The universe is expanding into what?

Good lord, take a biology class and sue your pastor/preacher or whoever it was that taught you that.

@hollow_point: Well a white hole has opposite characteristics of a black hole right? I would assume that is just the opposite side of the same door.

@johnnyz256: Well the fact that you said monkey to man proves you have no idea what you are talking about. Also evolution has been witnessed in bacterial, viral and even some of the lower forms of insect, it just takes longer and is harder to see the more complicated the organism is. Every time roaches breed in an immunity to pesticides its a form of evolution, viral mutations are evolution. Bacterial lifeforms are constantly adapting to their environment to improve survival, that is evolution by definition.

@willpayton: Considering that science itself is generally satisfied with 5% error (although this varies from field to field), 0.4 is pretty damn good Id say.

What I mean by saying that it comes from nothing is that no additional energy surplus or deficit is needed to create the Universe. The entire Universe as a whole has the same energy as nothing at all. It's Hawking himself who used the specific terminology "the universe can come from nothing at all", so I'm not being facetious here.

The universe is literally everything, I don't see what else it could expand into.

Would you like to talk on the Religion...What do you think? maybe discuss this into detail.

The Big Bang Theory sounds pretty crazy, but it's the best idea that we got atm, it's even crazier imo to believe 2,000 years ago people got it right. How is the BB theory any crazier than a creator God idea? God creates everybody and everything, and we're suppose to believe he always existed. If you can believe that what's so hard about believing in the BB? BB came from nothing, created the universe, and we happened to be the right distance from the sun. The laws of physics allows for a BB event to happen, so it's more plausible.

The thing is that there arent just two options, either a 0 curvature or a large curvature. There could also be a very small curvature, in which case being 0.4% from 0 would still allow for that.

So, we dont know if the universe has 0 curvature or a very small curvature, all we can tell with some certainty is that it doenst have a larger curvature. Claiming that it's definitely 0 curvature is premature IMO, even though my feeling is that it probably is 0.

The problem is that saying "it comes from nothing" has implications in the minds of many religious people and laymen to the effect that it must have a non-rational or non-physical origin. This is just not true. When scientists say that the universe came from nothing they mean in the same way that particles and anti-particles are created from "nothing" in the vacuum of space. It's a statistical phenomenon arising from quantum mechanics that such particles will form for very short amounts of time. They form with a sum total of zero energy, and with no cause, but they're not truly created from nothing... which is logically impossible.

In any case, that quickly becomes an argument over semantics, which is boring. Suffice it to say that it's entirely possible that the universe could arise from an existing set of physical laws with zero energy required as input. Not just that, an infinite number of universes could arise in this way.

"Proof" is not a good word to use, since you can never prove anything to 100% certainty in science. "Proof" is a word best left to things like mathematical proofs, and things like that, which is the way scientists use it.

Science deals with evidence. In this case, there is more than enough evidence and logical arguments to convince the scientific community that Evolution is a fact. Actually, there is overwhelming amounts of evidence.

If you dont want to accept this, then dont. Make all the arguments from ignorance you want, and the world will simply move on without you.

@willpayton: Your argument is that since most people and experts believe it to be true, it is. Im saying it is fallacious if that is the basis for your argument. Also, if you're saying the big bang hypothesis is true, then the burden of proof is on you.

"Making claims like this only shows that you dont know what you're talking about. All evidence suggests that the speed of light in indeed constant and has always been.

Speaking of logical fallacies... everything you said so far is one big argument from ignorance."

http://news.discovery.com/space/speed-of-light-einstein-physics-130428.htm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/29/speed-of-light-constant-physicists_n_3175487.html

Better brush up on your science, bro.

@johnnyz256 I agree with what you're saying. 'Evolution' needs to be specified. Micro, macro, molecular, stellar, etc... Also the part about the proof could just as easily point to a common designer. Using the fossil record as proof is circular reasoning, seeing how it is based on the geologic column.

@lllllink: You understand how scientific consensus works right? Y'know the majority of experts in a field come to an agreement on a subject due to the evidence at hand. So you're basically saying literally nothing can ever be considered a scientific fact since you just discounted the primary method by which things are declared scientific facts.

