Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Summerwind

Summerwind's no dark energy proposal

Recommended Posts

While we share the excitement with others regarding recent discovery that the universe is accelerating in its expansion, the dark energy part is rather spooky. There is another model that gives the same results without such energy and we will greatly appreciate experts who can review the model. The author is a simple engineer, not an astrophysicist. He said he has a headache each time he tries to imagine what the dark energy is like :) The article is at

[url="http://www.atlanticdaily.com/science/109"] A Clumping Universe [/url]

(atlanticdaily.com/science/109) Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Summerwind,

 

While we share the excitement with others regarding recent discovery that the universe is accelerating in its expansion, the dark energy part is rather spooky. There is another model that gives the same results without such energy and we will greatly appreciate experts who can review the model. The author is a simple engineer, not an astrophysicist. He said he has a headache each time he tries to imagine what the dark energy is like smile.gif The article is at A Clumping Universe (atlanticdaily.com/science/109) Thank you.

quote from your article: http://www.atlanticd...=science&id=109

....As the observer measures wavelengths of the light beam, he notes a measurement discrepancy between the ruler as it was years ago and the now shrunken ruler. The measurement of a wavelength with the shrunken ruler can be related to the measurement of the same wavelength many million years ago by taking into account the shrinkage:

Yes, I believe this is close to the correct model and understanding of the mechanics of the universe that not only explains away Dark Energy but also explains away the expansion of the universe, as being simply a misunderstanding of galaxy redshift data.

 

Here is my own paper on the subject: http://pantheory.org...ical-papers.pdf

 

I think it was premature to give the Nobel Prize concerning the "discovery" of Dark Energy when I believe there is a far simpler explanation. If valid this model would also eventually do away with the BB model. Evidence for the diminution process would be to show that there is a small difference in mass of individual protons which the technology may not be available yet today to measure a single proton weight to within parts per million. The present method/ procedure involves averaging of group weights.

 

quote from the article

In the expanding universe model, this indicates the universe is accelerating its expansion. In our model, our world is clumping faster and faster. In the expanding universe model, we need to introduce a dark energy to account for the accelerated expansion. In the clumping model, we can refine our understanding of gravitational effect on matters to accurately and precisely quantify the accelerated contraction.

In my own model gravity is not involved. Accordingly the diminution of matter has been an ongoing process since the beginning of the universe for reasons explained in the model.

//

Edited by pantheory

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Here is my own paper on the subject: http://pantheory.org...ical-papers.pdf

 

I think it was premature to give the Nobel Prize concerning the "discovery" of Dark Energy when I believe there is a far simpler explanation. If valid this model would also eventually do away with the BB model. Evidence for the diminution process would be to show that there is a small difference in mass of individual protons which the technology may not be available yet today to measure a single proton weight to within parts per million. The present method/ procedure involves averaging of group weights.

 

quote from the article

 

In my own model gravity is not involved. Accordingly the diminution of matter has been an ongoing process since the beginning of the universe for reasons explained in the model.

//

 

!

Moderator Note

pantheory, advertising your own theory is considered thread hijacking and is against the rules. Stick to discussing the proposal of the OP and criticisms based on mainstream science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stick to discussing the proposal of the OP and criticisms based on mainstream science.

 

Thanks, got it.

 

Summerwind,

 

I think the insight of the article has a lot of validity. Hope you get some comments other than mine :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.