We cant ever know about the nothing because nothing is never possible it never exist any time in universe. When you say no time no space no energy no matter even nothing was not possible. How ?? we know at the time of nothing virtual particles play their parts & physics say it is possible virtual particles become real near black hole or singularity or in any such situations so when nothing is if you say there you will find virtual &still we dont know bout dark matter &dark energy what about these in terms of nothing??.

The above-quoted statement reflects an assumption that scientists have already discovered everything that there is to be discovered, but they haven't.

A possibly-correct statement would be that scientists have not found an area of absolute nothingness.

Now, suppose the universe as we know it is expanding.
Well, what is it expanding into?

Scientists basicaly invented dark matter to account for the discrepancies between the mass of large astronomical objects determined from their gravitational effects. Even if you take ordinary matter and dark matter into account that only accounts for 30% of the total mass/energy in the universe according to the standard model of cosmology. Dark matter was invented to account to the remaining 70% and also help to explain the the expansion of the universe is accelerating. This basicaly leaves large pockets of space without ordinary matter and without dark matter. If you leave out dark energy which currently there is no way of determining if its pressent or not and may not even exist; and you work around the fact that quarks pop in and out of existance some times. There is most likely large portions of the universe that are "nothing".

If the universe as we know it started out with the Big Bang, then what was in all that area where the outer-most portions of the universe are now located at the time of the Big Bang?

Thats a really complicated question. I guess you should start by choosing a theory on how the universe began. If you go with the big bang theory than the answer is a level of "nothing" that is hard to even comprehend because not even time existed before the big bang. That being said there is the consept of the multiverse which is only a hypotheses, since there is really no way to test it. The concept of the multiverse is there is an infinate number of universes stacked on top of each other. They can't effect each other in any way because each universe operates on its own separate law of physics. Some people think it might explain the unaccounted for gravity in the universe and that would eliminate the need for dark matter but its a pretty vauge hypotheses at this point. Any way the point is that if there is a muliveres, there would have been an infinate amount of "stuff" before the big bang.

Well, time is a metric. It is a measurement of something that is in motion. So, hypothetically, we cannot determine if time existed before the Big Bang because we can't find out what happened before the Big Bang.

I told you I was difficult to comprehend. There was no motion before the big bang, even though motion is mesured in velosity. Time is "the indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future regarded as a whole". The point is neither velostiy or time existed before the big bang.

Scientists have no way of knowing what happened or what existed before the Big Bang. So, it is mere speculation to say that something did or did not exist prior to the Big Bang.

That is not entirely true. Just because a theory is difficult to test does not make it wrong. When you put the whole package together today of modern physics, tests are ongoing specifically to cause particles to "pop" into another universe to prove the multiverse theory. The Higgs is just such a particle. It goes far beyond "mere speculation".

I'd like to see evidence of another universe.

even dark matter is something

no such thing as nothing

unless you are in 8th grade and you mom asks you what you did in school today....the answer for the relatively normal 13 y/o is: "nothing"

so that is what nothing is by definition: What the average 13y/o perceives as his/her daily accomplisments in school

and I tend to agree

also hatred, racism, and most evaluations of physical beauty...nada

Its a holographic-like dream reality. I don't care how it got here I just want to know how to control it.

So Pinky and me can take over the world.

"What is it expanding into?"

Exactly!

Everything that is physical has a beginning and an end, it is finite.

How can there not be an end to space yet how can there be?

Been wrestling with that one for a while.

Instead of taking a look at the macro, what about the micro? Atoms are composed of electrons, neutrons, and protons, which compose an insignificant portion of the space or volume that the atom itself takes up, therefore, atoms are mostly empty space. When probing protons and discovering that it is made up of quarks, you will find the same think, the proton is mostly empty space. Now consider a perfect vacuum in which there is a field, say an electric field. Would you say that the vacuum is empty space or would the electric field count as something? The whole universe is composed of fields, whatever they are, that permeate and rule our known and unknown reality. I would say that the whole reality is just an illusion, nothingness, empty space, etc...

It is my understanding that nothingness does not exist, there is no place anywhere in the universe that is empty. Most people think the vacuum of intro-galactic space is the most empty vacuum we know of, But "vacuum" does not mean nothingness or empty, It is the vacuum that defines matter, it is not matter that defines the vacuum.

Singularity's are infinite dense entities, but it does not mean it is timeless, it is my understanding that it is "timefull". It is all space and time, infinite amount of space and time all in a single moment, in a single point. The vacuum, in my opinion, is the division of this singularity, divided by consciousness. So in my theory we exist within a singularity of all space and time that has been divided by consciousness into ever changing fractals, the vacuum is the true source of all matter and energy. I think energy is packages of even smaller packages of even smaller packages (and so on forever) of infinitely small singularity's that fluctuate and spin, and matter is the same thing but is moving faster than the speed of light. I also believe that matter or energy never "moves" Light and matter do not travel anywhere, but instead is destroyed and recreated from one point to the next. Movement is information being transferred from one set of singularity's to the next.

And in regards to the big bang. I do not believe it for a second, yes the universe is expanding, yes it is gradually expanding faster and faster. But I think the part of the universe we exist inside is like a giant gas bubble that is submerged in a highly energetic fluid, the early universe was under much more pressure from the surrounding fluid which compacted the galaxies much tighter together, but as the bubble rises due to buoyancy (over time)it expands evenly in all directions. As it gets less and less pressure from the surrounding fluid the expansion gets faster and faster. (Just my theory) But my theory can explain a lot of phenomenon without the use of creating imaginary constants that break the laws of thermodynamics, because a lot of the physics these scientist make these days actually goes against the laws of thermodynamics and it is absurd in my opinion.

Namaste.

well,lets see what and how much they come up with to flesh out that Hypothesis to a Theory!
I'd say it is becoming more and more difficult for Laypersons and non-Experts in that field to try second-guess those Physicists!

A pure vacuum is artificial, a concept, there is no such thing as a pure vacuum that we know of, it is just the limiting case, the same goes for a singularity, where density approaches infinity, it is still an artificial construct, useful for calculations. But at this point, no one has observed a perfect vacuum or a perfect singularity, and even if they did, I would have my doubts, as human perception and cognition is inherently limited, consequently, we will never know anything with absolute or 100% certainty anyways. Then you may ask, well wouldn't this statement fall under its own scrutiny? Yes, unless I specify everything except the above statement. We developed logic, we are flawed and limited beings, consequently, our logic and reasoning are flawed and never absolute. Similarly, the concept of true nothingness exists solely in our minds, and one could argue that true nothingness doesn't exist because we gave it a name; nothing is the absence of everything, a contrary, and now that we named it, it is now something, etc...

True that.

We are but virtual characters in a dream of a god. We have no free will, our actions are predetermined by the rules of the dream. We are deluded into thinking we have free will. Fate determines the course, or if you like the sugar coated synonym, well call it destiny, then destiny rules us, analogous to the laws of physics of which are never proven. And I would venture to say never disproven either, which does go against part of the scientific method that states a hypothesis, law, etc... Can never be proven, but can be disproven. Physicists have gotten themselves to the point where their formulae and derivations predict certain outcomes, but they have no idea what they are doing, they calculate, their intuition is lagging behind, this is why there are so many interpretations of what is really going on, such as the one I just made up above, lol. It's all a black box, an infinite regression, there will always be questions, always why's, ad infinitum.

people are talking about nothing, but what you are forgetting is that time is nothing, just a perception we created to make the day go by and created a standard along the way... so to ask if "time" was around before the big bang is a senseless question... time has never existed but in our minds..