For those who may have just joined the thread: So far, Peter has made the preposterous claim that dark energy is light energy, which, according to all the experts, is completely wrong, because according to their math, based on the equations of GR, light plays but a trivial role in the expansion of the universe today. He has shown that the value of H has been, shall we say “exaggerated,” by expressing it in kilometers per second (per megaparsec), instead of the usual APR, which would be 0.00000000073%. And he has “guessed” that the current radiant energy is 1 j/kg/yr, but no one is impressed, because the experts have already worked radiation into their equations, whatever its magnitude. Peter has babbled a little about infinity, saying nothing clearly wrong, but he has not used it to support his theory, either. The stakes? Same as every other “new theory” posted on BAUT: it either falls into the scrap-heap of the archive, never to be viewed or posted on again, unless some newbie suggests it, and the moderator has to explain: No, light-energy does not explain dark-energy, see here. Or, it wins a Nobel-prize. In simple terms, it’s a binary outcome.

That is pretty much where it stands now.

At this point, I would like to suggest a “virtual” office-pool, along these lines: 1) One person, one vote; one vote, one Euro. 2) Do not vote on whether you think the theory is right or wrong, because Peter has not yet explained it, and you cannot possibly have evaluated it yet. Wager on whether it will be accepted, not whether you accept it now. 3) The standings remain invisible until the pool closes, March 31. 4) A to-be-determined amount of time will be provided after April 1, in order to evaluate the theory, at which time Peter will be required to either present an actual explanation (AE), or we all assume it was a big AFJ. With BAUT having a virtual army of volunteer critical thinkers, evaluation of the AE, once provided, shouldn’t take long. 5) The kitty gets split equally among whoever is right.

The idea is that if the theory is wrong, and the majority are right, then nothing really changes, as usually happens. If 99 people bet it’s an AFJ, and one guy (me) is still thinking that it will be accepted, then I lose my Euro, and those who “got in on it” now have 1.01 Euro. It was a convoluted April Fools gag if there ever was one, but nothing ever came of it. Except ,01 Euro.

Ken G, does BAUT have the technology to set up a pool by such rules? (If not, see below.)

Here is the difficulty in explaining the theory: I believe Newton was deeply aware that his theory was flawed. He knew it worked in the solar system, but Newton let his mind wander, as he was wont to do, and thought about how it would work at infinity. And when he did that, he saw a paradox, which I will explain when I provide the AE, due on 1-4. Newton knew something wasn’t right, but couldn’t imagine how to resolve it, and his equations “worked,” so he just left them alone. But I believe he was “troubled” by the paradox, and that the instantaneous speed of the field-change (the “speed of gravity”), in his equations, in particular, bothered him.

About two centuries later (history is not my specialty, so don’t quote me on that), Einstein, using tools in mathematics which were completely unknown in Newton’s time, resolved the infinity-paradox, and also slowed-down the field-change, from infinite, to a pedestrian 1.0 (Cosmologists use parameters. In cosmological terms, c, the speed of light, 3 x 10^8 m/s, equals 1.0 .)

So early in the 20th century, Einstein resolved the problems with the Newtonian model, using math that only 12 people really understood. But he was frustrated, because he had to use this “fudge-factor,” the now-infamous Cosmological Constant (CC), in order to "make the model fit the observations.” Because with the instruments available at that time, the rate of expansion rate was thought to be zero. That 73 ppt/yr expansion rate we discussed earlier? That is the number they thought was zero. But when the observations finally came in, it wasn’t zero. It was close. But not zero. Einstein kicked himself. His original equations, sans the cosmological fudge-factor, had been correct after all! The universe does expand! But Einstein did not “blunder,” he was just doing his job: making a model that fit the observations! And the observations at the time had the expansion rate pegged at zero.

Okay, so where are we with all this? Well, until 1998, Einstein’s “GR Rev-2,” or as I prefer, “GR-Lite,” (no DE) was considered Gospel. Then after 1998, CCR burst upon the scene (Cosmological Constant Revival). Here we will just call it GR-Full-Body, although some of its backers prefer “GR-Original Recipe.” GR-FB includes dark energy, in a form yet-to-be-determined, and all that it entails. So there is no disagreement over the basic idea: General Relativity rules. The only bone of contention is this: Is General Relativity correct in its original form, Rev. 1, GR-FB? Or did Einstein get it right the second time, Rev. 2, GR-Lite? That is what the reader is wagering on. Experts say, GR-FB, Rev. 1. The dark-horse candidate (PI) Peter Wilson, says, No, GR-Lite, Rev. 2, is the correct answer.

I am assuming some readers will have difficulty understanding the AE, equations-and-all, once I present it. But I would like to point some things out that most readers will understand, in order to influence the wagering.

First, I am an engineer. And in order to become one, you have to go through this secret ritual, where you take the Engineer’s Creed, as an oath: Rev. 1 shall be better than Rev. 0, and Rev. 2 shall be better than Rev. 1. Granted, science is not engineering, but if you want to play it conservative, Rev 2 of a scientific theory is usually the odds-on favorite over Rev. 1. Keep in mind that while he was alive, GR-Lite was Einstein’s “final answer.” That can’t be too risky, can it? You can bet 1 Euro on ol’ Albert, no?

And let’s be clear on the numbers involved here. Remember the “excess precession” of Mercury’s orbit that Newtonian gravity could not explain? Remember how GR explained it? Let’s take a look at that number for a moment, which—if I am not misteken—is 46” (arc-seconds) per century. Which is 0.46”/yr. Which equals 0.0076’/yr. Which is the same as 0.000013 deg/yr. And if you consider the whole thing to be 360 degrees, the residual precession is 3.5 x 10^-7/yr, or 35 ppm/yr. Einstein used GR to explain a “residual effect” on the order of 35 ppm/yr. Keep in mind, the “residual” I have to explain using GR is smaller than that! And I have one whole j/kg/yr of light energy at my disposal. Again, using GR to explain a “residual effect” even smaller than 35 ppm/yr is not a long-shot, is it?

Furthermore: Recall that pre-CCR, the acceleration rate was assumed to be negative, not positive. How negative? Can anyone dig this up, say before March 31, what the actual magnitude of deceleration was supposed to be? In other words, I am going to pull a rabbit-out-of-my-hat of this size (www.myspace.com/4infinities) on 1-4. How big was that turkey that they failed to produce when the observations finally came in? If some one could come up with the magnitude of the negative answer (deceleration being considered negative) that the “experts” predicted, and compare it to the magnitude of the positive value of the observations which I must explain, this may influence the betting in a positive way (PI).

And so I do not receive any, “You never told us that!” kind of messages, let me reveal a certain “fact about my past:” I always knew expansion was accelerating. I just didn’t know why. How did I know? I cheated. Used a time-machine to look into the future, and see what the answer was. Think of it this way: Under shell # 1 was decelerating expansion; under shell # 2 was static expansion, no change; under shell # 3 was accelerating expansion. All the kings horses and all the king’s men placed their bets on shell # 1, deceleration. A few idiots bet on shell # 2. After 1998, however, people starting “coming out of the woodwork,” proclaiming: I knew it was GR-FB all along. I admit here I didn't "know all along:" I cheated. I peeked under the shells when nobody was looking. And we all know what that means: If he cheated once, chances are he'll cheat again.

And if the “pool” suggested above is beyond the technical/budgetary/time constraints of BAUT, how about a “traditional” on-line poll? Does the reader:

A) Like GR-Lite because it sounds great?
B) Like GR-Lite because it is less filling?
C) Prefer “original recipe” GR-FB?

Are there any further questions before we open the pool?