# Has Dark Energy Been Debunked? Probably Not.

Page 2 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.

#### magnoflux

There is nothing temporary about the spiral galaxies which are rotated around a magnetic hub at the center [called a supermassive black hole] by the magnoflux spin effect.

#### voidpotentialenergy

There is nothing temporary about the spiral galaxies which are rotated around a magnetic hub at the center [called a supermassive black hole] by the magnoflux spin effect.
A large quantity of temporary matter/gravity = a permanent changing quantity of gravity/matter.
If we have 10 temporary particle creations happening all the time 5 will overlap and add gravity.
If we add up all of the universe temporary particle creations from quantum fluctuations we have a lot of gravity/energy at any given moment.

Easy solution to what dark matter/energy might be.
If true it will be very difficult to detect other than crunching numbers to see what the mass of temp particles is and if that number is big enough to keep galaxies from flying apart.

David-J-Franks

#### David-J-Franks

A large quantity of temporary matter/gravity = a permanent changing quantity of gravity/matter.
If we have 10 temporary particle creations happening all the time 5 will overlap and add gravity.
If we add up all of the universe temporary particle creations from quantum fluctuations we have a lot of gravity/energy at any given moment.

Easy solution to what dark matter/energy might be.
If true it will be very difficult to detect other than crunching numbers to see what the mass of temp particles is and if that number is big enough to keep galaxies from flying apart.
Brilliant idea, but rod would be the best person to know whether this effect does anything to the motions of the planets etc. I understand about the added gravity, but why does it account for the dark energy ?

'Steady state of the infinite' theory
Infinite space - lnfinite universes - no beginning - no end

#### magnoflux

Matter is made up of protons, neutrons enclosed in electron shells with a magnetic inertia field pushing the charges apart. These temporary particles of quantum creation you are talking about must be made of charges which cancel out under normal conditions meaning that you have interfered with the magnetic inertia field in some way.

#### voidpotentialenergy

Brilliant idea, but rod would be the best person to know whether this effect does anything to the motions of the planets etc. I understand about the added gravity, but why does it account for the dark energy ?

'Steady state of the infinite' theory
Infinite space - lnfinite universes - no beginning - no end
Thanks David,

Crunching numbers for temporary sub atomic particles is a beast.
Not much info on creation activity for a given cubic M, it's duration or amount of mass and energy,
Then a guess at true universe size.

My best guess in a galaxy is similar temporary totals to 2x the mass of visible matter and 5x the temporary energy from the same process on the particle destruction.

Numbers that put it close to the missing mass and energy of the universe.

A super computer and decent real totals could model out a galaxy and answer it one way or another easily.

#### voidpotentialenergy

Matter is made up of protons, neutrons enclosed in electron shells with a magnetic inertia field pushing the charges apart. These temporary particles of quantum creation you are talking about must be made of charges which cancel out under normal conditions meaning that you have interfered with the magnetic inertia field in some way.
Length of time they produce gravity and destruction energy.
They are only sub atomic but do have mass while they exist and a large energy spike when they are destroyed.
All temporary but temporary across the universe = something value all the time.

#### Stephen J. Bauer

While an interesting viewpoint, larger sample sizes provide more credibility in such studies. Also they should corroborate this hypothesis with other metrics for the rate of expansion, such as other main sources of evidence: cosmic microwave background radiation and baryon acoustic oscillations.

I myself would have a difficult time rationalizing a universe without dark energy and dark matter. I never like the introduction of a cosmological constant without a proper foundation. And while the terms 'dark energy' and 'dark matter' are simplistic terms to describe the mechanics of how the universe interacts, they provide a working model that exceeds the notion of an unexplained 'cosmological constant'.

Even theories like the alternative theories presented in the book, 'The Evolutioning of Creation: Volume2', uses recognized culture queues to discuss the structure of a universe from nothingness to existence. Filling in the discussion points for this transition should logically flow from the foundation of the presented hypothesis, and need to address the expectant formation of what we now observe of the total energy in the universe.

Considering the current hypothesis of the standard model for cosmology, the current measurements provide for the decomposition of total energy in the universe as 68% dark energy, 27% mass-energy via dark matter, and 5% mass-energy via ordinary matter. In which case, any phase transition would have to address the dark matter along with the ordinary matter.

If we propose a foundation of dark energy as the universal medium of space-time fabric wherein any creation of matter must retain a zero sum difference to maintain a balance of our continuum. If we conjecture that this dark energy is responsible for the increasing universal expansion, we can logically understand that it does not interfere with our observation of ordinary matter. Rather we have only identified that black holes interfere with our observation of ordinary matter.

