The dark energy and love: which is more concrete man?
931484
Why not both? \n\nThe Darkness sing I believe in a thing called love.
172469
Think of them not as linearly parallel but Trans-dimensionally apart/separated.   See the Inflationary Theory/Model of the Universe for more detailed explanations.   ...And if you need help with the Math/Physics of it just give me a call in Universe # 91234536544232329767543.  :-)
946151
well, the answer to this is simple.\nthis is because at infinity we assume the p.e of any body to be 0, as force is 0.\nAt distances lesser than infinity (i.e, in vicinity of attraction) the p.e will be lesser( energy decreases with decrease in distance) , which will obviously be negative.\n\ni guess that will help
200022
Friedman Solved Einstein's field equation asuming the abscence of mass and he still came out with a description of energy in the Universe.\nWhat exists in the Univerves is Power in the Structure of Space. Relativity theory calls it space- time.Whether we call it Aether or Time -Space ,Its still the same Animal.\nThe can only be so and only if the Universe has restrains. your question was one of the most interesting ones.
1106835
They are both equal depending on your approach and comprehension.  Scientifically, every thing is based on cause and effect, thus matter is not eternal nor perfect b/c it must have a beginning.  If it was perfect/eternal, then it would not change but it does.  Thus an Originator is required into the equation of existence.  I just added this 2nd part b/c I thought it may be interesting for you.
456411
If it's attraction = more physical\n\nIf it's love = more spiritual\n\nIf it's to die for = more psychological
446531
Both. If God were to put his powerinto one specific point and create space and time, what do you think we would get?...A Big Bang. I don't see that there is any problem with believing in both!
465074
I do to a degree. Love is very powerful and moves people to do the impossible. I believe that today mankind confuses love. Especially in the english language. We say I love my dog , I love chocolate, I love my wife, I love my parents, etc. However we do not love those things all on the same level. There is no other way to say it in English. So it is true there are different levels of love. There is a level in Greek called, "Agape". This is the highest level there is. God has it for mankind.The kind we have for God. Christ commanded us to have it for one another. This form of love allows you to even love your enemies. Imagine that able to love your enemies. It is very difficult to show this kind of love because it is a perfect bond of love. We are not perfect. Some people are able to come close. Yet only God is able to demonstrate it perfectly since he is perfect. IMagine though if all the world tried to apply it what a better world we would live in. No more divorce.
569059
Well current thinking is yes but since we dont know what either of them are we cant be sure. The reason for there existence is that we have calculated that there should be a lot more matter and energy in the universe than we have observed. All the observable matter and energy makes up only 5% of the energy of the universe with Dark Matter making up 25% and Dark Energy making up around 70%. These two were though up at different times and thus are considered seperate. Dark Matter is believed to surround galaxies and fill that space and it helps to explain some of the rotational aspects of other galaxies. Dark Energy is believed to be a sort of ever present thing in the entirety of empty space. Discovering the constituents of these two things is one of the greatest feats modern physics is trying to discover. They may turn out to be the same thing but all we know now is that they are invisible to us and that they make up most of the universe's mass and energy
561306
you should read more into string theroy and the M theory.  they are both very interesting.  it is hard to wrap your mind around but  this is just one universe that goes along a membrane of universes that goes on infinetely.  the science channel often has show that explin all this much better and they make it pretty easy to understand.
1181994
I believe in a comparitively new but very popular theory that Universe creation and destruction are cyclic in nature. Its like the BIG BANG, then BIG CRUNCH, then BIG BANG again and so on.... The energy for the newest big bang event (the one studied by Edwin Hubble), came from the previous big crunch.  The Cosmic Microwave Background, when studied suggests that the radiation at the denser parts of the universe are heavily red shifted. This is an evidence in support of energy being 'old'.
