Is ''space'' really the only thing that exists?

[Jellee]

Sometimes when I think about this, this galaxy, the hundreds of sextillion miles of space, I wonder if there is anything else. Not God, Heaven, Satan or Hell, but.. Just something else. About 13 billion years ago dark matter collided with normal matter, resulting in what is known as the big bang. The universe started and has been expanding ever since. But what was before that? What is space expanding into? Like.. This drawing.

Black is space. The arrows indicate that it's expanding. The white area.. What's there?

Recently I've heard of the term ''heat death'', which describes how the universe will eventually die.. Is that the end of everything that exists and will ever exist? Or is it the beginning of something new?

Share your thoughts, please.

 

[Xier0]

I suppose the white area is just void, the same as space that contains no matter?

As for heat death, that doesn't mean that everything in the universe ceases to exist, it just means that essentially no more usable energy will be around, which will take much much longer than our planet's lifetime to happen.

 

[Weaboo]

We still don't know about that, isn't scientists finding answers to that?
When that day comes when all the truths are revealed, I can't wait to see what all the religious people would say to defend themselves.

 

[Jellee]

We still don't know about that, isn't scientists finding answers to that?
When that day comes when all the truths are revealed, I can't wait to see what all the religious people would say to defend themselves.

Ignore and denie it like they did with Galileo. Maybe.

 

[Dipshoe]

I would like to add on that scientists found an area in space with absolutely nothing but darkness. Like no stars meteors or any other object.
Also What if there is different levels to space like inhabitable layer (like in a apartment) and say we go too low (basement) in space then that is not habitable. Say we go too high (roof) that area is not habitable. So what is there is a middle region which is habitable? and we are in this region or "Layer" of space?

 

[Jellee]

I would like to add on that scientists found an area in space with absolutely nothing but darkness. Like no stars meteors or any other object.
Also What if there is different levels to space like inhabitable layer (like in a apartment) and say we go too low (basement) in space then that is not habitable. Say we go too high (roof) that area is not habitable. So what is there is a middle region which is habitable? and we are in this region or "Layer" of space?

I think they proved the universe is flat. There's no basement or roof. I may be wrong, ofcourse.

 

[Dipshoe]

I think they proved the universe is flat. There's no basement or roof. I may be wrong, ofcourse.

the space is not flat. there is no definite bottom or top but im saying in generalized massive regions of the space.

 

[DeXoh]

I suppose I can try to answer one of your questions. This is the best my intuition can do.

Space is incessantly expanding at an accelerated rate. It's currently thought to be impossible to reach its edges. Therefore, space has no boundaries so far as we are concerned. This leads me to believe there isn't void outside it.

 

[deluxe magic school bus]

the space is not flat. there is no definite bottom or top but im saying in generalized massive regions of the space.

Actually I think he's correct, I remember reading somewhere that space is indeed flat

 

[Recidivism]

I suppose I can try to answer one of your questions. This is the best my intuition can do.

Space is incessantly expanding at an accelerated rate. It's currently thought to be impossible to reach its edges. Therefore, space has no boundaries so far as we are concerned. This leads me to believe there isn't void outside it.

Actually it isn't accelerating time is just slowing down giving the appearance of acceleration this is known as time dilation.

But yes there is no boundary outside it nor is there anything outside of it until light has reached this there is nothing not even blank space.


Note : below is theory not fact

The universe will not end in heat death when the universe starts slowing it will not slow to a near halt it will start in reverse and start collapsing in on itself and when the black holes start combining they will combine and become so massive the entire universe will be compressed into a singularity once again and then a new big bang will happen.

 

[T V]

No one's really certain how the universe began, so I'm not sure where you heard that dark matter collided with normal matter.

But since you asked about what space is expanding into, I'd like to give you a very nice analogy I heard Alan Watts use:


Some 13 billion years ago there was a first instance of creation; God, the Big Bang, whatever you want to call it. Now, a good way to picture what this is is to imagine throwing an ink bottle against a wall. In the center there is nothing but a large, amorphous blob, but as you move away from it and approach the edges, you'll find that the patterns become more varied and complex.

Well, that's us. We are the the tiny, yet complicated, creatures who are the end results of the ongoing processes set in motion at that first instance of creation.




Try not to visualize the universe in such a black and white manner. More specifically, don't think of it as a big balloon with all the stars and galaxies inside of it and some unknown realm outside of it. It's very easy to run into walls when you try and apply the reality you're accustomed to perceiving while trying to conceive the totality of everything that exists.

 

Not to put too fine a point on it but the assumptions underlying the big bang (expanding universe) model rely on only two pieces of empirical evidence.

These are: astronomical red shift, and the cosmic microwave background.

Rather than asking how a theory as absurd as the big bang can possibly be made sense of perhaps it is time for physicists to admit that this tired old theory is not working, has no predictive power whatever and makes no sense on the best of days and is outright self contradictory on the worst of days.

