92 billion light-years in diameter and only 13.7 billion years old????

originally posted by: elysiumfire
Phage:

Simply put, the space between things in the Universe is growing. On a local level (like the Solar System, or even the Galaxy) this is not detectable. But over very great distances it adds up. The result being that over very, very great distances, space is growing faster than light.

How do you know that 'space' is expanding? What property of space are you measuring to be sure that it is actually space, alone, that is growing?

Could it not be that it is the content in space that is being continually added to rather than space itself? What is it that is making more space. I would hope you do not say that it is a fundamental aspect of universal expansion. How can something that is an absolute of immateriality be made to expand? What if space itself is infinite, and that it is matter that is pushing ever outwards into that infinite space? If this is the case, then space would not need to expand.

its common sense.. im glad u popped the question. now we're going to get down to it.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: John333

and this is precisely what i disagree with.

You seem to disagree with a lot more than that.

if u stopped everything. then that space would stop growing.

I disagree.

come on. let's go through it then. explain what was observed to determine and support the theory that space itself is increasing. like particles multiplying. or new dark matter particles being churned out constantly. ive been through it already. but let's go through it again together.

a reply to: John333

ive been through it already. but let's go through it again together.

No.

like particles multiplying. or new dark matter particles being churned out constantly.

Because if you got it that wrong before it would just be a waste of effort now.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: John333

ive been through it already. but let's go through it again together.

No.

like particles multiplying. or new dark matter particles being churned out constantly.

Because if you got it so wrong before it would just be a waste of effort now.

i just wanted both our perspectives to be posted on the same page. is that too much to ask? using the very same data i will just provide an alternate "interpretation".

@John333

So your theory is that it is expanding like an irregular balloon the outside edges being like mountain range ?

a reply to: John333

using the very same data i will just provide an alternate "interpretation".

Your "interpretation" really isn't worth much unless you can produce the math to support it and unless you can understand what the evidence is and what it represents.

It is complex. I'm not going to run through it for you only to have you just say "No. It's not like that." I've been there. I've done that.

originally posted by: trifecta
The Big Bang is a Hoax.

The Universe has no shape.

Creation happens on a quantum level. It's a cocktail of Plasma, Ether, Hydrogen, and Dust particles.

Thought expands the Universe. The Universe was never "born", it is REFINED. The materials were always there.

The Soup of Chaos.

Although I would not disagree, I would however state how you still left the obvious answer empty.. Where does it all come from anyway?

I do not think however to think about where it came from, the universe and everything it uses to create matter is important, just understanding it and using it for our own benefit is good enough. Just however, I do not think anyone has yet to answer where it all comes from. As for you to say, was never born. Well, give me a good explanation where it came from?

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
@John333

So your theory is that it is expanding like an irregular balloon the outside edges being like mountain range ?

not sure what u mean by irregular balloon..

my theory is something i consider to hardly be classified as a theory.

it's that non-existence is a baseline occurence that is in itself infinite. meaning it has no border.. it literally is infinite. thus empty space would always exist even if no matter or anything ever existed at all. empty space would still be there infinite in size. a blank canvas waiting to be written on for eternity.

thus space is not materializing between galactic bodies. we are observing it that way because of a lensing effect that occurs as light travels great distances through space. but the space is always available. instead, we have the bodies moving at various velocities and in various directions in an infinite space. naturally giving rise to growing distances between them as they travel.

i mean mathematically if a solid mass explodes, not all of it's material will travel at the same velocity in all directions. there will be small differences from the outer material and the material closer to the core. this because inner core material will meet resistance with the outer mass material first in the explosion. channeling the force to the outer mass thus propelling it at a faster rate. the inner core material having transferred a great deal of force into the outer mass will thus be propelled slower.

can you disagree with that phage?

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: chosonone

It's not possible to create something out of nothing by luck.

You speak with great assurance. How do you know this?

-My next answer validates it.

When there's a vacuum of space with absolutely nothing in it, nothing can appear.

That is not how the Universe came into existence. Space did not exist before the Universe.

-I meant to say space as completely empty void.

Through another dimension (spiritual), our physical universe was born.

What evidence do you have to support this?

