xjwsforChrist

It just expands maybe? Consider a large vacuum that has a leak it in. Air rushes into it and expands into the chamber. The leak is the origin. Now consider the universe as that vacuum chamber but with infinite boundaries.

_________________
To fear me is to love me....

A very good question Shel, one that scientists have tried to answer with theories such s:
Dark Matter
Dark Energy
Multiple universes
and so forth...

Here:
http://www.npr.org/2013/05/10/182861376 ... g-universe

"Into" WHAT, dear Pup (peace to you!). Would not that which is OUTSIDE of it need to ALSO expand... so as to accommodate IT's expansion?? If there is nothing to expand "into"... would it not reach its limits OF expansion FROM THE START?



Where is the air coming FROM, dear one? OUTSIDE the vacuum... yes? But... there is nothing OUTSIDE. Not even air. So... where did the air come FROM, so as to now be INSIDE... and expand into the chamber?



But the leak is allowing something IN, yes? WHAT "something"... and from WHERE... if there is NOTHING outside the vacuum chamber?



Again... per your argument... the vaccum chamber is expanding, because a leak allowed air in... which air is expanding the chamber... yet, there is NOTHING, not EVEN air... OUTSIDE the chamber. How, then, can a leak let IN something that is NOT outside? If there is NOTHING outside the chamber, then even should a hole occur... NOTHING would enter the chamber... so as to expand it... because there is nothing OUTSIDE so as TO enter? Yes?

However, if there IS something OUTSIDE... that (1) can leak INTO the chamber, AS WELL AS (2) that the chamber can expand INTO... then we CANNOT say that there is "nothing" outside the chamber? Yes?

And the same with the universe... yes? If there is NOTHING outside of the universe, then NOTHING can ENTER so as to expand it... NOR can it EXPAND... INTO... nothing. Yes?

Because NOTHING... would BE the BOUNDARY... yes? And so the chamber would have no where TO expand, but would CRUSH in on itself from the very first attempt TO expand? Yes?



And how's that working for them so far, dear P (peace to you, as well!)?

I'm just asking folks to use logic... if not common sense reasoning: something cannot expand "into" nothing, dear ones. Impossible. Now, there might BE nothing IN that something... but there has to be a something.

Just sayin'.

Peace!

A slave of Christ,

Shellama

The "vacuum compartment" is not expanding. It is infinite or so large as to be infinite.

As to where it comes from. It may be a leak from another dimension of reality.

We do not really have a good concept of infinite time as we only live for about 100 years. How long is a million years? We also do not have a good concept of infinite space.

You are applying subjective logic

_________________
To fear me is to love me....

If we try to use logic and common sense reasoning then I would have to say there is no God

_________________
To fear me is to love me....

I misunderstood you to mean the vacuum compartment to be the universe, dear Pup (peace to you!). So I went back and reread your comments... and so now what I THINK you were saying is the "air"... not the chamber... is the universe... that "it" is what is "leaking" INTO the vacuum chamber?

If this is correct, then there is STILL "something" outside of the universe/air... something which the universe/air is "leaking" INTO - the vacuum chamber... yes? Which had to exist BEFORE the universe/air leaked "INTO" it, yes?

If this is NOT correct... then please, if you will, explain what each item (chamber, air) is corresponding to, so that I can understand your analogy?

Thank you and, again, peace to you!

Your servant and a slave of Christ,

Shellama

Yes the air is the universe and the expansion of air into the vacuum is analogous to the expansion of the universe.

Now we take that analogy and tweak it the air is not being continually pumped into the vacuum. The concentrated gas is being diluted into the vacuum.

So now think of dropping a dot of ink into a bowl. And as the ink spreads out so does our universe.

Or say fireworks shot into the sky. As it explodes it spreads out.

Now it's possible that in our reality we aren't the only Big Bang incident. It's possible that an unthinkable distance away from us another Big Bang has occurred and that universe is expanding towards us. So now we have an image of raindrops upon a pond. All the universes are expanding towards each other.

But the question still remain where did the initial matter come from? Who knows how many universes have been created and destroyed. It may be a process thy has occurred an infinite amount of times already. We all want to find that origin.

Perhaps time is a loop with no end and beginning. There is no origin. Everything just is and has always been.

_________________
To fear me is to love me....

Now you got me going lol

Or maybe the universe is actually contracting. All the universes are contracting to a central point but as humans we can only perceive it as happening in reverse.

_________________
To fear me is to love me....

Okay, thanks (and peace to you!). So now...



Okay, so the universe is a "drop", yes, or the air, say, one puff (of breath, maybe?)... expanding into the bowl (which has liquid in it, so as to "dilute" and "spread/dissipate" the ink? Else, the drop would just sit there, in the bottom of the bowl, perhaps spreading just a tiny bit, unless the shape of the bowl allows for more (but at some point it WOULD recoil, yes, and so return to just a drop...)?



Yes!

