Thread: Dark Energy Formula, based on the cosmological parameters recently produced by the Planck Collaboration

Taking into account the cosmological parameters recently produced by the Planck Collaboration [1], I propose dark energy formula which is based on E = MC² and shows correlation between dark energy density, baryon density, cosmological event horizon and density fluctuations:
.

In this equation:
.

is the dark energy density, 0.6914, according to Planck 2013 results [1];

is the density fluctuations at 8h⁻¹ Mpc, 0.8288, according to Planck 2013 results [1];

is the baryon density, 0.05, according to Planck 2013 results [2];

is the area of a sphere represented by the event horizon of the Universe, calculated as , where is the distance to the event horizon (currently estimated at about 16 billion light years [3]);

is the age of the Universe, 13.7965 billion years, according to Planck 2013 results [1].

.
This formula proves to adequately describe the state of the Universe, as the calculated value of the dark energy density (0.7004) corresponds with the parameter based on the Plank Satellite measurements (0.6914).

Also, this formula can be transformed to be denominated in joules (kg m²/s²)

For that purpose, the parameters (dark energy density) and (baryon density) should be replaced for (dark energy in joules) and (baryon mass in kg), and parameter should be transformed as follows:
.

.
Where:
.

is an area of a sphere with radius , which represents the distance to cosmic event horizon, denominated in meters

is a distance to cosmic event horizon in light seconds (1 light second (ls) = 299 792 458 m)

is the speed of light in vacuum (C = 299 792 458 m/s)

.
After a small additional transformation, i.e. , the final equation has the following form, resembling the mass-energy equivalence formula :
.

.
Where:

.
is dark energy value, in joules

is density fluctuations at 8h⁻¹ Mpc, 0.8288, according to Planck 2013 results [1]

is baryon mass, in kg (as calculated below)

is speed of light in vacuum

is a distance to cosmic event horizon in light seconds, at present time about 5x10¹⁷ ls (about 16 billion light years [2])

is an age of Universe in seconds, now 4.37x10¹⁷ s (13.8 billion years [1])

.
Baryon mass of the universe region delimited by the cosmic event horizon (conveniently called “local universe”) is calculated based on the baryon density and on the premises that the total mass of the local universe equals its critical density times its volume, with the following formula:

..

.
Where:

..
is critical density of the universe

is baryon density, 0.048, according to Planck 2013 results [1]

is the total volume of the local universe, calculated as , where is the distance to cosmic event horizon in meters (1.51x10²⁶ m);

is the Hubble constant, 67.77 km/Mpcs, according to Planck 2013 results [1], or 2.17x10^-18s^-1

is the gravitational constant, 6.67x10^-11 Nm²kg^-2

.
After all the values are applied, we have:

.

and

.
Finally, after all the values are applied to , the following value for the dark energy is produced:

.

.
How this calculated dark energy value corresponds with model? According to that model, the dark energy value for 1 km³ is half a joule (citation needed). Thus, the total dark energy value for the local universe with volume 1.44x10⁷⁹m³, or 1.44x10⁷⁰km³, is 7.20x10⁶⁹ joules.

As it was demonstrated, calculation of the dark energy value on the base of dark energy formula produces the result that is only slightly (less than 1 per cent) different from the value established according to model.


References

[1] Planck 2013 results. I. Overview of products and scientific results. Astronomy & Astrophysics manuscript no. Planck Mission 2013. March 22, 2013.http://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.5062v1.pdf, page 36, Table 9.

[2] Planck 2013 results. I. Overview of products and scientific results. Astronomy & Astrophysics manuscript no. Planck Mission 2013. March 22, 2013.http://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.5062v1.pdf, page 34.

[3] Tamara M. Davis, Charles H. Lineweaver. Misconceptions about the Big Bang, Scientific American (2005), and Expanding Confusion: Common Misconceptions of Cosmological Horizons and the Superluminal Expansion of the Universe, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 2004, 21, 97-109.

I propose dark energy formula which is based on E = MC²

So you are assuming that all dark energy is stationary ?

It's not stationary, it changes in time, so I added time parameter to E = mC², as the age of Universe in years (it's obviously changing every year)

Originally Posted by Alexroma

It's not stationary, it changes in time, so I added time parameter to E = mC², as the age of Universe in years (it's obviously changing every year)

Can you show us exactly how you derived that.

