# Thread: Star at the edge of the universe

1. I was wondering if the Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory had any bearing on why the universe is undergoing accelerated expansion?

Wheeler

If there were no emission without absorption would the light emitted by a star on the edge of he universe be constrained to move inwards away from the edge of the universe? By conservation of momentum would the star be forced to move outwards? Is anyone aware of any papers that that discuss this?

2. There's no inward, there's no outward, there's no edge to the universe.

3. Originally Posted by AlexG
There's no inward, there's no outward, there's no edge to the universe.
So everything is on the surface then? Same deal possibly?

4. The surface of what?

5. You may have come across the analogy of a balloon covered in dots. When you blow it up all the dots move further part from each other. No dot is on the edge so to speak.

6. How do you relate the two?

7. It beats me!
Anyone know?

If you consider there is a "boundary" of some sort, say a metric tensor...would that mean there is something of a lesser value on the other side? I would think so, following the principle

of "greater to lesser". Perhaps a "void" circumstance exists outside of the continuum of the Universe, creating a "pull" effect.<(this is presuming there is an "outside" continuum)

9. Thanks Gerry, the unverse itself is said to have a metric and space itself is expanding. Like a loaf of raisin bread expanding in the oven.
Metric expansion of space - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I was quite enamoured with the pull idea and many years ago dropped a line to Steven Hawkin about it, but he never got back to me

The only other possibility I could dredge up from the dank recesses of file cabinets in my head is a theory I read about twenty years ago called "negative gravity...I don't remember the

particulars, but I think it involved something like an unprocessed film-negative, in gravity has an "unfinished" aspect that mirrors "positive gravity"...I've looked all over w/ Bing and

Google, and I can't find any sources for it, but I'm sure I read it in a magazine somewhere! (it might have been something in sci-fi)

11. I've been investigating the balloon analogy and am wondering if the surface of the balloon is to represent our 3d space then the universe would need to be a hypersphere (or another hyper object at least) of a higher dimensionality.
The Shape of the Universe (part 1): the Hypersphere | LSNED
There does not seem to be a lot to go though
Travelling to the edge of the Universe, 4th Dimensional Time Travel

If EM radiation were 4 dimensional would it be able to inflate the balloon so to speak?

I don't mind admitting I'm more than a little confused by "expansion", especially w/regard to very distant observations. The single aspect that troubles me most is the possible

make-up of the "film of the bubble", the tensor...where does it start? And what is it's composition? Is it just an invisible gradient factor...or something the 4-d you mentioned could exert a