Thoughts on the Infinite Universe Theory, the Multiverse Theory, Blind Information, and related content.

We can imagine and postulate the existence of infinity through abstract thought, but this perception is not grounded or based upon reality in any observable sense.
 
Creative imagination allows us to remove and place ourselves outside of reality - through abstract thought. But we do not live in an abstract Universe. We live within a reality governed by laws and rules that are unchanging, fixed, and constant, though we are yet to understand them all.
 
If we considered a universe with a supposed infinite boundary, it would still require space to place and accommodate its expansion. Therefore this space must be created by a source outside, and not limited by the physics of our physical reality. If a source sits outside our physical reality, this means our physical reality is still finite, no matter the perceived "infinite" space as observed in our space time reality.
 
Since we can and have measured our observable Universe (14.26 gigaparsecs) it therefore has a limit, or a boundary which is finite. What sits outside our physical Universe is an entirely new plane of existence, not governed nor limited by our physical, observable reality. It is an existence which sits outside our finite Universe.
 
Addressing BBT, Inflation Theory, Hubbles Constant, Quantum Fluctuations Theory and Quantum Foam Theory - the cornerstones of Secular Creation.
 
The first law of thermodynamics, also known as Law of Conservation of Energy, states that energy cannot be created or destroyed in an isolated system. Since the Universe is an isolated system, how do proponents of the 'Big Bang Theory' (the current scientific consensus is that that universe “exploded” into existence about 13.7 billion years ago), harmonize this law of natural science, with their contradictory beliefs? Some have tried to harmonize this contradiction through quantum physics, leaning on quantum fluctuations theory, however, even at the subatomic level, partiki, quarks, protons, electrons and atoms already exist in their defined energy states, and cannot arise independently by naturalistic means.

This renders quantum physics as a means to explain the 'Big Bang Theory' dubious, at its very best, however, BBT does attempt to explain the singularity so lets address it.

BBT posits that a 'virtual particle' with a supposed energy level of 0 exploded into everything. Why does this virtual particle require an energy level of zero? Because if the 'virtual particle' which supposedly 'birthed' the universe (singularity) was to have ANY positive energy level, the 'virtual particle' would disappear back into the nothingness from which came, as it quickly as it formed, meaning that the entire universe would cease to exist as quickly as it was 'birthed', and the entire theory behind virtual particles would fall, or would have to be seriously reconsidered, and by all means reformulated.

So let's say the total energy of the universe is zero (as required by inflation theory to work), this being due to the 'positive' energy of a moving object, being offset by the 'negative' energy of 'gravity'.

If we were to accept this notion, we would have to completely ignore that objects with mass already have energy (even without movement), which is not offset or accounted for in the positive/negative = 0 energy universe theory.
 
So in consideration of this required energy level, when considering BBT creation, it is clear that one must start from a foundation of faith (0 energy level) with all that matter needing to be condensed in a single particle, before exploding and evolving into the universe (using Inflation Theory to address the uniformity and expanse of the universe, and Quantum Fluctuations Theory to address the irregularities, including how complex matter formed in the universe).

I hold that this position of expansion is based solely upon Hubbles Constant, or Redshift, and is the overriding factor for the (erroneous) belief in an expanding universe, while Inflation Theory and Quantum Fluctuations Theory are mathematical equations to 'solve' the initial speculative proposal, that the universe 'exploded/expanded' from a single point.
 
I counter that position by positing that Euclidean Geometry should be used to measure distances and variables in the universe, as Euclidean Space is used to describe the spatial part of the Universe, so it should be used as a constant across all cosmological fields.

Eric Lerner, Renato Falomo and Ricardo Scarpa applied the Tolman Test for surface brightness (SB) to identical objects at different cosmological distances, using Euclidean Geometry. Adopting a Static Euclidean Universe (SEU), to measure the UV SB of luminous disk galaxies, (beginning with a linear Hubble relation at all z), resulted in showing that SB remains constant in a SEU model (it doesn't decrease, as expected in an expanding BBT universe).
 
Lorenzo Zaninetti has also shown that the Hubble Constant can be deduced from a SEU, without needing to rely on the spacetime curvature concept.
 
I also propose that redshift could simply be due to photons passing through plasma fields which affect their speed. C.D. Murphy and R. Trines own research supports the possibility of this, showing evidence of photon acceleration by laser wake fields.
 
Further, William Tifft and W. John Cocke discovered in the 1970's a 'quantization' or step length in the measured redshifts of galaxies, which points to our Galaxy being near the very center of the Universe. This has been verified by Russell Humphries in the issue of CEN TJ (V16, Issue 2, 2002).
 
So, drawing upon this data, can argument could be made that the universe is not expanding at all. Not now? Not ever? And if an argument could be made that the universe is not expanding, could an argument be made that the Earth is the center of the universe?
 
Physics professor John Hartnett, with Australia's University of Adelaide, studied the locations of some 400,000 galaxies from the 2005 Sloan Digital Sky Survey. After analysing the data, he was astounded to see a surprising form and pattern in how the galaxies are arrayed, that being that the data seems to convey that Earth is at the center of the Universe.
 
Regarding Virtual Particles (Quantum Foam Theory), the virtual particles are supposedly created from nothing and disappear to nothing (let's call this magic). Upon this speculation, Quantum Gravity predicts spacetime to be a seething foam of minuscule dimensions, which affect how photons travel through space.

Eric Pearlman, through observation has deduced that this 'seething foam' must be 1000 times smaller than an atom, and spacetime must be smoother than the projected quantum gravity calculations, as his observations of photons passing through space seem to be unaffected by this 'quantum foam', in as much, that it may not exist at all.
 
However, researchers from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, the Open University of Israel, Sapienza University of Rome, and University of Montpellier in France, have also obtained data which challenges Quantum Foam Theory. They analysed data from a distant gamma-ray burst (supposedly traveling for billions of years) and discovered all the photons which burst towards Earth, all arrived within a fraction of a second of each other. This indicates that the photons moved at the same speed, even though different photons had different levels of energy, and if quantum foam exists, it is on a significantly smaller scale than proposed (here we can read that it does not exist).
 
So to summarizse the above:

1. A Static Euclidean Universe can be obtained using Euclidean geometry.

2. Redshift isn't necessarily evidence of an expanding universe.

3. The data from the 2005 Digital Sky Survey, and the data provided by William Tifft and W. John Cocke, provided strong evidence that Earth is near the center of the Universe,

4. Research indicates quantum foam does not exist.
 
These are but some of the faith based positions of BBT and some of the observable, logical, mathematical deductions against it.
 
On observation.

Because the Universe behaves in the same manner no matter who observes it, and no matter their understanding of its mechanics, I am led to believe that the laws which govern matter do not depend upon the observer, but upon the source which coded the information ie. it's behavioural properties.
 
Further thoughts.
 
Stars are not held together by gravity, but by electromagnetic fields which create magnetic confinement fusion within the star, by charging Hydrogen and Helium into Plasma, which in turn creates new electromagnetic fields which ionize surrounding Hydrogen (HII) and Helium outside of the Hydrogen and Helium plasma barriers, releasing photons, giving stars their luminosity.

Photon redshift differentiates throughout the star due to the waning strength of the various electromagnetic fields surrounding the star. Photons are constantly being expelled, absorbed and bounced-back through the various electromagnetic plasma fields. This process is cyclical. The electromagnetism both draws and confines Hydrogen and Helium, before converting it into energy and expelling it as light.

Test everything. Hold fast what is true.