On 19/04/2013 3:55 PM, dlzc wrote:
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.

Gravity itself may remain 1/r^2 as long as it wants, but the
hypothesized additional (colour) force could take over after that.

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.

Whatever you want to call gravitation (perhaps pseudo-force?), it acts
like a force, therefore aiding it with a force would come out to the
same effect in the end.

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.

Actually Dark Energy is not written into it, it's merely "interpreted"
into it. It's currently the favourite interpretation of what the peaks
and valleys of the radiation frequency graphs mean. Prior to the
discovery of Dark Energy, in the late 90's, that graph was assigned to a
substance called "Warm Dark Matter", a mixture of Cold and Hot Dark
Matter, where the part of the graph assigned to Dark Energy currently
was instead assigned to Hot Dark Matter (i.e. most likely neutrinos).

In fact, at that time, they divided Warm Dark Matter into 30% Cold Dark
Matter, and 70% Hot Dark Matter, which is pretty close to the amount we
now assign to Cold Dark Matter and Dark Energy instead.

Warm dark matter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warm_dark_matter

On 17/04/2013 5:20 PM, Steve Willner wrote:
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".

Another theory of what Dark Energy is, is something called Quintessence,
which does vary with time.

Quintessence (physics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quintessence_(physics)

Yousuf Khan