Talk:Big Bang/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Terms used in the article that may be POV

"abundance" is POV "big bang" in lowercase is just a provocation "hypothesis" is POV and a provocation (intentional modification of "theory" to "hypothesis" as done in many other instances) "modifications and adjustments" is inaccurate: more accurate to say "filling in the details" Curps 16:18, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No, abundance is demonstrated by the extant paragraph, which mentions two such ad hoc additions to big bang to make it conform to one line of evidence.

No, big bang in lower case is not provocation. it just looked more "right" to me. I have no intention of challenging the issue, capitalization is fine, after all, God gets capitalized and there is no evidence of deities so I do not quibble here.

No, hypothesis is not point of view. I made this change thinking that hypothesis is more appropriate for a theory that has been repeatedly falsified by observation. Like, for example, the hypothesis of deities.

No, modifications and adjustments is not inaccurate, these are the exact terms used in the extant paragraph, I merely borrowed them as they illustrate the point nicely that big bang continually requires maintenance for it to postdict reality. - Plautus satire 16:27, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

How can proponents of standard and non-standard models work together?

Was: Removal of POV "scientific" Reference I want the word "scientific" stricken from the preamble of the big bang entry. This hypothesis is not scientific in origin or in defense. Numerous examples have already been cited where big bang has been flatly falsified. Time and time again its predictions fall drastically short of reality. And then there is the fact that this hypothesis is based on the genesis myth, not on observation. I want this word out of the preamble for this entry as it is completely unjustified. - Plautus satire 15:24, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Additional note: I want the phrase "scientific theory" (where this word scientific appears) to be replaced with "creation story". - Plautus satire 15:26, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your amusing opinions with us. -- Derek Ross 15:29, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Does that mean you are unprepared to defend the "scientific" nature of the big bang creation story? - Plautus satire 15:31, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Derek, please don't tease him. He actually has a point. User:Ed Poor

Plautus, a hypothesis is considered "scientific" if it's related to a scientific question. How the universe came about -- or how all those stars and things came into being -- is generally considered a scientific question. --Uncle Ed 15:35, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This is a good point, but I think you are broadening the term "scientific" a bit too much. The logical outcome of this pursuit would be that any idea about anything real is accurately described as "scientific," regardless of how disjoint from reality that idea is or is not. By this reasoning, the creation stories from the christian and other bibles are all "scientific theories". - Plautus satire 15:39, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No, no, no. There's a distinction between a "scientific idea" and a hypothesis or theory. A hypothesis is a particualar kind of idea: one which seeks to explain, but has yet to be confirmed. It may or not promoted to theory or law depending on the outcome of research such as tests of its predictive power. For example, in 1610 Galileo had a hypothesis about the 4 "stars" he could see around Jupiter... ---Uncle Ed 15:49, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

And that's the whole point of this thread, there is no evidence for big bang, it is falsified over and over again, and instead of being abandoned it is continually modified to its present state where even random nonsense data yields the same "solution" as actual observations. Eighty-five percent of the time, big bang make the same predictions based on garbage data as it does from actual observations, and this is because of the uncountable "corrections" and "modifications" to make the story fit every new observation. Although predictions is misleading, because really they are postdictions, since these "predictions" occur only as a result of innumerable "exceptions" where no rule can be demonstrated. If that's not the death knell for this myth I don't know what is. I apologize if my cavalier use of the word "myth" upsets big bang believers, that is not my intention. - Plautus satire 15:58, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

If there's disagreement over the status of a hypothesis, the article should say:

• Some astronomers consider the hypothesis disproven, indeed "falsified" by actual observations.
• Other astronomers (perhaps a majority) maintain that the hypothesis still viable. --Uncle Ed 16:09, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I've tried doing things like this, and every time the passages are colored with definitely POV comments like "fringe scientists guess that" or "conspiracy theorists make wild claims that", etcetera, and these changes are all allowed to stand and defended on flimsy (demonstrably false?) "NPOV" grounds. I feel there is no way to insert this very relevant criticism of big bang by adding material to this page. I do, however, object to this use of this phrase "scientific theory" to describe something that is demonstrably falsified. And I'm more than willing to discuss here or anywhere all of the multiple lines of hard evidence that falsify big bang. - Plautus satire 16:15, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

If you do what I do, you will get the same results I get. Almost all my edits are accepted by the other users. In rare cases (like global warming related topics), I find it better to discuss changes before making them.