-Many, actually there are just too many to list. I've mentioned a few of them already yesterday.
This is part of our life, answer to our existence. It doesn't have to be mathematically or scientifically deduced because our life/existence has already shown that.

a reply to: John333

can you disagree with that phage?

Yes.
Your analogy is not valid.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: John333

can you disagree with that phage?

Yes.
Your analogy is not valid.

waaaaatt?

how is that not valid? big bang = explosion of solid mass in a vacuum does it not?

a reply to: John333

No. It does not.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: John333

No. It does not.

haha oh right.. im sorry.. even the vacuum exploded and expanded.

haha. really man. if that sounds ridiculous im sure it is.

think about what exists outside of your contracted vacuum. an airy atmosphere? no its going to be more vacuum. space is infinite. the vacuum was present. its an attribute of the absence of any thing.

u think that is so illogical?

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: chosonone

When there's a vacuum of space with absolutely nothing in it, nothing can appear.

That means this vacuum of Space you speak of is not absolute infinite and takes up all Space there is.

If the Vacuum is absolute infinite and takes up all Space there is. Only this vacuum could form something.

The absolute vacuum is something, It is there ..... its not like it doesnt exist?

I meant to say space as a completely empty void, not space vacuum, thus there's nothing to begin with in the first place.
Who created the space vacuum from nothing? that should be the question big bang theorists should be asking.

originally posted by: chosonone

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: chosonone

When there's a vacuum of space with absolutely nothing in it, nothing can appear.

That means this vacuum of Space you speak of is not absolute infinite and takes up all Space there is.

If the Vacuum is absolute infinite and takes up all Space there is. Only this vacuum could form something.

The absolute vacuum is something, It is there ..... its not like it doesnt exist?

I meant to say space as a completely empty void, not space vacuum, thus there's nothing to begin with in the first place.
Who created the space vacuum from nothing? that should be the question big bang theorists should be asking.

what about this question

can there be nothing without a vacuum also being present?

originally posted by: John333

originally posted by: chosonone

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: chosonone

When there's a vacuum of space with absolutely nothing in it, nothing can appear.

That means this vacuum of Space you speak of is not absolute infinite and takes up all Space there is.

If the Vacuum is absolute infinite and takes up all Space there is. Only this vacuum could form something.

The absolute vacuum is something, It is there ..... its not like it doesnt exist?

I meant to say space as a completely empty void, not space vacuum, thus there's nothing to begin with in the first place.
Who created the space vacuum from nothing? that should be the question big bang theorists should be asking.

what about this question

can there be nothing without a vacuum also being present?

There cannot be anything existing without a vacuum.
A quick and simple analogy would be un-inflated balloon as a vacuum.
Then the question related to the big bang theory is who/what started blowing up the balloon?

My point was even before we get to that, who brought the balloon here?

Phage:

So, you haven't looked into the standard model at all? No idea of the evidence?

Do you think I would be playing the 'devil's advocate' here if I hadn't? I am simply asking questions to which I already know the standard answers. That is to say, standard answers that fall short of their intent.

More mass? No, that wouldn't actually work. That would cause gravity to tend to pull everything together.

Not necessarily, you would need an influence other than gravity to drive all the matter into interaction with one another. Remember, we still detect an increase in the speed of expansion. Do you think that the galaxy we observe 13.5 billion years away has any affect upon our own galaxy? The further away you go from a planet or a star, the less influence it has. The issue is not about the quantity of mass, but the relative positions of densities within interactive range. The moon and earth interact with one another, but we also know that the moon is itself is being pushed away from earth. That is mass pushing away mass. What do you think is actually driving the expansion?

Immaterial does not mean nothing. Nor is spacetime nothing.

Immateriality really is nothing, because you cannot interact with anything that is immaterial, it has no property with which to interact with, there is no quanta, or matter on which forces can interact. Space is immaterial, you cannot define it as anything other than immateriality. Quanta does not define space, nor do quanta interact with space, they only interact in space with each other by defined forces. Equally, time is an abstract measurement only, so that too is immaterial. Spacetime is simply an abstraction, it is not a real independently existing thing. We disagree on this issue, but that's okay.

The evidence does not indicate that is what is occurring.

