[andreasva (OP)]

The universe has to make logical sense in terms of human reasoning, not just mathematical sense, because the universe is following the laws of math, precisely.  However, mathematics can be manipulated to support any false human reasoning, which can make it exponentially more difficult to make sense of the universe.  And the deeper we go down that rabbit hole the harder it becomes to climb out.  Opinions become solidified, and the science turns into belief.  And then we just keep piling on the nonsense in support of faulty human reasoning.   I’m sure mathematically most of it checks out.  And I stress the word, most.  That doesn’t make it right.

I guess where I take issue most is the Big Bang.   

In order to have a “big bang”, we compact the entire universe down to a state of energy that’s void of all physics.  Somehow this imaginary state of energy spontaneously burst into a universe, outside the laws of physics as we understand it.  It’s just a clump of energy, where e=e, in which energy is completely void of an actual physical definition, even with our current understanding.  e=c^2, or e=mc^2, so without C, E=0.  This imaginary state of energy is so far removed from physics, that even the notion of density becomes meaningless.  Its value can only be described as 1 mathematically, because it is only equal to itself in this state.  None of it means anything.   

Isn’t this the exact definition of pseudoscience?  We’ve eliminated physical properties of the universe, and then piled on more theory to answer a question in support of a theory.  Enter intelligent design.  It’s no different really.  The big bang is baseless, hinging on a single observation, the redshift.  And no, the CMB only takes us to hot.  That doesn’t imply a big bang.       

The big bang also posits the condition of nothing, which again contradicts our own more realistic understanding of physical laws.  Theoretically, nothing as a state, or absolute 0, is physically impossible.  So, when we claim nothing came before the big bang, or nothing lies beyond the universe, we’re disagreeing with our own scientific reasoning.  We’re saying, nothing, as a condition or state, can coexist with something.  I don’t know, but it sounds a lot like 0=1 to me.   

Can you really argue this rationally?  I don’t think so.  Something is fundamentally wrong with the Big Bang concept, and I don’t see any fix.  I think the most obvious answer is the truth.  It’s wrong.

I think this begs to question, can you really compress the genie back into the bottle?

I don’t think you can, because there probably is no beginning point.  Makes far more logical sense, doesn’t it?  The universe is a continuous state, and we jumped in somewhere along the way.  The laws of physics are the only true constants in the universe.  Without the laws of physics, a universe wouldn’t be here, ever.

Now you can claim I’m not a physicist, and that I don’t understand the math.  I would have to agree on both, and confess, I’m not a physicist, and I do not understand the math.  In my defense though, I seriously doubt any else does either.  The reasoning makes no sense. I look for simple answers to complex problems.  The truth is, I think the real answer has been in front of us all along.  It’s not really a complex mathematical problem as much as it is a deeper understanding of the fundamental mathematical logic and human reasoning defining the universe.  It’s a matter of grasping the concept of nothing, and infinity, and absolute.  I don’t think we were ever done asking the most profound question in science.   

How do you get something from nothing?   

When you remove all the complexities of energy that we’re immersed in, and view space from a standpoint of a continuous empty void, that’s what the universe should be.  There is no other ingredient available.  That’s the underlying reality of the universe, period. Really think about that potential state.   

So, how do we go from that potential state, to us?

With Big Bang reasoning, we take the sum total of the entire universe, hit rewind, and package it into a condensed ball of energy, and claim it’s the beginning.  Right from the start you can see a flaw in this reasoning.  There is no physical substance called energy.  Unless of course, someone has a bottle of this raw material labeled “Pure Energy” sitting on a shelf somewhere that they want to submit as evidence.  Anyone?  I’d like to see someone dispute this rationally.  You can’t, because there’s not a shred of evidence to suggest energy is a physical element in our makeup.  I know, it sounds nuts, but it is an undeniable fact.  There is no physical definition for energy.  We don’t know what it is.   

Let’s break this down rationally, starting with nothing.

