# Doing without dark energy: Mathematicians propose alternative explanation for cosmic acceleration

Three mathematicians have a different explanation for the accelerating expansion of the universe that does without theories of "dark energy." Einstein's original equations for General Relativity actually predict cosmic acceleration due to an "instability," they argue in paper published recently in *Proceedings of the Royal Society A*.

About 20 years ago, astronomers made a startling discovery: Not only is the universe expanding—as had been known for decades—but the expansion is speeding up. To explain this, cosmologists have invoked a mysterious force called "dark energy" that serves to push space apart.

Shortly after Albert Einstein wrote his equations for General Relativity, which describe gravity, he included an "antigravity" factor called the "cosmological constant" to balance gravitational attraction and produce a static universe. But Einstein later called the cosmological constant his greatest mistake.

When modern cosmologists began to tackle cosmic acceleration and dark energy, they dusted off Einstein's cosmological constant as interchangeable with dark energy, given the new knowledge about cosmic acceleration.

That explanation didn't satisfy mathematicians Blake Temple and Zeke Vogler at the University of California, Davis, and Joel Smoller at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

"We set out to find the best explanation we could come up with for the anomalous acceleration of the galaxies within Einstein's original theory without dark energy," Temple said.

The original theory of General Relativity has given correct predictions in every other context, Temple said, and there is no direct evidence of dark energy. So why add a "fudge factor" (dark energy or the cosmological constant) to equations that already appear correct? Instead of faulty equations that need to be tweaked to get the right solution, the mathematicians argue that the equations are correct, but the assumption of a uniformly expanding universe of galaxies is wrong, with or without dark energy, because that configuration is unstable.

**An unstable solution**

Cosmological models start from a "Friedmann universe," which assumes that all matter is expanding but evenly distributed in space at every time, Temple said.

Temple, Smoller and Vogler worked out solutions to General Relativity without invoking dark energy. They argue that the equations show that the Friedmann space-time is actually unstable: Any perturbation—for example if the density of matter is a bit lower than average—pushes it over into an accelerating universe.

Temple compares this to an upside-down pendulum. When a pendulum is hanging down, it is stable at its lowest point. Turn a rigid pendulum the other way, and it can balance if it is exactly centered—but any small gust will blow it off.

This tells us that we should not expect to measure a Friedmann universe, because it is unstable, Temple said. What we should expect to measure instead are local space-times that accelerate faster. Remarkably, the local space-times created by the instability exhibit precisely the same range of cosmic accelerations as you get in theories of dark energy, he said.

What this shows is that the acceleration of the galaxies could have been predicted from the original theory of General Relativity without invoking the cosmological constant/dark energy at all, Temple said.

"The math isn't controversial, the instability isn't controversial," Temple said. "What we don't know is, does our Milky Way galaxy lie near the center of a large under-density of matter in the universe."

The paper does include testable predictions that distinguish their model from dark energy models, Temple said.

Explore further

**More information:**Joel Smoller et al. An instability of the standard model of cosmology creates the anomalous acceleration without dark energy,

*Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Science*(2017). DOI: 10.1098/rspa.2016.0887

**Citation**: Doing without dark energy: Mathematicians propose alternative explanation for cosmic acceleration (2017, December 14) retrieved 15 October 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2017-12-dark-energy-mathematicians-alternative-explanation.html

## User comments

gculpexjavjavCubicAdjunct747Isnt that what the cosmic microwave background radiation map shows us anyway?

HannesAlfvenBut, realize that there are actually an infinite number of possible solutions with this approach -- because you've basically ventured from actual physics into metaphysics.

If your expectation, by contrast, is that there must be an actual physical explanation (not just math), and that cause-and-effect must be preserved (since this is the domain of physics), then Edwin Hubble's former assistant offered the most physical explanation to date for these redshifts: that that ASSUMPTION that redshift can only have one cause is wrong, and that redshift also contains an inherent component that relates to age.