BUT... there first has to BE a bowl... OR a sky... yes? For the ink to be dropped INTO... or the fireworks to be shot INTO? Else the ink would either (1) dissipate into "thin air"... OR (2) go absolutely NOWHERE, which would be same as with the fireworks - they would go absolutely nowhere... there being no sky to shoot them INTO... and so, simply explode into themselves. Yes?

So, in light of your analogy: what IS the "bowl"... or "sky"... or "vacuum chamber"... that the ink/fireworks/air is dropped, shot, leaked INTO? If you say "NOTHING"... then your hypothesis MUST fail. For this is NO bowl, sky, or chamber. And so, again, the drop, fireworks, or air... could NOT expand... as there is nothing FOR it to expand INTO.



Tis true, that is possible! OR... that we are the only Big Bang "event" ANYWHERE: in this universe OR another...



Could be that, as well. But one would think that if such other universes are PHYSICAL... we would have collided/come in contact with one (or more) by NOW... yes? So that theory is highly unlikely. If such "universe(s)" are NOT physical, however, but of some OTHER substance... well, then... how would/could we KNOW?



Let's leave that one, for now - we can revisited it later. I want to move on... so as to keep to the scope of this particular discussion.



As far as WE know one... and none. Thus far. Not that is true; we have no idea. But if our only "view" is as to PHYSICAL universes... such that we DISMISS anything outside of a physical universe (whether it be ours or some other)... could we not be perhaps missing an entire OTHER reality?



We might all want to find it... but while some say there is no real conflict in methods used to SEARCH, some say there is only one way to search: science. But the truth is that the two are NOT in conflict. The conflict is in our dogmatic belief that it is science that disproves the spiritual... while the truth is that the spiritual is what created... and so can prove... the science. Even before WE have the knowledge... and/or tools/instruments... to help us do that.

If, though, one call allow oneself to step OUT of the physical... TRANSCEND it... to the OTHER part of "us"... NOT the substance (and energy) that is manifest as physical (E=MC2)... but the substance... which IS energy but NOT manifested in MC2... CANNOT be manifested so... then we can really begin to "see"... what all IS out there. Because it is NOT all manifested physically (E=MC2). THAT equation only explains what IS manifested physically.



This is true as to the non-created, non-physical energy that exists. It is NOT true as to the created and/or PHYSICAL manifestation of energy. THAT... had a beginning... and will have an end. When Death is destroyed. Because only the physical dies, dear one. True, it may live longer in some form than in others (say, stars, versus houseflies), but it all dies. Eventually.

That will change, though, when Death... is destroyed. And he/it will be. That "darkness" WILL come to an end.

I hope this helps and, again, peace to you!

Your servant and a slave of Christ,

Shellama

It is one of those things that runs against our "common sense", where we see time, space and things on the small human scale where they remain fixed. The hard to understand part is that time and space, the very "ROOM" itself, expands continuously (our mathematics may allow for infinite distances and times, but the universe itself appears to be limited to times of 14.5 billion years or so, and consequently to distances of about 14.5 billion light years in every direction: very long and very large to be sure, but nevertheless limited). It appears to have started from an infinitesimal singularity--the Big Bang--and to have been expanding ever since.

At the time, a singular origin was a point of contention [yes, that's a pun]. Many people were fond of theories where the universe is static: it neither grows nor shrinks, it always was and always will be. Einstein used the cosmological constant http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_constant.html to counteract the force of gravity, so that all the galaxies and stars could stay in place instead of falling victim to each others' gravity. Einstein later called this his biggest blunder; admitting this error may have been his greatest act of humility (and a mark of greatness).

That a cosmological theory reminiscent of Genesis came from a Jesuit priest made it even more unpopular at the time. But it has stood the test of time, and is the best model we have so far.

I have deliberately used such terms as "appears", "model" and "so far". Humility is essential in science: its basis is the willingness to admit our previous thoughts were incomplete, inaccurate, or just plain wrong. Whenever I hear the words "Science has proved...", I will think "Pride cometh before the fall". Science is about admitting our knowledge is imperfect, and humbly, continually improving on it. This progresses in fits and starts, but has a long-term trend of removing error. Any time we say we know the workings of creation with certainty, we are cementing our ignorance in place.

I hear what you are saying, dear GLT (good day and peace to you!), but let's be honest: even in OUR world, it MUST be true that "there first has to BE a bowl... OR a sky... yes? For the ink to be dropped INTO... or the fireworks to be shot INTO? Else the ink would either (1) dissipate into "thin air"... OR (2) go absolutely NOWHERE, which would be same as with the fireworks - they would go absolutely nowhere... there being no sky to shoot them INTO... and so, simply explode into themselves. Yes?



I totally understand that. But "what" is the very "room" itself... expanding INTO, dear one? Of this is correct, there must BE space for SPACE to expand INTO, yes? I understand that the premise is that there was "nothing"... and then some "event" (big bang) brought on by perhaps the tiniest of particles caused the physical universe to come into existence and expand (and I don't dispute that). But would not that tiny particle have to have blown a hole/space INTO "space"... in order for the universe to expand INTO it?

