Why is the universe expanding and why aren't more people

>>18972972

All the way, baby.

>>18972972
Up your ass and to the left.

It's either going to expand until all matter breaks down into nothing, literally nothing, or it's all going to start coming back together, and another big bang will happen. It's all about the ratio between matter and antimatter. We don't know what will happen when antimatter actually outweighs matter. Hell, we don't know why matter exists at all! All models show that matter and antimatter were supposed to destroy each other.

File: tmp_26832-895389736595.jpg (41KB, 554x439px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 554x439px

>>18972972
Is the universe expanding, or is the speed of light slowing down? Well, there's a moratorium within the Terran scientific community regarding discussions concerning the constancy of the speed of light, because they have literally know other way to know that reality is real. If the speed of light is able to fluctuate, then modern science as a whole unit is unable to determine even the most basic measurements of perception.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JKHUaNAxsTg

So within such circles, it is not talked about because the act of imagining it requires people who rely on the constancy of the speed of light--which is every person who considers themselves a modern scientist--in order to form their thoughts to forget what is was they were imagining before they even began talking about it in the first place.

It's like the opposite of potato math.

>>18972972
Imagine an explosion.
The explosion has a radius of how far it'll go, right?
This simply because there will be SOMETHING in the way of the explosion. Be it buildings, the ground, air, literally any form for matter OR opposing energy.
Now imagine nothingness.
There's absolutely nothing to stop the explosion. There's no air, no matter, not even energy.
That's what's "beyond" the universe.
The Big Bang is the explosion, and the universe is the result. Infinite energy needs somewhere to go, so the infinte nothingness is where it's gonna go.
The only reason the universe is expanding is because the explosion hasn't been, and cannot be, hindered in any way, and will therefore go on forever.
Unless the explosion, the universe, encounters something else in the vast nothingness beyond, it will go on forever.

I'm high as fuck, so take this with a grain of salt, but this is a theory.

File: IMG_1767.jpg (28KB, 250x192px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 250x192px

>>18972972
People talk about it. I just heard a discussion about it today in fact. I think why nobody is really going bonkers about is that it's billions of years away from happening.

What is the universe expanding into? Is there anything outside the universe?

>>18973127
No.
The universe is not expanding "into" anything. It is simply just continuing.
Don't think of what's beyond the universe as a limited space of nothingness, but as endless potential for more universe.

>>18973127
no, space is empty.
there's nothing in between the objects that are in the universe itself

the universe is 99.9999% nothing. at some point the matter and energy just stops and its a whole lot of absolutely nothing

>>18973093
you are right
except for gravity
the matter that is in the universe is pulling on itself which will eventually slow down the expansion

energy will spread out, maybe heat death, maybe not
eventually pulling itself back into a central point where it collapses and starts the whole thing all over again

>>18973146
I really don't understand why people say this. I mean don't get me wrong, people way smarter than me say it but it just doesn't feel correct. It seems more correct to me that what is "outside the universe" is just emptiness. Like, it's there but there's just nothing in it yet.

>>18973151
I actually don't believe this for shit. I think the lack of anything between the objects is infact just a non-physical, non-measurable form for energy, akin to that "dark energy" that popped up in theories a few decades ago.

>>18973163
Yeah, I have this giant theory about how that entire deal works, connecting it to the Big Bang, the end of the universe, what lies beyond the end, and what comes before the beginning. Not going to go into that unless someone specifically requests me to, because it's gonna take forever to explain.

>>18973180
You're probably on the right track, but I think you need to reevaluate what you consider as emptiness, and what you consider to be a part of the universe.

>>18972972
Moar galaxies need enough space. Set them far apart as possible.

>>18973151
wait, I'm wrong
the universe is not actually empty if you include photons
light is everywhere always. at no point in space are there not photons entering your eyeballs air or from stars hundreds of years ago , telling your brain there are points of light all around

if photons were solid the physical universe and many trillions of light years beyond would be a huge solid blob

>>18973190
Well, i understand the concept. I acknowledge that the "balloon expanding" kind of theory is the consensus. Still seems weird/wrong. I'm bored maybe I'll try to find an article about it.

>>18972972
Its so simple, the more you expand your mind, the more the Universe expands.

