# The Existence and Effect of Dark Energy Redshift on Cosmological Age

Authors: Riccardo C. Storti
Journal: Advances in Astronomy
 (2020)

---

## Abstract

A derivation of Cosmological Age explicitly constrained by Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) is presented, demonstrating that the correct value of Cosmological Age is equal to the Hubble Age. It is shown that utilizing “z = 0” for Cosmological Redshift in the Present Epoch introduces a fundamental flaw into Cosmological Age calculations. However, this flaw is captured and corrected by the Polarizable-Vacuum (PV) Model of Gravity developed by Puthoff, suggesting that the Dark Energy Field exists as a massive photonic field. Consequently, it is demonstrated that for a Dark Energy Driven description of Accelerated Cosmological Expansion, Cosmological Redshift takes a negative value in the Present Epoch.


---

## Body

## 1. Dilemma

### 1.1. Introduction

The Standard Model of Cosmology (SMoC) utilizes Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) data to determine the age of the Universe, defined by [1] as 13.797 (Gyr) ± 23 (Myr). However, notably in contrast, the age of star HD-140283 is defined in [2] as 14.46 (Gyr) ± 800 (Myr). Although no emphatic contradiction exists between these two observations, due to the associated experimental tolerances, it provokes scrutiny as the HD-140283 lower observational limit is 13.66 (Gyr). Since the lower CMBR limit is 13.774 (Gyr), an arguably narrow 114 (Myr) congruence window exists between CMBR and HD-140283 measurements. Cognizant of the exponential rate of technological growth, one may well expect that the tolerance commonality between these two experimental sources might instantly vanish. For such an event to occur, the SMoC may require significant revision.It seems improbable that the physical measurements gathered by the instrumentation utilized in the Planck Satellite [3] are flawed; the Science and Engineering underlying the technology is well-understood, and significant instrumentation defects would have become rapidly evident and subsequently corrected prior to deployment. It is equally improbable that the software associated with the observation and data collection processes might lead to incorrect results as the computational output is broadly peer-reviewed prior to publication. Thus, by elimination, the remaining candidate for scrutiny is the theoretical basis from which the final age determination is executed according to the SMoC relationship (1)−1H0∫∞Z11+z1−ΩΛ1+z3+ΩΛdz=13.797Gyr,where [1] H0 = Hubble Constant = 67.4 (km/s/Mpc) ± 0.5 (km/s/Mpc) and ΩΛ = Dark Energy Density Parameter = 0.685 ± 0.007.If the Cosmological Redshift for the Present Epoch is assigned the value “z = 0,” (1) simplifies to(2)23H0⋅ΩΛ⋅ln1+ΩΛ1−ΩΛ=13.797Gyr.It is important to note that “z = 0” for the Present Epoch is an assigned value, not an assumed value. An assigned value is a man-made contrivance, whilst an assumed value can have natural origins. The assigned value for the Present Epoch seems reasonable, benign, and convenient, but what are the implications associated with this? To address this question and validate (2), we require an alternative representation of Cosmological Redshift. Fortunately, Puthoff [4] developed an alternative representation of General Relativity (GR) termed The Polarizable-Vacuum (PV) Model of Gravity. Since then, Depp et al. [5, 6] and Desiato [7] have shown the PV Model of Gravity to be isomorphic to GR by satisfying the Schwarzschild and Reissner–Nordstrom solutions.


### 1.2. The PV Model

The PV Model of Gravity is an optical derivative, utilizing a Refractive Index value “KPV’.” For an observer at the bottom of a gravity well, gazing upwards and backwards in time (e.g., at the surface of the Earth), the relationship between Cosmological Redshift “z” and “KPV” utilizing Puthoff relationships [4] is given by(3)1+z=1KPV.Hence, (1) expressed in PV form is given by(4)12H0∫011KPV1/KPV31−ΩΛ+ΩΛdKPV=13.797Gyr.(1) = (4); therefore, the PV Model of Gravity aligns precisely to the SMoC (as expected). However, (4) reveals an important fact regarding the assigned value of Cosmological Redshift “z = 0,” utilized to formulate (2). That is, the Refractive Index value “KPV=1” can only occur when the observer possesses the power of infinite gaze in our Universe or resides at infinity outside our Universe (e.g., in a Multiverse Cosmological Model). This means that the assigned value of Cosmological Redshift “z = 0” represents a nonphysical situation, thereby denoting an invalid procedural step. Utilizing “z = 0” requires The Observable Universe to be infinitely large, yet CMBR observations are seeking to measure a finite size. Hence, (2) is in conflict with CMBR experimental objectives, demonstrated by the Gravitational Refractive Index as implicitly asserted by Desiato [7], such that the value “KPV=1” occurs as “r ⟶ ∞” according to(5)KPV=11−2G⋅M/r⋅c2=r⋅c2r⋅c2−2G⋅M.Note: equation (5) represents the Metric Coefficient of the Schwarzschild Solution of Einstein’s equations of GR.


