Bushs ears??

.

Absolute nothingness = No capacity for a mind to witness or portray.

Absolute nothingness cannot be described in detail, for it is nothing. It is a subject of 'nothing' too weak yet to strong for our vast minds to imagine. It is something, isn't it ?

Sort of like the end of space (if there is one). I don't believe it can be described.

.

Almost missed this thread

I'll have none of the 'godly' stuff that's being discussed now so I'll leave that up to the 'godly' to continue. But let's back up a mo ...
...yes, it is no doubt expanding (too much experimental evidence etc. to deny that), but the problem lies with people being stuck with the idea that it has to expand into something. This is not so as something only exists within the universe & includes space so there is nothing it expands into - read the bolded part again and it can also be said it is expanding into nothing. Hard to imagine if not impossible for our frail minds but it is so because space is not nothing, space is part of the universe and without it there would be nothing.
...we can quantify it. But due to the limitations/constraints on physicists' thinking they have not come to realise yet that gravity is the quantification of space - as simple as that. And space as I have said so many times before is ultimately linked to energy - the two go hand-in-hand, you cannot have one without the other

Now to answer the question of 'end of space'. There is and there isn't. It is just as difficult as trying to imagine nothing but ultimately there is end of space if you use primitive intelligence like ours to try answer the question (because for us there has to be an end) but for the universe (when you think outside the box) there isn't (end of space). It is naturally curved so it is infinite but is expanding - and this expansion to us means it must have started from nothing or almost nothing. But the problem there is that people haven't come to grips with space, its expansion and energy being just a progression from a previous state of the universe. We are still in the Big Bang and always will be! We have just differentiated the universe some 13 odd LY ago because it seems massively reduced. Just give it the possibility that it can be reduced (and not necessarily shrunk) backwards forever with time flowing ever slower, hmmm.

Thank you.

I meant quantify as an actual number for an equation.

"Hmmm" is right. Your theory makes me shiver; it sounds very professional.

Enter SG (Spherical Geometry) and new physics - it's coming soon! I've already drawn up some basic equations that use it Actually, we use it all the time. Space is nothing but distance but unfortunately we don't use distance very well in our equations because of our premise of flat uniform space (unless in a gravitational field) & 3 dimensions. Distance is not really x, y, z directions and space is not really length, height, width dimensions- that is merely our approximate interpretation - and it works well for most intents and purposes but has us tied in a knot when trying to unify forces.

.

Can't wait to see that number.

No kidding.

...I will post more later...just running out the door to pick the kids from school & take them to sports

... we already know the number (it's nothing new, I think Michelson (sp?) was the first to measure it) just haven't drawn the complete RELATIVITY from it.

The number of space?
How do you go from "it's coming soon", to "we already know the number"? Which is it?

For us to understand things we need definitions, we need them because our mind needs to connect things in order to understand ,and we'll be able to understand anything new only by comparing it with something we already know. A definition explains something in terms of, or, in comparison to something which we already know -something which is already defined or understood. For example, one metre is 39.37 inches,one inch is 1/36 yard, one yard is 3 feet, one feet is....the list goes on. So, basically, everything is inter-linked. We express and define what we feel and think with the help of words and actions. Words can be of any language and actions are expressed by the physical movement of our body parts. If we take both these away there isn't anything else left to express ourselves.None of these can be used to define nothing(words or actions), because if we do, then we are actually saying that it is something.

I'm saying all this because our minds find it almost impossible to define nothing, it is because our mind cannot relate to it or compare it with something we already know or something which is already defined. It can never be defined, for it is something which cannot be sensed-something which cannot be perceived, so I think we shouldn't even be attempting to define it, for it is the undefined, it is the incomparable. I believe space is finite but expanding into nothing.

What do you mean by expanding into nothing? Do you mean that space is expanding and becoming nothing or that space is expanding into nothingness (into empty space)? Also here is a question for the masses. Its understood that space is expanding, but does that mean that its also expanding 3-dimentionaly also? For example. Picture a cube. Does the whole cube expand or just a plane or face or side? (Sorry, not sure on the proper terminology. Bare with me!)

I mean space is expanding into nothingness in all it's existing dimensions creating more of itself in this process.

Yelekiah, what I meant is that the new physics is coming soon but it is all based on what we've already uncovered. It puts space-time-energy into a new perspective with some new equations but predominantly it uses all the SIMPLE constants in physics. So, we already know the number but not in the context of space itself.

I'll add to Bone_Collector's response since I share the same interpretation...
No, space is not becoming nothing it is expanding into nothingness but since nothingness has no dimension it is impossible to imagine this expansion or even any boundary. There is no boundary. And no not into empty space because empty space is already something - it is a part of our universe.

Space is expanding radially. A cube is an approximate interpretation of space.

*I'm* talking about space. Not sure why you said it was "coming soon", if we already know the number. But I'll look it up.

It is next to impossible to comprehend what "nothing" is. It is the compleate absance of anything. But I am getting the feeling that some people here are having hard times understanding.

.

How about this. Let's say that space has a limit. I built a space ship that could take us there. What would you see? Basically, what is beyond the frontier? More space? Then space doesn't end. A wall, okay, how thick is it?

The wall of milk, silly.

Actually, isn't it feasible (let's say that space has a limit momentarily) that if the universe is expanding, then there is some sort of "enclosure" of milk. I'd imagine it wouldn't be comparable to a visible wall though.

Well I look at the universe and space like I look at math.
It is the very meaning of infinity. You can go on forever
And always find a new number or in this case star in the
Sky, there is not a wall, there is no ending.

