Discussion:
Dark Energy doesn't continue to accelerate the expansion of the universe
(too old to reply)
m***@gmail.com
2018-01-24 01:52:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Since the Big Bang there would be a conserved quantity of DE driving
space expansion. But it would dissipate with the expansion
slowing it down always into the future. But we see an accelerated
expansion. DE fails to be the explanation to universal
expansion.

Mitchell Raemsch
Esteban Weddle
2018-01-24 17:41:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@gmail.com
Since the Big Bang there would be a conserved quantity of DE driving
space
Entirely nonsense, dark energy, if existent, must come from something. It
is NOT a something. Huge error they are making, thinking they can fool my
people. They cant fool me.
m***@gmail.com
2018-01-24 20:27:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Esteban Weddle
Post by m***@gmail.com
Since the Big Bang there would be a conserved quantity of DE driving
space
Entirely nonsense, dark energy, if existent, must come from something. It
is NOT a something. Huge error they are making, thinking they can fool my
people. They cant fool me.
Who is the fool here?
David Waite
2018-01-24 17:58:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@gmail.com
Since the Big Bang there would be a conserved quantity of DE driving
space expansion. But it would dissipate with the expansion...
No it wouldn't. The cosmological constant to which the silly term DE refers, is a constant. A positive cosmological constant, DE, yields an acceleration term for the corresponding solution to the field equations, whether you like it or not.
m***@gmail.com
2018-01-24 20:34:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Since the Big Bang there would be a conserved quantity of DE driving
space expansion. But it would dissipate with the expansion...
No it wouldn't. The cosmological constant to which the silly term DE refers, is a constant. A positive cosmological constant, DE, yields an acceleration term for the corresponding solution to the field equations, whether you like it or not.
Then you would consider DE a conserved quantity in the universe since
the very beginning. It would keep spreading out across expanding space
This predicts that universal expansion would always be slowing down when
the opposite is observed.

Mitchell Raemsch
David Waite
2018-01-25 03:37:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Since the Big Bang there would be a conserved quantity of DE driving
space expansion. But it would dissipate with the expansion...
No it wouldn't. The cosmological constant to which the silly term DE refers, is a constant. A positive cosmological constant, DE, yields an acceleration term for the corresponding solution to the field equations, whether you like it or not.
Then you would consider DE a conserved quantity in the universe since
the very beginning. It would keep spreading out across expanding space
This predicts that universal expansion would always be slowing down when
the opposite is observed.
Mitchell Raemsch
No nutter, I already told you. The cosmological constant is a constant and yields an acceleration in the corresponding solution to the field equations. How is it that you just completely ignored what I told you in simple terms?
m***@gmail.com
2018-01-25 03:42:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Since the Big Bang there would be a conserved quantity of DE driving
space expansion. But it would dissipate with the expansion...
No it wouldn't. The cosmological constant to which the silly term DE refers, is a constant. A positive cosmological constant, DE, yields an acceleration term for the corresponding solution to the field equations, whether you like it or not.
Then you would consider DE a conserved quantity in the universe since
the very beginning. It would keep spreading out across expanding space
This predicts that universal expansion would always be slowing down when
the opposite is observed.
Mitchell Raemsch
No nutter, I already told you. The cosmological constant is a constant and yields an acceleration in the corresponding solution to the field equations. How is it that you just completely ignored what I told you in simple terms?
Hawking's dark energy runs out...
There is only so much left for
the universe to expand by...
This predicts slowing of expansion
not the accelerating expansion
observed. This has been pointed
out to Stephen Hawking...

Mitchell Raemsch; God creates gravity
David Waite
2018-01-25 15:09:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Since the Big Bang there would be a conserved quantity of DE driving
space expansion. But it would dissipate with the expansion...
No it wouldn't. The cosmological constant to which the silly term DE refers, is a constant. A positive cosmological constant, DE, yields an acceleration term for the corresponding solution to the field equations, whether you like it or not.
Then you would consider DE a conserved quantity in the universe since
the very beginning. It would keep spreading out across expanding space
This predicts that universal expansion would always be slowing down when
the opposite is observed.
Mitchell Raemsch
No nutter, I already told you. The cosmological constant is a constant and yields an acceleration in the corresponding solution to the field equations. How is it that you just completely ignored what I told you in simple terms?
Hawking's dark energy runs out...
There is only so much left for
the universe to expand by...
This predicts slowing of expansion
not the accelerating expansion
observed. This has been pointed
out to Stephen Hawking...
Mitchell Raemsch; God creates gravity
The cosmological constant is a constant dumbass, and if Hawking said any such thing, he was wrong. However I don't buy that 95% of whats attributed to him ever came from him. Its coming from grad students.
Ima Strobl
2018-01-25 16:26:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Hawking's dark energy runs out...
There is only so much left for the universe to expand by...
This predicts slowing of expansion not the accelerating expansion
observed. This has been pointed out to Stephen Hawking...
Mitchell Raemsch; God creates gravity
The cosmological constant is a constant dumbass, and if Hawking said any
such thing, he was wrong. However I don't buy that 95% of whats
attributed to him ever came from him. Its coming from grad students.
Finally a proper observation. But that's valid for all celebrities in
physics, not only for the man in the wheelchair.
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
2018-01-25 18:37:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
The ’nym-shifting troll trolled as "Ima Strobl" <***@tbwiwrti.bm>:
^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by Ima Strobl
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Hawking's dark energy runs out...
Dark energy is not a concept introduced by Stephen Hawking:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy>
Post by Ima Strobl
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
There is only so much left for the universe to expand by...
Nonsense.
Post by Ima Strobl
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
This predicts slowing of expansion not the accelerating expansion
observed.
IOW: The theory that predicted the slowing of universal expansion has been
*falsified* by observation, and the Nobel Prize in Physics 2011 was awarded
for that discovery.

<https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2011/>
Post by Ima Strobl
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
This has been pointed out to Stephen Hawking...
His reaction probably was “Ha-ha-ha”.
Post by Ima Strobl
Post by David Waite
The cosmological constant is a constant dumbass,
How eloquent.
Post by Ima Strobl
Post by David Waite
and if Hawking said any such thing he was wrong.
How could *you* possibly know, being completely ignorant about cosmology?
Post by Ima Strobl
Post by David Waite
However I don't buy that 95% of whats attributed to him ever came from
him. Its coming from grad students.
Cite evidence. ISTM you are merely projecting your lack of veracity.
Post by Ima Strobl
Finally a proper observation.
Who is the greater fool? …
Post by Ima Strobl
But that's valid for all celebrities in physics,
There are no such people.
Post by Ima Strobl
not only for the man in the wheelchair.
*PLONK*


PointedEars
--
Heisenberg is out for a drive when he's stopped by a traffic cop.
The officer asks him "Do you know how fast you were going?"
Heisenberg replies "No, but I know where I am."
(from: WolframAlpha)
m***@gmail.com
2018-01-25 20:17:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by Ima Strobl
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Hawking's dark energy runs out...
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy>
Post by Ima Strobl
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
There is only so much left for the universe to expand by...
Nonsense.
Post by Ima Strobl
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
This predicts slowing of expansion not the accelerating expansion
observed.
IOW: The theory that predicted the slowing of universal expansion has been
*falsified* by observation, and the Nobel Prize in Physics 2011 was awarded
for that discovery.
<https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2011/>
Post by Ima Strobl
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
This has been pointed out to Stephen Hawking...
His reaction probably was “Ha-ha-ha”.
Post by Ima Strobl
Post by David Waite
The cosmological constant is a constant dumbass,
How eloquent.
Post by Ima Strobl
Post by David Waite
and if Hawking said any such thing he was wrong.
How could *you* possibly know, being completely ignorant about cosmology?
Post by Ima Strobl
Post by David Waite
However I don't buy that 95% of whats attributed to him ever came from
him. Its coming from grad students.
Cite evidence. ISTM you are merely projecting your lack of veracity.
Post by Ima Strobl
Finally a proper observation.
Who is the greater fool? …
Post by Ima Strobl
But that's valid for all celebrities in physics,
There are no such people.
Post by Ima Strobl
not only for the man in the wheelchair.
*PLONK*
PointedEars
--
Heisenberg is out for a drive when he's stopped by a traffic cop.
The officer asks him "Do you know how fast you were going?"
Heisenberg replies "No, but I know where I am."
(from: WolframAlpha)
Hawking says his dark energy cancels.

Mitchell Raemsch
m***@gmail.com
2018-01-26 21:58:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by Ima Strobl
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Hawking's dark energy runs out...
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy>
Post by Ima Strobl
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
There is only so much left for the universe to expand by...
Nonsense.
Post by Ima Strobl
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
This predicts slowing of expansion not the accelerating expansion
observed.
IOW: The theory that predicted the slowing of universal expansion has been
*falsified* by observation, and the Nobel Prize in Physics 2011 was awarded
for that discovery.
<https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2011/>
Post by Ima Strobl
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
This has been pointed out to Stephen Hawking...
His reaction probably was “Ha-ha-ha”.
Post by Ima Strobl
Post by David Waite
The cosmological constant is a constant dumbass,
How eloquent.
Post by Ima Strobl
Post by David Waite
and if Hawking said any such thing he was wrong.
How could *you* possibly know, being completely ignorant about cosmology?
Post by Ima Strobl
Post by David Waite
However I don't buy that 95% of whats attributed to him ever came from
him. Its coming from grad students.
Cite evidence. ISTM you are merely projecting your lack of veracity.
Post by Ima Strobl
Finally a proper observation.
Who is the greater fool? …
Post by Ima Strobl
But that's valid for all celebrities in physics,
There are no such people.
Post by Ima Strobl
not only for the man in the wheelchair.
*PLONK*
PointedEars
--
Heisenberg is out for a drive when he's stopped by a traffic cop.
The officer asks him "Do you know how fast you were going?"
Heisenberg replies "No, but I know where I am."
(from: WolframAlpha)
Hawking says his dark energy cancels.
Mitchell Raemsch
Dark energy is a conserved energy quantity since the beginning of the space universe. Expansion thins it out. Thinner dark energy drives slower expansion of
space. But we observe the opposite; acceleration. Dark energy is ruled out...

Mitchell Raemsch
David Waite
2018-01-27 01:13:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Hawking's dark energy runs out...
Why are you pretending that what he wrote was me?
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Post by David Waite
The cosmological constant is a constant dumbass,
How eloquent.
He doesn't get that simple fact, dumbass. It literally has to be spelled out to him.
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Post by David Waite
and if Hawking said any such thing he was wrong.
How could *you* possibly know, being completely ignorant about cosmology?
And yet you are beneath me, so how little do you know...
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Post by David Waite
However I don't buy that 95% of whats attributed to him ever came from
him. Its coming from grad students.
Cite evidence.
Only able to blink combined with a myriad of conflicting statements about cosmology.
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Who is the greater fool? …
You.
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
*PLONK*
You keep saying that, but never do it, so stop lying about it and killfile me already crank.
David Waite
2018-01-27 02:40:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Waite
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by David Waite
However I don't buy that 95% of whats attributed to him ever came from
him. Its coming from grad students.
Cite evidence.
Only able to blink combined with a myriad of conflicting statements about cosmology.
And on top of that watch starting at 31:33 and pay particular attention to what is going on at 39:25 and notice its WAY too slow to be consistent with those fake Hawking question answer sessions where "Hawking" answers speech questions. Its not Hawking doing it. Its a grad student. And yes, if you weren't a complete fvcking retard, you would have already known I was right and not challenged me on it.
Post by David Waite
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
*PLONK*
You keep saying that, but never do it, so stop lying about it and killfile me already crank.
And I dare you to "plonk" me instead of constantly lying about doing it and responding AGAIN.
David Waite
2018-01-27 02:41:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Waite
Post by David Waite
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by David Waite
However I don't buy that 95% of whats attributed to him ever came from
him. Its coming from grad students.
Cite evidence.
Only able to blink combined with a myriad of conflicting statements about cosmology.
And on top of that watch starting at 31:33 and pay particular attention to what is going on at 39:25 and notice its WAY too slow to be consistent with those fake Hawking question answer sessions where "Hawking" answers speech questions. Its not Hawking doing it. Its a grad student. And yes, if you weren't a complete fvcking retard, you would have already known I was right and not challenged me on it.
Post by David Waite
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
*PLONK*
You keep saying that, but never do it, so stop lying about it and killfile me already crank.
And I dare you to "plonk" me instead of constantly lying about doing it and responding AGAIN.

for the time references.
Ima Strobl
2018-01-27 13:09:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Waite
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by m***@gmail.com
Hawking's dark energy runs out...
Why are you pretending that what he wrote was me?
He is hiding his lack of education and stupidity behind plonks. Simple. A
classroom example of an idiot. He can't take a bus alone.
David Waite
2018-01-27 15:02:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ima Strobl
Post by David Waite
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by m***@gmail.com
Hawking's dark energy runs out...
Why are you pretending that what he wrote was me?
He is hiding his lack of education and stupidity behind plonks. Simple. A
classroom example of an idiot. He can't take a bus alone.
You're the idiot for thinking that dark energy runs out here. That's all you guys, not me. I'm the one who said the cosmological constant is a constant.
Ima Strobl
2018-01-27 15:45:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Waite
Post by Ima Strobl
Post by David Waite
Why are you pretending that what he wrote was me?
He is hiding his lack of education and stupidity behind plonks. Simple.
A classroom example of an idiot. He can't take a bus alone.
You're the idiot for thinking that dark energy runs out here. That's all
you guys, not me. I'm the one who said the cosmological constant is a
constant.
You can't have dark or any flavour of energy alone, my friend. That energy
must come from something palpable, physical. Out of thin air you won't get
energy, it's not money. You are perpetuating this mistake and are not
alone. Who is the idiot now, huh? You neither can take a bus alone, I can
see.
David Waite
2018-01-27 16:38:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ima Strobl
Post by David Waite
Post by Ima Strobl
Post by David Waite
Why are you pretending that what he wrote was me?
He is hiding his lack of education and stupidity behind plonks. Simple.
A classroom example of an idiot. He can't take a bus alone.
You're the idiot for thinking that dark energy runs out here. That's all
you guys, not me. I'm the one who said the cosmological constant is a
constant.
You can't have dark or any flavour of energy alone, my friend. That energy
must come from something palpable, physical. Out of thin air you won't get
energy, it's not money. You are perpetuating this mistake and are not
alone. Who is the idiot now, huh? You neither can take a bus alone, I can
see.
So you're saying that you're an anti general relativity crank. Got it. Anyway, unlike me, you don't even know what generates a conservation energy law. As such you have no idea under what circumstances there even exists an energy conservation concept. Aside from that. Dark energy is really just a silly name for the cosmological constant. Arbitrarily renaming it that doesn't actually imbue it with any new conservation requirements. The way it is conserved is in that ITS A FVCKING CONSTANT.
m***@gmail.com
2018-01-27 21:13:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Waite
Post by Ima Strobl
Post by David Waite
Post by Ima Strobl
Post by David Waite
Why are you pretending that what he wrote was me?
He is hiding his lack of education and stupidity behind plonks. Simple.
A classroom example of an idiot. He can't take a bus alone.
You're the idiot for thinking that dark energy runs out here. That's all
you guys, not me. I'm the one who said the cosmological constant is a
constant.
You can't have dark or any flavour of energy alone, my friend. That energy
must come from something palpable, physical. Out of thin air you won't get
energy, it's not money. You are perpetuating this mistake and are not
alone. Who is the idiot now, huh? You neither can take a bus alone, I can
see.
So you're saying that you're an anti general relativity crank. Got it. Anyway, unlike me, you don't even know what generates a conservation energy law. As such you have no idea under what circumstances there even exists an energy conservation concept. Aside from that. Dark energy is really just a silly name for the cosmological constant. Arbitrarily renaming it that doesn't actually imbue it with any new conservation requirements. The way it is conserved is in that ITS A FVCKING CONSTANT.
Are you sure?