Nothing, is exactly what it implies, nothing, or numerically 0.  Mathematically, 0=0, always.  0 is a natural absolute value.  0 is also finite.  Our universe obviously, is not 0.  We are the empirical evidence, which becomes self-evident to that fact.  And I would agree with physics that this state is theoretically impossible to achieve, ever.  0 is a real value, or real number, when looking at it in the context of the whole of the universe.  Our universe could potentially be 0, but it’s not.  Only the potential exists.  And I would also argue this potential as infinite, because it is theoretically impossible to achieve.  If in fact, 0, ever became the state of the universe, our universe would be nothing forever and always, because 0 is a finite value.  0 can never be anything else but 0.  The universe would be in a perfect equilibrium with itself, forever and always.  Spontaneously changing that state would be a violation of the most basic fundamental laws of mathematical equality as we understand it, because 0=0, and nothing else.   

So, when I hear someone claim nothing lies beyond the universe, or suggests nothing came before the big bang, I have to say, nonsense.  Nothing, as a condition of the universe, cannot coexist with something. 0=0.  Can anyone really dispute this reasoning in a rational manner?  No.

So, to answer the first question, “how do you get something from nothing?”  You don’t. 0=0.  0≠1. 

Our universe is, >|0|.

This brings us to another potential state of the universe, 1, which is a little discussed possibility, if at all.  We tend to think of nothing and then the universe.  This is the “something” state of the universe, but in the context of describing the whole of the universe in this manner, 1 is an absolute value.  Meaning simply, it’s not 0.  This is the potential continuous void state of the universe I mentioned earlier.  It’s not nothing, but it’s a lot like nothing in that our universe would be an empty sea of darkness forever and always.  This too is also a theoretically impossible state, similar to 0.  Like 0, its potential is also infinite, because the universe can never be in this state either.  1=1.  It is the only other true real number to describe the entirety of the universe mathematically.  The universe has the potential to be 0 or 1, but it is neither, because both states represent a finite value.   If the universe achieved this state of 1 in the absolute sense, it would suffer the same fate as 0.  Something more would never happen forever and always, and that would be that.  The universe would achieve a perfect equilibrium with itself, forever and always.  Once again, spontaneously changing that state would be a violation of the most basic fundamental laws of mathematical equality as we understand it, because 1=1, and nothing else.

Our universe is, <|1|. 

Clearly, these states have never occurred, because we’re here.  We are the empirical evidence, which again becomes self-evident to the answer.  I think we get the two values confused when describing the universe, because they are inversely equivalent to each other.  Something is the antonym to nothing, but similar in effect because we wouldn’t exist in either state.  They are exponentially different, but inversely equivalent.   

Here’s where things start to get a little more difficult to grasp or accept.  If you follow basic math, I think the answer becomes self-evident.   

Are we infinite, or finite?

What becomes clear to me, is that finite is a theoretically impossible state for describing anything in the universe.  We would not be here if the whole of the universe represented a finite value in any manner.  There are only 3 logical answers when describing the whole of the universe, 0, |1|, and infinite, because no other values make logical sense.  None of these values can coexist.  0 ≠ |1|, 0 ≠ ∞, and |1| ≠ ∞.  0 = 0, |1|=|1|, and ∞=∞.

I suppose you could argue I am being too rigid mathematically, and that the universe doesn’t have to follow our mathematics.  I would argue, it clearly does.  If it didn’t, e=mc^2 would be meaningless.  If there’s one thing we’ve learned in all of physics, our universe is following mathematical logic, precisely.  In math, 0≠1, and it will never spontaneously change to 0=1.   Math would make no sense if the rules of equality spontaneously changed.  More importantly, our universe wouldn’t make any sense.

This is exactly what the big bang attempts to do.  It starts with 1, represented as e=e, wraps it in 0, and then spontaneously changes 1 to some other random finite value, which becomes e=c^2.  In addition, we’re apparently still shrouded in 0, because there is “nothing” beyond the universe.  Does this really make sense?  No.  Of course not.  Still, there’s a comfort level in suggesting it does, and it’s baffling.     

Think of our universe as you would a simple bi-directional light switch.

In the off position, this represents the universe in a state of absolute nothingness.  Its numeric value would be 0.  This state could not spontaneously change to any other value, because 0=0.  It would be a finite position of the universe.  The universe would essentially reach a state of perfect equilibrium with itself, and that would be that forever and always.  The total universe would be completely finite.  Clearly our universe is not in the off position, so its numeric value is >0.

