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

[Flummoxed]

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). 

 

'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. 

 

I'm assuming your are talking about the Casimir effect when you talk about 'full of quantum fluctuations', I don't buy that argument, it's an interesting effect but I don't accept the conclusion that the effect is caused by quantum particles or fluctuations popping into existance and applying a force to the metal plates. I see the effect to be simply electric and magnetic forces between the charges present on the metal plates causing the observed attraction.

 

I was trying to say earlier that the 'box' of our universe has no bounds, so nothing (space length and nothing else) could be infinite, the universe could be infinite in extent, and if populated with matter that matter could also be infinite. But it is possible to have a finite amount of matter in an infinite universe of nothing but space.

 

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? 

My argument against math being the science/nature is that if you get infinities from the math it is going to be the math that is misapplied or applied as an 'ideal' (abstract). 

 

As for dimensions of space and the 0th dimension, you have to ask yourself what qualifies as a spatial dimension and a time dimension?

In that subject I have a different perspective of space and time that is a non-geometrical perspective.

 

but even with a geometrical perspective you need to consider (or I do) what is common between X,Y,Z and time X,Y,Z are directions, and a length and that length is an absolute (no negatives). SO I consider the common factor to be length (of space and of time), and due to the speed of light being constant (in all reference frames), that length property is the same (in any direction and in any time if geometrically treated). 

 

So my question would be what qualifies 0th dimension or higher dimensions as dimensions at all? do they have a direction and a length property? Do they have length properties such to keep c constant? Does a direction qualify as a dimension? if so would there not be an infinite number of them, far more than X,Y,Z 3 dimensions with is a minimal number of values to define a location (plus time for when to show up!). But there is no reason why could not go in any direction and define that direction as a dimension.

 

But for me, I see the model of space and time far more simply explained and understood that space is fundamentally a length property, and what is relative about relativity is the difference in the length property from the observed to the observer, and having little to do with the relative locations or paths between to two reference frames.

 

The only difficulty of this treatment (non-geometrical) is not intrenched the geometrical model is. (but it does save on 4D geometric calculus).. 

Now I think I'm way off topic, but thanks for the comments and post.

 

Denial of Quantum theory and the proven Casimir effect, is a wrong opinion to take in my opinion :). Perhaps you could argue the casimir effect away with van der vaals forces. The dynamic casimr effect can not be argued away in the same way. Dark energy and the expansion of the universe could be due to the energy of the vacuum of space. Quantum theory is at the basis of everything, which is made up of quantum fluctuations, supporting :) the vacuum of space.

Rambling

The expansion of space expands into what from what?. The need to define measurable dimensions x,y,z,time etc might not be a requirement for a 0th dimension. Why not undefinable, all points could be separated by 0 distance in a 0th dimension, like M theory perhaps. Likewise the need to define measurable mass might not be a requirement for a 0th dimension. A 0th dimension could be your "nothing" it is not definable within normal mathematical constraints.

 

Your explanation of space time based around the length property is intriguing:) ie I cant see anything wrong with it, which must be wrong :( what are the arguments against it?????????? Does a undefined dimension help your interpretation of relativity???????? (ie absorption of space in a direction along a path shrinking the distance between points, rather than moving between points (confused myself now)).  I am sure it is relative from an undefined location:)

[Vmedvil2]

Well my thoughts on this is in string theory the energy dimensions/curled dimensions expand from a 0th state to a dimensional state so maybe within the confines of this universe it is possible to expand something from a negative infinity to a finite size however these curled dimensions still occupy a plank length so technically they are not infinitely small, just very small, but still they decompress in such a way that seems like they are expanding from a zero(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compactification_(physics)).

Edited June 14, 2020 by VictorMedvil

[Flummoxed]

Well my thoughts on this is in string theory the energy dimensions/curled dimensions expand from a 0th state to a dimensional state so maybe within the confines of this universe it is possible to expand something from a negative infinity to a finite size however these curled dimensions still occupy a plank length so technically they are not infinitely small, just very small, but still they decompress in such a way that seems like they are expanding from a zero(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compactification_(physics)).

 

I am not keen on string theory, I cant think in 26 dimensions or 11 dimensions of M theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory

 

How do you define entanglement effects in string theory without a dimension that does not have space time restrictions or planck sized limits?

 

0th dimension perhaps undefined, as a building block which everything else unfolds from.?

[Vmedvil2]

I am not keen on string theory, I cant think in 26 dimensions or 11 dimensions of M theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory

 

How do you define entanglement effects in string theory without a dimension that does not have space time restrictions or planck sized limits?

 

0th dimension perhaps undefined, as a building block which everything else unfolds from.?

It explain it the same as Quantum Mechanics explains it, as a quantum effect, string theory does not have any additional insights into the entanglement phenomenon. The 0th Dimensions is the size of a planck length in string theory and is defined however everything can be compressed to a planck length such as in black holes the space dimensions are compressed to a planck length by gravity. It has a similar picture as general relativity but the dots on the plane are curled up dimensions as thing such as charge,Color, and flavor, which come from QFT.

 

 

String Theory(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calabi%E2%80%93Yau_manifold#:~:text=Calabi%E2%80%93Yau%20manifolds%20are%20important,have%20not%20yet%20been%20detected.)

 

General Relativity(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo-Riemannian_manifold#Lorentzian_manifold)

 

Special Relativity(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_space#:~:text=In%20mathematical%20physics%2C%20Minkowski%20space,in%20which%20they%20are%20recorded.)

 

The only real difference between each of the theories is the manifold that was used(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifold).

Edited June 14, 2020 by VictorMedvil

[Mutex]

Denial of Quantum theory and the proven Casimir effect, is a wrong opinion to take in my opinion :). Perhaps you could argue the casimir effect away with van der vaals forces. The dynamic casimr effect can not be argued away in the same way. Dark energy and the expansion of the universe could be due to the energy of the vacuum of space. Quantum theory is at the basis of everything, which is made up of quantum fluctuations, supporting :) the vacuum of space.

Rambling

The expansion of space expands into what from what?. The need to define measurable dimensions x,y,z,time etc might not be a requirement for a 0th dimension. Why not undefinable, all points could be separated by 0 distance in a 0th dimension, like M theory perhaps. Likewise the need to define measurable mass might not be a requirement for a 0th dimension. A 0th dimension could be your "nothing" it is not definable within normal mathematical constraints.

 

Your explanation of space time based around the length property is intriguing:) ie I cant see anything wrong with it, which must be wrong :( what are the arguments against it?????????? Does a undefined dimension help your interpretation of relativity???????? (ie absorption of space in a direction along a path shrinking the distance between points, rather than moving between points (confused myself now)).  I am sure it is relative from an undefined location:) 

 

 

 

Denial of Quantum theory and the proven Casimir effect, is a wrong opinion to take in my opinion :). Perhaps you could argue the casimir effect away with van der vaals forces. The dynamic casimr effect can not be argued away in the same way. Dark energy and the expansion of the universe could be due to the energy of the vacuum of space. Quantum theory is at the basis of everything, which is made up of quantum fluctuations, supporting :) the vacuum of space.

 

The effect is real, there is a force between the two metal plates that is a real effect, that the effect is the result of some quantum effects or fluctuations is for me at least not a convincing argument. The idea is that somehow the metal plates exclude 'space' so the gap between the plates is too close for the fluctuations to occur in.

 

If that is the case the effect should also be seem with non-conducting material instead of metal electrical conducting plates. So for it is fairly obvious that it is due to the close proximity of free electrons (loosely bound) and electric and magnetic fields creating eddy currents and electric fields that cause the plates to experience an attractive force. You are essentially creating a capacitor and there is no way you could design that experiment and keep those EM effects out of the picture (unless you use a non conductor such as a ceramic). I expect that as well as the magnetic and electric fields causing an attraction that you are also getting electron exchange where the electrons are ripped off one place and flow across the gap to the other place. 

 

Again, if the effect is due to quantum particles applying a force outside and not inside the gap that effect would also be apparent if you used glass or ceramic or some other non conductor.

 

It would also be a value field of exploration into the nature and frequency of these quantum particles, it would be a new branch of science, but I don't see that happening. That is why I say that the effect is real, but the reason for that effect or the conclusion that it is due to a quantum effect is incorrect.

 

If you can detect these quantum fluctuations by just putting two metal plates close to each other, then the detectors such as at CERN would be flooded with this energy and would overwhelm the detectors with noise. 

 

Science is not about picking a conclusion that supports your argument without every other possibility for the observed effect, as you pointed out with my length of space and time argument, it needs to be able to be falsified and you have to consider every other possible explanation, then you write a paper and ask your peers to also try their best to come up with reasons why you might be wrong. Than that is followed by a long process of trying to see if it could be in any way wrong.

 

So two things, why is the effect not being exploited to discover more about the nature of these quantum particles popping out of nowhere? By modifications and variations of the experiment? and 2) The scientific method is to continuously question conclusions and to try to come up with possible valid and testable alternatives to explain an observed effect. I do not think quantum particles from space vacuum fits well or could be 'the only possible mechanism' to give that effect. 

 

 

 

The expansion of space expands into what from what?. The need to define measurable dimensions x,y,z,time etc might not be a requirement for a 0th dimension. Why not undefinable, all points could be separated by 0 distance in a 0th dimension, like M theory perhaps. Likewise the need to define measurable mass might not be a requirement for a 0th dimension. A 0th dimension could be your "nothing" it is not definable within normal mathematical constraints.

 

I DON'T think space is expanding!!! There I have come out of the closet! I don't think the big bang went down the way it is claimed to have happened (or the many variants thereof).  But that just means that the evidence for the big bang is not sufficient and could be the result of other known effects. I am mainly talking about Hubble expansion and the CMBR here. 

 

As with the Casimir effect, I do not think the data strongly supports the conclusions (the big bang banged) and the data can be explained by other mechanisms that are well known and understood. I do not see any clear and unambiguous evidence that redshift with distance and background radiation can ONLY be the result of a big bang.

