View Single Post
  #8  
Old April 19th 13, 08:55 PM posted to sci.astro
dlzc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,426
Default Residual Strong Nuclear Force vs. Dark Forces?

Dear Yousuf Khan:

On Friday, April 19, 2013 11:29:39 AM UTC-7, Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 17/04/2013 5:20 PM, Steve Willner wrote:

....
I'm not talking a hell of a lot of them
escaping, maybe just 1% of 1% or something


If it's that small, how could it possibly
give rise to non-baryonic mass about six times
larger than baryonic mass?


Not saying it's creating a mass, I'm saying it
just creates a force (i.e. a colour force) that
aids gravity and makes it seem bigger,
creating the illusion of greater mass.


This makes gravity NOT 1/r^2, and it is.

Only after a certain distance when enough of
these long-distance gluons accumulate, do the
effects become apparent.


Gravitation is not a force, and you are "aiding" it with a force.


Also, it's been shown that Dark Energy
didn't become an issue until maybe 5 billion
years after the Big Bang.


Neglecting inflation itself. Dark Energy is also written into the CMBR glow, remember.

That's not (necesssarily) because dark energy
was smaller earlier on, it's because ordinary
gravitational attraction was larger when the
Universe was denser.


Inflation shows that simply isn't true. And since gravitation is not an attractive force...

The actual time dependence of dark energy is
very much an open question today, but if dark
energy is a cosmological constant, its strength
wouldn't vary in time.


But it could, and not much change the formulation / solution.

It would only be a constant, because we call it
a "cosmological constant", we have no idea if it
is truly constant or not.


Hubble had a constant too, and it varies with time. Until we see Dark Energy change distribution by "angle" and not just time, it can stay the "cosmological parameter".

David A. Smith