How can the conservation of mass and energy be true if the universe

>>9128802
I blame this retardation on the meme that is Modern Cosmology.

>>9128802
Space has no properties and is nothing. Dark matter does not exist and has not been proved to exist. A logical explination would be that it is merely a larger voidance in "space", but there is still energy in it. You are correct, the universe is in equilibrium as it's the only way a system would abide by the conservation of anything.

>>9128860
Way to not answer the question.

Anyone can insult something to seem superior to it, but hows about an actual response?

>>9128802
You are wrong in several ways, yet you are right.

The expansion of the universe is not creating gravity. It actually does the opposite, gravity is created by energy bending spacetime.

The expansion of the universe does not create particles, in fact the universe is slowly becoming less dense each passing moment.

There is no edge of the universe, it goes on forever or it loops in on itself. And as far as we can tell, it has no curvature so it goes forever.

But, the vacuum energy is constant. So expanding space is in fact creating energy out of nothing, Dark Energy specifically. The universe is not following the laws of conservation of energy when it creates it, and each second there is more of it. As the universe dissolves away, it becomes a homeopathic solution of matter, dark matter, but mainly dark energy. The universe will be dark energy, with trace amounts of everything else.

>>9129117
>in fact the universe is slowly becoming less dense each passing moment

How so? Doesn't that alone negate the mass and energy law?

>But, the vacuum energy is constant. So expanding space is in fact creating energy out of nothing

And this as well? Also, how can there be no edge of the universe? If its "expanding", then doesn't it need definitive parameters to do this? If not, you're just saying that infinite space is creating more infinite space by the second, which not only doesn't make sense, but would render the term "infinite" meaningless.

Anyways, even if space is expanding, what is it expanding IN? If non-existence lies beyond the universe, how can existence be not only created, but contained within anti-existence? These are knotty problems for me

File: dark_energy.png (45KB, 960x757px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 960x757px

>>9129148
>How so? Doesn't that alone negate the mass and energy law?

There is no mass law. If the universe expands, matter and energy just gets more spread out. Less mass per unit of volume means less density.

>I don't understand expansion
Well, space creates more space. If you divide an hypothetical infinite euclidian space in cubes, the expansion of the universe would be every cube growing at the same time. Wherever you go, cubes are growing. Things don't grow with space, so they get farther and farther appart.

You don't need for them to grow into anything, and you can't treat infinite as a number. An infinite universe doubling in size is still infinite, it hasn't growth into anything, but things inside it are further appart.

Another way to see it is, imagine you live in an universe of infinite size, but each moment things just get further and further away from each other without moving. That's expansion.

The thing with dark energy is, any amount of space will always have the same dark energy density. So with more space, there is more dark energy. So it doesn't obey conservation of energy, which by the way is a property of closed systems.

>>9129148
You're getting too caught up in the concept of boundaries. All the expansion of the universe really means is that every particle in the universe is gradually moving away from every other particle in the universe, getting further away from each other.

>>9129213
>>9129218
I think im beginning to see. Thanks mes braves