So, let’s switch it to the on position, but in the context of defining the universe, this on position is absolute.  Its numeric value would be |1|.  It would be a finite position like 0, but only in the sense of forever and always, because 1≠0.  Like 0, our universe would essentially reach a state of perfect equilibrium with itself, and that would be that forever and always.  The total universe would be completely finite, because |1|=|1|.  Clearly our universe is not in the on position, so its numeric value is <|1|.   

That leaves us with only one other possibility for that switch, which is somewhere in between 0 and |1|.  That position is not a finite value, it is infinite.  Not just infinite though, it is infinitely variable.  You cannot say where that switch is, at any given moment, but you can know where it isn’t.  It is not 0 or |1|.  This is the only other choice we have in describing the universe, which is infinitely variable, or more to the point, analog.  Our universe is in an infinitely variable analog state, not finite.   

The Big Bang has that switch in the on and off position simultaneously, which then spontaneously creates a third finite position.  It doesn’t make sense.  It is an invalid theory.  The Big Bang is nonsensical human reasoning.  The Big Bang is wrong, and there’s no way to correct it.   

Again, how could anyone argue this rationally?  You just can’t, unless you want to abandon all human reasoning and simultaneously abandon mathematical logic.  Or possibly, wave a magic wand.   

Our universe is infinite, not finite.  More profoundly, it can never possess a finite value, ever, so it is in an infinite state of change.  There is no beginning, and there is no end.   

My empirical evidence is us, or existence itself.  That’s my observation.   

My mathematical proof is basic fundamental equalities.

0=0

|1|=|1|

∞=∞

Only one of these equalities when applied to the whole of the universe is capable of variability.  No other value makes rational sense, because X=X.  And clearly, through decades of observation, our universe is analog.  Sound, light, matter, gravity, etc., can all be described in wave format.  Waves are infinitely variable analogs.  Even we can’t consider our own lives as finite, because our own existence is the essence of continual change and evolution.  We’re born, we peak, and then fade out, just like a wave.  Yes, our total life could be described as finite, but our journey through time is anything but finite.

Following this reasoning, I could go on to dispel the myth of Dark Energy.  It’s not real.  I could also explain how expansion is not real.  However, I think it’s prudent to leave this stet at the moment.

My sole prediction is that Dark Energy will never be detected or discovered directly.  It’s a wild goose chase.

I will make a secondary less certain prediction.  Dark matter is probably a myth, and all attempts to detect it will more than likely fail.  I suspect a deeper understanding will adjust the math in spiral galaxies.  As I confessed earlier though, I do not fully understand the math, so I’m not sure how we arrived at the theory.  I get it, so it’s possible.  It feels suspect to me though, but I could be wrong here.  Not sure.   

I think if we embrace the reality of an infinite universe, science will come to the same conclusions as I did, naturally.  It forces you down a logical path, that makes rational sense.   

The Big Bang theory was based on a preconceived notion that the universe was created, from a beginning.  It assumed a beginning.  Hubble’s observation was purely coincidental, in my view.  The universe is in an infinitely variable analog state, always has been, and always will be.  There was never a singular beginning event.  It takes the laws of physics to make things happen.  You can’t remove or disregard the laws of physics to satisfy an answer.  The big bang does this in spades, with a singularity sitting in nothing, which is void of all physics by default. 

So, seeing as how I'm killing off the Big Bang, I suppose I need to speculate a new replacement.

The universe is a wave of infinite height and infinite length, with an ongoing frequency of 1. 

That's my best guess...

And if anyone is interested, I will elaborate further. 

[Kryptid]

The universe has to make logical sense in terms of human reasoning

No it doesn't. The Universe is under no obligation to make sense to us anymore than it is under obligation to make sense to a gorilla or a gnat. We just happen to be the smartest of the three.

In order to have a “big bang”, we compact the entire universe down to a state of energy that’s void of all physics.  Somehow this imaginary state of energy spontaneously burst into a universe, outside the laws of physics as we understand it.

No, such a condition is not necessary for a Big Bang.

So, to answer the first question, “how do you get something from nothing?”  You don’t. 0=0.  0≠1. 

The Big Bang theory doesn't say that something came from nothing.

The Big Bang has that switch in the on and off position simultaneously, which then spontaneously creates a third finite position.  It doesn’t make sense.  It is an invalid theory.  The Big Bang is nonsensical human reasoning.  The Big Bang is wrong, and there’s no way to correct it.   

