Since the universe is expanding and contains everything, what

Does it even matter if we can't get anywhere near the current boundary?

Nothingness and everything.

>>8931933
It's not physically expanding, distance is getting larger

>>8931944
HURRR

>>8931950
hes not wrong
nothing is getting bigger (which is what expansion is)
only everything is moving apart (which is not expansion)

>>8931957
distance = size

>>8931957
wtf are you talking about brainlet

>>8931944

my penis is physically expanding

File: 1452148702359.jpg (294KB, 741x1125px) Image search: [Google]

294KB, 741x1125px

>>8931933 (Checked)
Extra space is being added everywhere all the time
This gives the illusion of everything rushing apart at cosmological scales

>>8931933
You're confusing the universe with what's inside the universe.

Everything is propagating away from the center of the universe, but the universe itself is not getting larger.

>>8932007
>Everything is propagating away from the center of the universe
It will always be baffling to me how people feel like posting about things they're clearly clueless about.
The least you could do is add a note such as "I'm actually a giant retard" so that less informed people won't take you seriously.

>>8932015
kek

>universe is infinite
>has a fixed amount of matter
>all of this matter is expanding
The universe is not expanding, all the galaxies are moving away from each other.

>>8931933
why does expanding mean it needs expand into something

>>8931944
d1St4nCe iS gEttINg L4rgEr

>>8932021
>has a fixed amount of matter
Not necessarily true. I think you're picturing the geometry of the universe incorrectly.

>>8932021
>all the galaxies are moving away from each other
Tell me how this can hold for each galaxy at the same time.
Tell me how galaxies can "move" away from us at speeds faster than that of light.

File: Cramer_a.jpg (30KB, 258x195px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 258x195px

>>8931933
Albert & Marie being OTP
[if u watched last night]

>>8932044
>Tell me how galaxies can "move" away from us at speeds faster than that of light.
They just are. Light-speed is only through space, space itself doesn't obey that rule, etc.

>>8932044
Mark a balloon with lots of dots. The surface of the balloon is the universe. The dots are galaxies. Now blow the balloon up with argon and swallow it. Before you do, note how the dots are further apart than when you originally marked it, even though there's no physical center.

>>8932076
What is defined as 'space'

>>8932101
>what is defined as space
this 3D/4D XYZt environment we exist in. The opposite of which (a nonexistent formless void) is what would've existed prior to the big bang. It's something that "just exists" that atheists don't really account for or have to explain in their theories, they just take it for granted as having no explanation and then proceed to spew their blasphemy.

>>8931933
>>8932049
Mileva is my waifu.

File: 1491143496069.jpg (1MB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1200px

>>8932111
I'm interested, give me your take on the origins of reality, and the origin of the spatial dimensions in which we currently believe we reside

>>8931933
If the universe is inside a universe and there's no physical boundaries other than the light horizon paradox, then you're simply just describing a bigger universe that you can call one universe since universes are by nature, universal.

We're on the third plain of existence right?

>>8932124
At least until we progress to the 4th by attaining lightspeed.

>>8932076
>space itself doesn't obey that rule
So it's not just distant galaxies moving, but something is going on with space itself? Thanks for proving my point.

>>8932090
See above.

File: 220px-Newton_Cradle_5_ball_system_in_3D_2_ball_swing.gif (208KB, 220x219px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 220x219px

>>8931933
It expands into furthest point of energetic expansion. Then stasis occurs, followed by cooling, electromagnetic forces get stronger, the once far particals gain such an electromagnetic boost from the cold temperature that they "find" each other once again and slowly begin attraction towards each other...then....collapse into each other again hard.

Whether this causes a secondary big bang (with or without energy loss) is up for debate.

Assuming the universe is a closed energy system it will be a perfect big bang with no energy loss...(however this second bang will look completely reconfigured as the atoms and energy will have gotten "messy" during their existance as of now)

In short. Everything will freeze mid dance and get squished to start anew.

However if parallel or adjacent universes do exist...it will lose energy and be smaller the next bang cycle.

