yes

History is recorded in scientific evidence

I think that the general understanding is that the Universe is about 13.8 GYr old. Big but not infinite.

Yes, dear Randy.

But this general understanding is outdated since Zwicky 1929.

He was proven true belatedly by the discovery of Cryodynamics, the sister discipline to detrministic Thermodynamics, that is valid for gases of mutually attractive 8rather than repulsive) particles.

I think you have to state a bit more than that to make your case. If the universe is infinitely old, how do you explain e.g. the cosmic background radiation?

Thank you for your important question.

The cosmic background radiation is the mean temperature of the infinite cosmos.

Randy Boddam: "I think that the general understanding is that the Universe is about 13.8 GYr old. Big but not infinite."

Maybe 13.8 G light years ist just the maximum distance of sight.

Theoretically, that would likely be true although I'm not aware of anything that has been seen quite that far back in time. isn't the age of the universe based upon the temperature of the cosmic microwave background radiation? I understand that this is based upon the inflationary model of the universe. Given the empiric agreement with the model what evidence is there that falsifies the model?

Dear Johan:

The "general understanding" is flawed for once.

Actually so for 91 years.

For Zwicky in 1929 already found the correct answer: No cosmic expansion.

He got unjustly ridiculed.

The fundamental science of Cryodynamics, sister of venerable Thermodynamics, eventually proved him correct.

No scientist in the world objects. Only many are still uninformed. But this is totally natural even though it is a great pity, right?

Cordial greetings to you,

Otto

Dear Otto

In what way is the general understanding flawed? It appears to agree with observations, for example.

cheers, randy

Dear Randy:

Thank you.

Zwicky found the correct explanation of the same facts that since are being tragically explained by a falsified paradigm. Which, by the way, is defended by no one -- only by a loud silence.

Cheers, Otto

Several lines of evidence indicate that the Universe has a finite age, and if so, it must also have a finite size; and in fact it must always have a finite age and size, no matter how old and large it gets, as each year that goes by increases its age and size, and although it may exist forever, forever is not the same as infinity (at least, not mathematically).

As far as the Cosmic Microwave Background is concerned, all that shows is that at one time the Universe was so dense that it was opaque, so we cannot see further than the distance at which the light that left it at that time is just now reaching us. Its variation in brightness and temperature matches exactly the predictions based on the presumption that it started off at zero size and as it grew (regardless of how it grew), quantum fluctuations in its original density caused the observed variations in brightness and temperature.

The actual value of its age must be between 13.5 and 14.5 billion years, based on various ways of estimating the way in which it has expanded, and the lifetimes of stars of various types. It might not be exactly 13.8 billion years, but whatever the value is it can't be far from that number, and is certainly nowhere near infinite. Any theory that proposes otherwise is certainly wrong, though proving why it is wrong to those who propose such theories is as hard as carving a block of marble by banging your head against it.

Incidentally, though I presume most of those posting here are more educated than the average individual, I should probably point out that the distance of any object seen at great distances is almost always mis-stated in the media. When something is said to be umpteen billion light-years away what is usually meant is that it took the light by which we currently see it that many years to reach us. At the time the light was emitted the object was closer, and for great distances, much closer than that number of light-years; and at the present time, the object is much further away now than that number of light-years, and in fact most of the objects that we see at great distances are now so far away that the space between us and them is cumulatively expanding at speeds far greater than the speed of light, so that we will never see them as they are now, which makes their current distances almost completely irrelevant (their distance when they emitted the light we see is relevant, because it allows us to estimate their size at that time). For more about that see my webpage, http://cseligman.com/text/galaxies/lighttravel.htm (Light Travel Times and Cosmic Distances).

In my eyes, you are "flying too low" across the landscape of current beliefs, dear Courtney,

Otto

Thank you, Andrea.

I hope that different studies can be helpful (fragments from articles).

-„the more we are distanced from the source of radiation, the lower are the temperatures.“

-„The author of the article discusses the following two or at the most three wholes (Multiverse,...), based on the decrease of temperature and radiation intensity with the increase of distance from the source, on the constant growth of gravitationally related systems, on systems behaving as a single object in attracting matter, inside the space in which the temperature is 0°K and the processes are still or extremely slow.“

-„in new evidence that in the whole volume of Universe there are gravitationally-bound objects (galaxies, clusters and superclusters of galaxies) „Using the Chandra and Hubble Space Telescopes we have now observed 72 collisions between galaxy clusters, including both ‘major’ and ‘minor’ mergers” ..

-If the most distant galaxies are at the same time the oldest, then the fastest were the galaxies in the far past, so-called protogalaxies – and that is opposite to the claim that Universe spreads ever faster. The next table shows that radiation incoming from the distances of more than 12 Gly from all directions of the volume of Universe are measured. ..

