Martian:

Dude, everyone's knowledge is limited when it comes to the universe. You feel you know but all you do is take the knowledge we have and twist it to fit your imaginations. Then you huff , puff and act like what you feel is verifiable fact.
You're not the only one with ideas. Plaetton also has his but he doesn't act like they are absolute facts.

May the Great Leprechaun keep all your carbonated drinks cold, world without end. Amen !

Martian:

It's not expanding into anything

You cannot seriously say this, Martian. Come now, let us reason together. Do you believe that such a thing as nothingness exists? Is that not a contradiction? How can you assert that matter, energy, galaxies, and all they contain, move at great speeds expansively away from one another and that the space they move into, is not "anything"? Like seriously?

This is seriously contradictory, be honest.

and if there is something else that it's expanding into, I don't know what it is.

Normally, saying that you do not know what it is, should be fair enough but it is not tenable in this instance. The reason it is not tenable is because the question arose from your contention that space is created by the big ba.ng. You cannot assert that, when it is obvious that galaxies are moving away into what space? Evidently they could only move into already existing space. As such, saying that you do not know is only a weak cop out aimed at maintaining your mainstream view that space was created by the big ba.ng. It makes no sense to claim such, when teh ba.ng itself evidently requires space into which the object move.

The singularity itself is everything that we know exists.The expanding singularity is what gives rise to spacetime,galaxies, stars, etc. There is no spacetime if there is no expansion.What we call time now is just the motion of matter through spacetime. The motion of the bigbang was the beginning of spacetime. The singularity didn't exist in space and time; spacetime is a part of it.

Your "i dont know" is unhelpful because it side-steps the question. The question asked was simple. Let me break it down -

1. Is the singularity physical? Yes it is.

2. Do physical things exist outside of or without space and time? No they do not.

3. As such, if the singularity is physical, then it either existed in space and time of did not exist at all. This again leads to thE conclusion that it cannot be claimed that space or time only came into existence at the moment of the expansion. If that was the case, there would have been no singularity to expand, ab initio.

The universe is the singularity. The singularity existed. How? I don't know.

You have not answered the question: you are just repeating the mainstream viewpoint without addressing my question.

Let me break it down.

1. If the singularity expanded, then it had to exist in order to expand, no? Yes.

2. In that case it already existed and then there was an expansion, no? Yes.

3. This means it pre existed teh expansion, no? Yes.

4. This means thatconceptually it must exist in a timeline otherwise we could not say that it existed prior to expanding, no? Yes.

5. This means that time existed already - and as such, is not created by or at the moment of the expansion.

Also your comments affirm that which I have always said: What is referred to as time by the scientist is actually simply motion. That is not time. Motion is not time. Motion is motion. If the earth for some reason stopped moving today, time would still pass. You would grow old. You would experience time still. As such you have not answered the question, you have rather affirmed my position on the matter.

jayriginal:


You wish to cherry pick. When it suits you, you shout hurray !

When it doesnt, you dismiss it as illogic, illiteracy and what not.

You cant have my view because I am not in the field.

Here look at what you wrote



In your own words, GBAM !

Precisely the reason I tell you science does not inform my position.

Its by no means a knockout as a simple google search will acquaint you with the different theories out there.

Thats why I am bemused at you. You have no clue.

Lol, after the very first answer to the very first question showed you up.

Be man enough to face it: this is logic here:

YOU stated that movement is occurring to ALREADY existing space.

That simply means you concede that the space already existed and thus could not have been created by expansion.

Simple logic.

I mean, this is so simple that you really need to get my personality out of teh way and just see it as simple as it is. Its iron cast logic. Don't be upset just because its Deep Sight pointing it out to you.

jayriginal:

May the Great Leprechaun keep all your carbonated drinks cold, world without end. Amen !

It comical that you are still cracking jokes seeking to mock theists when your very first attempt to address a question showed u up so disastrously.

Martian:

Dude, everyone's knowledge is limited when it comes to the universe. You feel you know but all you do is take the knowledge we have and twist it to fit your imaginations. Then you huff , puff and act like what you feel is verifiable fact.
You're not the only one with ideas. Plaetton also has his but he doesn't act like they are absolute facts.

O, so your only issue is that I assert confidently? If the logic is good, anything can and should be asserted confidently. I don't know why you guys are hung up on me issuing a special statement that what I say is just my opinion. Everything everybody says is their opinion, so why the fuss.

You simply accept or reject, and do so with counter arguments otherwise you are being exactly like the faith guided religious lot.

Deep Sight, get real.

You are lazy (one of your favorite words, if you wont acquaint yourself with the various theories.

Keep turning cartwheels if that makes you happy.

Space is not expanding into anything observable.

Make of it what you will or look it up. Not my headache.

jayriginal: Deep Sight, get real.

You are lazy (one of your favorite words, if you wont acquaint yourself with the various theories.

Keep turning cartwheels if that makes you happy.

Space is not expanding into anything observable.

Make of it what you will or look it up. Not my headache.

Now the contradictions are being introduced. Please stop asking me to go read anything because I have read them and I know exactly what I am talking about and exactly why I formulated my questions.

CONTRADICTION

First YOU SAID that the expansion is occurring into already existing space - which concedes to my position.

Then when that is pointed out, now you do a spin about and say that space is not expanding into anything observable!

Na wah! Which is it now, my friend, eh?

You see, sincerely, this is why I say all that I say regarding you guys. Let us be sincere: these are clear contradictions that I point out and yet all you do is scoff. Your attempt at answers now runs into disastrous contradictions.

So what's the issue now?

I hope you can now see clearly where I am coming from, and the minimum you can do is to admit that there are valid queries raised.

Thanks.

As always, please do not take my yabbis seriously. Its sport.

MacDaddy01:

The earth's equator is an imaginary line. It does not exist in time and space.

Lol, is this all that you can say to the many examples Prizm gave? SMH. Poor!

I see the clueless atheistic cavalry have taken off. Lol. Predicted.

Ihedinobi:

Now that was a very interesting read. What did you say again is your problem with Christ, Deep Sight? For a smart guy such as you, it's very curious that you should have problems comprehending, or at least, allowing comprehension of Jesus Christ.

I believe that Jesus was a simple Jewish man trying to teach simple things such as love and human brotherhood. That's all. What more is there?

mkmyers45: Who knows?

So what do you want to know? Let's make it an experiment. You never can tell.

sightdeep@gmail.com

Deep Sight:

I believe that Jesus was a simple Jewish man trying to teach simple things such as love and human brotherhood. That's all. What more is there?

Not much. Just that He's God too.

Edit: ok, I admit it, a helluva lot more.

Ihedinobi:

Not much. Just that He's God too.

He did not make any such claim.

It is illogical to believe such.

Deep Sight:
I see the clueless atheistic calvary have taken off. Lol. Predicted.

I actually got banned whilst trying to post a link to help you.

Let me re-iterate.

jayriginal: I have given you an answer before. Im quite certain of it.

If I answer you, I will not be answering you from what I have experienced personally , but from the body of knowledge established by people in the field.

That is the reason I ask you to google it.


Succinctly, space is not expanding into anything observable. Space is not expanding in the way you would expand your house, rather, galaxies are moving away from each other into space that is already there.

Google it so you know.

That is what is there.

I dont even know why I bother with you when I already know what you are going to say next.

The idea that the universe is expanding involves a bit of subtlety. For example, we don’t mean the universe is expanding in the manner that, say, one might expand one’s house, by knocking out a wall and positioning a new bathroom where once there stood a majestic oak. Rather than space extending itself, it is the distance between any two points within the universe that is growing.

It is important to realize that the expansion of space does not affect the size of material objects such as galaxies, stars, apples, atoms, or other objects held together by some sort of force. Rather, because the galaxies are bound by gravitational forces, the circle and the galaxies within it would keep their size and configuration as the balloon enlarged. This is important because we can detect expansion only if our measuring instruments have fixed sizes. If everything were free to expand, then we, our yardsticks, our laboratories, and so on would all expand proportionately and we would not notice any difference.

"The Grand Design" , Stephen Hawkin and Leonard Mlodinow, Bantam Books, New York, 2010.

https://www.nairaland.com/1000711/ex-nihilo-nihil-fit-refutes/7#11649462

So there you have it, plus any other views you may want to look up.

If you disagree, take it up with whatever theoretical physicist you may come across online.

Deep Sight:

He did not make any such claim.

It is illogical to believe such.

He did too.

What is illogical about it?

jayriginal:

I actually got banned whilst trying to post a link to help you.

Let me re-iterate.





So there you have it, plus any other views you may want to look up.

If you disagree, take it up with whatever theoretical physicist you may come across online.

This says nothing to debunk your first answer [which was in line with my position].

Please you are not helping me. I have read all this elementary things before.

FACT: The growth of the space between galaxies refers to the balloon model. No balloon would be inflated without space outside of it into which its expanded size would project.

So back to square one: the fact remains that you can logically see why I say that space is NOT created by or at the moment of the big bang.

When it comes to this issue, it is hard to use any common experience to describe it. Dough and raisins have been used, balloons have been used but in my view, they do not accurately model what is happening.

Rather than space extending itself, it is the distance between any two points within the universe that is growing.

Deep Sight:

This says nothing to debunk your first answer [which was in line with my position].

Please you are not helping me. I have read all this elementary things before.

FACT: The growth of the space between galaxies refers to the baloon model. No baloon would be inflated without space outside of it into which its expanded size would project.

So back to square one: the fact remains that you can logically see why I say that space is NOT created by or at the moment of the big bang.

See above.

The balloon analogy isnt accurate.

Deep Sight:

Same thing. Neither balloon, Dough, or whatever else may be raised can escape the fact that no expansion can occur if there is not existing space in which to expand. That's the point: and thus such space was already existing: and NOT created by or at the moment of the expansion.

Ya gatta admit it Jay.

Ihedinobi:

Oh that. Sorry. I just couldn't think of a better answer than Mr Anony's return with the analogy of velocity and time. I quite agreed with him and since the game involved me and him, you and Plaetton, I figured you could carry on with an answer to him.

Anyhow, if you want a return from me, I ask instead what is energy?

What ?
You mean you are incapable of an original thought of your own without Mr Annony?
Are you siemese twins?

Ihedinobi:

He did too.

What is illogical about it?

It is illogical to encapsulate the infinite in the finite. As such God cannot be encapsulated as a man.

Let me begin by saying that "expanding" isn't really the best word to describe what is happening to the universe, although that is the word that is often used - a word choice which I think leads to a lot of unnecessary confusion regarding what is already a difficult topic! A more accurate word for what the universe is doing might be "stretching".

The difference between "expanding" and "stretching", for me at least, is that an "expanding universe" conjures up an image where there is a bunch of galaxies floating through space, all of which started at some center point and are now moving away from that point at very fast speeds. Therefore, the collection of galaxies (which we call the "universe" is expanding, and it is certainly fair to ask what it is expanding into.

The current theories of the universe, however, tell us that this is not the picture we should have in mind at all. Instead, the galaxies are in some sense stationary - they do not move through space the way that a ball moves through the air. The galaxies simply sit there. However, as time goes on, the space between the galaxies "stretches", sort of like what happens when you take a sheet of rubber and pull at it on both ends. Although the galaxies haven't moved through space at all, they get farther away from each other as time goes on because the space in between them has been stretched.

Of course, when we think of space in everyday life, we don't think of it as something which is capable of stretching. Space, to us, just seems like something which is there, and which everything else in the universe exists within. But according to Einstein's theory of general relativity, space isn't really as simple as our common sense tells us. If we want to understand the actual way that the universe functions, we need to find some way to incorporate Einstein's ideas into our mental picture and imagine space as a more complicated entity which is capable of doing things like "bending" and "stretching".

To help us imagine this, a lot of people have come up with analogies for the universe in which space is represented by something more tangible. For example, there is the analogy with a sheet of rubber (or sometimes a balloon) that I mentioned above. My favorite analogy, though, involves imagining the universe as a gigantic blob of dough. Embedded in the dough are a bunch of raisins, spread throughout. The dough represents space, and the raisins represent the galaxies. (To the best of my knowledge, this analogy was originally proposed by Martin Gardner in his 1962 book Relativity for the Million.) We have no idea how big the dough is at this point - all we know is that it is very big, and we, sitting on some raisin somewhere inside it, are so far away from the "edge" that the edge can't possibly have any effect on us or on what we see.

Now, someone puts the dough in the oven and it begins to expand. The raisins move apart from each other, but relative to the dough they don't move at all - the same particles of dough that start off near a particular raisin will always be next to that raisin. That is what I meant when I said that the galaxies aren't really moving through space as the universe expands - here, the raisins aren't moving through the dough, but the distance between the raisins is still getting larger.

This new picture of the universe which I am asking you to imagine is, on a practical level, much different from the old picture in which the galaxies are all moving through space away from some point at the center. A lot of concepts and definitions that seem simple to us in the old picture are much more complicated now.

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=274

I get this question a lot, and with good reason. You've seen a Science Channel special in which a dapper (presumably British) cosmologist talks knowingly about how the universe is expanding as though it's the most natural thing in the world. But to someone not trained in general relativity, it can be hard to grok what the expanding universe really means. This sort of question comes up so often, in fact, that it (or a variant of it) is the title of Chapter 5 in my book, and was the first question, chronologically, that my co-author, Jeff Blomquist, and I knew we had to answer.

So first, a few things about what the expansion of the universe isn't.

1. You are not currently expanding. Neither is the earth. Nor the solar system. Nor the Milky Way Galaxy. The expanding universe is due to gravity, which means that in regions of high density, the dominant gravitational effects are entirely local. As a case in point, not all galaxies are moving away from the Milky Way. Our nearest neighbor, Andromeda, is actually hurtling toward us at around 80 miles per second, and will collide with us in a few billion years.

2. Don't believe the metaphors. In every science special worth its salt, you'll see some image of a balloon being inflated. "This is just like the universe!" the dapper British cosmologist will say. But you, being clever, will note that there really is something outside the balloon universe, and that the 2-dimensional surface of the balloon is inflating into a 3-dimensional studio. But our universe only has 3-dimensions. *

3. The universe doesn't have a center or an edge. We're not actually sure whether the universe is infinitely large, or merely very, very big, but in even supposing it is, that just means that if you traveled far enough in one direction, you'd eventually return to where you started. Think Pac-Man, but without the ghosts or fruit. Practically speaking, though, the speed of the expansion (and the size of the universe). As for the center, that's where the balloon analogy is actually pretty helpful. Sure, it seems like all of the galaxies are moving away from us, but from their own perspective, every galaxy appears to be at the center of the universe. I assure you that it's just an illusion.

So what is the universe really expanding into? Nothing. There is no cosmic storage locker just waiting to be filled up with stuff. But in order to understand why, let's see what general relativity has to say about space-time.

In GR (as the pros say), the most important property of space (and time) is the distance (and time interval) between two points. In fact, the distance measure defines space entirely. The evolution of the distance scale is governed by the amount of matter and energy in the universe, and as time passes, the scale increases and the distance between galaxies increases. But, and here's the weird part, it does so without the galaxies actually moving.

I know your intuition breaks down at this point. Mine does, too, but that doesn't prevent us from exploring some of the weird implications of all of this.

For one thing, you've probably been told that galaxies are flying away from us. They're not. This is one of those realities that are usually swept under the rug because science channel producers don't have the same faith in you that I do.

"But wait!" one of the more scientifically astute among you will say, "We measure the Doppler shifts of distant galaxies." This is the so-called "redshift" that PVIII referred to in his question, and here on earth, a Doppler shift, like with an ambulance siren, is a sure sign of motion. But that's not what's happening on cosmological scales. What's really going on is that the scale of space increases from the time that the light was emitted at the distant galaxy to the time that it reaches your eye. As space expands, so do the wavelengths of the photons, and as wavelengths increase, they appear redder.

This picture of the universe even helps you to understand another popular question: "Is the Universe expanding faster than light?" It's absolutely true that the most distant galaxies are increasing their distance from us at faster than the speed of light, but so what? The galaxies aren't moving faster than light (they're sitting still), and more importantly, the fast expansion doesn't actually help you do anything. For example, you couldn't use it to send a care package – or any information – to a distant galaxy faster than a light signal, which means that the speed of light is still the universal speed limit.

I've described the rock-solid (or at least relativity-solid) consensus view of how cosmological expansion works, but I'll finish with something we don't currently understand. Everything I've described above works perfectly fine if you have already have space to stretch. But what happened at the very beginning to create space out of literally nothing? Physics doesn't have an answer for that yet, I'm afraid, and we'll presumably have to wait (at least) until a theory of quantum gravity comes along before we have one.

http://io9.com/5526583/if-the-universe-is-expanding-whats-it-expanding-into

What is the Universe expanding into?

This question is based on the ever popular misconception that the Universe is some curved object embedded in a higher dimensional space, and that the Universe is expanding into this space. This misconception is probably fostered by the balloon analogy which shows a 2-D spherical model of the Universe expanding in a 3-D space. While it is possible to think of the Universe this way, it is not necessary, and there is nothing whatsoever that we have measured or can measure that will show us anything about the larger space. Everything that we measure is within the Universe, and we see no edge or boundary or center of expansion. Thus the Universe is not expanding into anything that we can see, and this is not a profitable thing to think about. Just as Dali's Corpus Hypercubicus is just a 2-D picture of a 3-D object that represents the surface of a 4-D cube, remember that the balloon analogy is just a 2-D picture of a 3-D situation that is supposed to help you think about a curved 3-D space, but it does not mean that there is really a 4-D space that the Universe is expanding into.
For objects in our ordinary experience, like the rising loaf of raisin bread dough also used as an analogy to the expanding Universe, there are two ways to see that the object is expanding:

The distances between objects are all increasing, so the distance between any pair of raisins increases by an amount proportional to the distance.
The edge of the loaf pushes out into previously unoccupied space. Note the distance between any pair of points on the edge increases by an amount proportional to the distance.

The first statement involves the internal geometry of the object, which can be measured by an observer sitting in the object. The second statement involves the external geometry of the object, which can only be measured by an observer outside the object. Since we are stuck within our spacetime, we need to study the internal geometry of space-time, and that is what general relativity does. In terms of internal geometry, any object with the first property above is expanding. Furthermore the Universe is homogeneous so it does not have any edge. Thus it can't have the second property above. But it does have the first property so we say the Universe is expanding

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#XIN

So what is the universe expanding into? When new spacetime is created, into what do the edges go? The answer depends on whether or not there are edges.

If we live in an infinite universe, then the answer has to be nothing. Adding more fabric to infinity doesn't make more infinity. An infinite universe would have no edges that expand and the question is meaningless. In such a universe, there would be no 'outside'.

On the other hand, if the universe is finite, with a boundary that we have not yet discovered, then the answer may be that we are expanding into something. If that is true however, then the boundary is so far away that we cannot see it and it can therefore never, ever affect us. We have already seen photons that have been travelling since the universe was only 500 million years old. Anything much further away lies beyond our detection forever. Given that our universe is expanding - if we cannot see the boundary now, this expansion guarantees we never will - it will forevermore get further and further away. it will always lie beyond our detection.

Only one hundred years ago, we had no idea there were other galaxies besides our own. It was thought that humanity and the galaxy we inhabit was an island, adrift in a universe of 100 billion stars. We now know that our universe is a vast, dynamic cauldron of activity: home to 100 billion galaxies, all racing away within a boiling ocean of spacetime. While we may yet find our universe is just an island, we have discovered it is much larger than we ever thought.

http://www.deepastronomy.com/what-is-universe-expanding-into.html

I bid you good night Sir.

None of the above changes the simple original answer you gave. It's gibberish, and this is why I say you bring nothing to the table. All that up there, I have read before. And this little line -

The edge of the loaf pushes out into previously unoccupied space

- - - kills off the discussion in my favour: yep: previously unoccupied space.

Thus, already existing.

Period.

I bid you good night too.

Deep Sight:

It is illogical to encapsulate the infinite in the finite. As such God cannot be encapsulated as a man.

stop with this half baked arguments and line of ideology! It gets irritating after a while!

Your Abraham god was made up by man period! if a "god" does indeed exist, he isn't what we think him to be.

Why you stay here and argue about singularities and the expanding universe (which by the way, you have all muddled up), you fail to realise that science accounts for everything up to milli milli milli seconds after the big bang. what happen at t = 0 remains a mystery. Taking all they have discovered with years and in fact centuries of research as support for you god is downright silly, cheap, and childish to say the least.

Come up with your own theories oh religious ones! Stop using what science gave us to defend big daddy boss! (he is even too proud to tell you his name)

The earlier you accept that your religion is one of faith and nothing else, the better for you! Science and religion are incompatible! Quote me anywhere, area_boy said it

Deep Sight:

It is illogical to encapsulate the infinite in the finite. As such God cannot be encapsulated as a man.

Hmmmmmm......... How shall I answer this, I wonder?

May I ask what you think? Are there degrees of finiteness? That is, among things of finite nature, are some things more finite than others? What say you?

Area_boy:

stop with this half baked arguments and line of ideology! It gets irritating after a while!

Your Abraham god was made up by man period! if a "god" does indeed exist, he isn't what we think him to be.

Why you stay here and argue about singularities and the expanding universe (which by the way, you have all muddled up), you fail to realise that science accounts for everything up to milli milli milli seconds after the big bang. what happen at t = 0 remains a mystery. Taking all they have discovered with years and in fact centuries of research as support for you god is downright silly, cheap, and childish to say the least.

Come up with your own theories oh religious ones! Stop using what science gave us to defend big daddy boss! (he is even too proud to tell you his name)

The earlier you accept that your religion is one of faith and nothing else, the better for you! Science and religion are incompatible! Quote me anywhere, area_boy said it

I am not religious. I subscribe to no religion and so I have no idea what you are on about.

On the universe, if you have issues with my statements, point them out.

plaetton:

What ?
You mean you are incapable of an original thought of your own without Mr Annony?
Are you siemese twins?

Didn't you know?

Ihedinobi:

Hmmmmmm......... How shall I answer this, I wonder?

May I ask what you think? Are there degrees of finiteness? That is, among things of finite nature, are some things more finite than others? What say you?

In reality everything is imbued with some sort of infinity. What I meant to put across is that that absolute INFINITE of all existence, which is what God is, cannot be encapsulated as a man. Seems logical to me.

Deep Sight:

I am not religious. I subscribe to no religion and so I have no idea what you are on about.

On the universe, if you have issues with my statements, point them out.

So I'm going mad now abi? Don't deny your theistic faith my friend!


anyway
here is where you're making a mistake

- We all agree the big b@ng created space, time and matter, before then there was a singularity (at least that's what they say). Now after the b@ng, the expanding matter had to go where?. Space time fabric was created at that instance along with everything else in it. The limits of this fabric is still unknown. Beyond our observable universe, we have no idea what exists there. It is then safe to assume that the expanding galaxies indeed have somewhere to expand to.

Deep Sight:

So what do you want to know? Let's make it an experiment. You never can tell.

sightdeep@gmail.com

Sent u a line..

Deep Sight:

In reality everything is imbued with some sort of infinity. What I meant to put across is that that absolute INFINITE of all existence, which is what God is, cannot be encapsulated as a man. Seems logical to me.

Ok. What if finite humanity were like clothes that infinite God could put on to do something that He couldn't do any other way?