Based on the distribution of galaxies and clusters of galaxies in space, it appears that the geometry of the Observable Universe is "flat" (the usual alternatives are that it is curved like a globe, or like a hyperbola). But per Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity, the "shape" of the Universe is "flat" only if the mass density (the amount of mass in a given region of space) is equal to the space density (the amount of empty space in a given region of space). IF that is so, so that m-density = space density, we would say that the ratio of the two is 100%. If the amount of space is greater than 100% the amount of mass, the Universe must be hyperbolic, and if the mass is greater than the amount of space, the Universe must be shaped like a globe (this is called Riemannian geometry). Since the Observable Universe appears flat, for decades cosmologists presumed that the mass/space ratio was 100%; but by the 1990's it was obvious that the ratio was more like 25 to 30%, and since the Observable Universe "appears" to be "flat", cosmologists "made up" the remaining 70 to 75% of the required mass in the form of dark matter, or dark energy, depending on who wrote the papers.

Odds are, although dark matter MUST exist in the outer regions of galaxies, to explain the way in which they rotate, it almost certainly does NOT exist in the enormous quantities needed to make the Universe "flat", and the Universe is NOT flat, but hyperbolic, which SEEMS to require the existence of huge amounts of dark stuff which cannot be dark matter, ergo it must be "dark energy".

The conclusion in the preceding paragraph is, however, wrong. Just as any portion of the globe that is naturally "flat", such as oceans, APPEARS flat, because you can only see a very small part of the Earth, the Earth is actually shaped like a globe. You just can't see enough of it, from any place on the ground or ocean, to "see" that it's a globe. Similarly, the Observable Universe is certainly MUCH smaller than the actual Universe, so the actual Universe could have ANY shape, and the tiny portion that we can actually observe (hence the name the Observable Universe) is just too small to tell what the real shape is. It is essentially certain that the Universe has far more empty space than mass (by a ratio of 70/30 to 75/25), and the Universe is hyperbolic; but because we can't observe enough of it to Observe its real shape, the part we see looks flat, and so cosmologists invented dark matter, and dark energy, the first of which must exist in small quantities, but the latter of which is just a fairy tale. For a discussion of why there must be dark matter in galaxies, see Dark Matter In Galaxies at https://cseligman.com/text/galaxies/dark.htm and for a historical discussion of the mass/space ratio (admittedly a bit dated, but still valid) see The Expansion of the Universe at https://cseligman.com/text/galaxies/universe.htm

Courtney Seligman

Thank you, Courtney, for your detailed and insightful response. I appreciate the depth of your explanation regarding the geometry of the universe and the historical context of dark matter and dark energy theories.

Your points about the apparent flatness of the observable universe and the necessity of considering a broader, potentially hyperbolic structure are well-taken. The analogy comparing the Earth's perceived flatness to the observable universe's appearance is particularly illustrative.

In my paper "Dark Matter is Just Gravity, Only Normal Matter is the Truth," I argue that dark matter, often considered a mysterious and separate entity, can be explained through the gravitational effects of normal matter.

Similarly, I propose that what we term "dark energy" might also be a manifestation of forces we already understand but have yet to fully integrate into our current cosmological models.

Your assertion that the actual universe could have any shape and that dark energy might be a construct due to our observational limitations aligns with the broader question I pose: Are we labeling these phenomena as "dark" due to our current limitations in understanding and technology?

I invite further discussion from the community on this topic. Could we be on the cusp of a paradigm shift where advancements in observational technology and theoretical physics reveal these "dark" aspects as extensions of familiar forces? What new approaches or perspectives might we adopt to test these ideas?

Thank you again for your valuable input, and I look forward to more insights from the community.

Courtney Seligman @Preston Guynn

Thank you, Preston, for your comprehensive and thought-provoking response. I appreciate your insights into the philosophical and methodological underpinnings of current academic perspectives on dark matter and dark energy.

Your observation about the use of the term "dark" and the philosophical demands within academia resonates with many of the challenges we face in modern scientific inquiry. It’s crucial to continuously question and re-evaluate our frameworks to ensure they align with observable evidence and logical consistency.

In my paper, "Dark Matter is Just Gravity, Only Normal Matter is the Truth," my intent was to challenge the prevailing assumptions and encourage a re-examination of gravitational forces and their role in explaining cosmic phenomena. The assertion that Keplerian methods or general relativity may not universally apply without modification is central to fostering a deeper understanding of these forces.