-If there was a Big Bang, all the waves from that time should be approaching from a single direction, as shown in the figure 2. If radiation started for the first time 320 000 – 380 000 years after the explosion, during the so-called period of clearing the compact thick mass, then that radiation is impossible to measure today, no matter what mathemathical method may be used in the process. The reason to it is that all galaxies are created inside that mass that started emitting radiation. ..

-It is necessary to determine real values of the influence of the radiation intensity weakening (with a constant and slow increase of speed of the distant galaxies in their orbits inside Universe) within the redshift value. ..“

Dear Weitter,

you did not explicitly address my question?

Take care,

Otto

Jan. 25, 2020

Dear Otto,

You said, " Is there empirical Evidence that the Cosmos is infinitely old and large?"

Firstly, We must define "Empirical Evidence"

Definition of empirical ( https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empirical)

1: originating in or based on observation or experience empirical data

2: relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theoryan empirical basis for the theory

3: capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment empirical laws

4: of or relating to empiricism

Definition of infinitely ( https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infinitely )

: to an infinite or seemingly infinite extent or degree

OLD and Large? You are playing another Zwicky joke on them. It is not fair. You are so funni. I enjoy these conversations. You are asking a qualitative question, and others assume it is quantitative.

I am the observer; therefore the Universe is OLD, and Infinite, relative to me, the observer.

I think on the serious side, you are referring to cyclic deep-time, but what are we comparing it to? The proposed big bang which violates the first law of thermodynamics, and ignores cryodynamics all together?

We do not know the complete and total mass of the universe so, we must use cyclic time to categorize the time between events of interest. You would love the paper I am working on... too bad I sit at home, with no school or teacher to share it with. I told Jarvis about Herodotus. Herodotus was the first I could find who would display time-resolved research to make unambiguous observations per unit of time, the unit of course, being defined as one event of interest to the next, or "cyclic-time"... it seems maybe the geological time scale takes this into account somewhat.

This question you ask, is unit-less, as qualitative understanding would emphasize the fact that, a bacteria cell could replicate in 10 minutes, or feedback of having a baby could take 13 hours, or every 12 years there is a climate anomaly... it is just an observation from one moment of interest to another moment you think is correlated. The variables and quantitative observations support the qualitative theory... but you place the appropriate unit of time on the event based on your personal understanding of what that unit represents... don't get me on the issue of the metric system. I am still mad about that Apollo that blew up thanks to American Ego...

The truth is that, you did not exist, so could not observe, and so, that is the point of science... to build the system, understand the trend, then postulate the before and after, yes?

How is my logic? I am still working on it... I will keep trying. I am still stuck on Einstein 1902 you know. The more you tell me NO! The faster I learn, so please feel free to hack it up into 70 little bits. Unless you meant the Cosmos Flower, then I am at a loss, I loose.

Kindest Regards,

Orana Rose

1/25/2020

Definition of cosmos ( https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cosmos )

1a: UNIVERSE sense

1b(1): an orderly harmonious systematic universe— compare CHAOS

(2): ORDER, HARMONY

The Cosmos - the harmony within the system - is defined by which that

"Energy cannot be create, nor destroyed, only transformed"

Otto, in cyclic deep-time... I am curious, is the universe moving towards equilibrium or towards chaos? Our Solar System has experienced adequate accretion and moves towards equilibrium... so does our Sun. Our Solar System is a system within the Cosmos though... so... well, now you have done it. I dont know what phase it is in. Now I am frustrated.

We still do not know the total mass, so no way can we place "Years" on it. I think this is a complete waste of time, for me to try at least. What if we treat the Cosmos like Climate and start with 3 categories? Forcings, feedbacks, and tipping points! I like it. This is how I am structuring my current paper. What do you think?

Thank you.

Orana Rose

Deir Otto,

The answer was a question (title). True, the angle of observation is beyond the standard framework and your directing the direction of the debate. I observe all the processes in space at the same time and within the entire volume. Sorry.

http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/journal/paperinfo?journalid=301&doi=10.11648/j.ajaa.20180603.13 of 2.3. Gravitationally Bound Objects

https://bircu-journal.com/index.php/birex/article/view/704/pdf of 3. Comoving distance- light travel distance

All the best.

Dear Otto

I wonder if you can provide evidence (that is, specific articles, research) that demonstrates the failure of current paradigms?

cheers, randy

Thank you, dear Randy, for your important question.

I have in the first place one big paper on the new fundamental science of Cryodynamics which entails the new paradigm:

Chapter A Primer for Deterministic Thermodynamics and Cryodynamics

:

As an astronomer would change how far he or she chooses to look into the cosmos, he or she would definitely find distinctive patterns, with differing ranges. For example, more stars within a certain range closer to earth, would appear to have a well-defined solar system. Whereas the farther out the astronomer looks, the more uniform the universe tends to be, stars are less likely to have planets around them. Then, even farther, stars don't even have rings around them, the odds of finding a nebula with no clear orbital shape or direction (although a future one may be predictable by the average momentum of the system) increases the farther the astronomer looks out. The defined galaxies become less abundant in the astronomer's field of view and the giant gas clusters between the galaxies become more common. The farthest reaches of our observation indicate the universe approaches uniformity the farther we look. The farther we look, the farther back in time we are seeing. It seems unlikely that the universe is infinitely old given the observable circumstances. As the universe approaches visible uniformity, it doesn't make sense that the laws of nature could have been acting on those bodies forever.

Quote:

"It seems unlikely that the universe is infinitely old":

Why do you says so, dear Nolan?

Why do you rule out Zwicky's in the meantime proven-true theory of the gravitational-interaction-caused cosmological redshift?

I know, everybody does so. But you may have a special reason.

I am asking because I rediscovered Zwicky's mechanism of 1929.

Thank you for your opinion.

Thank you, Otto, for the link. I will take a look at it. Does your theory of cryodynamics account for Hubble flow?

It rules out the so-called Hubble flow, dear Randy,

Otto

As to the main question:

There exist ultra-weak X-ray sources equi-distributed across the sky. Exactly the evidence required.

Historically, the hypothesis that the universe is infinitely large and old was proposed by Giordano Bruno (1548-1600) and resulted in his execution on the grounds that an infinitely old universe cannot have been created by god, and an infinitely large one would leave no room for paradise.

This hypothesis is easy to disprove, by the fact that it becomes dark at night (Olber's paradox after Heinrich Wilhelm Matthias Olbers, 1758-1840). If the universe were infinitely large, it would contain an infinite number of stars, producing an infinite amount of light. Thus, day and night would be equally bright. Absorption of light is no explanation: any substance that absorbs light for an infinite amount of time would eventually start to glow itself, because of the first law of thermodynamics. Thus, it is impossible that the universe is at the same time infinitely large and old.

Zwicky 1929 was proven correct by the new fundamental science of Cryodynamics, sister of the determinitc Thermodynamics as discovered by Yakov Sinai.

There is no counter-argument visible anywhere.

100 years old is 100 years old.

„Thermodynamics is applicable at all temperatures despite its hot name as is wellknown. So is cryodynamics in spite of its cold name. The difference lies only in the numerical sign of the inter-particle potential. While thermodynamics is based on (short-range) repulsion between the gas particles, cryodynamics is based on (longrange) attraction. Since thermodynamics still works when the repulsive inter-particle potential is made long-range (anti-Newtonian) [5], cryodynamics with its long-range attractive Newtonian (or post-Newtonian) potentials is a genuine dual to thermodynamics, arrived at after a 150 years long delay.

Cryodynamics, like thermodynamics, admits an entropy-like macroscopic observable which differs from the latter’s Sackur-Tetrode deterministic entropy formula (see [6]) only by a sign flip. This new macro observable can be called “ectropy.” While entropy is spontaneously increasing or constant in deterministic statistical thermodynamics, ectropy is spontaneously increasing or constant in deterministic statistical cryodynamics. Time’s arrow is inverted. Apart from the sky, cryodynamics possesses also an applied domain down on earth: Hotter electrons can be used in principle to locally cool-down a run-away plasma instability in a hot-fusion reactor [7].

The main implication of cryodynamics, however, concerns cosmology. In retrospect it is not surprising that when cryodynamics was first intuitively envisioned by Zwicky in 1929 [8] it was met with ridicule as “tired light theory.” This response from the part of the community prevented Zwicky from making his intuition formally consistent. The at first similarly naïve re-discovery of the idea of an intergalactic cooling of photons 74 years later [9] was initially met with silence.

At this point, the reader no doubt asks for numerical evidence. After all, a huge number of numerical simulations of multi-particle celestial mechanical systems have been performed during the last two thirds of a century. If Zwicky’s brainchild were for real, the phenomenon ought to be well-known empirically. No “anti-entropic” effects were observed. Only in 2010 quite recently, positive numerical evidence was found in a high-accuracy symplectic two-particle simulation in a formally onedimensional T-tube configuration [10]. An independent analytical confirmation also exists [11]. The evidence so far points to the interpretation that, unlike statistical thermodynamics, statistical cryodynamics is numerically unstable.

Recently a mathematical proof of cryodynamics (smoothed inverted Sinai paradigm, cf. Sinai [12]) was offered: the “breathing plane-tree alley paradigm” [13]. A first textbook on cryodynamics in the footsteps of Richard Becker’s classic introductory treatise on deterministic thermodynamics [14] waits to be written.“

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-319-10759-2_15

Engelbert Buxbaum: "any substance that absorbs light for an infinite amount of time would eventually start to glow itself"

It probably will glow at lower temperatures than the primary sources.