## 1.1. Introduction

The Standard Model of Cosmology (SMoC) utilizes Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) data to determine the age of the Universe, defined by [1] as 13.797 (Gyr) ± 23 (Myr). However, notably in contrast, the age of star HD-140283 is defined in [2] as 14.46 (Gyr) ± 800 (Myr). Although no emphatic contradiction exists between these two observations, due to the associated experimental tolerances, it provokes scrutiny as the HD-140283 lower observational limit is 13.66 (Gyr). Since the lower CMBR limit is 13.774 (Gyr), an arguably narrow 114 (Myr) congruence window exists between CMBR and HD-140283 measurements. Cognizant of the exponential rate of technological growth, one may well expect that the tolerance commonality between these two experimental sources might instantly vanish. For such an event to occur, the SMoC may require significant revision.It seems improbable that the physical measurements gathered by the instrumentation utilized in the Planck Satellite [3] are flawed; the Science and Engineering underlying the technology is well-understood, and significant instrumentation defects would have become rapidly evident and subsequently corrected prior to deployment. It is equally improbable that the software associated with the observation and data collection processes might lead to incorrect results as the computational output is broadly peer-reviewed prior to publication. Thus, by elimination, the remaining candidate for scrutiny is the theoretical basis from which the final age determination is executed according to the SMoC relationship (1)−1H0∫∞Z11+z1−ΩΛ1+z3+ΩΛdz=13.797Gyr,where [1] H0 = Hubble Constant = 67.4 (km/s/Mpc) ± 0.5 (km/s/Mpc) and ΩΛ = Dark Energy Density Parameter = 0.685 ± 0.007.If the Cosmological Redshift for the Present Epoch is assigned the value “z = 0,” (1) simplifies to(2)23H0⋅ΩΛ⋅ln1+ΩΛ1−ΩΛ=13.797Gyr.It is important to note that “z = 0” for the Present Epoch is an assigned value, not an assumed value. An assigned value is a man-made contrivance, whilst an assumed value can have natural origins. The assigned value for the Present Epoch seems reasonable, benign, and convenient, but what are the implications associated with this? To address this question and validate (2), we require an alternative representation of Cosmological Redshift. Fortunately, Puthoff [4] developed an alternative representation of General Relativity (GR) termed The Polarizable-Vacuum (PV) Model of Gravity. Since then, Depp et al. [5, 6] and Desiato [7] have shown the PV Model of Gravity to be isomorphic to GR by satisfying the Schwarzschild and Reissner–Nordstrom solutions.


## 1.2. The PV Model

The PV Model of Gravity is an optical derivative, utilizing a Refractive Index value “KPV’.” For an observer at the bottom of a gravity well, gazing upwards and backwards in time (e.g., at the surface of the Earth), the relationship between Cosmological Redshift “z” and “KPV” utilizing Puthoff relationships [4] is given by(3)1+z=1KPV.Hence, (1) expressed in PV form is given by(4)12H0∫011KPV1/KPV31−ΩΛ+ΩΛdKPV=13.797Gyr.(1) = (4); therefore, the PV Model of Gravity aligns precisely to the SMoC (as expected). However, (4) reveals an important fact regarding the assigned value of Cosmological Redshift “z = 0,” utilized to formulate (2). That is, the Refractive Index value “KPV=1” can only occur when the observer possesses the power of infinite gaze in our Universe or resides at infinity outside our Universe (e.g., in a Multiverse Cosmological Model). This means that the assigned value of Cosmological Redshift “z = 0” represents a nonphysical situation, thereby denoting an invalid procedural step. Utilizing “z = 0” requires The Observable Universe to be infinitely large, yet CMBR observations are seeking to measure a finite size. Hence, (2) is in conflict with CMBR experimental objectives, demonstrated by the Gravitational Refractive Index as implicitly asserted by Desiato [7], such that the value “KPV=1” occurs as “r ⟶ ∞” according to(5)KPV=11−2G⋅M/r⋅c2=r⋅c2r⋅c2−2G⋅M.Note: equation (5) represents the Metric Coefficient of the Schwarzschild Solution of Einstein’s equations of GR.


## 2. Resolution

Equation (5) invokes the question if “r ⟶ ∞” should not be applied, what should be? To address this question, we shall conduct the following thought experiment: consider an Observable Universe of Hubble Radius “RH.” For an observer to circumnavigate this Universe, he/she must travel a distance of “2πRH = 2πc/H0”; hence, from the perspective of the observer, (5) is required to metabolize the condition “r = 2πc/H0.” Moreover, it follows that if the Universe is of Hubble Radius, then “M” relates to Hubble Volume; hence, “M” is equal to the Dark Energy Density Parameter multiplied by the Hubble Volume multiplied by the Critical Density, such that a Dark Energy Refractive Index “KΛ” may be formulated according to(6)KΛ=2πc/H0c22πc/H0c2−2GΩΛ4/3πc/H033H02/8πG=2π2π−ΩΛ.Substituting (6) into (3) yields the Dark Energy Redshift “zΛ” as follows:(7)zΛ=1−ΩΛ2π−1.Combining (6) with PV Time Dilation of the form “Δt0 = Δt·√KPV” as defined by Puthoff [4] yields a revised expression for Cosmological Age “t0” as follows:(8)t0=23H0ΩΛln1+ΩΛ1−ΩΛ⋅2π2π−ΩΛ.


## 3. Results

### 3.1. Theoretical Solution

Equation (6) was formulated for a Theoretical Universe of Hubble Radius; hence, for the Hubble Time configuration t0 = 1/H0, we obtain the following outputs:(i)
ΩΛ = 0.677345709533812(ii)
Ωm = 0.322654290466188(iii)
KΛ = 1.12082859270862(iv)
zΛ = −0.055438153350662The following are the key points:(i)
Our Theoretical Universe is a useful representation of physical reality(ii)
OurΩΛ lies less than “0.1 (%)” outside SMoC limits(a) The SMoC range ofΩΛ is “0.685 ± 0.007” [1].(iii)
The proximity of ourΩΛ to SMoC results denotes initial evidence that the Hubble Age (8) is the correct Cosmological Age; not (2)(iv)
KΛ is greater than unity, denoting Accelerated Cosmological Expansion(v)
zΛ is negative, denoting Accelerated Cosmological Expansion(vi)
Calculations utilizing anassigned Cosmological Redshift of z = 0 may require revision


### 3.2. Constrained Theoretical Solution

For the Hubble Time configurationt0 = 1/H0 constrained to CMBR Temperature in accordance with the relationship formulated by Storti [8–11],(9)T0=KWStT⋅lnHαH0H05μ2,where Hα = Big-Bang Hubble Constant = 8.46087689814736 × 1061 (km/s/Mpc), the derivation of Hα can be found on pg. 12, Equation (24); [10], StT9 = Physical Constant = 6.35538654769188 × 1095 (s5/m9), the derivation of StT can be found on pg. 14, Equation (42); [10], KW = Wien Displacement Constant = 2.897771955 (mm·K), μ = Mathematical Constant = 1/3, T0 = 2.7255 (K) ± ΔT0 [1], and ΔT0 = 0.0006 (K).Note:Hα and StT are forwardly derived from first principles; they are not reverse-engineered, ad hoc, or tailored constants; refer to [10] for the derivation.The calculated permissible range values for “ΩΛ, Ωm, KΛ, zΛ, H0 and t0” are displayed in Table 1.Table 1
H0 (km/s/Mpc) and t0 (Gyr).
T0 − ΔT0T0T0 + ΔT0ΩΛ0.6773457095338130.6773457095338120.677345709533812Ωm0.3226542904661870.3226542904661880.322654290466188KΛ1.120828592708621.120828592708621.12082859270862zΛ−0.055438153350662−0.055438153350662−0.055438153350662H067.091200673851967.118144797743467.1450938090621t014.574386741747814.568535953064714.5626888000112The following are the key points:(i)
Our CMBR Temperature-constrained Theoretical Universe remains a useful representation of physical reality(ii)
ΩΛ, Ωm, KΛ, and zΛ remain constant across the CMBR observational range(iii)
ΩΛ lies less than “0.1 (%)” outside SMoC limits(iv)
H0 = 67.1181 (km/s/Mpc) ± 0.0269 (km/s/Mpc)(a)
H0 lies within SMoC observational limits(b)
H0 resolution is improved by one order-of-magnitude(c)
Our value ofH0 validates the SMoC-expected (unproven) dependency between the Hubble constant and CMBR Temperature(d)
Our value ofH0 denotes supporting evidence for the Hubble Age (8) being the correct Cosmological Age; not (2)(v)
t0 = 14.5685 (Gyr) ± 5.849 (Myr)(a)
Our value denotes unprecedented resolution of Cosmological Age(b)
We show synergy with HD-140283 : 14.46 (Gyr) ± 114.39 (Myr)(c)
Our value reduces the potential for a “Crisis in Cosmology”


### 3.3. Heuristic Solution

For the Hubble Time configurationt0 = 1/H0 utilizing key SMoC data ranges [1], we calculate the outputs as displayed in Table 2.Table 2
T0 (K).
T0ConfigurationMethodologyt0 − Δt02.81061377079329t0 = 13.797 (Gyr) ± Δt0, Δt0 = 23 (Myr)Direct injection into (9): T0 (1/t0)t02.80804368741903t0 + Δt02.80548022874534H0 − ΔH02.72063915377994H0 = 67.4 (km/s/Mpc) ± ΔH0, ΔH0 = 0.5 (km/s/Mpc)Direct injection into (9):T0 (H0)H02.73176992769907H0 + ΔH02.74286346018614ΩΛ − ΔΩΛ2.73082285014193H0 = 67.4 (km/s/Mpc), ΩΛ = 0.685 ± ΔΩΛ, ΔΩΛ = 0.007Injection into (8), and then into (9): T0 (1/t0)ΩΛ2.7206171322242ΩΛ + ΔΩΛ2.71027372079337The following are the key points:(i)
The SMoC determination of Cosmological Age [1] does not concur with CMBR Temperature observations (i.e., t0is in conflict with T0)(a)
The use of (9) provides supporting evidence for the Hubble Age (8) being the correct Cosmological Age, not (2)(ii)
SMoC Hubble Constant observations are consistent with CMBR Temperature observations,validating (9)(iii)
SMoC Dark Energy Density values are consistent with CMBR Temperature observations,validating (9)(iv)
Our CMBR Temperature-constrained Theoretical Universe remains a useful representation of physical reality


### 3.4. Constrained Heuristic Solution

For the Hubble time configurationt0 = 1/H0 constrained by SMoC ΩΛ and T0 values [1], we calculate the outputs as displayed in Table 3.Table 3
H0 (km/s/Mpc) and t0 (Gyr).
ΩΛ − ΔΩΛT0 − ΔT0T0T0 + ΔT0H067.133640951431867.16060211952767.1875681781412t014.565173164022714.559326074067914.5534826174442ΩΛT0 − ΔT0T0T0 + ΔT0H067.59362746859667.620773369317667.6479241940671t014.466054600239114.460247300759214.4544436098851ΩΛ + ΔΩΛT0 − ΔT0T0T0 + ΔT0H068.064817948620868.0921530815368.1194931727921t014.36591083409714.360143736652714.3543802228329The following are the key points:(i)
Many SMoC combinations ofΩΛ and H0 exist to satisfy observational CMBR Temperature requirements, validating (9)(ii)
The SMoC “ΩΛ + ΔΩΛ” limit violates the SMoC “H0 + ΔH0” limit(iii)
Our dark energyplus CMBR Temperature-constrained Theoretical Universe is a useful representation of physical reality