Perhaps you're suggesting that space (and infinitesimal) already existed (which I don't disagree with), with the "particle" existing IN that space... and then its "product" expanding out as a result of the "event." And if so, I'm cool there.

But the most prevalent premise (or at least, the one I am curious about here) is that the expansion of the universe is what "creates" space, yes?

I hope I am making myself clear... and not exasperating anyone.

Peace!

A slave of Christ,

Shellama

Maybe my mind is peculiar...always possible!....but I just don't see why the universe has to be expanding into anything?

Is the "universe", in these terms, not merely a word expressing "all that is"?

I am aware of course that scientists posit the existence of multiple universes!

Oh, and by the way, what's all this "science is for the men and we ladies might not find it interesting" stuff? Which century are we in, for heaven's sake?! The little ladies are quite capable of sullying their tiny minds with science! Ever heard of Marie Curie? Caroline Herschel was every bit as good an astronomer as her brother William, who, if I'm not mistaken, discovered Uranus.

This link might make you think, and don't forget people like Elizabeth Garrett Anderson!

http://www.bu.edu/today/2013/advocating ... cientists/

Many don't, dear Char (peace to you!), but I'm not sure what what YOU "don't see" has to do with the discussion. If you wish to comment WHY you don't see that... what is/may be occurring to perhaps make you see different, then, by all means... do share.



But if you want to reduce the discussion to what you disdain, then I would ask you to please refrain. Else, the "intelligent" men (and women) on the board just MIGHT think some of "girls" are a bit ditzy... with no real substance to add to a discussion like this but just wishing folks to THINK we "know something"... all the while wishing it would "go away" because we don't have anything (of substance) to add.

And we don't want ANY to think THAT, men OR women... now, do we?

Peace!

YSSFS of Christ,

Shellama

I did. I said I didn't see why the "universe", in these terms a stand-in word for "all that is", needed to have anything to expand into. "Didn't see" means, in that context, didn't understand, just as you evidently didn't understand that simple implicit query. Someone who doesn't understand could scarcely be expected, from their lack of understanding, to elucidate further, could they? You see, my small brain finds no difficulty with an expanding universe. An irreverent comparison to a waistline comes to mind, but don't worry, I have already rebuked myself for that flippant thought.





What was that all about? You lost me there. What did you think I was "disdaining"? I was referring to tec's remark about men and women and science, rather surprised that no-one else had picked it up. Thought you'd have got that, Shel!

No matter, no biggie. It's cool.

Well, see, MY position is that, given the topic, someone who doesn't understand MIGHT consider standing back a bit and simply LISTENING... so as to know if they should even COMMENT, let alone elucidate.



But that's YOUR [small] brain, dear one. Maybe that's WHY you find no difficulty with it. Mine [normal-sized] brain DOES find a problem with the theory that "all that is" is expanding, but yet no "space" for "all that is" to expand INTO. Because it doesn't make sense (you know, like religion, which is why I started questioning that, too). Logic says that it CAN'T so expand... unless there is space FOR it to do so IN (I know, I know... some scientists theorize differently... but they are only theorizing, so the topic isn't closed... right?). Now, I understand dear Pup's analogy (peace to you!), regarding dispersion/dilution of ink; however, if that theory is correct, then space IS greater than the universe... and so there is no reason to ASSUME that the universe IS "all there is." Dear GLT's (peace to you, too!) asserted makes more sense... that the universe IS expanding... "into" space... which space is greater than the "universe"? But that makes assuming we ARE the only ones "here" even more absurd, IMHO, as it assumes ours is the only UNIVERSE.

See?



Interesting analogy, perhaps indicative that you harbor some kind of bigoted opinion of large people (which doesn't surprise me, at all, but take care: out of the heart's abundance the "mouth" speaks... and so, with the same judgment that you judge... perhaps even in your heart... well, you know the rest...). Perhaps that's what you mean by "irreverent," though, and so if so, thank you for rebuking yourself. Although, I do marvel that you felt the need not only to tell us you "rebuked" yourself... but to still state it. Makes your self-proclaimed "rebuke" seems a little empty. I mean, you COULD have kept you "irreverent" thought to yourself. Since it WAS "irreverent"... you get my drift. I hope.



Perhaps that's because no one read into what dear tec (peace!) said... or meant... that you did... but you. Here's what she stated:



She said absolutely NOTHING about science being more interesting to men than to women. She said that she BELIEVED a science "measuring" thread would be of more interest to our dear gentlemen than to our dear ladies. "Measuring" as in how men tend to "measure" things. What we ladies might call a "tinkling" contest. It was a play on words. See?

But because of your DISDAIN, you took her words and meaning out of context and tried to make it seem like she was saying women are less interested in science than men. She said nothing of the sort. Women MIGHT be less interesting in "measuring" science... in the manner some mean "measure" things... but not in science itself.

See? Please... check your heart, dear Char. Because it's "veil" is obscuring your "view."

Again, peace to you!

YSSFS of Christ,

Shellama