It is proper for you to be skeptical. This is a very tentative hypothesis and its links to quantum processes is even more tentative.
If the expansion of the universe is not accelerating, then the tentative hypothesis falls since the expansion in acceleration is central to it. If there is no dark energy, but the expansion of the universe is nevertheless accelerating, then the acceleration would still need to be solved. If we go back a ways, I don't think "inflation" is a process we know anything about either. On dark matter, I don't know what to think. I suppose an unknown massive particle which doesn't interact electromagnetically sounds possible. A little stranger, but still perhaps possible, is the supergravity explanation of dark matter. But I don't know of much evidence supporting the existence of branes. So I don't know what to think there. Jim --- In [email protected], "Joe" <desert_woodworker@...> wrote: > > Jim, > > I leave to others the opportunity to comment point-by-point on your post. > > Because I am an Observer, and Instrumentalist, in Astronomy, I am dubious and > skeptical that the utmost has yet been done in digesting all the indications > regarding a need to invoke "Dark Energy", in Universal Expansion. > > In fact, I am working on this now. The observations seem secure, but certain > assumptions are what I question. > > It seems to me that there is no guarantee that Supernovae at the earliest > epochs ought to be JUST as bright as those at later epochs (epochs closer to > ours, when/where stars have more heavy elements on-board, by accumulated > nucleo-synthesis, than at the earliest times). > > Metallicity changes behavior of stars. Astronomers know this. Yet some feel > confident to smear out the differences, or to ignore them. I don't. > > I think so-called "Dark Energy" will be shown to be a fluke. > > But the reality of Dark Matter is much more easily convincing. I see no > hiding place for Ordinary Matter. The fact is that the rotation curves of > disk galaxies are NOT Keplerian; this has been an *intense* embarrassment in > Astronomy and Physics since about 1970, and it has not much been leaked to > the Public. "Dark Matter" has been invoked since the beginning, and no one > yet knows what it is. The word(s) is/(are) a place-holder, for... Something. > And it is real. > > It remains an embarrassment. > > --Joe > > > "jfnewell7" <jfnewell7@> wrote: > > > > One:: [snip] > ------------------------------------ Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: [email protected] [email protected] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