Mitchell Raemsch
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
2018-01-31 06:59:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Waite
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
^^^^^^^^^^^
^
Post by David Waite
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Post by m***@gmail.com
Hawking's dark energy runs out...
^^^
Post by David Waite
Why are you pretending that what he wrote was me?
Let us count together: 1, 2, 3, …
Post by David Waite
[hate, hate, hate]
PointedEars, head shaking
--
Heisenberg is out for a drive when he's stopped by a traffic cop.
The officer asks him "Do you know how fast you were going?"
Heisenberg replies "No, but I know where I am."
(from: WolframAlpha)
David Waite
2018-01-28 01:04:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@gmail.com
Since the Big Bang there would be a conserved quantity of DE driving
space expansion. But it would dissipate with the expansion
slowing it down always into the future. But we see an accelerated
expansion. DE fails to be the explanation to universal
expansion.
Mitchell Raemsch
I know you're not going to get any of this, but WTF I'll go into some detail anyway. Look an actual conserved energy is generated by a timelike isometry. Without one, there is no actual law of conservation of energy. Outside of the DeSitter universe, which we don't live in, there is no such isometry generating an actual conserved energy corresponding to an actual "dark energy". What you have is a part of Einstein's field equations which is the cosmological constant times the metric tensor. Now someone somewhere along the line though it would be cute to move the term to the stress-energy tensor side of the field equations and then think of it as an energy and pressure density expression. This doesn't actually make it any kind of a conserved energy. You'd have to have a timelike isometry generate the term in order for it to actually be that. As such referring to it as a "dark energy" is really just a silly name for it. The only senses in which it is a conserved thing is that the cosmological constant itself is a constant, and that the metric tensor's covariant divergence is zero, meaning that if you keep you're coordinates sufficiently local, THEN, it acts like a conserved energy and pressure expression. So am I sure...Quite.
m***@gmail.com
2018-01-28 01:13:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Since the Big Bang there would be a conserved quantity of DE driving
space expansion. But it would dissipate with the expansion
slowing it down always into the future. But we see an accelerated
expansion. DE fails to be the explanation to universal
expansion.
Mitchell Raemsch
I know you're not going to get any of this, but WTF I'll go into some detail anyway. Look an actual conserved energy is generated by a timelike isometry. Without one, there is no actual law of conservation of energy. Outside of the DeSitter universe, which we don't live in, there is no such isometry generating an actual conserved energy corresponding to an actual "dark energy". What you have is a part of Einstein's field equations which is the cosmological constant times the metric tensor. Now someone somewhere along the line though it would be cute to move the term to the stress-energy tensor side of the field equations and then think of it as an energy and pressure density expression. This doesn't actually make it any kind of a conserved energy. You'd have to have a timelike isometry generate the term in order for it to actually be that. As such referring to it as a "dark energy" is really just a silly name for it. The only senses in which it is a conserved thing is that the cosmological constant itself is a constant, and that the metric tensor's covariant divergence is zero, meaning that if you keep you're coordinates sufficiently local, THEN, it acts like a conserved energy and pressure expression. So am I sure...Quite.
The cosmological constant prevents any universal expansion or contraction.
This is not what we observe in cosmology.
We observe that the universe is accelerating in its expansion and dark
matter fails to be an explanation. Therefore it is not the answer
to what drives expansion. It thins out in space time's expansion
slowing expansion down. But that is opposite of what is true.

Mitchell Raemsch
David Waite
2018-01-28 01:46:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Since the Big Bang there would be a conserved quantity of DE driving
space expansion. But it would dissipate with the expansion
slowing it down always into the future. But we see an accelerated
expansion. DE fails to be the explanation to universal
expansion.
Mitchell Raemsch
I know you're not going to get any of this, but WTF I'll go into some detail anyway. Look an actual conserved energy is generated by a timelike isometry. Without one, there is no actual law of conservation of energy. Outside of the DeSitter universe, which we don't live in, there is no such isometry generating an actual conserved energy corresponding to an actual "dark energy". What you have is a part of Einstein's field equations which is the cosmological constant times the metric tensor. Now someone somewhere along the line though it would be cute to move the term to the stress-energy tensor side of the field equations and then think of it as an energy and pressure density expression. This doesn't actually make it any kind of a conserved energy. You'd have to have a timelike isometry generate the term in order for it to actually be that. As such referring to it as a "dark energy" is really just a silly name for it. The only senses in which it is a conserved thing is that the cosmological constant itself is a constant, and that the metric tensor's covariant divergence is zero, meaning that if you keep you're coordinates sufficiently local, THEN, it acts like a conserved energy and pressure expression. So am I sure...Quite.
The cosmological constant prevents any universal expansion or contraction....
No it doesn't dumbass. You were already told that you were wrong.
m***@gmail.com
2018-01-28 02:17:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Waite
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Since the Big Bang there would be a conserved quantity of DE driving
space expansion. But it would dissipate with the expansion
slowing it down always into the future. But we see an accelerated
expansion. DE fails to be the explanation to universal
expansion.
Mitchell Raemsch
I know you're not going to get any of this, but WTF
The first thing people say when they don't really know
what they are talking about...
Post by David Waite
I'll go into some detail anyway. Look an actual conserved energy is generated by a timelike isometry. Without one, there is no actual law of conservation of energy. Outside of the DeSitter universe, which we don't live in, there is no such isometry generating an actual conserved energy corresponding to an actual "dark energy". What you have is a part of Einstein's field equations which is the cosmological constant times the metric tensor. Now someone somewhere along the line though it would be cute to move the term to the stress-energy tensor side of the field equations and then think of it as an energy and pressure density expression. This doesn't actually make it any kind of a conserved energy. You'd have to have a timelike isometry generate the term in order for it to actually be that. As such referring to it as a "dark energy" is really just a silly name for it. The only senses in which it is a conserved thing is that the cosmological constant itself is a constant, and that the metric tensor's covariant divergence is zero, meaning that if you keep you're coordinates sufficiently local, THEN, it acts like a conserved energy and pressure expression. So am I sure...Quite.
The cosmological constant prevents any universal expansion or contraction....
No it doesn't dumbass. You were already told that you were wrong.
Cosmological constant was for balancing expansion and contraction
to achieve a static state universe.

Mitchell Raemsch
Sylvia Else
2018-01-28 01:07:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@gmail.com
Since the Big Bang there would be a conserved quantity of DE driving
space expansion.
How do you know it's conserved? Perhaps it isn't. The universe appears
to comply with certain conservation laws, but that doesn't mean we can
just dream up new ones and expect the universe to obey them.

Sylvia.
m***@gmail.com
2018-01-28 01:17:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by m***@gmail.com
Since the Big Bang there would be a conserved quantity of DE driving
space expansion.
How do you know it's conserved? Perhaps it isn't.
Then it needs a new source to supply it...
What is that Sylvia?
Post by Sylvia Else
The universe appears
to comply with certain conservation laws, but that doesn't mean we can
just dream up new ones and expect the universe to obey them.
Sylvia.
What is the supplier of the new... Sylvia?

Why is dark energy breaking the conservation laws when it is an energy?
Why is it a special energy?

Mitchell Raemsch
Sylvia Else
2018-01-28 01:23:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by m***@gmail.com
Since the Big Bang there would be a conserved quantity of DE driving
space expansion.
How do you know it's conserved? Perhaps it isn't.
Then it needs a new source to supply it...
Why?
Post by m***@gmail.com
What is that Sylvia?
Post by Sylvia Else
The universe appears
to comply with certain conservation laws, but that doesn't mean we can
just dream up new ones and expect the universe to obey them.
Sylvia.
What is the supplier of the new... Sylvia?
Why is dark energy breaking the conservation laws when it is an energy?
A conservation law is nothing more than a summary of observations. It
may turn out that it doesn't apply to dark energy.

Sylvia.
m***@gmail.com
2018-01-28 02:14:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by m***@gmail.com
Since the Big Bang there would be a conserved quantity of DE driving
space expansion.
How do you know it's conserved? Perhaps it isn't.
Then it needs a new source to supply it...
Why?
For more.
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by m***@gmail.com
What is that Sylvia?
Post by Sylvia Else
The universe appears
to comply with certain conservation laws, but that doesn't mean we can
just dream up new ones and expect the universe to obey them.
Sylvia.
What is the supplier of the new... Sylvia?
Why is dark energy breaking the conservation laws when it is an energy?
A conservation law is nothing more than a summary of observations. It
may turn out that it doesn't apply to dark energy.
Sylvia.
Then it needs a new supplier.

