Dark energy does not exist

File: ColdSpot.jpg (22KB, 460x300px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 460x300px

>>8772308
>assuming the universe is homogenous
please don't do this

It could explain the multiverse theory --that out there there are more "universes" in the greater universe. In this model, there would be no "end" of the universe, at least in the ways that we have imagined. There would be a great reconciliation of our mattter with the matter of the greater universe. Big Bangs would be a way to recycle old matter and create new elements, etc. It would imply that "time" did not begin at the Big Bang, and that the physical laws of the Big Bang are not unique, that classical and quantum physics are compatible with the greater universe, which must be made up of the same stuff. A Big Bang might even be "caused" by a greater being from another, older Big Bang universe.

>>8772308
>Not matter that is "in our universe", yet still affecting "our universe" gravitationally.

Okay so you're taking a simple hypothesis and replacing it with two pretty extraordinary hypotheses? Not generally how it works, but alright.

>The other 95% of the universe not in the singularity would be pushed away from the Big Bang
Pushed where?

> so everything would be seeming to move "away" from everything else as it is pulled to the surrounding universe.

But why would that acceleration be accelerating? Unless you want to argue that it's because everything is getting closer to the rest of the matter, sort of like falling down a potential well. Which implies a notion of distance, which implies that the material is actually within our universe just (perhaps) outside our light horizon.

>This is the idea that there is something "beyond our universe" pulling it.

As far as I'm aware that's not a particularly well accepted idea. Since the only Mersini-Houghton could think of testing it was by looking for some particular kind of anisotropy in the CMB, AFAIK that search was "inconclusive".

>>8772333
>Pushed where?
Space. I am implying that the whole universe is much much larger than what comprises our matter.
>But why would that acceleration be accelerating?
>Unless you want to argue that it's because everything is getting closer to the rest of the matter, sort of like falling down a potential well. >Which implies a notion of distance, which implies that the material is actually within our universe just (perhaps) outside our light horizon.
YES. I do mean within our universe, I just don't know what to call it. "Our universe" as described in the OP is just the amount of matter in our initial singularity, which could be only a small part of the entire universe.

>>8772333
>As far as I'm aware that's not a particularly well accepted idea.
Unfortunately I do not know if we even can test this. I am offering it as a thought experiment. Could it work, even just as a theory?
It would literally provide a "place" in which we were created, a realm for a possible creator, and get rid of pesky, undetectable "dark matter". Sorry if it annoys you that I am on /sci/ talking about something that might be outside the realm of empiricism.

File: 160204075148-jeb-bush-audience-please-clap-new-hampshire-sot-00002230-large-169.jpg (24KB, 460x259px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 460x259px

please bump

please respond

>>8772322
Is that a Gorilla?

Where's the math bro?

>>8772308
It could be there is an attractor outside the visible universe but if you imagine a 2d cross section, the matter would have to be distributed uniformly around the edge to cause repulsion in all directions. This would be a contradiction as the net pull would then be 0.

Also, dark energy and dark matter are completely unrelated as far as we know. We use dark matter to explain differences between visible mass and the observed speed of galaxies. This is unlikely to occur due to some non local effect.

Tldr your idea doesn't work

>>8772808
>The matter would have to be distributed uniformly around the edge to cause repulsion in all directions
Am I wrong to think the universe is homogenous?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_principle

>>8772880
No.
It is. There's some speculation that there could be regions of space made only of anti matter or other exotic stuff, but on a large enough scale you could say that isn't an issue.

Anyways, my point was just that gravity is an unlikely candidate for dark energy because dark energy is pulling everything away equally in all directions.

If mass outside the visible universe were causing this, the force of gravity would have to be equal in all directions to pull in all directions. But then the gravity would just cancel out. So it's not possible that outside mass is responsible for the expansion we see.

>>8772308
you need to first understand the difference between 'theory' and 'hypothesis'......
Then comeback with something intelligent fucking faggot brainlet

>>8773180
>he asked a question and made a basic mistake in wording
KYS you fucking subhuman autist. You are worth nothing :^)

>>8772308
>I have a theory
No, you do not.