its activity? This question came in as an initiator to my reply, since 'dynamics' is bound to a process in ti

Re: dark energy

Hi John and George: In my post: "I see no motivator to any dynamics within the Everything other than the incompleteness of some of its members and the unavoidable necessity to progressively resolve this incompleteness." I used "motivator" in the sense that a gas engine is a motivator of dynami

Re: dark energy

George and Hal: Why does a "question" emerge? Why does it 'imply' to be answered? (I avoid 'why do we feel') Where did 'incompleteness' occur from? All these are very 'human' concepts and we impersonate them into a wider sense. "WE" (as Bruno asked: who is that? and I replied 'humanly thinking mac

Re: dark energy

Hal Ok, there is no feeling but there is motivation. There is no feeling of motivation and there is motivation without feeling. This is totally alien or the English language is broken. George Hal Ruhl wrote: > Hi George: > > I see no "feeling" of anything in a Something. There is only an >

Re: dark energy

Hi George: I see no "feeling" of anything in a Something. There is only an absence of the information needed to answer meaningful questions that are asked and must is be answered. Hal Ruhl At 11:13 PM 1/17/2008, you wrote: >Hal, >Allright. You are saying that incompleteness is the (only) mot

Re: dark energy

Hal, Allright. You are saying that incompleteness is the (only) motivator of the members. In other words the members feel motivated by incompleteness. They do have the feeling of being incomplete that motivates their behavior. Is this correct? George Hal Ruhl wrote: >Hi George: > >I see no mo

Re: dark energy

Hi George: I see no motivator to any dynamics within the Everything other than the incompleteness of some of its members and the unavoidable necessity to progressively resolve this incompleteness. Hal Ruhl At 12:29 AM 1/17/2008, you wrote: >Hal Ruhl wrote: > > > > > This is an automatic proc

Re: dark energy

Hal Ruhl wrote: > > This is an automatic process like a mass has to answer to the forces > [meaningful questions] applied to it. What in the psyche of the mass makes it answer to the forces? George --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you ar

Re: dark energy

Hi George: At 09:59 PM 1/16/2008, you wrote: >Hal, > >I cannot follow you: one the one hand you say: > > >Something if incomplete will have to > >increase its completeness to answer meaningful questions This is an automatic process like a mass has to answer to the forces [meaningful questions] a

Re: dark energy

explained which no one has yet fully explained yet. >>Usually scientists use objective and impersonal criteria such as "energy >>minimization" to explain how a reaction is driven in one particular >>direction. In chemistry, for example, "Le Chatelier Principle"

Re: dark energy

criteria such as "energy >minimization" to explain how a reaction is driven in one particular >direction. In chemistry, for example, "Le Chatelier Principle" is used. > >George > >Hal Ruhl wrote: > > >I have touched on this subject before but the foll

Re: dark energy

y minimization" to explain how a reaction is driven in one particular direction. In chemistry, for example, "Le Chatelier Principle" is used. George Hal Ruhl wrote: >I have touched on this subject before but the following is my current >view of "Dark Energy" > >

dark energy

I have touched on this subject before but the following is my current view of "Dark Energy" In my approach a Something is on a quest for completeness within the Everything. Based on this, the following points can be made: 1) The number of current incompleteness sites for a given

Projections to the boarder of the universe, an explanation for dark energy?

o the n-dimensional space, occupying and passing through areas close to the boundary. Can you see (the energy of) the shadows on the wall of the ancient universe? Do the "projective inference" and the conditions at the boarder provide an unexpected explanation for the dark energy as w