Is the Universe Infinite?

The physicists talk about space

Like it was a thing with a body and face

It expands and contracts

(And these are the facts)

Yet no outline of it can be traced

--- Mike Huttner

O God, I could be bounded in a nutshell, and count myself a king of infinite space—were it not that I have bad dreams. 

---From Hamlet by Shakespeare

Infinite

Infinite comes from the word finite. Finite is a relation which describes objects . . . an adjective. Objects have limits or bounds. Finite is almost synonymous with form. All objects have this primal quality called form.  Form relates to what is bounded or contained from an immediate surrounding. All objects necessarily have form. And they are finite. Infinite means without bounds or limits, however strictly speaking infinite serves as an adjective, a modifier of objects. So here we have a linguistic contradiction, or an oxymoron as we say. An object without bounds or limits is impossible.

Concepts on the other hand lack this property called form. Two such concepts are Universe and space. Universe and space refer to a Concept Category. Universe and space have no boundaries or limits but we treat them as if they do anyway. In other words we reify them (convert a concept into an object) and we do this so as to name and consummate higher order abstractions via our brains.

Space refers to that which lacks form. Or we could define space as a static separation between objects, sort of similar to distance. Space has no limits or boundaries because we think space when we relate or compare two or more objects. Space is a brain-work! So we could also describe space as infinite, but strictly speaking this is rhetoric, because infinite is an adjective and space is not an object.

Universe also lacks form. Universe is a high order abstraction nesting together the notions of space and all existing objects (matter). What happened is one day a Greek or a Roman got bored. He related all the stars, and all the trees and the Earth, and all peoples and all animals, and all rocks, all things and space . . . then Eureka! He thought and named Universe or cosmos. Universe is an idea! But in modern times people started to treat Universe as if it were a finite object like a belly of a pregnant woman swelling. But if Universe is an object what contains space? More space? What is the edge of this object made out of and what is outside of it? And how does the belly swell? What object is constantly being added or created so that the belly can swell? And where does that come from?

These problems are easily solved by assuming a fundamental object that mediates light and gravity between all atoms. In this conception both the atoms and the fundamental object have form, are finite, and contain each other. Atoms contain the fundamental objects, and the fundamental objects contain atoms. They set limits or boundaries to one another. The fundamental object has form of itself. It is the finest form and has some singular qualities such as the ability to superpose, intersect or overlap up to a critical density exemplified when two protons collide. This fundamental object doesn't need human ideas such as space to retain its form. It simply is.  It acts and reacts in accord with Newton's Law. It is topologically invariant if you want. This fundamental object never increases in length, width or height. Its just there. It imparts form to the atoms (in other words the atoms derive their form from these fundamental objects).  This is something that space cannot possibly do. And these mediate light and gravity to and from all atoms, again a work which space cannot possibly do.  Concepts, such as space cannot possibly perform causal relations such as containment or impart form or serve as the nexus of gravity or radiation. We need a form, a finite object to do such things. And we need to brainstorm it's qualities.  This is what sanity calls for!The fundamental objects are like life lines beginning and ending on all protons and neutrons of the Universe and this might be the reason that the motion of the atomic 'central point' is so complex. . . If every single atom is always taking on a succession of locations(motion) then this would immediately influence every single other proton or neutron of the Universe. The proton or neutron has to constantly adjust itself or shift itself or reform itself to maintain its inherent connection to all others via the fundamental object which is probably thread-like. Its like hair.  Its not like these threads are ever going to literally annihilate or be created. They are always there, just impossible to detect individually unless there is a collision of protons where all these threads fight for a single location when the threads are all bunched and crunched together. . . hence the repulsion when protons and neutrons are .7 femtometers from each other.

One cannot possibly trace a beginning or an end to a proton or a neutron (or all H atoms) because the fundamental object that converge to impart form to a single proton or neutron . . . weave all protons and neutrons continuously. There is an underlying closed circle of this fundamental object. And this object is finite.

Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR)

Where does the CMBR fit into all this? We also need a source and mediator of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. Assuming all the atoms of the Universe are connected by these fundamental objects, they would eventually end at the most distant Hydrogen atoms located at the "edges of the Universe" so to speak. These Hydrogen Atoms, call them the Omega Atoms, would assume an exotic form. Their form would not be spherical as an H atom located in the Milky Way Galaxy, since they are not fed fundamental objects from all directions of the sky. They would perhaps assume a sort of shallow angled pyramidal form. In other words these Hydrogen atoms would only have a "line of sight" or direction inwards and not outwards. They would supply fundamental objects to each and every atom located within a sphere which they themselves form. And because of their exotic form, if follows they would behave in a different mode then your run of the mill H atom in the Milky Way.  Perhaps these would emit in exotic electron transitions in a consistent manner.  Following from form, there signals could be more frequent, as if from the surface of a star.  There is nothing dull or prosaic about these hypothesized atoms.  There is nothing like them in the Universe.  So with this basic idea I suggest there is no need to assume a fake black body.

Instead of a dense ball of Hydrogen fog that cools and is expanded by a concept (such as space, dark energy or whatever) we would have a thin fog of exotic H atoms, where all the fundamental objects which mediate light and gravity as well as constitute all the atoms . . . end in all directions.  There are no atoms beyond the Omega Atoms.  Consequently no light can pass this wall, since the nexus object which mediates light is not only inherent to all atoms, but also can only begin and end on all atoms.  Thus the idea that there is a "last scattering surface" is supplanted by simply hypothesizing these exotic Omega Atoms.

These Omega Atoms are more or less evenly distributed, encircling all the stars and galaxies. These could be in a plasma like state because of their exotic form.  They could be emitting in forbidden electron transitions, by way of the fundamental objects which all converge on the Planck Telescope or any other object of the Universe. The distances and density of these Omega Atoms would vary pending direction in the sky. There would still be redshift due to the exceedingly great lengths as well as nature of the unique fundamental objects interconnecting all atoms.  Along these great lengths of EM Rope, the signals are less and less frequent in the way to all atoms of the Universe, including the Omega Atoms on the opposite side.  And there would still be anisotropies.  Galaxies would still move toward and/or away from each other via inertia.

And some of these so called Omega Atoms may be there vibrating for trillions of years.  Who knows?  Atoms are separated at great distances, thus there is (and was) never a threat that they would all contract into a single ball since gravity is clearly a function of distance.  Due to the nature of these fundamental objects, constituting and interconnecting all atoms, gravity forcibly works in an inverse square regime. In terms of a graph there is a steep downward slope to Newton's equations. If stars or interstellar clouds are separated by great distances they will never mutually work enough pull to bring them together in a 'contraction'. It doesn't matter how large their masses are! The so called energy density thins out so to speak.  In terms of gravity, stars separated by great distances work each other as if they were single hydrogen atoms with a net tug of the lowest possible ratio, namely Big G. And this is balanced out by about the same from radially all other directions. Einstein never had to add a hypothetical cosmological constant to maintain equilibrium.  

With the Omega Atoms, perhaps every once in a while some are lead within the conceptual sphere of the stars and galaxies. They would reform from a sort of half spherical form to a full spherical form. And on the same token perhaps every once in a while a group of atoms within the Omega Sphere are pushed out by exotic stars or galaxies, so that they make their way out to help form it, thus becoming Omega Atoms and helping to form what we could call the Omega Wall.  If we mapped out the CMBR billions of years from now perhaps it would look a little different. The so called CMB structure on the maps would appear differently because of unpredictable shifts and reformations of the Omega Wall.  So I put forward this experiment.  13.8 billion years from now, launch another satellite and remeasure the CMBR.  Oops I forgot . . . we won't make it that long.

If you haven't yet noticed my suggestion is like turning the Big Bang concept on its head. Its like we are in an immense spherical wall of exotic H atoms and they supply the web of zillions of these fundamental objects along which the signals are conveyed.  And these converge on the satellites that study CMBR as well as all stars and galaxies, since all are interconnected, each to the other by a single fundamental object (an EM Rope).  So I don't think there is any need to question the validity of the CMBR data, or redshift. All that is needed is a purge and rethinking of basic ideas.

