I take your point, that the universe exploding locally does not effect an infinite universe [or any universe that explosion occurs in], any more than a bomb in a field in france does not affect a farmer in china.
Things is, that explosion contained all matter/energy, so there was nothing else for it to be exploding it. It even contains its own ‘space’. Expansion then denotes that the entire mass in the universe is expanding!
Then it wasn’t “local”, was it.
all + in-the-singular-explosion + is-expanding = localised [energy pattern or information]. This is of the observable universe, and energy being conserved naturally means that there can only be ‘x’ amount of energy in the system. Ergo the observable + unknown value, would equal the whole amount of energy/mass in said system.
The universe may be infinite in origins or otherwise belong to an infinite reality, but the universe we see through the telescope is not an infinite one.
That is like saying that the Earth is flat “locally” merely because it was thought to be flat due to simple minded appearances.
That is not true. Who told you that?
… unless by “x” you mean “infinite”.
It is true that telescopes cannot see infinitely. That is one reason that science alone cannot testify to the size of the universe. It takes proper logic, philosophy, in order to prove what is beyond sight.
I think we must ask ourselves…who created the aether to exist? And if God, who created God?
How far must the aether span? I dont believe much of the bb myself, I believe in pulsing heart theory, galaxies entropy then swirl into a vortex and reform over and over.
THere is a deep spiritual emptiness when you ponder the utter meaninglessness of a vast universe filled with aether, but no reason for it being there. Aether is real, but who put it there. And if it was God, then who created God?
james
No if there were very large forces in the universe some reaching infinite power, they would nock the universe we can see off its blocks. It could be limited because as you suggest in the other thread on infinite universes, some things have their own limits, but that would also make the limits relative to one another local!
Maybe you can get a given set of relative things ~ a finite universe, and then you get another set and we can stretch that out across infinity. So each would have its own limits, and yet equally be an infinite universe [just a centred one]. ?
I don’t know how the limits are arrived at though!? There can be a myriad of attachments and patterns ~ fractals etc, which would denote a single infinite universe [the main point here].
If we could denote limits then there could be any number of universes, but if that has no limits then some would be denumerably massive and blow the others ways, and have peculiar characteristics incongruous with others.
_
I don’t know what that means. Nor do I understand what it would have to do with anything.
Right. There is no such thing , the universe is simply a bunch of tiny particles colliding that is all. No such thing as a large force.
The observable universe is all that can ever be seen though gravity can detect anything beyond that as it is universal and so
everything else interacts with it. And that is why dark energy is known to exist since it has the property of repulsive gravity
This is the strange phenomena specifically causing the space between galaxies to expand rather than space in general. Also
the universe is expanding beyond light speed and there will come a time when there will be no visible stars from the frame
of reference of Earth. Though it will no longer exist by then as it will have been atomised by the Sun after it goes red giant
Mmmmm… naaaa. 
indeed. …and it would help if people around here could at least philosophise from the perspective of observable truths. I don’t mind alt-theories, as long as they are adding rather than taking away, or just offering alternatives. its frustrating when no one’s on the same page even.
I also have no problem with alternative interpretations for that is what a philosophy forum should be about. But when scientific understanding
is casually dismissed for no reason at all it is somewhat disappointing to say the least. And especially by those who really ought to know better
“Dark-matter” is merely the accumulation of vastly distributed affectance, an independent gravity field floating in space. When that affectance buildup happens to be charged, there is an electric potential effect within such buildups, “dark-energy”. The charge potential between the clouds of affectance cause migration of the clouds and any matter present, both toward and away from other massive concentrations, depending on their overall charge and density.
There is no certain indication that any galaxies are actually spreading in any ordered direction, such as “expanding”. Some galaxies seem to not be moving at all. But the method for determining movement is highly speculative and completely indeterminate. The clouds of affectance alter the only light coming from such distant places and yield false indications as to what is really being seen.
Even the location of the galaxies being seen could possibly be far off in any direction. The color spectrum is changed such that red-shifting becomes more a measure of distance rather than movement. The attempt to identify gasses by color spectrum is almost pointless. It is truly a perfect analogy to the men in Socrates’ cave.
There is no reason for believing that the universe is expanding (never mind that fact that it is logically impossible to begin with).
Red shift is the standard methodology for measuring galaxies which are moving away
from our frame of reference. Though it is the space between them that is expanding
And the universe has been expanding ever since the Big Bang though not necessarily
exponentially so since the rate should have slowed down significantly after inflation
Except for the fact that it happens to be a presumptuous and erroneous method.
There was never a Big Bang.
My reasoning [proof] stating why the notion of affectance is false, is on my first post here…
Then so what was there instead
The physical universe is as eternal as its cause. It never began and it will never end.
Sure, because values aren’t limits eh!
and background radiation doesn’t exist, there is no expansion bla bla.
An infinite amount of stars would yield an infinite amount of light, and not the finite amount of light/energy there exists in the universe.
Not true at all. Light from that distance has gone through so much spatial affectance that it is no longer in the form of photons. It is too dispersed. And the CMB is merely the universe’s resonance.
As far as the red-shift confusion: