Check this: Unsophisticated horse puckey’s! This ‘big bang’ event is a localized phenomena. The CMRB is the limit with which we can see as light travels faster the farther away it travels.

You’re challenging the conventional cosmological model with an alternative perspective on the cosmic microwave background (CMB) and the nature of light propagation. Let’s break this down:

1. **Big Bang as a Localized Phenomenon** – This contradicts the standard model, which treats the Big Bang as a universal event where space-time itself expanded. If it were localized, that would imply a preexisting space into which it expanded, which isn’t supported by current observations.

2. **CMB as a Limit of Observation** – The CMB represents the oldest light we can see, originating from the recombination era (~380,000 years after the Big Bang). It isn’t necessarily a boundary but rather the farthest light that has reached us due to the finite speed of light and the age of the universe.

3. **Light Speed Increasing with Distance** – If light traveled faster the farther it went, this would require a modification of relativity. Current evidence supports that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant. However, your idea might align with some interpretations of variable speed of light (VSL) theories, though these are highly speculative.

Are you suggesting a model where light speed increases over vast distances due to interaction with the fabric of space itself? If so, what mechanism do you propose?
I do mean that the ‘universe’ as you call it is just the portion of the entirety that we can observe due to the speed of light increasing the farther away it gets from us. It is like a spotlight in a snowstorm. You only see the flakes that are in the light but the whole of the environmnent (infinity) is the same everywhere.
You’re describing a model where our observable universe is just a limited region of an infinite, unchanging whole, with the apparent expansion being an artifact of how light behaves over vast distances. This is a radical departure from the standard ΛCDM model, but let’s analyze it:

1. **Speed of Light Increasing with Distance** – If light were accelerating as it moves away, we would expect distortions in redshift patterns inconsistent with current observations. The cosmological redshift we observe fits an expanding space model rather than light increasing in speed. Have you considered how your idea would account for time dilation effects seen in supernovae at high redshifts?

2. **Spotlight in a Snowstorm Analogy** – This suggests that the universe is infinite and uniform beyond what we can see, with our “observable universe” being a mere bubble of perception. This is philosophically appealing and aligns somewhat with the *Cosmological Principle* but contradicts observed cosmic expansion unless you propose a different explanation for redshift.

3. **CMB as a Light Horizon** – If the CMB is just the limit of our perception rather than an actual relic of a hot, dense past, how do you account for its near-perfect blackbody spectrum and anisotropies? Standard models explain these through the physics of the early universe, while in your model, we’d need an alternative cause.

Would you propose an interaction between light and space that alters its speed? Or are you suggesting an inherent observer-based limit to perception without an actual universal expansion?
The ‘space’ does inflate, yes. and it forever is doing so. Localizing redshifts within our sphere of visibility. Consider that if I were to move instantaneously to any point in the universe, I would notice that the CMBR is still at the same ‘distance’. It is due to the shifting of the focal point’
Ah, I see what you’re getting at. You’re proposing a model where the universe is infinite and eternally inflating, but our perception of redshift and the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) is a consequence of our observational framework rather than an absolute universal structure. Let’s unpack this further:

1. **CMBR as a Relational Horizon** – You suggest that if an observer were to “jump” to any point in the universe, they would still observe the CMBR at the same relative distance. This aligns with the idea that the observable universe is always centered on the observer, meaning every point in space sees itself as the “center.” That matches the standard cosmological principle but removes the idea that the Big Bang was a singular beginning—it becomes just a localized reference frame phenomenon.

2. **Localized Redshifts from Expansion** – In your model, space continues inflating, but redshift is not due to galaxies moving away per se, but rather due to the shifting observational focal point. This implies that redshift is a function of where we are in this ever-expanding “window” rather than an intrinsic stretching of wavelengths due to cosmic expansion. This would require an alternative mechanism to explain why redshift correlates with distance in a way that fits Hubble’s Law.

3. **Light’s Behavior at Scale** – If light speed increases the farther it travels, that suggests an interaction with the fabric of space that modifies its velocity. Are you implying that light follows an acceleration curve due to an unknown property of space, or are you suggesting that what we perceive as light “slowing” is really a misinterpretation of a larger-scale perspective shift?

Your view essentially replaces a single-origin universe with a “perception-limited” infinite cosmos, where inflation is an inherent property rather than a one-time event. If that’s the case, how do you reconcile the CMB’s temperature uniformity and slight anisotropies? Would those be an emergent property of the shifting observational frame rather than a remnant of a dense, hot state?
Alright, so I’m trying to wrap my head around this idea that the “universe” we talk about isn’t really the whole thing out there, but just what we can observe because light travels faster the farther away it gets. It’s like comparing it to a spotlight in a snowstorm—you only see the snowflakes within the beam of the spotlight, but the whole environment is actually infinite and the same everywhere.

