They aren’t redirected. They travel in a strait line. It’s the space that is warped and the light curves with the space.

In fact, the escape velocity of any gravity well is dictated by the mass of that first body, not the second, because it’s a function of warped space. That’s true whether it’s the Earth, the Sun or a black hole. And the second body, whether it has the mass of a moon or a massless photon, isn’t a factor.

Dark Matter and Dark Energy are called “dark” for two reasons, they are both not directly observable and are poorly understood. So it’s apropos. But electromagnetic energy (EM), light and photons are neither dark nor misunderstood. There are full quantum particle and wave and field descriptions for them.

Duality aside, photons have no mass and cannot be dark matter.

As for duality, they act as energy waves except when interacting with other particles as they absorb or emit radiation. EM and photons are well understood and not related to dark matter.

Radiation isn’t matter, it’s energy. And hawking radiation is not dark energy either.

The radiation is actually produced throughout the ergosphere, wherever space is warped.

If you can reach Venus then you can just as easily reach the Sun 🙄.

Why don’t we use the Sun as a dumpster? 🤔 💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰 💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰 and not just the cost of the fuel and equipment but also the availability of the fuel and equipment. You’re trading one limited resource (the ground which actually isn’t so limited) with another.

This is a non-starter of an idea. Might as well dump it into an active volcano 🌋 😆

Even if you follow your logic and our universe was expanding into another volume, you can ask the same question of that — where did it come from, ad infinum.

But even worse, that would all be speculation because anything “outside” our universe is inaccessible to observation anyway. By definition our universe is all matter, energy, space and time contained therein. There is no “outside”.

Your question has been asked many times with regards to the balloon analogy. “But where is the balloon a inflating into?” In the analogy, that’s higher dimensions. But that’s the rub — it’s just an analogy and not literal. Space “is” and expands in a measurable way. Always. Using an analogy (like the balloon) and concluding “must”, well, that’s a fallacy. The analogy helps describe some aspects of what we observe, but it’s not reality.

As for the Big Bang, all energy was contained in a singularity that was a state beyond which our physics can describe. Time, space, forces, and energy were all unified. That’s why there was no “before” the Big Bang because just like there was no space, there was no time. All of our dimensions, space and time, were created with the Big Bang.

One last note, quantum field fluctuations and uncertainty are natural part of or laws of physics. It’s real and tested. “What triggered” the Big Bang may simply be random quantum wave fluctuations in whatever state the universe was in. No special action was necessary. Our current understanding of physics simply isn’t advanced enough to describe that state. Not without quantum descriptions for gravity and maybe time too.

What??? I don’t know how you came to that conclusion. The time dilation is basically negligible unless very close to the gravity well, even if there is some residual effect past the event horizon or heliosphere (for a sun). In fact, there may be advantages in energy access closer to a major interstellar object.

So I doubt it would make any difference. Rather, any intergalactic species (even our own) would want to mathematically account for time dilation from both sources — velocity and gravity — when communicating data and positioning. Which we already do ourselves. GPS wouldn’t work without accounting for time dilation. So accounting for it, yes, strategically designing around it, unlikely imo

If you had an identical twin on Earth and Uranus, when the one on Earth reaches 70 yrs old, the twin on Uranus will be 1.1 second younger. Not including the time dilation experienced traveling to Uranus, but let’s say we have a transporter to blink us there.

There is an ergosphere around every black hole that extends past it’s event horizon. Yes, there would be time dilation, but it would become less extreme exponentially with the distance from the center of gravity.

But time is relative so to any observer on that planet, time would tick normal to them. We experience time dilation on Earth moving around the sun, and the gravity well of the sun too, but the time dilation compared to, say, an observer on Uranus is negligible. For example, time elapses on Uranus 59.99999997 seconds for every 1 minute on Earth.

Since the Earth is “only” ~24K mi in circumference, you’d wrap around the equator over 5x. So it may be best to shrink that Earth from a tennis ball to a pea. Then ur only wrapping around once 😉

Intelligent/advanced life is entirely different than intelligent design. We have proof of the former in ourselves, and it’s a testable theory even if we haven’t found any signs yet in the vastness of space. The latter — intelligent design — is faith and not a field of scientific study.

Humans and a tree share 25% of our DNA. Imagine a creature sharing 0% 🧐

Light and radio waves are all energy within the electromagnetic spectrum and differ only by radiating frequency.

Transmission over different cables and wires and space are a matter of convenience and using carrier materials that won’t dampen the desired frequency or power. For example, as you know, light can escape the mesh on your microwave oven but not the microwave energy itself. And materials that block light waves won’t block X-rays (though bone will block both, gamma radiation must be blocked with lead or higher density material). Etc. So different mediums can affect the signal. But space is mostly a vacuum.

Visible light can and is shifted down to microwave and, indeed, radio waves too. The greater the relative speed difference the greater the frequency shift.

