What is contained in the space that the universe is expanding into?

If before the beginning there wasn't time, or space... is that still outside that universes boundary line?

They think that the stars are moving away towards the universes edge, so does that mean that we can define the centre?

If so, that is where the big bang stated right?

Ahh.. Confusion.

I love it when someone can cut through all the hyperbole and get down to the roots of things. You’ve just asked some questions that honest (hard science) Astrophysicists and Cosmologists dread (because they don’t know the answer), others on the other hand freely respond (while still claiming scientific legitimacy) that they have scientific corroboration to support what they “think” or “speculate” or “believe” to which some would label as pseudo science, pure speculation or blurring the distinction between science and religion. The Corroboration these scientists site is nothing more than hard scientific measurements or proof that their theory is false, which is exactly what could be said of many religious answers to the very same questions.

My answers (some say speculation, I believe to be true) are as follows:

The universe is not expanding, there are other explanations for the scientific measurements claimed to support the expanding universe theory. That said the universe is infinite, people have a hard time dealing with absolutes such as eternity and infinity, it’s human nature,

What’s before the beginning or beyond the universes boundary? There was no single big bang, I suggest that the universe is composed of a continuous series of “mini-big bangs” cyclic, this stems from theified Field Theory in which Gravity is a force or repulsion not of attraction and gravitationally isolated black holes are unstable and will explode in a mini-big bang like event.

The boundary of the universe which if you mean visible universe or beyond is a place where space is distorted because far from matter length compresses to the point that it would be impassible yet without bounds (infinite).

Regarding the stars moving away and being able detect the center from that movement. The speculation is that the expansion of the universe has no center because of the method of expansion (like baking a cake or bread) each point within the cake or loaf expands from each other equally. If there was a center we would not be able to determine the center by measuring what is expanding away from us. Using that method it would appear that we would be the center of the universe because everything is expanding away from us. It’s interesting that that would support the ancients and not so ancients theory that the earth was the center of the universe .

Again I don’t think there was a big bang as currently proposed, big bang theory only reinforces the point that those considering it don’t understand infinity or eternity, proposing our universe is from a big bang means it cannot exist in eternity, yet here we are.

outside the boundary of space would theoretically be vacumn (emptyness)

regarding expansion of universe, observation shows *everything* is moving away from earth. but it is unlikely that earth is the center of the universe. so it is postulated that everything is moving away from everything. which means there is no center in a 3d sense.

imagine spacetime as the surface of a balloon, now as the balloon expand, any 2 points on the surface will move away from each other, but there is no center per se. ofc, for this to happen in 3d space, more dimensions are needed.

Einstein can solve the calculation of time by treating time is not a dimension...But debate still on and on about the fundamental defination of dimension...Dimensions had to be interchangeble...But if so, mean chances of us traveling through time seem possible...But researchers nowdays had a different view about time, That travelling through time is just a fantasy...Could not be done...Maybe if so, it is just paradox we experience

You contradict yourself. First you say the UNiverse is infinite. Then you say you support the no-single-big-bang theory. That theory itself only works with a finite universe.
Then you explain about the boundary of the universe. There will not be a boundary if the universe is infinite.
You are just another conspiracy theorist making no sense.

to be precise, vacumn never exist... the "vacumn" is just does not contain AIR....

the "vacumn" space still contain EM wavelength and other energy....

What do you mean vacuum doesn't exists?
In interplanetary space, molecules still exist, about 10 molecules per cubic centimeters =)

what i meant is that the concept of vacumn that 100% empty... which this state does not exist.. as no matter how vacumn it gets, something still there....

so, get my point of vacumn does not exist?

I don't see why you're going against convention here.
Vacuum does exist. The official definition of a vacuum is a volume of space essentially empty of matter.
EM waves and energy isn't matter.
So there.

ohh.. ya..sorry... that`s vacumn.. with EM in it.. there`s another term for absolute emptiness.... vacumn aint the total emptiness

cant recall

Not exactly - there are 'virtual' particle-antiparticle pairs that appear and quickly disappear into the vacuum, and there has been experimental confirmation for them (we did not observe it directly, but indirectly)

Welcome to the peculiar world of quantum mechanics, or probably quantum field theory to be more precise.

This post has been edited by bgeh: Nov 1 2009, 07:50 PM

as Einstein once quote "I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice"

the pecularity of quantum field theory had always been mind boggling. However as recent progress shown at CERN might shed us some lights to better understand quantum field theory. If, those particle collider able to detect presence of Higgs Boson particle and existence of extra dimension, we just might be able to prove string theory. String theory does explains a little on quantum field theory which basically defining characteristic of a particle based on their vibration. String theory, I believed to be more likely characteristic of universe, as I, myself believe universe is not something happens by accident or by chance (all the building blocks of universe has to be exact). Quantum field theory suggest otherwise. It's unimaginable the probability our universe to emerge in the world of quantum mechanics.

Ain't this very vague. If we were to reason that there are endings and beginnings, then what is the end and what is the start? Think about it.

I subscribe to the idea of hypersphere cosmo model (big bang) as this is the "better" model out there, at least for now.

It isn't perfect, as many questions remains unanswered.

What is the start? - The explosion of the singularity marked the beginning of the universe.

What we are observing now (the planets, ourselves, animals, energies, EM waves, matters, everything) here is the interchanging states of physics, chemical reaction and biology reaction of a closed system that is continuing to actively interacts with each others after the explosion.

Just look at human body itself, we are in an ever changing states with the surrounding. We breath oxygen (O2), exhales Carbon Dioxide (C02), consume foods (Hidrogen (H), Carbon ©), and pass urine and pass motion. Basically in and out just like an engine system. The O2, H, C that we gather from the air, plants, animals form part of our tissues and this combination of molecules and separation of molecules happens non stop in our body.

We are like an ion that looking for another ion to survive. If this condition is not fulfill, it would decompose and release to the surrounding.

We know now that the Sun can not shine forever. The hidrogen, helium explosion, changing states will end one day. No battery can last forever.....


As universe is not a free lunch, it will end one day. We are lucky that the age of the universe is relatively young and it would be a while before it comes to an end.

Come to think of it, can anyone suggest one thing that can last forever????? With no beginning and no end????

energy cant be created (no begining); cant be destroyed (no end)

Nice one, law of conservation of energy.

Two arguments here:

1) If big bang model holds true, isn't the explosion of the singularity marks the creation (hence the beginning) of the energy? It is formed as part of the power residues resulting from the explosion.

2) Second law of themodynamic (From order to chaos, usable energy reduces, wasted heat increases)

Initial Energy (100%) = Kinetic Energy (90%) + Wasted heat (10%)
Kinetic energy (90%) = Initial energy (80%) + Wasted heat (10%)
80% = 70% + 10%
.
.

If energy has no beginning and no end, which means it existed indefinitely long already, this means by now there is no more usable energy, as all of them has transformed to wasted heat (entropy increased). This is what scientists called "heat death" phenomenon.

Isn't "energy" need to have beginning in order for second law to hold true?

What law of conservation of energy stated is energy can transform to usable + unusable energy as we are looking at a small segment of time frame only.

It doesn't tell if energy has a beginning or has an end. Second law and cosmo modeling does.

Cheers.

There is no such thing of "wasted energy" in the energy equation (Energy cannot be created nor destoryed). You still get back 100% (your above equation has already show that. The wasted energy still in the form of one type of energy, just in different type of form.

Big bang theory doesn't hold well the energy equation or energy creation. But big bang theory is the most nearest thing/theory thay human kind can come out with to explain what happening around us.

The big bang theory is that the energy is so enourmous is singulairty before the or when the big bang occur aka the total amount of energy big bang is same as now, big bang is super super hot and enormous and with universe expand, energy is spreaded and universe become cooler.

Agreed. There are a lot of questions remain unanswered using big bang modeling.

Second law shows us that universe has a beginning, using it to explain energy has a beginning is not appropriate in this context.

Don't forget on the elusive dark matter & dark energy

2nd law of thermodynamic have nothing to do with beginning of energy.

"in a closed system, entropy must always increase"

at big bang (t=0) entropy is 0 and has been steady increasing every since.

another possible theory (but not so popular nowadays) is the idea of a "big crunch" instead of heat death. this is where gravity eventually overpower all repulsive force and reunite the whole universe into a single black hole (new singularity) and at which point big bang will re occur. thus a "bouncing" universe.