Its that simple

the universe isn't expanding.
matter is expanding into the universe.

>>18972972
Talking achieves nothing.

>>18973326
He's not wrong lol.

>>18973093
>>18973151
>>18973163
>>18973180

I'm a general math and science fag outside of /x/ shit. Whats happening is that the boundaries are not expanding, it's the space between objects thats expanding. So its not the border of the universe, everything is getting further away from everything else.

As for emptiness, technically there's a shit ton of things that go on in empty space. Specifically exotic particles that bloop into existence and back out. But they are in such massively small scales that it creates an overall average of having no net effect observably. Even our observations are deductions based on 'shadows' that are left behind if you can get a sense for what I'm saying.

As for the outside, right now there's a debate between super-symmetry and multiverse theory. Setting aside infinite universe, there might physically be other universes outside of our own in a somewhat ordered continuum of "space." that is to say that you can say that universe x is next to y, then z. But yes, as for measurements of "how far away are they from each other," these statements are useless with "voidness."

>>18972972
fuck you talking about? plenty of people talk about that shit. you're probably only socializing with people who talk about weed and astrology.

>>18972972
What if we're orbiting a SUPER supermassive black hole?

If we're being pulled by a supermassive force falls into our current understanding of gravity without dark matter.

What if there's more mass in the universe coming around that we just can't see yet? Maybe we see all the mass of the universe, we get to the sides, near heat death, superintelligent species learn to survive these phases. Couple billion more years it all meets up on the other side, comets create energy, everything passes, looks like its moving apart thus big bang idea.

Everything orbits something, why don't we think EVERYTHING isn't orbiting something?

>>18972972
Cause someone hasn't reached the end and beat the final boss

>>18973428
What would the "SUPER supermassive" black hole be orbiting? A larger black hole?
And what about the even larger black hole? Would that be orbiting an EVEN larger black hole?
Would this just go on for infinty?
I don't see this as a reasonable theory, but hey. A theory isn't actualy a theory if it's reasonable from minute 1.

>>18972972
Cause no one has made it to the end and beat the final boss

>>18972972
If Gravity exists, why isn't everything in the universe clumping together? Measurements show that the exact opposite happens: galaxies seem to move away from each other, the further away one is the faster it moves away. This is explained with the expansion of Space itself. Empty space isn't exactly empty but choke full with virtual particles that pop in out of existence. This vacuum energy functions like "anti-gravity" and pushes the galaxies further away from each other. However the effect isn't strong enough to effect matter itself, galaxies, stars and planets are unaffected by this. Nonetheless, eventually in billions and billions of years, space will have expanded so much that the light of distant galaxies will not reach us. For people born in that time it will look like there is only one galaxy in the universe.

>>18973525
All forms of energy needs to convert into another type of energy.
The force that is pushing the universe apart will eventually convert into different forms of energy, and after various conversions, will convert into gravitational energy. This applies for all forms for energy in the universe. When more and more energy becomes gravity, the universe will stop expanding and start clumping together.

>>18972972
>Why aren't more people talking about it
Because any real discussion of this takes place in terms of incredibly advanced mathematics and you kids don't even read if something isn't feeding you whatever retarded opinion you already wanted to have.

>>18973453
Binary black hole :o

>>18973552
Well maybe if we live in a false-vacuum and the universe suddenly pops into a lower energy state but then we have other problems, like disintegrating for example.

If we are near a black hole we could be being compressed and shrinking causing the perception of expansion from our point of veiw

>>18972972
Approximate its starting point using the current expansion speed and adjust for slopes to find any traces of deceleration at predicted maximum peak point and close the elipses or "m&m" shape to calculate the death point.

While the universe may be expanding...if it is a cone shape you can find its acceleration/decceleration.

File: 1*k-kfOV5xye6rTbQ40zy0jA.jpg (96KB, 800x585px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 800x585px

>>18974539
Here as we can see in the diagram are your universes possible outcomes...
Expansion is certain.
Personally I am inclined to believe the first one because it looks like a sound wave and if anything this universe teaches you is right...what goes up...must come down. But worry not. Expansion point will be so retardedly huge and cosmic forces so weak in that bajillion("scientific") amount of years that it won't matter to our spaceships.

>>18974558
If the first one is real. Consider the following.
In the beginning there was the word.
Word is a frequency.

>>18973180
>"outside the universe" is just emptiness. Like, it's there but there's just nothing in it yet.
No, but it is not like that. It isnt empty space, it is nothing.

>>18974573
To expand on anon's point: consider a number line. Numbers of every imaginable type expanding in both directions forever. Now ask yourself, "What lies outside the number line?" Mathematically, the answer is "nothing." Not "zero" not "an empty line without numbers" but it just "isn't there." This is the same concept utilized in the current understanding of our universe.

>>18974558
It's the last one though, we know that the more distant a galaxy the faster it moves away from us.

>>18974734
this fact has absolutely nothing to do with what is discussed in that picture

>>18973180
>>18974573
>>18974670
We don't have any fucking clue what's "outside" of the universe, but it is a safe assumption that it is "nothing". If it would be "something", then it could be considered to be a part of the universe itself, i.e. to be "inside".

>>18974778
It means the universe is expanding exponentially and only the last one depicts that correctly.

>>18972972
Its funny how people think the Universe has a shape.

Its odd

>>18974787

How do you even begin to describe nothing? Nothing by definition is the lack of anything but could you observe nothing? What would nothing look like to, for example, the human eye? 0 is a representation of nothing but it isn't nothing, it is definitively something.

>>18974787
Further, to appreciate the problem of "outside the universe," consider the converse question: what is inside a point? Geometrically, a point is a zero-dimensional object. There is no "inside" to a point. Yet I can still use words to form the question, "What is inside a geomteric point," even though the question doesn't make sense and has no answer.

>>18974807
This is a HUGE problem in programming, and they use the term "null."
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-actual-difference-between-NULL-and-0-zero

>>18974807
Nothing is:
no space
no time
no matter
no energy
no radiation
no gravity

>>18974795
No it doesnt mean, that the universe expands exponentially over time.
Draw some dots on a balloon and blow it up. Dots further away from each other will drift apart from each other faster, no matter if you blow up the ballon at a steady pace or accelerate/decelerate

The Universe is in your head, its nowhere, its not anywhere.

You're asking what's outside of nothing

>>18974807
You clearly dont understand what the word "nothing" means

>>18974800
who thinks that? what shape?

>>18974844

So at what point does something become nothing or vice versa? If we assume the universe is expanding and is expanding into the nothing/void/abyss, would nothing become something the split second a single photon traverses into "it"? Could you somehow remove all of the things you listed from something tangible here on Earth and essentially create a nothing? How "large" would that nothing be relative to the space around it? Would nothing then grow and expand creating more nothing from something? How would we perceive that if at all?

>>18974859

I understand perfectly well what the term nothing means. It means no thing but what in our existence is nothing? Space is clearly something. Get off your high horse and elaborate on what nothing means to you rather than defining a word with a word you dense fuck.

>>18974864
All the phcisists they don't know shit

>>18974871
Nothing is a concept. Its not a thing that exists.

Why do you care if tjey understand or not?

>>18974871
>could you observe nothing? What would nothing look like to, for example, the human eye?
>I understand perfectly well what the term nothing means

top fucking kek, anon, no you dont. Tell me, how does nothing taste. What is the sound of nothing? Are you really this fucking obtuse?

>>18974894
May I ask why you feel as though you need to prove it to him, or are you doubting it yourself.

When you know something, you don't have to prove it, because you know it. Fuck what he thinks

>>18974880
A perfect nothing would be the lack of the word 'nothing' and then the lack of the lack of the word ... and so on.

>>18974905
>prove
>doubting

This is literally just a semantic fuck up. How can we discuss this topic with anons having problems conceptualising "nothing"?

>When you know something, you don't have to prove it, because you know it
Sounds to me like walking into an intellectual dead-end. Like being stubbornly obtuse and close-minded on purpose

>>18974894

Nothing sounds like "nuh-theeng", nothing tastes like whatever residual things are on my taste buds. To be honest I've never tasted nothing and surely you haven't either. You are the obtuse one for assuming nothing exists in our reality. Your perception is skewed while I am asking pertinent questions from an objective standpoint.

>>18974923
>You are the obtuse one for assuming nothing exists in our reality
What? How am I assuming this? I make the exact opposite point. Nothing doesnt exist. It is nothing. You made this assumption by asking stupid questions like "could you observe nothing?"

File: expansion.jpg (14KB, 537x290px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 537x290px

>>18974866
>is expanding into the nothing/void/abyss
This is the wrong way to conceive the expansion of space. It isn't expanding "into" anything. The "grid" of spacetime - that as far as we can observe is infinite - is getting bigger. Pic related.

>>18974938

You have not defined nothing, you asked what nothing tastes like or sounds like. I explained how I've never tasted nothing and what "nothing" sounds like to me. Nothing clearly exists because you are referring to it. If it didn't exist in some capacity there would be no term for it nor would you be splitting hairs trying to sell your contrived (and quite frankly misguided) points to me.

The universe expands from the central sun until enough spiritual mass has been reached for it to collapse back into one, so that creation can start anew, possibly in a different density/octave? This is mentioned briefly in the Law of One iirc.
>lawofone.info
There is a lot of other stuff, like intelligent energy focusing itself and creating the densities etc, it's pretty crazy and there is a lot of confusing stuff but it's very fascinating.
:)

>>18974946

The squares in your grid are definitively larger and hence take up more space, or surface area. Therefore, nothing became something. Even if all of the matter is consolidated within the boundaries of spacetime, where there was nothing now consists of something even if it was the same something just spread out over a "larger" area.

>>18974938

To add on, could you have nothing inside of a something? Clearly there would be defined boundaries between the something and the nothing. If you have a donut and can have nothing in the middle of that matter, you could still observe "nothing" and it would be able to be described even if you can say "there is not a single thing in the middle of that matter yet there are clear boundaries between what isn't and what is". Lemme make this a bit more clear for you, if you dig a hole and take out the matter that was in the hole, you still have the same amount of matter that was in the hole, it is just in a different place. Now you have a pile of that matter next to a "pile" of the anti-matter dug into the Earth, which we call a hole.

>>18974948
>you asked what nothing tastes like or sounds like
Yeah, but that was a rhetoric question. It was meant to show how ridiculous such a questions is.

>Nothing clearly exists because you are referring to it
Yeah, as a concept. As something abstract. You cant just stumble on it or measure it with a ruler. It is literally fucking nothing.
How am I misguided?

Maybe fuck of to /sci/?

>>18974974
>The squares in your grid are definitively larger and hence take up more space
You are taking a visual analogy literally.
>Therefore, nothing became something.
No. At no point is there nothing. Space - which is something - expanded so that we get more space.
>within the boundaries of spacetime
Spacetime does not appear to have a boundary.
>where there was nothing
Where is that? Any "where" is in spacetime, which is something.
>even if it was the same something
It's not. It's new something.

>>18974991

You define nothing as nothing without offering your particular insight as to what nothing truly is (or isn't). When you say nothing is nothing, that means that lack of anything but as I asked in a prior post, at what point would a nothing become a something? A single photon or quark would make that nothing into something definitively. If you have a 2x2 cube and that is everything that ever was and could be, and everything else around that is nothing, and somehow that single particle escapes the cube, you have turned nothing into something, correct? Even if that nothing is now inhabited by that single particle alone, it is still definitively something rather than nothing.

NOTHING.

An essential, comforting and beautiful symbol, representing an ultimate in human understanding is nougat or nothing.

The mind requires that beyond which is impossible to conceive, a totality, an absolute; and, as such , the idea of Nothing. Is common and undeniable to all men.

Nothing is the only indivisible absolute which the mind is capable of appreciating and understanding.

The only qualification of Nothing is that there is only one; there cannot be two Nothings.

It cannot be multiplied or subtracted from. Nothing precedes and understands One. One is created out of Nothing, standing simultaneously with it. The un manifest One is Nothing. One can be divided, all numbers resulting from the division of one.

One is continuously being being divided and qualified, depending always on Nothing to uphold it. Nothing never changes , containing all that changes. Nothing is the greatest mystery upon which the mind may dwell and in which it finds its rest.

To be considered positively, Nothing can be a appreciated as the womb of all things, the place of immaculate conception , the never changing background against which all things come to pass. "Nothing matters" can be the negative apathy of surrender by me or it can the positive appreciation of that which understands all that matters, comes to matter, materializes.

