- #1
Chronothread
- 51
- 0
Hello, I'm pretty uneducated on the topic of dark matter and dark energy, but I know a little. I was just wondering why dark matter and dark energy are the more "expected to be true" theories then many others currently. I'm not suggesting that the following theories are right or wrong, I'm just wondering why people would tend to believe they're probably not the right answer.
As far as I know one of the major reasons that dark matter is believed to exist is because from what we see from the structure of galaxies we think there should be more mass then we see. Why isn't it likely that the extra matter isn't in objects that are hard to observe like black holes, neutron stars, etc.?
It seems dark energy is currently the most accepted idea as to why the universe is accelerating in it's expanding. Why isn't the idea that, like at extremely high speeds Newtonian physics is no longer correct and you need to use relativistic physics, at extremely long distances the effects of gravity could be different then at the distances we commonly observe.
Thanks for your time and explanations.
As far as I know one of the major reasons that dark matter is believed to exist is because from what we see from the structure of galaxies we think there should be more mass then we see. Why isn't it likely that the extra matter isn't in objects that are hard to observe like black holes, neutron stars, etc.?
It seems dark energy is currently the most accepted idea as to why the universe is accelerating in it's expanding. Why isn't the idea that, like at extremely high speeds Newtonian physics is no longer correct and you need to use relativistic physics, at extremely long distances the effects of gravity could be different then at the distances we commonly observe.
Thanks for your time and explanations.
Last edited: