71–80 of 131 posts
Does this mean the universe is more weird or less weird than we thought?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why should vacuum expand? Is it due to gravity of the filament molecules pulling those molecules together into larger 'strings' or 'planes' which leave 'holes'? Or some other mechanism?
The universe expands. Things bound by gravity tend not to expand that much. As a result, most of the space that expands is vacuum.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, this has nothing to do with dark matter. Dark matter has to be in galaxies because the reason we think it exists at all is because galaxies spin 'too fast', so there is more mass in them and therefore more gravity than can be accounted for. This article is talking about gas between galaxies.
Isn't it more probable that the formulars to calculate the spin are wrong?
Can I just check - my understanding is that we can only see 5% of the expected mass in the universe - so we have just found another 5%? meaning dark matter needs to account for 90%? plus, how awesomely beautiful is the idea of tendrils of has connecting the galaxies through space.
I too love the idea of there being filaments of matter connecting distant galaxies. I can only imagine the artistic renderings will make the universe look like a neural network. Can anyone clarify how these filaments remain “hot”?
There are lots of "cosmic web" renderings from large-scale cosmological simulations of dark mater and the formation of structure in the universe. A major one, now over a decade old is the "Millennium Simulation": http://wwwmpa.mpa-garching.mpg.de/galform/millennium/
The title is effectively click-bait because of: https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/75944s/half_the_univ...
We should assume by default that every headline is clickbait now, unfortunately this is the business model of the internet. It's not good for accuracy and most articles are just a headline and some inane filler up words. I hope we'll smart up and find a better model for news soon. :/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
EDIT: My understanding is incorrect. See the replies to the post for a correction. No. They're saying that 50% of the "dark matter" isn't dark, it's just regular matter that we weren't able to see. The density of this stuff (filaments of gas stretching between galaxies) is so low that it is really, really, really hard to detect. "Dark matter" theories posit that the missing matter isn't just regular matter that's har…
No, this has nothing to do with dark matter. Dark matter has to be in galaxies because the reason we think it exists at all is because galaxies spin 'too fast', so there is more mass in them and therefore more gravity than can be accounted for. This article is talking about gas between galaxies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't it more probable that the formulars to calculate the spin are wrong?
That's a theory called Modified Newton Dynamics (MOND). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Newtonian_dynamics
That just seems unreal to me.
Edit: To clarify, I'm not accusing it of being made up. I just think it's amazing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, this has nothing to do with dark matter. Dark matter has to be in galaxies because the reason we think it exists at all is because galaxies spin 'too fast', so there is more mass in them and therefore more gravity than can be accounted for. This article is talking about gas between galaxies.
Isn't it more probable that the formulars to calculate the spin are wrong?