Conclusion

It is like Nietzsche said. We really ought to get over the seduction of words! Infinite is a "god word" Undefined, misunderstood, misconceived, misused, overused, abused, confused, reified, deified, mythologized, etc. Infinite is an ontological contradiction. An oxymoron. We could use it to describe concepts since all concepts lack bounds or limits, but this is cheating and missing the point. One day some guy was fooling around with prefixes and out comes rhetoric and poetry. The physicists from a few hundred years ago pick up on this and start messing around with this word without thinking things through.

Universe is just an high order abstraction. Just an idea. Universe nests together the notions of space and of matter. Its sort of a binary conceptual system used throughout history. Universe refers to a concept category and lacks the primary quality of all objects, namely, form. And Universe, let alone space cannot possibly impart causal relations or undergo change effects such as expand, contract, accelerate, perform, inform, and so on. 

The Principle of Explosion (Critical Thinking Fallacy)

My new favorite critical thinking fallacy.

"The principle of explosion (Latin: ex falso quodlibet, "from a falsehood, anything follows", or ex contradictione sequitur quodlibet, "from a contradiction, anything follows"), or the principle of Pseudo-Scotus, is the law of classical logic, intuitionistic logic and similar logical systems, according to which any statement can be proven from a contradiction. That is, once a contradiction has been asserted, any proposition (or its negation) can be inferred from it." (Wiki)

Abstract from Ex Contradictione Sequitir Quodlibet by Walter A. Carnielli , João Marcos

"We summarize here the main arguments, basic research lines, and results on the foundations of the logics of formal inconsistency. These involve, in particular, some classes of well-known paraconsistent systems. We also present their semantical interpretations by way of possible-translations semantics and their applications to human reasoning and machine reasoning. 1 1. Do we need to worry about inconsistency? Classical logic, as we all know, cannot survive contradictions. Among the principles that were gradually incorporated into the “properties of correct reasoning ” since Aristotle, the Principle of Pseudo-Scotus (PPS), also known since medieval times as ex contradictione sequitur quodlibet (and also called the Principle of Explosion by some contemporary logicians), states that in any theory exposed to the enzymatic character of a contradiction A and ÏA one can derive any other arbitrary sentence B, so that the theory would turn out to be trivial."

I think we should apply this one to Big-Bloated-Bang.  

Einstein's Telescope

Above is a picture used in the video from the link.

http://mentalfloss.com/article/62332/einsteins-telescope

All I see in this picture are two inverse square regimes! One inverse square regime originates in the star that goes supernova, and the other originates in the Earth. The only way to reasonably explain an inverse square regime for light is by assuming that all the atoms of the Universe are connected by a tense and rectilinear ray that mediates light. Why else would the rays spread out in a 1/distance squared??? (see: The Inverse Square Law of Light)

All the atoms of the three objects in this picture are already connected by an invisible, tense and rectilinear rays that signal light. When the star explodes these rays enacts signals and these are relayed or reflected by a set of atoms at the edges of the galaxy or of it's halo, rectinlinearly, or straight to the Earth or telescope stationed around Earth. The rays of light never bend, and little balls don't roll around space like in a roulette table. We don't need a concept called gravity, enacting a causal relation BEND on another concept called space which undergoes a change effect and then somehow influences rays of light in order to explain the signals of the star going supernova.

Proof is subjective. They say that this proves Einstein's explanation but to me this proves someone else's explanation.

Brainstorm On Neutrons

A few months ago I had this thought that the neutron must have a tiny charge. Even the standard model of particle physics predicts a tiny charge separation leading to a permanent electric dipole moment. But the value is well below sensitivity of experiments. And besides they say the net electric charge is zero, the net average. Whatever this all would mean in reality.

