^ That's a very good point actually, since you're matter of the Universe, you'd be conquering new territory for it! XD

I don't think that would actually happen, but since it is physically impossible to do (ie forbidden by physics) there are not actually allowances for that scenario anyway.

To be fair the last ten posts have been relatively speculative.

Ironically, my pet hate is people calling it nothing. Nothing suggests an empty void. There isn't even a void to be empty. There just isn't anything, full stop. Or preferably just 'There isn't'.

well there are anomalies in the laws of physics,mabe there is one with space,and tell me if you would go faster than the expanding universe,and you go past it what happens then,you hit an invisible wall,perish,or just disappear from reality?

Something to do with the curvature of space that BM can doubtless explain better than I can.

As I understand it, space curves in some less than perceptible dimensions near the 'edge' of space, so as you approach it, the actual direction you're moving in gradually shifts away. Keep going and you'll find that your proximity to the edge increases more and more slowly. Eventually it'll loop round and you'll be on a long, long path around the edge until you end up back where you started.

I'd hate to bludgeon through this conversation but we haven't spoken about Keplar 22b yet have we? I mean how very exciting! A planet in the middle of the goldilocks zone with plate tectonics! Quite a lot bigger than Earth as well, but no substantially that it would make gravity a force to crush the first instances of life away. Apparently the average surface temperature is about 22 degrees C as well. Ohmigawsh, put me in cryo and shoot me at it!

How do they know that there are plate techtonics? Last I heard, they didn't even know whether it was solid or gaseous.

Oh, I must have got some bad information then. Well if it is a rocky planet, it would certainly be amazing because if it held an atmosphere it /would/ have liquid surface water.

there must be we cant be the only life forms in the universe and those pics are fake there photo shopped.

theres one thing what aint real and thats god he did not create the universe and life on earth as we know it.

Oh dear your grammar is atrocious. And would you care to explain why there couldn't be a God, for all the deeply interested people such as myself?

well we arent the only ones in the universe,telling that we are the only ones is a story for children so they dont wet their beds thinking about alien squids that might eat their brains.

Also i am collecting all valuable information,and physic formulas to see what actually sparked the big bang.
and also if we say that there is nothing behind the universe,than somebody please explain me where did the first matter came to form a dense point to erupt and create our universe.Scientific explenations would be nice....

Rijeka is a weeeeeiiiiiird place.

Rijeka is the best.

in my experience any argument that says the universe can't exist without god can also be used to say that god can't exist without a better god to create him and so on, also any argument that says god can exist without the need for a better god can also be used to say the universe can exist without the need for a god

although I don't think time could have been created, there is literally nothing before time, if there was nothing before it then how could it have been made, I think if god exists he coexisted alongside time and the most he could have done is create matter and form it.

what exactly is wrong with something simply existing, It's quite possable that at the beginning of time the universe simply existed in a state which lead to the big bang, say a hot small and incredinly dense ball of matter and antimatter, if you take the universes estimated matter, make half of it into antimatter and make them colide I'lled bet yould get an explosion similar to the big bang

NO, NOT AGAIN.

It has been suggested that if we knew exactly why MoxCo. said this, we would know a lot more about the nature of the universe than we do now.

Oh my yes.

well something humonguous and violent had to create that dense ball,later on black holes filled the universe with matter,they act as factories,as for the big bang seeded the first matter to make big stars to explode and create black holes witch produce matter.
Also if you look at it the universe at the beggining was tightly expanding,and aftherwards it suddenly started expanding fastly,as if it escaped a powerfull gravitational pull of something outside

Thing is we generally don't know Scraby, no scientist is even 50% sure on what caused the Big Bang, there are too many theories and we aren't old enough a race or advanced enough technologically to say with a surmountable amount of assurance. If you aren't a fan of God creating the universe, you could read up on string theory, I hear that explains a little about some of the possibilities but I can't make head nor tail out of most of it.

well we might guess if at the time when there were galaxies,as i looked at the chart the universe was still close by,then suddenly it started expanding fastly outwards,as it was been freed out of somethings gravitational pull....the dense point had to have somekind of energy that created it before it could erupt on its mass just like a star.Also i feel a bit dissapoint that we havent moved our @rses further than the moon and we give out physical laws for space and we didnt even go to mars....

I also find it disappointing how we can write with such vividity and conviction about the use of fish organs without actually being a fish.

The thing is a scientist can hold a fish and cut it open, good luck trying to dissect Andromeda Wings old boy. ;)

No.

Look.

It's called Induction all right? It's the BASIS of science.

You don't NEED to know where everything is at any single moment in order to hypothesize about where it might be.

Maybe it's because I'm tired and experiencing caffeine withdrawal symptoms, but what the hell do fish have to do with any of the aforementioned?

EDIT: Oh right, I see. Jesus I'm slow.
Just because you can doesn't mean you should. I mean, billions of dollars could be spent on a Mars program, but for what benefit? Seems like an awful waste to me...

And because induction is the basis of science, we have to keep re-writing the books every one hundred years or so. You might not have to know everything but it damn well helps to have a little bit more than basic induction.

Besides, this still doesn't answer the question of the big bang, and unless you're some ethereal being from 13.7 billion years ago, Not science nor religion is going to help you come to terms with what happened back then, not in this century at least.

uh, but we can find out what happened thirteen billion years ago? We just lack the technology.

And my point is that you don't need to have witnessed something yourself to understand it, otherwise no author would ever be able to write dying.

Ah, well I misunderstood you almost entirely then, and I apologise. I'm not suggesting you can't predict anything, just that we are still at a period in time where we can only be too vague in our understanding on the causation of the universe.

If you're not going to do anything extraordinary with civilisation, what's the point of having it? Existence for the purpose of continuing to exist is true for living organisms, but we can choose to aim higher. Why wouldn't we?