Mitchell Raemsch
David Waite
2018-01-28 03:19:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@gmail.com
Since the Big Bang there would be a conserved quantity of DE driving
space expansion. But it would dissipate with the expansion
slowing it down always into the future. But we see an accelerated
expansion. DE fails to be the explanation to universal
expansion.
Mitchell Raemsch
Intent is irrelevant. It doesn't do that.
m***@gmail.com
2018-01-28 03:24:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Since the Big Bang there would be a conserved quantity of DE driving
space expansion. But it would dissipate with the expansion
slowing it down always into the future. But we see an accelerated
expansion. DE fails to be the explanation to universal
expansion.
Mitchell Raemsch
Intent is irrelevant. It doesn't do that.
It was invented for something it cannot do.
It dissipates...
David Waite
2018-01-28 03:35:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Since the Big Bang there would be a conserved quantity of DE driving
space expansion. But it would dissipate with the expansion
slowing it down always into the future. But we see an accelerated
expansion. DE fails to be the explanation to universal
expansion.
Mitchell Raemsch
Intent is irrelevant. It doesn't do that.
It was invented for something it cannot do.
It dissipates...
No it doesn't liar.
m***@gmail.com
2018-01-28 03:46:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Since the Big Bang there would be a conserved quantity of DE driving
space expansion. But it would dissipate with the expansion
slowing it down always into the future. But we see an accelerated
expansion. DE fails to be the explanation to universal
expansion.
Mitchell Raemsch
Intent is irrelevant. It doesn't do that.
It was invented for something it cannot do.
It dissipates...
No it doesn't liar.
You are confused David.

Mitchell Raemsch
m***@gmail.com
2018-01-29 01:11:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Since the Big Bang there would be a conserved quantity of DE driving
space expansion. But it would dissipate with the expansion
slowing it down always into the future. But we see an accelerated
expansion. DE fails to be the explanation to universal
expansion.
Mitchell Raemsch
Intent is irrelevant. It doesn't do that.
It was invented for something it cannot do.
It dissipates...
No it doesn't liar.
You are confused David.
Mitchell Raemsch
There is conserved energy in the universe to expand. It will
eventually thin out; slowing expansion down all of the way.

Mitchell Raemsch
David Waite
2018-01-29 03:19:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Since the Big Bang there would be a conserved quantity of DE driving
space expansion. But it would dissipate with the expansion
slowing it down always into the future. But we see an accelerated
expansion. DE fails to be the explanation to universal
expansion.
Mitchell Raemsch
Intent is irrelevant. It doesn't do that.
It was invented for something it cannot do.
It dissipates...
No it doesn't liar.
You are confused David.
Mitchell Raemsch
There is conserved energy in the universe to expand. It will
eventually thin out; slowing expansion down all of the way.
Mitchell Raemsch
There you go lying again, seeing as how you were wrong was explained to you and you ignored it and just repeated yourself anyway.
m***@gmail.com
2018-01-29 03:34:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Since the Big Bang there would be a conserved quantity of DE driving
space expansion. But it would dissipate with the expansion
slowing it down always into the future. But we see an accelerated
expansion. DE fails to be the explanation to universal
expansion.
Mitchell Raemsch
Intent is irrelevant. It doesn't do that.
It was invented for something it cannot do.
It dissipates...
No it doesn't liar.
You are confused David.
Mitchell Raemsch
There is conserved energy in the universe to expand. It will
eventually thin out; slowing expansion down all of the way.
Mitchell Raemsch
There you go lying again, seeing as how you were wrong was explained to you and you ignored it and just repeated yourself anyway.
Dark energy conserved runs out...

Mitchell Raemsch
David Waite
2018-01-29 03:39:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Since the Big Bang there would be a conserved quantity of DE driving
space expansion. But it would dissipate with the expansion
slowing it down always into the future. But we see an accelerated
expansion. DE fails to be the explanation to universal
expansion.
Mitchell Raemsch
Intent is irrelevant. It doesn't do that.
It was invented for something it cannot do.
It dissipates...
No it doesn't liar.
You are confused David.
Mitchell Raemsch
There is conserved energy in the universe to expand. It will
eventually thin out; slowing expansion down all of the way.
Mitchell Raemsch
There you go lying again, seeing as how you were wrong was explained to you and you ignored it and just repeated yourself anyway.
Dark energy conserved runs out...
Mitchell Raemsch
Word salad. The cosmological constant, is a constant.
m***@gmail.com
2018-01-29 03:42:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Since the Big Bang there would be a conserved quantity of DE driving
space expansion. But it would dissipate with the expansion
slowing it down always into the future. But we see an accelerated
expansion. DE fails to be the explanation to universal
expansion.
Mitchell Raemsch
Intent is irrelevant. It doesn't do that.
It was invented for something it cannot do.
It dissipates...
No it doesn't liar.
You are confused David.
Mitchell Raemsch
There is conserved energy in the universe to expand. It will
eventually thin out; slowing expansion down all of the way.
Mitchell Raemsch
There you go lying again, seeing as how you were wrong was explained to you and you ignored it and just repeated yourself anyway.
Dark energy conserved runs out...
Mitchell Raemsch
Word salad. The cosmological constant, is a constant.
It keeps the universe from expanding or contracting
but it is observed to accelerate in its expansion.
Dark energy dissipate and can't drive the expansion
of the universe.
David Waite
2018-01-29 15:39:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Since the Big Bang there would be a conserved quantity of DE driving
space expansion. But it would dissipate with the expansion
slowing it down always into the future. But we see an accelerated
expansion. DE fails to be the explanation to universal
expansion.
Mitchell Raemsch
Intent is irrelevant. It doesn't do that.
It was invented for something it cannot do.
It dissipates...
No it doesn't liar.
You are confused David.
Mitchell Raemsch
There is conserved energy in the universe to expand. It will
eventually thin out; slowing expansion down all of the way.
Mitchell Raemsch
There you go lying again, seeing as how you were wrong was explained to you and you ignored it and just repeated yourself anyway.
Dark energy conserved runs out...
Mitchell Raemsch
Word salad. The cosmological constant, is a constant.
It keeps the universe from expanding or contracting
but it is observed to accelerate in its expansion.
Dark energy dissipate and can't drive the expansion
of the universe.
Repeating your lie doesn't make it true.
m***@gmail.com
2018-01-29 18:46:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Since the Big Bang there would be a conserved quantity of DE driving
space expansion. But it would dissipate with the expansion
slowing it down always into the future. But we see an accelerated
expansion. DE fails to be the explanation to universal
expansion.
Mitchell Raemsch
Intent is irrelevant. It doesn't do that.
It was invented for something it cannot do.
It dissipates...
No it doesn't liar.
You are confused David.
Mitchell Raemsch
There is conserved energy in the universe to expand. It will
eventually thin out; slowing expansion down all of the way.
Mitchell Raemsch
There you go lying again, seeing as how you were wrong was explained to you and you ignored it and just repeated yourself anyway.
Dark energy conserved runs out...
Mitchell Raemsch
Word salad. The cosmological constant, is a constant.
It keeps the universe from expanding or contracting
but it is observed to accelerate in its expansion.
Dark energy dissipate and can't drive the expansion
of the universe.
Repeating your lie doesn't make it true.
Dark energy doesn't work for what it supposedly explains.
It's push quantity runs out...

