Any infinite does not have inside/outside, thus nothing would exist to call it THE UNIVERSE. The universe must have limit to place over several hundred billions of the galaxies in moderate distance and place several billions of solar system like our in small space of each galaxy. Not mention the Universe must be a complete well organized to makes all its large elements such as several trillion of it planets, moon, and star sphere, and its smallest elements such ATOM, and any liquid like drop of water sphere anywhere it its space.

https://www.academia.edu/44751646/Solar_System

Javad Fardaei > "The universe must have limit to place over several hundred billions of the galaxies in moderate distance ..."

Whence cometh this "knowledge" other then from pure imagination and fantasies and like NASA and official physics, from the utter ignorance and no understanding of the term "The Infinite"?

"The Infinite - As a Hegelian Philosophical Category and Its Implication for Modern Theoretical Natural Science" :

Article The Infinite - As a Hegelian Philosophical Category and Its ...

No further response from me for such "gem of wisdom and knowledge"; the infinite universe can live on without such gems!

Abdul Malek

It is fine, all of my comments are unambiguous empirical evidence, yet all are unprecedented as well to this date. To be honest Personally I am disagree with all of our icons prior to 1950 . The article Hegelian philosophy is not science to follow, it is just for ignorance to follow.

The meaning of Infinite read this eyeopener article of mine, and find any error.

We are Not in 1800s.

https://www.academia.edu/38185474/Infinite_is_Relative_2_doc

Extracts from comment in another forum:

[Abdul Malek added an answer

1 hour ago

Valentyn Nastasenko > "“The universe is neither eternal nor infinite. And Olbers' paradox confirms this”.

I am very well aware that as far as the Infinite go; the whole range metaphysics (causality and formal logic)-based conventional wisdom (of “scientists” – relativists, anti-relativists, philosophers, priests etc.) will be up in arms against the dialectical view. Giordano Bruno was roasted on the Stake alive for this. The MIT physicist Max Tegmark wants to “retire” the word “infinite” from scientific vocabulary! So. I am not surprised at your and other’s reaction to this question!

But you have to know the reasons put forward in favour of the dialectical view of the Infinite and feel the fun (about what JWST is now finding!) in the posted videos in the introduction of my question; before you can loudly crow about your wisdom and say anything rational about the Infinite. Ignorance, lack of “thinking thought” and dogmatism about the dialectical view of the Infinite is behind the stupidity from the medieval past to the present JWST enterprise! It will continue until metaphysics (theology included) as the ruling epistemology is totally discredited and I hope it is not too far in the future before this is realized. We already see cracks in this ruling system and the more efforts is put to prop it up, the faster the cracks will multiply. JWST is one such effort!

The primitive Olbers’ paradox, like Zeno’s paradox is based on metaphysics, scholasticism and the faulty logic of causality, certainty, determinism, (omnipotent, omniscient) God etc.; without any scientific understanding of the issues related to the notions of "extension" and "motion". If “motion” is a certainly now, then infinite extension is also a certainty. The recognition of the quantum phenomena now abolished those primitive paradoxes, but not for our honourable metaphysical "physicists"!

According to official physics itself, there is only 4.6% matter (so-called dark matter/energy have no EM radiation) which can form stars to produce EM radiation source, and only a fraction of normal matter can be in stars at any time to radiate energy. In addition, the stars born and die. EM radiation has a finite velocity etc. So, now you can figure out whether Olbers’ paradox has any meaning or not.

The root of all this Big Bang Creation of a finite universe; dark/black cosmic monsters, ad nauseum, lies in the defective theories of gravity of Newton and Einstein. Newtonian gravity (The Free Fall of Galileo) is valid only on or near the surface of a celestial body; but beyond (in empty space) gravity for a test body is a contradiction of both attraction and repulsion – the reason why, none of the fantasies of modern official physics and cosmology can have any reality. If you can refute my published claims on the theories of Newton and Einstein; then possibly you can claim the validity of your and official science’s metaphysics.]

We must be careful not to confuse spatial extent with age. Nobody knows if space is finite or infinite.

