Does It Make Sense To Say That Something Is Almost Infinite? If Yes, Then Why?

[Mutex]

Is that not refuted simply by QED :) Quantum Electro Dynamics, and Faraday cages. Electromagnetic waves do not easily pass through metal conductors, whereas insulators present no barrier. 

 

A capacitor with uncharged plates, offers no attraction between plates. (Intriguing aside, large capacitors can charge themselves over time, resulting in some nasty shocks, that is why some big caps have the contacts shorted when not in use) 

 

The Casimir effect is a proven effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect not unrelated to the zero point energy of the vacuum. In what way would the casimir effect affect your theory of distances changing.

 

 

Red and Blue Shifts are not evidence of a big bang, they are just claimed to support the theory. Some galaxies are blue shifted on coming towards us, whereas most are red shifted moving away from us. Why should a single big bang be the start of everything, multiple big bangs might have happened at different points in time. Looking back x billion years at a multiple car crash and trying to ascertain where it all started can be amusing. A very fast expansion space might have resulted in the separation of virtual particle pairs, of various sizes some stable others not that might have given of lots of radiation, not unlike inflation theory perhaps. Mainstream is inflationary period followed by big bang. What else are you suggesting related to the undefined, nothing 0th dimension of this thread?.

 

I could start a thread on your theory, but it would be better started by your self, when you are ready:)

 

not really talking about electromagnetic radiation, I am more talking about local electric fields (voltage potentials, potential difference) and magnetic fields (current flows), you get them with conductors (such as metal), if you put a CRO on a bit of metal it is alive with 'noise' and potential differences that create electric fields and magnetic fields. It seems reasonable to me that the attraction is the result of local near field electric and magnetic fields as a result of the different local charge states on the plates and between the plates, and not the result of quantum things appearing out of nothing and applying a force to one side of the plates. 

 

Lots of things that needs to be ruled out before I would go with a quantum conclusion.. 

 

Yes it's not just about redshift or blue shift, it is about the known and established reasons for that shift (Doppler and Einstein or gravitational shift).

 

The thing about redshift for the big bang is the 'shift with distance' model, the further away the greater the redshift, that rules out Doppler (although Doppler is still an effect) but Doppler is a function of relative velocity, not a shift with distance effect, so can you get a shift with distance with gravitational shift? Turns out that yes you can, as the universe is not perfectly homogeneous and isotropic the fit is not perfect (as we observe) and you still have to account for relative motion (doppler shift).

 

So with gravitational shift that explains how we get a lose redshift to distance observation, but you get that without needing an expanding universe.

 

So to get redshift from an expanding universe you actually have to invent a third method for a redshift with distance relationship, the trouble is there is no indication or real mechanism for that to occur.

 

If you can explain an effect (either redshift or Casmir) with KNOWN and understood physics that should and does take preference over an unknown and not established cause for an observed effect. That even without going into Occam's Razor, or the simplest explanation (least amount of variables and assumptions) is usually the correct one.

 

I don't have much of a comment on the 0th dimension, I don't know how it would qualify as a cosmological spatial dimension that is generally defined as a direction.

 

I see a cosmological dimension as the definition of a dimension in the same way that you use dimension to indicate the length of something, like the dimensions of your room or your computer monitor, that is the lengths or size of the thing, if I ask you what are the dimensions of your room would you answer X,Y,Z ? or would you give me a set of lengths. The definition of a dimension is the length definition. X,Y,Z are just the labels you use to indicate the direction of the fundamental length. 

 

Space has a length dimension, not a direction dimension, you can understand and model relativity by just understanding the relative difference in that length value (of space itself).. 

[sluggo]

Mutex;

 

N/0 is only undefined in your don't use infinity (infinity is the definition of how many zero's goes into one), I would say it's is non-computable because infinity is not a number. (but numbers can be infinite, as you said such as Pi, or the number of numbers between 1 and 2). 

 

n/0 is meaningless, since even 1 does not divide n.

n/1=n, the same thing as doing nothing.

If zero or nothing is put into a container, the content does not change.

If there is no change for this operation, then it is independent of time, and redundant.

 

Pi is incommensurate, resulting in an endless (infinite) sequence of decimal positions. The diameter has no curvature, and the circumference has no straightness. I.e. the ratio is comparing two different classes of lines, with nothing in common.

 

 

'Nothing' is tricky, particularly in theoretical physics, it is true it is not a mathematical definition (but zero is, as are all numbers, they are abstract, so what nothing 'is' is more a philosophical question. 

 

The symbol '0' was invented as a place holder, indicating no elements. That is enough reason to disqualify it as a number. It is an option in the set of integers.

 

 

This is a thorny point (at least for me), is it a 'mathematical theory' or a mathematical description of nature? Is the math the science? Or the theory? 

 

Measurement using math, is the verification tool of science. Math expressions are formal statements about the relationships of the behavior of the elements of a theory. The verification of a theory occurs when the measurements agree with predictions.

______________________________________________________________________

 

There is no human experience with anything 'infinite' within science. Measurement applies to finite objects with boundaries. It cannot apply to something without limits or boundaries.