All of the attempts since Arp have been more math than physics.

JustinWatersDon't these mathematicians have a physical explanation on how this would work? They claim the expansion of space is due to our galaxy being in a less dense area of the universe. It seems that it's the dark energy / cosmological constant hypothesis that offers the mathematical fix without physically explaining how it works.

billpress11http://www.scribd...of-Physi

cs

someone11235813EikkaDid you not notice that your're just kicking the can further down the road, and anybody who's dissatisfied with your answer can say "Well, if you're satisfied with that, but here's WHY it really happens!"

Science is really concerned with what happens, not why it happens. People just confuse "why" with "how".

michbaskettMimath224Da SchneibWe're going to have to wait for more data to find out for sure, I think.

FredJoseWell, now ain't that just dandy!

This brings us back to the fact that red-shift when taken as a spatial transformation actually shows that our milky way is within a million light years from the center of something - whether the universe itself or something else. Look up research done on red-shift quantization if not familiar with this assertion.

fthompson495'Black holes banish matter into cosmic voids'

http://www.spaced...999.html

"Some of the matter falling towards the [supermassive black] holes is converted into energy. This energy is delivered to the surrounding gas, and leads to large outflows of matter, which stretch for hundreds of thousands of light years from the black holes, reaching far beyond the extent of their host galaxies."

Our visible universe is in the outflow of a super-supermassive black hole. As ordinary matter falls toward the super-supermassive black hole it evaporates into dark matter. It is the dark matter outflow which pushes the galaxy clusters, causing them to move outward and away from us. The dark matter outflow is dark energy.

The galaxy clusters which have been pushed for longer than we have are accelerating outward and away from us

Seeker2Chris_ReeveSeeker2MerritI agree with people above on the uncertainty of red shift interpretation. Scientists should be working on experiments to test their assumption. For instance, assuming expansion, red shift values depend on distance rather than velocity. This means the red shift values should be increasing over time due to objects becoming ccontinually further away. If red shift is 100% accounted for say just velocity, then the values would not be changing unless their velocities are changing.

Seeker2Benni"On Stationary Systems with Spherical Symmetry consisting of many Gravitating Masses", Albert Einstein-1939

The "Schwarzschild singularity" does not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light.

http://www.cscamm...hild.pdf

.......but living on this site are numerous ones who also imagine they are smarter than Einstein, but who like Schwarzschild never saw a Differential Equation they could solve.

Da SchneibBenni......and what you should do Schneibo, is take a course in Thermodynamics like I have, and learn why ENTROPY & DARK ENERGY cannot exist inside the same space alongside that of the other. But you don't know what ENTROPY so how could you be expected to comprehend anything about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, it's the same problem all asstrophysicists have.

......no, they are not "different", they are exactly the same, NON-EXISTENT.

Mimath224Da SchneibIt's an obvious complete waste of time.

Mimath224EikkaThat is still a "how" relationship, not a "why" relationship. The causal reason to cancer, or any physical phenomenon, is how it happens, not why it happens, because the question "why" is fundamentally the metaphysical question: "why are the laws of reality as they are". Answering how cancer happens is possible, answering why it happens is impossible because you're fundamentally asking why the universe is.

You simply misunderstood Feynman's point, and mine.

Feynman's point about the magnets was that he cannot explain it to you, because he doesn't know the ultimate answer. In normal parlance we can use "how" and "why" interchangeably, but really we're always talking about the how, not the why. The distinction is simply an artifact of language.

torbjorn_b_g_larssonBesides breaking observations on age and persistent absence of local inhomogeneities, they want to replace a simple physics of vacuum energy with universe scale waves without explaining the value of the vacuum energy and how the sum of energies add up to exactly zero (flat space) in the current cosmology. And I am sure the critique can be much expanded, I got these damning problems from quickly browsing the arxiv version.