The bolded part is very offensive to some

@thewhitecrownofphoenix_stormfo: Isn't that what bible-thumpers believe though?

I never said that the Big Bang is true because experts say it's true. It's true because of the evidence.

Unfortunately a couple of articles on Discovery.com and HuffingtonPost which only talk about a couple of papers that suggest that the speed of light might be variable, are pretty meaningless. It will take a lot of research and evidence to overturn something that we know to a high degree of certainly to be true.

But, thanks for the suggestion. I have a degree in Astrophysics, so I'm pretty sure I know the science better than you do.

My suggestion to you is to read up on what the scientific consensus is, and look at the actual evidence, rather than getting your "science" from websites like HuffingtonPost.

how would you refrase it? I can't think of anything better

@hylian: I would have tackled it by saying "and it makes for sense for me, then a entity having its role in the genesis."

But, was your question answered about what's the universe expanding into?

Uhh... what? First of all, the speed of light is a constant. In Einsteinian specific and thus general relativity it is literally the only constant there is, space and time itself will literally warp to keep the speed of light constant across many different frames of reference. The only time the speed of light will change is if it is traveling through a medium, like glass. Second of all, the speed of light has nothing to do with anything, even if the speec of light wasn't c, we would still see signs of the Big Bang through redshifting radiation, cosmic background radiation, relative cosmological movement, and many other observed phenomena.

Indeed, the speed of light c is one of the basic constants of the universe, upon which we base many other ones. If the speed of light wasnt constant, then much of modern physics would be in instantly invalidated. But, we know that modern physics works to an extremely high degree of accuracy.

BTW, to those who might be confused about how the speed of light can both be constant and also slow down in a medium, the answer is that it really is constant. The reason why it appears to slow down in a medium is complicated, and relates to something called the phase velocity of light. A true explanation would be very complicated and requires quantum mechanics to really understand it, so I wont do that. If people want to know more, however, here's a video that covers some of it:

it was

@johnnyz256: Aww, sweetheart. You're such a cutie pie.

Not really lol. For one thing they state heaven is on the firmament of the stars, not in the sky. Plus it depends on the individual as well.

You could have just said something like "makes more sense than religious beliefs, etc."

Because BB is just another religion based on math, not on evidences, there is no any true evidence about inflation, dark matter and dark energy. Second, physicists are actually idiots if Hawking says that the entire net energy of the universe is 0, than there would not be any universe, since there would not be any energy to crate anything.

And for all those who claim that there is nothing outside expanding universe-something that exists and expands cannot exist and expand in non-existecnce-and that's exactly what BB crap assumes, I cannot believe that people are believing in this fantasy, it's no different than believing in God, like I said just another form of religion.

One more thing: laws of physics did not exist before the universe, the laws of physics were created inside the universe/space, if there was no space where the laws of physics could emerge there would never be any universe/galaxies/stars/planets. The laws of physics need energy and matter otherwise they would never be able to exist in the first place-laws of physics cannot exist in non-existence, laws of physics cannot be created if there is nothing to exist before those same laws of physics, you cannot create laws of physics if nothing truly exists, laws of physics can exist only if there is something that already exists, so the laws of physics can be created and formed, without previous existence, no laws of physics could ever be created and formed in the first place-facts.

Plus, no laws od physics can ever be created and formed, if something, previous physical before laws of physics does not exist-something physical (without laws of physics) already needs to exist in order for laws of physics to be created and formed in that something physical/physical universe. Laws of physics can never be created and formed if there is nothing physical that already exists where the laws of physics can be created and formed-facts.

Without laws of physics universe would still exist, but there would not be any galaxies, stars or planets, since there would not be any laws of physics-that's a key difference-facts.

Plus, if there was no energy/matter there would not be any universe, galaxies, stars or planets, if there was no energy at all (which means energy=0, like you, Will Payton, posted above); plus if there was no energy there would not be any laws of physics at all, they simply would not exist, because there would be no energy that exists, and without energy there is absolutely nothing physical that can be created and formed to exist in the first place, and if there is truly nothing to be created and formed to exist, than there would not be any laws of physics to exist in the first place; the only thing you would have is 100% empty space-facts.

