Impressive discussion, highly technical. Obviously much work to be done, but I am so looking forward to the question of dark energy being answered. Imagine , in time, what we might will be able to do with it. Thumbs up and good luck!
At first I thought that it was only my intuition that dark energy condenses into dark matter which in turn condenses into ordinary matter, i.e. hydrogen atoms. Then I came across Abraham Loeb, professor of astronomy, University of Harvard's book" How did the first stars and galaxies form?", 2010 edition. There, in Chapters 1 and 2, Loeb actually treated this as a fact, not hypothesis.
Since the expansion of space between galaxies and clusters is accelerating it suggests that the more new space comes into being some new particles are being created which push the galaxies to move faster and faster. Nalin Sharma
Hubble law was derived based on the data showing the universe is uniformly expanding, and thus contain NO acceleration term. Now it is known that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. I believe that, theoretically, to describe an accelerating system, such as the accelerating universe, physics laws should contain acceleration terms. So, Hubble law should be extended to contain acceleration term for accuracy and completeness of describing the accelerating universe.
Beginning at minute 9:15 the use of the "dimming [magnitudes]" rather than the actual luminosity distances is a fundamental error of your physics. When one plots the luminosity distances, rather than the optical magnitudes, the values for \Omega_m, \Omega_L and the Hubble constant from the regression analysis are significantly different from those obtained with your plot type. In fact, many models other than the LCDM model fit the data better when one does not make the fundamental error made by the presenter.
I have a theory: there is no difference between visible ordinary matter, dark matter and dark energy, except their different frequencies and wavelengths. Dark energy condenses into dark matter which in turn condenses into visible ordinary matter: hydrogen. Since there is no difference between dark matter and ordinary matter, therefore dark matter have gravity: visible gravity effects. My theory is supported by the recent discovery by astronomers of a "bridge" of hydrogen spanning the space between Andromeda and Triangulum.
There are several good reasons why understanding the nature of dark energy is not developing as would a real energy form. The method of analyzing the supernovae events, at minute 9:15, is fatally flawed and so bad it is not even wrong. (The modulus is NOT the distance from the emission. One CANNOT substitute the modulus for the SN distance!) I learned to avoid these type of mistakes while in 1st year college physics. Unfortunately, astrophysics is floating in a sea of these type of fatally flawed analyses.
If it turns out that redshift is caused by something other than we currently imagine it's caused by, a lot of people are going to have very redshifted faces. :)
Impressive discussion, highly technical. Obviously much work to be done, but I am so looking forward to the question of dark energy being answered. Imagine , in time, what we might will be able to do with it. Thumbs up and good luck!
At first I thought that it was only my intuition that dark energy condenses into dark matter which in turn condenses into ordinary matter, i.e. hydrogen atoms. Then I came across Abraham Loeb, professor of astronomy, University of Harvard's book" How did the first stars and galaxies form?", 2010 edition. There, in Chapters 1 and 2, Loeb actually treated this as a fact, not hypothesis.
Since the expansion of space between galaxies and clusters is accelerating it suggests that the more new space comes into being some new particles are being created which push the galaxies to move faster and faster.
Nalin Sharma
Hubble law was derived based on the data showing the universe is uniformly expanding, and thus contain NO acceleration term. Now it is known that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. I believe that, theoretically, to describe an accelerating system, such as the accelerating universe, physics laws should contain acceleration terms. So, Hubble law should be extended to contain acceleration term for accuracy and completeness of describing the accelerating universe.
As regards the dark matter ratio in the universe, it spreads from 95% to 80%.
Longitudinal sound wave approach in space sounds very odd.
Beginning at minute 9:15 the use of the "dimming [magnitudes]" rather than the actual luminosity distances is a fundamental error of your physics. When one plots the luminosity distances, rather than the optical magnitudes, the values for \Omega_m, \Omega_L and the Hubble constant from the regression analysis are significantly different from those obtained with your plot type. In fact, many models other than the LCDM model fit the data better when one does not make the fundamental error made by the presenter.
I have a theory: there is no difference between visible ordinary matter, dark matter and dark energy, except their different frequencies and wavelengths. Dark energy condenses into dark matter which in turn condenses into visible ordinary matter: hydrogen. Since there is no difference between dark matter and ordinary matter, therefore dark matter have gravity: visible gravity effects. My theory is supported by the recent discovery by astronomers of a "bridge" of hydrogen spanning the space between Andromeda and Triangulum.
What an outstanding bit of work.
There are several good reasons why understanding the nature of dark energy is not developing as would a real energy form. The method of analyzing the supernovae events, at minute 9:15, is fatally flawed and so bad it is not even wrong. (The modulus is NOT the distance from the emission. One CANNOT substitute the modulus for the SN distance!) I learned to avoid these type of mistakes while in 1st year college physics. Unfortunately, astrophysics is floating in a sea of these type of fatally flawed analyses.
If it turns out that redshift is caused by something other than we currently imagine it's caused by, a lot of people are going to have very redshifted faces. :)