into new Time.
2006-11-07 06:56:46
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
The "empty space" that is the universe is not expanding. It is an infinite empty space with no end.
What is expanding however is what the universe consists of and that is the billions of galaxies that make up the universe.
These are expanding outward in all directions - away from each other into empty space.
If we were to give a shape to this expansion of the matter that makes up the universe it would be spherical.
If you were able to teleport yourself billions of lightyears outside of the edge of the expanding matter - you would see a ball that is getting bigger and bigger.
2006-11-07 16:41:41
·
answer #2
·
answered by robertf_9999 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
The universe is not expanding in the same way compressed air expands. General relativity posits that the cosmos is a 4-dimensional manifold, x, y, z, and t, which happens to be curved. This curvature is not uniform everywhere, it's related to the presence of matter or energy. Over time, the overall, or average, curvature decreases, which resutls in an apparent "expansion" of the universe as viewed by those in it. This mathematical phenomenon does not require "a 5th dimension" in which to "expand into".
2006-11-07 15:00:19
·
answer #3
·
answered by Scythian1950 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Big Bang theory says that the universe just exploded out of one piece of matter. All the pieces went in infinite directions for an infinite period of time. Now, scientists actually think that a certain glow they see is the edges of the universe edging back into the center.
Interesting concept, that perhaps it'll end just as it began?
2006-11-07 15:02:22
·
answer #4
·
answered by Ashley 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
The universe doesn't fill anything outside of its own existence. It expands, but there is no "outside".
2006-11-07 14:56:26
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
into expandableness
2006-11-07 14:57:21
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Only the "object" responsible for the expansion knows the answer to that question. I say "object" for the lack of a better word.
2006-11-07 14:57:52
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