1. Quote a passage of text you'd like to change.
2. Describe its defects or limitations.
3. Talk about what you'd like to do: delete, edit, add new info, etc.

You can even place your proposed version of the passage on the talk page; but this step can usually be omitted.

Important tip: if 2 or more of your changes are reverted in a single day, stop! Ask another experienced user for advice. *sigh* It's not easy or quick, but that's why they pay us the big bucks! ;-) --Uncle Ed 16:56, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The hardest part is being patient. - Plautus satire 16:58, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

A sentence implicitly criticising attacks on BB

This sentence is in the Preamble: "As Big Bang theories purport to explain the beginning of the entire Universe, some regard them as creation myths. Some of those skeptical as to the soundness of the theories, in particular those outside the scientific establishment, claim that they are purely that."

I dont like how its worded, but I dont yet see how to change it and I wouldnt bother touching it myself anyhow. Since the preamble is ten feet long already, and a similar statement is made toward the end of the preamble, maybe this small paragraph should just be removed. It just stinks of an implication that those scientists who view the BB as a myth should not be or are not real scientists. Maybe im reading into it too much -Ionized 03:16, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)

Is the Big Bang a Creation myth? Is it purely so?

Critics of the Big Bang, or 'BB' point out that it represents a "genesis-story" (a scientific creation myth).

The universe may have always existed and have no "point" origin (like the origin proposed by the BB and many religions). It's the same thing that the latter part of the article states, the BB generally seems to point to a "creation event" (and why many accept it). Sincerely, JDR

(William M. Connolley 12:34, 2004 Feb 26 (UTC)) The page says:

There are actually many theories about the Big Bang. Some theories purport to explain the cause of the Big Bang itself, and as such have been criticized as being modern creation myths.

This is weaselly: "some theories" - which? "have been criticised" - by who? The statements need support.

"weaselly"? YMMV on that [and "weasel" terms are needed sometimes ... primarily to include material/data/points/etc that is out there ...]

which? Non-standard and alternative, I would suppose ...

by who? Scientists ... laymen ... mad scientists ... cranks ... etc ...

Some links [1], [2], [3], [4], etc ... (not that I support any of these ... but the view is out there)

statements need support? exactly how? ... I think it would be simplier to just keep what it was before ...

JDR

(William M. Connolley 17:41, 2004 Feb 26 (UTC)). Weaselly? Indeed. And which of those supports the "many theories about the big bang" assertion?

1st, "Some" should be substitued for "many" (I don't believe I was the original author of that line; though I'll check the history).

2nd, I know about the "Avoid weasel terms" ... and I disagree with it [see that article] ... as it sometimes easier to generalize (which in itself isn't bad IMO).

(William M. Connolley 19:22, 2004 Feb 26 (UTC)) Easier, yes. Better? probably not. Providing refs to back up assertions is a valuable discipline.

Better? YMMV on the ... but usually yes ... citing your sources is important ... but this SHOULD NOT come at the expense of _completeness_ ...

(William M. Connolley 22:26, 2004 Feb 26 (UTC)) I disagree. Completeness to include wild and unsourable material is a service to no-one.

Just have to agree to disagree. Completeness of wikipedia includes "wild" (though this isn't really anything outrageous) and "unsourced" (though it can be cited) material [this is acceptable if it is qualified/noted as such] ... and it is a service to the reader (give them all the info ... not just what one side or the other says). JDR

Which one? I'm not sure ... just a quick lookup ... but if you want, I'll go and more concrete sources (though I don't think it's necessary) ... JDR [PS. IIRC, the Nobel Prize winner, Alfven, calls the BBT a "creation myth" ...]

(William M. Connolley 19:22, 2004 Feb 26 (UTC)) Unless you can provide something, the statement (assertion) remains weaselly and unsourced. So: yes: I do want: please find your concrete sources. And if you can find an Alfven quote, don't hesitate to ref it in this talk page.