1008044
Hi NY NY 2\n\nQuite a hodge podge of answers above.  let me see if I can clear some misconceptions up for you:\n\nFirst, the evidence. About 8 years ago two separate independent groups announced measurements of the brightness of supernova at a redshift z=1.  (Cosmologists use redshift factor "z" to show how far away something is in space-time by designating how far light from the object is redshifted by the time it arrives at earth.  The redshift is due to the expansion of the intervening space.  Redshift z=1 corresponds to a distance where the wavelength of light has been redshifted to double its original wavelength.).  These results indicated that the universal expansion was accelerating.  Since that time the results have been confirmed, and supporting evidence was found in the detailed mapping of the microwave background.\n\nSurprisingly (you might think) it is very easy to modify the equations which describe the universe's evolution to make the expansion accelerate.  The reason for this is that Einstein originally included such a factor in his early equations.\n\nBriefly, the equations for the universe at large scale talk about gravity and pressures.  Gravity tries to collapse the universe together and pressures push it apart (roughly).  When Einstein came up with his model (1915), everyone thought the universe was static (so called "steady state"), ie it didn't change over time.  So he included a cosmological constant to counteract the collapsing action of gravity and keep the universe steady.  This cosmological constant "pushes outwards" to counter gravities inward push.  By 1928 Hubble's catalogue had convinced people the universe was expanding (not steady) and physicists realised the cosmological constant wasn't required.  Einstein called its original inclusion "his biggest blunder".  It seems that call was wrong.  :o)\n\nNow the cosmological constant is coming back.  To describe an expanding universe you stick it back in and change the values for the density of normal mass-energy and the cosmological constant, and voila - an expanding universe.  The question then becomes: what does this constant physically represent?\n\nAt present cosmologists use the term "dark energy" to refer to a number of possible culprits.  From the equations we know the properties of this dark energy very well.  Some physicists link it to action of the quantum vacuum, some label it "quintessence" (the "fifth force").  \n\nIt is *not* (as suggested above) dark matter or antimatter.  Dark matter is invoked to explain galactic dynamics: galaxies tend to rotate in a fashion which suggests they have more mass than we can actually see.  This missing mass is presumed to be dark (which is why we can't see it).  Dark matter would act like ordinary matter in Einstein's equaitons, and so can't produce an accelerated expansion.  Antimatter also behaves gravitationally like ordinary matter and so it can't be responsible for accelerated expansion either.\n\n\nHope this helps!\nThe Chicken
238114
Dark matter is theoretical and therefore isn't explained by string theory...it is incorporated into the theory.\n\nDark matter "exists" only because the visible universe does not add up to be enough energy to have ignited the expansion of the universe.\n\nI personally feel string theory is a long shot.  Hyper inflation takes in a better account of what we observe.  And dark energy does exist in forms of massive blackholes (which are observable by outside observations: the gravitational impact the BHs make on celestrial bodies and light).
911108
Love is one of the most powerful forces in the universe. It is always worth it.       Hate usually  stands alone.. Love is never alone.
431798
It is completely unknown, since we cannot measure it and have no examples-we dont even have any proper theories, since there is also dark energy, and we dont know which of the effects we observe are due to dark matter and which due to dark matter.  We do suspect that dark matter generates gravity, and perhaps generates and anti-gravitational force (though normal mass may also do this at large enough distance)  We also know that it does not seem to block any kind of electromagnetic wave, nor does it generate any that can be detected, so it isnt just something like dust clouds or large planets without stars.
425304
The idea is that we use a particular type of supernova (type Ia), as a calibrated candle.  By looking at how the supernova dims over time we known intrinsically how bright it was, and thus how far away it is, helping to link the particular redshift distance it is at.\n\nAfter two groups independantly studied these "high-z" events, they both came to the same remarkable conculsion:  By getting measurements of how the universe was behaving long ago (from these high-z events), they see that the universe is actually expanding faster today than it was back then.  The expansion of the universe is accelerating.\n\nThis cause everyone to stop and think - what is causing the expansion?  Couple this result with recent WMAP results about the structure of the universe, and you find that your best models describe the universe today being dominated (from an energy standpoint) by what now goes by the name "dark energy," an energy-like term that drives the acceleration of the universe.\n\nNow where does the cosmological constant fit in?  Well if you put Einstein's cosmological constant back into the equations of universal expansion, you can set a value of it so that the expansion matches what we observe.\n\nLong story short, every type of energy makes the universe behave a ceratin way, at very early times the universe was dominated by radiation, later it was dominated by mass, now it seems that we have eneterd an era that is dominated by dark energy, and a cosmological constant is curenyly a pretty good mathematical solution to this.  What is it "really?"  Don't have a clue, but there is a nobel prize waiting for someone to figure it out.
1181890
if the potential gravitational energy from all the mass in the universe exceeds the kinetic energy of all the matter, the universe is considered closed.  so, if the density is high enough, that should do it.  the expansion of the universe would eventually stop, and it would contract back on itself.  this is the definition of a "closed universe" -- one that will eventually stop expanding and then begin to contract.\n\nrecently, though, evidence has been found that the universe is not only expanding, but the rate of expansion is increasing -- a very bizarre conclusion under classical theories.  if this is the case, the universe will never close.  the current most popular theory for addressing this evidence is that of "dark energy".  see the link below for more information on how this conclusion was arrived at, as well as theories involving "dark energy".