Well, you are going to hate me for that, but I'll tell you anyway...
Initially, I tried to reformulate E = mC² three years ago in my post called
"Simple Equation for the Theory of Everything". It was too ambitious and was universally condemned as "not even wrong" and "utter nonsense".
Anyway, I kept working on it and at some point, a year ago, I got an idea that it can work for the whole Universe, so in E = mC² I substituted E for dark energy density, m for baryon density and C² for the area of a sphere represented by the event horizon divided by the square of the age of Universe. Amazingly, it worked with the 7-year WMAP data. However, when the Planck 2013 results came out, I realized that I needed some additional parameter to make my formula consistent with empirical evidence. By logic, the first candidate was the density fluctuations - and it worked.
I admit, my formula is derived not quite scientifically, but I am still working on the conceptual justification.

Anyway, I kept working on it and at some point, a year ago, I got an idea that it can work for the whole Universe, so in E = mC² I substituted E for dark energy density, m for baryon density and C² for the area of a sphere represented by the event horizon divided by the square of the age of Universe.

I'm afraid in all those years it has not stopped being utter nonsense. Sorry, but with this kind of thing it's better to just be blunt - you can't just reinterpret things as you see fit, and expect it to have any meaning at all afterwards. That's just not the way physics works.

I believe, physics works in many ways. My way is not mainstream, but being non-mainstream is not necessarily wrong.

Originally Posted by Alexroma

I believe, physics works in many ways. My way is not mainstream, but being non-mainstream is not necessarily wrong.

So if I take a random equation from anywhere in physics, substitute the meaning of some or all of its terms with something else, you seriously think that has anything to do with science and is perfectly permissible ?
Be careful how you answer, because that is pretty much exactly what you did.

In my case, it was not "a random equation" and I did not substitute its terms just with "something else". Believe it or not, it was a thoughtful process. If you think I am wrong, you should try to disprove my formula. Just repeating "not even wrong” mantra is not enough, because the formula is shown to work with the data. If you think that it's a coincidence, I challenge you to prove it.

It's complete nonsense.

You're back to 'Not right, not even wrong."

C^2 is not an area. Check your dimensions.

Check yours: C^2 is denominated in square kilometers divided by square seconds, so it's possible to substitute it for area divided by square time. I admit, it's tricky, but still legitimate.

Originally Posted by Alexroma

Check yours: C^2 is denominated in square kilometers divided by square seconds, so it's possible to substitute it for area divided by square time. I admit, it's tricky, but still legitimate.

It's meaningless, as is the rest of your nonsense.

I am not going to argue along these lines: it's kind of degrading.

I love the smell of numerology in the morning.

It does. Although it is slightly more dangerous.

Sorry for dismembering your holy cow to cook formulas in my crackpot.

Originally Posted by Alexroma

Sorry for dismembering your holy cow to cook formulas in my crackpot.

What a nice mix of metaphors. Are you a liberal arts major? You write better than you formulate.

That's right, may be after all these years of public humiliation with self-invented formulas I should try a different approach, like in popular science books. Really, the "dark energy" is only metaphorically dark and energetic. I already used my writing skills to express some ideas about quantum mechanics, and so far nobody called it "nonsence", to my own surprise: Hidden message in Don Quixote

If you think I am wrong, you should try to disprove my formula.

You need to tell us first what relation you propose for the radius of the cosmological event horizon as a function of time. These are not independent parameters. And neither is the baryon density, btw. Give us those relations, and then we'll see what you formula actually predicts if we vary t.

Originally Posted by Alexroma

That's right, may be after all these years of public humiliation with self-invented formulas I should try a different approach, like in popular science books. Really, the "dark energy" is only metaphorically dark and energetic. I already used my writing skills to express some ideas about quantum mechanics, and so far nobody called it "nonsence", to my own surprise: Hidden message in Don Quixote

I think you are either having a laugh at our expense, or you are a complete nutjob. Either way, it isn't good.

Originally Posted by Alexroma

I already used my writing skills to express some ideas about quantum mechanics, and so far nobody called it "nonsence", to my own surprise: Hidden message in Don Quixote

It's nonsense.

Happy now?

Unless it was a subtle attempt to debunk that "bible code" crap...

Originally Posted by Alexroma

I already used my writing skills to express some ideas about quantum mechanics, and so far nobody called it "nonsence", to my own surprise

"Writing skills" refuted.