Our observations are however bounded in the past by the microwave background. That came from an era when the contents of the universe were dense enough to be completely opaque so that provides an observational bound. We also know that the universe in the early period contained a proportion of neutral hydrogen, that gives us the Lyman Alpha Forest and the Gunn-Peterson Trough. UV radiation from the first stars ionised that neutral gas making it transparent so there must have been an earlier period when there were no stars for it to exist. The temperature variation we see in the CMB gives us an approximate range for that time, between 30 million and 130 million years after the CMB was released.

One of the key aims of JWST is to see a sample of those first stars to form. The universe itself might be eternal (if eternal inflation is valid) but the stars are certainly not and it is those that we seek to measure.

Is the day of reckoning for official astrophysics and "Big Bang" cosmology is at hand already?

"Is James Webb Telescope Shattering The Big Bang Theory?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHnuHPjWbmY

AM: "Is James Webb Telescope Shattering The Big Bang Theory?"

No.

https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/has-jwst-disproven-big-bang/

Ethan does not know one Abdul Malek (Like Dr. Dishman, does!); only spouting ignorance of objective reality! For dialectics, there is no one-way process, no separate beginning or end, no "Big Bang" creation, no "Back Holes", no black/dark Cosmic Monsters. These are old-theology and mathematics driven Fairy Tales - a continuation of medieval theology and Ptolemaic cosmology!

The universe is infinite, eternal and ever-changing; mediated by blind chance but an iron necessity, which is inherent in chance itself! In addition to the references cited above in the introduction; there are many more, busting official cosmology. Some more recent, as well as old ones that people around the world are paying attention to!

Book DIALECTICS NOT METAPHYSICS OF NATURE: FROM THE QUANTUM TO THE COSMIC

"Quō Vādis Theoretical Physics and Cosmology? From Newton's Metaphysics to Einstein's Theology!" : Article Quō Vādis Theoretical Physics and Cosmology? From Newton's M...

"Ambartsumian, Arp and the Breeding Galaxies" :

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V12NO2PDF/V12N2MAL.pdf

"The Limits of Mathematics" Special Issue 64 / April 2019

http://www.e-journal.org.uk/shape/papers/Special%2064.pdf

"Physics Cooked-up in the Brain" :

https://www.muzsik.org/blog/2021/04/physics-cooked-up-in-ones-brain/

"Einstein's Ghost" :

http://maydaybookstore.blogspot.com/2017/12/thephilosophy-of-space-time-whence-come.html

Dear Abdul Malek,

AM: For dialectics, there is no one-way process, no separate beginning or end, no "Big Bang" creation, no "Back Holes" ...

Then "dialectics" is observationally proven to be wrong. Without a time when matter was hot and dense and filled the universe at uniform density, quite unlike the present state, there would be no CMB, but the CMB exists. That is why philosophy has been superseded by science, it just kept making errors.

Black holes are known to exist, from Cygnus X-1 first found in the 1970's to the supermassive versions in M87 and our own galaxy recently imaged.

AM: The universe is infinite, eternal ...

It may be, but it is also expanding as proven by Hubble and Goldhaber (plus many more threads of evidence) and the amount of matter in the observable portion of universe is constant.

Dear George Dishman,

The space-time of the universe has two parts: the time like and the space like.Both are differentiated with the speed of light.If we ignore the space like part then,the universe should be finite.Unfortunately ,we have not yet studied the effect of the space part on the time like part.

Regards

George Dishman : Please read the links, before you claim anything. In response to your latest comment, I can only say, what I just said to another person in another RG forum: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is-the-modern-approach-to-cosmology-fundamentally-flawed/1052

[2 hours ago

Hans Gennow> "Did Your Engels predict that?"

You can predict something only if it follows from strict determinism. But nothing in our experience, except in the narrow range of classical mechanics and even then, in a very crude way (and at human level) follows determinism! If your theory can predict the future, you can be a fortune-teller. But this an illusion of determinism. Nothing in our experience not to speak of any aspect of the universe is deterministic.

You can predict the future course of an event or process, only if you know the exact initial conditions of the event and the process. But it is only a foolish illusion of theology or a deceptive claim of modern theoretical physics that the world is a 100% necessity created by all-knowing God or 100% chance of all-knowing and infallible mathematics! But both God and mathematics are the creations of fallible human mind like your one, Sir!