Just off the top of my head here are some problems with the big bang.

1. The universe is expanding multiple times the speed of light and accelerating, yet the only force with universal reach in the theory is gravity, which is an attractive monopolar force. Therefore some preposterous explosion needs to be conjured from literally nothing to explain the outward motion, and it doesn't do a very good job of that.

2. The 'theory' proposes (but cannot test) new physics describing the beginning of the universe. This is in violation of the scientific method which states that for a hypothesis to be science it must first be testable.

3. The model is unable to account for 90% of the force observed in the universe. This has been called a number of different things "dark matter" "dark energy" etc etc. Putting a label on the counter evidence for your hypothesis does not make the hypothesis less invalid.

4. If new physics is required to explain the observable universe then a much simpler steady state hypothesis with a tired light component (which can be tested unlike the new physics in the big bang) would be more amenable to occams' razor.


Basic common sense philosophical observations:

1. Space is defined as the absence of matter and attributes. Assigning attributes to space makes it an aether. All current mainstream theories of space are aether theories (spacetime is what they now call aether.)

2. The notion that things need a beginning and end is a projected bias from human beings onto things. The first cause problem (who caused the first thing to happen in the causal chain) strongly suggests that there cannot be a first cause; And yet everything still exists therefore everything must have always existed. If the universe is timeless and ageless, exists now and has always existed, then there is no first cause or prime mover problem. The question really becomes: what reason do we have to believe that the universe had a beginning or requires an end?

 

[Recidivism]

Just off the top of my head here are some problems with the big bang.

1. The universe is expanding multiple times the speed of light and accelerating, yet the only force with universal reach in the theory is gravity, which is an attractive monopolar force. Therefore some preposterous explosion needs to be conjured from literally nothing to explain the outward motion, and it doesn't do a very good job of that.

Actually time is slowing down not universe expanding faster time dilation makes it appear faster yet that doesn't solve the problem you brought up. But the fact its expanding out should mean it started out in one location.

2. The 'theory' proposes (but cannot test) new physics describing the beginning of the universe. This is in violation of the scientific method which states that for a hypothesis to be science it must first be testable.

That is true it is not testable but that does not mean its false.

3. The model is unable to account for 90% of the force observed in the universe. This has been called a number of different things "dark matter" "dark energy" etc etc. Putting a label on the counter evidence for your hypothesis does not make the hypothesis less invalid.

I was always wondering why people say a god cannot exist because there is no proof yet assume their theories even when there is contradicting evidence.

I am a Deist not very religious but it always angered me.

2. The notion that things need a beginning and end is a projected bias from human beings onto things. The first cause problem (who caused the first thing to happen in the causal chain) strongly suggests that there cannot be a first cause; And yet everything still exists therefore everything must have always existed. If the universe is timeless and ageless, exists now and has always existed, then there is no first cause or prime mover problem. The question really becomes: what reason do we have to believe that the universe had a beginning or requires an end?

I lean towards the Cyclic universe Theory on this I believe there is no beginning or end the universe will keep repeating over and over it just always ever was. I would love your critique on my thread I wrote about it.

http://www.sythe.org/something-all/1587948-cyclic-universe-theory.html
Poorly written by an average young American with little understanding of the world with just curiosity as motivation.

 

I'm on my phone and so can't do this justice. I'll reply to your arguments in the order they were made.

1. Time cannot be "slowing down." This is a contradiction in terms.

2. Untestable hypotheses are NOT SCIENCE. Whether they can be true or not is a matter for epistemology to answer.

3. What is more likely? Some convoluted and untestable (and therefore unscientific) cycle hypothesis or testable attenuation of light in hard vacuum?

 

[Pizcheck]

God created the universe - end of story

 

[Lame]

God created the universe - end of story

Lol'd.

Yes all mighty one!

 

Read the stickies

 

[Donald Duck]

It's confusing.

 

[Recidivism]

I'm on my phone and so can't do this justice. I'll reply to your arguments in the order they were made.

1. Time cannot be "slowing down." This is a contradiction in terms.

2. Untestable hypotheses are NOT SCIENCE. Whether they can be true or not is a matter for epistemology to answer.

3. What is more likely? Some convoluted and untestable (and therefore unscientific) cycle hypothesis or testable attenuation of light in hard vacuum?

Time dilation makes things appear to be moving different speeds then they are but its really just the perception of time slowing down.

Cant answer the other 2

 

Time dilation makes things appear to be moving different speeds then they are but its really just the perception of time slowing down.

Cant answer the other 2

Right, processes moving at different velocities to eachother appear to progress at different rates -- time dilation.

However you speak of a universal "time slowing down" which is a completely different thing and a contradiction in terms. Look try to answer these questions: Slowing down with respect to what? How would you measure it?