You need to tell us first what relation you propose for the radius of the cosmological event horizon as a function of time. These are not independent parameters. And neither is the baryon density, btw. Give us those relations, and then we'll see what you formula actually predicts if we vary t.

Thank you for the suggestion, really. That's a good one. I'll try, just give me some time.

Originally Posted by Alexroma

Thank you for the suggestion, really. That's a good one. I'll try, just give me some time.

Ok then. The idea is that your model must fit not just one data point, but must be valid at all cosmological times. Furthermore it needs to be in accordance with already known physics, so in the case that would be General Relativity and Quantum Field Theory.
You have taken on quite a task here.

You have taken on quite a task here.

To the event horizon and beyond! That's my slogan.

Originally Posted by Alexroma

You need to tell us first what relation you propose for the radius of the cosmological event horizon as a function of time. These are not independent parameters. And neither is the baryon density, btw. Give us those relations, and then we'll see what you formula actually predicts if we vary t.

Thank you for the suggestion, really. That's a good one. I'll try, just give me some time.

I'm sure if you achieved immortality, we could suspect a sensible equation after you've studied physics for a few thousand years. Oh, and potatoes are a vegetable, and a very proud one, so don't insult them.

Originally Posted by shlunka

Oh, and potatoes are a vegetable, and a very proud one, so don't insult them.

You mean, "Turnips."

The proud potatoes is a starch. And it's a compliment.

Putting together explanation for the "dark energy formula", I decided to rename it as the "Local Universe Equation" (Ω_Λ = ơ₈Ω_bA_eh/t²), as it better explains the essence.

For the purposes of this equation, the local Universe is defined as a part of the whole Universe with the following features:

1. Its center is located at any stationary point of observation.
2. It is delimited by the cosmological event horizon.
3. The size of the local Universe changes in time.

It is well known that the whole is bigger than any of its constituting parts. In case of Universe, the whole Universe is infinite, and it means that no matter how big a local universe could be, the rest of the Universe is always bigger. So, the local Universe is influenced by the constant omnidirectional gravity pull from the rest of the Universe.

Accordingly, in the local universe equation, the state of the local universe is described by the correlation between its external and internal factors, i.e. the external gravity (the accumulated gravitational pull from the rest of the Universe), represented by the dark energy density (Ω_Λ), the internal gravity resulting from the mass of the local universe, represented by the baryonic matter (Ω_b), the density fluctuations (ơ₈) and the size of the local universe represented by the area of a sphere delimited by the event horizon (A_eh) which changes in time (t).

The external gravity pulls the local universe apart from all directions. The more baryonic matter is gone beyond the event horizon, the less the internal gravity becomes, so the more difficult for the local universe is to hold itself together, and that results in the observed phenomenon of the “accelerated expansion”. Hence, the “dark energy” is basically explained by the effect of the external gravity.

How this equation describes the evolution of the local universe? At the early times the density fluctuations were near 0, so the “dark energy” density was negligent and there was no accelerated expansion. At some point, about 9 billion years after Big Bang, the density fluctuations increased to the level that made the “dark energy” density overcome the baryon density, so the accelerated expansion began, as the local universe started to lose baryons into the regions beyond its event horizon, with the resulting additional reduction of the internal gravity. As the time goes on, factor t (time) is getting bigger, and factor Aeh (the size of the local universe) is getting smaller with the shrinkage of the event horizon. Consecutively, at some point in the future, in about 20 billion years from the present time, the ratio Aeh/t² will become less than 1, and the dark energy density will start to decline, resulting in the slowing down of the accelerated expansion (the local universe will continue to expand at lesser and lesser rates).

Please, consider it to be the first draft of a preliminary sketch of the general concept. Any constructive comments, besides just “nonsense”, would be appreciated.

Originally Posted by Alexroma

the whole Universe is infinite

We don't know that, there are several possible global topologies and geometries for the universe.

i.e. the external gravity (the accumulated gravitational pull from the rest of the Universe), represented by the dark energy density (Ω_Λ)

Dark energy density has no connection to gravitational pull "from the rest of the universe", quite the opposite actually.

The more baryonic matter is gone beyond the event horizon

You probably mean cosmological horizon.

Hence, the “dark energy” is basically explained by the effect of the external gravity.