I agree that the entrenchment of certain philosophical views can sometimes hinder scientific progress. However, I remain optimistic that by encouraging open, evidence-based discussions, we can gradually shift these paradigms. My aim is not to undermine the foundational work of general relativity or the big bang theory, but to stimulate a scientific dialogue that considers alternative explanations and expands our comprehension of the universe.

Your point about academia's current state, where philosophical adherence can overshadow scientific curiosity, is well-taken. I believe that by presenting robust, empirical research and fostering collaborative discussions, we can challenge these norms and inspire a more dynamic scientific exploration.

I invite further comments and perspectives from the ResearchGate community. How can we collectively promote a scientific culture that values inquiry and adaptability over rigid adherence to established paradigms? What steps can we take to ensure that our research is both innovative and grounded in rigorous scientific principles?

Thank you again for your valuable input, and I look forward to more insightful contributions from the community.

The majority of dark energy may be relic neutrinos.

Preprint Constraint on the average mass of relic neutrinos as the mai...

This follows from the non-equivalence of active gravitational and inertial masses. As the relativistic limit is approached, their ratio increases without limit. Neutrinos have a rest mass, the lower limit of which has not been experimentally determined. If it is small enough, the neutrino density obtained from the standard cosmological model may be a source of gravity corresponding to dark energy.

Dark energy is an assumed property of empty space, required to validate the assumption of cosmic inflation at an accelerating pace.

Since the universe is of 'steady state', the assumption of dark energy is superfluous. Refer: http://vixra.org/abs/1101.0016

Courtney Seligman,

dark energy is an illusion as I have shown in my third book. The original paper (1998) has severe problems. What do you e.g. think about a nova 23 Gly away, father than the age of the universe?

Taken into account neutrinos the rotational disribution of galaxies come out quite right, my first book.

My books describe how a universe can be created, whith its galaxies, stars and planets quite different from the standard Big Bang story. It starts with the creation of the elementary particles.

How can one "define" something acting gravitationally, when the phenomenon gravity itself is up-to-now undescribed, just only "defined" as a field dependent on masses resp. energy-distribution, no matter whether by Isaac Newton or by Marcel Grossmann/Albert Einstein?

...with "undescribed" I do not mean its effects. They are described and formulated.

Instead I ask for the actual mechanism that produces those interactions, which we label gravitational.

To my opinion, that, what we label gravitational field, must have a natural derivation from the medium itself. And its main property is propagating waves.

Thus, why not thinking about gravitation as a wave-related feature, a very tiny reflection of any wave's forwarded energy, let's say just about 8∙10⁻³⁴ per wave period? That's the ratio of the wave's energy relative to the VEV (Vacuum Expectation Value: 246,21965(6) GeV), seen as two masses per wave period, thus acting gravitationally. The reflected energy part of the wave can be seen as a kind of tribute to propagate through the medium.

This model (energy backflow) would easily allow interaction between waves (non-linear medium) and thus also allows resonances and structure-building, based on integer and prime number cooperation, first of all the VEV itself as the very first possible resonance.

Then, Dark Matter can be just a resonance of local particle's reflecting energy with the reflecting energy related to the remote particles: its effect grows up to a certain distance, and amplifies the local gravitational effect to a factor of about 100, then it decreases again towards usual G-gravitation (superposed resonance curves of all remote particles).

Because then there is no need any more for additional Dark Matter mass, there also is no more need for the Dark Energy to compensate towards 'flatness'...

If Pearlman YeC SPIRAL cosmological redshift hypothesis and model, there is no need for what SCM-LCDM attributes to Dark Energy, be it not normal or not.

Same as to the missing Dark Matter, so the 5% normal matter accounts for 99% of all matter,

As we find the universe attained mature, size, density and gravitational bond equilibrium by the end of the cosmic inflation expansion, as the universe transitioned from hyper-dense, early on.

Reference 'Pearlman vs Hubble', SPIRAL 'GRiP' on galactic rotation as well as other hypotheses in SPIRAL. SPIRAL 'SOD ' on past interaction of distant stellar objects.

If SPIRAL we find the entire universe approximates the visible universe, and has a radius of about 1B light years, so distant objects not nearly as distant and large (as presumed by the competing model SCM-LCDM) the further one gets past SPIRAL light year radius i.

Wladimir Belayev

Thank you Wladimir for your intriguing perspective on relic neutrinos as a potential component of dark energy. Your suggestion that neutrinos, with their still undetermined rest mass, might contribute to dark energy is fascinating and aligns with the idea that what we perceive as "dark" could be rooted in familiar particles with properties we have yet to fully understand.

In relation to my paper, which proposes that dark matter could be interpreted as gravity, I wonder if there might be a parallel in considering dark energy. Could the neutrino hypothesis also fit into a framework where what we call dark energy is simply a manifestation of well-understood physical phenomena, potentially revealing a deeper connection between these forces?