What's nonsensical human reasoning is your attempt to equate a physical object like the Universe to a single number or an on/off switch.

[andreasva (OP)]

No it doesn't. The Universe is under no obligation to make sense to us anymore than it is under obligation to make sense to a gorilla or a gnat. We just happen to be the smartest of the three.

Sure it does.  It's following the laws of physics and math.  They seem to be pretty logical to me.  Just because it's not fully understood now, certainly doesn't mean it can or won't be understood.   

No, such a condition is not necessary for a Big Bang.

Didn't mean to imply is was necessary.  But it is theorized to be a highly condensed energy, sans physics.  It's condensed into itself.  Seeing as this would be the only thing in the entire universe, surrounded by nothing, I don't understand how this is a logical state.  Its value is 1.  Its density is 1.  Its size is 1.  Its mass would be 0.  C doesn't exist yet either, so c=0.    There's nothing there.  It's an irrational state.  It's nonsense.

Black holes are surrounded by space-time, and gravity, and an entire active universe.  They make sense.               

The Big Bang theory doesn't say that something came from nothing.

I never said it did either.  I said it was sitting in nothing.  You seem okay with it, so, okay then.

What's nonsensical human reasoning is your attempt to equate a physical object like the Universe to a single number or an on/off switch.

Why?  The universe seems pretty bound to math.  If the universe were nothing, it would equal 0.  If the universe were 1, it would be an empty universe sans physics.  It's not either.  Logically, what else could it be?  3?  4?  299792458?  I think the latter is nonsense.  Infinity is a variable state.  Clearly, we're infinitely variable.   

But clearly, you find this incorrect, so there's not much point in discussing it with you.  You're entitled to your opinion, which I happen to see as a bit closed minded.  That's fine.  I'm okay with differing opinions.  I don't agree with you.   

[andreasva (OP)]

What's nonsensical human reasoning is your attempt to equate a physical object like the Universe to a single number or an on/off switch.

Maybe the universe is precisely this simple.  Everyone wants the next e=mc^2, but maybe it's a simple matter of understanding 0=0, and 1=1, and that's all they would ever equal. 

Kind of like Occam's Razor at its finest.   

Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor) is a principle from philosophy. Suppose there exist two explanations for an occurrence. In this case the one that requires the least speculation is usually better. Another way of saying it is that the more assumptions you have to make, the more unlikely an explanation.

0=0
1=1
∞=∞

Simple.  No heavy explanation required. 

The universe is infinite, because it can't equal anything else. 

[Kryptid]

Sure it does.  It's following the laws of physics and math.  They seem to be pretty logical to me.

I'm sure the world makes sense to gorillas and gnats too, despite the fact that they are completely unaware of and incapable of understanding many aspects of it.

Just because it's not fully understood now, certainly doesn't mean it can or won't be understood.   

Nor does it mean that we will necessarily be able to understand everything about the Universe. We might or we might not.

But it is theorized to be a highly condensed energy, sans physics.

No it isn't. Whoever said that physics did not apply to the Big Bang?

Its value is 1.  Its density is 1.  Its size is 1.

In what units?

I said it was sitting in nothing.

It doesn't make sense to say that something sits "in nothing". Nothingness, by definition, isn't there and therefore cannot have anything sitting "inside" of it (which also doesn't make sense, as the word "in" only makes sense when space is present).

Why?  The universe seems pretty bound to math.

Bound to math, yes. And by consequence of that, there exist many different objects with different, measurable properties in the Universe. Momentum, energy, charge, mass and many other measurable quantities exist. It doesn't make sense to try to use a single number (and a number without units, at that), to describe all of these different things simultaneously.

You're entitled to your opinion, which I happen to see as a bit closed minded.

Being closed-minded is dismissing a claim without examining the evidence first. I have examined your "evidence" and it doesn't make sense. Math doesn't work like you are trying to make it work. Physical objects have various properties that can be described by different numbers, but physical objects themselves do not have a single value that can describe everything about them. What sense does it make to ask what the value of a potato is? Is its value different from that of a cucumber?

[andreasva (OP)]

Some of this comes down to human nature.

