rationalskepticism.org

AMR wrote:
Here is what I take away from your reasoning process:

Oldskeptic wrote: So, where does this increase of potential energy come from if it is not being added from outside the isolated system that is our universe? Heat loss.

AMR wrote:
Then you go on to say,

Oldskeptic wrote:
Your question would make sense if the dissipation of heat was what was driving expansion, but it is not. The dilution of thermal energy is a result of expansion not the cause.

AMR wrote:
You try to construct your idea around a supposed need to preserve the 1st Law of Thermodynamics above all else;

It is not my idea, it is part of the expansion model. And it has nothing to do with preserving the 1st law, there is no need to preserve or protect it. It depends on nothing other than that matter and energy exist and this equation E = MC 2 which converts to M = E/ C 2 .

AMR wrote:
so it is "heat loss" that drives the inflation? No you say it is the result of expansion not the cause. But what is the cause of the expansion? and what is losing losing heat?

Heat loss being a result of expansion has nothing to do with what the cause is. It doesn’t matter what the cause is, if it is expanding without heat being added to cause the expansion then it is cooling.

Oldskeptic wrote:
I didn’t say heat loss from matter. It is heat loss from the surrounding environment, and the surrounding environment of new empty space is previously existing empty space

AMR wrote:
As with hackenslash above you totally misunderstand a basic physical concept here. Heat, the transfer of energy from matter, can only be emitted from material objects.

There’s just a bit of circular reasoning there that I won’t argue with because if you define heat as “The transfer of energy from matter” then of course heat could only come from matter. But is it true? Matter is formed by three things: Electrons, up quarks, and down quarks. Electrons are not matter and neither are quarks. It is only when they are combined it a certain way that there is matter. And they could only combine to form matter after the universe had cooled from 10^19 GeV to 1 MeV. That’s a lot of heat loss, so where did it go? It didn’t go anywhere really, it was spread out into space as it expanded.

AMR wrote:
So when you make statements like "I didn’t say heat loss from matter" you are making no sense. Where else does "heat" come from?

Let’s put this back into context:

AMR wrote:
Ok, so far as I know this is a totally new theory proposed by you. One obvious objection would be that the heat loss of matter would be totally insufficient to account for Dark Energy.

Oldskeptic wrote:
I didn’t say heat loss from matter. It is heat loss from the surrounding environment, and the surrounding environment of new empty space is previously existing empty space. The universe began at 10^29 degrees Kelvin. The ambient temperature of the universe today is 2.76 Kelvin. Where do you think that all of that energy in the form of heat went? With no surrounding environment, because the universe is an isolated system, for this heat to wick away, what would be your explanation? Mine is that with every cubic centimeter of space created by expansion it becomes more spread out and so diluted and empty space gets cooler as expansion increases.

Never did I say that any form of heat loss drives or is responsible for dark energy.

AMR wrote:
Matter emits heat in the form of black-body radiation so the EM field itself can have a temperature associated with it. An object in a vacuum can thus radiate its thermal energy into space in the form of light, but empty space itself does not radiate heat.

What are all those radio images of cosmic background radiation all about then? All of the universe is filled with it particularly “empty space.” Empty space is filled with photons mainly in the microwave spectrum that have existed since expansion began, and to explain why the overall temperature of space has and is cooling physicists sight dilution of these photons by expansion. If all of these photons were packed into your living room you wouldn’t have any furniture left. In fact you wouldn’t have a living room, and probably not even a planet to have a living room on. Because it would be so hot that they would burn to less than cinders, but spread out in “empty” space these photons are less threatening.

AMR wrote:
If you are referring to the vacuum energy it already exists at the lowest energy state so thermal energy is not being transferred anywhere so it doesn't even qualify as "heat" which is defined as the transfer of energy. And besides what gives rise to this increasing vacuum energy, which overpowers gravity, in the first place? Your are confusing your supposed cause and effect.

I wasn’t referring to vacuum energy at all, but if you are talking about what kind of force is responsible for expansion here it is again:

Oldskeptic wrote:
Your question would make sense if the dissipation of heat was what was driving expansion, but it is not. The dilution of thermal energy is a result of expansion not the cause. Even when or if a time is reached where all matter has decayed giving up its potential thermal energy and all thermal energy has dissipated to the point where maximum entropy is reached again, but in a different form, the expansion may not stop nor slow down. Dark energy according to the hypotheses does not on act on anything other than space itself.

You want an outside energy source that drives expansion, but you can’t have it. Not anymore than you can have an outside energy source that drives gravitation. Gravity “pulls” matter towards matter, it has positive pressure, and the closer things get to each other the stronger the mutual attraction. The force of gravity does not increase as distance diminishes but the strength of attraction does. We see the same accelerated behavior in one body “falling” towards another body with gravity as we do with expansion. A closing of distance at faster and faster rates the shorter the distances get.

Gravity is an attractive force with positive pressure. Dark energy or the effect of it can be seen as a repulsive force with negative pressure. Gravity has a strong affect on matter but a very weak affect on empty space- Dark energy has a strong affect on empty space but no, or a very weak affect, on matter.

There is no need for an outside input of energy to drive accelerated expansion if it follows the same rules as accelerated attraction that gravity does.

Who or what theory or observation/s say that vacuum energy is increasing? I guess if you said that each cubic centimeter of empty space has an expected energy of X and then said that as space expands each cubic centimeter still has exactly X then intuition would tell you that vacuum energy is increasing proportionally to the expansion. But is that what is happening? Can you cite any interesting hypothesis or theory or equation that would support energy density of empty space remaining the same while empty space expands?