Additionally, how might experimental advancements in measuring neutrino mass refine our understanding of dark energy and its role in cosmic expansion? It would be interesting to explore whether a combined approach, incorporating both gravity and relic neutrinos, could offer a more unified perspective on these cosmic mysteries.

Nainan Varghese

Thank you for sharing your perspective on dark energy and its connection to the concept of cosmic inflation. Your argument that dark energy might be superfluous if we consider a steady-state universe is a thought-provoking approach and highlights the ongoing debate in cosmology.

In light of my paper, which suggests that dark matter could be essentially gravity, I’m curious about how you reconcile the steady-state model with the observed acceleration of the universe's expansion. Could the concept of a steady-state universe offer alternative explanations for the phenomena typically attributed to dark energy, or do you see a different mechanism at play?

Additionally, how might the steady-state theory integrate with other observational data, such as the cosmic microwave background or large-scale structure, that are commonly used to support the dark energy hypothesis?

I appreciate the link to your work and would be interested in exploring how your model and my perspective on dark matter might intersect or inform each other. This could lead to a richer understanding of these cosmic phenomena and contribute to ongoing discussions in the field.

Hans Gennow

cc: Courtney Seligman

Your critique of the original 1998 paper and the implications of phenomena such as a nova being observed 23 billion light-years away are indeed provocative and challenge conventional views.

In relation to my paper, which argues that dark matter might essentially be gravity, I’m intrigued by your assertion that dark energy is an illusion. Could you elaborate on how your models address the observed expansion of the universe and reconcile with data such as the cosmic microwave background and large-scale structure observations?

Additionally, your approach to galaxy rotation and the creation of the universe from elementary particles presents an alternative narrative to the Big Bang theory. How do you see these ideas integrating with or challenging current cosmological observations and models?

Andreas Schwarz

Your concept of gravitation as a wave-related feature and the idea of energy backflow from waves is intriguing and offers a fresh perspective on the fundamental mechanisms behind gravitational interactions.

In relation to my research, which posits that dark matter might essentially be gravity, I’m curious about how your wave-related gravitation model could be integrated with or potentially modify the understanding of dark matter and dark energy. Specifically, how might your model account for the observed effects attributed to dark matter and dark energy in cosmological observations?

Your notion that dark matter could be a resonance effect and the implications for eliminating the need for dark energy to address 'flatness' raises interesting questions. Could you elaborate on how this resonance-based model might be tested or validated against current observational data?

Roger M. Pearlman Yec

Your model’s perspective on the universe achieving equilibrium in size, density, and gravitational bond by the end of cosmic inflation presents a fascinating alternative to the standard cosmological model (SCM-LCDM).

Your assertion that the universe may not require dark energy or dark matter, as traditionally conceived, is thought-provoking. This aligns with the idea that our current models may overestimate the need for these components due to an incomplete understanding of cosmic dynamics.

In light of my research, which posits that dark matter could be essentially a manifestation of gravity, I’m intrigued by how the SPIRAL hypothesis could be integrated with or challenge this perspective.

Specifically:

Your work introduces a novel framework that challenges traditional views and could potentially reshape our understanding of the universe. I look forward to exploring these questions further and discussing how our respective theories might intersect or offer new insights into cosmic phenomena. Your perspectives add significant depth to the ongoing dialogue in cosmology.

This expanded reply acknowledges Pearlman Yec’s contributions, connects his model with your research, and poses specific, thoughtful questions to further explore and challenge his ideas. It aims to stimulate in-depth discussion and demonstrates your active engagement with his hypothesis, enhancing the likelihood of positive recognition and fruitful dialogue.

It is transparent.

TY for the consideration Sandeep.

I will try and briefly reply point by point.

Sandeep Jaiswal

Dear Sir,

The universe’s expansion is a myth, derived from the incorrect logic of an increase in the wavelength of light received on Earth from distant stars by the Doppler effect. The Doppler effect explains the mechanism of changes in the frequency of cyclic transfer of pressure difference (sound waves) in a material medium. Considering the same mechanism for the transfer of light (assumed in the form of waves) through empty space has no justification.

The advent of the theory of gravitational attraction necessitated the accumulation of whole 3D matter at a point. This does not take place. Therefore, certain assumption of dark matter were invented to oppose the actions of gravitational attraction, assigned to matter bodies, limited only in far-out places.

The universe is in a steady state, and it extends infinitely. However, various regions in the universe disintegrate and renew cyclically. This helps to maintain a steady state of the universe.

