• Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).

Only 4% of the Universe is known

Migrated topic.
I

Ice

silently awaiting
Yesterday while in a book store, I saw a book explaining that we only know 4% of the Universe. The rest is dark matter and dark energy. I didn't get to stay long enough to get a firm grasp on what is going on.

Could it be that the rest of that energy is in other dimensions? other realities? Probably the drugs that made me jump to that conclusion first. haha.

I've skimmed over a few articles on the subject, but it is just a mystery of the Universe. an unexplainable anomaly. I wish I knew more to make an intelligent post, but I don't.

Have any of you guys read, seen this? What are your thoughts?
 
I'm more of a math guy than a science guy by training, but don't you have to know the denominator of a fraction to calculate it? For example, if someone showed you five pieces of a puzzle, you would not be able to calculate what % of the puzzle you were seeing unless you knew the exact size of the completed puzzle.

So if someone has calculated the exact size and composition of the universe without me knowing, I'd love to have that link!

To answer the question though, I'm with Phantastica..... about 0% 😉

Peace and Happy Journeys!
 
If you want to get an idea of where the missing part of the universe is, look into Electric Universe Theory and Plasma Cosmology.

Those theories account for 100% of the universe, and do not need to create fantastical, unobserved 'dark' stuff to make their theory work.
 
jacetea said:
To be honest, I'd be shocked if 4% was correct. That's a whole heckuva lotta universe to be known.
Click to expand...

No, what is meant is that the 'matter' we can observe accounts for 4% of the total mass in the universe. In order for big bang cosmology to work, with 'supposed' (because red-shift does not necessairily mean that things are moving away from us. This misconception of red-shirft has been proven by observations of connected galaxies with radically different red-shifts which indicate they should be hundreds of millions of light years apart, but they re not) red-shifts indicating that things are expanding and ever quicker, they had to add undetectable stuff to the euqations to make it work out. The big bang theory accounts for 100% of the observable universe, its just that 96% of that is undetectable or invisible matter and energy.
 
Thanks for clearing that up. I can see how "known" and "visible" could represent two different ideas. :)
 
4% of the known Universe "is known"?
Am I alone or does this sound very paradoxical? How did they come by the number 4?
Let's say we have visually explored "X" cubic meters of space and the matter and energy within it. You could only say this "X" amount of cubic meters is 4%, if you would know the actual size of the whole of space; 100% but it is my understanding that there is no end to space and that it is infinite.


So what's the point in saying we have explored 4% of infinity? What is 4% of infinity?
 
I think people are misunderstanding the 4%, from my understanding its not 4% of the universe is known, the 4% comes from a average of detectable matter or whats observable and 96% is what fills the gap there are theory's as to what's there its just not able to be observed.
 
ewok said:
I think people are misunderstanding the 4%, from my understanding its not 4% of the universe is known, the 4% comes from a average of detectable matter or whats observable and 96% is what fills the gap there are theory's as to what's there its just not able to be observed.
Click to expand...

so how did they measure what's 100 %?😉
 
kyrolima said:
ewok said:
I think people are misunderstanding the 4%, from my understanding its not 4% of the universe is known, the 4% comes from a average of detectable matter or whats observable and 96% is what fills the gap there are theory's as to what's there its just not able to be observed.
Click to expand...

so how did they measure what's 100 %?😉
Click to expand...

You know the space within a cube = 100%, as I said I believe its taken as a average.

So I believe it comes from say if you look at 1 light year cubed only 4% of the matter of the space within that cube is observable and something has to fill the rest. .

Obviously you can't pinpoint 100% of the universe, its taken from the KNOWN UNIVERSE which is what we can observe. Its not saying that 4% of the universe is known.
 
4% of the known universe has a far different meaning to 4% of the universe is known which is where that confusion seems to be.
 
as far as I understood it, the idea is that, in order to explain the movement of the physical bodies in space using our current understanding of physics, a certain amount of mass must exist throughout the universe / within the galaxies. However the mass that we can observe and measure and calculate only makes up a certain percentage of this amount which would account for the movements we observe. Hence the conclusion 'there must be some kind of matter that we cannot detect, so let's call it dark matter.'

If this dark matter exists, one of its characteristics is that it does not radiate or reflect light, does not seem to interact with it other than by its gravitational pull.

Of course it could simply be that our theories are not comprehensive enough and that some understanding of the universe is still missing with which the addition of this undetectable dark matter stuff would not be necessary. I've heard theories of how gravity from parallel universes was bleeding through into ours and this explained the apparent lack of mass...

to quote Arthur C. Clarke: "The truth, as always, will be far stranger."

So, who knows...
 
Enoon said:
Of course it could simply be that our theories are not comprehensive enough and that some understanding of the universe is still missing with which the addition of this undetectable dark matter stuff would not be necessary. I've heard theories of how gravity from parallel universes was bleeding through into ours and this explained the apparent lack of mass...

So, who knows...
Click to expand...

Again I will suggest people look into Electric Universe Theory, which explains the entire observable universe without having to invent "invisible" stuff.

Don't you think it illogical that our universe would be based on gravity when the Electromagnetic force is (10^36) 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times more powerful?

Only electic currents produce magnetic fields, then what is producing the magnetic field of the sun? Or the magnetic fields of Black Holes at the center of galaxies?
 
Saidin said:
Only electic currents produce magnetic fields, then what is producing the magnetic field of the sun? Or the magnetic fields of Black Holes at the center of galaxies?
Click to expand...
I’m stepping outside my area of expertise, but if I remember my college physics correctly, magnetic fields produce electric fields. In fact, light is a “self-propagating” electric and magnetic field (electromagnetic wave) – the electric field causes the magnetic field to propagate, and the magnetic field in turn causes the electric field to propagate.

Edit: To answer the question about magnetic fields on the sun - the sun is loaded with charged particles in motion. Wherever there are charged particles in motion, there is both an electric field and a magnetic field.
 
If I remember correctly, mass = gravity. The denser the mass, the more "pull" it has. The reason why black holes have a larger "Magnetic field" is because it's so dense. When talking about interplantetary bodies, I'm pretty sure mass = gravity = magnetism.
 
MerryPrankster said:
If I remember correctly, mass = gravity. The denser the mass, the more "pull" it has. The reason why black holes have a larger "Magnetic field" is because it's so dense. When talking about interplantetary bodies, I'm pretty sure mass = gravity = magnetism.
Click to expand...
That makes absolutely no sense at all.

Gravity is an elementary force. Magnetism is an unrelated force. Mass is a property of matter.

Mass does not equal gravity does not equal matter.
 
Back
Top Bottom