>>8931933
What if universe is not expanding? Space beetwen atoms is 99.9% empty. Its about same as our solar system it is mostly empty beetwen planets, planets are like dust particles in empty parking lot. What if all subatomic particles slowly lose energy and slowly get closer. So we all shrink slowly (bacause particles inside us get closer), thus we have false impression that universe grows, while everything it in gets just smaller (everything but actual space).

>>8932189
More terrifyingly...If we gain energy...Then something is the source that isn't us.

>>8931933
Itself and the potential energy contained therein.

File: 1490679071018.gif (3MB, 509x710px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 509x710px

>universe is expanding to nothing
>universe came by nothing
>unverse is so big that we are nothing compared to it

File: 1488825003673.jpg (253KB, 499x618px) Image search: [Google]

253KB, 499x618px

>>8932236

>>8931933
Why does it need to be expanding into anything?

>>8932044
what if you get two lamps and point them in opposite directions huh? I'll tell you. Speed of Light x 2

>>8931933
most likely into op's brain area dedicated to the crave for cock

The universe is essentially nothing. All the things you perceive are created in your mind from fields that you detect. Once you realize this the universe becomes a little easier to grasp.

>>8931944
>>8931957
>>8932007
>>8932044
>>8932158
>>8932201
>>8932283
>t. brainlet retard

Everything is potentially made of dimensionless strings.

But where in 3D space are these strings located?

>>8932352
They arnt. Theyre made from 11d/13d depending on which theory you subscribe to

@8932347
That's a lot of (You)'s, thanks.

File: 1449435868903.jpg (162KB, 1304x640px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 1304x640px

>>8931933
It isn't expanding per se.....or rather it IS EXPANDING PER SE quite literally. In fact, the universe is infinite. It is expanding and contracting in various spots. Our wee tiny spot in the universe happens to be expanding right now while in the surrounding areas it is contracting.

>>8932015
Trust is that no one knows the truth so they make up shit based on very limited observations. You may as well be a flatearther for all it really matters.

>>8931970
>>8931971
There are 5 '.' in universe 1-2: 1.....2
There are now 8 '.' in universe 1-2 1........2
The periods between 1 and 2 expanded, but range of the numbers did not increase.

>>8932007
>center of the universe
t. brainlet

>>8931944
There is a force that's pushing everything apart.

File: 1495398819378.jpg (123KB, 1024x886px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 1024x886px

its not expanding.
it is moving.
there's a lot more to it then we can see.
we are surrounded, there is no end to stuff out there .
there is no such thing as empty space or an edge to space.
it is mathematically impossible for there to be life only on earth.
thinking that way is likened to saying earth is flat .
wake up earth yahwh is an alien and he attacked earth long ago.

>>8932522
>>8932007
>>8932283
>>8931944
Wrong.
>>8932189
>>8932555
Theoretically correct.

>>8932592
8932189 fails because entropy

>>8931933
It isn't expanding into anything, you're picturing it as if it exists in a larger region of nothingness. There is no larger region. It's just the universe and it's getting bigger.

Most people commenting here are wrong, the observable universe is expanding. This is only because we are seeing more object within our hubble sphere. That stills leaves the question on what is outside our observable universe and is it infinite? Data shows it could be possible , I wouldn't be surprised.

>>8931933
>if my bbc is expanding
>what is it expanding into?
your wifes vagina.

>>8933801
>Data shows it could be possible
what data shows that?

>>8933834
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann_equations?wprov=sfla1

Look at 6th paragraph in the "Density Parameter" section and it talking about the shape and curvature of the universe. It's not conclusive yet, but very lose to unity. Either the universe is infinite or extremely large. The data is from WMAP.

>>8934512
so that's math telling us so, but we can't really know right? because if there's something beyond we can't receive information from it due to it speeding away from us faster than light can travel

>>8932090
But why would I need to swallow it?

>>8934545
No, not just math. The WMAP is the nasa space instrument that has recorded data for this density parameter in the Friedman equation to support possibility of a universe with no curvature (think of looking at horizon of earth) . Also, as time progresses, we are seeing light coming in from objects outside our observable universe and therefore become detectable. See this :

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/119858/is-the-edge-of-our-hubble-sphere-within-our-cosmic-event-horizon-and-why