I believe that it's your POV that is @ the core of the exclusion (by your referencing it as "weaselly and unsourced") ... it's verifiable (as I have stated) ...

As to your insistance to Verifiability, NOTE that "don't be too keen to remove unverified information at the cost of completeness."

As to Alfven, see Hannes Alfvén and read up on him (he's one ... of other sources) ...

JDR

(William M. Connolley 22:26, 2004 Feb 26 (UTC)) To remind you, you offered to provide concrete sources for the asserion about "many theories about the big bang". Do please keep to this offer. *Stating* that something is verifiable is not the same thing as verifying it.

I offered to provide concrete source? Did I? YMMV on that ... But, I think I have did this anyways ...

The asserion about "many theories about the big bang" needs to be changed to "some theories about the big bang" [I didn't write it in the 1st place IIRC, though I'd have to check].

Keep to this offer? I did provide some verification ... [though, IMO, I didn't "offer" to do this] ...

(William M. Connolley 18:29, 2004 Feb 26 (UTC)) Did you actually read this ref (http://www.pantheon.org/articles/c/creation_myths.html) before posting it? It says:

"Creation myths as well as more modern theories such as Laplace's Nebula Hypothesis, the Continuous Creation Theory and the Big Bang Theory"

ie it considers Big Bang (and continuous creation) as separate from creation myths - precicely the opposite of what you were trying to show.

Did I read all the links? No, just a quick glance ... and you can click on the "etc" link also [it was a google link on some serach terms] ...

(William M. Connolley 19:22, 2004 Feb 26 (UTC)) I can't see the point. I can do random google searches myself if I want to. The point of wikipedia is to contain verified material and links.

I think I know why don't see the point ... because of your desire to exclude the information ...

"The point of wikipedia is to contain verified material and links"? Ummm no ... it is to contain verified material, but to also other material to be "complete". [See above]

And you are incorrect to say that it's seperating modern from ancient "creation myths" ... they are all "Cosmogonies" [See wiki's article on Cosmogony]

Sincerely, JDR 18:57, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 19:22, 2004 Feb 26 (UTC)~) It says they are all cosmogonies, yes. But the text above quite clearly says "Creation myths as well as more modern theories...". It is putting TBB into a different category from creation myths. This demonstrates the weakness of your "search google for big bang myth" idea: it is insufficiently discriminatory.

The BBT is just one of the several "creation myths" (it being a scientific one) ... it is not "different". They are the same. JDR

(William M. Connolley 22:26, 2004 Feb 26 (UTC)) Thats your assertion. I don't believe it. It needs sources to be credible.

Not my assertion ... this is from other ppl ...

A source would be nice but it is not "absolutely necessary" to be "credible" (contray to your view) ...

There are other article that have no citations and are credible. Sincerely, JDR

Citation: Who needs an Alfven quote, when he wrote entire papers on the subject? Start with: "Cosmology: Myth or Science?", Hannes Alfven, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci., Vol 20, No 6, pp 590-600, Dec. 1992

This is one paper he wrote focusing on the subject, in which he not only talks about BB, but also the basic histories of cosmology in general. And yes he did think the BB was more a myth than science. He did write other papers displaying this idea, but I think the one citation is enough to satisfy here. This is the one influential paper where he describes his ideas concerning Actualistic and Prophetic cosmologies. Im looking at it now and am tempted to read it for the Nth time.. -Ionized 20:53, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC) Side note: He doesnt introduce the terms Actualistic or Prophetic in this paper, but in another. However the ideas on which the terms are based are evaluated in this paper as well. -Ionized 04:22, Feb 27, 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 22:26, 2004 Feb 26 (UTC)) Thats certainly reference enough to convince me that being a Nobel Laureate is no guarantee of being sensible. To be nit-picking however, nowhere on the Wiki Alfven page, or on the wiki quotes page, does Alfven say, literally, that the BB is a creation myth, as far as I can see.

What's the saying ... "you can lead a horse to the trough, but you can't make it drink"? ... I'll take a Nobel Laureate's opinion over a psuedoskeptic ....

IMO, you are obviously trying not to see this the inference [read as: non-literally impression] ...

Sincerely, JDR [PS. Look for the "The Big Bang was a myth according to Alfvén." in his article]

One of the greatest empirical minds ever, and you say he is not sensible. Ok. Amazing that such an un-sensible human could be responsible in a major part for our present understanding of the Aurora, and that he could have contributed so greatly to our knowledge of Space Physics in general (Space Physics refers to the solar environment.) Also, wiki is far from complete, I dont know who told you there was a quote in wiki that Alfven said that. You must read his books and papers to see what he really thought. Although, now that you mention it, obviously Nobel Laureates dont have to be sensible.. Penzias and Wilson got one just for not finding a bird nest in their antenna.. -Ionized 23:23, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)

Comments on Page Protection

Page Protection One (1) Hour After Last Edition...Why?

I shouldn't have to ask now, but why has this page been protected an hour after the last edition, on a "favored," "standard" page? - Plautus satire 19:29, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Protected page. silsor 19:33, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

Which states, among many other things, "Administrators have the ability to "protect" pages such that they cannot be edited except by other admins. This ability is only to be used in limited circumstances." - Plautus satire 19:51, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Where is the justification for protecting this page one hour after the last edition? - Plautus satire 19:51, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Flimsy, After-the-Fact Justification For Page Protection One (1) Hour After Most Recent Edition

This page has been protected due to an edit war with no partiality towards a particular version. -- Viajero 19:32, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

What edit war? The last reversion of the page was an hour previous. Why protect a page an hour after an "edit war" stops? Where is your proof it was an "edit war" besides multiple changes to the entry? - Plautus satire

I see now the page protection was requested by silsor. "* Big Bang - cannot protect as I am involved. silsor 18:29, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)"[5] and granted over one hour later by Viajero[6], with no intervening editions. What is going on here, exactly? - Plautus satire 19:57, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Admins are not supposed to protect pages from edits[sic - Do you mean "edit" here? Hope this helps. - Plautus satire 20:04, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)] wars they are involved in. Therefore, if they want a page protected, they have to request it, just like everyone else. →Raul654 19:59, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

Audit trail for this dubious page protection scheme here.

I can't find the section where the changes are, but every question raised by the last edition is already answered many times over by me on this page. Thanks for your input, but I'm afraid you'll have to do some searching here just to find those answers, I am sorry this discussion has lost its coherence. Thank you for your patience on this issue. - Plautus satire 21:31, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Page Protected One (1) Hour After "edit war" Ended, Yet Still Protected

I'd like to just point out again that this page has been protected for a couple of hours now, and it's been clearly demonstrated that, while not hastily protected, it was protected without basis. The argument is clearly and succinctly made that this page be unprotected. - Plautus satire 21:52, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Nothing us non-standards can say will ever sway the mainstream. We just have to let them go ahead and talk like the Big Bang is truth. -Ionized 21:57, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

I really admire everyones ability to display NPOV editing practices. As an example, my more neutral wording about the quasar distances was quickly removed only to be left as quite obvious (and wrongly worded) BB POV, by the same people who claim that Plautus is too POV to edit this page. This is sickening, and the exact reason why I didnt want to touch this page in the first place. -Ionized 22:19, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

If there is one thing we can thank NPOV for, it is that there is at least one sentence in the pre-amble linking to non-standard cosmologies. If this gets removed, I and surely others will no longer doubt the in-validity of the scientific practices the maintainers of this article follow. -Ionized 22:24, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the great constructive comments, Ionized. I know it's tempting to imagine the "standards" as a monolith, but they are just people like you and me, we can reason with them. I know that accuracy and fairness will win out here in the end. - Plautus satire 22:27, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It's now three hours after this page has been protected, four hours since the end of the "edit war" that is claimed as justification. What is going on here? - Plautus satire 22:29, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It's now more than six hours after this page has been protected, seven hours since the end of the "edit war" that is claimed as justification. What is going on here? - Plautus satire 02:02, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It's now more than eighteen hours after this page has been protected, nineteen hours since the end of the "edit war" that is claimed as justification. What is going on here? - Plautus satire 13:52, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Page unproteced. Plautus, please avoid "reversion wars" with Curps and Silsor. --Uncle Ed 14:53, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for this thoughtful advice, Ed Poor. And very good advice it is. I'll endeavor to be the "bigger man" and walk away in the future. - Plautus satire 15:27, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Observation (by Platus) of edit-based dispute

