Think about it. Universe expands, but where? What is the unfilled-unnamed space that filled by the universe when it expands?
Metric expansion is said to disprove Einstein’s belief in a "static" universe, but I’m certain Einstein was correct in his assertion. The apparent contradiction is a result of conflating universe with the OBSERVABLE universe. Metric expansion deals with the latter. While Einstein’s static universe refers to the totality of space-time. Concerning the ubiquitous misconception about the "expansion" of space:
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. The observable universe is "expanding" (macroscopically in the galactic cluster level), so somewhere else in the universe a portion of the universe must also be simultaneously "contracting." Space within space. Finite space can indeed "expand" provided adjacent finite space "contracts" at the same time. However, space as a WHOLE is infinite. That which is infinite cannot expand nor contract.
There seems to be a lot of confusion as to where the majority-supported theory of an expanding universe comes from. It’s not made up of just a bunch of scientists’ opinions. Scientists look at an awesome amount of data available to them through astronomical observation and measurement. If that data possesses measurements of a particular range and nature, it points unequivocally to an expanding universe. Likewise, there are also a range of measurements that would point to a static universe, excluding other possibilities. The data points to an expanding universe.
I’m sure that Einstein would agree that seeing actual evidence for one thing, and insisting on the opposite despite that evidence is illogical. It would be like looking at the waves and tides of the oceans and concluding that the water is still and stagnant.
I’m not challenging metric expansion. I’m merely pointing out that metric expansion doesn’t disprove Einstein’s belief in a "static" Universe. The two are not mutually exclusive. But then there is the fact that none of the numbers that would prove a static universe have popped up in the data. That has to be explained. That can easily be explained. What really needs to be explained is why such lack of data necessarily disproves Einstein’s belief in a static universe.
Do you see why such lack of evidence for a static universe can easily be explained?
The issue is not with metric expansion itself, the issue is with the mislabeling and unsubstantiated misconceptions that is all too common. In order to find evidence for a static universe, we need to be able to see beyond the OBSERVABLE universe. We can never see beyond what we can physically observe. The mislabeling I am referring to is "universe" which really refers to the observable universe. The metric expansion refers to the distance between galactic clusters increasing, rather than an actual uniform expansion of space itself. There is absolutely no physics that describes how and why space itself can expand uniformly as a whole. Science still has trouble explaining what exactly is space.
Historically, in the beginning, we started out looking for evidence of a static universe and didn’t find any. So then we began looking for any evidence at all and pieced together that the universe is expanding. Although, we cannot see outside of the observable universe directly, we can see the affects of the unobservable on the observable. We can make mathematical and logical predictions and models based on physics, astronomy, and even quantum theory. A static universe would violate several aspects of natural law, whereas an expanding universe does not.
What I’m ultimately asking for is a leap on faith for a static universe in science. I don’t see that happening.
I do realize that even if there is space outside the observable universe, that is not a part of the universe because it would have no matter. Also, if it was space, that space would have an observable affect on the space where our matter and energy is present. I don’t have to substantiate those assertions, they are already facts proven by a lot of guys and gals in lab coats with some pretty impressive scientific equipment. The universe has an observable shape. Infinities cannot have shapes. Well yeah, we use the activities of our observable place in space to project the activity of those things outside our visual range. It’s called induction.
No one knows the exact universe shape. Kind of hard to determine the exact shape of what might be a huge blob. Science indicates that the (observable) universe is topologically "flat" as the data shows uniformity. That is not to say that the observable universe is actually topologically flat. It just indicates that the universe is too large for us to measure it’s topological curvature.
However, let’s assume for one second that the physical universe exists in a 3rd dimensional membrane with a finite topology. There would still be space outside of such a topology. It may be of a different dimensional plane than the physical universe. Such a space would contain the physical universe as a finite membrane. Whether such a space is accessible to us or not doesn't negate it’s existence. Space can only exist within space.
Space was actually created by the Big Bang according to every viable model. So the idea that space as we know it exists outside the universe is also unsupportable at this time. Any hypothesis of any space-time or dimensional architecture existing outside the boundaries of this universe would also necessary detail that those dimensions are in fact alien to our dimensions, and therefore would not be a part of our universe.
Oh, by the way, the Big Bang theory says nothing about the creation of space. Take a look at the Wikipedia entry. In the context of metric expansion, the "creation" of space is merely an increase of distance between galactic clusters over time. Don’t get it twisted. There is absolutely no physics that describes how and why space itself could actually expand or be created. Space can only exist within space. All I see is just conversion of space or time, how is this proof that space itself (not distance) is actually created? I wanna see properties of space-time and a formula describing how it can be created.
I was referring to a description and formula that has been accepted by the scientific community to show how space itself (not distance) can be created. Until science can show me such, science have no evidence. Scientific theories have a sliding scale. On one end of the scale, one is free to reject it on a basis of unverified analysis. On the other end of the scale, one is not free to reject the theory without a good reason, at least not without looking like an moron. Like those guys who like to reject the existence of gravity and such. I would say that I am somewhere in the middle.
People can pretend their evidence proves their assertion, but we all know it doesn’t. In the beginning, space itself being created rather than increase of distance; as in it wasn’t there before but is now. That’s the crux of the science problem, just as major religions do. Show me where in the Big Bang theory does it state that space itself was created? The Big Bang theory doesn't cover it.
Actually the Big Bang says nothing about what happened prior to the event nor does it make any claims on what banged and why it banged. Feel free to show me where it states that prior to Big Bang there was no space, and space itself was created out of the event. We do realize there is more than one theory depending on which aspect of the creation model. The Standard Model is only good for describing particle interactions and creation. It is irrelevant to what I am taking here; universe expand.
Some people think this is the best accurate and proved explanation we've got so far. I just try to wonder beyond based on the explanations we've got so far. Believe me, I’m not in position of against science.
If the universe is expanding at the exponential rate most cosmologists believe, the rate of movement will exceed the speed of light. According to relativity, that’s impossible for objects moving through space, but it is feasible for space itself. Therefore, expansion goes beyond the movement of celestial bodies…space itself must be expanding. Or maybe it’s all wrong.
The trouble with the word UNI-verse is that UNI means ONE. A presumptuous enfolding of ALL into a ONE-ness. That is so typical of humans, to see everything from an egocentric, earth-centric point of view believing that everything revolves around our ONE-ness. One is after all the loneliest number. The concepts of quantity, size, dimension, distance, and time among others, are incompatible with infinity. It’s a language problem as well.
There is only cause and effect, no first cause means no effect. As far as we know there has been circumstances of cause and effect. And a first cause before would be unknown based on our coherent circumstance at the moment. And a last cause would as far as we know would also be unknown.
