Strange

Just as an aside, the big bang model doesn’t say (or care) if the universe is finite or infinite. If that is what the evidence says, yes. And I really don’t understand your difficulty with that.

Only if people forget or don’t understand that the analogy is only with the surface of the balloon. The inside of the balloon doesn’t exist in the analogy. Someone did suggest that the radius of the balloon could represent time. But I think that is just confusing.

So, as I said before, it sounds like you are talking about the permittivity of space changing as space expands. It might be intuitive or obvious (to you) that this should happen but the evidence suggests otherwise. As for the “why”, that is more of a metaphysical question.

The "value of the field" depends on the charge and the distance. There is no reason expansion of the universe will change this (other than increasing the distance).

Also, the technique of interferometry allows differences of less than the wavelength of light to be measured. And by searching for patterns using correlation we can find signals that are below the noise level. Haven’t heard anything specific but I think I saw a comment that there are lots of candidates that are being checked.

I'm not sure what you man by "overall field strength". But, obviously, the strength at any given distance falls off with the square of distance. It makes no difference whether that is because you are moving away or because space is expanding. It is purely a function of distance. Again, not sure what you man by "overall field strength". But, obviously, we do see a decrease in the gravitational force holding things together as distance increases. (Inverse square law again.) And that is why the fate of the universe is (partly) determined by the overall density. So if the density is high enough, we would expect gravity to slow expansion and then reverse it. If it is not high enough, then expansion will continue indefinitely. The picture is complicated now by the fact that there appears to be something causing the expansion to accelerate. You seem to be suggesting that this is because we need to change the way gravity works ("weakening the overall field strength" presumably). There have been, and are, many attempts to modify the way gravity works to explain this but none, so far, work (in the sense of fitting all the evidence). The recent neutron star merger observation also rules out many such theories as they predict that gravitational waves and light would travel at different speeds. They don't.

The spectrum (levels of different frequencies) does not match the radiation from galaxies (even if red shifted). It does match the spectrum expected from a uniformly heated plasma - ie. a black body spectrum. Exactly as predicted by the B.B. model.

Oh no! What is it about engineers and their need to try and tackle physics problems that are over their head!? But he is an absolute legend in VLSI design.

I will try and unpick some of this, but it is so ... incoherent (to put it politely) it is quite hard to formulate questions or criticisms. But first, a general question: what evidence is there for any of this, or is it a complete work of imagination? And, related to that, what would falsify this idea; in other words, what would prove it wrong? I'm not sure why you mention this. It doesn't seem relevant to your idea and is a concept that comes from an existing (and very successful) theory of gravity. What evidence is there that this is a push rather than a pull? What problems does this solve? Note that in GR, where the idea of 4D space-time comes from, it is neither a push or a pull. So you are contradicting both Newtonian gravity and GR. That is quite ambitious as both of these have been extensively tested. Can you make any quantitive (mathematical) predictions that match those of Newton and GR (ie. reality). Do you mean electrical polarity; ie. charge? If so, there are multiple reasons this cannot be the case. For example, not all particles have charge, but are still affected by gravity. What evidence is there for this "anti-spacetime" and for it being full of antimatter? How do you account for the fact that we have observed black holes with many times the mass of our Sun. We have not seen any with the mass of a planet (and have no reason to think black holes of that size exist). Why are there not roughly as many black holes as there are planets? Why are black holes so small if they are just "imprints" of a "normal" planet in the anti-verse. How does this work, exactly? For example, things are "pulled" towards the Earth in all directions. If you want to replace this with a push, then that push needs to come from all directions (equally). What is the source of the push from every location above the Earth? Why does it push towards the Earth? Why does the force increase as you approach Earth; after all, it should decrease as it gets further from the source of the push? Why can we block electric force but we can't block gravity? If it were an electric force, then we should be able to block it. Why does it affect things that are electrically neutral, if it is an electric force? Why does it always push and never pull? Why does it affect things equally even if they have a positive or a negative electric charge? Why is gravity proportional to mass and not electric charge? Presumably because you thought of it and haven't challenged it critically.

There is still quite a bit of research but so far very little evidence that it exists. As a result not much of the research gets reported. If it continues to not produce any results, then I expect the number of people doing research on it will continue to decrease. There are a couple of companies claiming to have working systems based on cold fusion. At least one appears to be pretty close to fraudulent (no names, just in case ...)

fify:)

And that is why you can’t treat it as Doppler shift.

I don't see why we should have to assume either of this things. Do you need to assume them if geometry is Euclidean (as we used to think)? It turns out that the geometry of space and time measurements is non-Euclidean. I don't see why that implies a medium of some sort.

I would say that what is being curved is the geometry; a mathematical description of how our measurements of time and distance relate to one another.

GR tells use the relationship between mass-energy and the curvature of space-time. You seem to reclaiming it is wrong.

Are you just going to keep posting irrelevant comments or are you going to answer the questions asked of you?

That wasn't the point. But never mind.

Same reason you can't measure the size of a virus with a metre rule. Or see the galaxy GN-z11 with a pair of binoculars. Because some of them a bigger than others. If you hang a small weight from a couple of centimetres of thread to make a pendulum, it probably won't detect the Earth's rotation.

And here we go again. Have you calculated how large these effect are?

No. If that were true then we (viewing things from perspective 1) would not know about the others. But we do, so we can see that those other paths exist. The fact that we feel as if we are stationary when sitting in a chair is irrelevant. We can still observe our rotation around the Earth and the Earth's movement around the galaxy. You seem to be confusing the existence of different frames of reference with what can be known from each frame of reference. For example, to right back to the basics of Galillean relativity (which is trivially true) if you are in a ship on a flat sea (or, nowadays, in outer space) and see a another ship passing in the opposite direction you don't know if you are stationary and they are passing you and vice versa. (And in fact, there is no difference.) However, you both know each others speed and course as seen from your own frames of reference. And if one, or both of you, were on a curved path, you would be able to see that as well. And, furthermore, you would know if your pay was curved (because of things that can be measured, like the Coriolis force).

Not really. The person experiencing the Coriolis force knows they are not longer travelling in a straight line, because a force is acting on them. The "external" observer knows they are not travelling in a straight line but for a different reason: there is no force, but they are moving in a rotating frame of reference.

Please show the mathematics that supports this claim. And now you have gone from asking questions to proposing an alternative to GR and standard cosmology, perhaps this should be moved to the Speculations forum.

By that argument, the fact that we see satellites in orbit around the Earth means they must have been there, rather than us launching them from Earth. In other words, the current stable relationship says nothing, necessarily, about the past history. It doesn't require a collision. A near miss can change the direction of an object. And a number of small interactions over many orbits can cause an object to be ejected from an apparently stable orbit. And if that body then moves past another at the right sort of distance and speed then it may enter a new orbit. It can be fast and close, or slow and distant, so there is no "magic number" for it to happen.

Perhaps you are thinking of the vacuum permittivity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_permittivity This is sortof a measure of how much effect the electric field has in empty space. It is part of the 'k' in the equation swansont posted above. But there is no reason to think that this will change because the distance between things has changed. And, the evidence suggests that physical constants had the same values in the past (or they all changed together in some implausible way so that the end result was identical). No.

And you can always do that (and that Studiots' example) or you can consider a constant volume (my example). The expanding universe only affects this if you decide to use a coordinate system that expands. But again, your choice. There is nothing inherent in the field that can weaken. The only thing that matters is the charge and the distance. If the strength of the electromagnetic interaction had changed we would see evidence of that when we look at distant galaxies. Everything we see suggests physics in the past was the same as today. You can change the charge generating the field or the dimensions. The force decrease with distance (with an inverse square law). If you increase the distance, then the force decreases (with an inverse square law).