Isn’t the universe closed by definition?
From a 2-d point of view, where is this empty space that their universe is expanding into?
There is no “empty space” into which the Universe is expanding, because it, by definition, contains everything that is. But it can, nonetheless, expand – by creating space so that its contents can be farther apart from each other.
It’s a great deal like asking what happened “before” the Big Bang or what the temperature is like below absolute zero. The question can be conceptualized but has no real referent, just as the question of the mutation rate among elves is a valid question with no referent.
If space itself is expanding, that would imply that the atoms in my body, and all the other particles, are expanding as well. If everything is expanding, than there is no referance frame to measure against, and we wouldn’t be able to find Doppler effects from stars.
As an idea to consider, General Relativity says that all mass warps space, through a fourth dimension that we do not percieve. Analogy is powerful when most people cannot visualize a four dimensional object. The best analogy for GR is a ball in a tight cloth. The ball warps the cloth into a “well” that mass “falls” down. Note that the ball is three dimensional, while the cloth(which represents our space) is 2D. Just as the ball warps through 3D, our planet warps through 4D. This suggests space for our planet to expand into.
As another thought, I suggest the Casimir Effect points to a space outside our universe. The Casimir Effect uses conducting plates within microns(or closer) to each other. The area between the plates is thought to be an area of negative energy density, i.e. it has less energy than empty space. This suggests that our space is expanding into areas of less energy. Of course, this is quite a thin arguement. It simply suggests an area of research.
Respectfully yours,
Mixlplix 
I concur, but how about this?
If the universe encompasses all that exists and hence nothing lies outside of its scope, it follows that it is infinite, this term being also all encompassing.
But because the universe is expanding, it is surpassing the boundaries of the infinite, thus violating the axiom that states that there is no value–or size for that matter–higher than infinite.
To escape from this brick wall into which we bumped into, the universe, being of infinite size, would have to stop expanding since, once again by definition, something that is infinite has reached the pinnacle of its approachable size and hence can expand no more.
I better shut up now. Damn semantics are making me infinitely confused. 
So the universe is creating something out of nothing? I believe this violates several laws of conservation…
I just noticed an error in my last post. I wanted to say that GR suggests a space for our universe to expand into, not our planet.
Respectfully yours,
Mixlplix
It would seem so on the face of it, wouldn’t it?
Perhaps someone who understands better can explain better … but in at least several theories, gravitational energy is negative, and the overall energy of the universe is, as best we can measure and calculate, zero.
Not true. The atoms inside your body aren’t getting bigger–the various forces that conspire to hold you and our local environment together (gravity not the least among them) prevent space from expanding on a small scale. The Earth isn’t expanding, the Solar System isn’t expanding, the Galaxy isn’t expanding, and even the Local Cluster of galaxies isn’t really expanding much. We can only observed the cosmological expansion (aka Hubble flow) over vast amounts of empty intergalactic space.
Really? Which ones? Is space “something”? It doesn’t have material properties. The Universe isn’t creating more mass and energy to fill that space. I’ve never heard of a law of conservation of space.
Determining what to believe on this topic is easy for me.
Genesis 1:1, - In the beginning God created…
Enough… I believe the world was created.
Hebrews 11:1, - Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.
**PolyC wrote:
Actually, I don’t find the similarities between myth structures to be all that significant.**
It’s all a matter of taste, I suppose. I do find the whole subject fascinating; especially how it points to an even earlier mythological structure by the original Indo-Eurpeans.
Which leads into the meaning and use of those myths by the antique Pagan communities.
Besides an interest in this for its own sake, I find the arguements effective against the Biblical Literalists who insist this THE WAY IT IS 'CAUSE GOD SAID SO!!
Pointing out the history of J and E texts makes them turn such interesting shades of purple.
Who created God? Surely you don’t believe that something could come from nothing? But I suppose you would claim God was always here.
What was He doing before He created the Heavens and the Earth?
And what happens to your faith when you don’t get what you hoped for? What happens to your certainty when you learn there was nothing there to see? Or not see?
jab1 wrote:
Stop calling me Shirley.
This question is turning into a thread of it’s own!
This is a question I have been struggling with. Part of the reason I am getting a degree in physics. If the whole universe is expanding at the same rate (I assume this is true), then I should not be able to detect the expansion, because I am part of the universe. Even if we cannot detect the expansion locally, it is still there. But since I can detect the expansion, I am not part of the universe. It is a matter of reference frames. If I am travelling at 5 m/s, then another body travelling at 5 m/s will appear to be at rest.
This is a good point. Truth is stranger than fiction…
Respectfully yours,
Mixlplix
Archangel said:
Easy does not equal correct.
It’s easy for a child to believe that Santa Claus drops by every Christmas to put presents under the tree.
It’s easy for that same child to believe that the Easter Bunny delivers baskets of goodies once a year.
Or for the kid to believe that the Tooth Fairy comes in and swaps a buck for his fallen-out tooth.
Like I said, easy doesn’t equal correct.
A buck?! I only got a dime for each tooth! When did the Tooth Fairy start using Sackies?
I find it rather odd that the subject of Evolution versus Creationism has now changed into a cosmology discussion. But on that topic, I would like to point out that there is no such thing as the X-ray background. It has all been narrowed down into point sources in the universe. http://www.hep.net/documents/newsletters/pnu/2000/pnu-467.html
Quite right. It seems my rather innocent mention of TD2 and whether the universe is closed or not as sprung almost another “sub”-thread. It has little to do with the C v E debate, except to help elucidate arguements. I hope to continue the discussion in “The Nature of the Universe” thread.
Respectfully yours,
Mixlplix
Ok, hold on. What exactly are you trying to say here???
Read Podkayne’s post again. If he’s correct (and I don’t know enough cosmology to say if he is), the universe is expanding where there is no matter. Why? Gravity slows down the expansion. Where there is a lot of matter (and gravity) there is little or no expansion at all.
Imagine you have an expandable container floating in a pond. You put in two toy boats. (Say “two toy boats” three times real fast.) Slowly and carefully pour in water. The water represents space, the boats represent galaxies, the container is the universe. Pouring in the water causes the container to expand and also causes the boats to separate from each other getting further apart. The boats always stay the same size, of course.
That’s what’s going on in the universe, if I understand it correctly. New space is forming in the empty intergalactic regions, forcing the galaxies further and further apart. Because of their gravitational field, the galaxies do not expand. Because there is no gravity in open space, space DOES expand.
I hope I’m right.
As for the universe expanding at the same rate, that rate is probably an average of all the rates. In some places, it’s expanding rapidly; in others, it’s expanding slowly or not at all and may be contracting (like in a black hole). But the overall rate is positive.
I’m probably completely wrong. But it would not be the first time.
jab1,
I decided to do a little research(oh no, the R word! 
) and discovered that your analogy is basically correct, as is Podkayne’s explanation. Check out this link to Discover Magazine for an interesting theory relating to the topic of this thread.
Respectfully yours,
Mixlplix
I assume you’re referring to the article entitled “Why is There Life?” It was the only one on that page that seemed appropriate.
Being a James Bond fan, I rather like the notion that the number .007 is essential to life!