[Bored chemist]

I claim that as our current universe is infinite, then it was already infinite infinity time ago.

But we know that's wrong, by Olber's paradox.

[Bored chemist]

Somehow we must find a way how that observable matter/energy is added to the empty space.

There's a widely  known theory about that, you may have heard of it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

It has a number of interesting feature.
It agrees with all the known observations.
It does not break any of the laws of physics.

[Bored chemist]

As we can take out the observable matter from the space

We can't actually do that.
The uncertainty principle means it is impossible.

[Bored chemist]

The CMBR with its redshift of about 1100 means that we get it from objects that are drifting away from us at 1100 times the speed of light.

No, It shows that space has expanded about 1100 fold since that radiation was emitted.

You still have not got the hang of this.

It isn't that things are moving through space faster than light- that is impossible.
What is happening is that space is expanding.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 16:30:13
The CMBR with its redshift of about 1100 means that we get it from objects that are drifting away from us at 1100 times the speed of light.

No, It shows that space has expanded about 1100 fold since that radiation was emitted.

The space is fixed and it was fixed forever and ever.
Redshift is all about velocity of far away objects/galaxies and ONLY about velocity for those objects.
Our BBT scientists have decided to twist the real meaning of redshift in order to support their BBT imagination.
Therefore, the redshift doesn't give any indication about the expansion of the space itself.
Only the twisted mind of our scientists set the connection between the expansion of the space to the redshift of those far away objects.

I claim that as our current universe is infinite, then it was already infinite infinity time ago.

But we know that's wrong, by Olber's paradox.

No.

I have already explained why theory D overcomes on Olber's paradox.
The explanation is very simple:
When we observe an object with a redshift of 1 it means that this object is moving away from us at the speed of the light.
When we observe an object with a redshift of 13 it means that this object is moving away from us 13 times the speed of the light.
The redshift of the CMBR is about 1100.
That is an indication that we get radiation from a sphere of objects that are moving away from us at about 1100 the speed of light.
Hence, in any direction that we would look, there are infinite no of stars and galaxies.
However, as they are moving away from us at a velocity faster than the speed of light, there is a limit for how many stars/galaxies we can really see.
Therefore, as we only observe a finite number of stars/galaxies in our infinite universe Olber's paradox is not relevant.
On the other hand, that activity proves that at any location that we would be in that infinite universe we would get the same CMBR radiation, and therefore, we could think that we are located at the center on the universe (which is - incorrect).

As we can take out the observable matter from the space

We can't actually do that.
The uncertainty principle means it is impossible.

Well, no one is going to take out the observable matter from the space.
However, the matter is not part of the space itself.
Therefore, if theoretically we would take out all the observable matter from certain region of space we still stay with the VE at that region.

Vacuum energy is the property of the space itself.
https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2012/12/20/what-keeps-space-empty/
"Even a "perfect" vacuum would still hold vacuum energy, the Higgs field, and spacetime curvature."
Hence, Even if all the matter and energy could be removed and blocked out from a certain region of space, there would still be three things we could never remove according to Dr. Genz: (1) vacuum energy, (2) the Higgs field, and (3) spacetime curvature.
Hence, you can't just take the vacuum energy from the space as you take a star or a galaxy from the space as it is a property of the space itself.

[Kryptid]

Somehow we must find a way how that observable matter/energy is added to the empty space.

Do you know how?

[Bored chemist]

drifting away from us at 1100 times the speed of light.

You can not travel faster than light.

[Bored chemist]

There is no sense "explaining" how you avoid Olber's paradox by relying on things that travel faster than light, because nothing can.

But, even if you could, I already explained why it wouldn't work.

You say that the distant stars are moving away so fast that we can not see them.
But consider a speck of dust that is half way to that star.
It is surrounded by stars, so it will get hot.
Now consider a speck a tenth of the way to the distant star It is also surrounded by stars. \It will get hot.
And now consider that photon-photon scattering, while rare, does happen.
So you don't even need the dust.
The light itself will do the job.

That's the problem, once you have an infinite number of stars, any non-zero fraction of their light is still impossibly bright.

So there are two reasons why you are wrong about Olber's paradox.

[Bored chemist]

You can take all the observable matter from the space

Well, no one is going to take out the observable matter from the space.

You are getting very good at contradicting yourself.

Therefore, if theoretically we would take out all the observable matter from certain region of space we still stay with the VE at that region.

So what?
The question was not "what happens if you do something impossible with matter?"
The question was (and still is) "Where did the energy come from?".

Can you answer it?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

drifting away from us at 1100 times the speed of light.

You can not travel faster than light.