Albert Einstein made predictions based on his theories of relativity (but not from his quantum theory of photo-electrons!) because he believed in both kinds of determinism; “Everything is determined…by forces over which we have no control. It is determined for the insect as well as for the star. Human beings, vegetables, or cosmic dust—we all dance to a mysterious tune, intoned in the distance by an invisible piper.” —Albert Einstein --- Quoted in interview by G.S. Viereck , October 26,1929. Reprinted in “Glimpses of the Great”,1930.

If you think Einstein was right, only then you can claim that your theory and its prediction is right. But of course, official physics is “proving” Einstein’s theories for more than 100 years and every single test proved his theories “with flying colours”! I am not sure they would do the same with your theories.

Dialectics (Engels) humbly admits that it cannot make any prediction and can only try to know the past or the events that has already happened, because; for dialectics everything (without any exception) in the world is mediated by chance and necessity, so no tangible prediction is possible; there is no creation, no separate beginning or end in this eternal, infinite and ever-changing universe, no absolute truth, no absolute determinism. These are all creations of human mind and mathematics.

Hegel’s famous owl of Minerva defines the position of dialectics: “Philosophy, as the thought of the world, does not appear until reality has completed its formative process, and made itself ready. History thus corroborates the teaching of the conception that only in the maturity of reality does the ideal appear as counterpart to the real, apprehends the real world in its substance, and shapes it into an intellectual kingdom. When philosophy paints its grey in grey, one form of life has become old, and by means of grey it cannot be rejuvenated, but only known. The owl of Minerva takes its flight only when the shades of night are gathering.”]

Dear Ramesh Chandra,

Since 1908, we have known that we cannot treat time and space separately, physics acts within a spacetime manifold which is only partitioned into space versus time in relation to a specific local frame. Einstein's General Relativity operates on the combination.

Dear Abdul Malek,

GD: Without a time when matter was hot and dense and filled the universe at uniform density, quite unlike the present state, there would be no CMB, but the CMB exists.

AM: I can only say, what I just said to another person in another RG forum: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is-the-modern-approach-to-cosmology-fundamentally-flawed/1052

I looked at your link but it doesn't even mention the CMB.

AM: You can predict something only if it follows from strict determinism.

In this case we are not discussing a prediction but an observed fact. The CMB was originally predicted but has been observed directly for decades now. The image obtained by the Planck mission is attached.

Dear George Dishman :

Abdul Malek: "Dialectics Not Metaphysics Of Nature: From The Quantum To The Cosmic":

https://www.amazon.de/dp/B0BF5W9Q1N?asin=B0BF5W9Q1N&revisionId=9ebf1d7b&format=1&depth=1

Abdul Malek: "Ambartsumian, Arp and the Breeding Galaxies":

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V12NO2PDF/V12N2MAL.pdf

Eric Lerner "The Big Bang Never Happened--The Science of the Censored Papers".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlFpq49Ri8Y

"Panic and Censorship in Cosmology: JWST and the Fusion Energy Connection,"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKdsJcRsULM

Paul Steinhardt - "Time to Take the ‘Big Bang’ out of the Big Bang Theory"?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7-HNi2ne44

JWST was supposed to "Seal the Deal" for Einstein's theories of relativity and "Big Bang Cosmology" of Big/Black/Dark Cosmic Monsters. But unfortunately, for official Physics; JWST is bringing more and more bitter fruits as shown in my comment above. I will keep on posting more and more in this forum as new information become available:

"The Big Bang is dead. How long will it take to realize that it has died? A comparison to the greatest 2000 year long science failure of our past."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7zRrqqbc9c

Abdul Malek, I am not interested in the propaganda of people who have long been discredited, the CMB exists and that proved the Big Bang model, it "sealed the deal" as you put it. The first detailed observation was by COBE in the early 1990s and later WMAP then Planck confirmed and further enhanced the data.

https://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/cobe/

JWST is also confirming the model, don't be fooled by the sensational headlines that are only intended to sell newspapers.

"The first detailed observation was by COBE in the early 1990s"

A thorough rebuttal of COBE, termed "superb" by Halton (Chip) Arp, was done long ago! CMBR is the zero-point energy in an infinite, eternal and ever-changing universe, mandated by QED and the uncertainty principle!

