What if Dark Energy is weakening?

*"If confirmed, the hints that dark energy might be weakening would bring the first substantial change in decades to the generally accepted theoretical model of the Universe. And if dark energy is not constant, that would hold implications for theories of how the Universe has evolved and for

Re: NYTimes.com: A Tantalizing ‘Hint’ That Astronomers Got Dark Energy All Wrong

On Sun, Apr 14, 2024 at 5:53 PM Jesse Mazer wrote: *> "The article > at > https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/04/dark-energy-might-not-be-constant-after-all/ > <https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/04/dark-energy-might-not-be-constant-after-all/> > says: 'One a

Re: NYTimes.com: A Tantalizing ‘Hint’ That Astronomers Got Dark Energy All Wrong

The article at https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/04/dark-energy-might-not-be-constant-after-all/ says: 'One alternative theory proposes that the universe may be filled with a fluctuating form of dark energy dubbed “quintessence.” There are also several other alternative models that assume

Re: NYTimes.com: A Tantalizing ‘Hint’ That Astronomers Got Dark Energy All Wrong

On Thu, Apr 4, 2024 at 6:00 PM Brent Meeker wrote: > "*The next question will be what causes DE to change?"* That is a very good question but nobody has a very good answer, but at least now we know that's the correct question to ask. Assuming of course this result holds up an

Re: NYTimes.com: A Tantalizing ‘Hint’ That Astronomers Got Dark Energy All Wrong

"If the work of dark energy were constant over time, it would eventually push all the stars and galaxies so far apart that even atoms would be torn asunder,..." That's not true.  The estimated strength of dark energy, w=-1, implied that galaxy clusters and any smaller groups w

NYTimes.com: A Tantalizing ‘Hint’ That Astronomers Got Dark Energy All Wrong

Explore this gift article from The New York Times. You can read it for free without a subscription. A Tantalizing ‘Hint’ That Astronomers Got Dark Energy All Wrong Scientists may have discovered a major flaw in their understanding of that mysterious cosmic force. That could be good news

Re: Dark energy-powered devices

On Monday, April 8, 2019 at 4:03:19 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 3:29 PM Mason Green > wrote: > > >> >> *> Here’s another idea I just came up with, that doesn’t harness dark >> energy itself so much as the Hawking radiation of t

Re: Dark energy-powered devices

dark energy itself so much as the Hawking radiation of the de Sitter horizon. A civilization could build a sphere around a cold black hole (I.e., a rotating or charged black hole whose Hawking temperature is lower than that of the cosmological horizon; such a black hole would need to be very

Re: Dark energy-powered devices

On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 3:29 PM Mason Green wrote: > > *> Here’s another idea I just came up with, that doesn’t harness dark > energy itself so much as the Hawking radiation of the de Sitter horizon.A > civilization could build a sphere around a cold black hole (I.e., a > r

Re: Dark energy-powered devices

Here’s another idea I just came up with, that doesn’t harness dark energy itself so much as the Hawking radiation of the de Sitter horizon. A civilization could build a sphere around a cold black hole (I.e., a rotating or charged black hole whose Hawking temperature is lower than

Re: Dark energy-powered devices

On Sun, Apr 7, 2019 at 7:35 PM Lawrence Crowell < goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote: >> There are important differences that need to be explained. You can solve >> the problem of figuring out if Schrodinger's Cat is alive or dead simply by >> opening the box and looking, but there is no box

Re: Dark energy-powered devices

On Sunday, April 7, 2019 at 5:03:07 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 7, 2019 at 2:26 PM Lawrence Crowell > wrote: > > >> > there is no comprehensive axiomatic system for Diophantine equations. >> Quantum numbers as Gödel numbers for integer solutions to Diophantine >> equations are

Re: Dark energy-powered devices

On Sun, Apr 7, 2019 at 2:26 PM Lawrence Crowell < goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote: > > there is no comprehensive axiomatic system for Diophantine equations. > Quantum numbers as Gödel numbers for integer solutions to Diophantine > equations are then not entirely computable and there

Re: Dark energy-powered devices

Apr 2019, at 01:36, John Clark > > wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 5:23 PM Mason Green > wrote: > > *> It appears as though it would indeed be possible to build a device >> powered by dark energy. Such a device could keep running forever (as long >> as the univ

