Or maybe 93 billion light years across.

@GeorgeRocheleau The Universe has always been here - Hubble can see about 45 billion light years - making a 90BLY sphere

It is not about empty. You are limiting yourself imagining that the 3d space behaves like a 2d square on a single plain surface.
BUT you can bend the surface, adding a third dimension in a spherical shape.
Now that surface with the same area do not have borders anymore, a 2d being could walk in a straight line forever into that surface, and will never find a wall, or an ned, BUT the surface is limited anyway.

Extrapolating it to our 3d space, it can be bent and have no borders, but be finite anyway.
And general relativity shows that yes, this is true, or at least you can make very precise predictions based on this way of thinking (if you do not use it, GPS satellites would loose precision after some minutes).

So it is not that the big bang is distributing matter and energy in empty space, big bang is creating more space and just lowering the density of the matter and energy.

It is like a balloon that the color fades and even becomes transparent as you stretch the rubber and the pigment becomes less dense.

That's not what space is. Your idea of space is Aristotelian. We've learned much more since then.

@greyeyed123 lol wrong

@Pedrohbds Space by definition is empty. We look up at the sky and think - that's space - but what it really is, is space with matter taking the form of stars, planets, galaxies etc.

@gater Yeah. That's Aristotelian space. It is not correct.

@greyeyed123 Wrong - its not Aristotelian space

@gater You just described Aristotelian space and said it wasn't Aristotelian. I don't know what to make of that.

@greyeyed123 Aristotelian space claims the earth is at the center of the Universe - there is no center.

@gater That's Aristotelian cosmology--not space. Do you know the difference between cosmology and space?

Depends how you define time.
For our modern definitions of time, close to a event horizon, time is stretched so hard that it closes to infinite, mening that for someone far from the event horizon time passes "normally" but close to the event it becomes close to eternity.
And at the event horizon the time becomes a division by zero, that means our definition of time does not make sense anymore there.

And how to deal with it if you agree with big bang that at some point the whole universe was inside or very close to an event horizon? Means that "before" the big bang does not makes sense, because it was a division by zero.

So... time has a starting point.

@Pedrohbds Wrong - time had no beginning

@gater so please, write it down, publish an article how is it possible to define time in the moments close to the big bang or even "before" it and collect your Nobel.

@Pedrohbds If there was a Big Bang - it would only describe how our Galaxy was formed - not the Universe - The Universe has always been here - it had no beginning.

@gater this statement is simply wrong, read at least the wikipedia article
[en.wikipedia.org]

@Pedrohbds The Big Bang is a joke - time and space are infinite - to think the Universe had a "beginning" is retarded.

@gater So present us your observations of the cosmos and the mathematics involved to achieve this conclusion.
This kind og "I think", "it is obvious" arguments is totally anti scientific.
As I say write an article and collect your Nobel if you can have slid arguments based on observations and calculations, not with "i think and it is obvious".

This anti scientific way of thinking is what foment religion, terraplanism and anti vaccines movement, for them all of that bullish is obvious too.

If time is so nice, infinite and easy to comprehend, explain the orbit of mercury with this logic, show me the calculations that can give the results compatible with observations based on your hypothesis.

@Pedrohbds Time is constant - it doesn't slow down or stop, hence time must be infinite - simple logic - does this simple concept evade you?

@gater So are you saying that general relativity is wrong? Because slowing, and even stopping (at the event horizon) are common events in this theory.
So if you think time is constant, explain the mercury orbit based on that please. Also explain why satellites of the GPS need to correct this time stretching to be precise?
It is funny to read that in a year that we photographed a dark hole and after a year that we measure gravity waves, this just tells that you don't know anything about physics in the last at least 100 years.

@Pedrohbds yes the general theory is wrong. Gravity has no effect on time or space. Gravity is created by matter and only effects other matter. You are describing Time Dilation - that's the effect gravity has on devices(matter) that measure time. That photograph was a fuzzy image - it offered no proof of black holes.

@gater Aaaaaaah ok you doubt the general relativity...
Can I see how do your calculations compensate the GPS or what is the mechanism (please send me an article) that justify Mercury's orbit?

Because if you doubt the scientific consensus I imagine you are very skilled in Physics and can show me the alternative theories with the real calculations and experiments that shows this not just random sentences.

@Pedrohbds No I don't doubt general relativity - im saying it's flat wrong. I just explained Time Dilation to you - don't you learn?

Your problem is you don't understand how to apply Logic.

@gater Your explanation does not explain the orbit of mercury, there is no device there, we just see that it is wrong according to classic physics. Also how muons can arrive on earth surface to be measured? It is not a matter of messing with devices that measure time, is messing with time itself, there is no device measuring time on those phenomena.
AND is not only gravity, ANY acceleration can do that also.

@Pedrohbds You are so confused about physics - its not that complicated.

What does Mercury have to do with anything?

@gater Basically Mercury do not move as Newton's classic theory (and kepler's law) thus there was something else other than gravity acting there.
Many Hypothesis were made for this, including postulating an extra planet that could cause this shift, but this planet was never found.
So you see, it is not a measurement of time or a device related question (even if devices used in precision experiments are atomic clocks where you simply count number of osculations that are not affected by gravity at all).

you can see more details in this link
[aether.lbl.gov]
Or in the wikipedia page with some calculations and other tests that are independent of time measuring devices like red shift and other bending effects.
[en.wikipedia.org]

Also on wiki you can find the links to books and articles.

Yes your logic is simple, but unless you translate it into equations and show that those equations can describe real natural phenomena this simple logic is useless and can't be used as a scientific argument, is just an opinion.
Tests, experiment and reality are the kings, science is not that worried about absolute truth, it seeks the next better approximation, and general relativity is waaaaaaaaaaaay more precise than classic physics.

Ad the lack of knowlege about Mercury's problem show that you just have an opinion, and do not know the scientific consensus deep enough to be able to criticize it in the levels it is now.
You are making the same critics that were made on its conception and were already answered and discarded 100 years ago.

@Pedrohbds Mercury is irrelevant.

@gater Because god says so? or just hide the problems your hypothesis can't solve?

@Pedrohbds No - because the topic was about infinite time and space - Mercury is irrelevant to the conversation.

@gater No it is not, because the answer to infinite or finite aspects of universe time and space passes over general relativity and how time and space works, and you said that it is infinite because general relativity is false. So I asked for you to explain phenomena using your theory that as I tough (as I studied classical physics) you can't or you are not even aware of the problems that confirmed that general relativity is a waaaay better theory than classical one.
And that is why the explanation of mercury's orbit is at least a initial point for me to consider you and your theory a point that at least can be taken into account and not just an opinion based on MAIoR (My Ass Institute of Research).
So if your hypothesis that gravity do not change time and space is right you would be capable of showing me a classical calculation to solve mercury's orbit, thus I can by occam's razor accept your hypothesis as it explains the same thing as general relativity with less postulates, then we can start discussing the finite or not universe. Til there, general relativity is the dominant theory and Universe is finite in space and time.

@Pedrohbds you said that it is infinite because general relativity is false. - I did not say that. I said General Relativity is false - gravity has no effect on space or time. But that isn't why I know the Universe is infinite - don't twist my words.

@gater I do not say that either,
I say IF GR is true, then Universe is finite
So first you have to come with a theory that substitutes GR Then we can start discussing infinite universe.

@Pedrohbds Gravity is irrelevant to infinity - different topics

@gater you really do not understand physics then, you are discussing gut feeling while I talk about theories that were measured and tested with great precision.

@Pedrohbds Wrong - I fully comprehend all of your silly theories. You are the one that doesn't understand physics. You falsely think gravity effects time - without any proof or logical theory to back up this claim.

@gater
OM(non existent)G,
I presented measured phenomena, that are even independent of "time measuring devices", that you for lack of knowledge discarded as irrelevant.
I asked you to show me your calculations you did not answer.
Silly theories that allow GPS to work, Silly theories that solved the mercury's orbit problem, silly theories that measured the gravity waves (space bending), silly theories that on the second or third year of any physics or engineering school you would study and comprehend and that is why I asked articles and calculations about your hypothesis.
My backup is the scientific consensus, my backup is that based on GR we can predict where planes are, and how the light of the stars will bend during an eclipse.
My backup is 100 years of articles and measurements of people that are trying to disprove GR and collect a Nobel Prize and failed, confirming its validity.

But your theory of "gravity does not affects time" So please based on it, give me the calculation of mercury's orbit that fits with measurements, Solve the problems that GR solved and then we can talk about the validity of your hypothesis.
Do real science discussion and not empty claims.

@Pedrohbds Gravity has no effect on time - you site Time Dilation, again you misanalyze the data. Gravity only effects matter -as in a GPS device - it has no effect on time itself.

@gater Okay so show me how this hypothesis explain the light deviation, the muon life and mercury's orbit.
All this effects are derived from time dilatation but independent on time measuring devices =)

@Pedrohbds jesus - ive explained Time Dilation to you - you just aren't capable of comprehending this simple concept.
As far as Mercurys orbit - Mercury moves according to the forces applied to it, gravity and momentum keep it in orbit.

@gater No, mercury can't be explained by Newtonian gravity.
I understand your concept, the problem is that it fail to explain real measured events, lime the muons arriving on the detectors at ground level.
Time dilatation can be measured independent of time measuring devices, so your hypothesis iof gravity interfering only in time devices is not true

@Pedrohbds I said gravity only effects matter, like a gps device - again - Gravity has to effect on time.

@gater OK and how about time effects that are independent of the mass like the muon life or the orbit of mercury

This is true that we will not see anything beyond our observational bubble, but what about the observational bubble of a galaxy on the edge of our observational bubble? Should we assume that more than half of their bubble doesn't exist because we can't see it?