If I asked a physicist how big the universe was, they probably want to look at the age first.  Then they would calculate the distance light travels over that time to come up with some sort of radius.  From there, they may take a stab at figuring out the total mass based on some theory.  They may eventually arrive at some astronomical number, and claim the universe is 10^300, or something crazy like that. 

With me, I say,
It's >0 and <1.  Between those two values lies an infinite number of variables, so the universe is infinite.  That's how big it is. 

You can certainly disagree with my answer, but you most certainly can't claim it's wrong.  Mathematically speaking, it is correct.   

[andreasva (OP)]

In what units?

It's the only thing in the entire universe, so it can only be compared to itself. 

In our universe, mass is based on a platinum-irridium weight sitting in Paris.  A Meter is defined by the distance light travels in x.  All measurements are arbitrary. 

Because this condensed energy is the entire universe, its value would be 1 for all measurements.  But it also doesn't contain mass, because there's no space-time, gravity, or motion. 

As I said, it's nonsense. 

[andreasva (OP)]

Being closed-minded is dismissing a claim without examining the evidence first.

What evidence are you missing?

0=0
1=1
∞=∞

The entire universe can be described in wave theory, and waves are analog, and analog by definition is infinitely variable. 

Any finite value associated with the universe would make the universe eternally finite.  Clearly it's not.  0≠1. 0≠∞. 1≠∞

It seems like pretty reasonable evidence to me. 

Just because you can't wrap your head around the simplicity of the answer, doesn't make it wrong.

[andreasva (OP)]

Bound to math, yes. And by consequence of that, there exist many different objects with different, measurable properties in the Universe. Momentum, energy, charge, mass and many other measurable quantities exist. It doesn't make sense to try to use a single number (and a number without units, at that), to describe all of these different things simultaneously.

My unit of measure is simple.  1 universe.

You may want to count the atoms and subatomic particles as related to mass, which is also an arbitrary unit of measure, I chose the whole universe as a unit of measure.  What difference does it make?  Math is math, on the quantum level, or the macro level.  1=1 on the quantum scale, and 1=1 on the universe scale.  Same difference. 

[Kryptid]

It's >0 and <1.  Between those two values lies an infinite number of variables, so the universe is infinite.  That's how big it is. 

You could use the exact same argument to "prove" that a potato is infinite.

You can certainly disagree with my answer, but you most certainly can't claim it's wrong.  Mathematically speaking, it is correct. 

It's more akin to "not even wrong", because it doesn't make sense.

It's the only thing in the entire universe, so it can only be compared to itself. 

That still doesn't make sense. If there was only one electron in the entire Universe, that wouldn't suddenly change the values of mass and charge that it has.

Because this condensed energy is the entire universe, its value would be 1 for all measurements.

That's a non-sequitur.

But it also doesn't contain mass, because there's no space-time or motion.

There would have been an awful lot of mass, motion and space-time during the Big Bang. If you are talking about before the Big Bang, that's a different story and there is still no consensus on what exactly that was.

Clearly it's not.

Unsupported assertion.

My unit of measure is simple.  1 universe.

Then that value won't change whether the Universe is finite or infinite (because the Universe is obviously equal to itself), so that doesn't get us any closer to solving the question of whether the Universe is finite or infinite.

[andreasva (OP)]

It doesn't make sense to say that something sits "in nothing". Nothingness, by definition, isn't there and therefore cannot have anything sitting "inside" of it (which also doesn't make sense, as the word "in" only makes sense when space is present).

Couldn't agree with you more. 

So what lies beyond the universe?

What is the universe expanding into?

What is the universe accelerating towards?

What came before the big bang?

[andreasva (OP)]

Then that value won't change whether the Universe is finite or infinite (because the Universe is obviously equal to itself), so that doesn't get us any closer to solving the question of whether the Universe is finite or infinite.

It is equal to itself. 

∞=∞

I said, the universe is not 0 or 1.  The potential is there, but that's it.  If we looked at the universe from a finite perspective of 1, then you're right, it wouldn't make sense.  That's my point.  The universe can only be infinite.   

What would you define it as now?  17?  27?  10^300?

The only non-finite value that makes sense is infinity.     

[mad aetherist]

I guess where I take issue most is the Big Bang.   The Big Bang is nonsensical human reasoning.  The Big Bang is wrong, and there’s no way to correct it.   