If it is the net effect of two forces, then how can you associate a "density" with it ?

so the “dark energy” density was negligent and there was no accelerated expansion.

You forgot the inflationary period.

as the local universe started to lose baryons into the regions beyond its event horizon,

That makes no sense, because you said before that you can choose any stationary point of observation as its "centre", so obviously then there can't be any horizon at all.

and factor Aeh (the size of the local universe) is getting smaller with the shrinkage of the event horizon.

Again, see above. And why would the radius decrease ?

Thank you for the comments! I'll think them over and reply in detail later.

As to your comment saying "That makes no sense, because you said before that you can choose any stationary point of observation as its "centre", so obviously then there can't be any horizon at all", by "stationary point" I meant a "fixed" point, that cannot be changed once you chose it. So, I should say "fixed stationary point", I guess.

by "stationary point" I meant a "fixed" point

Stationary with regards to what ?
Fixed with regards to what ?

I agree, there is some relativistic problem with those words. I think, I should call it "static". "Static point of observation", meaning that everything else moves relative to it.

Originally Posted by Alexroma

I agree, there is some relativistic problem with those words. I think, I should call it "static". "Static point of observation", meaning that everything else moves relative to it.

Then it moves relative to everything. There is no 'static point'. There is no preferred frame.

I got your point. Way to go with definitions... Anyways, I am encouraged with all these constructive comments. Thanks!

Originally Posted by Alexroma

I got your point. Way to go with definitions... Anyways, I am encouraged with all these constructive comments. Thanks!

Then I assume you would wet yourself with excitement if someone actually had something positive to say.

Insults stimulate me as well. Keep going...

the whole Universe is infinite

Comment: We don't know that, there are several possible global topologies and geometries for the universe.

You have to choose among the possibilities. When I say “it’s infinite”, that’s just one of all the possible assumptions.

i.e. the external gravity (the accumulated gravitational pull from the rest of the Universe), represented by the dark energy density (Ω_Λ)

Comment: Dark energy density has no connection to gravitational pull "from the rest of the universe", quite the opposite actually.

Dark energy by definition is regarded as counteracting gravity. If gravity acts like a pull, the dark energy is logically viewed as a push. However, there is no actual indication that it’s a push. In my model, dark energy is counteracting the gravity of the local universe as an external force, so it’s a pull from the opposite direction.

The more baryonic matter is gone beyond the event horizon

Comment: You probably mean cosmological horizon.

Right.

Hence, the “dark energy” is basically explained by the effect of the external gravity.

Comment: If it is the net effect of two forces, then how can you associate a "density" with it ?

I did not formulate it clearly enough. Better say, “Dark energy” is essentially an external gravity. Anyway, the “density” of the dark energy is actually its ratio. If they say “the dark energy density is 0.6914”, it means it’s 0.6914 out of 1, or 69,14 per cent of all the forces.

so the “dark energy” density was negligent and there was no accelerated expansion.

Comment: You forgot the inflationary period.

When I say “at the early times”, I mean times after inflation. My equation is not valid for the inflationary period, because inflation was driven not by the dark energy, but by a negative-pressure vacuum energy density. Generally speaking, I believe there could not be any sensible equation for the inflation, as it was caused by the Big Bang coming from singularity, and singularity is just a point without any physical parameters. You can’t make an equation without knowing the parameters of its factors.

as the local universe started to lose baryons into the regions beyond its event horizon,

Comment: That makes no sense, because you said before that you can choose any stationary point of observation as its "centre", so obviously then there can't be any horizon at all.

That’s a misunderstanding. I meant it to be a constant point of observation that you can’t change on the fly.

and factor Aeh (the size of the local universe) is getting smaller with the shrinkage of the event horizon.

Comment: Again, see above. And why would the radius decrease ?

You can find the explanation here:
http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~charley/p...neweaver04.pdf
See, in particular, Figure 3.

If gravity acts like a pull, the dark energy is logically viewed as a push

Gravity is neither push nor pull, it is a geometric property of space-time.

You can find the explanation here:
http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~charley/p...neweaver04.pdf
See, in particular, Figure 3.

I am familiar with this text, but I do not see the connection to your comment that the cosmological horizon would "shrink" over time. Perhaps you can elaborate on this.

Gravity is neither push nor pull, it is a geometric property of space-time.