This page has now been repeatedly reversioned by silsor and Curps without adequate challenge in the talk pages. For this reason I am once again instituting the changes. If valid challenges arise here, I will postpone any changes after that. - Plautus satire 17:41, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[Peak to Plautus satire:] I believe you have been trying to insert the clause:

"the abundance of ad hoc additions to big bang in order for it to conform to observable reality is prima facia evidence that there was no Big Bang at all."

Please desist from making this particular change. It is vague ("abundance"?), inflammatory (does every "refinement" of a theory constitute evidence that the entire theory is wrong?), and in this particular form just plain silly - whether or not an event occurred can usually be judged independently of the tinkering of theorists about the event. Also, please try to avoid introducing typographical and other errors and inconsistencies into the article. (E.g. the article should use "Big Bang" consistently when referring to the event or theory.) Thank you for your consideration of Wikipedia readers. Peak 18:00, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I have addressed this in a recent change (that was again reversioned without sufficient explanation). - Plautus satire 18:06, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

Big bang predicted in Qur'an

Recently added:

However, it seems as though the religion that best correlates with the Big Bang theory is Islam. In the Holy Qur'an, the book of Islam, which is believed by Muslims to be the final message of God, states the following in its 21st chapter, verse 30:

"Do the disbelievers not see that the heavens and the earth were joined together, then I split them apart".

The Holy Qur'an was revealed over 1400 years ago, whereas science has only just developed this theory in the last 90 years.

I don't think this has much to do with the big bang the way it stands. Perhaps we should remove it until the author adds some other material to clarify how they are similar? "Splitting apart the heavens and the earth" and "all of space time and matter exploding from a singularity" don't seem the same to me. maybe the author has some more clarifying verses... - Omegatron 13:09, May 14, 2004 (UTC)

Expanding universe

"When these people measure the distance between two points that are sufficiently far apart, the distance will seem to be increasing, because the yardsticks they use to measure with are shrinking along with everything else."

I don't get it. This makes less sense to me than the idea that stars are moving apart from each other. So the atoms and subatomic particles are expanding in size, too? Then the space that EM waves were moving through would be expanding at the same rate, too? So how could we measure this expansion? Doesn't seem like we could... I think we need an article on the expansion of the universe.

And the nature of the universe... Infinite, finite, wraps around on itself, how we would measure each of these, why we think the universe is one way or the other... I am sure there is some information on WP about these things already, but perhaps we should create a separate article out of it? - Omegatron 18:12, May 20, 2004 (UTC)

I'm no expert, but I found that "shrinking" idea useful when I was trying to understand all this stuff a while ago, so I thought I would add it to Wikipedia. I found it hard to grasp the notion that it is space itself that is expanding, not a case of, as you say "stars moving apart from each other". The point is that to say "the universe is expanding" is logically equivalent to saying "the universe is staying the same size but everything in it is shrinking", which, for me, was an easier thing to visualise. You asked "the atoms and subatomic particles are expanding in size, too?", and the answer is no, they stay the same size. I found it a hard thing to get my head round, but well worth it. I think your suggestion of an expansion of the universe article is a very good idea, but, as I say, I'm no expert. I've read some stuff, but I've not formally studied cosmology or anything, so I'm a bit reluctant to start it myself. GrahamN 01:14, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

Overview section - reword?

I'm not too happy with the phrase 'The details of how the process of galaxy formation occurred depends on the type of matter in the universe, and the three competing pictures of how this occurred are known as cold dark matter, hot dark matter, and baryonic matter'. Can it be reworded? The types of matter are not the competing pictures surely, merely elements that contribute to the models of galaxy formation? EddEdmondson 14:08, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The Big Freeze vs. heat death

Quote: "The Big Freeze is also known as the heat death of the universe."
from [7] it would appear that the two are in fact different theories, albeit with similar consequences - as I understand it:
heat death happens in a flat universe and is a result of entropy
the Big Freeze happens in an open universe and is a result of the universe expanding

To clarify a bit, I think that "heat death" is the term used to describe what in this article is titled "Balance" --Jomel 14:11, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Before the Big Bang?

