JohnLesser

Would this be anything like a black hole? meaning that we can't see it but the affects of gravity are still there. How do they, can they, spread out? I do not see ''gaps'' of darkness . If something spreads out, there is generally space between what is spreading? Would the correct term be - The light stretches out ? C travelling Y stretches out X ?

Thank you for the link, very interesting. How is several photons reflected from the fly not entering your eyes when there is a linearity between eye and fly? Is this a result of scattering following the inverse square law?

That does not really answer the question and is seemingly evasive of the question. A single Photon suppose to contain the information from what I understand, so why can ''we'' not observe the fly but observe the branch of the tree? Photons are entering our eyes reflecting from the branch and the fly, so why does the Photon packet of information our brains receive of the fly not ''see'' the fly? I would think it was because relatively the fly has 0 dimensions relative to the observer?

Indeed we can use instruments to magnify ''things''. Photons may travel indefinitely in a vacuum. I may need to transfer this question to the Physics section. If sight is the information contained in a Photon and according to you Photons travel indefinitely in a vacuum, then why can I not see a fly on a tree branch at distance when the fly is reflecting Photons the same as the tree? Most certainly the flies relative to observer size is 0 dimension and past the boundary limit, if not how do we look at this information? Added - If I am staring directly at the fly but cannot see the fly, but there is a stream of photons travelling from the fly to my eye, then why does my brain not create the ''picture '' of the fly?

No would contradict earlier replies in this thread. Are you suggesting that an object moving +V relative to an observer does not observably ''vanish'' when it reaches a boundary limit and loses its visual dimensions?

I was doing, I was considering that if the distance stars were to move further away and scale down in visual size further more, the eventuality would be total loss of observation because they have visually contracted to a 0 dimension?

I would think it did make some difference, when an object moves away from an observer it scales down in visual size making a lesser dimension of light to observe?

Yes because of the inverse square law of light and light red-shifting beyond visible range. Does the relative size of a body have any affect over distance? In other words, when an object travels away from an observer it visually contracts to an eventual point of ''nothing?

Thank you I can relate this to been like bubbles, if one bubble was to merge with another bubble then two observable Universes would be observed?

Thank you Strange for your reply, but they are only not observable only because ''we'' are not there in a geometrical position to observe it. If we was in another observable Universe it would be observable, if we was within the finite light boundary of another observable Universe we would observe it?

I understood the observable Universe is spherical because of the isotropic nature of ''light''. I think you may of misunderstood my question. In thought to my original question, what am I observing between the stars at night? I am possibly observing other observable Universes (light spheres) but can not see them because the light from them is too red-shifted. Is this what you are saying to me?

What are you looking to discuss? or are you looking for peer-view clarification on your ''paper'' before you do anything with it? I do think it is beautifully written .

Thank you for the clarification, of course if the Universe was infinite it would be impossible for something to be outside because of the infinite part, there would be no outside or ''beyond''. You say the Universe is a sphere, is this because of the earlier discussion and that between the stars we can observe nothing because light has a radius of diminish? Are you saying from a multiverse perceived view, ''outer'' observable universes would observe our observable Universe to be liking to a light sphere?

So when it is said that space is expanding and there is nothing beyond it, are ''they'' saying that nothing is really just the lack of knowledge beyond the visual universe but not necessarily saying that there is nothing there?

What if we did know but did not know we knew it? I would think we could certainty conclude an infinite space with quite a degree of accuracy by thinking about it and the details involved. I of course am not a scientist, but to me something that is finite suggests there is an end to it, so what could we possibly perceive is at the end or after the end? Do we imagine after space there is a ''solid'' like structure or do we imagine more space? from the earlier replies you have already told me that there is more space beyond the observable universe which leads me to believe this continues forever or the only other possible conclusion is back to the ''solid'' like structure. The question then arises what would be after this ''solid'' like structure which I could then only presume more space. I could repeat this question an infinite amount of times and I am quite sure I would never reach an end. I do not find the answer of there is nothing beyond this to be any sort of answer unless we were looking at nothing in the sense of just space , ''made'' of nothing. A finite or infinite plane?

Space is beyond the observable Universe as mentioned, there is no extra space that is added from my understanding, the expansion is just the space between the bodies is lengthening by the velocity of the bodies travelling into more space. The bodies themselves providing the observation by emitting light , the more distance away the body travels the more the visual Universe ''grows''. However it is not growing in a sense of new space but rather new observed space. Thank you for more or less confirming my understanding is correct. However I feel I must correct you, the 2D example of the surface of the balloon is a 2D example from an outer observers viewpoint but if the observer is inside the balloon , a central observer , the balloon example becomes 3D. I personally believe that a finite Universe is an impossibility, I also believe a visual Universe is finite by the replies to the opening post. Would you say that observation is finite?

This is my last post I can do today because of new member post limitations so please forgive me for any belated replies after this post. True , space is not ''stuff'' , however there is a huge difference in the statements, Stringjunky is saying that there is a new volume of space and sort of suggesting that the space between the moving bodies ''grows''. However after the earlier conversation of what do I observe when looking between the distant visual bodies, it was explained I do not observe anything because the ''light'' is too diminished by time it arrived to me or red shifted in science terminology, this confirming there is space and light beyond the last visual bodies. In view of this information the expansion of space I asked about must be the later statement by myself and the expansion simply being a distance increase between bodies making a greater length of existing space between two observers rather than trying to give space physicality like the balloon analogy which is suggestive of a Physical surface expanding into nothing , however nothing in the balloon analogy has strangely got a circumference that is outer of the balloons surface, suggesting expanding into more space, because after all things generally need space to expand into or else they become compressed if there is an equal and opposite force. Is my understanding of the ''expansion'' correct?

I am sorry but your post is a bit confusing, what do you mean space is being created between groups of objects? To me you sound like you are saying new space is made rather than the existing space between bodies is expanded when the bodies move away from each other into more space. Is this what you meant to say?

I understand we need telescopes to see further away. I have read that space is expanding, can you please explain what is meant by expanding ? Does it mean that the visual bodies are moving away from our observation and that the distance of the space between observer and body is increasing/expanding? or does it mean something else?

I think you just said , that the ''light'' that reflects or is emitted from bodies in this visible ''dark'' area is too weak to be converted into a visual picture in our brains by time the ''light'' reaches us? Is this what you said as such?

Howdy, when I look at the night sky and between the stars I observe a black back ground , what am I observing? Do I observe a ''roof'' with ''spotlights'' in, an edge of space? Or do I observe just the lack of bodies reflecting light?