"Path-breaking picture: image of entire universe released"

(The microwave sky as seen by European Space Agency's Planck satellite.)

My question, without holding a magnifying glass over the picture: What is, or is not, in the four corners which in the picture are shown dark? Does it imply that the universe is so orderly and well-behaved that it forms a perfect ellipse, and does not venture out of it? If those spaces are empty spaces, if not really, but at the moment beyond our reach, are they not also part of the universe?

Path-breaking indeed, as well as breath-taking. There are many scientific, astronomical interpretations and details derived out of this image which have been spoken as well as published and which are at this very moment being pored over. Anyone interested in the cosmos, the building blocks of everything that we know and do not know, part and parcel of our lives before and beyond, has to be thrilled beyond words.

I have had a continuing problem for the past two decades, since I got involved, entirely cerebrally, sans any scientific instrumentation or connectivity to view, and scientifically and chemically physically electrically magnetically gravitationally analyse and interpret. I am not much concerned also, about the various schools of thought which quibble on the subject of how old is "our universe." Ten billion years, thirteen, maybe 13.75, or 15, why not? For me, the precise point of this detail is not material. What matters to me and what I want to shout at the top of my voice to the illustrious community involved in this search, and its progressive successes, part by part, is: What universe are you talking about? When you talk about the Big Bang and other theories that produced "our universe," do you mean that there was nothing there, and that in nothingness "our universe" came into being? With the Big Bang, or gently; the question is, there was a space, there had to be a space, within which what we call "our universe" formed.

I would like to state here, then, that what we call "our universe" is an enormous body of distributed mass, of gas, matter, electromagnetic forces, gravity, cosmic storms, galaxies,clusters of galaxies, stars, their planetary systems, asteroids, etc. etc. So then, the picture that we see above, and more pictures that we will doubtless be seeing and interpreting, all are part of what we, in our anthro-central mindset, call "our universe," while the real universe is a space which is infinite and eternal, in which other bodies form, deform, and perish. What we can see, will be able to see, interpret, comprehend, even as we perish, will forever remain incomplete and imperfect. Even as our equipment improve, something inevitably would remain always beyond.

If I am right, shouldn't scientific language call it the cosmos which we can discern and perhaps interpret, but not the ultimate universe; because even this cosmos exists in space which is the ultimate universe, in which it is possible that many cosmic systems, apart from what we view, also may exist, may not exist, it doesn't matter; but the space in which all this happens is, by definition, the real universe of all space. That being the case, it is both infinite and eternal.

For readers of this expression of bafflement, ecstasy, as well as some rage, I can draw your attention to many writers and scientists who write about the Big Bang, "our universe," and all such connected matters, but especially with regard to the picture above, released by the European Space Agency, please see these links:

TED talk: Carter Emmart demos a 3D atlas of the universe
Planck satellite unveils all-sky map
Sky map could help reveal how universe formed
Incredible New Microwave Map of the Entire Sky
First Full-Sky Image From Planck Mission