So, we still don't know where 95% of the mass in the universe comes from. Is that correct?
>>7927582
>we
speak for yourself, kid
>>7927584
You know? What is it?
>>7927584
>>7927586
very argumentative discussion
I was kinda looking for a thread about dark matter / energy...
Primordial black holes are an interesting candidate.
>>7927582
could spacetime have a density?
>>7927582
Yes we do, but most scientists who in all of their wisdom think they are above God don't.
>>7927582
It's His cosmic noodly appendages.
>>7927582
massive quantities of turbulence in the quantum foam distributed through the universe
probably
>>7927622
My dick is dense
>>7927622
Yes it could. Although scientists hate giving properties to empty space because they hate the idea of an aether even though we all know we'll have to go back to that explanation if we want to understand the universe.
We know that 95% of the mass in the universe doesn't interact with electromagnetic radiation.... at least to a large extent
>>7928010
>scientists hate the idea of an aether
Is Quantum Field Theory not the precise contradiction of this claim?
Maybe more of the universe is yet to be seen, that is there might be things outside the particle horizon.
Also, you can't catch up with the cosmic background because you'd have to violate the speed of light. I know there's mathematics about how general relativity shows there's a lengthening/shortening of the frequency as light as it moves in or out of a gravitational well. Maybe objects as they get more massive have a trade off in gravitational pull at a certain mass. I'd believe in a wacky fun house that is this universe that things have constants have some variance in a inertial frame.
Anon, it makes perfect sense.
>Look at dat there night sky, all the dark spots are just nothing trulululustronomy
>What if the dark spots between the stars are not nothing, but just things that aren't that bright or that absorb light.
>SCIENTIFICALLY ARREST THAT HERETIC!
>>7927777
Now what causes it to behave the way it does? Or does everything get increasingly and increasingly unstable until you reach some kind of point?
I'm not well learned in this subject of course but I'm learning.. I pretty much see the universe as this stuff that happened after a big bang, and everything behaves as some kind of wave.
>>7928235
People seriously need to stop using their body as a reference in space. Even just a sliver of the sky is absolutely wonderful, and yet too many people would dismiss it as just dots, bitch about it being too far away, or dismiss it as mostly nothing and gases. I mean it's a bit futile and selfish for me to want people to be more appreciative of what's out there, but damn. Next to teaching manners, maybe it should be common sense to teach people not to blow off the entire world just because they're "used to it".
>>7927793
It must be fucking tiny, then
>>7928282
Maybe it's so dense that it warps spacetime and there's a constant suction of air stroking his black hole dick, giving him instant air handjobs everytime he pulls his pants down.
>>7927582
Dark matter was created because according to our current model of physics, galaxies spin too fast. They should be flying apart. So theorists invented dark matter to explain the shitload of missing mass in galaxies. It's called dark because we can't see it. It's also a stupid way to go about science.
An example of this is with dark energy, the energy theorists created to explain why the universe is accelerating in its expansion. Back when the Big Bang model was first introduced, there was another model called the Cyclic Universe. Due to incorrect observations by Hubble, it was "disproved," but now that those observations have been corrected, it is a completely viable theory. It actually would eliminate the need for dark energy entirely, along with getting rid of the cosmic inflation problem and the multiverse paradox (not the popsci multiverse, the one where during inflation part of the universe could continue inflating and create a chain reaction producing an infinitely large chain of universes but I digress).
However, very few people want to admit that the Big Bang is wrong. After all, we bombarded the masses with the theory for years, we can't say we were wrong now! So even though a better model exists, scientists will continue to search for an explanation for dark energy.
It's the same with dark matter. Nobody wants to say that the current theories of gravity need to be modified to fit observations. Instead, we'd rather modify observations by inventing "dark matter" and then sending the scientific world on a quest to find it.
This is the sad reality of modern theoretical physics.
>>7928292
Can you try to explain this cyclic universe theory? Not laymans or redditesque "explain like I'm five" type of way, just in your words. It's hard for me to find any information about the Cyclic Universe and how it explains dark energy.. without me being a bit confused.
>>7928297
I'm getting my information from lectures and papers written by Paul Steinhart (Stanford) and Neil Turok (Cambridge).
Without going too much into brane theory, the cyclic model is much like the big bang model except instead of the universe beginning in a singularity, it cycles through periods of expansion and contraction. This eliminates the mathematical need for an early inflation period. The reason it was rejected early on was because Hubble calculated that the cycle frequency would be shorter than the age of some galaxies. Unfortunately for him, his constant wasn't entirely accurate at the time and has since been recalculated to a point where this theory could work within the realms of observable phenomena.
As for eliminating dark energy, I wasn't entirely truthful. It does eliminate the need to explain away why the universe is accelerating in its expansion. This is a result of the cause of expansion itself - collisions in M-branes - however, it requires a new force carrying particle to explain the force interactions between branes.