BenniWell then, if you would like to have us believe that YOU have the appropriate math skills, then prove Einstein was wrong with this:

Albert Einstein- Oct 1939

On a Stationary System With Spherical Symmetry Consisting of Many Gravitating Masses

Author(s): Albert Einstein Reviewed work(s): Source: The Annals of Mathematics, Second Series, Vol. 40, No. 4 (Oct., 1939), pp. 922-936 Published by: Annals of Mathematics Stable URL:.

http://www.cscamm...hild.pdf

C'mon there Nomath & Schneibo, tell us all about why Einstein was wrong & put up the Differential Equations like he did in this paper...........can't do it, so you keep up with the name calling tirades.

torbjorn_b_g_larsson@CA747, sm, FJ: The cosmic background radiation shows isotropy is 10^5 times the anisotropy - so no nearby inhomogeneity - and that the universe is expanding (cool).

@HA, bp: Red/blueshift of light has many sources, ranging from trivial (relative velocities to a light source) to cosmological. Cosmic redshift is long identified as caused by universal expansion and the dark energy modulation as a specific change in expansion among others (but now dominating). You can read about it in Wikipedia on basic cosmology.

torbjorn_b_g_larssonThe FLWR cosmology instability was found by its discoverer at the outset, and it in turn was a nontrivial, early example of GR use: this is famous physics history. [ https://en.wikipe...r_metric ]

But it is true that GR, the foundation of current cosmology, needs observation to arrive at the parameter values of specific universes. Which is why you cannot dodge flat space by disregarding dark energy.

@CR: The current cosmology is based on "laboratory" physics, with the universe as the ongoing lab experiment. Sure, we cannot repeat or poke, but we do observations as usual and the continuing success of our physics show that there is no math problem (since famously you cannot derive physics from axioms but need observation). Cosmology is like biology in that sense, one universe and one tree of life to study -

so far.

torbjorn_b_g_larssonBenniYou are as completely CLUELESS as Schneibo, Nomath, et al. You like they need to take a course in Thermodynamics & learn at least a little SOMETHING about ENTROPY & the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

I've had 3 semesters of Thermodynamics in my 6 years attending Engineering School majoring in Nuclear/Electrical Engineering, and in studying the Laws of Conservation of Energy rationally educated minds know Infinite Energy out of NOTHING (Dark Energy) is an absolute impossiblty. Such an OPEN UNIVERSE MODEL would suck all the entropy out of the system rendering it to zero at the speed of light.

You know, guys like you need to cease trying to be smarter than Einstein.

ellbeeyooSeeker2Seeker2Seeker2RNPAs usual Benni, it is YOU that has need of an education. Your garbled interpretations constantly show that your claims of having received one to be a lie. If you actually want to understand entropy in a universe with dark energy you should look at some work done by someone who DOES understand the physics. E.g. here is a paper called "Dark Energy and the Entropy of the Observable Universe";

https://www.mso.a...isv2.pdf

RNPHave you actually read this paper that you so often cite?

Do you really understand its implications?

Actually, it is obvious that you do not. All Einstein proved in this paper was that BHs could not be formed in dissipationless systems. Since none of the models of BH formation we now have are dissipationless, the paper is irrelevant to modern theory.

BenniEG employs a completely different USE of the classical definition of the WORD "entropy" as applied to distribution of energy within a closed system in accordance with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

The simplest way to understand ENTROPY within the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics boils down to simply stating that it is THE DISTRIBUTION OF ENERGY WITHIN A CLOSED SYSTEM, it is an immutable law of physics.

The word "entropy" can be applied to anything so long as it is used in the context of statistical probability of random scattering of anything. ENTROPIC GRAVITY is not the same discussion as DISTRIBUTION OF ENERGY, always understand first the definition of a word within the context of that which is under discussion.