As I see it, in math terms it's a space-time curvature, and in physical terms it's a mutual attraction of the bodies (that's why I say it's a pull). If it were only a "geometric property", then how could "dark energy" counteract it? Just streamlining space-time curvature wouldn't be enough to account for accelerated expansion.

I am familiar with this text, but I do not see the connection to your comment that the cosmological horizon would "shrink" over time. Perhaps you can elaborate on this.

You said before that my model "needs to be in accordance with already known physics". That's what I am trying to achieve. According to that text, the distance to cosmological event horizon is getting smaller, so I assume that it shrinks.

If it were only a "geometric property", then how could "dark energy" counteract it?

Dark energy appears as a cosmological constant in the Einstein field equations :



The appropriate cosmological solution in the presence of this constant, the Lambda-CDM model, fully accounts for the accelerating expansion of the universe. This is all pure GR, i.e. geometry of space-time.

Just streamlining space-time curvature wouldn't be enough to account for accelerated expansion.

Yes it is, see above.

According to that text, the distance to cosmological event horizon is getting smaller, so I assume that it shrinks.

The text does not say anywhere that the cosmological horizon is getting smaller; you must be very careful how you read those diagrams. The time axis in illustration 3 is vertical, and the comoving distance of the cosmological horizon is horizontal. As you increase time, you increase the comoving distance; this of course makes sense, because as time passes the universe expands, and the cosmological horizon recedes from us. Anything else would not be logical.

I am going for two-weeks trip, will reply later, as I need to formulate it carefully in order to avoid misunderstandings. Sorry for delay.

Good evening. The only explanation is the superluminal speed energy between matter and antimatter.

Source = A_eh
Distance = r

With Planck time:
Speed ​​or frequency of the fluctuation of the energy from the source of emission and the emitted matter - following by the emitted matter to it's source of origine

= (tp r²) + (tp √r)

Then we can say :

Ω_Λ = [ơ₈ ( t r²)+(t √r ) ] Ω_bA_eh/t²

Once the charge consumed (matter) the energy goes back at it's source A_eh to pick up a new load.




See this pic ---> http://blogs.scienceforums.net/Arnau...metry_long.jpg

Originally Posted by ArnaudAntoineAndrieu

Good evening. The only explanation is the superluminal speed energy between matter and antimatter.

Source = A_eh
Distance = r

With Planck time:
Speed ​​or frequency of the fluctuation of the energy from the source of emission and the emitted matter - following by the emitted matter to it's source of origine

= (tp r²) + (tp √r)

Then we can say :

Ω_Λ = [ơ₈ ( t r²)+(t √r ) ] Ω_bA_eh/t²

Once the charge consumed (matter) the energy goes back at it's source A_eh to pick up a new load.

Meaningless word salad.
With dressing.

It seems to be part of the crackpot disease, this need to spew nonsense into other people's threads. They all do it. A kind of pseudo-science Tourette's.

Originally Posted by ArnaudAntoineAndrieu

Good evening.

I thought you had gone because it was pointed out that you were talking nonsense.

The only explanation is the superluminal speed energy between matter and antimatter.

Nothing is superluminal.

What is "speed energy"? Something else you have made up.

Gibberish deleted...

Originally Posted by ArnaudAntoineAndrieu

Once the charge consumed (matter) the energy goes back at it's source A_eh to pick up a new load.

Of course it does. Nurse! Another one has stopped taking his pills.

By the way, what about your patent? Have you got one or were you lying?

Originally Posted by Strange

It seems to be part of the crackpot disease, this need to spew nonsense into other people's threads. They all do it. A kind of pseudo-science Tourette's.

Originally Posted by ArnaudAntoineAndrieu

Good evening.

I thought you had gone because it was pointed out that you were talking nonsense.

The only explanation is the superluminal speed energy between matter and antimatter.

Nothing is superluminal.

What is "speed energy"? Something else you have made up.

Gibberish deleted...

I knew that wiki said nonsense.


From wiki : Fields with imaginary mass (tachyonic particle)

"Tachyonic fields play an important role in modern physics. Perhaps the most famous is the Higgs boson of the Standard Model of particle physics, which in its uncondensed phase—has an imaginary mass. In general, the phenomenon of spontaneous symmetry breaking, which is closely related to tachyon condensation, plays a very important role in many aspects of theoretical physics, including the Ginzburg–Landau and BCS theories of superconductivity. Another example of a tachyonic field is the tachyon of bosonic string theory."