Corpuscles of light (photons) are the most basic 3D matter particles. They form all other superior material bodies. Photons have a particle nature as well as a wave nature. CMB Radiation is the remnants from the corpuscles (photons) that die while traveling very large distances.

Nainan. https://www.matterdoc.info

Point 1: Dark Energy and Cosmic Expansion: Could you elaborate on how the SPIRAL model accounts for the observed accelerated expansion of the universe? How does your hypothesis address the need for dark energy to explain this acceleration, or does it offer a different mechanism?

the observed expansion is residue of the long past transition from a hyper-dense start, to mature size, density and gravitational bound equilibrium, that ended by the end of the cosmic inflation expansion epoch, (predict 4/ 365.25 (SPIRAL light year radius i) a fraction into history.

All agree (the two competing hypotheses SPIRAL vs SCM-LCDM) there is no ongoing cosmic expansion within SPIRAL radius i, that is a maximum radius of our 'gravitationally bound local region and a minimum 5,784 + 1 per annum light years to date. So too no dispute on the minimum number of years we are looking back at light from the nearest departure point of any light and other radiation arriving here and now at standard light speed years ago = to that light year distance.

Now consider with the classic leavening raisin dough analogy (if SPIRAL the raisins (proto galaxies) themselves expanded during that cosmic inflation expansion epoch (see SPIRAL on near side 'cosmic blue-shift offset' hypotheses.

Now (overall?) the more distant from the center, the greater the 'raisin' distance due to the metric expansion of space 'cosmic expansion' the greater it's velocity.

Now if SPIRAL there is no reason to preclude our (Earth sun-elliptic) from being the approximate center of not just the visible universe 'all agree', but the visible universe approximation the entire universe.

so while 'all agee' overall, the more distant a stellar object, the higher the cumulative subjugation to cosmological redshift. Yet only if SPIRAL the more distant the stellar obeject, the faster that subjugation occured.

So cosmologoical redshift not just a function of the distance to the object, but of the velocity that hat object was receding from us.

Also it may come up later, the more distant the stellar object, the earlier during the cosmic inflation expansion epoch it distanced past SPIRAL radius i, the denser the universe was, when it did that.

CMB we see here and now also being from radius i, it's reaching there first, when the entire universe was radius i (or tied with the most distant stellar object if one at the very edge of the entire universe that approximates the visible universe).

Based on a proportional to consensus (based on the size of the entire universe assuming if consensus that is 250x the visible) if SPIRAL assume the visible is 99% of the entire) and current CMB temp. an undisputed given, the entire universe has a radius of 1B light years rounded.

so the volume of the entire universe we see from during cosmic inflation (all beyond radius i, is well over 99.99% of it. see SPIRAL GRiP on galactic rotation. think of spinning a top, the orbital peculiarities lasting even a day is all we need to account for what we have seen to date from beyond Radius i .

No reason to think it has not been ongoing for a minimum of Radius i years as has our solar system and to the extent what we see within radius i to date. So no missing dark matter required to have retained galactic rotations over deeper time.

SOD on distant objects past interaction. SPIRAL electro-magnetic repulsion on the repulsive force for cosmic inflation.

No ongoing cosmic expansion means no need for any of the missing dark energy. see Pearlman vs Hubble.

Another advantage of SPIRAL is because we see all the more distant stellar objects from light that departed them at radius i, the more distant they are the greater that their size, volume, and velocity is exaggerated by SCM-LCDM if SPIRAL.

The greater the claim being the greater the burden of proof. All else being = claiming more energy, matter, deeper time (fights uphill vs entropy), .. is a greater claim.

OK not so brief, and i suspect i covered part of points 2, 3 a 4,

TY for your open-minded consideration. stay strong, roger m.

For those not familiar w/ the classic leavening raisin dough analogy the raisins are distancing, but not 'moving' as they stay in their relative position.

Exercise:

From a when the universe had a radius of 1 LY, a 'raisin' (proto-galaxy) that distances 1% distant from the center that distance 1 LY (is now 2 LY from center). means a stellar object on the outer edge distanced 100 LY in the same span. One mid radius distanced 50 LY. The one at the outer edge velocity and subjugation to cosmological redshift is 2v that of the one at the center.

even assuming all cosmic expansion stopped after 100 minutes, and we stayed at the center (adjust for 1 LY) so after 2 years we would see the light trails that departed from a radius 'i' of 2 light years. The most distant, we see from light that departed it 2 minutes into this cosmic 'inflation exercise epoch when the 'universe' inflated from radius 1 LY to radius 100 LY in 100 minutes.