I think you mean the interpretation of the little available evidence does not indicate that. I would suggest that truth is being held back in order to cling on to the standard model. Logically, space cannot expand, because for it to do so, it would require space having a property on which a force of influence can interact on it in order to cause it to expand. The only things having movement in the universe is matter and sub-quanta. Space is not made up of matter and sub-quanta, they are in space...unless of course, matter and force particles are simply densities of space itself. I have no idea how that would come about?

Nor, does it worry me at all. Just playing devil's advocate, that is all.

originally posted by: chosonone

originally posted by: John333

originally posted by: chosonone

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: chosonone

When there's a vacuum of space with absolutely nothing in it, nothing can appear.

That means this vacuum of Space you speak of is not absolute infinite and takes up all Space there is.

If the Vacuum is absolute infinite and takes up all Space there is. Only this vacuum could form something.

The absolute vacuum is something, It is there ..... its not like it doesnt exist?

I meant to say space as a completely empty void, not space vacuum, thus there's nothing to begin with in the first place.
Who created the space vacuum from nothing? that should be the question big bang theorists should be asking.

what about this question


can there be nothing without a vacuum also being present?

There cannot be anything existing without a vacuum.
A quick and simple analogy would be un-inflated balloon as a vacuum.
Then the question related to the big bang theory is who/what started blowing up the balloon?

My point was even before we get to that, who brought the balloon here?

haha precisely. but we also still have an uninflated balloon.what is outside this uninflated balloon? wouldnt it also be classified as a vacuum? vacuous? vacated of any "thing". except for our uninflated balloon of course.

a reply to: elysiumfire

Do you think that the galaxy we observe 13.5 billion years away has any affect upon our own galaxy?

Not so you'd notice. But that's not the point. If matter is continually being produced it would be apparent. But it would not account for the expansion.

The moon and earth interact with one another, but we also know that the moon is itself is being pushed away from earth. That is mass pushing away mass.

No. The moon is "absorbing" rotational energy from the Earth, this results in a higher orbit. Tidal forces (the result of a gravitational gradient) are slowing Earths rotation and transferring that angular momentum to the Moon. There is no pushing, the two bodies are not repelling each other, there is a transfer of mechanical energy (via gravity, which is immaterial).

What do you think is actually driving the expansion?

Something being referred to as dark energy because nothing which is now known can account for it. That does not mean it is not happening. Galileo did not know why the Earth goes around the Sun but he knew it does.

Immateriality really is nothing, because you cannot interact with anything that is immaterial, it has no property with which to interact with, there is no quanta, or matter on which forces can interact.

Gravity is not material but it interacts with matter. A magnetic field is not material but it interacts with matter.

Space is immaterial, you cannot define it as anything other than immateriality.

Space is affected by matter, it interacts with matter.

I would suggest that truth is being held back in order to cling on to the standard model.

Of course you would. Dog ate your homework.

originally posted by: John333

originally posted by: chosonone

originally posted by: John333

originally posted by: chosonone

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: chosonone

When there's a vacuum of space with absolutely nothing in it, nothing can appear.

That means this vacuum of Space you speak of is not absolute infinite and takes up all Space there is.

If the Vacuum is absolute infinite and takes up all Space there is. Only this vacuum could form something.

The absolute vacuum is something, It is there ..... its not like it doesnt exist?

I meant to say space as a completely empty void, not space vacuum, thus there's nothing to begin with in the first place.
Who created the space vacuum from nothing? that should be the question big bang theorists should be asking.

what about this question


can there be nothing without a vacuum also being present?

There cannot be anything existing without a vacuum.
A quick and simple analogy would be un-inflated balloon as a vacuum.
Then the question related to the big bang theory is who/what started blowing up the balloon?

My point was even before we get to that, who brought the balloon here?

haha precisely. but we also still have an uninflated balloon.what is outside this uninflated balloon? wouldnt it also be classified as a vacuum? vacuous? vacated of any "thing". except for our uninflated balloon of course.

That's not how we should look in perspective.
There is not us, nothing outside of the balloon.
It's simply just an uninflated balloon. If a balloon exists, something put it there but by who, by what?
Thinking of what's outside of the balloon is not a topic for discussion at this point because we don't even know why the balloon is even here.