Salah,

Mathematically it is possible to conceive different type of 3D finite space without border. If the universe is infinite it is one such 3D finite space without boundary.  We cannot visualize such space.  You have to understand that since the universe is ''all that exist'' by definition there can be no location in the universe that is next to a location outside of it since there is no such outside by definition.  Mathematically there is two way to comply: either the universe is infinite from the start or it is finite from the start.  In both case it is expanding.  In both case there are no boundary although very hard to visualize for the case of finite 3D space.  We know that the universe is expanding because all the galaxies are moving away from our galaxy. But the fact that the universe is expanding does not imply that its boundary is expanding since there is non such boundary.  Assuming such boundary would be in contradiction to the very notion of an ''universe''. 

Salah,

The word ''universe'' etymologically means ''all that exist''.  So by definition an ''universe'' has no outside because it is the ''all that exist''.  If a theory such as Big Bang cosmoloty posits that it expands, what is mean by this , is not an expansion of its boundary because it has none.  By expansion, it means an average expansion of the distances between galaxies over time.  The theory is silent or neutral wether the original size of the universe was infinite or finite.  All it says is that the current visible universe was in atomic size 18 billion years ago. If the universe is not infinite then it is a bit harder to visualize it without including a boundary.  The best way to try to visualize it is to reduce its 3D to 2D dimension and to imagine it as the surface of a sphere; such surface has no boundary within it and we can visualize our universe as the expansion of such speric surface and keeping in mind that the inside and outside of the spere do not exist.

Louis,

If the Universe is infinite; the question is settled. Our 4-dim spacetime has no analogy with 2D. Our universe is not 2D surface. This visualization does not solve the problem. it is just a fabrication to avoid facing the real mystery. 

The Universe is a BOX with no bottom and no side walls. Why expect for its expansion.   

Salah,

Mathematically it is possible to conceive different type of 3D finite space without border. If the universe is infinite it is one such 3D finite space without boundary.  We cannot visualize such space.  You have to understand that since the universe is ''all that exist'' by definition there can be no location in the universe that is next to a location outside of it since there is no such outside by definition.  Mathematically there is two way to comply: either the universe is infinite from the start or it is finite from the start.  In both case it is expanding.  In both case there are no boundary although very hard to visualize for the case of finite 3D space.  We know that the universe is expanding because all the galaxies are moving away from our galaxy. But the fact that the universe is expanding does not imply that its boundary is expanding since there is non such boundary.  Assuming such boundary would be in contradiction to the very notion of an ''universe''. 

Dear All,

Correct to say "THE Universe" instead of "a universe".  Literally NOT mathematically, if you say "a universe" it may expand, but if you say "the universe", it won't. Whether or not its expansion (if any), is already precalculated. VIVA!

 According to the theory in the attached article, the universe came into existence from the fundamental substance of the universe which is all pervasive like empty space and is without any boundary. This fundamental substance is perfectly motionless and when it begins to move, it gives out quanta of energy. So the universe expands within this fundamental substance which people usually call empty space. The universe condenses out of this fundamental substance as ice freeze in an ocean. So the frozen part of the fundamental substance may have a boundary but the ocean of fundamental substance does not have a boundary. It is infinite and one without a second.

Article Unified field of consciousness

I did prove mathematically that the universe is hyperbolic with infinite distance horizon. The finite observable universe is expanding onto the per-existed outer infinite horizon.

Research The infinte distance horizon and the hyperbolic inflation

Dear Dr. Mabkhout,

Logically, I wonder. Mathematics could not yet define "infinity", how is it possible to prove the "infinite universe" by mathematics? It seems little impractical. 

We apply the same method to obtain the horizon of the flat universe, which is 14 G. parsec . Instead of  the flat universe scale factor we use hyperbolic universe scale factor. We found mathematically  the horizon is infinite. See the previous attach.

Hi Louis,

you say along the lines of nothing outside our/the universe, i would qualify that as there is nothing physical/natural outside our/the physical universe.

of course the designer/creator G-d is supernatural but is something real and i assume is not confined by his creation.

also as others have noted, it is disputed if the universe is expanding.

SPIRAL is one alternate cosmological redshift (CR) hypothesis that explains  CR is evidence of past, not ongoing cosmic expansion and the sphere that is the 'visible universe' approximates the entire universe.

with those assumptions (if SPIRAL is the explanation of the CR so no ongoing cosmic expansion and we are at the approximate center of the entire universe which is a sphere and mostly 'visible') Salah that should render moot even the best 'flat' universe hypotheses.

Roger,

I take ''Universe'' to mean ''All that exist''.  If ''God'' exists, then it is by definition in ''All that exist'' since there is no outside.  Since ''nothing comes from nothing'', ''All that exist'' always did exist and we know it is an ''Evolution''.  I take ''God'' to be the creating essence within  ''All that exist'' including ''each of us''.  

