Search FQXi

If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help

February 25, 2018

ARTICLE: Readers' Choice: Out of the Darkness [back to article]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Don Limuti ( wrote on Apr. 4, 2011 @ 22:23 GMT
General relativity may still account for the dark stuff in the universe. Please see:

neral relativity accounts for the precession of Mercury but without a good visualization of what is happening. Note that Mercury's precession about the sun looks on a very simple scale like the speed up of spiral galaxies due to dark matter.

Don L.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Apr. 7, 2011 @ 02:23 GMT
To account for DM and DE in an exact way requires more than general relativity. Dark energy is easy to understand in a classical setting. Insert the cosmological constant into the Einstein field equation and equate it to a momentum energy tensor for a mass-energy distribution. In this case the vacuum energy accounts for the DE, where the momentum-momentum components have a negative pressure. However, this does not tell us what the vacuum structure is, or what the system of eigenvalues is associated with it. With will require supergravity.

Cheers LC

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Dave Rutherford wrote on Apr. 14, 2011 @ 01:33 GMT
I've shown here that it is possible to fit the Type 1a Supernovae data with a model that does not include an accelerating expansion, thus eliminating the need to postulate dark energy. The only arbitrary parameter in this model is the Hubble Constant and the reduced chi-square (goodness-of-fit) of the model is 0.98.

It also eliminates the Horizon Problem, making Inflation unnecessary, and proposes an alternative origin of the CMBR.


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Dave Rutherford replied on Apr. 26, 2011 @ 19:16 GMT
I've extended my redshift vs. distance modulus plot to include Gamma Ray Burst (GRB) data. The goodness-of-fit reduced chi-square is now 0.99.


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Bashir Yusuf wrote on Apr. 17, 2011 @ 03:58 GMT
pleaze take look

I think its related to this article.


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Apr. 19, 2011 @ 23:24 GMT
Something can be understood as being farther away, and have increased gravity, and be magnified. Increasingly transparent/invisible space brings something/objects closer and farther from the eye. This is how we see.

If we can show and increasing, relative gravitational constancy in relation to distance in/of space, then this accounts for images that are understood as larger (magnified) and smaller (farther away) in astronomical/telescopic observations. The setting sun (as red) and the dropping of an object into increasingly transparent/invisible space -- as it falls to the earth -- encompasses such relatively constant gravity, and it relates to how a closer object (as it is seen) can be farther away (and magnified). Note the right (90 degree) angle encompasses by such a description. Astronomical observations are interactive creations of thought that are similar to dream vision. This is related to the vision of the baby, as it can see farther when it is outside the womb.

Red-shift -- closer (larger) and farther (smaller) in an increasingly invisible/transparent space.

Invisible space ultimately compresses and extends visible space.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author DiMeglio replied on Apr. 19, 2011 @ 23:31 GMT
It can now be understood that our farthest astro./telesc. obs. are relatively disintegrated in keeping with increasingly transparent/invis. space.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Loubriel Sosa wrote on Apr. 23, 2011 @ 08:59 GMT
Using Eddington’s Polytrope [ρ = K1P1/γ (Lane-Emden’s equation variant)] we can state that the cold force works on identical principles for its quanta of space. Simply put, if the radius of a metron [1.3991285073 x 10^-33 cm] can be used as a reference point, we can say that the pressure in a mole of mass is equivalent to the density of metrons within that mole exerting its omnidirectional force. So this is to say that Eddington’s Polytrope can be used as a model to show how the metrons will interact in a volume of space or mass. To note, Eddington’s Polytrope isn’t limited to the state of gas as its model for interaction in mass, but actually covers phase changes of matter as the pressure in a given volume is increased. As pressure is increased, the phases of matter begin to change within that volume of mass [from gas to liquid, liquid to solid; vice versa]. Here’s an example, if we take a balloon and fill it to capacity with air at room temperature, the balloon stretches to accommodate the expansive pressure the gas is exerting on the walls of the balloon. Using Eddington’s Polytrope equation we would find that the pressure inside the balloon is greater than the pressure outside of it because of the limitation of space the balloon can contain.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Apr. 23, 2011 @ 09:25 GMT

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Apr. 24, 2011 @ 12:41 GMT
Student: my equations are off.

Instructor: hmmm add some invisible dust.

S: ok that's better.

I: ok now integrate it into your equations.

S: ok .. hmmm but now I can't solve :-/

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on May. 9, 2011 @ 06:44 GMT
General relativity says that the speed of light varies with phi, the gravitational potential, in accordance with the equation c'=c(1 plus 2phi/c^2). An alternative, Newton's emission theory of light, gives a slightly different equation: c'=c(1 plus phi/c^2). The Pound-Rebka experiment says that the frequency varies with phi in accordance with the equation f'=f(1 plus phi/c^2). So the Pound-Rebka experiment confirms general relativity or its alternative, Newton's emission theory of light? Don't forget the formula: (frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey wrote on May. 13, 2011 @ 09:31 GMT
An excellent article, well done! It encapsulates the current muddle of affairs perfectly. I can offer a solution to dark energy and the energy of early inflation quite easily. It's given in the 'Is Reality Digital or Analog?(FQXi's 3rd Essay Contest). See here Reality Was Born Analog But Will Digital Die? by Alan Lowey

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Sridattadev wrote on May. 31, 2011 @ 20:53 GMT
Dear All,

Who am I? I am duality, I is singularity.

Conscience is the cosmological constant.



Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

paul valletta wrote on Jun. 18, 2011 @ 16:29 GMT
From a distance all Galaxies are points/source of white light. Close up all Galaxies are Black/Dark?

