"dark matter" and "dark energy" are first of all
inventions to make the calculations fit the observations.

So there are 3 posiibilities:

1: "dark matter" and "dark energy" exist
2: the observations ar faulty
3: the calulations/models are faulty.

So as long as there is no direct proove,
dark matter" and "dark energy" are just theoretical implications.

if a creator IS needed , then the creator needed a creator , and that creator needed one too! but of course im sure i will hear the double standard , we needed a creator not god , and i think thats just bending the rules to fit your needs. im more for the big bang than anything else , makes the most sense.

That thing about the crowded ...
well have you ever though about that, we are souls that encarnate .. again and again?

because that way it wont be 18 billions to come, because they are the same souls, that after death will return..
So its a cycle. And thus no real mortal.

And if you dont agree.. universe is infinite , thus, there is space for everybody


My only question is, what is the boundary of the universe if its infinite? how can something have no limit?
if its finite, what is the wall that make the universe apart from the otherside?

Well Mr Krauss answered also this question

The terms "wall" or "boundariy" assume that you can watch the universe from "outside" but in the theory of relativity it does not make sense to speak of something "outside" the Time-Space
Dont think that I really understand what I wrote one line above
Modern Physics is not intuitive but it is supported by experimental evidence

well if you mean that the existance of dark matter and dark energy has not been proved yet beyond any reasonable doubt, it is ok but you can not put the 3 alternatives on the same level

As I told in my previuos thread the existance of the energy of vacuum is a direct consequence of the Heisenberg's principle of indetermination
Kasimir proved in lab that it should really exist
Just a few years ago the acceleration of the universe seem to confirm that this strange form of energy is actually is diffused everywhere


Pure coincidence ? faulty observations ?

Well in theory it may be but alternative a ) is definitely the most likely hypothesis

Direct proves are almost impossible in the modern physics but indirect proves are considered as valid as the direct ones

a thing i didn't quite get... do all supernovae have the same brightness? or what exactly is this standard candle he was talking about?

...and i found it very intriguing that in the future, observers won't be able to figure out the true nature of the universe. what if the universe already plays tricks like that on us now?

"what if the universe already plays tricks like that on us now?"
I think this can't be the case, because we see the microwave background, which is 14 billion light years away, and the universe is 14 billion years old. So there can't be anything invisible to us that was visible before, because it was never possible to look beyond the microwave background.

Excerpt from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_candle#Supernovae)

Type Ia SN (Super Novae) are some of the best ways to determine extragalactic distances. [...] Because all Type Ia SN explode at about the same mass, their absolute magnitudes are all the same. This makes them very useful as standard candles. [...] Therefore, when observing a type Ia SN, if it is possible to determine what its peak magnitude was, then its distance can be calculated. [...] Using Type Ia SN is one of the most accurate methods, particularly since SN explosions can be visible at great distances (their luminosities rival that of the galaxy in which they are situated), much farther than Cepheid Variables (500 times farther). Much time has been devoted to the refining of this method. The current uncertainty approaches a mere 5%, corresponding to an uncertainty of just 0.1 magnitudes.

makes sense but is it easy to figure out how old the supernova is? or what state it is in?
this is what i mean. how is it possible to figure out the peak magnitude?


i mean in general. not specific to the age or something. ...what if something else has happened already that distorts the observation of the universe's true nature?

You could just read the Wiki link

It is not intrinsically necessary to capture the SN directly at its peak magnitude; using the multicolor light curve method (MCLS), the shape of the light curve (taken at any reasonable time after the initial explosion) is compared to a family of parameterized curves that will determine the absolute magnitude at the maximum brightness. This method also takes into effect interstellar extinction/dimming from dust and gas.

Similarly, the stretch method fits the particular SN magnitude light curves to a template light curve. This template, as opposed to being several light curves at different wavelengths (MCLS) is just a single light curve that has been stretched (or compressed) in time. By using this Stretch Factor, the peak magnitude can be determined.