[sluggo]

Consider all the radiation from stars throughout the universe. All but a tiny fraction passes by any planet. If a cubic meter of space contains a wide spectrum of radiation from diverse locations, it should be no surprise that it would interact with objects placed in 'empty' space, such as the Casimir effect. It could possibly explain random radioactive decay.

[Mutex]

Are you claiming the level of red shift is a function of gravitational strength from the individual galaxies?

 

Not all galaxies are red shifted.

 

How does your static universe deal with blue shifted galaxies > Andromeda for example ?? 

 

What are you proposing to explain away the CMBR? 

 

"It is estimated that the Milky-Way Galaxy itself moves at about 600 km/s when measured with respect to a Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) rest frame. The velocity of earth with respect to the CMB rest frame may be within a range of 400 km/s to 800 km/s."

 

 

 

 

Are you claiming the level of red shift is a function of gravitational strength from the individual galaxies?

 

Not all galaxies are red shifted.

 

How does your static universe deal with blue shifted galaxies > Andromeda for example ?? 

 

That's a great question, when Hubble observed a 'redshift with distance' relationship in his paper he described several reasons why you might have a progressive redshift with distance relationship, One was 'atomic motion' (doppler shift) and another was from memory "De Sitter effect or De sitter space". 

 

It's often explained today as something like 'climbing out of the gravitational well', (but with my space length there is no 'well' but the effect is correct all the same.

 

But saying 'De Sitter effect' or 'gravitational well' does not really explain anything, it's understood easiest if you diagram it out. But I will to do it with my words (yea, good luck with that!!!) 

 

It is Gravitational shift (or Einstein shift), and the fact that the Universe is loosely homogeneous and isotropic.

 

Again, if you diagram it out it is easier to see and I might try a pic later if I can.

 

I would use the term 'length' but for this argument you can interchange that with 'gravity' if you like (it's the same thing!).

 

We know how gravity shift works, for example if you had a simplified model with just the earth, an object with lower mass away from the earth (always assume no motion in this to eliminate doppler shift), then that object away from the earth will appear more blue the further away it is.

 

So the ISS appears more blue to us because of it's distance away from the earth, AND the earth will appear more redshifted to the ISS (we can measure this).

So that is a one sided redshift with distance relationship, the further away the ISS gets the more blue it gets and the more RED the earth gets. (redshift with distance).

 

However, that is one sided. If we introduce another earth (same mass) that shift will go away on the sides closest to each other, because each body is giving the same amount of its gravity (length) as the other body. In that case there is no shift observed regardless of distance.

 

BUT: If you instead look at the other object from the opposite side you get an asymmetry of contribution of gravity (length) from the local earth and the distant earth, this gives you a redshift with distance from both bodies. IF you are on the far side of earth A and you were observing the near side of earth B (through the earth), the contribution of gravity from earth A would be more than the contribution from earth B (more than if you are on the near side of earth A). This gives you the asymmetry.

 

This is because there is more mass between yourself and the points you are observing (the asymmetry). This is the 'atomic size' I believe Hubble was referring too (back in the day when Relativity was new and still trying to be understood, but it is about the size of matter (due to the length of space it is in)) 'De Sitter effect'.

 

That example is just with two identical earths, but the model works perfectly if the universe is perfectly homogeneous and isotropic as well, if all the bodies were equally spaced apart and has the same mass (and no relative motion, to ignore Doppler shift), the mass surrounding you contribute more to your gravity (length/size) than the mass further away (a gravity 'well'). But that local mass also contributes to the distant object (but to a far lesser degree, due to distance).

 

So in that perfect Universe, there would be a very clear relationship between redshift and distance, but it's not just redshift, close objects contribute more to your size (gravity), and there are more close objects than your object (earth/galaxy). That means that as well as a redshift with distance you also get a blue shift with closeness (you are sharing more of the local well). 

 

So yes, you get more red as you get further way (both directions), and closer objects appear 'smaller' to you because they contribute more to how big you are (they give you more local gravity). So in this perfect universe near objects will be blue to you and far objects will be redder as a function of distance. Close galaxies might appear blue to you.

 

The universe is not motionless, and not all bodies are evenly distributed and of equal mass, so accordingly the fit is very poor (as is well know, the plot is all over the place, Hubble had to reject many observations because they did not even come close). 

 

So this is a well know, and understood effect, that we can even observe in a high rise building, that accounts for an observed redshift with distance and a blue shift with closeness.

But we also have objects of different mass (not all galaxies are the same mass or size), and we have a dynamic universe, the difference in mass values will makes less massive galaxies appear more blue (due to lower mass) and high mass galaxies will be more red so that contributes to the loose fit.

 

Stuff is also moving around, so yes, there is also Doppler shift to mask and confuse the issue! So is Andromeda blue because it is moving towards us, or because it is smaller (less mass) OR because it is close? Or all three? !

 

Again, this is much easier to understand if you diagram it out and plot it with some basic numbers but it is about the local and remote contribution of 'gravity' (length/size) of the body you observe and the asymmetry that gives you.