Re: Dark energy-powered devices

In 1972 Bennet showed that a universal Turing machine could be made both logically and thermodynamically reversible,[7] and therefore able in principle to perform arbitrarily much computation per unit of physical energy dissipated,

Re: Dark energy-powered devices

> On 3 Apr 2019, at 01:36, John Clark wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 5:23 PM Mason Green <mailto:masonlgr...@hotmail.com>> wrote: > > > It appears as though it would indeed be possible to build a device powered > > by dark energy. Such a device co

Re: Dark energy-powered devices

ect kicks in. This is not exactly eternal, for eventually these ETs will run out of resources in their galaxy, but it does seem to suggest dark energy could be mined. There is however no "free lunch" per se here. https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/257476/how-did-the-univ

Re: Dark energy-powered devices

ld run a heat engine with that and get work out of it. As we got closer to the Big Rip the rod would get shorter because Dark Energy would start to tare it apart, but that's OK because even though the rod is shorter the acceleration is greater so the heat production would (perhaps) be constant. By t

Re: Dark energy-powered devices

On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 2:15 AM Mason Green wrote: > *> Actually now that I’m thinking about the spring idea some more, it > seems like you might be right about it not working. Dark energy will change > the shape of the potential energy/displacement curve for sure, making the >

Re: Dark energy-powered devices

Uh oh, looks like the “giant atom” idea might not work either. I had been under the assumption that dark energy would cause two orbiting bodies to spiral apart. But on second thought, it seems like what would actually happen is that an orbit affected by dark energy would still be stable

Re: Dark energy-powered devices

Actually now that I’m thinking about the spring idea some more, it seems like you might be right about it not working. Dark energy will change the shape of the potential energy/displacement curve for sure, making the spring strongly anharmonic. However it doesn’t look like it will result

Re: Dark energy-powered devices

like Earth’s the force pulling down on the spring is constant (it’s the weight of the spring itself and whatever is attached to it, which doesn’t vary significantly with height over the distances we observe). With a constant rather than an oscillating force, you won’t get amplification of os

Re: Dark energy-powered devices

gh that dark energy becomes significant). At such a distance, dark > energy would cause the objects’ orbits to spiral further and further apart. > On the other hand, because the objects are charged, they radiate away > energy as they orbit, and this radiation provides a braking force that >

Re: Dark energy-powered devices

I saw a discussion on Physics Forums about an idea similar to yours (involving spools of string steadily unrolling due to dark energy. One poster asked what would happen once the string ran out, the other person said you could just create more length of string with the energy you generated

Re: Dark energy-powered devices

On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 5:23 PM Mason Green wrote: *> It appears as though it would indeed be possible to build a device > powered by dark energy. Such a device could keep running forever (as long > as the universe keeps expanding forever and vacuum decay doesn’t occur) and > be abl

Dark energy-powered devices

It appears as though it would indeed be possible to build a device powered by dark energy. Such a device could keep running forever (as long as the universe keeps expanding forever and vacuum decay doesn’t occur) and be able to survive (or prevent) the heat death of the universe. Even proton

Re: It's possible dark energy isn't as powerful as we thought

On 4/15/2015 2:00 AM, LizR wrote: Assuming there isn't a future discovery that supernovae operated differently in the early universe, then yes these results mean dark energy isn't as powerful as thought, but it's still there. I'm not sure what the flatness measurement indicates, in terms

Re: It's possible dark energy isn't as powerful as we thought

Assuming there isn't a future discovery that supernovae operated differently in the early universe, then yes these results mean dark energy isn't as powerful as thought, but it's still there. I'm not sure what the flatness measurement indicates, in terms of global deceleration-vs-acceleration

Re: It's possible dark energy isn't as powerful as we thought

To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Mon, Apr 13, 2015 6:40 pm Subject: It's possible dark energy isn't as powerful as we thought ...or maybe nonexistent, even

Re: It's possible dark energy isn't as powerful as we thought

wrote: Or not powerful enough to keep the universe expanding unto dissipation? -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Mon, Apr 13, 2015 6:40 pm Subject: It's possible dark energy isn't as powerful as we thought