Ok so I've read the article and am familiar with the theories of how the Big Bang happaned. But I can't figure out or imagine or even contemplate what was there before the Big Bang happened. If the universe is all compressed into this tiny spot, all existence in this tiny spot, what was around this spot? How can you just have nothing? What IS nothing?

Technically, before the Planck Time there is nothing we know about the way the universe behaved. This is for lack of a model of quantum gravity. We can speculate, however, being that we are able to match to the conditions of our present universe.

At the time when physics breaks down, the physical size of the universe was indeed very small. It was much, much smaller, in fact, then atoms we know and love. However, time was also short. In fact, amount of "time" available makes a second seem much much longer than the entire length of time the universe has been existence.

The major problem I think is that people think of time and space in discrete, additive units. You have one second, then two seconds, then three, etc. You have one foot, then two feet, the three, etc. It is true that in our regime time and space are additive as this, but if you go backwards in time (or out in space) far enough you will find that the actual measuring sticks used for this are changing physical size. That would be like taking your rulers and cutting them in half, or taking your stopwatch and making it go twice as fast.

Now, when we talk about extrapolating back with this type of a relationship, we have to stop thinking of time and space as additive quantities. They are, in this formulation, strictly multiplicative: that is to say you have a base set of length and time that you multiply by a scalar. Whenever you set up such a system of quantities, the full extent is from zero to infinity with a midpoint at the value of 1. Everything between one and zero is smaller than the reference and everything between one and infinity is larger than the reference.

What you have to do, then, is take the universe today as being representative of the midpoint (1) and going back through the Big Bang is taking a trip back to zero. Now you see why you can't think of this in terms of additive times and spaces anymore because simply subtracting one from one gets you to zero in a single step! In reality, the density of states between one and zero in a multiplicative sense is infinite!

Now you're travelling back to a point when the universe had a much smaller physical size. However, this is simply a scaling effect. In other words, the universe is actually still the universe: it still contains ALL of time and space in it... it's just been scaled down (cosmologists call this quantity the "scale factor"). Now if you consider what this scale factor means, it is simply a statement that the universe behaves differently not due to the processes we're used to in space in time (which are additive) but due to the multiplication of the scale factor I talked about earlier.

Of course, by now you're probably wondering how we're going to answer the question of "what's before the Big Bang" or "what surrounds the small point". Well, the answer comes in the form of "you are asking the wrong question." Asking "what's around the point?" or asking "what comes before the Big Bang" is a question as absurd as asking "what thing exists that isn't part of everything that exists?" You see, because the universe was squashed (by a scale factor) down to a point that was small in physical size but was still the sum total of all things: space and time included.

So, to recast your question: "What is outside of our universe?" the answer is "If it is outside of our universe, we cannot know of it!" Science is impotent to answer.

Or maybe you'd like to think of it this way: you are sitting in the early universe and it is small: but by placing yourself in the early universe you are necessarily EVEN SMALLER! In fact, you are so small that that tiny universe looks exactly as big to you as the universe of today looks to you. So you're asking really, "What's outside of this thing that's the sum total of everything I know to exist??

The answer is: "your guess is as good as mine, buster".

By the way, the stuff "outside of our universe" is really not stuff, nor is it a thing, nor is it even "nothing". Nothing, as we would have it, is the absense of all matter and energy. Unfortunately, even if you get rid of all matter and energy you still have a vacuum that permeates all space and time that allows for virtual particles and field propagation. "Nothing" it turns out really IS something. So we can't really say that there is "nothing" outside of the universe because "nothing" is actually inside the universe!

If this all sounds like mind games, I assure you it isn't. These are the logical conclusions that one must draw from very simplistic assumptions. If you want to argue with the conclusions, it's the assumptions you have to attack. What are the assumptions? Well there are three and they are called the Cosmological Principle, the Copernican Principle, and the Universality of Physical Laws. I'll leave it to the reader to discover these for him or herself.