BenniRNPJust because you don't understand it does not make it untrue. If you DO understand it then explain where dissipation occurs in the paper (after all you claim to understand the math). And then explain Einstein's summary of his findings (copy and paste below) in the context of a dissipative system.

Einstein's summary;

" The "Schwarzschild singularity" does not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light"

Seeker2Just wondering - do they teach anything about entropic gravity in Thermodynamics nowadays? Ergo they don't teach anything about entropic gravity. Obviously. So do they teach anything about thermal energy density besides your closed system?

BenniJust because you don't understand it does not make it untrue. If you DO understand it then explain where dissipation occurs in the paper (after all you claim to understand the math). And then explain Einstein's summary of his findings (copy and paste below) in the context of a dissipative system.

Einstein's summary;

The "Schwarzschild singularity" does not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light

Rguy, it's the standard misapplication you black hole enthusiasts have for applying KE=1/2mv² to an

electro-magnetic wave to create the phony photo-sphere of a BH, that old relic of 19th century hypothesis of BH creation that Schneibo drags out & puts up from time to time.

BenniRNPMore garbled nonsense. Nobody that understands physics applies KE=1/2mv² to photons, The fact that you think that they DO again shows your lack of understanding of the physics that you are trying to discuss.

Benni.....and the fact that you actually believe an electro-magnetic wave can be subjected to Escape Velocity speciifically derived from the Laws of Physics for Kinetic Energy is also the reason you don't understand:

"The "Schwarzschild singularity" does not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light."

You see Rguy, first you need to take 1st & 2nd Semester Physics & learn the difference between Kinetic Energy & Electro-Magnetic Energy, until then you will never comprehend how & why they are different.

BenniWell of course, but within the the kinetic Energy Equation a constant for temperature must be included as well as Boltzman.

Whydening GyreAnd was it the same semester, taken over 3 times?

RealityCheckFrom @RNP to @Benni: While @Benni may not be an 'expert' re ENTROPY concept, he at least knows NOT to mis-apply the localized/closed INCREASING ENTROPY view to INFINITE/ETERNAL UNIVERSE 'system' whose spatio-temporal extent/parameters CAN NOT BE 'BOUNDED' as in that 'exercise' of your linked 'paper'! Hence Lineweavers etc arguments/conclusions therein are FLAWED, ERRONEOUS and yet more MISLEADING BB/Expansion etc based ASSUMPTIONS/EXERCISES that CONFUSE more than 'explain' anything/everything. The INFINITE/ETERNAL extent/process has MAXIMUM ENTROPY 'overall', hence why that 'paper' treat ONLY 'OBSERVABLE' 'arbitrarily bounded' context. Beware! :)

Whydening GyreSorry, but that is EXACTLY what he is doing.

What if it's an ALMOST bounded system?

Like a 'governor' or even just a leak?

Still infinite, but with a "throttle"...

Whydening GyreMaybe you could send him a whole new computer system for Christmas?

Benni"The "Schwarzschild singularity" does not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light."

The reason WhyGuy & RNP do not comprehend my explanation for the above is simply because neither of them have the educational background in the deeper aspects of the Laws of Physics that they're able to comprehend the already given explanations, so they start talking to themselves & come up with funny answers & present questions to me that make no sense.

Whydening GyreEu contraire, mis amigos...

I comprehend exactly what you are trying to explain.

I just disagree with your conclusions...

Your educational background might even be the constraint holding you back! ( or mis-application of it...)

"Knowledge is what remains after you've forgotten everything you learned in school..."

and...

"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education."

Wanna guess who said that...? :-)

Da SchneibKE = mv²/2

If there's no m, there's no KE. That's not even college physics; they teach it in high school.

Give it up, @Lenni.

BenniFinally Scheibo, you've learned it !!!!!! I'm making progress here!!!!

Now can you move to the next step? That being, there is no quantity of GRAVITY that can reduce the speed of an electro-magnetic wave to zero from light speed to create a body of something from which an electro-magnetic wave cannot escape?

