Hi jsaldea12, Yor_on, Geezer etal,

Now this is in "New Theories" I would like to speculate just a tad about why the idea of dark energy might be explainable using a simple revision of our observations. If the explanation of Dark Energy lies in the concept of the newbielink:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy#Cosmological_constant

[nonactive] then for whatever reason the Universe is 'apparently" a lot bigger than it "appears" rather than assuming that this hypothetical pressure is needed to create a stable equilibrium.

The cosmological constant has negative pressure equal to its energy density and so causes the expansion of the universe to accelerate. The reason why a cosmological constant has negative pressure can be seen from classical thermodynamics; Energy must be lost from inside a container to do work on the container. A change in volume dV requires work done equal to a change of energy −p dV, where p is the pressure. But the amount of energy in a box of vacuum energy actually increases when the volume increases (dV is positive), because the energy is equal to ρV, where ρ (rho) is the energy density of the cosmological constant. Therefore, p is negative and, in fact, p = −ρ.

newbielink:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy#Cosmological_constant [nonactive]

The "appearance" of the size for the Universe is based on the newbielink:http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/redshift.html

[nonactive] and observations which "calibrates" the continuous expansion to a

simple curve (see reference). What if there has been no allowance for propagation times for light back to observers to provide for an accurate "

as of this minute" size for our Universe since this size depends on where we think the most distant objects are by "observation" right now. It is the "right now" size of the Universe that provides us with the cosmological constant not the density of matter several billion years ago when this light started on it way to us. The cosmological constant depends roughly on the total mass in the universe divided by it's volume. Both the mass and the volume must be measured at the "same time" to get the density.

It is easy to prove that the fastest an object can "appear" to move directly away from the earth or an observer is only C/2 simply because for any earth based second of time a radially moving object at nearly the speed of light moves nearly one light second further away from the earth every second. This means a light signal from this far point takes almost one

extra second to return to earth. In the meantime the object has moved a further light second away. The apparent average speed then is half what it

appears to be from observations from earth. Here is a "mud map" of this function plotting the recession of a nearly light speed "rocket" away from the earth and indicating time for light to return to earth (when it is

observed at a particular position). It is clear that the "speed" of a outwardly moving object will always appear to be less than C/2 (all other things being equal).

The evaluation of a velocity (total distance over total time) is two fold... the

real velocity which is shown by the upper curve (nearly C) and the

observed velocity which is shown by the lower curve (around C/2). Looking horizontally across at the T = 2 observer time. Flashes of light from a near light speed rocket will reach the observer at T = 2 after the rocket has traveled for a total of 4 seconds. Two seconds to travel two light seconds distance and an extra two seconds for that light to return to the observer. The velocity the observer 'apparently" sees is 2/4 C... half the speed of light (approximately). At the

actual instant this light signal reaches the observer (T =2) the rocket is actually 4 light seconds away from the observer. The light flashes will take an additional 4 seconds to return to earth... a total of 8 seconds (four seconds to reach that point at nearly the speed of light plus 4 seconds for the light flash to be actually seen by the observer on earth)... still C/2 ... etc. The further out the rocket goes the longer the light signals take to return to base.

The top curve is the 'actual" position of a fast moving object and after 8 seconds it's light takes 8 seconds to return to earth. At the same time on earth only light that was emitted after 4 seconds has had time to return to earth so the apparent velocity appears to be halved to that noted in the upper curve and the object is seen at a distance of only 4 light seconds from earth (roughly). One way to evaluate the overall size of the universe is given by "plotting" all the objects around the universe moving away from us at a speed close to C and their apparent distance according to Hubble.

From this plot you can see this may be what is actually observed... Any additional velocity of recession from C/2 to nearly C must be the result of the parametric expansion of the universe due to frame dragging this "rocket" away from the earth. The expansion on the Universe may actually "drag" distant points away from each other "faster than light" if the distance between two nominated points is so great that the space between them is increasing faster than the time light takes to traverse it. In such cases light is "left behind" over these cosmic distances leading to

Rindler Foliations.

Outside of our current Rindler Foliation light from the next foliation can no longer reach us from these distances due simply from the "universal expansion" or frame dragging the most distant points apart. It could look as though this was the most distant part of the Universe... while actually it is only the most distant part of the

observable Universe.

This means dynamically even the gravitational effect of certain parts of an expanding universe is also "disappeared from our point of view" because gravity also propagates at the finite speed of light... distant stars become more and more red shifted and finally "blink out" as they are dragged across the foliation boundary... taking all their "influence" with them.

newbielink:http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s7-05/7-05.htm

[nonactive]Putting this another way... Considering the universe as if it were the "two dimensional surface of a big rubber balloon" and the distance between points (as marked on it's surface with a felt pen)... is the shortest distance along the outer surface of the balloon. Also assuming there is

no residual velocity such as a rocket might have on this surface. On this rubbery surface of an expanding balloon the points most distant on the balloon (opposite sides) move apart the fastest as it is "blown up" through expansion. Adjacent points hardly move away from each other at all. So this effect is not noticed over short interstellar distances but is far more important over much larger distances since this Hubble Expansion is scale dependent.

Hubble Shift uses the

uncorrected Doppler Shift (according to this linked description)... newbielink:http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/redshift.html

[nonactive]. This description is

patently not enough to determine this outward velocity of frame dragged particles since the "true" velocity does not correct for the "increasing propagation distance" effect that "scale dependent" nearly light speed recession provides. The error in this 'factor" gets more and more serious as the true frame dragging velocity approaches a relative velocity of C. Current position of the actual most distant objects might be as much as twice as distant so therefore appearing to be artificially close. This uncorrected effect would expand the volume of the Universe conservatively at least by a factor of 4 times accounting for the 'Dark Energy" nicely. This is because the Doppler shift depends on only

observed velocity not

actual velocity. It allows for only a simple upper speed of C for the most rapidly outward moving object (that is just the way Doppler Shift works). Frame dragging is not accounted for in this simple scheme. Any observed additional velocity due to expansion between points would be an additional delay but it is only the observed motion of the source that counts here.

So the simple linear equation v = H x d is inappropriate for very great distances where every point is being frame dragged away from every other point. It might even be a

lot more if matter is being dragged across a Rindler Foliation "

hollowing out our Universe gravitationally" accelerating the lowering of the overall density even more due to the expansion of matter beyond the Rindler radius effectively removing this material from observation and from acting on a brake on expansion. Now that would lead to an awesome size for the Universe wouldn't it?