The stellar object that reached it's orbital peculiarity at 50 LY we see from light that departed it 4 minutes in when it distance past radius i of 2 LY when the entire universe was at radius of 4 LY.

Note, all the light we see from objects at and beyond radius i, only traveled 2 LY to reach us, yet the light from the most distant object would have a very high redshift, the object at Radius i, no redshift.

so distance alone is meaningless when determining how much redshift to expect.

it depends on additional context from the model.

SCM-LCDM one assumes deep-time and ongoing 'Hubble' cosmic expansion, expect a lot of redshift from the most distant visible objects whose light would have traveled billions of light years under relatively mild cosmic expansion.

If SPIRAL one would not just react to the prevalent cosmological redshift of distant starlight and overall increase of that CR with distance but could predict it. Overall, the greater the distance it is, the greater the CR, even though, like CMB we see from a uniform departure distance, from radius i, i years ago. So no need for the most heavily redshifted galaxies light to visible here and now to have departed from beyond the LY distance to the edge of our gravitationally bound local region max. when the universe was much denser, early in history.

If SPIRAL the 'raisins' were also expanding, see SPIRAL nearside cosmic blue-shift offset' predictions.

even if the local gravitation bound region is say radius 2M LY, proportional to

the assumed 46.5B radius of the visible universe, that should be negligible subjugation to the assumed Hubble expansion if SCM -LCDM 2m/46.5B.

So it could be 6k LY rounded from here from mid yellow to the start when cosmological redshift would be noticeable.

Be it SCM or SPIRAL, where that negligible proportional subjugation was early in history. The closer a stellar object is now, the less cosmic expansion it was subjugated to, the later it distanced past radius i during cosmic inflation epoch, the closer to mature size and density when it passed radius i,.

If SPIRAL all the empirical cosmological observations are consistent with that epoch ending early in history with the entire universe at gravitational bound equilibrium.

why should our local region be gravitationally bound and not all?

why does CMB not arrive checkerboard if some our and some not gravitationally bound?

why would Hubble expansion be so neat to have an all or nothing gravitational bound local region?

see upcoming article to discuss these 3 questions.

see Pearlman SPIRAL cosmological redshift hypothesis and models 'MVP'' hypothesis why we have the vastly preferred vantage point over and above any other distant vantage point in the entire universe.

Presentation SPIRAL cosmological model 'MVP' Hypothesis

The hyperbolic universe does not need dark matter. The negative curvature accounts the flat rotation curve.

Hi Salah A. it looks like you introduced your interesting 'The Hyperbolic Universe' research the same year (2013) i began advancing SPIRAL cosmological redshift hypothesis and model.

SPI-RAL -= (hyper-dense proto galactic formation) Stars Preceded (cosmic) Inflation - (cosmological) Redshift Attests as the Light thereof.

With it's SPIRAL light year radius i (distance to the nearest (also the furthest :) ) departure point of any light / radiation arriving here now at standard light speed that has ever been subjugated to any cosmic expansion.

If SPIRAL i = the years before present of the transition of the universe from it's hyper-dense start to gravitational bound equilibrium.

If your model is not deep-time dependent maybe they can reconcile or complement each other?

Hi Sandeep, i just looked at (now follow and recommend) your research

B1040103223 - Indian Journal of Advanced Physics (IJAP) (latticescipub.com) / Article Dark Matter is Just Gravity, Only Normal Matter is the truth...

SPIRAL might be the highest probability explanation of the age, formation and structure of the universe that should leave little room to require anything but the 5% 'normal matter' being 99% of all matter, as you explain and conclude.

If SPIRAL hyper-dense proto galactic formation prior to cosmic inflation expansion may relate to the minute fluctuations in CMB.

In SPIRAL 'Black-hole illusion resolution' we conclude they represent past, not ongoing hyper-density, where the matter a galaxy is composed of emanated from, during the transition of the universe from hyper-dense to mature size, density and gravitationally bound equilibrium early in history, years ago = to SPIRAL light year radius i.

The more distant the stellar object, the earlier during that cosmic inflation expansion transition we are 'looking back' at. The denser the universe was when the light we see from it here and now, arriving here at standard light speed, departed it when distancing past LY radius i.

Sandeep Jaiswal,

I just mention my last book which is a summary of the earlier ones with the aim to confront my findings with recent observation. The agreement is very nice.

The expansion is a natural consequence of the process where the elementary particles are created (based on Heisenberg). Quite different from the Big Bang story. They cannot explain how particels are cretated.

The CMB also comes out very nicely in my story.

Have a look at my last book at least.