Uh, oh, I sense a fanciful Escape Velocity dissertation coming up next, and I should remind you before you get started on that funny farm stuff, that Escape Velocity equations are derived directly from 1/2mv², Kinetic Energy.

Next.........I can just tell this is again gonna be boatloads of fun with you Schneibo.

Da SchneibTry to retain a grip on reality, @Lenni. Or at least on high school physics.

Mimath224BenniOK Schneibo, what according to you must be the quantity, number, value, calculation, etc, that you claim exists that can reduce the speed of an electro-magnetic wave from light speed to zero?

milnikThese few conclusions can solve all these bumps.

1st-universe is a sphere of infinite radius, filled with substance AETHER, from which matter is formed. This rejects stupid conclusions: the phenomenon of BB, the spread of the universe

2. Gravity and magnetism, as two basic phenomena, have an indestructible relationship and origin with Aether substance, in such a way that the gravity is Aether's relationship to the solid state of matter (mainly quarks, electrons and positrons), and magnetism is the ratio of Aether and gluon, which represent the energy state of matter.

milnikWhy did Fainman not know what to say about magnetism? Because he did not understand the relationship between Aether and the gluon.

milnikWhat is entropy? This can only be explained if the behavior of Aether is known in which everything is "submerged" from matter, ranging from quarks to clusters of galaxies.

When this behavior of the month is realized, then all of this above will be overturned, and from Einstein, Habl and Lorenz.

BenniBenniYou sound like Schneibo trying to explain Black Hole formation.

Steelwolfhttps://www.physi....232106/

and:

https://physics.s...a-photon

What was that about Highschool level data?

Whydening Gyre1ST - the Universe is an ALMOST infinite quasi spherical volume, FILLED with - space. (Along with matter in all it's various iterations, Planck sized up to (even exceeding) Galactic super-cluster size. And energy in all it's iterations. )

Any structure you may see is derived from that aforementioned space, matter and energy, via a few specific rules that specify how energy, matter and space interacts with other matter, space and energy.

And it's ALL in motion...

Da SchneibRNPAnother masterpiece of nonsense from our resident expert in gibberish!

As you would know if, as you claim, you really understood General Relativity, light is not slowed done by the gravity inside the event horizon of a black hole (that is impossible). It is simply that the gravity induced curvature of space-time in that region is such that all paths a photon can take end at the centre of the BH. I.e it can not find its way out.

As I keep pointing out, every time you post you advertise your lack of scientific education,

Benni......and you have pics of this? If you don't, you'll never prove such a phenomena exists. Or maybe you even have some math for this?

The last time Scneibo tried to model a photo-sphere he used Escape Velocity equations derived from KE=1/2mv², maybe you can do better? Just don't make the same mistake of subjecting an electro-magnetic wave to math reserved only for kinetic energy, although that's probably what you're about to do.

Seeker2Da SchneibHere's the math, @Lenni:

v/v₀ = √(1 - 2GM/r₀c²)

Perhaps you can tell us what it's derived from.

RNPOf course there is maths for this! Its called General Relativity. As for your questions about "pics",,,,

GROW UP!!! ...... and then try to learn some physics.

Da SchneibHere's your lie:

Da SchneibmilnikWhat is the center of the mass? It is the point between the two bodies around which these bodies move under the influence of a constant accumulation of the potential and kinetic energy of these two bodies, but under the influence of gravity, magnetism and led by the influence of Aether, without which there is neither mass nor movement or any phenomenon in the universe.

milnikBenni........you don't know this is not an equation for solving VELOCITY of an EM Wave within a constant gravity field? Of course you woudn't be clued in by the fact that speed of light is already entered as a constant in the denominator?

So why then do you think frequency & wavelength of an EM Wave have any correlation to it's speed? And when energy on the Electro-Magnetic Spectrum is zero no such EM Wave exists because EM Waves cease to exist if they do not have inherent Spectrum Energy above zero.

