Why is the universe expanding when gravity says mass should attract

[*************************]

If you get this right you win a nobel prize

 

[thorns]

the earth is flat

 

[*************************]

the earth is flat

Your brain is smooth

 

[Penalizer69]

Because we're humans we don't know everything we get things wrong. According to physics black holes shouldn't even exist yet they do

 

[Splankу]

the earth is flat

The earth is hollow

 

[Nati]

>using gravity to attract mass to help me build my steam engine

 

[Nenestar]

Dark energy

 

[Drownedwithluv]

Great question! At first glance, it does seem like a contradiction: gravity pulls things together, so why is the universe expanding — and even accelerating in that expansion?


Here’s the breakdown:

---

The Expansion of the Universe​

The universe is expanding because of how it started. Right after the Big Bang, space itself began stretching. This isn't expansion like an explosion into space — it’s more like the fabric of space itself growing. Galaxies aren’t flying away from each other through space — they’re being carried apart by space expanding.

---

Gravity​

You're absolutely right — gravity causes mass to attract other mass. If gravity were the only force at play, it could slow down the expansion and even reverse it, leading to a "Big Crunch."


So why isn’t that happening?

---

Enter:​

In 1998, astronomers discovered that the expansion of the universe isn't just continuing — it's accelerating. Something is overcoming gravity on cosmic scales.


That "something" is what we call dark energy.

• Dark energy is a mysterious form of energy that permeates all of space.
• It has a repulsive effect, pushing space apart.
• It makes up about 70% of the universe today.

We don’t fully understand dark energy yet, but it behaves very differently from gravity: it exerts negative pressure, which causes expansion to accelerate.

---

Gravity vs. Dark Energy​

You can think of it like a cosmic tug-of-war:

• Gravity tries to pull things together.
• Dark energy pushes space apart.

In the early universe, gravity dominated because matter was dense. But as the universe expanded, matter thinned out — and dark energy’s influence began to dominate. That’s when acceleration kicked in, around 5 billion years ago.

---

Summary​

• The universe is expanding because of initial conditions from the Big Bang.
• Gravity does resist expansion, and it did slow it down for billions of years.
• But dark energy, a mysterious repulsive force, now dominates and accelerates the expansion.

---

If you want, I can show you a simple analogy or diagram that illustrates this tug-of-war visually.

 

[boxeur]

If you get this right you win a nobel prize

universe is space its a container it is not affected by mass because it is not mass

 

[Drownedwithluv]

Great question! At first glance, it does seem like a contradiction: gravity pulls things together, so why is the universe expanding — and even accelerating in that expansion?


Here’s the breakdown:

---

The Expansion of the Universe​

The universe is expanding because of how it started. Right after the Big Bang, space itself began stretching. This isn't expansion like an explosion into space — it’s more like the fabric of space itself growing. Galaxies aren’t flying away from each other through space — they’re being carried apart by space expanding.

---

Gravity​

You're absolutely right — gravity causes mass to attract other mass. If gravity were the only force at play, it could slow down the expansion and even reverse it, leading to a "Big Crunch."


So why isn’t that happening?

---

Enter:​

In 1998, astronomers discovered that the expansion of the universe isn't just continuing — it's accelerating. Something is overcoming gravity on cosmic scales.


That "something" is what we call dark energy.

• Dark energy is a mysterious form of energy that permeates all of space.
• It has a repulsive effect, pushing space apart.
• It makes up about 70% of the universe today.

We don’t fully understand dark energy yet, but it behaves very differently from gravity: it exerts negative pressure, which causes expansion to accelerate.

---

Gravity vs. Dark Energy​

You can think of it like a cosmic tug-of-war:

• Gravity tries to pull things together.
• Dark energy pushes space apart.

In the early universe, gravity dominated because matter was dense. But as the universe expanded, matter thinned out — and dark energy’s influence began to dominate. That’s when acceleration kicked in, around 5 billion years ago.

---

Summary​

• The universe is expanding because of initial conditions from the Big Bang.
• Gravity does resist expansion, and it did slow it down for billions of years.
• But dark energy, a mysterious repulsive force, now dominates and accelerates the expansion.

---

If you want, I can show you a simple analogy or diagram that illustrates this tug-of-war visually.

 

[Altruist]

check inbox

 

[*************************]

Dark energy

Great question! At first glance, it does seem like a contradiction: gravity pulls things together, so why is the universe expanding — and even accelerating in that expansion?


Here’s the breakdown:

---

The Expansion of the Universe​

The universe is expanding because of how it started. Right after the Big Bang, space itself began stretching. This isn't expansion like an explosion into space — it’s more like the fabric of space itself growing. Galaxies aren’t flying away from each other through space — they’re being carried apart by space expanding.

---

Gravity​

You're absolutely right — gravity causes mass to attract other mass. If gravity were the only force at play, it could slow down the expansion and even reverse it, leading to a "Big Crunch."


So why isn’t that happening?

---

Enter:​

In 1998, astronomers discovered that the expansion of the universe isn't just continuing — it's accelerating. Something is overcoming gravity on cosmic scales.


That "something" is what we call dark energy.

• Dark energy is a mysterious form of energy that permeates all of space.
• It has a repulsive effect, pushing space apart.
• It makes up about 70% of the universe today.

We don’t fully understand dark energy yet, but it behaves very differently from gravity: it exerts negative pressure, which causes expansion to accelerate.

