Dark Energy - Confirmation of Larsonian Expansion?

Discussion concerning the first major re-evaluation of Dewey B. Larson's Reciprocal System of theory, updated to include counterspace (Etheric spaces), projective geometry, and the non-local aspects of time/space.
davelook
Posts: 85
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 9:50 pm

Dark Energy - Confirmation of Larsonian Expansion?

There is an interesting presentation of the recent discovery of the accelerating universal expansion here...

http://hubblesite.org/hubble_discoverie ... energy.php

"We do know this: Since space is everywhere, this dark energy force is everywhere, and its effects increase as space expands. In contrast, gravity's force is stronger when things are close together and weaker when they are far apart. Because gravity is weakening with the expansion of space, dark energy now makes up over 2/3 of all the energy in the universe.

It sounds rather strange that we have no firm idea about what makes up 74% of the universe. It's as though we had explored all the land on the planet Earth and never in all our travels encountered an ocean. But now that we've caught sight of the waves, we want to know what this huge, strange, powerful entity really is.

The strangeness of dark energy is thrilling.

It shows scientists that there is a gap in our knowledge that needs to be filled, beckoning the way toward an unexplored realm of physics. We have before us the evidence that the cosmos may be configured vastly differently than we imagine. Dark energy both signals that we still have a great deal to learn, and shows us that we stand poised for another great leap in our understanding of the universe."

Doesn't his sounds exactly like the workings of Larson's postulated "scalar motion in 3D" concept? As gravity gets weaker, the new "force" takes over to move things apart.

Also, I've been thinking of the relationship between charge and gravity I uncovered awhile ago...

$ke^2/(Gm_{e}^2)^{1/3}=1/128.5^2$

Since the electron mass/energy represents that magic threshold where light can become stable matter, I think there is a hidden geometric relationship between charge and mass/gravity that this is trying to tell us. What do you all think?

"From their data, the researchers obtained a value of the fine structure constant, a number that characterizes the inherent strength of the electromagnetic force. As expected theoretically, the newly obtained value of 1/128.5 is significantly larger than the 1/137 observed for a fully screened electron."

findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_n6_v151/ai_19123470/

StevenO
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 4:52 pm

Dark Energy versus Big Bang

If I understand it well, an expanding universe could be explained by the "Big Bang" only, but to explain an accelerating expanding universe we need "dark energy" too?

That alone would put Occam's Razor greatly in favor of Larsonian expansion

Regards,

Steven

bperet
Posts: 1501
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Aether its dark or it isn't

Astronomers just use "dark energy" to cover up using the word "aether". If you look at it, it's the same aether model that was proposed a century ago, but they still fail to recognize the progression of the natural reference system.

Space is expansive, because of the unit, outward progression.

But time is the reciprocal of space, so we view temporal "outward" progression as an inward, scalar motion--a contraction--gravity.

Dark energy accounts for that attractive force of temporal progression. And remember that the reciprocal of the "vacuum of space" is the "solid of time"--it looks like a fluid.

IMHO, Larson totally "nailed it" with the reciprocal relation between space and time, and the implications thereof.
Every dogma has its day...

StevenO
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 4:52 pm

Progression or attraction?

bperet wrote: "Dark energy accounts for that attractive force of temporal progression. And remember that the reciprocal of the "vacuum of space" is the "solid of time"--it looks like a fluid."
Now you got me confused Bruce. I thought dark energy was the astronomers label for the space progression? Also: do you mean "fluid" as a mixture of "solid time" and "space vacuum" ?

bperet
Posts: 1501
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Now you got me confused

Now you got me confused Bruce. I thought dark energy was the astronomers label for the space progression?

Been a while since I looked at it, but they use "dark" in both applications--to explain the progression/expansion of the universe and to slow things down that are moving too fast (like the spin of the galaxy), which is a coordinate time function. I think they label one as dark matter and the other as dark energy, but I don't recall which is which offhand.

Also: do you mean "fluid" as a mixture of "solid time" and "space vacuum" ?

Yes. Particularly in astronomical applications, you seldom have all the dimensions in one aspect (all time, material/TR or all space, cosmic/SR), so you literally get fluid-like behaviors. All stars have all three speed ranges present, in both sectors.

Now that I think about it, that is probably why my globular cluster simulation went crazy... I didn't add in the intermediate and ultra-high speed effects, just used gravity. The ultra-high speed range is basically anti-gravity motion and would encourage stars to orbit each other at an equilibrium point.
Every dogma has its day...