## 3.1. Theoretical Solution

Equation (6) was formulated for a Theoretical Universe of Hubble Radius; hence, for the Hubble Time configuration t0 = 1/H0, we obtain the following outputs:(i)
ΩΛ = 0.677345709533812(ii)
Ωm = 0.322654290466188(iii)
KΛ = 1.12082859270862(iv)
zΛ = −0.055438153350662The following are the key points:(i)
Our Theoretical Universe is a useful representation of physical reality(ii)
OurΩΛ lies less than “0.1 (%)” outside SMoC limits(a) The SMoC range ofΩΛ is “0.685 ± 0.007” [1].(iii)
The proximity of ourΩΛ to SMoC results denotes initial evidence that the Hubble Age (8) is the correct Cosmological Age; not (2)(iv)
KΛ is greater than unity, denoting Accelerated Cosmological Expansion(v)
zΛ is negative, denoting Accelerated Cosmological Expansion(vi)
Calculations utilizing anassigned Cosmological Redshift of z = 0 may require revision


## 3.2. Constrained Theoretical Solution

For the Hubble Time configurationt0 = 1/H0 constrained to CMBR Temperature in accordance with the relationship formulated by Storti [8–11],(9)T0=KWStT⋅lnHαH0H05μ2,where Hα = Big-Bang Hubble Constant = 8.46087689814736 × 1061 (km/s/Mpc), the derivation of Hα can be found on pg. 12, Equation (24); [10], StT9 = Physical Constant = 6.35538654769188 × 1095 (s5/m9), the derivation of StT can be found on pg. 14, Equation (42); [10], KW = Wien Displacement Constant = 2.897771955 (mm·K), μ = Mathematical Constant = 1/3, T0 = 2.7255 (K) ± ΔT0 [1], and ΔT0 = 0.0006 (K).Note:Hα and StT are forwardly derived from first principles; they are not reverse-engineered, ad hoc, or tailored constants; refer to [10] for the derivation.The calculated permissible range values for “ΩΛ, Ωm, KΛ, zΛ, H0 and t0” are displayed in Table 1.Table 1
H0 (km/s/Mpc) and t0 (Gyr).
T0 − ΔT0T0T0 + ΔT0ΩΛ0.6773457095338130.6773457095338120.677345709533812Ωm0.3226542904661870.3226542904661880.322654290466188KΛ1.120828592708621.120828592708621.12082859270862zΛ−0.055438153350662−0.055438153350662−0.055438153350662H067.091200673851967.118144797743467.1450938090621t014.574386741747814.568535953064714.5626888000112The following are the key points:(i)
Our CMBR Temperature-constrained Theoretical Universe remains a useful representation of physical reality(ii)
ΩΛ, Ωm, KΛ, and zΛ remain constant across the CMBR observational range(iii)
ΩΛ lies less than “0.1 (%)” outside SMoC limits(iv)
H0 = 67.1181 (km/s/Mpc) ± 0.0269 (km/s/Mpc)(a)
H0 lies within SMoC observational limits(b)
H0 resolution is improved by one order-of-magnitude(c)
Our value ofH0 validates the SMoC-expected (unproven) dependency between the Hubble constant and CMBR Temperature(d)
Our value ofH0 denotes supporting evidence for the Hubble Age (8) being the correct Cosmological Age; not (2)(v)
t0 = 14.5685 (Gyr) ± 5.849 (Myr)(a)
Our value denotes unprecedented resolution of Cosmological Age(b)
We show synergy with HD-140283 : 14.46 (Gyr) ± 114.39 (Myr)(c)
Our value reduces the potential for a “Crisis in Cosmology”