Yes you can.
Redshift is all about velocity and only about velocity.
When we observe an object with a redshift of 2 it means that this object is moving away from us at twice the speed of light.
This is real observation.
However, that observation contradicts the BBT rules.
Therefore, instead of setting the BBT in the garbage, our scientists have decided to set the real meaning of the redshift observation in the garbage/jail.
Hence, (as expected) they have twisted the meaning of the redshift by "normalized" it to meet the BBT rules.
Therefore, they have told the redshift that it can't just give us an indication for pure velocity as it should, but now it has to work according to the BBT RULES as it is the King of the Universe.
This is wrong.
You can't just twist the redshift observation just to meet your theory rules.
Therefore, you and all the 100,000 BBT scientists are totally wrong!
Far away objects at a different space-time can move away from us much faster than the speed of light and their redshift is a solid evidence/observation for that.
Hence, you must IMIDIATLY free the redshift observation from its current "normalize" garbage/jail location. Based on its real observation meaning (that the CMBR radiation is coming from objects that are moving away from us at almost 1100 the speed of light) you have to set your lovely BBT much deeper in the garbage.

[Bored chemist]

Yes you can.

Only in science fiction can you travel faster than light.
If your "theory" D required FTL travel then it's wrong.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Yes you can.

Only in science fiction can you travel faster than light.
If your "theory" D required FTL travel then it's wrong.

Only in your BBT fiction far away galaxies can't move away faster than the speed of light.
Please show the evidence (only real evidence) which confirms this imagination.
Do you confirm that redshift is all about velocity?
Do you agree that based on real science (without twisting it by the BBT rules), when the redshift is 1 it means a velocity of the speed of light?
If so, how could our scientists twist the real meaning of the redshift?

[Bored chemist]

Only in science fiction can you travel faster than light.

[Bored chemist]

Do you agree that based on real science (without twisting it by the BBT rules), when the redshift is 1 it means a velocity of the speed of light?

No, that's only an approximation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift#Doppler_effect

And, no matter what you may think, the experiments have been done and they show that your interpretation is wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ives%E2%80%93Stilwell_experiment

The universe does not agree with you, and you somehow thing it is because of 100,000 scientists.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Only in science fiction can you travel faster than light.

Well, do you agree with the following?
https://www.quora.com/If-nothing-is-faster-than-light-how-did-the-Big-Bang-happen-in-less-than-a-nanosecond
"At no point during the evolution of the universe did any object move faster than the vacuum speed of light at the object’s location.
However, in curved space-time, there is absolutely no rule that says that an object cannot be faster than light relative to a distant observer.
So even today, there are parts of the universe, which are inaccessible to us through observation, which (as far as we know) are moving faster than light relative to us. But that’s okay. They are not moving faster than light at their own location."
Therefore, Lorentz factor isn't applicable in curved space-time.
Based on that input, it is forbidden to use Lorenz factor that was developed for local space time on redshift that we get from far away space time.

[Bored chemist]

Do you realise that's talking about  expanding space?
It is completely at odds with your idea of

The space is fixed and it was fixed forever and ever.

So it hardly matters if I agree with it or not.

You don't agree with it.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Do you realise that's talking about  expanding space?
It is completely at odds with your idea of

The space is fixed and it was fixed forever and ever.

So it hardly matters if I agree with it or not.

You don't agree with it.

Do you realize that our scientists do not measure the space expansion but ONLY the galaxies expansion/velocities?
Theory D clearly covers that expansion.
Actually, there is quite high similarity between the movements of the galaxies in both theories.
In the BBT each space segment is expanding and expands/moves the galaxy with it.
Therefore, if due to the expansion of each space segment each galaxy (in each segment) is moving away at velocity x (with reference to the next segment), then after 10 space segments, due to the expansion the last galaxy velocity is 10 times x with reference to the first space segment.
Exactly in the same token, in theory D each space segment represents new generation of galaxy. Therefore, if the velocity of a galaxy in each space segment is x (with reference to its mother galaxy), then after 10 segments/generations the velocity of the far end galaxy is also 10 time x.

Therefore, if based on the BBT, galaxies at far away space-time can move faster than light, then due to theory D and based on the same token galaxies at far away space time can move faster than the speed of light.

[Bored chemist]

Theory D clearly covers that expansion.

Then why did you say

The space is fixed and it was fixed forever and ever.

Are you an idiot, or a  liar?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Theory D clearly covers that expansion.

Then why did you say

The space is fixed and it was fixed forever and ever.

Are you an idiot, or a  liar?

Don't you understand that there is no expansion in space in theory D, only expansion in the galaxies due to generation over generation activity?
So, the space is fixed.

[Bored chemist]

Exactly in the same token, in theory D each space segment represents new generation of galaxy. Therefore, if the velocity of a galaxy in each space segment is x (with reference to its mother galaxy), then after 10 segments/generations the velocity of the far end galaxy is also 10 time x.

If you imagine filming that, and then playing the film backwards you will see everything collapse to a point.
That's the basis of the BBT.
It's good to see you are starting to realise that you have been wrong all this time.