''of course the designer/creator G-d is supernatural ''  All that exist, exist and is thus ''natural'' but not in the limited sense that it obey laws or is a thing.  The ''creating'' at the core cannot obey laws or be a thing and cannot be understand but it does make it outside of what exist but its most intrinsic essence, not farthess, but the closest along the old saying  ''man has been created free at the image of God''. But as all creature it needs to follow/continue the very process at the source of its own creation and do not go against it and pursuit its own demise.

Salah A. Mabkhout "The Big Bang theorists insist that the above question has no meaning, instead of saying that they have no answer or that it violates the entire paradigm."

As everybody knows, everything exists inside something that we call Space. There is nothing that we put outside of Space. Therefore, Space can be understood as some “container” that contains everything.

However, Space has not any definition until today. Therefore, nobody can explain the meaning of Space. As a result, any location “out of space” looks weird to a thinker because he/she cannot make any logical operation in some place “Out of Space”.  

Allan Zade

If the question : TO WHERE THE UNIVERSE IS EXPANDING INTO ? become a taboo, the quest for the answer will be closed. We may have different approaches and different perspectives. For example we show that the cosmological redshift does not imply an expanding spacetime, in fact it just reflects the curvature. Also, we prove the distance to the horizon of the universe is infinite, hence no exterior beyond the infinite boundary exists or needed.

Article The Cosmological Redshift Manifests the Curvature and Interp...

Article The Infinite Distance Horizon and the Hyperbolic Inflation i...

to Salah A. Mabkhout 

I have read your paper ‘The Cosmological Redshift Manifests the Curvature and Interpreted as a Degree of Hyperbolicity of the Spacetime.'

You have some interesting ideas, but you try to make your theory consistent with Relativity. As you know from the thread of discussion

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_the_Dark_Matter_solved#view=576aa6b8615e2779fe527411  

The idea of “Dark Matter” contradicts (and falsifies Relativity).  You claim this. The same idea in not necessarily in case of a hyperbolic structure of the Universe but you make that idea consistent with Relativity. You make the same mistake again because you try to make new paradigm consistent with old theories.

As you remember from the same thread of discussion mentioned above, SMA in the form of a physical device eliminates all postulates of relativity. Therefore, the following question appears to all your ideas.

Why do you need to make your ideas consistent with relativity if all “relativistic ideas” will be crushed sooner or later with a single SMA experiment?

Moreover, as you know, there is an idea about formation of the Solar system from a gas and dust cloud. If that cloud follows motion in the same form that stars follow in the galaxy, the Solar System would never exist because the law of rotation of the planets contradicts the law of rotation of matter in the form of the initial cloud.

Did you ever think about that problem?

I have one more question to you.

Suppose, you know nothing about Newton and his Ideas. You know only Kepler’s law for the planets and data about motion of stars in galaxies.

Can you produce a theory (from the scratch) that explains motion of those objects? 

Allan Zade

Dark Matter neither contradicts nor violates GR, it is no more than a false consequences to the false flat spacetime paradigm. Locally the spacetime is flat, for large structure the spacetime is no longer flat. In fact it is Hyperbolic where Virial Theorem does no longer hold.. We derive the equation of motion in the hyperbolic spacetime from GR, which traces the flat rotation curve without needs for any new mysterios Dark Matter.

Article The Big Bang hyperbolic universe neither needs inflation nor...

The Theory of the Systems can highlight how Universe can be infinite at the same presenting a history. Time, as we feel, is not a property to sub-atomic particles. An atom may lose or gain an electron and may return to a previous state, so, for an atom, time is something reversible. But from molecules and the matter made of molecules, time appears as a property, showing an unreversible arrow before>after. So, the Universe is eternal because it is made of sub-atomic particles to whom time is not a property; but it has a history because the complex systems present time as a property. Regarding being finite or infinite, mathematically and physically there is no limit to the space/distance from one body to another. If we imagined that the septillion of kilometers from where we can get some information would be Everything, than we could imagine the Nothing, that would never physically exist since any sub-atomic particle who entered Nothing would immediately transform it into Universe. It is very hard to ourselves, born finite, to accept something infinite and eternal because of having no start hence no end. Anyway, we can say that we get information of something immense, but we can not say we get information of everything.

A better question may be, how can space expand when it has no substance? I suggest that the idea that space expands is a metaphysical absurdity. It results from inferring a velocity-distance relationship from the red shift distance relationship. It is more parsimonious to explain this by the New Tired Light conjecture of Ashmore. Even Hubble balked at the velocity-distance relationship, never accepting it.