View Single Post
  #5  
Old February 26th 17, 05:45 AM posted to sci.astro.research
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Cosmic Energy Budget, vs time

Wrong. First, you are almost assuming that that which you wish to prove
is true. Second, just because two things are linearly related doesn't
mean that they are the same thing, nor even that one causes the other.
There is a good anticorrelation between global warming and the number of
pirates, a good correlation between the number of stork pairs and the
birthrate.


OK, sure, I know. The number of earthquakes has dramatically
increased over the past 100 years too. As has sale and installation
of seismometers.

correlation does not prove causality.

However, causality does come with correlation. And sometimes, the
answer is right in front of our face and we ignore it because it
is too (seems impossibly) simple.

I'm poking at whether we're overlooking something right in front
of our face.

Might exothermic processes be linked to the expansion of the universe?
If so, then the energy density of the vacuum would remain nearly
constant over time. but it has as best I can find.

Why can't it
be that what we call empty space is just the "vapor" form of what we
call "matter"?


Because it doesn't work quantitatively.


What do you mean? I read that the energy density of the vacuum has
remained constant...........ie, Dark Energy has had the same energy
density over time.

And at least today, the value for Dark Energy I've seen is close
to the value for all forms of energy (cbr, starlight, etc.) So
quantitatively dark energy is close to the energy density of other
forms of energy. I'm still working on assembling a plot for all
ages of the universe, lots of work, little time to do it.

Thanks,

rt