Sandeep Jaiswal,

Whether relic neutrinos can make an additional contribution to dark energy depends on whether they are relativistic particles, whether they move at a speed close to the speed of light.

The dark energy hypothesis follows from the known laws of gravity.

Actually dark energy repulsive effect is not necessary and it is a quantum correction to the general relativity where the force betweeen supermassive black holes repel themselves on distances larger than 10**20.

The MOMD or better the MOG approaches are more realistic.

Hans Gennow

Thank you for your thoughtful reply and for sharing information about your latest book. It's encouraging to hear that your findings align well with recent observations and offer a fresh perspective on cosmic phenomena.

Some Key Points:

Your innovative approach to these fundamental questions is intriguing, and I appreciate the opportunity to discuss these concepts further. I’ll make sure to delve into your book and consider how your findings might reshape our understanding of cosmic phenomena.

Thank you again for sharing your insights. I look forward to our continued discussion.

Best regards,

Sandeep Jaiswal

Wladimir Belayev

Thank you for your insightful response regarding the potential role of relic neutrinos in contributing to dark energy. You’ve raised an important aspect of the discussion, particularly concerning the relativistic nature of these particles.

Some Key Points:

Thank you again for your contribution to this discussion. I look forward to your thoughts on these questions and continuing our exploration of these fascinating topics.

Best regards,

Sandeep Jaiswal

Piero Chiarelli

Thank you for your thoughtful reply and for highlighting the nuances in the interpretation of dark energy and its effects. Your insights into the repulsive effects and the quantum corrections to general relativity are particularly intriguing.

Some Points to Address:

Thank you again for contributing to this stimulating discussion. Your insights are valuable, and I look forward to learning more about how these alternative approaches can enhance our comprehension of the universe’s dynamics.

Best regards,

Sandeep Jaiswal

Sandeep Jaiswal

Thank you for the detailed formulation of the question.

Currently, 3 types of neutrinos are known. Two differences in the squares of their masses have been experimentally determined. These results allow us to conclude that at least 2 of them are not relativistic. It remains possible that the rest mass of the 3rd type is small enough that if it is part of the relic neutrinos, its energy corresponds to a relativistic particle. The possibility of the existence of other types of neutrinos is theoretically discussed.

In the Big Bang theory, during the period of separation from the rest of the matter, neutrinos were relativistic. According to the result I cited in the article, this means that their active gravitational mass significantly exceeded their mass equivalent to the energy determined from non-gravitational interactions. This also applies to other particles at different periods of matter transformation during the Big Bang. Therefore, the existing time boundaries of its different phases, according to preliminary estimates, can be significantly changed towards an increase. The decrease in the energy of particles during the expansion of space can be accompanied by its release in some other form, gravitational waves. Conservation of energy in GTR is one of complex and debated aspects.

Sincerely,

Wladimir Belayev

Sandeep Jaiswal,

thank you for your response. As you understand I cannot repeat my books here. I just mention the following:

Particles can be created by help of the Heisenber principle by exploding vacuum bubbles. The process is a bit complicated and I cannot reproduce it here. I could just mention that a biproduct is the creation of the massive objects (BH:s) in the center of the galaxies. The process is quite violent causing all particles and objects being thrown out with quite some speed.

It is nice to note that the speed of the objects fit weel with the observation of JWST of very young galaxies (my last book).

I just mention that I estimated that neutrinos could constitute 90% of the mass of the universe (my first book). No need for any dark matter.

Concerning dark energy, papers that do not see any accelerating universe have been published. In other words, dark energy is dead.

Big Bang is nonsense. Their explanation of CMB just goes wrong.

The answer to the question “Is "dark" energy really dark? Or is it deemed so for our insecurities? It is "normal" energy right?”

- is: the "dark" energy that is introduced in mainstream cosmology is really scientificallydark, since has really no any scientific physical grounds; and so is introduced in the cosmology in the GR equation aimed at “to explain” observed till now effect that is interpreted as “accelerated space expansion”,

- while the GR is based on postulate that gravitational objects/events/effects in gravitationally coupled systems of bodies are determined by transformed – “curved”, “bended”, etc., including “expanded” Matter’s spacetime.

Really Matter’s spacetime, as that rigorously scientifically shown in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s Planck scale informational physical model, in this case it is enough to read one of 3 main papers

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/367397025_The_Informational_Physical_Model_and_Fundamental_Problems_in_Physics, the Matter’s spacetime is fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, fundamentally continuous, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, (at least) [4+4+1]4D spacetime with metrics (at least) (cτ,X,Y,Z, g,w,e,s,ct),

- which fundamentally cannot be impacted by anything in Matter, and fundamentally cannot impact on anything in Matter; Gravity is fundamentally nothing else than some fundamental nature force, which acts – as all other Forces – in the absolute spacetime above.