The other concept of ordinary matter, as embedded in the dark energy medium, is that there is a displacement of the dark energy surrounding the ordinary matter; a warping of space-time if you will. This displacement is a force in and of itself that begets the gravitational field by which ordinary matter can accrete and congregate. As this complementary displacement insulates the newly created positive mass density in an envelope of negative density matter, the balance of the continuum is maintained.

Therefore while we tend to think of ordinary matter as separate of dark matter, it turns out that they are part and parcel of our existence in the universe. In this case, dark energy is the manifestation of the gravitational force that imbibes within all ordinary matter. Without dark matter, ordinary matter would disintegrate within the universal medium of dark energy.

rabsal

#### voidpotentialenergy

While an interesting viewpoint, larger sample sizes provide more credibility in such studies. Also they should corroborate this hypothesis with other metrics for the rate of expansion, such as other main sources of evidence: cosmic microwave background radiation and baryon acoustic oscillations.

I myself would have a difficult time rationalizing a universe without dark energy and dark matter. I never like the introduction of a cosmological constant without a proper foundation. And while the terms 'dark energy' and 'dark matter' are simplistic terms to describe the mechanics of how the universe interacts, they provide a working model that exceeds the notion of an unexplained 'cosmological constant'.

Even theories like the alternative theories presented in the book, 'The Evolutioning of Creation: Volume2', uses recognized culture queues to discuss the structure of a universe from nothingness to existence. Filling in the discussion points for this transition should logically flow from the foundation of the presented hypothesis, and need to address the expectant formation of what we now observe of the total energy in the universe.

Considering the current hypothesis of the standard model for cosmology, the current measurements provide for the decomposition of total energy in the universe as 68% dark energy, 27% mass-energy via dark matter, and 5% mass-energy via ordinary matter. In which case, any phase transition would have to address the dark matter along with the ordinary matter.

If we propose a foundation of dark energy as the universal medium of space-time fabric wherein any creation of matter must retain a zero sum difference to maintain a balance of our continuum. If we conjecture that this dark energy is responsible for the increasing universal expansion, we can logically understand that it does not interfere with our observation of ordinary matter. Rather we have only identified that black holes interfere with our observation of ordinary matter.

The other concept of ordinary matter, as embedded in the dark energy medium, is that there is a displacement of the dark energy surrounding the ordinary matter; a warping of space-time if you will. This displacement is a force in and of itself that begets the gravitational field by which ordinary matter can accrete and congregate. As this complementary displacement insulates the newly created positive mass density in an envelope of negative density matter, the balance of the continuum is maintained.

Therefore while we tend to think of ordinary matter as separate of dark matter, it turns out that they are part and parcel of our existence in the universe. In this case, dark energy is the manifestation of the gravitational force that imbibes within all ordinary matter. Without dark matter, ordinary matter would disintegrate within the universal medium of dark energy.
And the 64 thousand\$ question is what is keeping quantum fluctuation in check?
0= .0(22)43 jules per cubic M
Or a (void) has potential energy and that potential energy is (quantum fluctuation) that now is a balanced energy value.
Wasn't balanced (e) in the beginning.

Easy equation to answer how it all began and why it is what it is.

#### Dragrath

Its a bit late but I see a good amount of misinformation on this subject and why dark energy has rightfully become so controversial. The key is we need to distinguish the difference between observations and interpretations of those observations based on assumptions that may or may not contain bias.

The famous dark energy result is based on Supernovae data but these must be corrected to account for our motion relative to other objects. This is however an area where if you aren't careful you can introduce model assumptions which makes the interpretation of the resulting observations tricky.

This work here shows the significance of the latter by identifying anew type of systematic bias that is substantial enough that based on the limited sample population may be able to fully account for the measurements attributed to Dark energy.

The authors are explicit in the text that their assumed linear correlation between population age and Hubble residual . The latter term can be found defined in the abstract of Patrick L. Kelly et al 2010 ApJ 715 743 as "The Hubble residual is the deviation of the inferred distance modulus to the SN, calculated from its apparent luminosity and light curve properties, away from the expected value at the SN redshift."

"Note that we implicitly assume a linear correlation between population age and Hubble residual over the full redshift range in Figure 16 for all SNe Ia used in cosmological sample. This assumption could be somewhat uncertain at high redshift, because our SN Ia sample has been restricted predominantly to those with low stretch factor (X1 . 0.0) preferentially discovered in early-type galaxies. "

This here is an important point as the assumption of a linear relationship between redshift and age is an assumption built on top of a number of other assumptions the most pertinent being that on average redshift effects from curvature should cancel out i.e. the Universe can be treated as isotropic at large scales.