I know, maybe you should try working time dilation into this? Well, no that wouldn't work either, because that is based in Kinetic Energy Escape Velocity math which has nothing to do with the Electro-magnetic Spectrum for Energy content of an EM Wave above zero energy.

Da SchneibYou don't have any answer to what the speed of an EM wave with zero frequency is.

You can't do the math, or even identify the meaning of the equation I posted, far less the derivation of it.

This apparently is all you've got: lies.

Go ahead and lie some more, @Lenni the Liar. Then make it obvious by bobbing and ducking and weaving some more.

Lying is, among other things, boring.

Seeker2Seeker2And then there are all these stories about passing through the EH and not telling any difference. Doesn't seem to add up.

Benni......and your reading comprehension is as bad as your comprehension for distinguishing the difference between Kinetic Energy vs. Electro-Magnetic Energy, witness by:

Why is it so incomprehensible to you that at ZERO frequency on the Electro-Magnetic Spectrum EM Waves are NONEXISTENT, something that does not exist cannot be described as something moving at any speed or velocity. I know Schneibo, math & science are tough, that's why you live here as a career & I have a high technology career job.

Hey, Rguy, the next time you see a photon bouncing around on the surface of a BH, take a pic of it & post it where we can all see what a slow motion EM Wave looks like.

Da SchneibAnd you're lying again: That was exactly my point; apparently you're not smart enough to get it.

That equation says that there is some ratio of mass to radius (which are the only two variables on the RHS of the equation-- neither G nor c varies as far as anyone can tell) beyond which the frequency of light observed far from the surface of a body becomes zero, i.e. "NONEXISTENT [sic]."

What you've just done is not only agree with me but also assert the existence of black holes despite your earlier (and apparently current) denials they exist.

And if you knew any science you'd know that. Just about everyone else does.

Da SchneibI repeat: That is you typing a direct lie about what I said. It's irritating, obvious, and boring.

BenniOK Schneibo, now let me see if if can get this straight.........you in one short quip claim that I "agree with you", then in the next short quip turn around & say this: .

So, if I'm agreeing with you, and everything I'm saying is a LIE, then that means you are lying about everything you're writing, logical deduction right?

Schneibo, you're a real hoot. Do you see better why I make it so clear that I only come to the Commentary section of this site for it's ENTERTAINMENT VALUE? It's so entertaining bantering with the funny farm crowd here.

Da SchneibIt's irritating, obvious, and boring. I said exactly what the lie is. I quoted it, and said exactly how it's a lie. You can worm, squirm, dodge, duck, deny, bluster, bob, and weave, but you have no answer for what you yourself say. And every post you make, you tell another lie.

Fail.

Now, are you going to admit you just said black holes exist, or are you going to keep trying to lie?

Benni.....just as soon as you cough up the pics you've been hiding.

Da SchneibThe black hole at the center of M87 images from Hubble have been shown to you, @Lenni. You're lying again.

C'mon, @Lenni, quit lying. There isn't anywhere to dodge, anywhere to hide, anywhere to duck, anywhere to deny, anywhere to bob, anywhere to weave. Everyone can see you're lying, and it's pretty disgusting to watch. What's the matter with you, anyway? Can't you stop?

Seeker2Da SchneibYou do after all have to turn it on.

milnikI see that you do not want to embark on a detailed analysis and understanding of what I am talking about AETHER substance. You say that I did this only because science does not know how to solve some problems, so I put in my theory for this, although I want to put myself in the solution of this problem. but without evidence.

Explanation:

AETHER is a substance that can not be measured in any way, but the effects of this substance can be observed on all that is formed in the form of various forms of matter.

Aether does not possess any physical properties, nor does it have "its own magnetism."