"Ambartsumian, Arp and the Breeding Galaxies" :

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V12NO2PDF/V12N2MAL.pdf

"The Cosmic Gamma-Ray Halo – New Imperative for a Dialectical Perspective of the Universe" :

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V10NO2PDF/V10N2MAL.pdf

'Naff said!

Dear Abdul Malek,

AM: A thorough rebuttal of COBE, termed "superb" by Halton (Chip) Arp ...

As I said, I am not interested in the nonsense of Arp, he was a good astronomer originally but went off the rails in later life. The same but more detailed results were confirmed by the two subsequent missions so the COBE results have been independently confirmed twice with much more modern technology.

AM: CMBR is the zero-point energy ...

The CMB cannot be distributed in space because it would give the wrong spectrum, it must come from a narrow range of distance. That must be more distant than the earliest galaxy we can see because the source material would be opaque.

“…We must be careful not to confuse spatial extent with age…”

- that is, of course, so, however not because of

“…. Nobody knows if space is finite or infinite.….”

- nobody knows if space is finite or infinite only in the mainstream philosophy and sciences, including physics, because of in the mainstream all really fundamental phenomena/notions, first of all in this case “Matter”– and so everything in Matter, i.e. “particles”, “fields”, etc., “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”, are fundamentally completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational and so in every case, when some authors address to some phenomenon/notion above, the result completely obligatorily logically is nothing else than some transcendent, in better case illusory, mental constructions.

As, say, that

“…Since 1908, we have known that we cannot treat time and space separately, physics acts within a spacetime manifold which is only partitioned into space versus time in relation to a specific local frame. Einstein's General Relativity operates on the combination.….”

- really, as that is rigorously scientifically follows from the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s “The Information as Absolute” conception

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363645560_The_Information_as_Absolute_-_2022_ed

where the fundamental phenomena/notions above are rigorously scientifically defined, and from the informational physical model, which is based on the conception,

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics

- “Space” and “Time” are absolutely fundamental phenomena/notions, which are absolutely independent; so the actualizations of these phenomena in concrete cases are the concrete spacetimes of concrete informational patterns/systems, where the space and time dimensions are absolutely independent, and are completely for sure infinite by the scientific definitions of “Space” and “Time”.

So really the Matter’s spacetime is the fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, [5]4D spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z,ct), where are the really (1+3) space dimensions with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z), and ct is the time dimension.

That is another thing, that because of the action of indeed extremely mighty Galileo-Poincaré relativity principle humans till now don’t observe the absolute motion in 3D space, and really use the space cτ-dimension as the time dimension, and all space dimensions are fundamentally mutually independent, just so the Matter’s spacetime is “Cartesian”.

The “1908” postulate in the standard till now in mainstream physics SR, where the authors of the SR illusory absolutized the action of the relativity principle up to scientifically incorrect absolute level, is fundamentally wrong, and that indeed further enhanced in the GR postulates,

- whereas the Matter’s spacetime fundamentally cannot be “contracted”, “dilated”, “curved”, etc., in the spacetime only mathematically real intervals between points are, and fundamentally cannot be some mathematically imaginary “space-like intervals”, etc.

More see the links.

Cheers

Dear all

Let’s look at this topic from a research perspective and research based thought.

For many decades we have seen that in academic research peer review has played an important role to filter questionable research. While the system has its own shortcomings.

Peer review system is so important that it is called the gate keeping of science (Paltridge, 2017; Hames, 2007; Forsberg and others, 2022). And indeed it is. But academic resources on this important topic (peer review) are so scarce (in comparison with other related topics).

More important in the era of Mis/Disinformation in virtual worlds is “post peer review”. If we have a look at sites such as Retraction Watch we see that how effective post peer review has been for retraction of published papers, because of misconducts and frauds (we can call them whistleblowers of science).

