That is because gravity shows up on Earth and Newtonian mechanics still has practical value. Dark energy only shows up in one creation mythos and has no practical value outside of that singular creation story.
I'll repeat. There is no creation mythos.
Of course it is. You all think that the universe had a "beginning" where all matter and energy came from a singular "clump".
Err. Nope. I think there was a time in the past when the density of "our part" of the Universe was so high that the equations we have to describe it break down.
You mean besides that last study I cited? Getting you folks to acknowledge information seems to be the big "trick" around here.
You didn't understand the last study you cited.
There are however several invisible sky entities that have no useful or practical value outside of your creation myth.
Nope. No invisible sky entities. You appear to be delusional.
That constant has absolutely nothing to do with "dark energy" since you can't get "dark energy" to show up in a lab or have any effect on matter in a lab.
What on Earth are you talking about. The L in LCDM stands for lambda. As in the cosmological constant.
That constant is no more related to 'dark energy' than it's related to the EM field. The only difference is that an EM field is "real" whereas your 'invisible sky entity" is not.
You really don't have the slightest idea about actual, real-life cosmology do you?
Oh boloney. You folks expected the universe to be slowing down over time. It wasn't. You then added liberal doses of an invisible sky deity named "dark energy" that has no practical value outside of your "creation religion".
We didn't add invisible doses of anything. That your mind making nonsense phrases up again because you can't construct a scientific argument. Our best estimate of lambda has changed as our measurement techniques have changed. That's all that really happened. This sort of thing happens all the time. It added with G too. I don't here you ranting that we should give up G too.
I could stuff "magic invisible Michael Mozina energy" in there and accomplish the same feat. So what? Does that mean "magic invisible Michael Mozina energy" did it?
If IMME is consistent with Einstein's Field Equations then quite possibly. If not, then no. So, is IMME consistent with the EFEs?
That's pure denial actually. Mainstream theory has "failed" pretty much every single "prediction" it's ever made.
Nope. For example, the predictions of the properties of the CMBR give some of the most astounding matches to experiment ever observed in physic (IMHO at least).
The last failure was related to the mainstream's assumption that the universe was "slowing down" over time. When you discovered that was not the case, you folks stuffed it full of "dark evil energies".
A) No. The most popular opinion is that the easiest solution is to adjust the cosmological constant. In much the same way that the gravitational constant has been adjusted over the years when better measurements have come along.
B) "dark evil energies" is a term entirely of your own invention. Its very stupid and childish. Do not put it in quotation marks as if to suggest it is an accepted term. It isn't. It just highlights your inability to make a scientific argument.
You simply 'make up" the properties of this stuff as you go.
Remember:
1) Observe.
2) Theorize
3) Compare.
This is normal science.
Unfortunately you "missed" again, and the "threads" of spacetime are longer than you 'predicted'. Now you need dark energy to not only do a repulsive trick, it also has to 'pool' in some places and not in others.
The whole thing is based on absurd "ad hoc" properties galore!
Ho would you know! You think its possible for the Sun to have an iron shell. You have no comprehension of mechanics, thermodynamics, relativity, Maxwell's equations or just about anything in physics. I'm not even sure you understand order of magnitudes.
That is because unlike dark sky entities, particle physics theory has "practical" value here on Earth. The fact we can "split" atoms helps heat my home.
This has little relevance to the Standard model. Try again.
Your mythical sky beings have no effect on me whatsoever.
How many times. I do not have any mythical sky beings. That is entirely a delusion of your own making.
No, actually there's a "trilogy" of them, Inflation father (now deceased and not officially included in LCDM mind you), dark matter sun, and dark energy holy ghost.
What the hell are you talking about? This is a delusion entirely of your own making Michael.
Not until you start stuffing them with "magic energy".
Nobody has. LCDM = Lambda cold dark matter. Lambda = the lambda in the EFEs. If you have a problem with lambda you have a problem with the EFEs. If you do not have a problem with lambda then you do not have a problem with dark energy.
No, I did not. I suggested it had a solid *CRUST* and that the majority of the sun was iron in terms of it's overall mass.
That really would be a Sun of special creation.
The idea it has a "solid iron shell" has nothing to do with me or my beliefs. They are a "dumbed down" strawman that is repeated often by your side.
Can you explain to me the difference between a shell and a crust?
How does the "dark energy Jesus" affect my life in a "tangible" way here and now?
How on Earth could I possibly know. The dark energy Jesus (again where the hell are you quoting from) is, as far as I know, a product of your imagination. Much like Rudie the Rhubarb mine is a product of my imagination about thirty seconds ago. I reckon he'd look great with shades and a banana surfboard. What do you think?
You folks really should read Cosmic Plasma and Peratt's book too, but alas I doubt that will ever happen.
Why would I read books which were shown to be wrong decades ago? There's plenty of not blatantly wrong stuff for me to read out there.
Would you prefer one of Alfven's paper where he picks on all "prophet" forms of astrophysics?
Why? Alfven had an understanding of GR that was worse than a final year physics degree student's.
- the net force is zero.