Dear Weitter:

I am deeply impressed by your masterly account.

Otto

March 23, 2020

Amy Johnson

Giordano Bruno. Mit einer Einführung herausgegebene Texte ( z.T. neu übersetzt von Elisabeth Samsonow ) = PHILOSOPHIE JETZT!, hg.v. P.Sloterdijk, Diederichs Verlag München 1995, pbk 1996

Dear Otto,

„Not long ago, we didn't know galaxies existed, until recently we didn't know about galaxy clusters.“

„Their existence was first postulated by George Abell in his 1958 Abell catalogue of galaxy clusters.“

„They are the largest known gravitationally bound structures in the universe and were believed to be the largest known structures in the universe until the 1980s, when superclusters were discovered.“

„Andromeda is not the only galaxy to be moving towards us. With the help of galaxy surveys, astronomers have found that around 100 galaxies are moving towards us.“

„the distance for z 1,26, 127 and z 7,085 is the same; z 1,413 to 6,07 is smaller

1 Lynx Supercluster...............1,26, 1,27..................12 900

2 Twin Quasar...........................1,413.......................8 700

3 XMMXCS_2215-1738.............1,45.......................10 000

4 Einstein Cross........................1,695........................8 000

5 3C9........................................2,0194.....................10 000

6 TON 618................................2,219.......................10 400

7 EQ J100054+023435.............4,547......................12 200

8 SDSS J0303-0019...................6, 07......................12 881

9 ULAS J1120+0641..................7,085.....................12 900 etc.“

100 years old is 100 years old.

Johan K. Fremerey : True, but the temperature would approach that of the primary source asymptotically over time, at least as long as the amount of radiation send out is smaller than that received. Over infinite times, you would expect an equilibrium to develop.

Engelbert Buxbaum: "the temperature would approach that of the primary source asymptotically over time"

When primary radiation sources are placed at rather large mutual distances and are embedded in a dissipative medium I expect that line of sight is substantially limited (maybe around 14 Gly) and dissipative medium will stay at rather low equilibrium temperatures (maybe around 3 K).

Thanks Amy.

Science still exists today (not just in the past), using equipment and new evidence that scientists could not have dreamed of 100 years ago.

It is not fair to them, to ignore today's evidence and to remember only the past days.

"This is not something we set out to find, but we can't make it go away," Kashlinsky said The clusters appear to be moving along a line extending from our solar system toward Centaurus / Hydra, ") (2010. NASA) [14], "The clusters show a small but measurable velocity that is independent of the universe's expansion and does not change as distances increase, "says lead researcher Alexander Kashlinsky at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. "We never expected to find anything like this." (2008. NASA) [15]

It is impossible to register the blueshift directly (or, the approaching of galaxies) above 70 Mly, but new research activities point out that 200 000 of galaxies merge or collide.(2019. W. J. Pearson et al. https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/abs/2019/11/aa36337-19/aa36337-19.html ) [8]

What is merger and collision if not the blueshift between objects?“

Johan K. Fremerey : Not over infinite times, the second law of thermodynamics should prevent that.

Engelbert Buxbaum : The second law of thermodynamics just requires dynamic equilibrium between components within a closed system. In interstellar space star illumination is rather weak so that interstellar media will stay at low equilibrium temperatures. Planet Earth under relatively strong Sun irradiation will never reach temperatures and surface brightness of our Sun, and equilibrium surface temperature on planet Neptun is even below 60K.

Thank you, Munaf.

Johan K. Fremerey : You are looking at a finite number of radiation sources, producing a finite amount of radiation. The Bruno-model however requires an infinite number of sources producing an infinite amount of radiation, over an infinite amount of time. I'm also not sure about the relative effect of temperature of the secondary body on photon number and their wavelength.

Engelbert Buxbaum: "The Bruno-model however requires an infinite number of sources"

That number will be essentially limted with range of radiation.

yes

History is recorded in scientific evidence

Yes, energy can only be transformed, not created, nor destroyed. Do you see light? Do you see stars? Even soil is a time-dependent process.

Love is like light, boundless, transcending all time and space; more-so, matter within the cosmos is immeasurable as the Generalized Theory of Relativity is a generalization, describing the natural state of observable matter, but fails to describe the total and complete cosmological system, nor the possibility of boundaries describing the space energy transforms within.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Thoughts_about_Einsteins_1907_adventure_into_public_demise

Oxford Dictionary says the definition of infinite is: very great; impossible to measure; without limits; without end... infinity is boundless. Have we observed the cosmological boundary? The chaos of the cosmos is as infinite as love.

I took a break... I am too curious. It is like an itch you can’t scratch, you know?

Orana Rose

Dear Orana,

Love is hot, cosmos is a very cold place.