petebro Posted May 7, 2009 Posted May 7, 2009 As science,s general exceptance of the expanding universe and the vaccum is creating this no im not going to mention petry dish dooo, what is anti matter and what exists outside of space ? are we a molicule being vacummed into a hoover in another universe, were forever blowing bubbles springs to mind .
steevey Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 Anti-matter is basically matter, but with reversed charges. In anti-matter, protons are negatively charged and electrons are positively charged. As far as observation shows, there is no "outside" of space, only visible matter. It's likely that the space outside of the space of the universe goes on indefinitely.
IM Egdall Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 (edited) Per general relativioty and modern cosmolgy models, there is no "outside" outside of space. The universe is expanding, but it is not expanding into anything. Edited February 7, 2011 by I ME 1
steevey Posted February 8, 2011 Posted February 8, 2011 Per general relativioty and modern cosmolgy models, there is no "outside" outside of space. The universe is expanding, but it is not expanding into anything. If it's not expanding into an emptiness, how is there room for it to expand? -1
IM Egdall Posted February 8, 2011 Posted February 8, 2011 If it's not expanding into an emptiness, how is there room for it to expand? There is no "room for it to expand". There is no edge of the universe. Sounds crazy, I know. But this is what our current understanding tell us.
steevey Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 There is no "room for it to expand". There is no edge of the universe. Sounds crazy, I know. But this is what our current understanding tell us. Wait, I already knew that, I thought you were saying there was a boundary and that it was the edge of the space that was expanding since the big bang. I mean, it has to be infinite, but I guess a better question is why? -1
DrRocket Posted February 10, 2011 Posted February 10, 2011 Wait, I already knew that, I thought you were saying there was a boundary and that it was the edge of the space that was expanding since the big bang. I mean, it has to be infinite, but I guess a better question is why? The best available cosmological model, based on general relativity treats the universe as an intrinsic manifold without boundary. It is not known if space-like slices are finite (compact) or infinite (non-compact). In any case the universe is, by definition, the whole enchilada. There is no "elsewhere" into which it could expand. If there were, that would be part of the universe too. You should the thread on cosmology basics. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/33180-cosmo-basics/
steevey Posted February 10, 2011 Posted February 10, 2011 (edited) The best available cosmological model, based on general relativity treats the universe as an intrinsic manifold without boundary. It is not known if space-like slices are finite (compact) or infinite (non-compact). In any case the universe is, by definition, the whole enchilada. There is no "elsewhere" into which it could expand. If there were, that would be part of the universe too. You should the thread on cosmology basics. http://www.sciencefo...0-cosmo-basics/ That's what I keep thinking too, but since the big bang was the expansion of space itself, that would require it to expand at infinite speed to occupy infinite positions which for some reason isn't what astronomers are saying, even though what seems to be increasing in speed is matter. Edited February 10, 2011 by steevey
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now