Edge of the Universe

so what do you want a written invite? it is a debating forum...bring forth your idea..please..

It's not a debating forum. It's a forum. I don't see the word debating anywhere, nor is it implied. And I did bring the idea forth; I just did not explain it. You obviously weren't interested in it because you mocked it. It's either because you don't see the bible as a reliable historical document (which could attest for evidence) or you want tangible proof for things intangible. Really, I'm not interested in showing you this idea because of your unequivocal disinterest. So, I'll restate this: ideas should never be mocked; and I'll add: for they are the foundation of our knowledge and wisdom through perception. Do you mock the foundation of that which you love?

I would like to say i dont think we know if it will continue to expand for ever.

Excuse my igonarance and i haven't read all of this thread. But I thought scientists were debating between the universe expanding but it could now be retracting?

Excuse my igonarance and i haven't read all of this thread. But I thought scientists were debating between the universe expanding but it could now be retracting?

It is a fact that there are infinite universes that are an exact mimic of ours and infinite universes that are an exact mimic ours except that Obama isn't president but McCain is. My point is that these possiblities may be incredibly low but they are in essence true, am i wrong?

. At this point in time, i am strongly for the idea of there being infinite universes because of the infinite amount of space.

Im sorry you found it mocking but how else was i to reply? you gave no inclination of your proposal but expected a response.Its not just me here others might be interested in your biblical explanation about the universe being surrounded by water.I dont see the bible as anything other than a book of myths and legends, am i wrong in believing that?

I would say that you are. Many people presume that is what the bible is: a book of myths and legends. In actuality, it's many books with many different scribes from different time periods and places which all fit together to provide us with this valuable history.

So the evidence that the Bible is true and fact is found in the Bible? And this has what to do with the edge of the Universe?

It is not only expanding, but is expanding at an accelerated rate:

Accelerating universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I see where your first question is leading and do not respond. Such a debate should be taken to another thread.

What does this have to do with the edge of the Universe?:

Although our popular beliefs concerning the origins of the Universe have altered drastically since the Torah took its final written form in about 350 BC, its words have remained unaltered. We may, in our era, read Genesis' "separated the waters above from the waters below" as a means of describing the division of WAVES of light or energy which must have emanated from the Big Bang (Remember?: "Let there be light") into those waves which will form existence and those waves which remain in a field of potential existence. The former energy transforms into matter, which is just another form of energy, and visible light (light is not visible without matter to reflect it) and the later, which we are indirectly told is 'without form', exists outside of time and space.

It is possible that time and space expand into a field of potential in which time and space exist only as potential. In such a model, Light will remain a constant, but energy and matter may fluctuate between these fields. I suggest this because energy and matter are understood to be interchangeable, that is they fluctuate from one state to the other, more precisely they fluctuate between a state of existing and a state of potential existing.

This would mean that the "edge" of the Universe is everywhere that this fluctuation between existence and potential existence is occurring. Which, if I haven't lost it yet, is everywhere that energy and matter exist.

And for the record, these concepts come from Genesis.

And for the record, these concepts come from Genesis.

Such a debate should be taken to another thread.

There is one thing that i agree with:
This should definitely be discussed in a religious thread especially for enlightened people - not in a forum about nature science.
And i will certainly not take part in that debate.

Astrophysicists do not talk about an edge to the universe, becuase scientifically the universe has no edge and "it is just everything expanding".

Rap your mind around that one.

Into what one might add", nothing is the scientific answer.
To take this debate further one must get rapped up in religious controversy

Even though i'm wearing glasses, i can read the words without them being so extremely big.
Why do relegious people always have to supersize their words?
In fact it was the author of this thread who came up with a question about "the edge" of the universe, not me.
This might actually be an interesting point at which we could come back to a philosophical discussion, because for an "edge" to exist we have to presuppose, that there is something which it could have an edge to.
An edge by defintion seperates two things, so an edge can only exist if there is at least two "somethings" that can be seperated, may it even be only an ontological inside and outside.


How do i do that?


I cannot really follow why "nothing" is a scientific answer.
For sure getting rapped up in religious controversy cannot help in any search for truth.

Many people presume that is what the bible is: a book of myths and legends. In actuality, it's many books with many different scribes from different time periods and places which all fit together to provide us with this valuable history.