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by ArnaudAntoineAndrieu

Once the charge consumed (matter) the energy goes back at it's source A_eh to pick up a new load.

Of course it does. Nurse! Another one has stopped taking his pills.

By the way, what about your patent? Have you got one or were you lying?

this pattern below ?

Originally Posted by ArnaudAntoineAndrieu

I knew that wiki said nonsense.

Nope.
But what people understand by misreading Wiki can be nonsense.
From the same article:
A tachyon (pron.: /ˈtæki.ɒn/) or tachyonic particle is a hypothetical particle.
Despite theoretical arguments against the existence of faster-than-light particles, experiments have been conducted to search for them. No compelling evidence for their existence has been found.

And from the article referenced:
but it was soon realized that Feinberg's model in fact did not allow for superluminal speeds
Today, the term "tachyon" refers both to hypothetical particles that always move faster than light and to fields with imaginary mass. (I.e. NOT superluminal).

bla bla

Nice post.
Exactly the same intellectual content as all of your others.

And an illustration of how you arrive at your "conclusions" - by ignoring facts.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Nice post.
Exactly the same intellectual content as all of your others.

And an illustration of how you arrive at your "conclusions" - by ignoring facts.

You just have to take my "theory" since January 2012 and compare it now with Copenhagen interpretation
Since I really think I'm on the right track (I know very well that this is not your opinion).

The problem for you with my "theory" is that everything is written in French. So explain it to you in English will take to too long time.

I have to go.

Originally Posted by ArnaudAntoineAndrieu

The problem for you with my "theory" is that everything is written in French.

No.
The problem I have is that it's nonsense.
And stop assuming I don't read, write and speak French.

Originally Posted by ArnaudAntoineAndrieu

I have to go.

Good. Perhaps you could stay away this time.

Originally Posted by ArnaudAntoineAndrieu

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Nice post.
Exactly the same intellectual content as all of your others.

And an illustration of how you arrive at your "conclusions" - by ignoring facts.

You just have to take my "theory" since January 2012 and compare it now with Copenhagen interpretation
Since I really think I'm on the right track (I know very well that this is not your opinion).

The problem for you with my "theory" is that everything is written in French. So explain it to you in English will take to too long time.

I have to go.

stop bothering typing out "theory," to address your ideas...try hypothesis, or maybe even garbage from now on.

To Markus Hanke:

Gravity is neither push nor pull, it is a geometric property of space-time.

As you did not agree with my previous counter-argument about gravitation in terms of General Theory of Relativity, I have to invoke the original GTR paper. In the beginning of chapter XXXII of GTR, entitled “The Structure of Space According to the General Theory of Relativity”, Einstein said: “ACCORDING to the general theory of relativity, the geometrical properties of space are not independent, but they are determined by matter”. So, physics have prevalence over geometry in GTR. Hence, it can be said that gravity acts as a force of attraction (or simply a pull) that makes the space-time curve.

The text does not say anywhere that the cosmological horizon is getting smaller; you must be very careful how you read those diagrams. The time axis in illustration 3 is vertical, and the comoving distance of the cosmological horizon is horizontal. As you increase time, you increase the comoving distance; this of course makes sense, because as time passes the universe expands, and the cosmological horizon recedes from us. Anything else would not be logical.

Well, it’s indeed comoving, and I don’t see anything wrong about it. That's exactly what I need for my equation: by definition, the comoving distance is out-factored for the expansion, and the expansion is already factored in the other part of the equation. According to the cited diagrams, cosmic event horizon is not receding: it stays the same in terms of proper distance and gets smaller in terms of comoving distance. In other words, in terms of comoving distance it shrinks, but the proper distance to it stays the same, because the shrinkage is offset by cosmic expansion.

To ArnaudAntoineAndrieu:

The only explanation is the superluminal speed energy between matter and antimatter.

Why is it "only"? You have to consider all possible mainstream explanations based on the established concepts before recurring to fancy "superluminal speed" ideas. Somehow, people tend to believe that new concepts can be easier explained by the alternative notions, such as superluminality, but those emerging notions are not fully explained as yet. You’d better base you ideas on something more solid, otherwise they are going to crash on themselves.

Like numerology and equation fudging?