It is Nothing that matters. As sound depends on the ever present silence preceding it, containing it, subtending it, following it, being always simultaneous with it, so Nought or Nothing to the one that is All Things.

If there were no Nought, there could not be any thing for there would not be anywhere for that thing to be, in the same way that there could not be sound without the silence i which to sound.

Nothing is the place of beginning and sustaining, and the dissolving of all things.

>>18975002

You're actually making my point for me, I was arguing a false assumption about spacetime expanding into the abyss and how the concept of nothing is a fallacy. Follow the chain of the posts and you'll see how I mean. Thanks for the follow-up and clarification, I'm on the same page as you and contending with the others in this thread that argue nothing exists in our universe or reality as we can perceive it.

>>18975014
The created Universe is one born of Nothing. The one Nothing is before and after and without the One. The apparent divisions seeing or seeming two of the one, produces two ,the potential for creation being manifest active passive, positive-negative, energy- matte, light-dark, male-female,man-womb of man,father-mother.

The three, proceeding from one as two is realization by the one itself.

The self witnesses the experience of all things. The self has no form, all forms being an expression or reflection of the self. All senorily perceivable things are properties of the self; all mentally perceivable things are properties of the self; but the self, being no thing, is the one born of Nothing that contains ALL THINGS..

The self is deceived, robbed of birthright, if the organ of discrimination in mind believes any particular form to the self. If any thing is spoken of as "I" or me or "Mine" and believed in mind to be so, the un-truth is spoken, self deluded.

There is only One Self, which never changes, and the self witnesses the body and the contents of mind. All the passing show of "is" and "me's" are an illusion, the cloud of assuming the self to be that which is not, a cloud under which the mind labors so long as there is forgetting and ignorance. In Man is the Miracle of being able to contemplate its own existence and it is only through the Human being , amongst all forms of being, that the self may be remembered.

So what, since the self is no thing, can the self be said to be?
When the question arises in the mind"Who Am I"?
And it becomes clear that in truth one is none of these things that the self has assumed Itself to be, what remains?

>>18975003
>a nothing
This is a grammatical error. Not in that the language is structured wrong, but that the language has created a conceptual impossibility. You are talking about a 2-sided triangle.

>>18975015
>I was arguing a false assumption about spacetime expanding into the abyss and how the concept of nothing is a fallacy.
Agreed. Even if there were an "outside" to the universe - and perhaps transcending or "not included" are better words than "outside" to avoid a spatial connotation - then it wouldn't be "nothing." It would be something; a truly fantastical something without spatial dimension or interaction with the universe as we know it, but something.

>>18975003
>You define nothing as nothing
I never tried to define it.

>If you have a 2x2 cube and that is everything that ever was and could be, and everything else around that is nothing, and somehow that single particle escapes the cube
Either your scenario is desribed in a wrong way, or the particle cant possibly escape the cube.
But lets just say it does so anyway, then no you havent turned nothing into something. You have created a multiverse consisting of cubeverse and another universe that is entirely defined by that particle.

>Even if that nothing is now inhabited by that single particle alone
No, you cant inhabit nothing. Stop confusing empty space with "nothing".

>>18975014
nothing really matters

>>18975014
>>18975017

>Tfw

Nothing God

>>18975017
Sounds a lot like the material in >>18974957
(the law of one) except what you call nothing they call "intelligent infinity".

>>18973032
That's wrong. You're wrong and would be laughed out of /sci/

>>18975060
Call it what you want. Labels don't define it

>>18975069
/sci/ fuck sci

>>18972972
It's not talked about because it was discovered in 1929. Maybe for the first 30 years it was news. But 80 years tends to resolve things

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Hubble

>>18975089
Hahaha.

>discussing science

>fuck science

Wew lad

>>18975107
That's science? Then anything could be

>>18974866
>So at what point does something become nothing
When there is no longer anything to measure.

>or vice versa?
When something appears that can be measured.

>>18975114
Don't try to metexplain or meterstand. Learn. Learn real science. It's quite interesting

>>18975121
>. It's quite interesting

What, science interesting? Philosophy yes, not science. But again, this ain't /sci/ go back to your echo chamber.

