Residual Strong Nuclear Force vs. Dark Forces?

On 22/04/2013 3:17 PM, Steve Willner wrote:
In article ,
Yousuf Khan writes:
Not saying it's creating a mass, I'm saying it just creates a force

What you are proposing is several layers of "new physics." That
doesn't guarantee your proposal is wrong, but it's far from the first
thing people will be looking at.

Yes, I am probably proposing new physics, or at least new
interpretations of existing physics.

I mean, how was the force-distance relationship arrived at for the
Strong Interaction in the first place? Was it basically just a curve fit
from experimental results? Below 0.7fm it's repulsive, between 0.7 and
2.0fm it's attractive, and above that it's negligible or zero? So it
doesn't really look like we have a truly well-understood force-distance
equation for it, like we do for gravity or electromagnetism, i.e. the
inverse square law.

It would only be a constant, because we call it a "cosmological
constant",

The constant in the Friedman equation really is a constant. Having
it vary with time would be "new physics," but only one layer.

we have no idea if it is truly constant or not.

"No idea" is a little strong. Time variation has been looked for and
isn't ruled out, but existing data show no evidence of variation.

Well, we know that they've found some small hints that it might be
varying over time. Perhaps 13.8 billion years is not yet enough time to
see a really large variation in the "constant".

There is a theory of Dark Energy called Quintessence that proposes Dark
Energy is a varying force.

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

Yousuf Khan