Mitchell Raemsch
David Waite
2018-01-30 00:32:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Since the Big Bang there would be a conserved quantity of DE driving
space expansion. But it would dissipate with the expansion
slowing it down always into the future. But we see an accelerated
expansion. DE fails to be the explanation to universal
expansion.
Mitchell Raemsch
Intent is irrelevant. It doesn't do that.
It was invented for something it cannot do.
It dissipates...
No it doesn't liar.
You are confused David.
Mitchell Raemsch
There is conserved energy in the universe to expand. It will
eventually thin out; slowing expansion down all of the way.
Mitchell Raemsch
There you go lying again, seeing as how you were wrong was explained to you and you ignored it and just repeated yourself anyway.
Dark energy conserved runs out...
Mitchell Raemsch
Word salad. The cosmological constant, is a constant.
It keeps the universe from expanding or contracting
but it is observed to accelerate in its expansion.
Dark energy dissipate and can't drive the expansion
of the universe.
Repeating your lie doesn't make it true.
...
It's push quantity runs out...
Mitchell Raemsch
No it doesn't.
David (Kronos Prime) Fuller
2018-01-30 03:46:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Since the Big Bang there would be a conserved quantity of DE driving
space expansion. But it would dissipate with the expansion
slowing it down always into the future. But we see an accelerated
expansion. DE fails to be the explanation to universal
expansion.
Mitchell Raemsch
Intent is irrelevant. It doesn't do that.
It was invented for something it cannot do.
It dissipates...
No it doesn't liar.
You are confused David.
Mitchell Raemsch
There is conserved energy in the universe to expand. It will
eventually thin out; slowing expansion down all of the way.
Mitchell Raemsch
There you go lying again, seeing as how you were wrong was explained to you and you ignored it and just repeated yourself anyway.
Dark energy conserved runs out...
Mitchell Raemsch
Word salad. The cosmological constant, is a constant.
It keeps the universe from expanding or contracting
but it is observed to accelerate in its expansion.
Dark energy dissipate and can't drive the expansion
of the universe.
Repeating your lie doesn't make it true.
...
It's push quantity runs out...
Mitchell Raemsch
No it doesn't.
You are Debating with MITCHELL
m***@gmail.com
2018-01-30 04:33:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David (Kronos Prime) Fuller
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Since the Big Bang there would be a conserved quantity of DE driving
space expansion. But it would dissipate with the expansion
slowing it down always into the future. But we see an accelerated
expansion. DE fails to be the explanation to universal
expansion.
Mitchell Raemsch
Intent is irrelevant. It doesn't do that.
It was invented for something it cannot do.
It dissipates...
No it doesn't liar.
You are confused David.
Mitchell Raemsch
There is conserved energy in the universe to expand. It will
eventually thin out; slowing expansion down all of the way.
Mitchell Raemsch
There you go lying again, seeing as how you were wrong was explained to you and you ignored it and just repeated yourself anyway.
Dark energy conserved runs out...
Mitchell Raemsch
Word salad. The cosmological constant, is a constant.
It keeps the universe from expanding or contracting
but it is observed to accelerate in its expansion.
Dark energy dissipate and can't drive the expansion
of the universe.
Repeating your lie doesn't make it true.
...
It's push quantity runs out...
Mitchell Raemsch
No it doesn't.
You are Debating with MITCHELL
YOU BET.
David Waite
2018-01-31 11:12:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Yes I already knew that you're "plonk" was a lie. I dare you to killfile me.
m***@gmail.com
2018-02-02 23:08:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Waite
Yes I already knew that you're "plonk" was a lie. I dare you to killfile me.
Dark energy runs out as the universe expands. It is a conserved quantity
at the beginning of the universe. Because it thins out it would slow
the expansion of the universe instead of what is observed or the
increase of expansion. Dark energy just doesn't do it.

Mitchell Raemsch
David Waite
2018-02-03 02:04:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
No it doesn't.
m***@gmail.com
2018-02-03 02:12:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Waite
No it doesn't.
Dark energy has the Big Bang origin. It will dissipate as the
universe expands. So the universe ought to be slowing in
expansion but it is not. It is the opposite. Dark energy
is therefore not needed because it doesn't work.

Mitchell Raemsch
David Waite
2018-02-03 02:26:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
No it doesn't.
Dark energy has the Big Bang origin. It will dissipate as the
universe expands. So the universe ought to be slowing in
expansion but it is not. It is the opposite. Dark energy
is therefore not needed because it doesn't work.
Mitchell Raemsch
No it doesn't.
m***@gmail.com
2018-02-03 02:32:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
No it doesn't.
Dark energy has the Big Bang origin. It will dissipate as the
universe expands. So the universe ought to be slowing in
expansion but it is not. It is the opposite. Dark energy
is therefore not needed because it doesn't work.
Mitchell Raemsch
No it doesn't.
You have a special cosmology of your own...

Mitchell Raemsch
David Waite
2018-02-03 02:35:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Nope, you do.
m***@gmail.com
2018-02-03 02:38:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Waite
Nope, you do.
When did you make history David?
David Waite
2018-02-03 02:40:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
Nope, you do.
When did you make history David?
I said nope, you do, not yes I do. Lunatic.
m***@gmail.com
2018-02-03 02:46:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
Nope, you do.
When did you make history David?
I said nope, you do, not yes I do. Lunatic.
Science is a death universe cult... if it
believes all stars and the universe die...
What is more insane? There is a need for
a God because of Death Universe Cult Science...

Mitchell Raemsch
David Waite
2018-02-03 02:51:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Gods aren't real. You don't always get what you need.
m***@gmail.com
2018-02-03 03:07:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Waite
Gods aren't real. You don't always get what you need.
Death Universe is unreal more than a God.

Mitchell Raemsch
p***@gmail.com
2018-02-03 02:35:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
No it doesn't.
Dark energy has the Big Bang origin. It will dissipate as the
universe expands. So the universe ought to be slowing in
expansion but it is not. It is the opposite. Dark energy
is therefore not needed because it doesn't work.
Mitch, you ignoramus, it is the dark energy that is proposed to keep the universe expanding in the first place... do your due diligence before opening your steaming gob...
m***@gmail.com
2018-02-03 02:38:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
No it doesn't.
Dark energy has the Big Bang origin. It will dissipate as the
universe expands. So the universe ought to be slowing in
expansion but it is not. It is the opposite. Dark energy
is therefore not needed because it doesn't work.
Mitch, you ignoramus, it is the dark energy that is proposed to keep the universe expanding in the first place... do your due diligence before opening your steaming gob...
Pnal... it thins out so it would slow down... but it is accelerating.
p***@gmail.com
2018-02-03 03:56:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
No it doesn't.
Dark energy has the Big Bang origin. It will dissipate as the
universe expands. So the universe ought to be slowing in
expansion but it is not. It is the opposite. Dark energy
is therefore not needed because it doesn't work.
Mitch, you ignoramus, it is the dark energy that is proposed to keep the universe expanding in the first place... do your due diligence before opening your steaming gob...
Pnal... it thins out so it would slow down... but it is accelerating.
Mitch, you are still nuttier than a fruitcake. You continue to just make it up as you go along.
m***@gmail.com
2018-02-03 04:12:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
No it doesn't.
Dark energy has the Big Bang origin. It will dissipate as the
universe expands. So the universe ought to be slowing in
expansion but it is not. It is the opposite. Dark energy
is therefore not needed because it doesn't work.
Mitch, you ignoramus, it is the dark energy that is proposed to keep the universe expanding in the first place... do your due diligence before opening your steaming gob...
Pnal... it thins out so it would slow down... but it is accelerating.
Mitch, you are still nuttier than a fruitcake. You continue to just make it up as you go along.
Dark energy's beginning Big Bang origin was a conserved quantity that thins out as the universe expands pnal. Therefore it has no acceleration solution.


Mitchell Raemsch
Volney
2018-02-03 05:59:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@gmail.com
Dark energy's beginning Big Bang origin was a conserved quantity that thins out as the universe expands pnal. Therefore it has no acceleration solution.
If the cosmological constant is a constant, how can it thin out or
dissipate?
p***@gmail.com
2018-02-03 16:15:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Mitch said

"Dark energy's beginning Big Bang origin was a conserved quantity that thins out as the universe expands pnal. Therefore it has no acceleration solution."

You are making this up, Mitch, there is no support for this notion. In other words, you are lying. Do you think your god approves of your lies?
m***@gmail.com
2018-02-03 21:34:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p***@gmail.com
Mitch said
"Dark energy's beginning Big Bang origin was a conserved quantity that thins out as the universe expands pnal. Therefore it has no acceleration solution."
You are making this up, Mitch, there is no support for this notion. In other words, you are lying. Do you think your god approves of your lies?
Dark energy doesn't work.
If it is an original quantity of energy it would thin out.
If you believe otherwise that doesn't make me a liar about
what I believe. For instance I believe in God and that is
No lie...

