How can the universe be infinite in size?

[proximity1]

 

Here it is: http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.1081 Click on PDF top right.

 

Thanks very much!

 

P.

 

By the way, (to all in general): from Wikipedia's site, "Metric Expansion of Space", section: "What is space expanding into?" , I read the following ( referenced to Peebles, P. J. E. (1993). Principles of Physical Cosmology. Princeton University Press. p. 73.)

 

 

 

"Over time, the space that makes up the universe is expanding. The words 'space' and 'universe', sometimes used interchangeably, have distinct meanings in this context. Here 'space' is a mathematical concept that stands for the three-dimensional manifold into which our respective positions are embedded while 'universe' refers to everything that exists including the matter and energy in space, the extra-dimensions that may be wrapped up in various strings, and the time through which various events take place. The expansion of space is in reference to this 3-D manifold only; that is, the description involves no structures such as extra dimensions or an exterior universe." (emphasis added)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space#What_space_is_the_universe_expanding_into.3F

 

 

I think that in light of the fact that many readers here are non-specialists like myself, it's important to set out (perhaps with an asterisk) some indication each time a commonsense term is used in a specialist's sense.

[proximity1]

 

Here it is: http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.1081 Click on PDF top right.

 

I've now had a chance to read

American Journal of Physics -- August 2009 -- Volume 77, Issue 8, pp. 688

"The kinematic origin of the cosmological redshift" by Emory F. Bunn and David W. Hogg

and I recommend it. It's very well-written--as it has to have been, or I shouldn't have been able to follow its line of reasoning. The article sets out what are to me compelling arguments against a view of the universe undergoing a space-expanding change of scale. This means I find myself squarely in the camp of those who share the interpretations presented and defended by Bunn and Hogg.

If I could, I'd shake each one's hand and offer my sincerest thanks for their efforts there.

Drs. Bunn and Hogg, though I have no expectation of ever meeting either of you, this non-expert reader says, 'Thank you, thank you very much for presenting what I should have liked to have argued if I'd had your knowledge of the material."

How are their theoretical opponents meeting their objections?, I wonder.

[Spyman]

I am on your side. I agree with you.

I simply linked to another thread where it seems that your (and my) point of vue is not considered as part of mainstream science.

Usually (Eddington aside) it is considered that there is an absolute dimension, that our meter stick does not change, that atoms have a size that do not change over time.

As you do, I prefer to consider everything relative: as you said, if the universe expands relative to us, that can also mean that we are shrinking relatively to the universe. That changes nothing.

 

But to quote AJB

 

And Swansont:

If you truly agree then why do you quibble about what other people have said in the past?

 

Individuals on public forums don't get to decide what is mainstream science or not, if we would make judgements depending on whats considered in various threads then clearly Big Bang is wrong, Relativity is false and the Moon landing was a fraud...

 

My post on the other hand included a quote from a reputed and famous scientist that was considered a top expert on the subject in his time, with a link so everyone can verify and check the source or read the context around his statement.

 

 

All our observations and measurements are made by our metersticks and equipments that are locally together with us, so clearly since our metersticks and equipment don't change and remain in their size relative us, we normally consider the Universe to be expanding relative us and not the other way around. But obviously that also means that we are shrinking relative the Universe.

 

 

I don't know why AJB and swansont said what they did, as I already have said in my previously post, if you want clarifications about their statements then you really should ask them and not me, I am not a mindreader.