I favour Conrad Ranzan's  Dynamic Steady State Universe.  He posits an infinite universe of cosmic cells where aether is created near center of cell & annihilated in mass (mainly in blackholes & mainly near edge of cell).  He has written books for sale, & has many articles for free.   http://www.cellularuniverse.org/G4GravityCell.htm

It’s a matter of grasping the concept of nothing, and infinity, and absolute.  How do you get something from nothing?   Nothing, is exactly what it implies, nothing, or numerically 0. 

Ranzan posits something from nothing (creation of aether)(at centers of cells), & followed by nothing from something (annihilation of aether in mass).

Nothings & things need explaining.  I think that sub-sub-quantum things (lets call these Praeons) somehow make sub-quantum things (called aetherons)(or aetheons)(or aethons), which somehow make the fundamental quantum things (photons), which form secondary quantum things (elementary particles)(electrons quarks etc), which form sub-atomic particles, which form atomic particles.

The only possible nothing is the empty space tween preons, if such a space exists, it could only exist if praeons had a fixed kind of shape (eg if spherical).  Praeons are the fundamental entity, they make or form aetheons.  Making would be by virtue of a pulsation or vibration or something.  Forming would be by virtue of adhering or clumping. 
Aetheons make free photons, by virtue of spinning or something. Photons form confined photons which are elementary particles.

The annihilation of a thing in a low domain might give a nothing in that domain but it nonetheless retains the thing in the higher domain.  And in the lowest domain (the sub-sub-quantum domain), one might posit that Praeons cant be annihilated (i haven’t given this much thort). Or, if Praeons can be annihilated then this demands the existence of a sub-sub-sub-quantum domain filled with Primeons or Elemeons or Embryeons or Fundameons or Initieons or Starteons or Dawneons or Firsteons or Earlyeons or Createons.

The annihilation of mass means the annihilation of elementary particles, which means the conversion of confined (looped)(static) photons to free photons.  The annihilation of free photons means the conversion of spinning aetheons to resting aetheons.  The annihilation of resting aetheons means the conversion of vibrating praeons to resting praeons. 

The only real thing is the Praeon, all else is a process (involving Praeons).  There is no actual annihilation, what we have is the killing if a process, ie looping or spinning or vibration.
In that sense we can get something out of nothing, & nothing out of something.

My sole prediction is that Dark Energy will never be detected or discovered directly.

I don’t know what their silly Dark Energy is supposed to be.  Probly some unknown process giving a push to stars, or in silly Einsteinian terms some sort of process affecting the bending of their silly spacetime on a universal scale.

Dark matter is probably a myth, and all attempts to detect it will more than likely fail. 

I don’t agree.  I think that there are at least five kinds of Dark Matter.  I reckon that some sort of Dark Matter does affect orbits in spiral galaxies, but i think that the bulk of the problem is a misunderstanding of gravity & a misunderstanding of Newton's big G & a flaw in the theory behind the lab measurements of big G.

[Kryptid]

So what lies beyond the universe?

Nobody knows.

What is the universe expanding into?

This question assumes that there is something for the Universe to expand into in the first place. The current scientific consensus is that space is simply expanding. That's it.

What is the universe accelerating towards?

This question assumes that there is something that the Universe is accelerating towards, which is not a part of the current scientific consensus.

What came before the big bang?

Nobody knows.

What would you define it as now?  17?  27?  10^300?

I wouldn't definite it as anything because it's a nonsensical question.

You also need to learn how to use the edit function.

[andreasva (OP)]

I favour Conrad Ranzan's  Dynamic Steady State Universe.  He posits an infinite universe of cosmic cells where aether is created near center of cell & annihilated in mass (mainly in blackholes & mainly near edge of cell).  He has written books for sale, & has many articles for free.   http://www.cellularuniverse.org/G4GravityCell.htm

My view is much more elaborate than this, but simple really.  I don't really want to go too deeply into it right now, because I'm just trying to get to step one.  The universe is infinite, with no beginning or end. 

I glanced through some of it, but I don't think my view aligns with it frankly.

I see a little string theory, a little holographic theory, a little steady state, a whole lot of bohemian and pilot wave, definitely a lot of relativity and quantum mechanics. 