---

Gravity vs. Dark Energy​

You can think of it like a cosmic tug-of-war:

• Gravity tries to pull things together.
• Dark energy pushes space apart.

In the early universe, gravity dominated because matter was dense. But as the universe expanded, matter thinned out — and dark energy’s influence began to dominate. That’s when acceleration kicked in, around 5 billion years ago.

---

Summary​

• The universe is expanding because of initial conditions from the Big Bang.
• Gravity does resist expansion, and it did slow it down for billions of years.
• But dark energy, a mysterious repulsive force, now dominates and accelerates the expansion.

---

If you want, I can show you a simple analogy or diagram that illustrates this tug-of-war visually.

dark energy is just a placedholder term for a bandaid fix solution to equations not adding up

there's no realistic difference between saying this is caused by dark energy or because Allah willed it

 

[*************************]

check inbox

:jag:

 

[Altruist]

:jag:

Exactly

 

[Nenestar]

dark energy is just a placedholder term for a bandaid fix solution to equations not adding up

there's no realistic difference between saying this is caused by dark energy or because Allah willed it

It is a label for a measurable phenomenon, it's physics. Retarded analogy. And yes, all of physics you could argue that way. We don't even know what an electron is in the fundamental level, physics is about modeling behaviors, not proving ultimate truths.

But w/e, bud

 

[*************************]

It is a label for a measurable phenomenon, it's physics. Retarded analogy. And yes, all of physics you could argue that way. We don't even know what an electron is in the fundamental level, physics is about modeling behaviors, not proving ultimate truths.

But w/e, bud

wrong, science must be falsifiable. making up arbitrary variables to capture observable error is unscientific. i can't falsify dark energy, whereas i can falsify whether masses attract. do you understand the distinction now?

read popper

 

[Nenestar]

wrong, science must be falsifiable. making up arbitrary variables to capture observable error is unscientific. i can't falsify dark energy, whereas i can falsify whether masses attract. do you understand the distinction now?

read popper

It's not made up, wtf? It's literally just a model made with out current understanding. You can't prove anything in physics with that analogy. But w/e, think like that, sure

Theory can be proven incorrectly via better theory, or measurements that don't match it. Literally everything is place holder in all of physics, by your logic

 

[*************************]

It's not made up, wtf? It's literally just a model made with out current understanding. You can't prove anything in physics with that analogy. But w/e, think like that, sure

Theory can be proven incorrectly via better theory, or measurements that don't match it. Literally everything is place holder in all of physics, by your logic

r****d

 

[Nenestar]

r****d

You clearly don't have any physics background. I cba arguing with you. Chimp

 

[*************************]

You clearly don't have any physics background. I cba arguing with you. Chimp

says the guy ignoring that dark energy only exists because general relativity is at odds with red shift

 

[*************************]

explain to me how you would falsify dark energy's existence

 

[Nenestar]

says the guy ignoring that dark energy only exists because general relativity is at odds with red shift

We model red shift, with GR. You're a fucking buffoon.

 

[*************************]

We model red shift, with GR. You're a fucking buffoon.

can you elaborate what you mean because this sentence doesnt make any sense, bro

 

[Nenestar]

can you elaborate what you mean because this sentence doesnt make any sense, bro

GR was made before any redshift was observed. It confirms what GR models, it doesn't mean GR exist because redshift.

It's a well made model, thatled to the inference of dark matter, etc.

But is it 100% Obviously not, it doesn't connect with QM, but you're saying it's unscientific. Is just ridiculous. It's the most experimentally verified models.

But yes if you want to make it to a metaphysical argument. Then everything is unscientific. LITERALLY, don't you understand your dogshit analogy is.

YES dark matter doesn't EXPLAIN it, but you can't say that in anything. physics uses models NOT ultimate TRUTHS

 

[*************************]

GR was made before any redshift was observed. It confirms what GR models, it doesn't mean GR exist because redshift.

exactly, and when redshift was observed, it was at odds with the predictions made by GR. so we created an "ad hoc hypothesis" and called it dark energy
an ad hoc hypothesis is introduced to protect a theory from falsificastion and cannot be independetly tested. this is unscientific according to popper

It's a well made model, thatled to the inference of dark matter, etc.

But is it 100% Obviously not, it doesn't connect with QM, but you're saying it's unscientific. Is just ridiculous. It's the most experimentally verified models.

nothing of substance in these line worth responding to

But yes if you want to make it to a metaphysical argument. Then everything is unscientific. LITERALLY, don't you understand your dogshit analogy is.

nope, models that can be falsified are scientific e.g. electromagnetc induction

physics uses models NOT ultimate TRUTHS

correct, I never claimed otherwise

 

[Nenestar]

exactly, and when redshift was observed, it was at odds with the predictions made by GR. so we created an "ad hoc hypothesis" and called it dark energy
an ad hoc hypothesis is introduced to protect a theory from falsificastion and cannot be independetly tested. this is unscientific according to popper


nothing of substance in these line worth responding to


nope, models that can be falsified are scientific e.g. electromagnetc induction

correct, I never claimed otherwise

I mean if you define science that way, then sure. It's just the best we have, I wouldn't call it the same as Allah waving a wand, though.

You can still falsify it, if there are measurements that show something else than the current models, then the model is abandoned. Yes, you cannot test it in the lab, obviously.