After all, numerology is not that bad. One mathematician, who worked as a cryptologist with Turing, said: "There have been a few examples of numerology that have led to theories that transformed society ... and one can well include Kepler on account of his third law. It would be fair enough to say that numerology was the origin of the theories of electromagnetism, quantum mechanics, gravitation.... So I intend no disparagement when I describe a formula as numerological". (I. J. Good).

Originally Posted by PhDemon

Now see if you can find a quote in favour of equation fudging

I found a good one in Google. The author is rather obscure, but he/she makes a point: Fudging "was done to attempt to find a way to bend the models to the data (rather than the other way around, which would have been dishonest). It's been done many times before and will continue to be done, because it works, usually by showing one of two things; that the model being"fudged" is fatally flawed in that it cannot be made to match reality, or to show that the model was *almost* correctly formulated in the first place". (nuny@bid.nes)

I agree, it doesn't look valid, and that's what I am doing here: trying to validate it with some explanations. Oh yeah, I am having fun in the process, but why should I be sad about it? Even if my equation of the Universe is doomed, that does not necessarily mean the end of the world. Just one more reason to cheer up

The more baryonic matter is gone beyond the event horizon...

Comment: You probably mean cosmological horizon.

Right.

On the second thought, it's not right, because there might be some confusion between different types of cosmic horizons, as the term "cosmological horizon" is commonly used as the other name for "particle horizon". Citation: The particle horizon differs from the cosmic event horizon, in that the particle horizon represents the largest comoving distance from which light could have reached the observer by a specific time, while the event horizon is the largest comoving distance from which light emitted now can ever reach the observer in the future. (Lars Bergström and Ariel Goobar: "Cosmology and Particle Physics", WILEY (1999), page 65).

It is to say, I definitely meant "cosmic event horizon".

I transformed the original formula so it can be denominated in joules, and added it to my first post. It looks to produce the total value of the dark energy with high precision, in comparison to the established value.

Alexroma: According to that text [http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0310808v2.pdf], the distance to cosmological event horizon is getting smaller, so I assume that it shrinks.

Markus Hanke: The text does not say anywhere that the cosmological horizon is getting smaller...

Actually, it does - I found it on the second reading, in the explanation to Figure 1 on page 3: "Our event horizon is our past light cone at the end of time, t = ∞ in this case. It asymptotically approaches χ = 0 as t → ∞".

I edited and expanded the beginning of the cosmological concept related to the local universe equation. Now it reads:

For the purposes of the local universe equation (Ω_Λ = ơ₈Ω_bA_eh/t²), the local universe is defined as the following:

1. The local universe is a part of the whole Universe, which is supposed to be infinite.
2. The center of the local universe may in principle be located at any permanent point of observation, consistent with the concept of cosmic isotropy.
3. The volume of the local universe is delimited by the cosmic event horizon, which is the largest comoving distance from which light can ever reach the center of the local universe.

Based on the assumption of the infinity of the whole Universe, it can be argued that no matter how big a local universe could be, the rest of the Universe would be always bigger. So, the local Universe is influenced by the constant omnidirectional gravity pull from the rest of the Universe.

If gravity propagated instantaneously, the very notion of the local universe would not make sense, because all the gravitational effects would be evenly distributed in space and time. However, since the maximum speed of gravity in a vacuum is equal to the speed of light (according to the General Theory of Relativity), and the radius of the Universe is an infinite number of light-years, while its age is 13.8 billion years, the effects of gravity for a permanent observer at the center of local universe increase over time. For example, after 5 billion years since the birth of Universe the observer was influenced by the gravitation of all objects located within a radius of 5 billion light years, and after 10 billion years since the birth of Universe the observer was influenced by the gravitation of all objects located within a radius of 10 billion light years (while the sum of all external gravitational forces acting as a pull from all directions equals zero at the center of the local universe, out of center the picture is different, and the further the objects are from the center, the bigger is the influence of external gravitational forces on them, because they are closer to the border of the local universe). The effects of gravity increase in geometric progression, as the force of gravity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance to the source of gravity, and the total mass of the objects that cause the gravitational effect increases in direct proportion to the growth of the volume of space in which they are to be located, and the volume, in turn, is a function of the distance to the third power (V = 4/3 πr³). The accelerated growth of the gravitational effects leads to accelerated fly-off of the distant objects from the observer, with the resulting cosmic event horizon, which defines the boundaries of the local universe.