LOL

No, I said it (dark energy) violates conservation of energy because it's not attached to matter. Learn to read.

And no, antimatter was not created in equal amounts to matter. It's called the parity conservation violation. As far as the big bang goes, that is. I don't believe in the big bang, so it doesn't matter to me to ask when the universe was created and how.

Theorically, dark matter is negative energy, so the conservation of energy work

they don't know that its completely independent from matter, it might still be attached in a way

Lame attack to reply + completely biased.



Do you always start your arguments by insulting your opponent?

This post was edited by MarkTheShark on Jan 7 2012 01:57am

i know the big bang doesnt exist because there are egos that hav expanded wider than the universe

yes but you're assuming we know what dark energy is
we don't



no...

negative energy as work only shows the direction of work, say in ideal gas systems you have either gas doing work (-) or work done on gas (+). The work done is the negative integral of the process curve in the PV diagram (area under curve), hence integrating from larger volume to smaller (from right to left) yields negative energy, but the definition has a minus in front so we have a positive value (work done on gas, energy introduced to system). It's kinda like negative potential (or total) energy in bound systems, but it's not negative in the sense you're implying.

we don't know what dark energy is




this depends on your definition of matter, usually matter means massive particles (quarks, electrons etc.). But you're right, there isn't really pure energy imo, light is photons and nothing makes photons more pure than say, gluons (analogues of photons in the strong force). When antimatter and matter annihilate, it's true they yield photons, but (I think) it's because of the fact matter-antimatter is related to charge, which is related to the electromagnetic interaction along with photons. But then again, 3 forces merge into one at high energies, so I don't think those who aren't particle physicists should give too detailed info about the "purest" form of energy and so on.



my friend, try to apply E=mc² for photons

the current understanding is that there's asymmetry between the amount of matter and antimatter, because if the amounts were equal, all would annihilate or then there would be antimatter here and there alongside matter (if they somehow separated into clusters). But the (the parity thing AEtheric mentioned) isn't enough to account for the outnumbering of antimatter by matter.

This post was edited by Ocen on Jan 7 2012 09:12am

Singularity/thread

"One explanation for dark energy is that it is a property of space. Albert Einstein was the first person to realize that empty space is not nothing. Space has amazing properties, many of which are just beginning to be understood. The first property that Einstein discovered is that it is possible for more space to come into existence. Then one version of Einstein's gravity theory, the version that contains a cosmological constant, makes a second prediction: "empty space" can possess its own energy. Because this energy is a property of space itself, it would not be diluted as space expands. As more space comes into existence, more of this energy-of-space would appear. As a result, this form of energy would cause the Universe to expand faster and faster. Unfortunately, no one understands why the cosmological constant should even be there, much less why it would have exactly the right value to cause the observed acceleration of the Universe. "

from nasa's website

I don't think answers to the universe will be discovered in our lifetime.

Anything else to be added ?