Is Dark Energy slowing down?

A New Galactic Yardstick - News Blog - SkyandTelescope.com
http://www.skyandtelescope.com/commu...252950301.html

Yoshii’s team observed 17 AGN for six years on a dedicated 2-meter
telescope at the Haleakala Observatory in Maui, Hawaii. When they
compared their results (70 – 76 km/s/megaparsec) to the Hubble Space
Telescope Key Project (71.4 – 76.2 km/s/megaparsec), they found
remarkably good agreement. (Bonus: the new method extends Hubble’s
Law from roughly 70 million lightyears to 500 million lightyears.)

But both of these results are slightly in tension with observations
of the cosmic microwave background. The Planck spacecraft most
recently analyzed the distant universe, extrapolating to a current
Hubble constant of 67 – 68.6 km/s/megaparsec, whereas the Hubble Key
Project and the results from Yoshii’s team calculate Hubble’s
constant directly from the nearby universe.

The discrepancy might be real — implying a change in the expansion
rate, and therefore in dark energy, over time. But this isn’t a
conclusion to be reached lightly — there is plenty of room for errors
in all the measurements.

On a sunny day (Wed, 02 Apr 2014 12:33:08 -0400) it happened Yousuf Khan
wrote in
:

A New Galactic Yardstick - News Blog - SkyandTelescope.com
http://www.skyandtelescope.com/commu...252950301.html

Yoshii’s team observed 17 AGN for six years on a dedicated 2-meter
telescope at the Haleakala Observatory in Maui, Hawaii. When they
compared their results (70 – 76 km/s/megaparsec) to the Hubble Space
Telescope Key Project (71.4 – 76.2 km/s/megaparsec), they found
remarkably good agreement. (Bonus: the new method extends Hubble’s
Law from roughly 70 million lightyears to 500 million lightyears.)

But both of these results are slightly in tension with observations
of the cosmic microwave background. The Planck spacecraft most
recently analyzed the distant universe, extrapolating to a current
Hubble constant of 67 – 68.6 km/s/megaparsec, whereas the Hubble Key
Project and the results from Yoshii’s team calculate Hubble’s
constant directly from the nearby universe.

The discrepancy might be real — implying a change in the expansion
rate, and therefore in dark energy, over time. But this isn’t a
conclusion to be reached lightly — there is plenty of room for errors
in all the measurements.

Seem 100% logical to me,
if inflation happened, then why should the speed control be activated all of the sudden?
Energy is lost in expanding, so and also in a Le Sage model it MUST slow down.

Dear Jan Panteltje:

On Wednesday, April 2, 2014 10:30:58 PM UTC-7, Jan Panteltje wrote:
....
Seem 100% logical to me,

if inflation happened, then why should the speed
control be activated all of the sudden?

Because the initial formation of spacetime for our Universe was essentially completed. Spacetime is not stuff, and no thrusters are involved.

Energy is lost in expanding,

Energy is *undefined* in an expanding Universe, but individual momenta are entirely unaffected. So what is "lost"?

so and also in a Le Sage model it MUST slow down.

LeSage may be attractive to you but it is disproven in fact. Gravitation is NOT a force, and inflation, stagnation, and acceleration of expansion do not require energy. These things happen between epochs, not objects.

David A. Smith

On a sunny day (Thu, 3 Apr 2014 06:55:47 -0700 (PDT)) it happened dlzc
wrote in
:

Dear Jan Panteltje:

On Wednesday, April 2, 2014 10:30:58 PM UTC-7, Jan Panteltje wrote:
...
Seem 100% logical to me,

if inflation happened, then why should the speed
control be activated all of the sudden?

Because the initial formation of spacetime for our Universe was essentially completed. Spacetime is not stuff, and no thrusters
are involved.

Sound like a bit vague? me.


Energy is lost in expanding,

Energy is *undefined* in an expanding Universe, but individual momenta are entirely unaffected. So what is "lost"?

To expand something 'ever accelerating' requires energy.
If gravity did not exist, then with no energy supplied in some form, and no friction, thing would keep expanding.
But as gravity does exists, if no energy is added, the expansion will slow down, and you get a crunch.


so and also in a Le Sage model it MUST slow down.