The conclusion that there should be plentiful intelligent life is based upon probability of large numbers. Even if there were a trillion planets with intelligent life in our observable universe, that’s still less than one planet per galaxy. And there are about 100M stars in a galaxy (1T in Andromeda!), and dozens or more planets around most stars. So I don’t see the paradox. Advanced life is obviously incredibly sparse, and if there is one in the Andromeda galaxy, that’s still 2.5M light years away. Homo sapiens weren’t even around when the light we see from it today left that galaxy.

Assuming that’s true, a photon could never circumnavigate the universe because the event horizon for that random photon is expanding faster than light speed. It can’t ever catch up. Any random photon anywhere in the universe at this moment has a 46B light year event horizon in all directions. And the universe itself (regardless of its geometry) is larger than the event horizon anyway.

First off, yes to the part about photons (as waves) traveling indefinitely until absorbed. However, no to the second part — a photon will never reach the “edge of space” for two reasons. First, space itself expands faster than light speed. And second, since space expanded everywhere at once and is isotropic, any random photon has (today) 46B light years of its own observable event horizon in all directions, and there’s plenty of matter filling that space just as within our own observable universe. Whether our own galaxy is within that photon’s event horizon or not.

The latter is dark energy, a repulsive force. Dark matter is a gravitationally attractive force — one that can gravitationally lens light (without obscuring it) and hold galaxies together!

I think it’s always a good idea to start with the basic principle that our planet, or sun, our solar system is nothing special. That is, our solar system won’t be doing anything different than the others, and given the configuration of the Milky Way arms, these stars (and their planets) are not getting “flung out”. So we wouldn’t either. Our solar system is too gravitationally bound to not just SagA, but all the mass, including dark matter, holding us together.

By that same logic, we have to assume the Milky Way, which has very old stars itself, isn’t special than most spiral galaxies we see. It’s bigger than average, yes, but within normal. And those distant galaxies we see are not ejecting their stars either. The galactic escape velocity is very high.

In fact, I bet astronomers have already calculated the mass of the Milky Way, it’s escape velocity, and the speed at which our star and solar system move through it. I think we’re safe.

Ok… what’s that?

The universe is really “filled to the brim” on the very large macro level; you look at a galaxy and it looks very populated, but the actual distance and influence between individual stars in minuscule. Between individual galaxies even less. Matter in space is very minimal. If you’re referring to the fabric of space-time itself, then that is everywhere. But hydrogen, the most abundant element, is sparse. Free energy is weak — imperceptible gravitational ripples and microwave radiation.

Yours seems to be hypothesis-by-analogy, ie. water is a medium, then why not space?. Analogies are good for conceptualizing things and simplifying concepts, but not for workable theories. As kindly as I can say, I think that is the case here.

To clarify, the “evidence” is actually a probabilistic analysis of competing models. The lowest model is about 137 light years across (that is the “at least” 50% larger than observable) and the largest model (“at most”) is infinite. This isn’t a mean or average of these models, mind you, just a statistical probability placing the whole universe at a likely 250x the observable 92 ly.

Yes… and “seeing” may come in different forms, from spectral analysis to microwave to radio wave transmissions. Bare in mind that those radio waves may have red shifted into the microwave frequencies (SETI may have been looking in the wrong place).

On the remote chance we do detect an alien signature, the source of it will probably be so far in the past that that civilization will probably also be extinct. And certainly too far away for us to communicate with it.

The universe may well be infinite, but the Big Bang was the creation of our universe, not just the expansion of mass and energy into a preexisting space-time. The Cosmic Microwave Background radiation are the “ripples” you speak of, btw. If LIGO can be made with greater sensitivity, a goal of the project, it may well also measure those gravitational “ripples”.

I am answering it well. I actually would prefer you learn. You are asking a question based on a provably wrong assumption. It’s non-sensical. A hypothetical at best.

I’m not being emotional about it. I am well aware how comforting faith can be and would never argue against someone’s faith. But if you say the sky is pink, I can argue that a spectrometer pointed at the sky will tell you otherwise. The sky isn’t pink and the earth is much older than 3.5B years (the earliest dated rock samples on the Earth’s surface) and the universe is older than 13.7B years (the farthest/oldest type 1A supernova detected).

So any statement asking “if we assume A, can B be true” is no, not when A cannot be true. This is a valid answer.

If you want a serious answer, here:

We know the speed of light is constant. We know the luminosity of certain stellar masses is constant (specifically type 1A supernova). Since light intensity decreases proportionally to the square of the distance, we can calculate exactly how far away they are. And since we know both how far away they are and the speed of light, we know how long ago that light left that type 1A supernova. And guess what, it’s a lot longer than 6,000 years ago.

And before you hand wave and say “well maybe those things aren’t constant”, that would disagree with Einstein’s field equations which are among the most robust scientific theories in history — every test has proven them. Every one. And any hand waving that contradicts that contradicts every experimental observation and does so without any evidentiary support.

So it’s not worth delving into your conclusions based upon a provably incorrect assumption of the age of the universe. You’re asking “let’s assume 2+2=3”. It’s a non-starter.

That’s my serious answer. Is it shallow?

p.s. I’m disappointed you deleted your post (out of frustration perhaps) without reading any well argued rebuttals. I hope you think about this response before dismissing it.