Your theory is getting longer again. Have you considered the theory might be wrong, and where it might be wrong To give you a little clue starting at the first paragraph you write :-
" I believe that there is no energy to a vacuum. One can prove this concept by creating a vacuum in an experiment and measuring the change in energy of the vacuum. The pressure from objects in a vacuum does represent energy, but when void of objects the vacuum represents nothing, null or void. So where does the dark energy or vacuum energy come from? I will attempt to establish that the dark energy relates to the CMB. The dark energy should represent a negative matter curvature, similar to opposing charges of electric would produce (like that which diminishes matter curvatures in binding energy).
Have you heard of the Casimir effect, it might give you something to read about and understand what causes it.
Dark energy is not related to the CMB. The expansion of the universe is accelerating due to dark energy, the CMB is cooling as entropy increases.
Are you out of your depth
Are you out of your depth? No: if I'm not mistaken, a vacuum is measured in pascals or Joules per meter cubed. As you approach a more perfect vacuum the energy diminishes to zero energy. The concept of vacuum fluctuations and zero point energy might be inline with my theory, where virtual particles are created by the vacuum energy itself. And if you understand that then you've understood my theory: https://en.wikipedia...ro-point_energy
The zero point article points out: "In a letter to Paul Ehrenfest of the same year Einstein declared zero-point energy “dead as a doornail” Zero-point energy was also invoked by Peter Debye, who noted that zero-point energy of the atoms of a crystal lattice would cause a reduction in the intensity of the diffracted radiation in X-ray diffraction even as the temperature approached absolute zero. In 1916 Walther Nernst proposed that empty space was filled with zero-point electromagnetic radiation. With the development of general relativity Einstein found the energy density of the vacuum to contribute towards a cosmological constant in order to obtain static solutions to his field equations; the idea that empty space, or the vacuum, could have some intrinsic energy associated to it had returned, with Einstein stating in 1920:
There is a weighty argument to be adduced in favour of the aether hypothesis. To deny the aether is ultimately to assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever. The fundamental facts of mechanics do not harmonize with this view... according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an aether. According to the general theory of relativity space without aether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this aether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it."
Another problem is that I'm not sure zero point energy is a theory that can be proven. In order to prove it, I would think you would have to measure it in a perfect vacuum, which never exists nor can be created. Unless you embrace my theory and describe zero-point energy as Einstein did and say it is a cosmological constant idea.
Still playing around with values and calculating possibilities. I like my quantum gravitation idea, and I'm proposing, now in the theory, that the CMB is a vaporization (photon gas) of the vacuum energy. In other words there is no such thing as a big bang. My values calculate from known constants. Which stands for itself in proving the ideas. I'm still playing around in the theory. I think there is some basis for believing it. Although some minor areas are far fetched (the mechanical advantage radius for instance). Other areas, are sound minded I think.
Granted the quantum gravitational idea I just added is really complex in the understanding of the concept. It's a modification of information theory. But you will find that it calculates precisely.
Edited by devin553344, 12 February 2019 - 12:03 AM.