Though I am absolutely fascinated about space, I believe we have
Aliens right here on earth, creatures no one has ever seen, living
Deep in the depths of the ocean.

When our technology allows us to go to these great depths, we
Are going to be in for a real treat, and space will have to be on
Hold for a year or two while we rediscover what has been here
All along.

At least that’s my 2 cents :0)

Kat

I don't think this is possible. I believe since the current concept states that edge of space is continually expanding it would be impossible to reach it; the edge already has a pretty big head-start, if you know what I mean. Besides, there are views that state that every point is actually expanding outward from every other point, such as if we were on the surface area of a balloon as it is expanding. The whole conecpt of "edge of space" is, I believe, pretty much out of our grasp to fully understand.

May be you WILL see nothing. How your eyes will perceive it is something we don't have any clue yet and if we start talking about perception then we throw another complex topic open. Imagine, if you haven't seen a rose your whole life, think that you've never even come across any reference to it, you just have a theoretical possibility of its existence, then can you define how it would look like and how would you feel seeing it beforehand? You can never do it, it's impossible.

Space is expanding all the time, there are no limits to which it can expand to, yet it is finite and measurable at every instance of its expansion. The limit of its expansion may be infinite but it's size at any instance is finite and theoretically measurable. The same thing goes with every other subject dealing with infinity.

IFF (and that's a big IF-and-only-iF) space has a limit there'd be nothing to see. Photons don't come streaming from nothing so there'd be nothing to hit your eyes/camera/lens/telescope etc. Fortunately for us there just isn't a wall or a boundary - space curves back in on itself. Very similar to the balloon analogy but not the same. Imagine all space being the wall of the balloon and DO NOT imagine the outside or inside of the balloon - it just isn't (those directions just don't exist in our universe). So if you'd be able to produce a telescope with infinite 'seeing' capacity you'd be looking at the back of your head no matter what direction you point this very imaginable apparatus in as the light will travel curved through space. In our visible universe which is I believe a very small fraction of the whole this STILL looks like a straight line. Straight lines just don't exist they just appear straight.

Going back to my convo with Yelekiah, I was right about the spelling - it was Michelson who first measured the speed of light to an accuracy of +- 30mph, yay, and then set out to prove that there is no aether. But as I've said before space is a type of aether, it is physical in that it ALLOWS matter to be perceived as physical and energy to exist but it does not have the same properties as physical matter. Nonetheless it only exists in our physical universe. It has some peculiar properties one of which is no friction. It is a conduit for physical manifestation (dimensionality). And Yelekiah, the speed of light © is THE NUMBER. Not only does it relate energy to mass but it relates space and time, afterall it is d/t (distance/time). But there's more to it than meets the eye or more than physicists have come to realise thus far. All that brain power and it is still taking them more than 100 years to work it out since that last best clue (ie. Mr E's 1905 paper)....

Good luck with trying to work it out....

Then space cannot be infinite if the speed of light is the number. I'm talking about "space" as in how *large* it is. BTW, I mentioned nothing about spelling.

Obviously, I can not build a ship togo to the edge of the universe, I don't have a big enough hammer. It's what you call a hypothetical.

Sry, I was just talking to myself about the spelling. But w' regard to space and infinity and c playing a role in relating space to distance and time, it really depends which frame of reference you choose If you take something (ie photon) that is 'travelling' at c as your frame of reference then space is infinite. If you take a frame of reference of an observer of the photon then we'd probably say it is not. So which is it? It clearly cannot be both, or can it. Just thought I'd throw that in to stir up the porridge.

Nothing wrong with stirring the porridge.

No, and if you figured out what macro and micro is for space you would understand you ARE space.

LOL! Okay, if that was in referance to my post at all, I know it was hypothetical. I was just trying to state that since time and space are linked, it seems highly unlikely for anyone to be able to see the edge of the universe at all. Even if one were to build some sort of craft to accelerate toward the edge (which doesn't really make sense to me as the "edge" is very arbitrary), the edge would accelerate further. It would be impossible to reach. That was essentially my point at least. Don't give up on the hammer, though

Yes, if the speed of light is the maximum speed in our universe, and the universe is expanding at the speed of light, then it would be impossible to ever come any closer to "the edge" than we are now.

The only thing that I know has been proven about the universe is that it is expanding. Its shape is just one of many popular subjects for theory and debate, but nothing has been proven. One cannot use dogma to prove a theory.

The fact that the universe is expanding doesn't prove whether it is finite or infinite, because if it was infinite, the intervals of distance between objects in space could increase, which could be called expanding.

yep ai guardian is exactly right. due to the curvature of space, you would end up where you started if you traveled in a straight line far enough.

there is one more theory i have:

that time is the construct of space, and it goes hand in hand with gravity. without time, or in the absence of time, there would be no distance, size or other three dimensions, as time allows those three dimensions to exist in the first place. without time all point are the same, the universe has no size. so if this is correct, the universe is a bubble of time. what exists outside the universe is no-time, and that cannot be experienced physically. then we still percieve time in our minds, as we travel in a bubble of no-time, it would be instantaneous. the universe is really very tiny. all we have to do is slow time down and we increase in size. if we want to travel to other galaxies, all we have to do is invent a time machine that stops time. with enough gravity we could do it as a black hole does it, sheer mass. the question then is how do we navigate the no-time.

maybe i am a crack pot but this is my uneducated home grown theory. never read any hawkins or einstein.