Mitchell Raemsch
David Waite
2018-02-04 03:29:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by p***@gmail.com
Mitch said
"Dark energy's beginning Big Bang origin was a conserved quantity that thins out as the universe expands pnal. Therefore it has no acceleration solution."
You are making this up, Mitch, there is no support for this notion. In other words, you are lying. Do you think your god approves of your lies?
Dark energy doesn't work.
If it is an original quantity of energy it would thin out.
If you believe otherwise that doesn't make me a liar about
what I believe. For instance I believe in God and that is
No lie...
Mitchell Raemsch
You are lying to yourself in both cases, as it was explained to you why you were wrong in both cases and you ignored that you were wrong and repeated your nonsense anyway.
m***@gmail.com
2018-02-04 03:47:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by p***@gmail.com
Mitch said
"Dark energy's beginning Big Bang origin was a conserved quantity that thins out as the universe expands pnal. Therefore it has no acceleration solution."
You are making this up, Mitch, there is no support for this notion. In other words, you are lying. Do you think your god approves of your lies?
Dark energy doesn't work.
If it is an original quantity of energy it would thin out.
If you believe otherwise that doesn't make me a liar about
what I believe. For instance I believe in God and that is
No lie...
Mitchell Raemsch
You are lying to yourself in both cases, as it was explained to you why you were wrong in both cases and you ignored that you were wrong and repeated your nonsense anyway.
God sustains the universe as He creates gravity...
David Waite
2018-02-04 15:05:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by p***@gmail.com
Mitch said
"Dark energy's beginning Big Bang origin was a conserved quantity that thins out as the universe expands pnal. Therefore it has no acceleration solution."
You are making this up, Mitch, there is no support for this notion. In other words, you are lying. Do you think your god approves of your lies?
Dark energy doesn't work.
If it is an original quantity of energy it would thin out.
If you believe otherwise that doesn't make me a liar about
what I believe. For instance I believe in God and that is
No lie...
Mitchell Raemsch
You are lying to yourself in both cases, as it was explained to you why you were wrong in both cases and you ignored that you were wrong and repeated your nonsense anyway.
God sustains the universe as He creates gravity...
Gods aren't real moron. Yours is as mythical as Allah.
Frank Weisenberger
2018-02-04 15:09:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
You are lying to yourself in both cases, as it was explained to you
why you were wrong in both cases and you ignored that you were wrong
and repeated your nonsense anyway.
God sustains the universe as He creates gravity...
Gods aren't real moron. Yours is as mythical as Allah.
So you are playing with some numbers given to you by whom? See it now?
David Waite
2018-02-04 15:15:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Frank Weisenberger
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
You are lying to yourself in both cases, as it was explained to you
why you were wrong in both cases and you ignored that you were wrong
and repeated your nonsense anyway.
God sustains the universe as He creates gravity...
Gods aren't real moron. Yours is as mythical as Allah.
So you are playing with some numbers given to you by whom? See it now?
Nature is a what, not a who.
Frank Weisenberger
2018-02-04 15:27:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Waite
Post by Frank Weisenberger
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
You are lying to yourself in both cases, as it was explained to
you why you were wrong in both cases and you ignored that you were
wrong and repeated your nonsense anyway.
God sustains the universe as He creates gravity...
Gods aren't real moron. Yours is as mythical as Allah.
So you are playing with some numbers given to you by whom? See it now?
Nature is a what, not a who.
Of course not. That's just an approximation. Never ideal. Basics arduino
v1.0.1
m***@gmail.com
2018-02-04 18:07:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Waite
Post by Frank Weisenberger
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
You are lying to yourself in both cases, as it was explained to you
why you were wrong in both cases and you ignored that you were wrong
and repeated your nonsense anyway.
God sustains the universe as He creates gravity...
Gods aren't real moron. Yours is as mythical as Allah.
So you are playing with some numbers given to you by whom? See it now?
Nature is a what, not a who.
Nature is God. That is Einstein's God.

Mitchell Raemsch
David Waite
2018-02-04 18:25:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
Post by Frank Weisenberger
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
You are lying to yourself in both cases, as it was explained to you
why you were wrong in both cases and you ignored that you were wrong
and repeated your nonsense anyway.
God sustains the universe as He creates gravity...
Gods aren't real moron. Yours is as mythical as Allah.
So you are playing with some numbers given to you by whom? See it now?
Nature is a what, not a who.
Nature is God. That is Einstein's God.
Mitchell Raemsch
Nature isn't your ridiculous god, nor Einstein's ridiculous deist god. Neither of yours exists.
m***@gmail.com
2018-02-04 20:38:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
Post by Frank Weisenberger
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
You are lying to yourself in both cases, as it was explained to you
why you were wrong in both cases and you ignored that you were wrong
and repeated your nonsense anyway.
God sustains the universe as He creates gravity...
Gods aren't real moron. Yours is as mythical as Allah.
So you are playing with some numbers given to you by whom? See it now?
Nature is a what, not a who.
Nature is God. That is Einstein's God.
Mitchell Raemsch
Nature isn't your ridiculous god, nor Einstein's ridiculous deist god. Neither of yours exists.
You still can't disprove God. Maybe to yourself... by your free will...

Mitchell Raemsch
David Waite
2018-02-04 20:43:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
Post by Frank Weisenberger
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
You are lying to yourself in both cases, as it was explained to you
why you were wrong in both cases and you ignored that you were wrong
and repeated your nonsense anyway.
God sustains the universe as He creates gravity...
Gods aren't real moron. Yours is as mythical as Allah.
So you are playing with some numbers given to you by whom? See it now?
Nature is a what, not a who.
Nature is God. That is Einstein's God.
Mitchell Raemsch
Nature isn't your ridiculous god, nor Einstein's ridiculous deist god. Neither of yours exists.
You still can't disprove God. Maybe to yourself... by your free will...
Mitchell Raemsch
Lying doesn't change that I disproved your God as mythical as Allah.
m***@gmail.com
2018-02-04 21:04:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
Post by Frank Weisenberger
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
You are lying to yourself in both cases, as it was explained to you
why you were wrong in both cases and you ignored that you were wrong
and repeated your nonsense anyway.
God sustains the universe as He creates gravity...
Gods aren't real moron. Yours is as mythical as Allah.
So you are playing with some numbers given to you by whom? See it now?
Nature is a what, not a who.
Nature is God. That is Einstein's God.
Mitchell Raemsch
Nature isn't your ridiculous god, nor Einstein's ridiculous deist god. Neither of yours exists.
You still can't disprove God. Maybe to yourself... by your free will...
Mitchell Raemsch
Lying doesn't change that I disproved your God as mythical as Allah.
Allah is another name for Satan.
David Waite
2018-02-04 23:54:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
Post by Frank Weisenberger
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
You are lying to yourself in both cases, as it was explained to you
why you were wrong in both cases and you ignored that you were wrong
and repeated your nonsense anyway.
God sustains the universe as He creates gravity...
Gods aren't real moron. Yours is as mythical as Allah.
So you are playing with some numbers given to you by whom? See it now?
Nature is a what, not a who.
Nature is God. That is Einstein's God.
Mitchell Raemsch
Nature isn't your ridiculous god, nor Einstein's ridiculous deist god. Neither of yours exists.
You still can't disprove God. Maybe to yourself... by your free will...
Mitchell Raemsch
Lying doesn't change that I disproved your God as mythical as Allah.
Allah is another name for Satan.
Neither Allah, nor Satan are real, and no they don't derive from anything common.
m***@gmail.com
2018-02-05 00:07:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
Post by Frank Weisenberger
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
You are lying to yourself in both cases, as it was explained to you
why you were wrong in both cases and you ignored that you were wrong
and repeated your nonsense anyway.
God sustains the universe as He creates gravity...
Gods aren't real moron. Yours is as mythical as Allah.
So you are playing with some numbers given to you by whom? See it now?
Nature is a what, not a who.
Nature is God. That is Einstein's God.
Mitchell Raemsch
Nature isn't your ridiculous god, nor Einstein's ridiculous deist god. Neither of yours exists.
You still can't disprove God. Maybe to yourself... by your free will...
Mitchell Raemsch
Lying doesn't change that I disproved your God as mythical as Allah.
Allah is another name for Satan.
Neither Allah, nor Satan are real, and no they don't derive from anything common.
Are you still disturbed by religion?
Dark energy is a failing cosmology...
It doesn't exist. Where is it locally?
You can't claim its measured like real
energy has been.

