Milky Way - the galaxy - not so snack-sized

If there is so much more dark matter then matter why dont we see it entering earths atmosphere? I see matter hitting earth all the time in the night sky but I have never seen a report about dark matter ever hitting earth. Dark matter = no matter.

More important, it's denser, with 50 percent more mass, which is like weight.

Wow. I want to find the person who wrote this story and hit them over the head with a high school physics book. Mass is not like weight. Yes, the two are entwined, but they are not alike. Gah.

Also, the tagline "That's not necessarily good news" was completely useless. Billions of years from now, it doesn't matter what the hell happens. Seriously? BILLIONS of years? OH NO RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!

The Big Bang theory presupposes that there is no interstellar medium (i.e., an ether). The Big Bang rests on the notion of "empty space" and the continuous uninterrupted transmission of light via wave/particle dualism.
When you assume (incorrectly) the previous items, you arrive at the erroneous conclusion that red-shift can only be due to "recessive velocity."
It is not.
Completely empty space is impossible (just as we know that a completely solid object is impossible).
There is no such thing as wave/particle dualism.
Waves do not imitate particles.
Waves are only caused by an aggregate of particles (such as H2O particles causing waves of water).
The transmission of photons from the light source to the receiver (in this case, us), are continuously interrupted by collisions with particles in the interstellar medium (electrons, neutrinos, and "gravitons").
When a photon collides with an electron, it is absorbed and re-emitted.  Energy is lost in this process, and this is why we detect a "red-shift," as lower wave-lengths result in loss of energy (and speed).
The energy lost in this process becomes the CBR (cosmic background radiation) which has been mis-interpreted as a remnant of the Big Bang.
If completely empty space is impossible, and completely solid objects are impossible, then the universe can only be infinite micro-cosmically as well as macro-cosmically.
An infinite universe does not require a "beginning."
The Big Bang never happened.Wave/particle duality says that photons of light behave like both, and therefore are constitutive of both.  Wave theory says that waves "simulate" particles.  Particle theory says that waves exist by an aggregate of particles.  This is obviously so when it comes to water and sound.  It is also true when it comes to light.
It is particles that create waves, not the other way around.
As far as empty space is concerned: there is sometimes a distinction made between "empty space" and "completely empty space."  This is a misnomer.
Einstein left the world to believe that space is "absolute," meaning that between the obvious objects we see (stars and galaxies, for instance) there is absolutely "nothing" in between.  This "nothing" is what the Big Bang supposedly "popped" into existence from.
Does that really make any sense to you?
It is not true that "it is accepted that even in the darkest reaches of space, there are particles."
However, you are correct.  There are particles between particles, and particles between those particles, and particles between those particles, and so on, and so on, forever.
Just keep in mind that these particles are always moving.  There is no such thing as motionless matter (just as there is no such thing as matterless motion!).
All these things add up (or at least make more sense) to:  an infinite universe, not a finite universe.Once started, it IS very difficult (if not impossible) to stop thinking about finite vs. infinite universe.
What is most interesting about the choice is that NEITHER model of the universe can be proved.
Therefore, it is up to a formulation of assumptions that must lead us to the "proper" conclusion.
We must resort to LOGIC, Mr. Sulu.
Infinity does indeed stagger the brain. But so does the idea that all we know came into existence from a miniscule point.
Respectfully, Dr. Hawking has followed the lead set by Einstein. But Einstein has led us astray in many areas (gravity, for instance). Hawking (as did Einstein) has changed his mind several times over these issues. They ultimately have no answers for us that remain intact. What they have
postulated is what is known as the Standard Cosmological Model (i.e., the Big Bang).
The notion that the universe is expanding, then will someday slow down, and contract, and then repeat the process is known as the "oscillating universe theory." However, what is logical disputes this. What is logical disputes any version of a finite universe (or any bang theory).
The question of "how big" an infinite universe is, is actually a mis-nomer. The "size" of the universe could only be measured by comparison to "something" else. In an infinite universe, the