Cutting Edge Forum An Old Prejudice?

 The preference of our place in the universe has been based on a prejudice. The prejudice is derived from a biased presumption that the cosmos can be measured and its existence be certified in terms of matter and the effects of mass.

This prejudice has been reinforced up to the time of Albert Einstein and beyond. But a true, exploring scientist does not base their postulates just on what seems handily around. Any capable person who wishes to research thoroughly any subject, including the cosmos, should always include the most elemental features when addressing a whole system.

By our time, it is evident that depicting a universe beholden and reliant upon the presence of matter is incomplete.  Even by our time, Albert Einstein's time, Edwin Hubble's time, matter is a miniscule presence, e.g. baryonic elements make up about 4% of the universe's content and the lit up part of the universe comprises less than 1%.  These are hardly accountings that would call for the foremost attention for calculation against such a backdrop for any considerable computation of a real setting. One would not invest wisely with such facts toward the accounting of the cosmos as a whole.

Yet, scientists who have followed the accounting of the universe with investigations, as have gone on before, continue to base the depiction of the cosmos according to the presence of matter and the effects of mass despite the findings by observatories and measurements indicating matter's ever diminishing role for now and in the future. This old approach of relying solely on matter for measurement cannot ensure a sound accounting of the cosmos. These new findings are in the face of Einstein who could not abide a world without matter.

There are found huge voids that comprise 40% of the known universe. Some are many hundreds of millions light years across and many contain little matter, "underdense". The universe is also found accelerating its expansion, and not in some steady state. The expansion increases vast distances among properties of the universe.'

Matter is not primeval, it is not present at the very beginning of the cosmos. Thereby, it need not be considered a primal element of the cosmos make up by which to compute the course of the cosmos. If anything is to be considered primeval, it would be empty space. It has far less constraint, especially for expansion. Space is unbounded, unlike matter.

The acceleration, believed driven by dark energy which comprises 68% of the cosmos content and yet that was not discovered until 1998, causes over all expansion throughout the vastness with no indication of impediment and irregardless of the presence of matter. Yet it can better accommodate matter, and not vise versa.

Any who continue to portray the cosmos as an  activity dependent on matter will not be portraying a wholesome description of the universe because the prominent elements of the universe are now found to be otherwise than being based on matter.

There is no sustaining evidence for matter to be a prerequisite for a cosmos. Matter does not provide the shape of the over all universe, which may be flattening out with accelerating vacuity as the energy density is diminished. The ratio of space volume to matter will grow to 9:1. The net value of matter in the universe is zero. This, again, runs contra Einstein and his aversion to a world without matter. Yet some scientists cling to making matter significant.

 It is seen that matter is not a component upon which to derive or base the nature of the cosmos. Mass does not provide all the energy "E"  for the universe for expansion now or in the distant future. Hence, m in E=mc2 is not a prevailing component. Considering the above, the morphology of a universe is not dependent on the presence of matter, and in vacuity it might not be a primal force at all.

Indeed, when all the stars die out, they will no longer produce elements and there will be no more matter produced in the vastness of space. Cosmos will be enormously increased and all geometry with no significant matter will resemble flat Euclidean space.

If only the people who speak of "the vastness of space" had an inkling of what they were really alluding to.