Mitchell Raemsch
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
2018-02-13 17:06:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p***@gmail.com
Mitch, you ignoramus, it is the dark energy that is proposed to keep the
universe expanding in the first place...
No, dark energy is the current standard explanation (the “Λ” in the name
“ΛCDM model” of the current standard model of cosmology stands for it as
in an *already* *expanding* universe it has the same effect as the
cosmological constant in the EFEs) for the observed (positive)
*acceleration* of the expansion of our universe (instead of slowing down
which would be negative acceleration or, colloquially, deceleration).
Post by p***@gmail.com
do your due diligence before opening your steaming gob...
Hmmm.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy>

As for the claim in the Subject, see
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy#Technical_definition>:

| The final component, dark energy, is an intrinsic property of space, and
| so has a constant energy density regardless of the volume under
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| consideration (ρ ∝ a⁰). Thus, unlike ordinary matter, it does not get
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| diluted with the expansion of space, leading to an accelerated expansion,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| instead of the deceleration expected from a universe containing only
| ordinary matter.

To emphasize:

In the ΛCDM model, dark energy is _not_ a constant *energy*, but an energy
with a constant *density* (ρ = ∂E∕∂V). That is, as the universe is
expanding and therefore the volume V is increasing, the *total* dark energy
is *also* *increasing*, driving the (positive) *acceleration* of the
expansion.


PointedEars
--
Q: Who's on the case when the electricity goes out?
A: Sherlock Ohms.

(from: WolframAlpha)
m***@gmail.com
2018-02-14 03:09:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Post by p***@gmail.com
Mitch, you ignoramus, it is the dark energy that is proposed to keep the
universe expanding in the first place...
No, dark energy is the current standard explanation (the “Λ” in the name
“ΛCDM model” of the current standard model of cosmology stands for it as
in an *already* *expanding* universe it has the same effect as the
cosmological constant in the EFEs) for the observed (positive)
*acceleration* of the expansion of our universe (instead of slowing down
which would be negative acceleration or, colloquially, deceleration).
There is no negative acceleration that exists.
Just as there is no North of the North pole.
Motion is two sided. Slow down speed or speed up.

Mitchell Raemsch
p***@gmail.com
2018-02-14 03:25:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@gmail.com
There is no negative acceleration that exists.
Just as there is no North of the North pole.
Motion is two sided. Slow down speed or speed up.
You mean when you are driving at 60 on the freeway it is impossible for you to then go 50? The only way to slow down it is to experience negative acceleration.
m***@gmail.com
2018-02-14 03:32:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by m***@gmail.com
There is no negative acceleration that exists.
Just as there is no North of the North pole.
Motion is two sided. Slow down speed or speed up.
You mean when you are driving at 60 on the freeway it is impossible for you to then go 50? The only way to slow down it is to experience negative acceleration.
There is no negative motion change.
What about the brakes of a car can negatively accelerate?
How can friction negatively accelerate?

Mitchell Raemsch
David Waite
2018-02-14 03:38:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by m***@gmail.com
There is no negative acceleration that exists.
Just as there is no North of the North pole.
Motion is two sided. Slow down speed or speed up.
You mean when you are driving at 60 on the freeway it is impossible for you to then go 50? The only way to slow down it is to experience negative acceleration.
There is no negative motion change.
What about the brakes of a car can negatively accelerate?
How can friction negatively accelerate?
Mitchell Raemsch
The next time you're cruising at 65 along a highway toss your sunglasses into the back seat. As you were doing the toss, the glasses speed with respect to your body increased, but their speed with respect to the road decreased. As the sunglasses hit the back seat and settled there, they decreases in speed with respect to your body, but increased in speed with respect to the road.
m***@gmail.com
2018-02-14 03:52:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by m***@gmail.com
There is no negative acceleration that exists.
Just as there is no North of the North pole.
Motion is two sided. Slow down speed or speed up.
You mean when you are driving at 60 on the freeway it is impossible for you to then go 50? The only way to slow down it is to experience negative acceleration.
There is no negative motion change.
What about the brakes of a car can negatively accelerate?
How can friction negatively accelerate?
Mitchell Raemsch
The next time you're cruising at 65 along a highway toss your sunglasses into the back seat. As you were doing the toss, the glasses speed with respect to your body increased, but their speed with respect to the road decreased. As the sunglasses hit the back seat and settled there, they decreases in speed with respect to your body, but increased in speed with respect to the road.
Glasses have lost speed inside the car until they hit the back and regain
the speed all at once David... the sunglasses share a motion with the
car but have there own motion domain when thrown and that is in the opposite
direction that comes to an end. The glasses have their own motion and share
motion.

Mitchell Raemsch
David Waite
2018-02-14 04:02:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by m***@gmail.com
There is no negative acceleration that exists.
Just as there is no North of the North pole.
Motion is two sided. Slow down speed or speed up.
You mean when you are driving at 60 on the freeway it is impossible for you to then go 50? The only way to slow down it is to experience negative acceleration.
There is no negative motion change.
What about the brakes of a car can negatively accelerate?
How can friction negatively accelerate?
Mitchell Raemsch
The next time you're cruising at 65 along a highway toss your sunglasses into the back seat. As you were doing the toss, the glasses speed with respect to your body increased, but their speed with respect to the road decreased. As the sunglasses hit the back seat and settled there, they decreases in speed with respect to your body, but increased in speed with respect to the road.
Glasses have lost speed inside the car until they hit the back and regain
the speed all at once David... the sunglasses share a motion with the
car but have there own motion domain when thrown and that is in the opposite
direction that comes to an end. The glasses have their own motion and share
motion.
Mitchell Raemsch
Figures what I just put in simple terms was over your head. Anyway, acceleration is really neither negative nor positive as it isn't scalar. Its a vector that rather than sign carries direction and is associated with any change in motion. My point is that whether that change in motion is an increase in speed or a decrease in speed or even a deflection of direction with no change in speed depends on the frame of the observer.
Python
2018-02-14 04:22:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by m***@gmail.com
There is no negative acceleration that exists.
Just as there is no North of the North pole.
Motion is two sided. Slow down speed or speed up.
You mean when you are driving at 60 on the freeway it is impossible for you to then go 50? The only way to slow down it is to experience negative acceleration.
There is no negative motion change.
What about the brakes of a car can negatively accelerate?
How can friction negatively accelerate?
Mitchell Raemsch
The next time you're cruising at 65 along a highway toss your sunglasses into the back seat. As you were doing the toss, the glasses speed with respect to your body increased, but their speed with respect to the road decreased. As the sunglasses hit the back seat and settled there, they decreases in speed with respect to your body, but increased in speed with respect to the road.
Glasses have lost speed inside the car until they hit the back and regain
the speed all at once David... the sunglasses share a motion with the
car but have there own motion domain when thrown and that is in the opposite
direction that comes to an end. The glasses have their own motion and share
motion.
Mitchell Raemsch
Mitch, Mitch, Mitch, this doesn't parse. I'm calling the hospital.
p***@gmail.com
2018-02-14 03:50:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@gmail.com
There is no negative motion change.
What about the brakes of a car can negatively accelerate?
How can friction negatively accelerate?
You huge ignorance of very basic physics is showing, Mitch. Read this over and over...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration

... until you have it memorized. This is the part you *really* need to understand...

"For example, when a car starts from a standstill (zero relative velocity) and travels in a straight line at increasing speeds, it is accelerating in the direction of travel... if the speed of the car decreases, this is an acceleration in the opposite direction from the direction of the vehicle, sometimes called deceleration."

