Strange

What!? Why would I ask you to give a reference for something you didn't say? I asked you to give a reference for what you DID say. Obviously. Where did this come from? I am curious because I haven't heard anything like it before.

Like all analogies, that has limited applicability. It only shows how temperature os related to volume and pressure. The universe is expanding but not into anything so the analogy doesn't apply in that sense. You will certainly get confused if you apply intuitive knowledge of infinity. Scientists do not do that. Is there anything that says it is limited to finite situations? But as you have gone from asking questions to rejecting science, you probably won't get any more answers from me.

Perhaps you could back that up with a reference then. (The link in the post where you said that doesn't say anything like that.) And energy is not mass.

That is the assumption but, of course, we can't know. There is no reason to think it would be significantly different but maybe things change very gradually as you move through the universe (gradually, because the observable universe appears completely homogeneous & isotropic). We don't know but assume not. Sorry, don't know what that means. No, because it is infinite. (Actually, in current models even a finite universe has no edge.) The trouble with an oven as an analogy is that it implies a source of heat. Also, if they were both at the same temperature then opening the door wouldn't have any effect. They are both decreasing in temperature in the same way. This is basically the ideal gas law which relates temperature to volume and pressure. As the universe expands it naturally cools (think of an aerosol can, when you release the gas it gets cold - or the opposite when you squeeze a bicycle pump).

Oh, its an ancient debate, were the Olympics invented or discovered. Oh no, hang on ... that was mathematics.

That's fine because you don't have to do it. So are you assuming that Gladys is a Jehovah's Witness? Or Gladys can't sleep soundly because there are people with stupid beliefs? Or the parents did something idiotic because Gladys is sleeping soundly? There seems to be some sort of false dichotomy going on here but your argument is rather irrational so I'm not sure what your point is. (I can't read the link; it seems to require a subscription.) Don't be silly Every year people die climbing mountains. I recognise that some people get pleasure from their hobby but I don't think its enough of a benefit to offset the cost. But that's OK because I don't have to do it. If I followed your logic, I would argue to ban mountain climbing because of the occasional bad consequences. Many people are actively engaged in politics. Some of those people espouse hate and encourage the killing of minorities. I realise that politics can be useful but I don't think its enough of a benefit to offset the cost. But that's OK because I don't have to do it. By your logic we should ban politics because some people do bad things in its name. And, presumably, you think it is OK for white supremacists and nazis to mow down innocent bystanders at a rally. But of course you don't. You know that some people who engage in politics are idiots or worse. And you address the problem by tackling those people and their views, not by saying all politics should be banned.

1. That image can only represent a part of the universe. Typically, the observable universe, which is spherical. 2. The distribution of matter, and hence the rate of expansion, is homogenous and isotropic - the same in all directions. A spherical image is a good way of representing this. 3. Simplicity. As for the questions about the multiverse, it is not something I know much about (lack of interest) so can't really answer.

The age of the universe is thought to be 13.8 billion years. Whether it is finite or infinite. I have tried to explain why that is but because I don't understand why you think it must be more than that, it is hard to give a better explanation. Why assume an infinite age when we have evidence for the age being 13.8 billion years. (Note that this "age"is the time since the earliest period our physics models can take us back to.)

People will invest in pretty much anything that is tradable and has limited supply: wine, land, art, oil futures, ...

I am guessing it is because a sufficiently large number of people see it as an alternative investment in times of uncertainty and ow interest rates. A high risk investment with a chance of a high return. It is a limited resource so the price will be determined by demand.

Posting the same drivel on other forums does not constitute "publishing". But if you are unable to get this crap in a peer reviewed journal, then I suppose spamming it all over the Internet is the best you can do.

You only think this is true because you believe it. I see no reason to think it is true.

Again, these are just your beliefs. I don't believe any of them to be true. There is no reason to. Please provide the "evidence from cosmology".

Nope. It just shows that you have a particular belief and are unable to provide evidence to support it.

It might make you think that. It doesn't make me think that. So it is just opinion/belief. It doesn't matter how convincing you find your belief, it doesn't make it true.

An incredibly simple way of making bacteria create little solar cells: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-40975719

That is not a rational argument. All you are saying is "My opinions is right because it is right". Also, even if there is never an alternative explanation, it does not make your explanation right.

The lack of an alternative explanation does not make yours correct.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-40999000

Nice

And the nice shiny things would have been taken (or given to) the elders/priests/etc hence increasing the scarcity value, and its symbolic importance.

I think that is a key point. As soon as agriculture was developed and animals domesticated, and before in some cases(*), societies had a surplus of time and goods to trade with others. (Goods, rather than just food, because the artisans would have also had ore time to produce more pots, clothes, jewellery, weapons, etc. than previously. And services.) And as soon as you have trade, you want to progress beyond barter. (*) I don't think all hunter-gather (pre-agricultural) societies existed purely at a subsistence level.

Thanks for posting that. (I did glance at that thread previously, but I couldn't understand what it was about !)

As beech says, that is the age since the earliest time our models can take use back to. If you just extrapolate back using GR you can go back to time = 0 when the universe had zero size (a singularity). But no one thinks this represents anything meaningful. This is based on what we can see; i.e. our observable universe. But the working assumption (the cosmological principle) is that the universe is pretty much the same everywhere. So an observer half way to the edge of our observable universe would have their own observable universe, and they would see it as having the same age as ours. As far as we know, that will be true wherever you are in the universe. No. For the reasons above. It was still "there" in the sense it still existed (probably). But all we know is that from 13.8 billion years ago it has been expanding and cooling. We don't know what it was like before that. Some models suggest the universe was in that "pre expansion" state for an infinite time. Others have a universe that collapsed and then expanded again. Yet other say ... We just don't know. You can extrapolate back to zero but, as noted, it is physically meaningless (with our current theories - a theory of quantum gravity might tell us more). Because the entire universe (as far as we know) is expanding and cooling. It may be better to think of the Big Bang as the process that is still going on, rather than an event (for which we have zero evidence and that may never have happened).