We're here to summon a succubus

>>18975136
Philosophy by itself provides nothing of worth to anyone.

>>18975141
To the "SELF" it does

>>18975141
>Philosophy by itself provides nothing of worth to anyone.

Who is invested in the human ego.

Corrected.

>>18972972
>Why is the universe expanding...
Apparently, the energy released upon the initial detonation was sufficient to keep shit moving for the past 13.7 billion years. What's really fucking crazy is that not only is the universe expanding, but it's accelerating over time....which means that eventually, the expansion will be faster than the speed of light itself, if it's not already.

We really don't know, though.

>and why aren't more people talking about it?
Because we're dumb fucking animals driven largely by instinct and don't really give two shits about anything other than what fulfills our immediate needs and desires on a daily basis.

>How far is it going to go?

All the way.

>>18975141
>Philosophy by itself provides nothing of worth to anyone.

Except dipshits brainwashed by academia to believe it does......

>>18975159
>the energy released upon the initial detonation was sufficient to keep shit moving for the past 13.7 billion years
its about the same power as dividing by zero.

>>18973033
>Is the universe expanding, or is the speed of light slowing down?
That wouldn't explain the existence of the cosmic microwave background, an expanding universe however predicts it.

>>18975146
If you knew anything of the self, you'd know that it doesn't exist in the sense that you speak of.
And by "by itself", I meant in the sense of "trying to conceptualize things that are fundamentally impossible according to the processes that underlie perception." It seemed intuitive at the time I wrote it, oddly enough, but can now see that what I originally said was meaningless. No matter. Self is an illusion, which you'd realize if you'd read and grokked the works of Hume.

>>18975083
true, i just thought the matching info from different sources was interesting.

>>18974734
Yes. The further a galaxy the faster it moves from us. However the scale of the acceleration must be taken into account. Then the point of stasis and vacuum collapse.
The first one is accurate shape but the scale is off by huge factors. The one beside it is more correct. You cannot measure something while you are inside it. Unless you use reverb.

>>18975212
Thats why science can't explain that which contains it. Never will. Sorry /sci/ you're eternally cucked

>>18972972
why do you think there's a reason for everything? Only conscious beings do things for reasons and only part of the universe is conscious. Most of it just does shit because it does.

>>18972972
>Why is the universe expanding?
No one knows, really. Supposedly it's dark matter, which is like matter with "negative" mass, but that's just some shit scientists made up when they realized our current models of the universe can't explain. It still hasn't been proven to exist.

>>18973190
You better fucking go into it, i'm waiting

>>18975221
at least science actually explains some things

>>18975221
Did you hear what I said about the reverb part? We have used reverb... and found a key.

>mfw we were the ayy lmaos all along.

File: anything_beyond.jpg (9KB, 450x228px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 450x228px

>>18975256
I typed this out when still high last night, so don't expect anything actually good.


The universe is ever-expanding. This is now known. I will start by explaining how the universe can keep expanding infinitely.

Imagine an explosion. The explosion has a radius of how far it will go, how far the explosion will have effect, right? This is simply because there will always be something in the way of the explosion. It could be buildings, the ground, air, literally any form of matter or opposing energy. If you're able to understand this, we can move on. Now imagine nothingness. Not the lack matter, not even lack of matter and energy, but absolutely nothing. Not light, not particles, absolutely nothing at all, nothing imaginable or unimaginable. The vast Nothingness is not a limited space that you can fill, but an infinite presence of endless potential for literally anything. This nothingness cannot be removed or pushed aside, but it can room "anything" for the lack of a better term. This is the hardest part of this entire theory you need to imagine, but if you think you are able to, then combine the theory of the vast Nothingness with your understanding of explosions. If an explosion begins within the Nothingness, there will be literally nothing to stop the explosion. There will not be any air, no matter, not even energy to hinder it. This is what I theorize is beyond the universe. The Big Bang is the start of the explosion in question, and the universe is the explosion itself, or the result of the explosion. The infinite energy produced in this explosion needs somewhere to go, and the only place it can go is the infinite Nothingness. The reason why the universe is expanding is because the great explosion has not been (but can be, I will come back to this) hindered in any way, and will therefore go on forever. This is, of course, if the universe, the explosion, does not encounter something else in the Nothingness.

