There really isn't an edge to the universe. We live inside a bubble due to the finite and fixed speed of light. So roughly 15 billion light years away, light took 15 billion years to reach us and therefore is comming from the early stages of the universe. The universe was too hot and dense for the first 350k years or so, the microwave background is left over from this time when the universe cooled enough to become transparent. Neutrinos can pass through matter easily, even an entire planet. It's possible in theory to build a telescope to see back 350k more light years to within 1 second of the Big Bang. But there is a hard limit, we cannot use particles to see any further because none existed before that time.
you can think of our universe being defined by paths of light, after all that's what you would 'see' and they trace space like a pen on paper. They ride the curvature of space caused by gravity. Let's day hypothetically there was no more matter after a point (and no particles either). In this case gravity would cause that space to bend back on itself. In such a case you essentially cannot escape as you would curve back into the existing universe. Similar principles hold if the matter is too dense or to sparse, the universe essentially becomes a closed off bubble. Within our physical laws only a very specific and exact value of density will allow for space to extend forever. There simply isn't an outer boundary that can ever be reached, in any case of our physics, just one that can be seen - the initial forming of our space time itself.
there are internal boundaries, such as black hole horizons. We are understanding more and more about them. While we don't have the means to actually test at those energies (maybe the large hadron collider will spit out some miniature ones we will see) there has been a great deal of debate about exactly what particles, entanglement, forces and energies infalling matter experiences.

That's why i separated 2/3. But no self respecting CEO just takes a wage. They spend millions on shit like bad deals, which on closer inspection are you rub my back ill rub yours methods of fleecing investors - completely legal and extremely difficult to prove its fraud. Or millions on expenses where they benefit directly, but it's of little or no value to the shareholders.

References? Because NASA is not seriously working on it. They have this but no real funding at the moment. They are half assed working on it. Plus they won't consider it for 20 years, so I call bullshit on mars one doing it 10 years out in anything resembling a safe manner.

I read the article. The nasa engineer has a point, you need to be able to land gear on the surface first. 40 tons may be more than you need (possibly) but you will need a hell of a lot more than a moon mission lasting hours. For permenant settlement you will need many redundant systems and replacement parts as any resupply based on need is 8 months to a year away minimum. Companies like spaceX worked for 10 years before they could achieve low earth orbit. Plus they leveraged and copied existing technology. The technology to move humans interplanetary distances does not exist and people are not even seriously working on it. The whole thing is a scam, or best case just idiocy.

If they actually did manage to land humans alive on the surface they would likely die in weeks with the planning and support i see so far.

ahh so its a perfectly viable business plan with a wide consumer base. I was worried there for a minute.

Well I can think of three reasons.
1) you want to popularize reality snuff tv shows
2)You want to embezzle the funds and flee to a country with no extradition laws
3)You want to blow investor money on pseudo legal expenses like corporate bentleys and 'business trips' where the per diem includes hooker and blow expenses.

The potential for scamming is out of this world!

although it would make for a great survivor sequel, albeit a single episode.

Exactly lols. At least my code had fewer spelling mistakes than my post.

Slashdotters see a new summary. Gonna fess up here i made it about half way through, got bored and posted.

Hmmm. I distinctly remember a TA in my C+ class looking at my code and frowning, all the while I was saying "yea but it world dosent it?"

Ahh yes traditional slashdotting. My bad.

Into this. I'm glad they offer computer science classes. I would have taken one in high school if it was offered.

No one is forcing anyone. If you read the summary you would know it simply is a required offering. Not mandatory.

We know that space can be created faster than the speed of light, this is the basis for inflationary theory and the big bang. Many measurements can be made that independently verify inflation, though it is true it does not have the level of proof a theory needs (almost though). For example, the size of temperature fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background support faster than light expansion of space.
it's a far cry from religion that has zero evidence in support and absolutely massive amounts of facts that disprove its tenants. There is no evidence to show inflation false.

The result is correct in base 13