<p>I’d like to use this post to thank Smallz3141 for taking the time and effort to clarify these concepts for us. This is one of the most enlightening threads I’ve read on CC.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What the layman means by the “universe” in this context is “matter”. Matter (the universe) is expanding within the void (otherwise there would be no where for the matter to go).</p>
<p>So, the question is: Is there an “edge” to the matter, beyond which, is only Void.</p>
<p>The sphere/balloon analogy is correct in that: Is the void expanding with the matter. In other words: Does the matter completely fill the void, and everything is just getting bigger? This would be the equivalent of the surface of the sphere (or the balloon) expanding along with everything else.</p>
<p>To put it another way: How can something be farther away (in light year terms) than 1/2 the age of the Universe (time since the Big Bang)? If the age of the universe is 12 billion light years, how can light have left that point 12 billion years ago, and just arrived today? It would have taken that Sun 12 billion years to get there, and another 12 billion years for the light to get here. I believe they are starting to find object that are approaching the age of the universe, if not older.</p>
<p>The universe is not “matter”. That implies that the universe ends at every momentary vacuum, whether it’s interplanetary, interstellar, intergalactic, etc. But anyway the universe isn’t expanding like a growing vine, it expands because the very fabric of spacetime expands. That is why the balloon analogy is used, it’s not like the universe is expanding past known “matter” (which is an incorrect way of thinking about it). All the “matter” is over this balloon, and the balloon is inflating, the rubber, the fabric of spacetime, is expanding…not growing.</p>
<p>The universe is ~14 billion years old, and the reason we see objects beyond 14 Billion light years away is because spacetime is expanding between galaxies, increasing the distance, which reddens the photons. You’re right that they have found objects close to 14by old, that’s one way they determined the age of the universe, but they certainly haven’t found anything “older”, that would imply that object was there before the universe…which obviously makes no sense.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Say’s who? Everything has a definition based upon context. Talk to an astronomer, and you may be correct. Talk to the average Joe on the street, and his concept of the Universe is the “matter”, or the “stuff”. In order to have a rational discussion, you need to understand the context of the discussion, and the underlying assumptions. Keep up your attitude, and you will be talking past people for the rest of your life. If you are going to tell the average Joe there is no boundary, then you have to explain, in terms they can understand, how the common layman’s view of the universe differs from an enlightened point of view.</p>
<p>If something is 14 billion light years away, and the universe is a little more than 14 billion years old, then:</p>
<p>1) How far away was it when the light left the object to travel here?
2) How long did it take to get here (Light’s time, origin object’s time, our time)?
3) How did it get that far away so quickly after the formation of the universe?
4) How far away is it now?</p>
<p>If you want to come up with your own definitions, fine, but this thread is about the science of astronomy and cosmology, so you can’t just say what the universe may be to a “layman”. You can’t just define something anyway you want, that’s not science. Maybe you’re upset that you’re incorrect, but that doesn’t mean you can try and twist definitions to meet your desire. If you want to think the universe is just matter, then you shouldn’t even be reading this thread because it doesn’t apply to your definition. How could I even talk about this with the assumption of a inaccuracy? </p>
<p>I’m sorry you don’t understand how the universe doesn’t have an end, really I am. I did my best to explain it to you and others earlier in this thread. But that doesn’t mean you can say I’m being some kind of intellectual elitist because I’m talking about something you don’t understand.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Keep in mind that time and distance don’t exist in the light’s frame of reference. The light arrived here instantenously after leaving the object, and there was no separation between the object and Earth whatsoever. </p>
<p>You can’t really talk about complex questions like the composition or nature of the universe in any sort of real depth without understanding, to some extent, special and general relativity.</p>