Question About the Universe

This is one of those things that is just impossible to understand.if space is expanding, what is it expanding into? If it's making the space it's expanding into what from? And anyway, what does making space even mean??No wonder people reach for the Goddit explanation.

It's worse than that. People who have already accepted that God did it merely by speaking find modern cosmology ridiculous. It's easier for them to believe that scientists are involved in some kind of brainwashing conspiracy that keeps them in jobs and grant money.

Ok my confusion.My understanding (based on what I thought Cavediver had said, but obviously I misunderstood) was that space has inherent energy associated with it; given that energy has mass properties I somehow thought space had some underlying mass properties.But apparently I totally misunderstood.Makes sense as I was having a hard time meshing this conclusion with the first thermodynamic law. I figured I was missing something.

This is my vague recollection as well, but a search for cavediver's posts did not turn up anything. Let's also remember that under relativity, energy is not easily defined.

Well at least I now feel like I didn't totally make it up.

For certain spacetimes you can tell how much mass is needed to create them based on the properties of the spacetime. This is sometimes referred to as the mass of the spacetime. Of course the spacetime does not actually have mass, you can just infer how much mass was involved in shaping it.

Don't you need mass/energy in order to have shape?

No, not at all. Spacetime has a shape, that is what the curvature of spacetime refers to, but it's not a form of mass/energy.

Now you're just messing with us......

From my point of view, I can say that every stars will keep come closer day by day untill the Final Destruction.....

Any guess or theory as a more formal way of saying it, is as good as anyone else's.Since I heard of evolution, the time periods for the beginning of our world and the universe have been increasing at an exponential rate, and the theories of how it all began have also, changed and expanded and become more complex, until now, when everything is being questioned, and dismissed, one at a time.
It won't be long before all those who hold on to today's theories will be old fashioned, delusional and so wrong.
But for the time being they KNOW, they really do, they KNOW how it all happened, and everyone else is so wrong and so deluded.

The word "theory" has a number of definitions (definition of theory), and for science discussions I think you're using the wrong one, the one that defines theory as a "guess or conjecture". You used the same incorrect definition of theory over in the Should we teach both evolution and religion in school? thread.Science uses this definition of theory: --Percy

Ignorance is probably not something you should publicly display, unless you want to rid yourself of the ignorance. It seems you are quite proud of your ignorance and have no desire to alleviate your ignorance.

Perhaps there is a question worth a look (and stomping a mud hole into) after getting past Colbard's definition of theory.After all, YECs know that the Earth's birthday is 4004 BC based on documents written thousands of years ago based on calculations performed in 1654.By contrast the scientific estimates of the age of the earth have been all over the place, and the history of those estimates reveals making wrong assumptions about mundane processes such as heat transfer and cooling, the source of the sun's energy, and the salting and de-salting of the oceans and getting bad numbers all while doing state-of-the-art investigations.How Old Is The Earth? - Universe Today

The attitude of science itself proclaims to be progressive in it's conclusions, along with the rate of discovery, so it really does not need "righteous defenders of the faith"who call others ignorant and delusional.
A true scientific mind does not reject something on face value but asks, how and why it may be so.
There is nothing wrong with guessing, it is the part of reasoning which uses trial and error, and a theory is just such a process. A theory may have certain gain and headway, but if we can see it is working it does not make "theory" suddenly become an indispensable truth or even a method of truth. It always is just guessing - methodical or not.
Once science stops guessing and proclaims to know it all, then we can be certain that the road to discovery has come to a dead end.
The fact about human thought is, and if you have not recognized this you are positively immature, that we can think we are on a right and workable track, which at some time comes to an end we are not prepared for.
If this happens in reality, then even the accumulative and agreeable thoughts of humanity cannot be an ultimate criterion for truth, as history proves.
Does this mean that whatever we discover has no basis in reality whatsoever?No not at all, but every reality has to have a greater context than itself.The flat earth is a reality, we don't build houses on a rounded slab, but it has a greater context, the earth is a sphere.
Any greater context, may not be applicable to what it includes, it may not even be able to be discovered, and yet it is there.The very fact that knowledge has no limits, indicates that the universe has greater contexts than we can fathom.In regards to the theories of the state of the universe, these can all be null and void through a simple context. Yet if such a context is discovered it should and will verify what has been conjectured, and sort out what was applicable or not.