|
The refutation of material infinity as the ultimate physical actuality is a permanent error and an epistemological blunder. I emphasize material, because infinity without mass-inerta is indeed a concept, not a physical actuality, as the mathematicians who "do not give a fig about the physical universe" (to use words brandished about here) and physicists accepting their lack of care of physical actuality claim. Limitless, i.e., no beginning, no end, space, being material i.e., the repository of all mass, thus and the answer to the question "where the Earth's mass comes from", has a limited speed of deformation, because only space without mass-inertia can deform at an infinite speed. In that context Zero is a concept, and not a physical actuality, because Zero has no mass, is empty space, and space without mass, empty space, does not exist, because otherwise we will not have waves endelessly at a constant and limited speed no matter what their wavelength is.
If we take infinity as only a concept and not as a physical actuality, we end up with the metaphysical "field" notion in order to explain the limited speed of light or the collapse of the wave function or the Big-Bang nonsense, thus making by magic the Zero concept the the ultimate physical actuality, since this Zero, the no mass point, at the moment of genesis (quite scientific!!!) had to have an infinitely hight temperature, and at the same time an infifntely high density, i.e., infinfite mass. Soon after that moment of genesis all galaxies acquired their present form and since then being located at the surface of a balloon they are simply moving apart as the universe expands, or the balloon inflates. It is interesting to follow the reasoning, actually the lack of reasoning, as to how the universe expands and the balloon continues to inflate as it gets cooler to the point, as observation indincates, its present ambient temperature to be close to the absolute Zero, ~2.7 Kelvin, and furthermore to use this cosmic background radiation as the ultimate proof of the Big-Bang. Who would call such a notion science? |