Re: It's possible dark energy isn't as powerful as we thought

of that time it was actually decelerating, it only started to accelerate 5 billion years ago. This makes sense because long ago the matter density of the universe was greater than now so matter's gravity would tend to slow the expansion, and Dark Energy which works in the opposite direction

It's possible dark energy isn't as powerful as we thought

...or maybe nonexistent, even??? http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-universe-might-be-expanding-a-lot-slower-than-we-thought -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,

Re: It's possible dark energy isn't as powerful as we thought

possible dark energy isn't as powerful as we thought ...or maybe nonexistent, even??? http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-universe-might-be-expanding-a-lot-slower-than-we-thought -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group

Re: It's possible dark energy isn't as powerful as we thought

Or not powerful enough to keep the universe expanding unto dissipation? -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Mon, Apr 13, 2015 6:40 pm Subject: It's possible dark energy isn't as powerful as we thought ...or maybe

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

On Friday, November 28, 2014 8:49:33 PM UTC, Liz R wrote: The point is that galaxies should be expanding in relation to bound systems like stars and the solar system, in a similar manner to the universe though for a different reason (so almost certainly not at the same rate). And that

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

OK, I'm just curious to knowI don't know what plausible answers were provided, I don't recall any that addressed this point. Maybe I missed them, I don't have a lot of time to spend on this forum (or any forum...) I suppose if the amount of DM being annihilated is very small relative to the

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

of course. How can a piece of data involve a dark energy / dark matter interplay, with a calculated implication for the expansion of the universe, if the same data cannot at least say something about smaller scales. You are 100% in the logic IMHO. I'm sorry I didn't see it because I

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

point in terms of your actual line of inference. You are absolutely right of course. How can a piece of data involve a dark energy / dark matter interplay, with a calculated implication for the expansion of the universe, if the same data cannot at least say something about smaller scales. You

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

noticeable effect. Is it supposed to be relatively negligible? Liz - I've got to admit I've only just now seen your point in terms of your actual line of inference. You are absolutely right of course. How can a piece of data involve a dark energy / dark matter interplay, with a calculated

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

On Monday, December 1, 2014 2:14:33 AM UTC, yanniru wrote: I posted a reference here that suggested how distant black holes could become correlated. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1308.0289v1.pdf I saw / have seen the argument...always read things you reference if see them. What I would say is

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

I have read that reference. It is obvious that you have not. But then almost everything you post here is baloney. So it may not matter if you read the paper or not. Richard On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 9:25 PM, zibb...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, December 1, 2014 2:14:33 AM UTC, yanniru wrote: I

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

On Monday, December 1, 2014 2:30:05 AM UTC, yanniru wrote: I have read that reference. It is obvious that you have not. But then almost everything you post here is baloney. So it may not matter if you read the paper or not. Richard I read and we even exchanged about it. But there are

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

That is exactly the same kind of correlation that Motl, Gharibyon, Penna and I are talking about. It is a form of cosmic entanglement. However, if you recall I extrapolated from GP's paper that black holes must be intelligent to be monogamus. And in a post to Bruno I speculated the particle wave

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

On Monday, December 1, 2014 4:24:38 AM UTC, yanniru wrote: That is exactly the same kind of correlation that Motl, Gharibyon, Penna and I are talking about. It is a form of cosmic entanglement. how do we know when an idea like cosmic entanglement is a good scientific idea or a catch-all

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

Zibby, They may be interested, but they cannot publish such an interest and put their careers at risk. It is only emeritus types like myself that can put such speculations in print. What they can publish is the math behind the limited conclusion. David Deutsch is the exception. Zappy On Sun,

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

On Monday, December 1, 2014 5:05:43 AM UTC, yanniru wrote: Zibby, They may be interested, but they cannot publish such an interest and put their careers at risk. It is only emeritus types like myself that can put such speculations in print. What they can publish is the math behind the

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

On Thursday, November 27, 2014 8:49:02 PM UTC, Liz R wrote: Still no comment on the fact (if it is a fact) that if galaxies are losing mass thru dark matter annihilation, they should be expanding. It's a fact, Bruno's estimate levels are too low at present obviously reasonable accepted

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

The point is that galaxies should be expanding in relation to bound systems like stars and the solar system, in a similar manner to the universe though for a different reason (so almost certainly not at the same rate). And that should be visible as we look back in time. So it's an acid test for

