Why Dark Energy Does Not Exist

I have differences with a colleague over the term “energy.” He believes energy to be equivalent to motion and considers our differences to be mere semantics. I don’t think so. Astute followers of this Blog know that I consider energy to be a matter-motion term. Energy is a calculation. Energy neither exists nor occurs; energy is neither matter nor motion.

He may regard energy as motion, but there are others who regard it as matter:

NASA says that: “roughly 70% of the Universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 25%. The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the Universe.” (http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy/)

It is quite clear in this passage that NASA regards dark energy as matter, in other words, dark energy is a thing just like “dark matter” and “normal matter.”

So it certainly is not simply a matter of semantics when the same term can be used for two different fundamental phenomena by different people. I suppose that on Thursday, I could regard energy as motion, and on Friday, I could regard it as matter. You could have some fun with your modern physicist friends by asking them what energy is. The only correct answer is that energy is a calculation: E=mc2, the physical meaning of which I discussed in: http://scientificphilosophy.com/Downloads/The%20Physical%20Meaning%20of%20E%20=%20mc2.pdf. This calculation, like other matter-motion terms such as momentum and force, describes matter in motion. NASA’s imagery is of bare-naked matterless motion floating around outer space—an impossibility. My friend should give up “energy” whenever possible, like Steve and I did to great advantage in "Universal Cycle Theory" (www.universalcycletheory.com).

No comments: