@PurpleRabbit

I suppose that makes sense now. Of course, the speed through space is limited to the speed of light, but the speed of space expansion doesn't technically need a limit.

My question, however, is what is meant by an "infinite" universe. It was my understanding that space/time was concentrated into a singularity prior to the Big Bang, however you say something different. So if this is true, the "infinite" size is the actual space/time that the universe "sits" upon, not the universe itself.

Or is this just a confusion of the terms "universe" and "observable universe"? In other words, the entire universe is the infinite space/time and all the matter upon it, whilst the observable universe is just the matter?

@ Adrian
I think you're in another universe. You are extreemely strong in logic, so I'm wondering why in one sense you strongly disagree that god can be disproved - insisting that it's possible; while on the other hand you're willing to accept/assume that space travels outward while it should be obvious that our frame of reference within the universe makes this impossible to determine.
Also, the expansion of space has been likened to atomic expansion so that the universe's boundary doesn't necessarily (relatively) extend beyond its limit.

I strongly disagree that god can be disproved because we are not in a position to know absolutes, other than perhaps those based on purely logical foundations. You cannot disprove the existence of a being who is non-temporal any more than you can disprove the existence of parallel realities.

I accept that space travels outwards because the empirical evidence suggests it does. Space is expanding in the observable universe as much as it is outside the non-observable universe, and this is confirmed by red and blue shift. So given this evidence, I would hardly say it is "impossible" to determine. Even so, just because I cannot disprove somethings doesn't mean I won't believe in things without proof. As I stand, I don't think absolute proof for things other than logical issues is practical for humans, so there are many things I believe with proof (like the value of science for instance).

Adrian, I think one would have to define "God" in specific terms in order to determine if "God" exists or not. Is God simply the "prime mover" that started the universe? Does this God still exist? Does God think? If so, with what? etc. etc. If you give god certain human qualities, such as thinking, then you can rule out its existance...to a high degre of certainity.

How can you rule out its existence to any degree? Just because a being has some human ability doesn't ensure it doesn't exist, nor does it make it likely not to. There could easily be a higher realm that is undetectable by us where "God" resides. You might think you've ruled out God to a high degree of certainty, but when you have nothing even remotely comparable in terms of existence, you can't say such things and be intellectually honest.

the red and blue shift is precisely the reason the outer perimeter of space is thought to remain fixed, or independant of space expansion. In theory light shouldn't slow down, so the only rational explanation for the velocity change is that the expansion has proportional rather than distance relevance.

Blue shift and red shift have nothing to do with the speed of light. It's a description of the wavelength of light increasing (red shift) and decreasing (blue shift). That doesn't affect the speed, but it makes the visible light "shift" to the red or the blue end of the spectrum respectively.

Red shift shows us that galaxies are moving away from us very fast, stretching the wavelength as the space expands. It is evidence that the universe is expanding.

As for light slowing down, I've already said that the shifting has nothing to do with that, but light can slow down. It slows down through water, through highly viscous liquids, glass, etc.

... and there is evidence to suggest that the speed of light is universally slowing down. I understand what refraction is, and what a spectrum is about.

THE PROCEEDING STATEMENT IS UTTER NONSENSE

(January 21, 2010 at 12:23 am)TruthWorthy Wrote: the red and blue shift is precisely the reason the outer perimeter of space is thought to remain fixed, or independant of space expansion. In theory light shouldn't slow down, so the only rational explanation for the velocity change is that the expansion has proportional rather than distance relevance.

WE APPOLOGISE FOR ANY INCONVENIENCE THIS PARAGRAPH MAY HAVE CAUSED.

Why have recent experiments been suggesting that the speed of light is slowing down!? The time/distance (velocity) of light has increased without explanation besides our measurements of time remaining constant.
This means that either - the speed of light has actually changed; or, the normal distances have increased.