[Alex Dullius Siqueira (OP)]

Einstein was right, cosmological constant for Dark Energy (EMF)
 No universal expansion ratter the interaction of EMF's, (interaction of particles on the quantum level/ Illusion Gravity)
 And dark matter being nonexistent and the gravitational pull being represented by the Dark energy sort of backing over space-time fabric?

 Does any of that make sense?

[Bored chemist]

 Does any of that make sense?

Not much.

[Colin2B]

You use the term EMF which has a very specific meaning in physics, can you explain your usage.
As @Bored chemist  says, as an opening statement your post doesn’t make much sense as it doesn’t offer any explanation of what you are saying or why.

[guest39538]

Einstein was right, cosmological constant for Dark Energy (EMF)
 No universal expansion ratter the interaction of EMF's, (interaction of particles on the quantum level/ Illusion Gravity)
 And dark matter being nonexistent and the gravitational pull being represented by the Dark energy sort of backing over space-time fabric?

 Does any of that make sense?

Dark matter is when dark energy becomes visible by means of a field density increase position (a) of x.

When dark energy is really dense, you can see blue skies.

[Bored chemist]

Einstein was right, cosmological constant for Dark Energy (EMF)
 No universal expansion ratter the interaction of EMF's, (interaction of particles on the quantum level/ Illusion Gravity)
 And dark matter being nonexistent and the gravitational pull being represented by the Dark energy sort of backing over space-time fabric?

 Does any of that make sense?

Dark matter is when dark energy becomes visible by means of a field density increase position (a) of x.

When dark energy is really dense, you can see blue skies.

It's usually best not to pay a lot of attention to ramblings by Thebox.

In this instance you can tell it's nonsense because he says "Dark matter is when dark energy becomes visible".
The defining aspect of dark energy and dark matter is that they are not visible.

The fact that this is obviously true will probably not stop him coming back with further dross.

[Alex Dullius Siqueira (OP)]

I'm wondering that C is a limit not a speed.
 That Edwin Hubble misinterpreted shifts on light by being property when they are optical virtual effects.
That Dark energy is correspondent to the interaction of electromagnetic fields generated by plasma configurations of galaxies, also the plasma configuration giving the shape for galaxies and rotation not gravity.
 Gravity being but an illusion, Einstein used gravity to explain gravity. If earth is bending space-time acting like a funnel, no matter how close the moon would be it would be stationary.
 Explain gravity as causing the funnel and gravity as the force causing the free fall feels wrong.
 Dark Matter being a correct prediction inside a wrong model.
 Dark Matter being resultant of interaction of particles on the quantum level, and different as observed on a planet for example, happening in open space.
 Dark Matter being represented by some sort of infusing space regions suffering from the interaction of different EMF.

 What I wondering is, sorry if I can't be specific about witch EMF ratter then galaxies EMF.

 Einstein was wrong, Newton and also Hubble.
 Seems that is all related to plasma and electromagnetic field interactions.
 
Also for the concept of time I wondering that time as I mentioned once, feels like a comparative between different scales.
 Time being related only to math and never a real entity.
 Also a universe based on 2D interactions on the smallest scale that when in interaction of tree or more, provide 3D holographic views for a 3D object.

 Thing about an asteroid from the atomic point of view, there is empty volume in between the electromagnetic interactions of the atoms that compose the asteroid.
 I'm assuming that never was a asteroid in the first place, not as long as there is still empty volume in between the atoms.

 If light can be slowed down when passing trough different mediums, C is not a speed but a universal limit and doesn't need to be constant.

 Still thinking about it. Trying to find precisely "where" the models started to fail and creating magical particles to explain.

 Actually I'm stuck trying to mix some TheBox concepts with GoC ideas.

[Bored chemist]

 Actually I'm stuck trying to mix some TheBox concepts with GoC ideas.

I wouldn't bother.