Dark matter emits no light, and cannot be directly observed, but scientists think that it and dark energy make up most of the mass of the universe. Space.com Dark Matter and Dark Energy in my opinion is similar to the charred remains of a log after the energy has been consumed. Just like a charred log the interior would still be hot as the remaining energy was slowly used up. Similar to our Universe the Charred Log Theory would show the interior of the Universe as full of radiant energy in the form of suns, planets, etc with Dark Matter being the charred remains of the shell that once surrounded us like the layers of a log. If you were to wipe your hand across a piece of charred wood, make certain that is not hot of course, each swipe would add a mass of Dark Matter and Dark Energy until your hand was covered in the stuff. Eventually your hand would become five times as heavier with the amount of charred wooden remains. This effect could be similar to how Dark Matter and Dark Energy creates an external amount of pressure on the Universe contained within the Universal Log of Creation.
Dark matter doesn't exist. It is an ad hoc patch to cover the fact that galaxies, as observed, cannot be explained by the gravity-only mainstream theory. Forget comparing it to a burnt-out log; dark matter is alleged to be non-baryonic. Dark energy is a patch on dark matter to explain why the universe is allegedly speeding up in its expansion. Universe is Not Expanding After All, Controversial Study Suggests Oops. So things are looking dark for dark matter and dark energy—just not dark enough.
Our Universe has to be expanding based upon the expulsion of matter as determined from an energetic release. Matter will continue to expand until its forward momentum is slowed by an outside force, dark matter or dark energy, where the velocity of the initial expansion is no longer able to forcibly move aside. In this case dark matter and dark energy would be similar to the sack of a nearly born calf that the calf exerts a certain amount of force against to get out of.
Sorry, but I find this analogy rather confusing than enlightening. It really creates the wrong impression that "dark" "matter" is dark matter. First, it's not "dark" but invisible (otherwise we wouldn't be able to see distant stars in our night sky because of dark matter particles hiding them). Second, it's not even established as any kind of matter the way we understand matter composed of atoms, i.e. normal matter, antimatter or negative matter. It currently remains just an observable effect, whose source is unknown. Bob
Not only that, but "galaxies" themselves are nothing more than sciency gobbledegook, supported only by wild speculation over detected EM radiation effects, mixed with a lot of technobabble to conceal the fact that the entire galactic theory is inconsistent, overly complicated and doesn't make a lot of sense. It's so broken it needs to be patched with dark matter and dark energy to work. And it's only a theory. So far, there is no direct evidence of galaxies existing, nor they will there ever be. The pro-galactic crowd has been shamelessly promoting the craziest excuses to explain why this is the case. Like Einstein famously said, 'And don't get me started on "stars"!' (Popularly misattributed to Archimedes and misquoted as "Eureka!") Everyone is simply denying the obvious fact – the universe isn't there. P.S. Where is Samantha Bee when you need her to teach people about scientific counter-facts?
Stuff like the Pioneer Anomaly being explained with unexpected thermal recoil force, and many physicists loving to say "this is negligibly small", I like to think it all comes down to measurement and calculation errors. In space, the tiniest little bit of effects add up over millions and billions of years to result in big differences. And I like to think that our methods of calculating distances, masses and brightness are faulty. That is basically the main reason for "dark" matter, some magical invisible substance that ONLY interacts with gravity but nothing else.
The measurement error on the exact acceleration of a single object and the measurement error on the direction of acceleration of, well, all objects in the universe are what you call completely different things. ETA: Not to mention that there wasn't a measurement error for Pioneer, but the effect of matter that was unaccounted for and was causing the discrepancy. So if one were to jump to conclusions...
It's the whole "standard candle thing" I'm not so sure of. I remember seeing something in Arxiv about some bodies exceeding the Chandrasekhar limit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandrasekhar_Limit Humans have nukes of all sorts of yields--stars too, as with the Champagne Supernova of 2003 My guess is that the universe is expanding, but isn't really getting faster and faster, and that some observations may indeed be flawed, but not by as much as these steady state-ers want.
The Universe is still expanding but not as fast as it did initially right after the Big Bang. Think of a rubber band. As you pull on it there is not much resistance which would have been the expansion of the Universe directly after the Big Bang. As celestial bodies came into being within the central area between the bands running parallel to each other and the center of the Universe being either point at which you firmly hold the rubber band in place with the gravity generated slowly causes the expanse to slow until the rubber band is stretched to its limit and can go no further. The question is what would happen if the rubber band breaks or suddenly breaks free from the second point of contact? Will the Universe explode out away from the rubber band center and will matter collapse back in on itself if the rubber band springs back to its starting point?
Guys, we shouldn't bother discussing this anymore. The astrophysicist has shown up. Enlighten us brother!
Dark matter is real, folks. It can't be observed directly, but its gravitational lensing effects can be and have been.
So now you are following me around in different fora, spamming the board when I happen to post? That's frowned upon, I think.
I'm sorry, I posted my opinion on the matter as did others, and you collectively called us all cranks. Assuming that you believe this because you are an astrophysicist (so you claim) then I am simply asking you to provide us with your knowledge so we can be enlightened as you are. I'm not sure how you are interpreting that as spamming?
ummm...hmmm...if there is no "there" there, is there no "here" there?... ...(with apologies to Descartes) "Cogito ergo sum becomes (very loosley) "Vaccas cogitare possum venire ad domum, sed non ego" (I can think until the cows come home, but I am not"