This principal is itself has been called into question by large sky surveys which belays one of the main criticisms of any linear assumption there is not requirement in GR that the metric be uniform in fact barring the scenario where all matter and energy is uniformly distributed it can not be the same in every direction we just lack a general solution to Einstein's Field Equations

#### rabsal

I just watched on you tube a professor talk of the calculations that seems to make the expansion not increasing but we have to wait for the super telescope and about another ten years between observations to measure the distance and then they might know if we are increasing in expansion, but the real news is...there are TWO EXPANSION RATES, that's right , you heard it here first...
Inflation is first and that is FTLS (faster than light speed) and we-our visible expanding bubble universe- is expanding into the inflation sheet...
So your guess is as good as mine as to what that could mean, but I am working on it and for starters our universe was created with the big bang that slowed its expansion rate down from the density/gravity drag and because we are expanding within a field that is moving faster than us, the drag of density/gravity creates spin and spin creates mass, then form, memory, time and consciousness...

#### rabsal

I’m new to this page and not qualified in physics so forgive me if I sound naive or replying to a person rather than the source post.

Now everything I have read about space indicates it is NOT ”nothing” containing mass but rather a “thing” described as “spacetime”. Given that the universe is expanding, and that it arose from the “singularity“, why are we looking for a “force” “pushing” matter apart? Doesn’t it fit the spacetime model better if we imagine that the universe was originally “compacted” by a force? Using this concept, the expansion of spacetime does NOT occur due to “dark energy” but is rather the result of spacetime “losing” energy as it unfolds. Think of a spring that is compressed by a force and then released - it will initially accelerated as the force is “released” - it won’t spring apart due to new forces being input into the system.

Is this useful or ridiculous?
I believe our universe is the result of a collapsed black hole that reached its density maximum and this inflated then froze for a moment which created the big bang, as the continuing inflation blasted past the frozen part. So our expansion is a result of the release of the contractive energy of a BH and would be faster than light speed initially which was the inflation. It's FTLS because a BH can trap light so it is FTLS or has more energy than lights speed, so if the energy is released it would be inflationary or FTLS...and if the energy of inflation is tense like a spring its energy would increase as it is stretched so the speed would increase...I call this theory Tension Dark Energy.

#### Atlan0101

As I have tried to describe before, with the speed of light being so slow through the observable universe, so slow in creating the "observable" universe, and with curvature to the universe, there is no doubt 'offset' between the observable universe of histories, of ghosting, and the unobservable, far more immediate in space and time, universe. The immediate universe being dark at all distance gained from 'immediacy' anywhere in it. Gravity may curve space but it does not necessarily follow that particular physic overall. We may be observing gravity in the curvature, and at the same time, sensing it, from the unobserved and unobservable "offset" universe in other ways, otherwise (multiplying to more and more offset universe(s) that will progressively lose relativity to us).

#### rabsal

Bubble universes collecting on sheets of FTLS space plasma, forming circuits in the Cosmic Mind....where am I....

#### Catastrophe

##### "There never was a good war, or a bad peace."
Is the Big Bang in Crisis? by Dan Hooper Astronomy Cosmos Origin and Fate of the Universe (Stubborn Problems with dark matter, dark energy, and cosmic expansion have some astronomers rethinking what we know about the early Universe), October 2020.
Dan Hooper is a senior scientist at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Illinois and a professor of Astronomy and Astrophysics at the University of Chicago.

". . . . . . we are profoundly puzzled , especially when it comes to the earliest moments of cosmic history. I have no doubt that these moments hold incredible secrets, and perhaps the keys to a new scientific revolution . . . . . . it is up to us to coax these secrets from its grip, transforming them from mystery into discovery."

Cat

#### voidpotentialenergy

As I have tried to describe before, with the speed of light being so slow through the observable universe, so slow in creating the "observable" universe, and with curvature to the universe, there is no doubt 'offset' between the observable universe of histories, of ghosting, and the unobservable, far more immediate in space and time, universe. The immediate universe being dark at all distance gained from 'immediacy' anywhere in it. Gravity may curve space but it does not necessarily follow that particular physic overall. We may be observing gravity in the curvature, and at the same time, sensing it, from the unobserved and unobservable "offset" universe in other ways, otherwise (multiplying to more and more offset universe(s) that will progressively lose relativity to us).
C could simply be the time it takes to go from one quanta energy level to the next.
As you make the nothing between fluctuation even a tiny amount bigger over large distances it appears space is stretching.
Seeing things FTL is only seeing more nothing space.
C remains the same but has more area to travel.

That is a total new idea about expansion loosing energy and with it looking bigger.
Dark energy need not apply.

#### Catastrophe

##### "There never was a good war, or a bad peace."
Has Dark Energy Been Debunked? Probably Not.

I would agree. Probably not. I have seen no evidence to support the contrary.
Indeed, the quote from:
Dan Hooper is a senior scientist at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Illinois and a professor of Astronomy and Astrophysics at the University of Chicago.
seems to indicate that DM is still very much alive.

Cat