Is Dark Energy Actually the "Mega-Quantum?"

As you know, energy is released a "bit" at a time,
and we name those bits "quanta." Because we observe them on a very
small scale, these appear as "square-wave" events;
the quantum leaves the origination point instantaneously.
In reality, it is more like a half sin wave or bell curve.
We can roughly visualize this by imagining water running
down a leaf and dripping off the end during a spring shower
(please note we are talking about the flow of water in this
system from begining to end, not just it's fall from the leaf tip).
The water is accelerated by gravity, but flows against the friction
with the leaf surface and surface tension- slowing forces.
Once enough water accumulates at the leaf tip
(analogous to the peak of the bell curve or sin wave),
friction and surface tension apply to less of the total molecules
in the water (because it's a drop now, not a stream) and are overcome.
Being free of these "slowing forces,"
the water now accelerates away under gravity.

What if this understanding of the way energy is radiated also holds
in the largest-scale system? Current observation indicates that the
universe was mysteriously decelerating for a time after the "big bang,"
then began to accelerate. If this "radiation of energy" at this
large scale is indeed governed by the same slowing and accelerating
forces that drive the small scale release of energy in quanta,
that would fit the "dark energy" observations. Is it conceivable
that the "slowing" force, which piles energy into quanta before
it is radiated, also operates on the Universe as a whole?
Is there a "Mega-Quantum?"

Respectfully,
David L. Stinson
Wylie, Texas.

Yo Dave
Fancy meeting you over here, vis-a-vis the old radios NG.
On a related note to your post, you might wanna do a web
search under 'quantized redshifts' and astronomer William Tifft. His
idea is ignored by the orthodoxy but is interesting nonetheless. The
apparent quantization or 'stair-stepping' of redshifts that Tifft
observes doesn't change the *overall* redshift curve back to the BB. It
would be more analogous to the stepped oversampling in a CD recording,
where a sinewave is digitally 'stair-stepped' onto disc and then
rendered back to its original form in playback. Bill(oc)

Anti-spam address: oldcoot88atwebtv.net
Change 'at' to@

"David Stinson" ha scritto nel messaggio
...
snip
What if this understanding of the way energy is radiated also holds
in the largest-scale system? Current observation indicates that the
universe was mysteriously decelerating for a time after the "big bang,"
then began to accelerate.

In my opinion this is really science fiction...
I hope someone can give a better explication of current observations.
How can an universe accelerate and decelerate without any reason?
I can accept dark matter (with some doubts) but dark energy is the worst try
to save the big bang - redshift theory ever seen.
Where is going cosmology nowadays? Maybe in a black hole...

Luigi Caselli

P.S. to Dave Stinson
Your analogy of water dripping off a leaf is also a neat
example of a natural relaxation oscillator (like the neon tube,
capacitor and resistor). Other examples are the Old Faithful guyser,
earthquakes on a fault line, and there have got to be a lot more natural
ROs.
IIRC, it was Mr. Sommerwerk over in the old radio NG who
once got a thread going about natural ROs, from trying to prove an LED
can self-oscillate (turned out he couldn't). Bill(oc)

Bill Sheppard wrote:

Yo Dave
Fancy meeting you over here, vis-a-vis the old radios NG.

Hi, Bill! Thanks for the wave.
I was listening to a discussion about cosmology and "dark matter,
dark energy" on Radio Canada International, when the Muse came
along and laid this idea on me. Now, my "muse" is a drunk, scruffy old
guy who smokes cigars and he's often full of it. But it sounded
plausible (most of his stuff does, at first ;-).
So I decided to scatter the bread on the waters of Usenet
and see what washed back up; usually old boots, wine bottles and
flat inner tubes, but once in awhile.... the world is full of
people smarter than me, so let them kick it around.

Thanks for the "quantized redshifts" info. If orthodoxy is
ignoring him, it's definitely worth investigating. The Universe
really is like traveling around the U.S.: lots of places look
a whole lot like other places, and I'll bet radiation of large
energies in systems are going to look alot like radiations of
small energies from molecules.
"Fractal" matter meets "fractal energy?"