 

There is also a lot of evidence that the BB model is fundamentally flawed in its inability to make accurate predictions. But that is a separate subject and would be an interesting thread in its own right.

 

But IF the BB did happen and the universe is expanding (I guess it's possible!!!  ) Then the universe could still be infinite and go forever, but the length of space could be getting longer (as in my space length model), and that is kind of what the expanding universe model (or some of them) consider to be the case, possibly resulting in 'the big rip' scenario, where space gets so long that even protons and neutrons (and possibly electrons) decompose or rip apart. 

 

 

Your explanation of space time based around the length property is intriguing:) ie I cant see anything wrong with it, which must be wrong :( what are the arguments against it?????????? Does a undefined dimension help your interpretation of relativity???????? (ie absorption of space in a direction along a path shrinking the distance between points, rather than moving between points (confused myself now)).  I am sure it is relative from an undefined location:) 

 

I also think it is very intriguing and once you get it in your head it's really hard to think about it in any other way! I cant see anything wrong with it either, I can't really see any arguments against it, except what I sometimes hard from people who have not tried to grasp it (it's not hard but takes a different perspective) who just say 'space is warped'.

 

What I have done to try to disprove it is to compare the model to the 'tests of relativity', the experiments that confirm that relativity is correct, and see if the space length model fits the observations, it's a bottom up, first principles approach.

 

So I look at things like time dilation, gravitational lensing, Shapiro Delay, and 'dragging', and see if my model explains those observations, but additionally the model really neatly explains how GRAVITY actually works, in a simple and practical way, it explains orbits as well.

 

It explains the effects we observe, but it does it for me far more cleanly and simply than a relative position, warped space model. It really does need a thread of its own, and when I have enough courage I will try to explain it in more detail.. 

 

If you like I have a subreddit dedicated to it, and if you have some time I would invite you to check it out it's /r/SpaceTime_Relativity..

 

I want to create a thread for it here, but I want to first write it out in a clear and 'scientific method' type of way, and asking people to try to understand it but to question it. But it is conceptionally different to what we all learned. But I think I might be right!!

 

I think the universe fundamentally operates with some VERY SIMPLE rules, and matter matting space longer as opposed to matter curing space is very simple and explains what we see. Space is flat, just like we measure it to be.. 

 

 

Does a undefined dimension help your interpretation of relativity????????

 

The definition of 'dimension' does! X,Y,Z,t is useful if you have a party invite because its all the information you need, it's the time and the address (but does not tell you if it is fancy dress!). And that's the problem cosmological dimensions is just the address of a location of a 4D array of values. But it does not tell you anything about what is the property of that array location. What is happening at that address and why is what is happening at that location justified by that location relative to your own location (or reference frame)?

 

So for example: the center of the earth is 2.5 years 'younger' than the surface of the earth, and that time 'goes faster' on a GPS satellite atomic clock from General relativity due to its distance from the center of the earth. We observe this effect.

 

That is time is LONGER at the center of the earth and shorter on a GPS satellite, the center of the earth is 2.5 years younger (over the age of the earth), because a clock there would less longer seconds and the clock on a GPS satellite or on top of Everest would count more shorter seconds, at both locations the speed of light is the same, so the length of space HAS TO BE also longer at the center of the earth and shorter on top of Everest. 

 

The length of space varies relative to the amount of mass and the proximity to that mass, matter makes space longer and because space is longer the time we derive from that length of space (spacetime) is also made longer because of matter. Space (distance) derived time (spacetime) is an emergent property of the length of space, the length of space is a function of mass and distance. 

 

Gravity is the result of matter moving into a lower energy state by getting into the longest possible space length, it can do that with general relativity by grouping together and sharing space, or with special relativity by moving through that space length (over time, by velocity) such that it 'experiences' more/longer space over time.

 

If want to start a thread on this subject, but I would like to have some diagrams to help explain it first..

 

Thanks for your reply.

[Flummoxed]

It explain it the same as Quantum Mechanics explains it, as a quantum effect, string theory does not have any additional insights into the entanglement phenomenon. 

 

That is why I mentioned it :) 

[Flummoxed]

The effect is real, there is a force between the two metal plates that is a real effect, that the effect is the result of some quantum effects or fluctuations is for me at least not a convincing argument. The idea is that somehow the metal plates exclude 'space' so the gap between the plates is too close for the fluctuations to occur in.

 

If that is the case the effect should also be seem with non-conducting material instead of metal electrical conducting plates. So for it is fairly obvious that it is due to the close proximity of free electrons (loosely bound) and electric and magnetic fields creating eddy currents and electric fields that cause the plates to experience an attractive force. You are essentially creating a capacitor and there is no way you could design that experiment and keep those EM effects out of the picture (unless you use a non conductor such as a ceramic). I expect that as well as the magnetic and electric fields causing an attraction that you are also getting electron exchange where the electrons are ripped off one place and flow across the gap to the other place. 

 

 

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:)

[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).. 

[Flummoxed]

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.

 

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).. 

 

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."

[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..