So the GR equations really are adequate to the reality only in weak Gravity fields, first of all since in the GR gravitational field propagates with the speed of light in contrast to infinite speed in Newton theory; and introducing of “Lambda term” that explains “space expansion” really is physically strange.

That is another thing that the Matter’s ultimate base is the (at least) [4+4+1]4D dense lattice of primary elementary logical structures – (at least) [4+4+1]4D binary reversible fundamental logical elements [FLE], which is placed in the spacetime above, which indeed can – and rather probably did/do that - expand:

– exponentially in so extremely short time and up to a large size at the “inflation epoch”, so corresponding “space expansion” even cannot be explained by some “the GR expansion”, and in the cosmology some strange special fields, say, “inflaton” are invented,

- and rather probably really observed more tolerant expansion after the inflation.

Nonetheless problems of both the lattice expansions above – and of existence of Matter at all - are fundamentally outside real physics, and can be only considered aimed at rational description of how that could happen.

Now there exist only one really rational model of Matter’s creation, including the FLE lattice expansions, which in the mainstream illusory is explained as “space expansion” – the initial SS&VT cosmological model, more see the link above, section “Cosmology”, what is Gravity Force see section “Mediation of the fundamental forces in complex systems”.

However at that it is necessary to understand, that all cosmological theories really are questionable till real Matter’s topology is unknown, more see last SS comment in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/367397025_The_Informational_Physical_Model_and_Fundamental_Problems_in_Physics/comments

Cheers

Sergey Shevchenko

Dear Sergey,

Thank you for your detailed and insightful response. Your perspective on dark energy and the nature of spacetime, as elucidated through the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky informational physical model, is indeed thought-provoking and challenges many mainstream cosmological views.

I appreciate your critique of the Lambda term in GR and the concept of spacetime expansion. Your explanation of Matter's spacetime being fundamentally absolute, flat, continuous, and Cartesian in the [4+4+1]4D framework is fascinating. The idea that gravity operates as a fundamental natural force within this absolute spacetime, akin to other forces, offers a refreshing alternative to the conventional understanding.

Your mention of the inflation epoch and the expansion of the lattice of primary elementary logical structures (FLEs) provides an intriguing lens through which to view cosmic phenomena. This raises a critical point: if our interpretations of dark energy and space expansion are indeed based on misconceptions, what new paradigms should we adopt to better understand the universe?

Given these perspectives, how do you see the future of cosmological research evolving? What steps should we, as a scientific community, take to reconcile these different models and build a more unified understanding of the cosmos?

I am eager to delve deeper into your work and understand more about the informational physical model you propose. For those interested in further exploring these concepts, I highly recommend reading the detailed papers by Shevchenko-Tokarevsky linked here: The Informational Physical Model and Fundamental Problems in Physics.

I invite the ResearchGate community to join this stimulating discussion. Let’s collectively explore whether what we perceive as "dark" energy is indeed a misinterpretation of familiar forces and phenomena. By embracing diverse scientific inquiries and challenging our assumptions, we can advance our understanding of the universe.

Looking forward to an engaging and enlightening discussion.

Best regards,

Sandeep Jaiswal

Wladimir Belayev

Dear Wladimir Belayev,

Thank you for your insightful and detailed response. Your points on neutrinos and their gravitational mass during the Big Bang are fascinating and offer a profound perspective on the evolution of the universe.

The determination of the mass differences of neutrinos is indeed a significant achievement. As you mentioned, the possibility of a third type of neutrino remaining relativistic is intriguing. Do you foresee any upcoming experiments or technologies that might help us measure the rest mass of this third type more accurately? How could this further our understanding of neutrino behavior in the early universe?

Your explanation about the relativistic nature of neutrinos during the Big Bang, and their impact on the gravitational mass, provides an important insight into the early universe. Could you elaborate on how these findings might alter our current models of the Big Bang phases? Specifically, how might this change our understanding of the timeline and the dynamics of early matter transformations?

The release of energy as gravitational waves during space expansion is a compelling idea. Energy conservation in GTR is indeed complex and debated. Could you share more about how this process might work and its implications for the conservation laws we currently understand? Are there any specific models or theories that you find particularly convincing in this regard?

Wladimir’s points raise several intriguing questions about neutrino physics and cosmology. How do you think future research could address these issues? What other particles or phenomena during the Big Bang might have undergone similar transformations affecting their gravitational mass and energy release?

