Well, I will say the other side of this Energy is conserved in Dark Energy because Curvature is balanced out by Radius increase in the Friedmann equation for Hubble constant or Dark Energy which causes the acceleration not increase in energy assuming energy conservation is absolute for the universe along with Energy is neither created or destroyed it just changes form and in that case the Universe will always have the same amount of Energy-Mass never changing in value just form. Otherwise Thermodynamics needs to be rewritten, unless the energy is being received from another universe in which case that would be fine with those laws under 1 and 2 as systems can transfer heat which is a type of Energy-mass between each-other. 

So explain why DE doesn't follow the normal thermodynamic rules on regards to change in volume as per the FRW metric equations of state for an adiabatic and isentropic fluid which equates to no net inflow or outflow of energy without invoking alternative universe?

I suggest reading the preposterous universe link by Sean Caroll before replying. See post above by Strange.

Not to say there isn't viable solutions, the one I'm thinking of doesn't require alternative universes.  Simply curious if you happen to have some viable solution in mind. Considering the conservation laws in regards to the universe is still an open question. See post by Swansont after reading the preposterous universe link.

Edit actually considering another article once posted by Strange make that two.

Edited December 10, 20178 yr by Mordred

On 12/9/2017 at 10:58 PM, Mordred said:

So explain why DE doesn't follow the normal thermodynamic rules on regards to change in volume as per the FRW metric equations of state for an adiabatic and isentropic fluid which equates to no net inflow or outflow of energy without invoking alternative universe?

I suggest reading the preposterous universe link by Sean Caroll before replying. See post above by Strange.

Not to say there isn't viable solutions, the one I'm thinking of doesn't require alternative universes.  Simply curious if you happen to have some viable solution in mind. Considering the conservation laws in regards to the universe is still an open question. See post by Swansont after reading the preposterous universe link.

Edit actually considering another article once posted by Strange make that two.

Well, I did but it got split.

16 hours ago, Vmedvil said:

Well, I did but it got split.

!

Moderator Note

I have split off your discussion, so now you can respond (with mainstream physics) 

 

Well, all I can say is there are other universes, that is the only reason it would be different if the conservation laws are correct. Just like our planet is not special nor our star or galaxy nor is our universe.

 

This Term, is why doesn't obey PV = nRT

Curvature / acceleration

Edited December 12, 20178 yr by Vmedvil

12 minutes ago, Vmedvil said:

Well, all I can say is there are other universes,

!

Moderator Note

Speculations it is, then.

 

8 minutes ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

Speculations it is, then.

 

If that is speculations then what is the universe accelerating expanding into, mainstream accepts that, what would that be called exactly? You know what I will never use that term, Gravitation is leaking into "whatever the universe accelerating expanding into".

Edited December 12, 20178 yr by Vmedvil

49 minutes ago, Vmedvil said:

Well, all I can say is there are other universes

Got any evidence for that?

30 minutes ago, Vmedvil said:

what is the universe accelerating expanding into

It is not expanding into anything. It is either infinite or finite and unbounded. So there is not "outside" for it to expand into.

Given the advanced stuff you post about, you have some absolutely massive gaps in your knowledge.

31 minutes ago, Vmedvil said:

Gravitation is leaking into "whatever the universe accelerating expanding into"

So not leaking at all, then.

3 hours ago, Strange said:

Got any evidence for that?

It is not expanding into anything. It is either infinite or finite and unbounded. So there is not "outside" for it to expand into.

Given the advanced stuff you post about, you have some absolutely massive gaps in your knowledge.

So not leaking at all, then.

These were sarcasm questions, just like the ones in that other thread were sarcasm answers, like "Oh really, it is solid then" Where I will keep doing this to you until you read why that is impossible what you said.

"It is not expanding into anything. It is either infinite or finite and unbounded. So there is not "outside" for it to expand into."

Edited December 12, 20178 yr by Vmedvil

8 minutes ago, Vmedvil said:

These were sarcasm questions, just like the ones in that other thread were sarcasm answers, like "Oh really, it is solid then" Where I will keep doing this to you until you read why that is impossible what you said.

"It is not expanding into anything. It is either infinite or finite and unbounded. So there is not "outside" for it to expand into."

Why is it sarcasm to ask for evidence of a claim? It is the basis of science.

Why is it sarcasm to point out that the universe is not expanding into anything?

But don't take my word for it: "The short answer is that this is a nonsense question, the Universe isn’t expanding into anything, it’s just expanding."
https://www.universetoday.com/1455/podcast-what-is-the-universe-expanding-into/

Or, for more detail: http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/104-the-universe/cosmology-and-the-big-bang/expansion-of-the-universe/623-what-is-the-universe-expanding-into-intermediate