Also, I need to mention something: Quantum fluctuations exist in vacuum/space, they themselves are not vacuum/space, space has nothing with them true space simply does not interact with anything at all, since it is 100% empty, as long as there are energy interactions in that "space", than we are not talking about space, we are talking about energy that exists in that space-and this is not energy from nothing like people falsely claim-it has nothing to do with nothingness-the very fact you can detect energy patterns-that is not nothing, that is something and that something is energy-facts.

Actually it doesn't debunk genesis at all, since it is talking about time when universe was very small and very hot, not before that time, since it is impossible to know that, however the entire BB crap is full of holes and all evidences are adjusted to models, not the other way around-as it should be.

I honestly thought that refraction occurs just because of the nature of the material that photons have to enter through. It seems to me that at the quantum-scale photons paths are shifted when they enter through a medium due to quantum particles getting in the way. Although I could be wrong.

First of all space does not expand or contract at all-this is the biggest error in entire hypothesis, space cannot expand or contract since it is not made of anything, there is no true space in the universe, sinc everything is made of energy and matter; since everything in the universe is made of something and it requires space to exist in the first place, vacuum does not create particles/antiparticles, read here:

In short, energy is not created out of nothing, this is pure lie that scientists have put out in the public, energy is neither created and neither destryoed, even on quantum level, read what physicist John Duffield posted-reality check:

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/276182/did-quantum-fluctuations-create-matter-and-energy-out-of-nothing

Plus it is energy and matter that are expanding, not space, so basically if you have 2 glasses and you move those 2 glasses one from each other, that's because space stretches, that's pure BS and it is 100% wrong, going by that fact my car and everything else would stretch (because space stretches) and it doesn't.

Only something that is made of energy and matter can stretch, for example when light travels near massive planet, it will change its path, because of planet's mass, but not because that space is stretching, but because gravitational field of the planet is affecting, the same thing goes with everything else-this has nothing to do with space, space is not changed at all, since true space is static and 100% empty, the path of light is changed, only energy/energy fields and matter change, not space between them-facts.

I'm resisting a fat joke here...

The universe has an inflation fetish, it's just a phase

@bella_blackstar said:

Please stop. You clearly have no understanding of what you're talking about.

You are correct that refraction is caused by the material that the photons are passing through, and that depends on the arrangement of the particles (atoms) in that material. It's just much more complicated than saying it's "just because" of this or that. Basically the photon takes a path that's determined by the quantum interactions of all the particles, with the photons quantum probability wave being affected by every possible path through the material. I really cant do as good a job explaining as the video I posted earlier, so I'd just again refer people to that. If you watch and still come out confused, dont worry because light refraction is a very complicated thing and quantum mechanics is very complicated in general. The main point is that light still moves at c, the speed of light, but the speed through a material appears to be slower because of the phase velocity of the photons.

I typically write a few comments here or there, on YouTube videos or whatever, and then abandon it. Why? Because it's very hard to convince someone to give up their religion. That's true not only for the Muslim, the Buddhist, and Christian, but also for the atheist.

Actually, the role of the Christian, as I am, is not to convince anyone. The role is to spread the Gospel. And the Bible most certainly speaks out against atheism, evolution, and the other lies which humanity has spread. Of course, the Bible also teaches that humans inherently know that there is a God, but for many this is unacceptable, and thus they remain in denial. That's their prerogative, but it won't avail them in the end.

I enjoy answering questions and engaging in discussion with those who are sincerely seeking the truth, but for those who are antagonistic atheists, there is little point in debating.

A chimichanga

Into "space"

IIRC, when they say the Universe is expanding, they mean it's getting less dense, ie the mass and energy within the universe is moving away from each other.

Deez nuts.

The universe is expanding into a larger filament of potential energy.

Partly yes, partly no. What it means is that spacetimeitself is expanding due to dark energy which causes a type of pressure that stretches it at every point. But, yes, it does mean that the matter within the universe continually becomes spread out more and more, until eventually it all gets ripped from each other in what's called the "big rip". But, that's very long time from now, so no need to worry about it. =)

You stop, please; I know exactly what I'm talking about, everybody forget that the core of true science is that you need prove your hypotheses and and experiments need to prove it, Big Bang hypothesis does not do that, I was extremely dissapointed when scientists said the goal of science is not prove something, but to create models, you cannot have models if you don't have ecvidences to back it up.

