Locrian
- 1,881
- 256
What, as compared to how well we know what the electromagnetic and gravitational forces really are? You'll have to convince me that question has any meaning before we go near it.
However, I do think we can talk about what Qa (I'll use for Einstein's CC) is not. It isn't a force that keeps the universe carefully balanced such that it doesen't collapse on itself. In fact, the universe is expanding and even without any Qa it would never collapse. Einstein was completely presumptive and off base, regardless of what system ends up being used to represent the 70% of our universe that dark energy makes up. His theory was carefully crafted to predict not a piece of data, but an idea; that the universe was unchanging. He was more than happy to toss the idea. Quintessence, though having some similarities, is not a revival.
You've gotten the idea of a theory mixed up with a hypothesis and let that drag the conversation far away from where you originally intended it, all in an effort to prop up an idea that you can't seem to give a practical validation. Stop comparing yourself with Einstein and just rely on the fact (as he did) that if your idea predicts past and future results more accurately than any other, it will have to be adopted. In my opinion, your theory fails that test, but I'll be happy to be wrong if time proves otherwise.
However, I do think we can talk about what Qa (I'll use for Einstein's CC) is not. It isn't a force that keeps the universe carefully balanced such that it doesen't collapse on itself. In fact, the universe is expanding and even without any Qa it would never collapse. Einstein was completely presumptive and off base, regardless of what system ends up being used to represent the 70% of our universe that dark energy makes up. His theory was carefully crafted to predict not a piece of data, but an idea; that the universe was unchanging. He was more than happy to toss the idea. Quintessence, though having some similarities, is not a revival.
You've gotten the idea of a theory mixed up with a hypothesis and let that drag the conversation far away from where you originally intended it, all in an effort to prop up an idea that you can't seem to give a practical validation. Stop comparing yourself with Einstein and just rely on the fact (as he did) that if your idea predicts past and future results more accurately than any other, it will have to be adopted. In my opinion, your theory fails that test, but I'll be happy to be wrong if time proves otherwise.