Dark energy IS detectable. It can be seen as it affects the optical aspect of how we see some objects through our space telescopes. Not sure I'm explaining that well.
This wont move in one direction forever. It will depend on objects gravetational pull to the other objects around it as to what direction things will move. If there is more gravitational force for an object to move one direction it will. Or, an object may influence its movement slightly even if the graviational pull is slight. So not everything is moving away from everything else.
I noticed much nit picking as I skimmed the replies etc. Still M=most of the replies were very good! I absolutely love cosmology and astronomy, next to custom Harley Davidson’s, preferably pre 1960 machines. The iron in those big Vtwin jugs (cylinders) were forged in the heart of second generation stars as was all elements heavier than He and H. Anyway, as some members said the big bang was the universe suddenly expanding faster than the speed of light (inflation) from an singularly type ’point’. Still the BB did not arise out of a traditional singularity. It was different than a singularity created from a black hole (according to theory). Space, time, all the fields of energy, gravity, mass, literally everything was created about 14.7 billion years ago in the BB. Again some members were correct in saying that stuff is not expanding from the center point where the expansion began. More accurately every thing is expanding away from everything else, and anywhere is the center of the universe. So when two galaxies collide for example try to cop a visual and envision everything expanding away from everything else, not every thing is expanding from a certain point. Yes it is counter-intuitive! So since there is no center point galaxies can collide as can planets or stars or even dust particles. As far as the expansion goes a fantastic and strange thing is happening. Instead of everything slowing from the initial expansion like scientists expected, everything is speeding up, the objects that are 'farthest away' are moving the fastest. That is truly whacky! Gravity should be slowing all mass in the universe down and eventually pull everything back in making a big crunch that would create another big bang. That is where the dark energy comes in to play and its literally a made up thing. No one has ever seen it or tested it. it’s a theoretical guess. Lastly there is dark mass. As it stands today our universe is missing almost ALL ITS MASS! So our wonderful secular scientists also made up dark mass. Gots to love that science eh? Well I do love it but too much faith is put into it IMO. Reva
I am wrong indeed. I was assuming a galactic diameter of around 30,000 light years. I checked with an astronomer I know. He pegs the galactic diameter closer to 100,000 light years and agrees the Milky Way is in the process of eating the Magellanic Clouds. Thanks for the correction and please accept my apologies for the bad information.
I believe some cosmologists explain this phenomenon by theorizing that there are lots of universes and that the gravity from other universes is pulling ours away from wherever its center is. It makes sense since gravity should, as you say, pull everything back together again. Cosmologists deal with the ultimate in mysteries. It is an academic pursuit with more questions than answers.
and such is how many great discoveries are made, thinking outside the box...when the numbers in the equation don't fit the answer find another hypothesis that might explain it, dark matter or possibly a multiverse...it's way beyond me but fascinating none the less, one expert suggested they may have the answer in 30-50 years...
Dark energy. The mystery is what is dark energy; I don't think I've ever heard of it being thought of as other universes.
This is a common mis-understanding to the big bang theory. There was no focal point to the big bang. It happened everywhere in the universe at the same time, the universe being very small at this point, about the size of a singularity. The best analogy I can think of to describe the expansion of the universe is the inflation of a balloon. Take a balloon and draw to dots onto it close together. Now inflate the balloon and they will move apart. Objects are not moving away from, or towards, each other because of a large explosion. The "fabric" of space-time is actually expanding similar to the way a balloon expands. Obviously that is a very simple explanation Now when the big bang happened certain areas had more "stuff" (not sure what was there at the beginning) in it and this will have started to clump together. Then, as the object gets more massive, gravity takes over. In our local area we have the Milky Way and Andromeda, also a few more galaxies. Now our galaxy's gravity is pulling on our local group including Andromeda. Andromeda is doing the same. Thus we are being pulled together. Well space is anything but empty. In fact there is a quite alot of hydrogen and helium kicking about out there. Friction will happen, albeit at a very slow rate. You also have interactions with gravity, whether that be stars, planets gas clouds etc. I hope that this is a little helpful in clearing the issue for you. Any more questions then fire away and I will answer them as best I can. Lion.
This thread is funny is so many ways. Dark energy? Matter? Simply because the math predictions don't fit the evidence. Ah dah! The math is wrong. Kind of like evolution, they can't get the process together because the fields to the em exchanging with the mass (elements) is not calculated. For example idiots believe hurricanes are from pressure differences and the current evidence shares that groups of smaller storms are associating their fields (charge) to occilate. Them eyes look a bunch like galaxy eyes and I know my sun has an enormous magnetosphere and exchanging like all day and night too, with other mass. The foundation to physics is where the error is, 'walking the "Planck"' Energy itself between point in time is incorrectly defined. It ain't a particle going fast. Ie... Are you a light upon mass or a dum(*)(*)(*)(*) all uncertain if you are eating (*)(*)(*)(*) for dinner tonight? The reason the change is so slow is idiots will follow a paradigm as unconditionally as monkeys wanting a banana (the religious). (bad analogy to compare a monkey to a religious wingnut; why?)