Plus, like I posted above there is a problem on what exactly was proven-just like I showed with the space thing, I don't comment spacetime concept which is also 100% wrong, because time does not really exist, people invented it/created it.

This is the main problem of wrong interpretation.

Also, the most important thing is observation, if you cannot observe what your models assume to exist, than the models are unprovable, and therefore this is not science. The problem today is that both mathematics and statistics are considered Gods in scientific world, but mathematically and statistically proven is totally different when you can actually directly observe something, only when you can directly observe something you can say it is proven to exist, if you can't, than it's unprovable hypothesis, from inflation, dark matter, dark energy, the big bang itself and etc., this is visible in quantum mechanics and theory of relativity-both special and general.

The main problem is you can both mathematically and statistically prove that everything exists-anything you want can exist-and this is not science.

Plus, the experiments are conducted just for the models to work, although the main core parts of the models-are 100% untestable, 100% unobservable and 100% unprovable, this is just a religion/faith in mathematics and statistics, and not a true science.

Plus, the BB hypothesis is already beaten by itself that it say that the universe exists and expands and it doesn't expand into anything there is nothing outside the universe-what they mean is that existence (universe) exists and expands in/inside non-existence (since there is nothing that universe expands into).

And 2, if the universe has 3 dimensions, and there is nothing outside the expanding and existing 3d universe, how can something that has dimensions exist and expand if dimensiones do not exist outside the universe????

Basically, scientists are saying, there is nothing outside the universe-meaning 3dimensional universe is expanding inside dimensionlessness (since there is nothing outside the universe.

I sent these arguments and facts to scientists, and none could answer this, I beat them in their own science, because they knew this does beat BB hypothesis. These are all facts none wants to hear about at all, not even the slightest and yes mathematics and statistics are your supreme Gods.

Spacetime does not expand, only matter and energy expand, like I proved in my post above.

Plus: the BB hypothesis is already beaten by itself that it say that the universe exists and expands and it doesn't expand into anything there is nothing outside the universe-what they mean is that existence (universe) exists and expands in/inside non-existence (since there is nothing that universe expands into).

And 2, if the universe has 3 dimensions, and there is nothing outside the expanding and existing 3d universe, how can something that has dimensions exist and expand if dimensiones do not exist outside the universe????

Basically, scientists are saying, there is nothing outside the universe-meaning 3dimensional universe is expanding inside dimensionlessness (since there is nothing outside the universe. I sent these arguments and facts to scientists, and none could answer this, I beat them in their own science, because they knew this does beat BB hypothesis.

Ahem. I'm a very firm believer in science, God, and (admittedly less firm) believer in religion. Yes, some religion, and some religious adherents do fall in line with the VERY general things you've said. However to say that "Religion is all about control, conformity, and mindless obedience to authority." is a TREMENDOUS over simplification, is highly biased, and completely ignores the positive things that religion has brought to the world.

I'll be the first to note that there are negatives religion has brought as well (hence my "less firm" belief), however to discount it as wholely negative isn't intellectually honest either.

BB is not based on true evidences, it is simply base don math and statistics-that's not science, that just another, different form of religion. Read my answers here in my posts here on this page. Yes, it seems more logically to believe in God than in mathematics and statistics, but I don't believe in any of it, I have personal issues and it has nothing with science or faith for that matter.

Yes, people say that universe is conscious and that consciousness creates everything, but even if that's the case (hypothetically), I personally don't believe iit, but even if it is, even consciousness needs first to be conscious of something, you cannot be conscious of anything if nothing exists, and if there is nothing to exist than you cannot be conscious of anything.

So, consciousness cannot create something, it can only be conscious of something that already exists.

@willpayton: What are you thoughts on the theory that the universe is expanding into a Hig's field? Considering the relatively recent evidence that the Hig's Boson does exist.

Also with regards to the speed of light, correct me if I'm wrong but can't gravity also affect it's speed? Hence why theoretically no light escapes the event horizon?