The closer one looks into light, the darker it gets !

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Douglas W Lipp wrote on Aug. 8, 2011 @ 23:58 GMT
The website contains a paper that explains Dark Matter and Dark Energy. The theory is open to comments.While further work is necessary, the foundation for a new approach to Physics is there. It bridges the gap between the quantum particle and wave duality.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Douglas W Lipp wrote on Nov. 24, 2011 @ 00:04 GMT
CIIGTheory was carried to New Zealand in a pewter black handbag by some zealous Norwegian residents. How sad.

What is going on I ask? And why am I always the last to know?

Douglas W Lipp -

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Kopernik wrote on Dec. 28, 2011 @ 21:13 GMT
Sir, Onthe question of why the universe is expanding. The apparent cause is a volumetric increase in dark energy. Even more simplistic is the mechanism or morphology of that growth of dark energy.

To wit:

See the COSMOS dark matter survey. Copyright NASA, ESA and R. Massey, Cal. Tech.

In this dark matter survey the recent past is on the left; the distant past on the right. As we can see and assert there has been a continuing depletion of dark matter over time. By implication we can assume those voids were steadily filled with dark energy. The presence of real matter (baryons) too miniscule to notate, would also be increasing as time moved ‘to the left’ forward to present time.

Hypothesis: Dark matter is being converted to real matter and dark energy.

Mechanism: 1. Dark matter is attracted to the vicinity of a galaxy; its ultimate destination the intimate vicinity of the nucleus of that galaxy (called the Tobilz zone in “Black Holes; Dark Matter”).

2. Under those extreme conditions of temperature, pressure, magnetic and electric fields, etc. an endothermic reaction takes place. The dark matter ‘particle’ acquires a particle (Higgs boson?) that imparts mass, rendering it ‘real’. It also surrenders a ‘particle’ that becomes what we refer to as dark energy.

3. After many processing steps the new real particle is available for star formation, etc.

4. The real conditions of the galaxy are adverse to dark energy. Post haste it makes its way towards and collects in those spaces between galaxies. So great is this outflow in some galaxies that real matter can be carried or floated some distance through the galaxy where it eventually settles out like a sediment. In a few cases this ‘sediment’ can be carried beyond the environs of the galaxy.

We can assume that in the early universe, 90% or more was dark matter. After about six billion years of conversion the balance between dark matter and dark energy tipped in favor of dark energy. What is interesting is we can calculate, based upon rates of conversion, when the reserves of dark matter will be too low to support new star formation. Then commences the next phase of universal development.

Sorry, didn’t mean to get so wordy. I just get carried away by the subject.


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Douglas W Lipp wrote on Jan. 27, 2012 @ 04:06 GMT

I'm late but so glad to have returned and read your post


Hypothesis: Dark matter is being converted to real matter and dark energy.

Answer - Yes, this is the MTS equation [apply vector arrows on the "T" to show forward and reverse vector Time (rate)] The conversion you reference is rate or % "c" dependent

Everything is attempting to reach "Time Equilibrium"

You have a nice site on Dark Matter

I hope somebody takes the time to understand CIG Theory



Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Douglas Lipp wrote on Feb. 16, 2012 @ 03:11 GMT
De Broglie Equation supports CIG Theory & its Explanation of Dark Matter / Dark Energy:

- follow me here please: here, "X" = wavelength because I don't know how to make the wavelength lambda symbol

IF: X=h/p (De Broglie equation) , where X = wavelength, h = Planck constant, p = momentum

THEN: X = h/mv : because p ( momentum ) = mass multiplied by velocity {m = mass, v = velocity )

and, (please confirm my math here )

equivalent equation : m v X = h

equivalent equation: m = h / vX

Then, what I see is that when "v" gets very large, "m" gets very small ! "h" is a constant, and, just for the sake ( of it let's assume that the wavelength is non-changing here, for our example.

[Although speed of light "c" does equal wavelength multiplied by frequency]

So, at faster rates of travel, mass gets smaller: m = h / vX [as "v" in the denominator gets bigger, "m" gets smaller] with everything else remaining constant.

At "c" , mass disappears altogether (it has turned to Space (MTS & CIG Theory)

Why are we told that mass gets greater toward it traveling at "c" (Einstein) ????

Here, I see it getting smaller? What am I missing?

About the conflct here - does mass get greater (Einstein) or smaller (CIG Theory) at rates approaching "c" ??

CIG says smaller as Matter actually unfolds into it (mass) becoming Space itself. The mass of Dark Matter is that of a Time nature (read Time Equilibrium in CIG Theory), as opposed to units of grams. The mass has turned to Space with an increase in Velocity, as is apparent in the De Broglie equation: m = h / vX

I am trying to learn Schrodinger's equation, and, if you already know it, and you would like to jump ahead, please apply CIG Theory to it as well. So far, as I understanding the probability wave function, CIG interprets it as being real, with the "electron" smeared out (into it being newly created Space), collapsing only when it slows down (i.e. the black hole "M" version of the MTS equation)

comment here or to

read theory at :

Thank You,

the author - CIG Theory

[also professes to solve Dark Energy and offer a new explanation of pressure]

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Michael Haddid wrote on Nov. 12, 2012 @ 13:03 GMT
Very recently, there have been unexpected advances in understanding dark energy. In fact if the claim of the Egyptian Scientist M. S. El Naschie is correct, then there is no more a mystery regarding dark energy. El Naschie’s solution is disarmingly simple and was presented at two conferences which were almost entirely devoted to his work. The first was held in Bibliotheca Alexandrina early...

view entire post

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.