I like the idea of an infinite wave with a frequency of 1 to describe the universe honestly.  Infinite height, infinite length, frequency 1.  A wave is sweeping out leaving matter in its path.  You have the heat, creation, etc, but it's ongoing.  We drift in 3-dimensionally away from the chaos and cool and condense on the downside of the wave, but I see too many possibilities there at the moment.  Total speculation of course.  So no, I don't want to get into it.   

[andreasva (OP)]

So what lies beyond the universe?

Nobody knows.

What is the universe expanding into?

This question assumes that there is something for the Universe to expand into in the first place. The current scientific consensus is that space is simply expanding. That's it.

What is the universe accelerating towards?

This question assumes that there is something that the Universe is accelerating towards, which is not a part of the current scientific consensus.

What came before the big bang?

Nobody knows.

What would you define it as now?  17?  27?  10^300?

I wouldn't definite it as anything because it's a nonsensical question.

You also need to learn how to use the edit function.

Exactly.  No one has a clue what's really going on. 

It makes no logical sense that space creates itself.  Sorry, I will never agree with that reasoning.  The overall consensus, and I quote theory, "nothing" lies beyond the universe, and "nothing" has to come before the big bang.  Nonsense, in my opinion.  The universe is infinite, and we simply haven't figured that out yet.  This blackness of space goes on forever, in two directions, in and out.   

The easiest way to look at homogeneity is with infinity.  Every particle is in the center of the universe.   

[Kryptid]

Exactly.  No one has a clue what's really going on. 

If your argument is "no one knows the answers to these questions, therefore the Big Bang theory is wrong", then that's a non-sequitur.

It makes no logical sense that space creates itself.  Sorry, I will never agree with that reasoning.

Good, because that's not what consensus says either.

The overall consensus, and I quote theory, "nothing" lies beyond the universe, and "nothing" has to come before the big bang. 

Which theory are you quoting? The Big Bang theory does not require nothing to have come before the Big Bang.

[andreasva (OP)]

You also need to learn how to use the edit function.

lol...  typing on a Surface pro with a tiny keyboard.  Annoying, I know.  I do apologize. 

[mad aetherist]

I favour Conrad Ranzan's  Dynamic Steady State Universe.  He posits an infinite universe of cosmic cells where aether is created near center of cell & annihilated in mass (mainly in blackholes & mainly near edge of cell).  He has written books for sale, & has many articles for free.   http://www.cellularuniverse.org/G4GravityCell.htm

My view is much more elaborate than this, but simple really.  I don't really want to go too deeply into it right now, because I'm just trying to get to step one.  The universe is infinite, with no beginning or end. 

I glanced through some of it, but I don't think my view aligns with it frankly. I see a little string theory, a little holographic theory, a little steady state, a whole lot of bohemian and pilot wave, definitely a lot of relativity and quantum mechanics. 

I like the idea of an infinite wave with a frequency of 1 to describe the universe honestly.  Infinite height, infinite length, frequency 1.  A wave is sweeping out leaving matter in its path.  You have the heat, creation, etc, but it's ongoing.  We drift in 3-dimensionally away from the chaos and cool and condense on the downside of the wave, but I see too many possibilities there at the moment.  Total speculation of course.  So no, I don't want to get into it.

I am ok with waves in some micro instances but i aint ok with macro waves, eg that every macro thing is due to waves or solitons.

Strangely, Ranzan is an aetherist, but at the same time is a semi-Einsteinian (ie Ranzan's theory & equations accommodate a portion of SR).  Most peculiar.

[andreasva (OP)]

If your argument is "no one knows the answers to these questions, therefore the Big Bang theory is wrong", then that's a non-sequitur.

No, that's not my argument.  I've been searching for the answer for 35 years, because the conflicting answers I continually hear don't make sense.  It feels wrong.  Can't explain it entirely.

This feels right.
 

Good, because that's not what consensus says either.

Well, that's what the big bang implies.  Highly condensed energy spontaneously erupting into a universe, creating physics in the process.  That's the way I interpret it. 

 

Which theory are you quoting? The Big Bang theory does not require nothing to have come before the Big Bang

Big bang is what I'm quoting.  Yes, I've read it.  I've heard it countless times as well.  Nothing lies beyond the universe.