I agree that it's an over generalization and over simplification, but I think my point is generally true. There would be no need for religion or "faith" if people formed their opinions on facts and logical reasoning. Not saying that everyone would always agree in that situation, just that there would be no need to ask people to believe in something based solely on supernatural authorities or indoctrination. Basically, telling people "you have to believe X because a supernatural entity commands you to" is all about control. Sure, it's not always given in those terms, but in essence that's what it's about. If I just say "here's some evidence, and you can accept it or not", then I have no control over you. If I claim that I know the "mind of god" and you have to do what I claim is his commandment, that's 100% about control.

Now, I totally understand if you think I'm being overly harsh with comments like "religion only serves to keep people ignorant", and in retrospect I agree that it's too harsh and too absolutist. Religion most certainly has helped people find knowledge and to do good things. But, the problem is that you're basically at the mercy of whatever religion you're brought up into (or stumbled across) as far as that's concerned, which is my issue with it. Every terrorist that blows himself up thinks they're doing gods work and will get to heaven. Every Creationist that thinks the Earth is 6,000 years old thinks they know the "truth". And this happens because people believe in religion for emotional reasons and not rational ones. The more rational you are, the more you have to cherry-pick your religion to try to continue to believe it.

I dont think this is the case. The Higgs boson is just one of many particles in the Standard Model, and the Higgs Field is the field associated with it. In Quantum Field Theory every particle is just an excitation in an associated field... photons are excitations in the electro-magnetic field, electrons are excitations in the electron field, etc. So, all these fields are just part of the universe itself, there is no field "outside" of the universe. The universe just expands into itself.

Well... no. Gravity is curvature in spacetime, and light always moves through spacetime at the speed of light, c, through the shortest path. These shortest paths through spacetime are called geodesics. What happens at a black hole is that spacetime is constantly being pulled into the black hole. You can think of it like a waterfall. Light is still moving through that spacetime, but it's all being pulled in. When it gets inside the event horizon, spacetime is falling into the black hole faster than light can fly out, so it can never escape.

I understood your point in general, you're correct though it was your harsh absolutist phrasing that I was commenting on. I'm also pretty sure you were being unintentionally overly specific about terrorists. There are, and have been, many terrorists who have committed terrorist (up to and including suicidal acts) other than in the name of religion.

@willpayton: Thanks for the informative response mate. I love learning about anything Astro or Quantum physics.

As far as the expansion of the universe, do you know what is theorised to occur if the expansion continues to accelerate? Will it eventuality expand faster than the speed of light?

And thank you for the explanation about blackholes and their effect on space-time, makes sense.

This guy is right. Fact is Scientist felt Blachholes work a certain way, then one guy told Hawking he was wrong, and Hawking re worked the already accepted shit. There is no way knowing till we can actually get to test it and measure it.

LOLOL

My thoughts...

How can we determine anything about the universe and what is outside of it if we cannot even agree as scientist on shit?

Whats Dark Matter and why is it made?

Whats Dark Energy and why is it made?

How does the universe make itself out of nothing?

What is before the Universe and time frame of it?

Is their higher dimensions?

Blackholes suck you in, no wait, they burn you up, no wait...

There is only 4 states of matter, WRONG now there is dozen and counting.

Pluto is a planet, not anymore....

Science is a religion. You have all the Cardinals and Apostles that are exchange by Scientist putting out their "Theories" and see who agrees with them to crown the Pope of accepted theory.

Its hilarious. when it comes to the very large (Galaxies and Universe) to the very small (Quarks and Strings) is barely understood at all. Might as well be monkeys figuring out fire.

Think of it this way: the universe is a miniature grid with lightyear marks, except these lightyear marks are really the quarter of the length of a cm (similar to how on maps, miles are really a few cm), with a galaxy occurring every 5 lightyears. Now, when they say the universe is expanding, they mean those lightyears grow in length, ie the cm move from a scale of 4:1, to 1:1 (1 lightyear equals 1 cm) in let's say, a billion years, and then they move from a scale of 1:1 to 1:4 (one lightyear equals 4 cm). But because grids are infinite in size (there is no such thing as a last number) this grid isn't expanding into anything; rather, the space between the hash marks on the grid grows, causing the galaxies to move away from each other. This doesn't LITERALLY mean that space is expanding into something, but that space itself is expanding (this assumes, of course that the universe is infinite in space, and it very well couldn't be).