|
Hi Alex it seems that we assume that the universe is as big as the limits of our observation. We may only be glimpsing a tiny fraction of the true universe. We also tend to think 'finite', that everything must have a beginning and an end, so it is natural for us to apply this to the universe.
Andrew thanks for straightening out my logic. It looks like our local group have sufficient mass to prevent the galaxies within form being 'flung away from each other'. This got me thinking could it be some kind of centripetal force that is 'repelling' galaxies away from each other? I'm assuming that all galaxies revolve around some kind of central point in the universe.
Doug, I like your analogy of an egg, it explains what I was thinking better than I could verbalise it. I was working from the assumption that since we date the age of our universe on how far back we can see, so there could be more out there beyond our present observational limits. What if we are only seeing just 1% of the universe and basing all our observations on that? That means there would be 99% out there that we can't see (yet), and assuming similar composition of matter and mass to the parts of the universe we can see, could this account for the galaxies accelerating away at an ever increasing rate to a greater mass beyond our limits? I realise I have no empirical evidence to support any of this, hence it is just an idea.
From a documentary I saw a few months ago, there seem to be indications that dark matter exists, and seems to present a more accurate model of the universe that we are observing.
|