What is Dark Energy? FEB 05, 2024. By Chelsea Gohd.

[Noax]

I wonder if you had direct empirical observations of what this GOD entity is capable of for the past 27 years, permitting you to comprehend many of its attributes, whether you would permit yourself to theorise about from whence it operates?

From whence? That makes it sound like dark energy has a location.

If I go to a website dedicated to listing empirical evidence of any particular god, I seriously doubt that a single one of the listed items can be otherwise explained by dark energy.

OK, God is responsible for providing the universe with energy, and dark energy accounts for the vast majority of that, but thing is, it is stealing that energy, not providing it. Dark energy accounted for almost none of the total energy density at first, and only gained top spot some short time back as it stole energy from the rest of creation in a sort of anti-giveth way.

[attofishpi]

I wonder if you had direct empirical observations of what this GOD entity is capable of for the past 27 years, permitting you to comprehend many of its attributes, whether you would permit yourself to theorise about from whence it operates?

From whence? That makes it sound like dark energy has a location.

If I go to a website dedicated to listing empirical evidence of any particular god, I seriously doubt that a single one of the listed items can be otherwise explained by dark energy.

OK, God is responsible for providing the universe with energy, and dark energy accounts for the vast majority of that, but thing is, it is stealing that energy, not providing it. Dark energy accounted for almost none of the total energy density at first, and only gained top spot some short time back as it stole energy from the rest of creation in a sort of anti-giveth way.

I'm not overly fussed about debating my GOD theory. I have been stating that yes, I think there could be a cyclic nature to reality where the 'light', all of our perceivable reality is 'consumed' (of course thru other methods also) via our qualia conscious sensations to the dark energy. Since I know GOD to manifest throughout my entire conscious being (and likely all minds) I consider this ability for us to have qualia sensations via consuming the perception of reality and it goes, consumes, to dark energy. Attempt to consider qualia akin to components on an electrical board, cathode/anode, light/dark.

Yes that all sounds like nonsense, and probably is. I don't accept that GOD created the universe, I believe it likely formed from it, and most DEFINITELY did/does in real-time form the reality our conscious minds are capable of perceiving. I do strongly believe also, that it operates from below the Planck scale.

[socrattus]

I'm not overly fussed about debating my GOD theory. I have been stating that yes, I think there could be a cyclic nature to reality where the 'light', all of our perceivable reality is 'consumed' (of course thru other methods also) via our qualia conscious sensations to the dark energy. Since I know GOD to manifest throughout my entire conscious being (and likely all minds) I consider this ability for us to have qualia sensations via consuming the perception of reality and it goes, consumes, to dark energy. Attempt to consider qualia akin to components on an electrical board, cathode/anode, light/dark.

Yes that all sounds like nonsense, and probably is. I don't accept that GOD created the universe, I believe it likely formed from it, and most DEFINITELY did/does in real-time form the reality our conscious minds are capable of perceiving. I do strongly believe also, that it operates from below the Planck scale.

Even God is an atheist, because to create the universe the Creator must use
physical and mathematical laws and equations.
#
In 1994 Frank J. Tipler wrote a book titled: "The Physics of Immortality" which appeared
to suggest that physics and religion could be united.
#
Either theology is pure nonsense, a subject with no content,
or else theology must ultimately become a branch of physics. /Frank Tipler/
#
What you can show using physics, forces this universe to continue to exist.
As long as you're using general relativity and quantum mechanics you are forced
to conclude that God exists. /Frank Tipler/
#
"If He (God) understands Math and Physics then He exists."/ Frank Tipler /
https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/frank-tipler-quotes

[Cerveny]

What we see in galaxies is not "dark matter", but a vortex of viscous (imperfect) solution of matter in the aether -> towards the future:), I think... BTW, infinitely large or infinitely lasting things do not exist, that would be against, let's say..., nature ), I think... @Age, please, sorry, you don't have to answer

PS: Space without aether is not physics but mathematics

Is this sentence meant to make sense?

If yes, then HOW, exactly?

What is 'space', and, 'aether', to you, EXACTLY?

This means that ‘space’ is the Universe and the ‘aether’ is what the Universe is made /(permanently) building of. EXACTLY:)

[Age]

PS: Space without aether is not physics but mathematics

Is this sentence meant to make sense?

If yes, then HOW, exactly?

What is 'space', and, 'aether', to you, EXACTLY?

This means that ‘space’ is the Universe and the ‘aether’ is what the Universe is made /(permanently) building of. EXACTLY:)

Okay. So, to "cerveny" anyway, the word 'space' just refers to the Universe, Itself, and, the word 'aether' is what the Universe, or space, is made of, EXACTLY.

Which is all well and good. But, how this FITS IN WITH what is ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY True and Right is some thing that HAS TO BE FURTHER EXPLAINED.

See, what NO one can refute what the Universe, at Its most fundamental level, is made up of 'matter', which is just a word for sensed things or physicality if one likes, and, 'space', which is just a word describing the distance between and around 'matter'. Matter is able to move about freely, ALWAYS, because of 'space' is what is permanently building, or creating, through change, the Universe, Itself. Through permanent change, or evolution, the Universe is ALWAYS creating Its Self, in ALL WAYS.

[Age]

I wonder if you had direct empirical observations of what this GOD entity is capable of for the past 27 years, permitting you to comprehend many of its attributes, whether you would permit yourself to theorise about from whence it operates?

From whence? That makes it sound like dark energy has a location.

If I go to a website dedicated to listing empirical evidence of any particular god, I seriously doubt that a single one of the listed items can be otherwise explained by dark energy.

OK, God is responsible for providing the universe with energy, and dark energy accounts for the vast majority of that, but thing is, it is stealing that energy, not providing it. Dark energy accounted for almost none of the total energy density at first, and only gained top spot some short time back as it stole energy from the rest of creation in a sort of anti-giveth way.

I'm not overly fussed about debating my GOD theory.

And, this is because you can NOT be backed up and supported your theory.

your theory can also be Falsified, which is why you are not overly fussed about debating your theory, here.

I have been stating that yes, I think there could be a cyclic nature to reality where the 'light', all of our perceivable reality is 'consumed' (of course thru other methods also) via our qualia conscious sensations to the dark energy. Since I know GOD to manifest throughout my entire conscious being (and likely all minds) I consider this ability for us to have qualia sensations via consuming the perception of reality and it goes, consumes, to dark energy. Attempt to consider qualia akin to components on an electrical board, cathode/anode, light/dark.

Talk about presenting, here, another prime example of over complicating what is Truly VERY SIMPLE, and VERY EASY.

Yes that all sounds like nonsense, and probably is.

It is GREAT that you ACCEPT that your theory is probably nonsense.

I don't accept that GOD created the universe, I believe it likely formed from it, and most DEFINITELY did/does in real-time form the reality our conscious minds are capable of perceiving. I do strongly believe also, that it operates from below the Planck scale.

Okay.

What 'we' can clearly see, here, is another prime example of just how much these people WANTED what they BELIEVED to be HEARD, and ACCEPTED, by others.

But what 'these people' obviously kept MISSING was the fact that what they BELIEVED did NOT necessarily even have to be close to the ACTUAL Truth of things.

[Cerveny]

…
This means that ‘space’ is the Universe and the ‘aether’ is what the Universe is made /(permanently) building of. EXACTLY:)

Okay. So, to "cerveny" anyway, the word 'space' just refers to the Universe, Itself, and, the word 'aether' is what the Universe, or space, is made of, EXACTLY.

Which is all well and good. But, how this FITS IN WITH what is ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY True and Right is some thing that HAS TO BE FURTHER EXPLAINED.

See, what NO one can refute what the Universe, at Its most fundamental level, is made up of 'matter', which is just a word for sensed things or physicality if one likes, and, 'space', which is just a word describing the distance between and around 'matter'. Matter is able to move about freely, ALWAYS, because of 'space' is what is permanently building, or creating, through change, the Universe, Itself. Through permanent change, or evolution, the Universe is ALWAYS creating Its Self, in ALL WAYS.

So, in my opinion, the Past is already condensed, crystallized. If something changes, moves, it works in such a way that in each new thin Planck layer of time, that is, in each new short Presence, the configuration of matter changes slightly. And the 'empty' space is a transparent crystal of aether, where elementary particles are structural defects, I think...

[Age]

…
This means that ‘space’ is the Universe and the ‘aether’ is what the Universe is made /(permanently) building of. EXACTLY:)

Okay. So, to "cerveny" anyway, the word 'space' just refers to the Universe, Itself, and, the word 'aether' is what the Universe, or space, is made of, EXACTLY.

Which is all well and good. But, how this FITS IN WITH what is ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY True and Right is some thing that HAS TO BE FURTHER EXPLAINED.

See, what NO one can refute what the Universe, at Its most fundamental level, is made up of 'matter', which is just a word for sensed things or physicality if one likes, and, 'space', which is just a word describing the distance between and around 'matter'. Matter is able to move about freely, ALWAYS, because of 'space' is what is permanently building, or creating, through change, the Universe, Itself. Through permanent change, or evolution, the Universe is ALWAYS creating Its Self, in ALL WAYS.

So, in my opinion, the Past is already condensed, crystallized.

What do you mean by 'condensed', and, 'crystallized', exactly?

And, what is 'it', exactly, which has, to you, supposedly, 'condensed' and 'crystallized'?

What do you even mean by 'Past', with a capital 'p', exactly?

If something changes, moves, it works in such a way that in each new thin Planck layer of time, that is, in each new short Presence, the configuration of matter changes slightly.

To me, WHEN EVERY thing changes, which EVERY thing IS, ( besides, of course, the Universe, Itself, which is ALWAYS HERE, NOW, in a constant continual state of CHANGE, and the two most fundamental things of the Universe, namely 'matter' AND 'space', which also are ALWAYS HERE, NOW. ('energy' could also be another thing that is ALSO ALWAYS HERE, NOW) ), then 'they', which is essentially just 'matter', itself, is just changing in way, shape, and/or form only. This is just a CONSTANT-FLOW. Which is just what the word 'evolution' is referring to also and anyway.

And the 'empty' space is a transparent crystal of aether, where elementary particles are structural defects, I think...

Okay. This is just what 'you think'.

I prefer, however, to only talk about what I can SHOW, and PROVE, TO BE IRREFUTABLY True, Right, Accurate, and/or Correct, ONLY, and instead.

[Cerveny]

Okay. So, to "cerveny" anyway, the word 'space' just refers to the Universe, Itself, and, the word 'aether' is what the Universe, or space, is made of, EXACTLY.

Which is all well and good. But, how this FITS IN WITH what is ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY True and Right is some thing that HAS TO BE FURTHER EXPLAINED.

See, what NO one can refute what the Universe, at Its most fundamental level, is made up of 'matter', which is just a word for sensed things or physicality if one likes, and, 'space', which is just a word describing the distance between and around 'matter'. Matter is able to move about freely, ALWAYS, because of 'space' is what is permanently building, or creating, through change, the Universe, Itself. Through permanent change, or evolution, the Universe is ALWAYS creating Its Self, in ALL WAYS.

So, in my opinion, the Past is already condensed, crystallized.

What do you mean by 'condensed', and, 'crystallized', exactly?

And, what is 'it', exactly, which has, to you, supposedly, 'condensed' and 'crystallized'?

What do you even mean by 'Past', with a capital 'p', exactly?
……..

And the 'empty' space is a transparent crystal of aether, where elementary particles are structural defects, I think...

Okay. This is just what 'you think'.

I prefer, however, to only talk about what I can SHOW, and PROVE, TO BE IRREFUTABLY True, Right, Accurate, and/or Correct, ONLY, and instead.

Like what can't be proven is irrefutable? Like, for example, that gravity propagates at the same speed as light? Or that the Minkowski metric works in the quantum world? GTR is based on such irrefutable "facts":( It's not physics, but at best faith.

[Age]

So, in my opinion, the Past is already condensed, crystallized.

What do you mean by 'condensed', and, 'crystallized', exactly?

And, what is 'it', exactly, which has, to you, supposedly, 'condensed' and 'crystallized'?

What do you even mean by 'Past', with a capital 'p', exactly?
……..

And the 'empty' space is a transparent crystal of aether, where elementary particles are structural defects, I think...

Okay. This is just what 'you think'.

I prefer, however, to only talk about what I can SHOW, and PROVE, TO BE IRREFUTABLY True, Right, Accurate, and/or Correct, ONLY, and instead.

Like what can't be proven is irrefutable?

I do NOT understand what you are saying, nor asking, here.

To me, if some thing has NOT YET be proven, then it is NOT YET irrefutable.

Do you think or BELIEVE that there are some things, which can not be proven, but which are irrefutable?

If yes, then what are 'those things', exactly?

Like, for example, that gravity propagates at the same speed as light? Or that the Minkowski metric works in the quantum world? GTR is based on such irrefutable "facts":( It's not physics, but at best faith.

Have these things being proved?

If no, then why are you claiming, here, that they are 'irrefutable facts'?

[Cerveny]

Sorry, I was just trying to express that GTR is really an unconvincing speculation, which is convincingly confirmed by its "applications" like BB and BH:) and I don't want to further clutter (do more weeds in)** the thread with answers to stupid questions* from an enthusiastic, but somewhat limited physics amateur…
*like eg "what is crystallization?"
**just like it was done in the thread about the aether