I think of a neutron as a baby hydrogen atom. A hydrogen atom and a neutron have about the same calculated mass.  But for some reason this baby neutron has not grown out its electron threads to lengths of 53 picometers and beyond.  Or perhaps it's electron threads have been crushed and shortened at the center of a star.  In some decays perhaps it gets a substantial feed of EM Ropes, which work to twist out the electron threads to greater lengths so they would align and superpose with the converging EM Ropes and thus actively charge, effectively making it like a hydrogen atom (which it always was), or in a figurative manner, an adult atom.

But anyway perhaps a neutron has tiny little loops of thread that emanate around a few picometers or maybe even on a fentometer scale. Maybe this is why they are able to fit through or even make pathways between and through some atoms, effectively falling on protons. These tiny loops of electron thread perhaps enable a neutron to sort of clamp onto a proton or cacoon the proton of an 'adult' atom so that they remain bound together rather strongly.

But when I had this thought I tried to find any sort of evidence or information that the neutron might have charge which to me means it has twisted out at least one set of threaded electron signals sideways from the crisscrossing convergence of EM Ropes.

I found this article:
http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1167106quotes:

"We have found that a neutron actually carries a negative charge at its inner and outer edges, but has a positive charge in between" said Gerald Miller, a University of Washington (Seattle) physics professor.

The idea that neutrons were actually composed of subatomic layers of charge that cancel to zero can be traced to speculation made in 1947 by Nobel laureate Enrico Fermi. However, Fermi speculated that neutrons had a positive charge at their core, which was offset by a negative charge on its outer surface. The uncertainty of his speculations, however, relegated them to historical footnotes not deemed worthy of including in textbooks.

"We believe this is a clear fact of nature that we didn't know before," said Miller. "It is significant because nobody realized this was the case until now."

Gaede on the Thread

Here is an excellent quote from Gaede's WGDE. It is extremely useful for conceptualizing Thread Theory. It's not easy at first because it is different:

In Thread Theory, the word light embodies both structural and behavioral aspects of a rope. Therefore, we have to specify whether we are alluding to an entity or to a signal, to the rope or its motion, to a noun or to a verb. Unlike in Classical and Quantum Mechanics where both waves and particles are outgoing mechanisms, in Thread Theory the rope does not travel from the Sun to the Earth. The rope already interconnects an atom in the Sun and an atom on Earth. The torque signal is the alleged ‘transverse wave’ or ‘particle’ that the mathematician believes ‘travels’ from one point to another. I put the word travel in quotes because actually this is an observer-related phenomenon. Each link of the rope actually rotates in place. Torsion is essentially a standing wave. Verify this yourself. Ask two people to hold the ends of a stretched out rope and to twist it. Has any link gone anywhere? Are the participants receiving any new links at their respective ends as the rope rotates? Only you – the lateral observer – can see waves. The rope as a whole and each link looks at itself and says that it is just twirling in place. Yet, despite that the rope twirls in place, the torque signal causes pressure on the surface of the electron shell where it ends. Torque a rope while someone holds the opposite end. Although the rope twirled in place, the other person feels a force. This phenomenon explains why light ‘travels as a wave’ and ‘arrives as a particle’. The pressure that Hertz and Lebedev (Ch. 3, § 2.4) observed in their experiments has to do with this attribute of the rope. It is this pressure that the mathematicians detect as a ‘particle’. The rope also differs from the wave and particle models of Quantum in that it necessarily ends in another atom. The mechanics believe that waves and particles travel to infinity if there is no atom present to absorb the ‘energy’. (Pages 198-199)

Professor Richard Muller on Gravity

Richard Muller, Professor of Physics, Berkley, California
Lecture 03: Gravity and Satellites
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdoU2YQJvOg

At 25:00 He says:

"What is the force of gravity on me? Well, its the pull of the Earth on my body. That is what we call the force of gravity. Newton figured out that the force of gravity is actually a force of attraction between mass. So, for example if you have the Earth, its a big mass here, and you have you, with your little mass here, that every atom of the Earth is pulling on every atom of you . . . you are also pulling on it. Ah you are pulling it up. You may say you don't have much mass, so you don't pull very much, but there are a lot of atoms here, and you are pulling on all of them. The amazing thing about gravity is that it goes RIGHT THROUGH THINGS; more effectively than even neutrinos. You are pulling, RIGHT NOW, on the atoms of the other side of the Earth. They're far away, so its not very strong, in fact your force of pull depends on the distance. The rule is given here. The force of pull is 1/r2, so we say the force of pull for gravity is a bunch of constants, G, mass of the first object, mass of the second object, divided by r2. . . . There is gravity between my two hands right now, the masses of first hand and second hand are kind of small, [not a lot of connections] when you plug in the constant here and so the force isn't very big. G is 6 * 10 to -7. But if you have enough fists and a whole Earth made of fists, then it all adds up. So we're being pulled in every which direction by ??? (he says gravity) and because the Earth is a sphere it feels as if, I mean the sideways forces cancel, that thing over there and over there are pulling me in opposite directions but they cancel each other. But the net effect is AS IF I am being pulled straight down.

Let me show you that again. Here is the Earth, here am I. Every bit of mass is pulling me in its own direction. These forces are weaker than these cause this is closer, its 1/r2, go twice as far away the force is 1/4, 100 times away 1/100the squared times, so most of the force is coming from nearby stuff and most of it is pulling me straight down. Now suppose the Earth is not a completely uniform sphere like this, and suppose there is a hole over here. What do we fill that hole with? Well we could fill it with vacuum (conceptually) but those don't really EXIST. Lets fill it with something light. Lets fill it with oil. Now look at the gravity on me. The rock over here is pulling me down this way, but the oil over here is pulling me, but not very much. They no longer cancel. So if I have a very accurate meter I can search for oil using the gravity anomaly."

The String Theorists

Every once in a while I like to see what madness the Stringers (those who adhere to String Theory) are up to. Today, at the book store I found them selling this mother called

The Shape of Inner Space: String Theory and the Geometry of the Universe's Inner Dimensions

Yeah. Well I started to cringe when I opened the cover to find:

SPACE/TIME

Time, time
why does it vanish?
All manner of things
what infinite variety.
Three thousand rivers
all from one source.
Time, space
mind, matter, reciprocal.
Time, time
it never returns.
Space, space
how much can it hold?
In constant motion
always in flux.
Black holes lurking
mysteries afoot.
Space and time
one without bounds.
Infinite, infinite
the secrets of the universe.
Inexhaustible, lovely
in every detail.
Measure time, measure space
no one can do it.
Watched through a straw
what’s to be learned has no end.

Shing-Tung Yau
Beijing, 2002

Cringe, cringe, cringe. Scratching your nails against the chalkboard couldn't make me cringe more than that piece of idolatry.

What else did I find? Of course, the author shamelessly preaching the nihilistic religion of Geometry with oodles of sugar. He even compared Euclid's writings to the Sacred Books of religion like the Bible. And of course he doted on himself and his colleagues, in subtle and not so subtle manner.

BUT, but, but that is not what I was looking for. You see I have this 'hypothesis' and it goes something like this. All geometers, seemed to have lacked any sort of healthy relationship with women in their time of undergraduate studies, thus they become fascinated with perverted ideas like curves. They say I have to practice what they call Science, and so I have to collect evidence in support of my hypothesis and then have it peer reviewed to make sure there are valid correlations (never mind about causation). Someday I'm hoping my hypothesis will be sanctified into a theory.

And lo and behold I didn't have to go far and Yau delivered for me. I have evidence!

p. X

I still recall the thrill I felt during my first year of graduate school, when—as a twenty-year-old fresh off the boat, so to speak— I was struck by the notion that gravity and curvature could be regarded as one and the same, as I’d already become fascinated with curved surfaces during my undergraduate years in Hong Kong. Something about these shapes appealed to me on a visceral level. I don’t know why, but I couldn’t stop thinking about them.

Fascinated with curved surfaces . . . visceral . . . something about these shapes appealing . . .

Um yeah. Not only are those Stringers mad, they are degenerate.