 

So this is something we know about, we can test and analyse, it is a known effect, this explains why near objects might be blue shifted and why distant objects will appear more red as a function of distance. 

 

This does not require an expanding universe or new and unknown and untested physics, that means there is other established mechanisms for redshift with distance that does not require a big bang. 

 

So for me at least, this is the falsifying argument that refutes (destroys) big bang cosmology, if you don't need a big bang to get redshift/distance but you can get redshift/distance by a known and tested mechanism then the major pillar of the big bang collapses. (again, I will diagram it out and post it when I can)..

 

CMBR: This is the easy one!

 

Cosmic MATTER Background Radiation!

 

The universe if full of matter, typically referred to as 'cosmic dust', but it's just matter, micro meteors, hydrogen, water, lots of 'dust', the earth gets about 20,000 tons of this stuff a year falling on it.

All this matter is at a very uniform temperature (relatively speaking) and everything with a temperature radiates 'radiation', the earth is flying through clouds of it (and collecting 20,000 tones a year of it). That is called 'local dust', but local or remote it's everywhere.

 

This is what we observe as the CMBR: Now the usual argument I would get now is "what about BAO", and I would respond that BAO is just slight variations due to the direction of observation creating slight temperature variations (from another galaxy), that is why there is a correspondence between BAO and remote objects (galaxies).

 

CMBR researchers have been trying for years to find a unique signature in the CMBR that would show that the CMBR could ONLY come from a big bang event, but as of now that unique signature has not been discovered or observed. 

As far as we know all we see is radiation from cosmic dust.

 

You should read up on BICEP2, they predicted that light from the BB would have a unique signature from Faraday Rotation and if that prediction turned out to be correct those scientists would be Nobel prize winners for sure.

 

We'll they conducted and BICEP2 observations (South pole I think), and THEY FOUND THAT SIGNATURE!!! Yes, that's right big bang confirmed sit back and wait for the Nobel.

 

They did the observations and analysed the data and they got something like 5 sigma confidence, turns out they got it wrong, it turns out they were just looking at local cosmic dust! No Nobel for them. (sorry I'm being a bit facetious). 

 

There are other problems with the CMB coming from the BB and not just the result of cosmic dust, you can google "Axis of evil (cosmology)" and you will see that here are variations in the CMB as a function of our position around the SUN! (almost as if we are flying through a huge cloud of it).

 

 

Some anomalies in the background radiation have been reported which are aligned with the plane of the Solar System

 

Apart from that 'Axis of evil' I have issue with the observation of Doppler shift with the CMB, how can we have relative motion towards or away from the BIG BANG? For me that implies we are moving through a cloud of local dust as opposed to moving through light from the big bang.

 

So the two main pillars that support the Big Bang arguments appear to be false. If you don't have expansion, and you don't have light from the BB then it's hard to argue FOR the BB. 

 

Lastly the BB is far too problematic, nothing makes sense, Big Bang cosmology is in crisis and it has been that way for as long as we have had the big bang model, nothing works, no predictions turn out to be correct even the CMB was predicted to be 50k, it turned out to be 2.7k.

 

If I predicted that it is going to be 50degC at your place tomorrow at 12:00 noon, and it turned out to be 2.7 Degrees C would you say my prediction was correct?

 

So from a pure scientific standpoint after an overall review of the progress and data regarding Big Bang Cosmology I see no sufficient evidence that supports the argument for a Big Bang event.

 

And it gets worse, the more closely and accurately we look the WORSE the problem gets, just look at the "Hubble constant problem", it's not constant! And the values we get DIVERGE with higher precision and accuracy. If the model is correct that values should converse... they don't.

 

Like everyone else, I was raised being told the BB definitely happened, I sort of accepted that 'on faith', So coming to the conclusion (for me) that the BB didn't happen is a difficult thing. (like working out god is not real for a religious person). 

But it is the only conclusion I can make, based on the available evidence.

 

So there you go, I'm a flat space lengther and an Big Bang denier!! That is 'the flatness problem' is absolutely expected and makes perfect sense (because space is flat, not curved or warped), and there is no sufficient, clear, evidence that means redshift and CMBR can only be the product from the Big Bang event, and from no other possible, proven and tested/observed cause. 

 

I could go full conspiracy theory and question the origins of the BB model, being proposed BEFORE Hubble observed redshift at all, (so Lemaitre) 4 years before Hubble's observations proposed the Big Bang WITH NO EVIDENCE to support it. (apart from a Bible passage, possibly). 

 

I wonder about the motive of an ordained priest who lectures in physics in his priest uniform proposing an 'in the beginning' moment with no evidence (pre-Hubble).

It is almost that he made a conclusion and then any observed effect is 'evidence' FOR the big bang. 

 

A theory needs to be falsifiable, as it stands any observation is explained in terms of the big bang, but to be falsifiable there needs to be room for a falsifying argument, and we have that argument from known, tested and established observations.

 

(Hubble did not believe in the big bang either!!!).. I agree  

 

Thanks for hanging in there.. I tend to dribble on a bit.. Thanks for your questions..