Looking forward to an engaging and enlightening discussion.

Best regards,

Sandeep Jaiswal

Dear Sandeep Jaiswal ,

you ask

"...what new paradigms should we adopt to better understand the universe?"

and invite to "collectively explore".

Here my simple "Ansatz":

EM-based Gravity, Particles and Charge:

=============================

If Larmor radiation is electro-magnetic, and the mechanism is the same for gravitational waves, this is a strong indication, that also gravitation is based on electro-magnetic waves.

The problem seems to be that everyone always searches for a particle-based feature, like charge, to explain gravitation. It is much simpler:

EM-radiation has a frequency limit, which occurs at PLANCK-level. There is no smaller wave's period time than PLANCK-time possible, because the medium, we are searching for, cannot toggle faster. This "feature" of the medium is "dispersion" and makes the medium non-linear.

With this as an agreed basis, we can argue further.

One consequence is intrinsically built-in redshift, which means that per wave period a tiny part of forwarded energy is reflected exactly backwards.

This tiny part is just K=2G∙mᵥₑᵥ²/(ħc)=8.13434(6)∙10⁻³⁴ per wave period.

A second consequence is, that in the non-linear medium superposition of EM-radiation no longer happens without interaction. Consequently, resonances will occur. The very first such resonance occurs at VEV-level (Vacuum Expectation Value), because, due to the built-in redshift, at this oscillator's size, the reflected part of the forwarded energy of a PLANCK-oscillator in the center is shifted by exactly one PLANCK-length, the "beat"-frequency, and thus resonates (K=2Eᵥₑᵥ²/E²ₚₗ).

A third consequence is, that due to the intrinstically built-in redshift, i.e., energy-backflow, a momentum can be applied (non-linear superposition). This momentum leads to the gravitational effect of attraction.

If we now realize the very huge number (2/K) of synchronized PLANCK-vortices on the "surface" of the VEV-oscillator, quasi a mirror of the center oscillator, we have spiraling radiation, which enables two kinds of behaviour between two such oscillators, depending on their mutual rotation directions:

attraction or repulsion, which is the forth consequence, the effect of charge:

Spirals between both oscillators match (superpose) -> attraction.

Spirals outside both oscillators match -> tear away from each other -> repulsion.

This also explains, why there is only one unique elementary charge.

A fifth consequence is, that, since gravitation now is a wave-based phenomenon, resonance will occur, e.g. ever increasing up to ~1Mpc, where the gravitationally-effective energy back-stream of the galaxy-center-nearer electrons, due to their redshifts, locally (at r≈1Mpc) resonantes with the local Bohr-radius frequency generated energy back-stream, thus, amplifying the local gravitationally-acting moments (impulses) up to a factor of ~100. This is for galaxies the so-called "Dark-Matter" effect, speeding-up bodies, which reach that distance from the main amount of electrons in the system.

Consequently, with "Dark-Matter" actually no longer "needed", there also is no longer the need to "invent" the counterpart to correct all its (wrong) consequences, i.e., no "Dark-Energy" is needed, too...

Hi Andreas Schwarz,

Thank you for your detailed and thought-provoking reply. Your approach to understanding gravity through electromagnetic waves and the implications of Planck-level interactions is fascinating and aligns with the need for new paradigms in physics.

In my recent paper, "Dark Matter is Just Gravity, Only Normal Matter is the Truth" (Indian Journal of Advanced Physics, October 2023),

Article Dark Matter is Just Gravity, Only Normal Matter is the truth...

I present a paradigm-shifting view that dark matter is not a mysterious entity but rather an expression of gravity. This perspective challenges the prevailing notion of dark matter and supports the idea that we may be misinterpreting what we observe due to conventional assumptions.

Similarly, your approach to gravitational waves and their relation to electromagnetic radiation could support the idea that what we term "dark energy" might be a mischaracterisation of normal energy interactions at a cosmic scale. I am currently working on a paper that aims to demonstrate that dark energy is, in fact, normal energy, similar to how my previous work addressed dark matter.

By questioning why we label unexplained phenomena as "dark" or mysterious, my work suggests that these forces are manifestations of familiar physics. Embracing this perspective could illuminate our understanding and dispel the so-called darkness surrounding these cosmic forces.

Your insights into the resonance and non-linear superposition of electromagnetic radiation add a valuable dimension to this discussion. If we can collectively explore these ideas, we might reveal that what we perceive as dark is indeed within our grasp of understanding.

I invite the scientific community to delve into these groundbreaking perspectives, as they hold the potential to revolutionise our understanding of fundamental physics.

Best regards,

Sandeep Jaiswal