Take care,
David S.



On a related note to your post, you might wanna do a web
search under 'quantized redshifts' and astronomer William Tifft. His
idea is ignored by the orthodoxy but is interesting nonetheless. The
apparent quantization or 'stair-stepping' of redshifts that Tifft
observes doesn't change the *overall* redshift curve back to the BB. It
would be more analogous to the stepped oversampling in a CD recording,
where a sinewave is digitally 'stair-stepped' onto disc and then
rendered back to its original form in playback. Bill(oc)

Anti-spam address: oldcoot88atwebtv.net
Change 'at' to@

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
...
Yo Dave
Fancy meeting you over here, vis-a-vis the old radios NG.
On a related note to your post, you might wanna do a web
search under 'quantized redshifts' and astronomer William Tifft. His
idea is ignored by the orthodoxy but is interesting nonetheless.

He is ignored by the orthodoxy because it is quite clear that what he was
looking at were the first evidentiary signs of super-clusters and voids.


The
apparent quantization or 'stair-stepping' of redshifts that Tifft
observes doesn't change the *overall* redshift curve back to the BB. It
would be more analogous to the stepped oversampling in a CD recording,
where a sinewave is digitally 'stair-stepped' onto disc and then
rendered back to its original form in playback. Bill(oc)

Anti-spam address: oldcoot88atwebtv.net
Change 'at' to@

John wrote, re. Wm. Tifft,

He is ignored by the orthodoxy because
it is quite clear that what he was looking
at were the first evidentiary signs of
super-clusters and voids.

Wasn't endorsing, just noting that it was an 'interesting' sidebar to
Mr. Stinson's subject, and a convenient venue to say 'howdy' to him.

Speaking of suoerclusters and voids, what do you suppose might be
driving the 'sheets and voids' structuring? Maybe extremely long-period
gravity waves leftover from the BB? If such were the case, it'd suggest
there is a very broadband GW counterpart to the CMBR. oc

During a perfect moment of peace at Sat, 31 Jan 2004 18:57:12 GMT,
"Luigi Caselli" interrupted with:

I can accept dark matter (with some doubts) but dark energy is the worst try
to save the big bang - redshift theory ever seen.
Where is going cosmology nowadays? Maybe in a black hole...

I don't believe Dark Energy is an attempt to save modern cosmology. It
was a totally unexpected observation not predicted in the models. If
anything, it severely contradicts the models. Since Perlmutter
announced the result theoreticians have been trying to fit it into
cosmology with a shoe horn.

It's also worth noting that Dark Matter was deduced before standard
models of the BB where even experimentally verified.

Funny, is it not, that the observors are finding evidence the Universe
is stranger than we imagined yet they are castigated for it.
--
While the Hobbits may be proud of spreading the "art" of smoking
pipe-weed, I would imagine that nowadays the Shire might be the seen of many
a class action lawsuit.Aaron Clausen on news://alt.fan.tolkien

"Dave Barlow" ha scritto nel messaggio
...

I don't believe Dark Energy is an attempt to save modern cosmology. It
was a totally unexpected observation not predicted in the models. If
anything, it severely contradicts the models. Since Perlmutter
announced the result theoreticians have been trying to fit it into
cosmology with a shoe horn.

With this approach, any unexpected observation can fit in the models because
you can always introduce invisible forces coming from nothing, change
constants as you like or saying that observations are optical illusions...
Big Bang it's now like an undestroyable religion that ignores the evidence
that at least something is wrong in the theory.

It's also worth noting that Dark Matter was deduced before standard
models of the BB where even experimentally verified.

I think it's a bit difficult that someone has "experimentally" verified a
cosmological theory... You need a too much big laboratory...

Luigi Caselli

Hi David I posted in my "What If" how energy going through a space
field can create inertia,and that means particles out of this energy.
Inertia and gravity are the same thing. Motion can create
gravity(elevator) A particle at rest can gain weight by being in motion.
At very close to light speed an electron is 70,000 times heavier than
when at rest. David its to bad Einstein was not alive to see how the
Cern accelerater proved SR Bert