Brane theory is a branch of String Theory. And yes, I know, it's a very abstract branch of physics that really has no way to be tested. However, it provides an alternative to the current theory behind dark energy, which, if you read about it, is equally ridiculous. The point I'm trying to make is that science is afraid to give up old theories now, so we try to create new facts to support them. Let me know if you need more explanation on any of that.
>>7928282
fucking rekt
>>7927582
We are discovering that the intergalactic spaces are filled with stones and grit. Sorry, nothing so glamorous as new forms of 'stuff' just gazillions and gazillions 8f tons of the same shit you find in your local quarry.
(And incidentally, thats why no aliens - inter stellar flight is too dangerous)
Think about it, matter is simply an entertwining of strings, bound to be a fuck-ton of matter just too small for us to detect... until now. And that is what we ARE finding... the oort cloud is now being shown to extend to Alpha Centauri...
Not glam or sexy. Just a big bummer.
>>7928367
>We are discovering that the intergalactic spaces are filled with stones and grit. Sorry, nothing so glamorous as new forms of 'stuff' just gazillions and gazillions 8f tons of the same shit you find in your local quarry.
>(And incidentally, thats why no aliens - inter stellar flight is too dangerous)
Well it's pretty spread apart. I'm sure aliens who master interstellar flight could map their way to Earth anyways.
(also I can never rule out the possibility that aliens just aren't making themselves apparent to us.)
>>7928235
People tried that first, moron. The problem you run up against just about every dark object which could be dark matter was ruled out and the constraints from the CMB and primordial nucleosynthesis pointed to non-baryonic dark matter.
>>7928292
>Dark matter was created because according to our current model of physics, galaxies spin too fast.
No dark matter was first pointed to in the velocity dispersion of galaxy clusters. It was called dark matter because the cluster had to be more massive than typical light/mass ratios.
>It actually would eliminate the need for dark energy entirely, along with getting rid of the cosmic inflation problem and the multiverse paradox
It doesn't get rid of dark energy. A cyclic universe is just one of many solutions to GR which re-collapses and could therefore rebound. As for getting rid of inflation cyclic models are more complex still.
>very few people want to admit that the Big Bang is wrong.
I suggest model B therefore model A is wrong. That's not how it works.
>Nobody wants to say that the current theories of gravity need to be modified to fit observations.
Because that's not true. The bullet cluster has left a gaping hole in the case for modified gravity. Lambda CDM is going from strength to strength on the other hand.
>Nobody wants to say that the current theories of gravity need to be modified to fit observations.
It's a model like any other. Nobody is chainging the observations
So please don't assume that all of cosmology wrong simply because you're ignorant of the state of the field.
>>7928367
>We are discovering that the intergalactic spaces are filled with stones and grit.
Which is ruled out by primordial abundances and the CMB. You can't just replace dark matter with normal baryons. Dark matter was also there when the CMB was produced before fusion in stars. Heavy elements weren't produced in the big bang.
>>7929208
You still can't say that dark energy and dark matter we're devised for any reason other than our theory didn't fit observations.
>>7930045
So? Neutrinos were also hypothesised because observation didn't fit the theory at the time.
We shouldn't be afraid to extend models and test that, as was done with LambdaCDM to great success.
>can't explain observable phenomenon
>fudge the numbers until it works
>there must be something completely invisible and totally not aether 2.0 out there!
astronomy is a bigger meme field than gender studies
>>7930121
we just got lucky. Aether was hypothesized to fit current understanding. Making up shit to fit the theory isnt a good way to do science.
>>7930140
There's not "fudging numbers". LambdaCDM is a new model, tested against new observation such as the BAO peak in the modern universe and CMB lensing. That is the very basis of science. Build a new hypothesis and test it.
But no, your ignorant prejudice definitely has more merit observational tests.
>>7930167
its a new model in the same way the van der waals equation is a new model to the ideal gas equation i.e the same basic idea with a few fudge factors added in
>>7930162
>Making up shit to fit the theory isnt a good way to do science.
Actually it is precisely how you do science on the condition that you test your new extension to the model. This has been done with galaxy clustering and lensing for example.
The Aether wasn't thrown out until observation contradicted the previous model and a better model came along. Dark energy and dark matter haven't been contradicted yet but people are still searching for alternative models. A great deal of work is going into testing the nature of dark energy with many large experiments like eBOSS, DES, HETDEX and Euclid.
>>7928192
So the mass of the universe is analogous to 4chan users, antisocial shut-ins.
>>7930176
So stop peddling it as truth then.
>>7930224
Nobody is peddling it as the truth, you strawman cocksucker. It's just the best model we have for now and literally every scientist in the field expects a better one to come along
>>7927582
Dark matter doesn't exist, it's an illusion caused by a sphere of negative energy around our galaxy.
-(-)= +
>>7930491
dumb cartoonposter