Actually "dark energy and dark matter" are none scientific terms for something not discovered yet. If the math was indeed wrong then you would not be able to use said math to type your nonsensical drivel. Every technology used on our planet is a result of the math and the fact that it works. The math predictions fit however there is actually something that we have not yet found, shock horror. This is why we have scientists actually looking for these "dark" energies and mass. As for evolution. Evolution is actually one of the most studied of subjects and the process has actually been observed, see Darwin's Finches for example. The process is quite simple, to a scientist in the field, yet hard to grasp for a layman. This is the problem with most sciences and why people do not trust it. Sitting there typing this nonsense saying science is wrong and it doesn't when all you need to do is switch on a light, start the car or log on to your computer to be proven wrong, is strange and screams on "I am non-conformist and will not accept it cos its accepted by the majority". Honestly, just delve into the subjects that you seem to have contempt for and you will find that the math is beautifully elegant. A language of numbers that will open up the world. Oh and if, during your study, you actually do come up with a hypothesis then please submit it for peer review and we will happily take a look at it. If there is one thing scientists like its a laugh, or to be proven wrong Lion.
You're kind of cute and I actually enjoyed that. Each branch of science has theorem. The math for an electrical circuit is nothing like that of a steam engine. A resonant energy transfer and galaxy rotation are completely different theorem. And virial is wrong to begin with.
The baloon theory hit it head on. Space is expanding from our central location thus stars are moving further away. The next earth like planet with intelligent species who invent telescopes and what not will never understand what humans understand simply because space will be empty as everything is out of disance. You should buy the universe series dvd set. I think it was from the discover channel or national geographic. Forgot which one. Very interesting.
Unfortunately the theory stands due to the observable evidence. We not need to explain why there was the big bang, only that it happened. Quite simply, the observations have shown us the the universe is expanding. When you take this expansion backwards in time then there is a focal point. It doesn't need Stephen Hawking to explain this, it is simple common sense. We may never get the reason as to why the universe did come into being, however this is information that is not needed. The origin is clear and experiments and observation provides us with the evidence. I would, however like to hear what you think is the reason there is a universe at all. Lion.
"God of the Gapsa" logical fallacy, strategy of creationists that whatever we cannot currently explain is unexplainable and was therefore an act of god.
Does there have to be a reason for the universe? I might be that the universe is something we may never understand because man is limited in his capacity to understand it. But our arrogance drives us on.
When actually reasoning the argument not a one saw any beginning and the evidence or interpretation of, from either discipline of theologically derived and the existing paradigm could be a weeeeeeee bit off. My point is we live here and now arguing about what not a one can verify. The existing paradigm and many theological interpretation are way off.
Ps...... Why would a reason to exist be required to accept living? Purpose? That's easy, 'to live'. Life, Purposed to continue! Once started, life intends to continue (opposite of existing paradigm). Who knows when, why and for what whom existence began. I find that focusing on how the process works is the best for a comprehensible awareness to evolve. And be certain, the existing methodology, principles and philosophical comprehension of existence is about to change worldwide. Based on knowledge combining to a point in which life can comprehend itself.
Something expanding is not a proof it has been small before. The theory must be able to explain what has exploded and why. My views: The universe exists because it can - no reason. Smallest is bigger than the biggest and vice versa - no lowest level building structures. There is no difference between matter and energy. Time is not a dimension. Light is slow. There was no big bang.
The expansion of the universe is proof that it was smaller. Small by itself is subject to definition. I wouldn't spend a lot of time sharing your views with a physicist.
Something expanding is only a proof that it is expanding but can't indicate its initial size. There is no such thing as infinite density. No physicist is able to tell what has exploded and how it was there. Observing consequences while only assuming the reason for them does not produce credible theories.
You are correct that we at not able to judge the initial size of the original universe. However, this information is not needed as the expansion has been shown, by observation to be correct. I admit that the expansion theory does have a few "holes" however they are looking to fill them with further experimentation and observation. I agree somewhat on your statement on previous post, "the universe exists because it can." My professional opinion is that the universe exist because it must. How else could we observe it and no i do not mean god made it for us or that we are in some way special. Little bit of a head noodle for ya all but it make sense from a physicist' point of view Lion.
It must be simple for scientists to know if galaxies are moving in a 'straight' path? And it must be simple to know if all of these galaxy paths extend to the same point in the Universe? And since there apparently is no such thing as a perfect vacuum, there needs to be some acceptable tolerance on the above two comments in defining a 'straight path'. And in a very crowded area of the Universe, within these 'acceptable tolerances' defining a straight path, two galaxies closer together than these tolerances allow might collide? And we surely should know if all galaxies are traveling at identical velocities? So...if we don't know how straight the paths are, or if they all extend from one point in the Universe, or don't know how to measure the tolerance of the path, or don't know if all galaxies are moving at identical velocities...then we probably have the potential for collisions no matter gravity and dark matter and the Big Bang. So does entropy rule or do we have some reasonable order going on? If it's entropy, maybe we've just started to see the disorder begin, that down the road everything can possibly collide? Or if we have some order, maybe a little collision between galaxies happens every now and then?
If you believe that professionally then you would have already comprehended that mankind is defining itself, but realize we are creating with the very words and math we created ourselves. Ie.... The pinnacle of evolution: existence comprehending itself and capable of creating its own ever-lasting life. Professionally speaking, of course!