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

LizR wrote: The point is that galaxies should be expanding in relation to bound systems like stars and the solar system, in a similar manner to the universe though for a different reason (so almost certainly not at the same rate). And that should be visible as we look back in time. So it's an

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

I have wondered if space is expanding by adding on more space, keeping the space of say our galaxy intact. Or is the actual space within our galaxy getting bigger, along with each of us. And if the latter, how would we know.? Richard On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 5:12 PM, Bruce Kellett

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

Richard Ruquist wrote: I have wondered if space is expanding by adding on more space, keeping the space of say our galaxy intact. Or is the actual space within our galaxy getting bigger, along with each of us. And if the latter, how would we know.? Richard Space is expanding uniformly. But

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

On 29 November 2014 at 11:59, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: I have wondered if space is expanding by adding on more space, keeping the space of say our galaxy intact. Or is the actual space within our galaxy getting bigger, along with each of us. And if the latter, how would we

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

On Thursday, November 27, 2014 2:52:48 AM UTC, Liz R wrote: On 26 November 2014 at 22:05, zib...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: On Tuesday, November 25, 2014 6:50:00 PM UTC, Liz R wrote: And I said that it seemed to me that if dark matter was being destroyed galaxies should be expanding,

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

Still no comment on the fact (if it is a fact) that if galaxies are losing mass thru dark matter annihilation, they should be expanding. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

LizR wrote: Still no comment on the fact (if it is a fact) that if galaxies are losing mass thru dark matter annihilation, they should be expanding. The reports I have seen about possible detection of dark matter annihilation events suggest a rate that is far too low to have any appreciable

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

valid one time. What you reason above restates the same point in a different form. Based on the current worldview, the idea of dark energy gobbling dark matter, causing expansion to slow down.is nonsensical. Can't be adjustedcan't be made into sense. Not without getting

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

On 26 November 2014 at 22:05, zibb...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, November 25, 2014 6:50:00 PM UTC, Liz R wrote: And I said that it seemed to me that if dark matter was being destroyed galaxies should be expanding, and asked if there was any observational evidence to support this. Liz,

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

The article was about the bad fit. On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 5:58 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 25 November 2014 at 11:53, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: The continuing tests have been done. The results are in. That is what the article is about. I only saw references to a

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

And I said that it seemed to me that if dark matter was being destroyed galaxies should be expanding, and asked if there was any observational evidence to support this. On 25 November 2014 at 23:44, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: The article was about the bad fit. -- You received

Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

http://www.space.com/27852-dark-energy-eating-dark-matter.html my comment is testimony. my worldview predicted this. honest. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

Isn't this news a few months old? On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 2:05 PM, zibb...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.space.com/27852-dark-energy-eating-dark-matter.html my comment is testimony. my worldview predicted this. honest. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

On Monday, November 24, 2014 9:17:09 PM UTC, yanniru wrote: Isn't this news a few months old? dunno, I just saw it now on the Mind list on yahoo groups -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

Shouldn't this be testable? If DM is disappearing then galaxies should be expanding as there is less mass holding them together, surely? (And large scale structure may also be different now from what it was in the past.) Is there evidence of this sort of change? On 25 November 2014 at 10:48,

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

The continuing tests have been done. The results are in. That is what the article is about. On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 5:32 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Shouldn't this be testable? If DM is disappearing then galaxies should be expanding as there is less mass holding them together, surely?

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

On 25 November 2014 at 11:53, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: The continuing tests have been done. The results are in. That is what the article is about. I only saw references to a bad fit with CMBR measurements, there was no mention of expanding galaxies. -- You received this

Some seemingly obvious and visually confirmed thoughts on dark energy and matter

Some seemingly obvious and visually confirmed thoughts on dark energy and matter 1) Dark matter is potentially energy via E= mc^2. Dark energy is already energy. Regular matter is also potentially energy via E = mc^2 2) So everything is energy or potentially energy. 3) It is known

What are monads ? Can they help us to understand the dark energy universe ?