• James Webb, and Hubble telescopes, etc.
• For NASA claims we lack both. Neither PRE nor POST peer review . Let me explain it. One of the topics that we are not sure what to do with, how to deal with, how to test, examine, repeat, ask for expertise, get real unbiased scientific information, provable by peers, accessibility of the real, first-hand, unchanged data, is those released by NASA. Not only James Webb, and Hubble telescopes data/info/findings/images… but also too many other related topics surrounding UNIVERSE, COSMOS, or whatever we call it. It is simple that one of the most basic and fundamental characteristics of academic research is replicability. For years we have had also this topic on replicability in research, called “replicability crisis in science”. Researching this crisis from two different viewpoints, one, not enough data to do so by peers and also hard or almost impossible to accurately replicate. The peer review and “post peer review” systems have power, because they can test, examine, review, replicate and experience. About NASA claims, what powers reviewers have? Independently Replicate what? test what? experience what? Are there anyone to PEER review, data and info provided, and disseminated by NASA? Who has access to first raw data? Are they accessible to all? After all the entire system of science has been effective as it does not work according to "TRUST" , but contrary. Verification and Validation.
• There are too many other scientific clues and signs that we have to be very cautious about. To be short the “so called scientific claims, and findings” that cannot have or receive INDIPENDENT, Real, unbiased and Expert peer review, should be dealt with concerns.
• Let’s see how this discussion will move forward and then we can go more in to details.

References

Paltridge, Brian. The Discourse of Peer Review: Reviewing Submissions to Academic Journals. United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2017.

Peer Review in an Era of Evaluation: Understanding the Practice of Gatekeeping in Academia. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, 2022.

Hames, Irene. Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific Journals: Guidelines for Good Practice. United Kingdom: Wiley, 2007.

Also there are some ongoing discussions in RG surrounding issues about the gray or dark sides of science and research. I kindly refer you to these following links

• https://www.researchgate.net/post/Should_Editors_publish_in_the_journals_they_edit_Rights_and_Wrongs
• https://www.researchgate.net/post/Bibliometrics_Scientometrics_and_the_like_are_more_harmful_than_useful_in_styles_and_methods_that_are_practiced_now
• https://www.researchgate.net/post/As_depicted_in_the_picture_can_these_be_considered_plagiarism
• https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_you_submit_your_articles_to_the_journal_where_your_supervisor_is_the_Editor-in-chief
• https://www.researchgate.net/post/Questionable_but_yet_powerful_phenomena_in_scientific_journals_even_top_ones_is_I_publish_where_I_edit_Obviously_we_can_not_ask_them_why_and_how

Article Citation In INSPIRE:

https://inspirehep.net/authors/2158755

About INSPIRE

• Created March 4, 2020
• Author Stella Christodoulaki
• Category General Information

INSPIRE (http://inspirehep.net/) is a trusted community hub that helps researchers to share and find accurate scholarly information in high energy physics.

It serves as a one-stop information platform for HEP community, comprising 8 interlinked databases on literature, conferences, institutions, journals, researchers, experiments, jobs and data. Run in collaboration by CERN, DESY, Fermilab, IHEP, IN2P3, and SLAC, it has been serving the scientific community for almost 50 years. Previously known as SPIRES, it was the first website outside Europe and the first database on the web. Close interaction with the user community and with arXiv, ADS, HEPData, ORCID, PDG and publishers is the backbone of INSPIRE’s evolution.

What should happen now?

Now that the cloak of ideal mathematics the Emperor was wearing to hide his nakedness is pulled off; and his lead charlatan followers and devotees who were trying to put patches and “proofs” on that cloak to hide this nakedness, for more than hundred years are now scurrying around like rats, in the ruins of the Emperor’s “Castle in the Air”; what should happen to them now!

What should happen to the high priests who consciously or unconsciously propagated, advocated and spread around the Gospel and the innocent millions who were trained as priests and are training others to be priests; in the Churches – aka colleges and universities around the world?

What should happen to the centuries long accumulating mountain of books, journals, “scholarly” discourse etc. ad nauseum? We do not have a David Hume to demand to “Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion”!

“The Mystery of the Lorentz Transform: A Reconstruction and Its Implications for Einstein's Theories of Relativity and cosmology” : INSPIRE>HEP: https://inspirehep.net/literature/2158754)

"KEPLER -NEWTON -LEIBNIZ -HEGEL Portentous and Conflicting Legacies in Theoretical Physics, Cosmology and in Ruling Ideas"

Article KEPLER -NEWTON -LEIBNIZ -HEGEL Portentous and Conflicting Le...

"Gravity – An Intrinsic Property of Matter! A Qualitative Graviton-Orbital-Band Theory" :

Article Gravity – An Intrinsic Property of Matter! A Qualitative Gra...