File: Screen-Shot-2014-05-09-at-10.49.01-AM.png (969KB, 1202x722px) Image search: [Google]

969KB, 1202x722px

>>18975460
Now I will explain how the universe will stop its expansion. The idea of the universe stopping its expansion defies the theory presented in the previous paragraph, but through explanation I will try to make you understand how these opposing theories can both be true simultaneously.
According to Newton, every force has an opposing force. Seeing how this opposing force cannot be found within the vast Nothingness, the universe needs to produce the opposing force inside itself. Therefore, the location (for the lack of a better term) of the Big Bang is rich in gravity. This means that the universe is constantly being pushed away from the location of the Big Bang, but is also pulled in towards the same location. Energy can only convert (if that is the correct word?) to other forms of energy, so the force that pushes the universe away will gradually convert into gravity, pulling the universe back in. When the gravity is greater than the force of the explosion, the universe will have stopped expanding, and will have started to compress (correct word?) itself. All the energy in the universe will gradually convert to becoming part of this great gravity, and when all of the universe, matter and energy, has been compressed to this location, the entire universe will have converted into gravity. All this energy compressing itself constantly will eventually require to convert into another form of energy. This will eventually trigger another explosion. This explosion is known as the Big Bang.

File: dark-universe-dark-matter-700x432.jpg (68KB, 700x432px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 700x432px

>>18975464
If you have understood the theories presented so far, you will hopefully be able to understand the next theory.
Time is not linear. At least not fully linear. This theory has been presented countless times, but not in the way I will present it, to my knowledge. The concept of time is not an actual, complete truth, but I will use that term to make the theory more easily comprehensible. "Time" will loop infinitely according to my theory, but not in the sense that every loop will be a repetition of the last loop. Every Big Bang will create the universe by pure chance, and you are extremely unlikely to exist in both these loops. There is, of course, a chance for that to happen, but it is infinitely unlikely to happen. The chance for humanity to exist is extremely unlikely, the chance for the Solar system to exist is extremely unlikely, the chance for life itself to exist is extremely unlikely, but there is obviously a chance for it to happen, and we just happen to be lucky enough to exist. This theory is tightly connected to the theories of the multiverse and alternate universes, but excludes the possibility of several universes to co-exist in any form. The only thing these universes will be 100% certain to have in common is a Big Bang, and an “End”.

File: Screenshot_2017-02-25-09-35-07.png (180KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 1280x720px

It'll go very far, my friend

I have nothing to say on this topic.

But did I really?

>>18972972
Is it? Isn´t it just prolapsing? The eternal goatee? Since everything is shit?

>>18973032
>antimatter
anti matter is a retard fucking theory. fucking literally kys

I was about to contribute to this thread but after reading some of the above I realise that it's pointless.

/x/ is not the place for a logical, scientific discussion.

>>18976556
>doesn't even know what antimatter is but shitposts regardless

Can I recommend the YouTube channel ONE Space Time. It has some great videos on this subject and touches all corners of astrophysics and cosmology.

>>18976602
PBS Space Time. Sorry, on phone.

>>18976568
Same. I am truly worried about the youth of today. Even the posts that were 90% accurate still had mistakes.

Quick tip, kids. All of these topics can be googled, so stop shitposting.

there is no expansion

to get across a point, imagine the universe is flowing body of water.
now you start of up stream in the tiniest pool flowing down into larger parts of the body, as you move toward these larger sections, due to your limited perception and constant movement, it looks as if the body is expanding, due to you reaching a more expansive point in this body. this also is coupled with a perception of slowing, as your surroundings now seemingly pass by slower, as the perceived distance is greater.

>much like in op's picture
>we started off in the tiniest point
>accelerating out to the end, the largest point
>then we reach the end, in which we flip, and accelerate back to our origin
>repeat cycle

the universe itself is a cycle, just as all things within are

>>18972972

it's all relative to on'es position

>>18975345
We're the aliens, obviously.

File: colon_left_turn.png (1017KB, 1200x1200px) Image search: [Google]

1017KB, 1200x1200px

>>18973030
I'm so bored I actually looked this up. If the person is facing front down then you DO have to turn left eventually. You learn something new every day!

>>18972972
It's not expanding its just that light takes time to reach us so everyday new "space" shows up that means the light has reached us

>>18973033
>The Universe don't be like it is, but it do anyway

>>18972972
The thing that freaks me out is that there is a universe expansion force that all matter experiences.

Currently the force is almost immeasurably small but it accumulates into large increases in speed over great distances. The force's magnitude increases as the universe's expansion speeds up. The universe is literally flying apart.

The matter in the universe experiencing the force is not really affected materially because the nuclear, electronic, and gravitational forces hold blobs of matter together in different ways.

But one day the cohesive forces of matter will start to lose against the slowly increasing space expansion force.

Now, I'm going out on a limb here, but if this happened really quickly, in a confined region of space, and you happened to be in it, what would you feel as your molecules and atoms lose the ability to connect to each other? What would you feel as your atoms lose the ability to hold their subatomic particles together?

And how do you feel living in a universe where the laws are set up in a way where you are at the mercy of the unseen manifolds of empty space itself?

File: IMG-20170506-WA0011.jpg (78KB, 634x960px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 634x960px

What i really wonder us: will the planck space and/or the planck time ever change if the fabric of spacetime itself is expanding?

File: jkhjkh.jpg (771KB, 1901x1320px) Image search: [Google]

771KB, 1901x1320px

>Consider the following
they:
>are way more advanced
>already beyond quantum mechanics
>already have greater tech in quantum computer

with the search for answers and developing into the next great filter, They, build something that is beyond time and space.

we are the product of them and if not, one day we will become a product of them.

our next advancment in tech is what They consider as ancient.

>>18978656
>the slowly increasing space expansion force
I've seen nothing that indicates the force is increasing. Dark energy is cumulative, like gravity, but for a given distance, the force is not increasing.

>>18973032
My goodness I don't even know where to begin

"Big crunch" was disproved long ago. Space expanding wouldn't somehow destroy matter.

Things will his be insanely far apart and very cold. Boring, simple, yet terrifying

>>18979057
Also antimatter vs matter is already over. Like, so many billions of years ago.

I'm half way through this with a shocking lack of ''dark matter" and "dark energy"

You can't even begin this discussion without those... or am I missing something

>>18974839
Ive never liked those physics "paradoxes " that rely on the erroneous use of language. Language is not always as exact as science is. We can say nonsense if we want

>>18974946
If it's infinite how can it get bigger?

Serious question

>>18979078
It's infinite in that you can keep going in one direction and never reach the edge.

Think of the expansion like blowing up a balloon, and the universe is the surface of the balloon- the amount of balloon never changes, but it's getting bigger.

>>18979087
>the amount of balloon never changes
what is change for you?

While reading through this thread I came up with an interesting question: assume we were able to reach an edge of the universe (Imagine that limitations like speed of light are not a problem to us at this point). What's going to happen when we try to go beyond what exists? Will those who travel beyond cease to exist? I'm aware this question is outside of what's really possible but I felt like it was an interesting question.

File: stoned revelation.jpg (281KB, 1156x818px) Image search: [Google]

281KB, 1156x818px

>>18975460
>>18975464
>>18975466

>>18979177
I just read through all of this again today, holy shit was I high

>>18972972

Are you sure it's expanding? I thought it wasn't clear if the universe was a closed or an open system yet.

It' would make more sense if it was stretching at some points or folding though. it's more close to how nature acts than just simply expanding.

>>18972972
>Why is the universe expanding and why aren't more people talking about it? How far is it going to go?
Materialistic scientists claim that cosmos expands.
The problem is, these scientists study only GROSS matter, they think about it, worship it, study it with their machines.
These materialists do not control their minds so they are sinful and are victimized by the same gross material energy they so much study (worship).
How can they discover the reason behind this or the origin of the universe?
They only see very small part of it, cannot study subtle energies or spiritual ones.
They are almost all atheistic so their studies will be fruitless.
They are caught in a labyrinth of illusions created by the same energy they worship.
Another 'scientists' who are functionalists or dualists (Christians) are above them but they are all caught in the labyrinth.
They also hate each other and are hungry for money so there is NO POINT listening to these garbage they produce.

>>18979433
And I thought I was a rambling mess when high. What the fuck are you on right now?