Deceleration is the same as negative acceleration, only using a single word instead of using 2 words...
Python
2018-02-14 03:52:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by m***@gmail.com
There is no negative acceleration that exists.
Just as there is no North of the North pole.
Motion is two sided. Slow down speed or speed up.
You mean when you are driving at 60 on the freeway it is impossible for you to then go 50? The only way to slow down it is to experience negative acceleration.
There is no negative motion change.
What about the brakes of a car can negatively accelerate?
How can friction negatively accelerate?
How it can't, Mitch? Why it couldn't? Because you said so?
m***@gmail.com
2018-02-14 03:55:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Python
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by m***@gmail.com
There is no negative acceleration that exists.
Just as there is no North of the North pole.
Motion is two sided. Slow down speed or speed up.
You mean when you are driving at 60 on the freeway it is impossible for you to then go 50? The only way to slow down it is to experience negative acceleration.
There is no negative motion change.
What about the brakes of a car can negatively accelerate?
How can friction negatively accelerate?
How it can't, Mitch? Why it couldn't? Because you said so?
Then provide how Roy Masters.
What about negative deceleration?

Mitchell Raemsch
David (Kronos Prime) Fuller
2018-02-14 04:08:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
13.888 billion years/(69.5725302 km/Mpc)* Planck Length/pi = 1 m s

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law#Observed_values
Python
2018-02-14 03:30:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@gmail.com
There is no negative acceleration that exists.
There is, Mitch. For instance you are accelerating negatively
towards mental sanity.
Post by m***@gmail.com
Just as there is no North of the North pole.
There is. Just like there more shit that your ass hole.
Post by m***@gmail.com
Motion is two sided. Slow down speed or speed up.
Roy will fuck you both side for that, Mitch. Sorry, but
you deserve it. Enjoy.
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
2018-02-14 04:33:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Post by p***@gmail.com
Mitch, you ignoramus, it is the dark energy that is proposed to keep the
universe expanding in the first place...
No, dark energy is the current standard explanation (the “Λ” in the name
“ΛCDM model” of the current standard model of cosmology stands for it as
in an *already* *expanding* universe it has the same effect as the
cosmological constant in the EFEs) for the observed (positive)
*acceleration* of the expansion of our universe (instead of slowing down
which would be negative acceleration or, colloquially, deceleration).
On a side note, these words indicate where the symbol “c” for the speed of
light comes from: Latin «celeritās», meaning “quickness”. At least ISTM
that the symbol has only later aquired the meaning of “constant” as it is
also used for the speed of sound, which was known earlier.

In any case, knowing that is a good way to remember what these words mean:
“acceleration” [«ad» (“towards”) + «celerō» “I hurry” = “going faster”]
means increasing speed, “deceleration” [«de-» “away from” + «celerō» =
“going slower”] means decreasing speed.

<https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/acceleration#Etymology> pp.

As acceleration in physics is defined as the *change* (difference) of
velocity (per unit time), negative acceleration occurs when the direction of
motion remains the same, but the speed (the magnitude of velocity) *changes*
from an (absolute¹) higher value v₁ to a lower value v₂, what is
colloquially called “deceleration”:

v₂ < v₁ ⇒ a = ∆v∕∆t = (v₂ − v₁)∕∆t < 0

(for constant acceleration).


PointedEars
___________
¹ For brevity only. This is referring to the mathematical absolute, not an
absolute frame of reference.
--
“Nature uss only the longest threads to weave her patterns
so that each small piece of her fabric reveals the organization
of the entire tapestry.”
—Richard Feynman, theoretical physicist, “Messenger Lecture” 1 (1964)
Volney
2018-02-03 02:52:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
How are dark matter and the cosmological constant connected? How would
the universe be different if the cosmological constant was different?
What if it were 0?
David Waite
2018-02-03 03:01:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Volney
How are dark matter and the cosmological constant connected? How would
the universe be different if the cosmological constant was different?
What if it were 0?
They aren't connected. If it were zero, the universe wouldn't have accelerated expansion.
m***@gmail.com
2018-02-03 03:05:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Waite
Post by Volney
How are dark matter and the cosmological constant connected? How would
the universe be different if the cosmological constant was different?
What if it were 0?
They aren't connected. If it were zero, the universe wouldn't have accelerated expansion.
Dissipation of dark energy has always meant slower expansion. But that is not what is observed. There is no way to prove your dark energy David even
if you say so.

Mitchell Raemsch
Volney
2018-02-03 03:07:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Waite
Post by Volney
How are dark matter and the cosmological constant connected? How would
the universe be different if the cosmological constant was different?
What if it were 0?
They aren't connected. If it were zero, the universe wouldn't have accelerated expansion.
Typo. How are dark energy and the cosmological constant connected?
The back and forth 'yes it is' 'no it isn't' between you and Mitch has
me lost.
m***@gmail.com
2018-02-03 03:13:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Volney
Post by David Waite
Post by Volney
How are dark matter and the cosmological constant connected? How would
the universe be different if the cosmological constant was different?
What if it were 0?
They aren't connected. If it were zero, the universe wouldn't have accelerated expansion.
Typo. How are dark energy and the cosmological constant connected?
The back and forth 'yes it is' 'no it isn't' between you and Mitch has
me lost.
Roy? You don't belong.
Volney
2018-02-03 03:16:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@gmail.com
Roy? You don't belong.
Who is Roy?
David Waite
2018-02-03 03:13:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Volney
Post by David Waite
Post by Volney
How are dark matter and the cosmological constant connected? How would
the universe be different if the cosmological constant was different?
What if it were 0?
They aren't connected. If it were zero, the universe wouldn't have accelerated expansion.
Typo. How are dark energy and the cosmological constant connected?
The back and forth 'yes it is' 'no it isn't' between you and Mitch has
me lost.
The cosmological constant times the metric tensor looks like an energy density - pressure tensor, so dark energy is just a silly name for it.
m***@gmail.com
2018-02-03 03:15:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Waite
Post by Volney
Post by David Waite
Post by Volney
How are dark matter and the cosmological constant connected? How would
the universe be different if the cosmological constant was different?
What if it were 0?
They aren't connected. If it were zero, the universe wouldn't have accelerated expansion.
Typo. How are dark energy and the cosmological constant connected?
The back and forth 'yes it is' 'no it isn't' between you and Mitch has
me lost.
The cosmological constant times the metric tensor looks like an energy density - pressure tensor, so dark energy is just a silly name for it.
I knew you have your own special cosmology.
David Waite
2018-02-03 03:16:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
Post by Volney
Post by David Waite
Post by Volney
How are dark matter and the cosmological constant connected? How would
the universe be different if the cosmological constant was different?
What if it were 0?
They aren't connected. If it were zero, the universe wouldn't have accelerated expansion.
Typo. How are dark energy and the cosmological constant connected?
The back and forth 'yes it is' 'no it isn't' between you and Mitch has
me lost.
The cosmological constant times the metric tensor looks like an energy density - pressure tensor, so dark energy is just a silly name for it.
I knew you have your own special cosmology.
Nope, that's standard.
m***@gmail.com
2018-02-03 03:19:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
Post by Volney
Post by David Waite
Post by Volney
How are dark matter and the cosmological constant connected? How would
the universe be different if the cosmological constant was different?
What if it were 0?
They aren't connected. If it were zero, the universe wouldn't have accelerated expansion.
Typo. How are dark energy and the cosmological constant connected?
The back and forth 'yes it is' 'no it isn't' between you and Mitch has
me lost.
The cosmological constant times the metric tensor looks like an energy density - pressure tensor, so dark energy is just a silly name for it.
I knew you have your own special cosmology.
Nope, that's standard.
Then you only have the Status Quo.
David Waite
2018-02-03 03:24:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Waite
Post by Volney
Post by David Waite
Post by Volney
How are dark matter and the cosmological constant connected? How would
the universe be different if the cosmological constant was different?
What if it were 0?
They aren't connected. If it were zero, the universe wouldn't have accelerated expansion.
Typo. How are dark energy and the cosmological constant connected?
The back and forth 'yes it is' 'no it isn't' between you and Mitch has
me lost.
The cosmological constant times the metric tensor looks like an energy density - pressure tensor, so dark energy is just a silly name for it.
I knew you have your own special cosmology.
Nope, that's standard.
Then you only have the Status Quo.
That doesn't mean anything.
Loading...