LeSage may be attractive to you but it is disproven in fact.

No, we can philosophize endlessly, but it is not 'disproven' in my view.

In fact that latest microwave background thing points to a 'virtual particle' pushing things apart (the inflation),
and such a particle is just what Le Sage had in mind.
After the thing banged, parts of it (the galaxy cores) kept radiating (and keep radiating) particles like that,
causing our gravity.
From that follows gravity at the edge of that what banged, and basically everywhere, is not the same,
their goes all the current theories... interpretations of what is seen, math,
sigh

And of course there were more bangs, not only ours, just like there are more exploding stars, etc,
particles from that interacting with ours, things are so much bigger, we have no - and never will have a clue.


=Gravitation is NOT a force, and inflation, stagnation, and
acceleration of expansion do not require energy. These things happen between epochs, not objects.

David A. Smith

Well the above is my view, when LIGO sees them waves Einstein was right, in fact they are much more sensitive
already (sorry for letting you fall in the April joke, I make that joke every year),
so LIGO already sort of proves Einstein's idea (that gravitational energy is radiated away as waves), is incorrect.
No fight, this is just my view, understanding.
We will see how they name their 'virtual particle'.

On 03/04/2014 1:30 AM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
Seem 100% logical to me,
if inflation happened, then why should the speed control be activated all of the sudden?

To me, Inflation seems like something falling over a steep edge. There
was no Inflation at 10^-43 seconds (1 Planck Time) after the BB. Then at
10^-32 seconds, there's Inflation. It reminds me of sand that got to the
edge of a cliff and tumbles over it. The cliff doesn't fall forever, and
the sand has to stop. The sand keeps coming and eventually the cliff's
walls get filled in, and it becomes just a gentle slope. Later
generations of sand just gently coast over the earlier generations of sand.

Similarly, Dark Energy looks like Inflation to me, just a lot more
gentler. In the early universe, everything was much smaller, so edges
arrived very quickly, in fractions of a second. Now that the universe is
in the billions of light-years size ranges, the edges are very far away,
and the sand still tumbles over edges, but the cliffs are extremely
shallow and get filled in quickly. So Dark Energy might simply be what
eternal Inflation has become.

Yousuf Khan

Dear Jan Panteltje:

On Thursday, April 3, 2014 8:24:37 AM UTC-7, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Thu, 3 Apr 2014 06:55:47 -0700 (PDT)) it happened dlzc

wrote in

:

On Wednesday, April 2, 2014 10:30:58 PM UTC-7, Jan Panteltje wrote:

...

Seem 100% logical to me,

if inflation happened, then why should the speed
control be activated all of the sudden?

Because the initial formation of spacetime for our
Universe was essentially completed. Spacetime is
not stuff, and no thrusters are involved.

Sound like a bit vague? me.

I do not understand why. Average momentum of any star is not changing. Expansion (inflation, acceleration of expansion) happens between instants, not stars.

Energy is lost in expanding,

Energy is *undefined* in an expanding Universe,
but individual momenta are entirely unaffected.
So what is "lost"?

To expand something 'ever accelerating' requires
energy.

Nope. Our momentum with respect to distant stars *now* is not changing. Only with respect to "the past".

If gravity did not exist, then with no energy
supplied in some form, and no friction, thing
would keep expanding.

Gravity is not a force, we know this.

But as gravity does exists, if no energy is
added, the expansion will slow down, and you
get a crunch.

Nope.

so and also in a Le Sage model it MUST slow down.

LeSage may be attractive to you but it is disproven
in fact.

No, we can philosophize endlessly, but it is not
'disproven' in my view.

Whatever Rube Goldberg contraption you have to hold onto, blinds you. If it were aiding this discussion I would participate in this delusion to aid you in understanding through the lens of "LeSage gravitation". Frankly I find the model obtuse and useless, so I will refuse to help you fix "LeSage gravitation" to the point I can communicate. That you wave and say it is "just philosophy" tells me you are not interested anyway, so I will bow out.

Thank you.

David A. Smith