What are monads ? Can they help us to understand the dark energy universe ? I don't know about you, but I have trouble seeing how it all works from just particle physics. Monads or substances or concepts are a possible starting point of viewing the universe in the large instead

Re: [Fwd: The Brain's Dark Energy Scien amer]

On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 2:52 PM, Charles charlesrobertgood...@gmail.comwrote: On Feb 23, 9:02 am, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: But recent analysis produced by neuroimaging technologies has revealed something quite remarkable: a great deal of meaningful activity is occurring

Re: [Fwd: The Brain's Dark Energy Scien amer]

On Feb 23, 9:02 am, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: But recent analysis produced by neuroimaging technologies has revealed something quite remarkable: a great deal of meaningful activity is occurring in the brain when a person is sitting back and doing nothing at all. The best

[Fwd: The Brain's Dark Energy Scien amer]

As long thought, consciousness is only a small part of what the brain does - maybe even only a small part of "thinking". Brent Original Message The Brain's Dark Energy ( Preview ) Brain regions active when our minds wander may hold a key to understanding ne

Re: dark energy

Hi, Hal: ... I used motivator in the sense that a gas engine is a motivator of dynamics Indeed? does a gas engine 'work' without dynamics - what is supposed to be motivated by its activity? This question came in as an initiator to my reply, since 'dynamics' is bound to a process in time

Re: dark energy

George and Hal: Why does a question emerge? Why does it 'imply' to be answered? (I avoid 'why do we feel') Where did 'incompleteness' occur from? All these are very 'human' concepts and we impersonate them into a wider sense. WE (as Bruno asked: who is that? and I replied 'humanly thinking

Re: dark energy

Hi John and George: In my post: I see no motivator to any dynamics within the Everything other than the incompleteness of some of its members and the unavoidable necessity to progressively resolve this incompleteness. I used motivator in the sense that a gas engine is a motivator of dynamics.

Re: dark energy

Hal Ok, there is no feeling but there is motivation. There is no feeling of motivation and there is motivation without feeling. This is totally alien or the English language is broken. George Hal Ruhl wrote: Hi George: I see no feeling of anything in a Something. There is only an

Re: dark energy

Hi George: I see no feeling of anything in a Something. There is only an absence of the information needed to answer meaningful questions that are asked and must is be answered. Hal Ruhl At 11:13 PM 1/17/2008, you wrote: Hal, Allright. You are saying that incompleteness is the (only)

Re: dark energy

Hi George: I see no motivator to any dynamics within the Everything other than the incompleteness of some of its members and the unavoidable necessity to progressively resolve this incompleteness. Hal Ruhl At 12:29 AM 1/17/2008, you wrote: Hal Ruhl wrote: This is an automatic process

Re: dark energy

Hal, Allright. You are saying that incompleteness is the (only) motivator of the members. In other words the members feel motivated by incompleteness. They do have the feeling of being incomplete that motivates their behavior. Is this correct? George Hal Ruhl wrote: Hi George: I see no

Re: dark energy

, Le Chatelier Principle is used. George Hal Ruhl wrote: I have touched on this subject before but the following is my current view of Dark Energy In my approach a Something is on a quest for completeness within the Everything. Based on this, the following points can be made: 1

Re: dark energy

have touched on this subject before but the following is my current view of Dark Energy In my approach a Something is on a quest for completeness within the Everything. Based on this, the following points can be made: 1) The number of current incompleteness sites for a given Something would

Re: dark energy

Hi George: At 09:59 PM 1/16/2008, you wrote: Hal, I cannot follow you: one the one hand you say: Something if incomplete will have to increase its completeness to answer meaningful questions This is an automatic process like a mass has to answer to the forces [meaningful questions] applied

Re: dark energy

Hal Ruhl wrote: This is an automatic process like a mass has to answer to the forces [meaningful questions] applied to it. What in the psyche of the mass makes it answer to the forces? George --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are

dark energy

I have touched on this subject before but the following is my current view of Dark Energy In my approach a Something is on a quest for completeness within the Everything. Based on this, the following points can be made: 1) The number of current incompleteness sites for a given Something

Projections to the boarder of the universe, an explanation for dark energy?

through areas close to the boundary. Can you see (the energy of) the shadows on the wall of the ancient universe? Do the projective inference and the conditions at the boarder provide an unexpected explanation for the dark energy as well as for the belief in accelerated expansion