3 ms·

Calling something dark energy is giving impression of claiming existence of something. While the reality is that equation of cosmological model is just wrong bu

Calling something dark energy is giving impression of claiming existence of something. While the reality is that equation of cosmological model is just wrong but could potentially be made right by arbitrarily adding, for no reason at all, a term that has unit of energy (density?). So what's unsolved is not really a problem of dark energy, but a problem of not having correct equation that models prior cosmological observations. You could add a factor to any wrong equation and call it "dark flexum" and fine-tune it as new observations come in. New observations point to possibility that dark energy might not be fixed in time nor isotropic in space. It strongly reeks of epicycles.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Calling something dark energy is giving impression of claiming existence of something There is an existence of something. Unknown variables aren’t improperly named. The solution to dark energy may be matter, it may be modified gravity (almost certainly not), it might be time bubbles à la timescape (which requires re-figuring the Big Bang, possibly less parsimonious than lambda CDM). There are terribly-named conventions in science. Dark matter is only one to the degree of explaining confident popular ignorance.
- scotty79 2y ago
  My bet is on timescape as it doesn't use any unknown magic. Just requires applying GR correctly instead of in the simplest conceivable way that CDM does. A lot of things might clear up once you remove the assumption that Big Bang was true begining of matter, energy and time, with everything isotropic instead of just temporary state of high temperature (kinetic energy) and density with its own internal structure.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > lot of things might clear up once you remove the assumption that Big Bang was true begining of matter, energy and time, with everything isotropic Sure, but now you’ve created a magic variable the literal size of the universe. Why do we have the timescape that we do?
    - scotty79 2y ago
      Assuming zero is no less magic. We have the timescape that we have because of what the distribution of mass and kinetic energy is. And why the matter is distributed like that is because it never used to be isotropic, just dense and hot. Asking why this specific distribution is what we got is like a grain of sand thrown up by exploding landmine asking why it observes this specific distribution around itself. By the way it would observe a Hubble law because faster moving grains (relatively) would move farther away during the time that passed since the blast. The correct answer to question about why it's this specific distribution definitely isn't assuming that before the blast there was no space, time or matter even though that could be the simplest mathematical thing to model.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> Calling something dark energy is giving impression of claiming existence of something There is an existence of something. Unknown variables aren’t improperly named. The solution to dark energy may be matter, it may be modified gravity (almost certainly not), it might be time bubbles à la timescape (which requires re-figuring the Big Bang, possibly less parsimonious than lambda CDM). There are terribly-named conventions in science. Dark matter is only one to the degree of explaining confident popular ignorance.

scotty79 2y ago
My bet is on timescape as it doesn't use any unknown magic. Just requires applying GR correctly instead of in the simplest conceivable way that CDM does. A lot of things might clear up once you remove the assumption that Big Bang was true begining of matter, energy and time, with everything isotropic instead of just temporary state of high temperature (kinetic energy) and density with its own internal structure.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > lot of things might clear up once you remove the assumption that Big Bang was true begining of matter, energy and time, with everything isotropic Sure, but now you’ve created a magic variable the literal size of the universe. Why do we have the timescape that we do?
  - scotty79 2y ago
    Assuming zero is no less magic. We have the timescape that we have because of what the distribution of mass and kinetic energy is. And why the matter is distributed like that is because it never used to be isotropic, just dense and hot. Asking why this specific distribution is what we got is like a grain of sand thrown up by exploding landmine asking why it observes this specific distribution around itself. By the way it would observe a Hubble law because faster moving grains (relatively) would move farther away during the time that passed since the blast. The correct answer to question about why it's this specific distribution definitely isn't assuming that before the blast there was no space, time or matter even though that could be the simplest mathematical thing to model.