## 3.3. Heuristic Solution

For the Hubble Time configurationt0 = 1/H0 utilizing key SMoC data ranges [1], we calculate the outputs as displayed in Table 2.Table 2
T0 (K).
T0ConfigurationMethodologyt0 − Δt02.81061377079329t0 = 13.797 (Gyr) ± Δt0, Δt0 = 23 (Myr)Direct injection into (9): T0 (1/t0)t02.80804368741903t0 + Δt02.80548022874534H0 − ΔH02.72063915377994H0 = 67.4 (km/s/Mpc) ± ΔH0, ΔH0 = 0.5 (km/s/Mpc)Direct injection into (9):T0 (H0)H02.73176992769907H0 + ΔH02.74286346018614ΩΛ − ΔΩΛ2.73082285014193H0 = 67.4 (km/s/Mpc), ΩΛ = 0.685 ± ΔΩΛ, ΔΩΛ = 0.007Injection into (8), and then into (9): T0 (1/t0)ΩΛ2.7206171322242ΩΛ + ΔΩΛ2.71027372079337The following are the key points:(i)
The SMoC determination of Cosmological Age [1] does not concur with CMBR Temperature observations (i.e., t0is in conflict with T0)(a)
The use of (9) provides supporting evidence for the Hubble Age (8) being the correct Cosmological Age, not (2)(ii)
SMoC Hubble Constant observations are consistent with CMBR Temperature observations,validating (9)(iii)
SMoC Dark Energy Density values are consistent with CMBR Temperature observations,validating (9)(iv)
Our CMBR Temperature-constrained Theoretical Universe remains a useful representation of physical reality


## 3.4. Constrained Heuristic Solution

For the Hubble time configurationt0 = 1/H0 constrained by SMoC ΩΛ and T0 values [1], we calculate the outputs as displayed in Table 3.Table 3
H0 (km/s/Mpc) and t0 (Gyr).
ΩΛ − ΔΩΛT0 − ΔT0T0T0 + ΔT0H067.133640951431867.16060211952767.1875681781412t014.565173164022714.559326074067914.5534826174442ΩΛT0 − ΔT0T0T0 + ΔT0H067.59362746859667.620773369317667.6479241940671t014.466054600239114.460247300759214.4544436098851ΩΛ + ΔΩΛT0 − ΔT0T0T0 + ΔT0H068.064817948620868.0921530815368.1194931727921t014.36591083409714.360143736652714.3543802228329The following are the key points:(i)
Many SMoC combinations ofΩΛ and H0 exist to satisfy observational CMBR Temperature requirements, validating (9)(ii)
The SMoC “ΩΛ + ΔΩΛ” limit violates the SMoC “H0 + ΔH0” limit(iii)
Our dark energyplus CMBR Temperature-constrained Theoretical Universe is a useful representation of physical reality


## 4. Discussion

The preceding analysis clearly demonstrates the correlation between physical reality and our Theoretical Universe of Hubble Radius, offering a persuasive argument supporting the contention that the Hubble Age is the true Cosmological Age, not the present value as calculated by the SMoC [1]. So, why is the SMoC determination of Cosmological Age inaccurate? Primarily, it is because the method of calculation does not include a direct and clear relationship to CMBR Temperature. Cosmological Age, Hubble Constant, Dark Energy and CMBR Temperature must be related, yet The SMoC solution only embraces three of the four critical elements for physical meaningfulness. This is the first clue as to why the SMoC determination of Cosmological Age is inaccurate. The second clue is in the fact that the SMoC value is 663 (Myr) less than the value for HD-140283. Although observational tolerances ensure that the results are not in conflict in this case, it is prudent for us to emphasize the meaning of error bars. Error bars provide no guarantee that the central value is not incorrect to begin with, only that the central value lies between certain limits. The assertion of experimental consistency between two data sets based solely upon tolerance overlap is not a robust defence. If either central value evolves from a fundamentally incorrect approach, the tolerance overlap is valueless.Our significant deviation from SMoC doctrine warrants explanation, satisfying the question as to how this oversight occurred. Herein, we have identified the cause (z = 0), proposed a resolution zΛ, and quantified the outcome ΩΛ. The next logical question to investigate is why an assigned value of z = 0 is inappropriate to apply, that is, why is (2) inaccurate? Considering the synergy between our Theoretical Universe and physical reality, we propose that (2) is incomplete because it does not adequately consider the time dilation effects of a Massive Photonic Field.We propose that the Dark Energy Field is a massive photonic fieldEvidence for this claim arose in 2008, where Storti [8] accurately calculated CMBR Temperature utilizing (9) and predicted the value of the Hubble Constant in advance of experimental measurement:(10)H0=mγγh⋅ln3π7μ⋅32μ2256⋅ln3πμ4⋅mhMGμ2R0λh7μ27μ⋅mhMG5μ2R0λh26μ25,where mγγ = Photon Mass-Energy = 3.19515507344683 × 10−45 (eV) [12], h = Planck’s Constant = 6.62607015 × 10−34 (J/Hz), mh = Planck Mass = 5.45551186133462 × 10−8 (kg), λh = Planck Length = 4.05135054323488 × 10−35 (m), MG = Galactic Mass (2008: predicted) = 6.3142 × 1011 (MS), and μ = Mathematical Constant = 1/3.The yielded predictions are displayed in Table4.Table 4
Experimental validation of predictions.
PDG (2008) [13]Storti (2008) [8, 9]PDG (2019) [1]MeasurementPredictionMeasurementH0 = 73 (km/s/Mpc)H0 = 67.0843 (km/s/Mpc)H0 = 67.4 (km/s/Mpc)R0 = 8.0 (kpc)R0 = 8.1072 (kpc)R0 = 8.178 (kpc)T0 = 2.725 (K)T0 = 2.7248 (K)T0 = 2.7255 (K)The following are the key points:(i)
Equations (9) and (10) have been experimentally verified(ii)
Equation (10) utilizes a derived value of nonzero Photonic Mass-Energy(iii)
The existence of a Massive Photonic Dark Energy Field is implied(iv)
The Massive Photonic Dark Energy Field is responsible for Accelerated Cosmological Expansion(v)
The effect of Accelerated Cosmological Expansion is to “pull” time dilation in the “opposite direction,” acting to “stretch time”(vi)
Cosmological Inflation and Accelerated Cosmological Expansion are derived naturally and without “fine tuning” or “retro-fitting” in [8–11].(vii)
The true value of Cosmological Age equals the Hubble AgeUpon consideration of all results presented herein, we predict that future experimental observations will tend to yield values of Dark Energy Density Parameter increasingly approaching the present SMoC lower limit“ΩΛ − ΔΩΛ”. Moreover, we propose that the difference between our theoretical ΩΛ value and the present SMoC lower limit may represent a possible candidate for spatial curvature ΩK, as follows:(i)
The present SMoCΩΛ lower limit = 0.685–0.007 = 0.678(ii)
The present SMoC value of spatial curvatureΩK = 0.0007 [1](iii)
Our value for ΩΛ in the theoretical solution = 0.677345709533812(iv)
Our value for ΩK = 0.678–0.677345709533812 = 0.000654290466188The following are the key points:(i)
Our value for ΩK is quasi-identical to the SMoC value


## 5. Conclusions

The Polarizable-Vacuum Model of Gravity developed by Puthoff [4], the isomorphic work presented by Dep et al. [5, 6], and the form of the Gravitational Refractive Index implicitly asserted by Desiato [7] have enabled us to refine the estimate for Cosmological Age in the Standard Model of Cosmology.The following are the key points:(i)
The true value of Cosmological Age equals the Hubble Age(ii)
Calculations utilizing anassigned Cosmological Redshift of “z = 0” may require revision(iii)
The value of the Cosmological Refractive Index is greater than unity for the Present Epoch, denoting Accelerated Cosmological Expansion(iv)
The value of Cosmological Redshift is negative for the Present Epoch, denoting Accelerated Cosmological Expansion(v)
The SMoC determination of Cosmological Age doesnot concur with CMBR Temperature observations (i.e., t0is in conflict with T0)(vi)
SMoC Hubble Constant observations are consistent with CMBR Temperature observations(vii)
SMoC Dark Energy Density values are consistent with CMBR Temperature observations(viii)
The SMoC “ΩΛ + ΔΩΛ” limit violates the SMoC “H0 + ΔH0” limit(ix)
The existence of a Massive Photonic Dark Energy Field is implied(x)
The Massive Photonic Dark Energy Field is responsible for Accelerated Cosmological Expansion(xi)
The effect of Accelerated Cosmological Expansion is to “pull” time dilation in the “opposite direction,” acting to “stretch time”(xii)
H0 = 67.1181 (km/s/Mpc) ± 0.0269 (km/s/Mpc)(xiii)
t0 = 14.5685 (Gyr) ± 5.849 (Myr)



---

*Source: 2436965-2020-08-11.xml*