Magnetism occurs due to the interaction of Aether and gluon, and gravity, due to the interaction of Aether and the "solid" aggregate state of matter (mainly particles with quarks). I am trying to find a non-tycoon scientific institution, to bring all this to me, and there are several hundred pages and text and formula, but I have not found it yet, as you did not find dark matter.

milnikmilnikSeeker2Was thinking about during transmission. Sorry.

Whydening GyreThat was some pretty dry sarcasm there, Mack...:-)

Don't think Milnik picked up on it...

Mimath224milnikThe Spirit of the Universe (SEU) forms everything from Aether, and it is just a component of the MEEU, both in us and in the universe, and the SEU is the manager of everything in the MEEU.

milnikI am also for science, but the one that develops towards the understanding of the structure of the universe, in which we, human beings, are the last patent of SEU. Whoever does not accept that, there is no spark of the SEU in itself, and that is the soul, and him, his free will, the water through a part of the universe, as a man leads a little dog with him, his beloved, whom he loves because the dog respects him, and it is known why.

jpdemersWish I had the math chops to follow the theory here!

milnikWhile the photon arrives on the screen, only for 1 second, how much will the telescope's direction in the universe move?

Can this be confirmed by these measurements by those experts?

someone11235813@mackita, that is entirely incorrect. He simply explained that in order to ask a how OR why question one needs to be in a framework where one can allow something to be true already. Otherwise you keep asking how or why forever. He did not evade the question at all he just said the questioner did not have enough knowledge of physics for any answer to make any sense.

Seeker2milnikIf you accept the existence of Aether substance, then everything is simply explained, related to all phenomena in the universe, such as the most important: magnetism, gravity, light, and everything else.

Magnetism: this is the mutual indestructible relationship between Aether and gluon (free gluons found in neutrons), and a special story about quark gluon plasma (mostly magnetars).

Seeker2milnikI and you are the same!

I do not even know what Maharishi is, as you do not even know what AETHER is !!

Seeker2milnikWho is this Maharishi, really?

Seeker2milnikWhy do people ask a lot of questions related only to the elucidation of one phenomenon? Because they do not know the true cause of this phenomenon. So, one answer is sufficient for countless unconstrained questions. So is my Aether substance without which there is nothing in the universe, nor can it move.

And I advise you to get serious and use awareness and intuition to find out the true causes of the phenomenon.

Seeker2milnikSeeker2Seeker2Especially noxious is the term evidence-based. Who needs evidence when you have alternate facts and intuition?

milnikSeeker2milnikIntuition is the current connection of our individual consciousness with the Absolute consciousness of the universe (ACU), which enables us to find out the TRUE CAUSES OF THE POSTER. So everything is known about this phenomenon, there is no speculation, misinterpretation, deception, and misconduct such as the Hague Tribunal and those who accused Saddam H.

Seeker2milnikSeeker2milnikmilnikSeeker2milnikDo you think they are bozons, say Higz bozon. These particles, obtained in collisions and formed from fragmented protons, neutrons, electrons, in mixed collisions, can only be those that are an integral part of the particles before the collision. Can a particle be obtained in the collision of two protons, that it is 600 times greater than the proton. Only those who do not know what is happening in these processes can claim it. In which chemical element -atom, there are: Z boson with mass 91.19 Gev / č ^ 2, or V boson with mass of 80.39 Gev / č ^ 2? If they build some fields, where are these fields? And this measure, with which the mass is expressed (c ^ 2), has no logical connection with the formation of mass. There is no formula: F = m.č ^ 2, there is no logic, nor can it calculate the energy of some mass.

milnikSeeker2Seeker2Time to call out the mystics?

Seeker2milnikAnd this is your formula: E = m.a, I do not know what it means if E-energy. F = m.a, which is the force created by the acceleration of the mass m.

Seeker2milnikThe energy is: E = m.c ^ 2,

Power: F = m.a,

m = mass, and, a = acceleration

therefore you marvel and write: a = c ^ 2, which is absurd!

Seeker2Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more