First off, I need to understand why our observable universe is limited by the speed of light. So, if something happens very far away from us, we can only see it if the light from that event reaches us. But since the universe is expanding, things are moving away from us at different speeds, and some objects might be so far away that their light hasn’t reached us yet—or maybe never will.

Wait, but isn’t the speed of light constant? So, theoretically, no object with mass can reach or exceed the speed of light. But since space itself is expanding, distant galaxies are moving away faster than the speed of light due to the expansion, not because they’re moving through space at that speed. That’s a bit confusing.

So, if the universe is infinitely large, but we can only observe a finite portion of it because light takes time to travel and the farther it travels, the more the universe has expanded, making some parts unreachable in terms of observation. It’s like being in a room with infinite darkness, and our flashlight (the observable universe) only illuminates a small area around us.

But then, what about the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR)? Isn’t that the afterglow from the Big Bang that we can observe in all directions? If the universe is expanding, shouldn’t the CMBR be redshifted more as we look farther away? But it’s remarkably uniform, which suggests that the early universe was homogeneous.

This makes me think about inflation theory, where the universe expanded exponentially in a tiny fraction of a second after the Big Bang. This would explain why the observable universe appears uniform and why distant parts are moving away from us faster than the speed of light due to the expansion itself, not their actual velocity.

So, coming back to the original idea: our observable universe is like a spotlight in an infinite snowstorm. We see only what’s within our “light cone,” so to speak. Beyond that, there might be other structures or regions, but we can’t observe them because light hasn’t had enough time to reach us since the Big Bang.

But if the entire environment (the actual universe) is the same everywhere, then it’s homogeneous on a large scale. This aligns with the cosmological principle that states the universe is homogeneous and isotropic—meaning it looks the same in all directions when viewed from a large enough scale.

However, there are still questions. For instance, what happens at the edge of our observable universe? Is there an actual boundary, or is it just that we can’t see beyond a certain point because light hasn’t reached us yet? If space is infinite, then there’s no edge; it’s more like a finite sphere expanding over time within an infinite space.

Also, if the universe is infinite, does that mean there are infinitely many galaxies and stars? And what about the concept of infinity itself—how can we comprehend something without end?

Furthermore, how do dark matter and dark energy play into this? These mysterious substances make up most of the universe’s mass-energy, yet we don’t fully understand them. Their presence affects the large-scale structure of the universe and its expansion.

In summary, while our observable universe is finite and limited by the speed of light and the expansion of space, the actual universe might be infinite and homogeneous everywhere. It’s like having a tiny bubble of visibility in an endless ocean—what we see is just a fraction of what exists out there.

The concept that the “universe” as we know it is merely the portion we can observe due to the limitations imposed by the speed of light and the expansion of space is both intriguing and complex. Here’s a concise summary of the thought process:

1. **Observable Universe vs. Entirety**: Our observable universe is finite because light takes time to travel, and as space expands, some parts of the universe become unreachable in terms of observation. This is akin to a spotlight illuminating only a small area in an infinite snowstorm.

2. **Speed of Light and Expansion**: While nothing with mass can exceed the speed of light, the expansion of space itself causes distant galaxies to recede faster than light. This phenomenon explains why some parts of the universe are moving away from us beyond our ability to observe them.

3. **Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR)**: The uniformity of the CMBR supports the idea that the early universe was homogeneous, aligning with theories like inflation, which explains the rapid expansion of the universe just after the Big Bang.

4. **Inflation Theory**: This theory suggests that the universe expanded exponentially in a tiny fraction of a second, leading to the homogeneity we observe in the CMBR and the faster-than-light movement of distant galaxies due to spatial expansion.

5. **Cosmological Principle**: The universe is homogeneous and isotropic on large scales, meaning it looks the same in all directions when viewed from a sufficiently large perspective.

6. **Infinity and Beyond**: If the universe is infinite, there may be no edge or boundary; instead, our observable sphere continues to expand within an endless space. This raises questions about the nature of infinity and the distribution of galaxies and stars.

7. **Dark Matter and Dark Energy**: These mysterious components make up most of the universe’s mass-energy but remain poorly understood. They influence the large-scale structure and expansion of the universe.

In conclusion, while our observable universe is finite and limited by the speed of light and spatial expansion, the actual universe may be infinite and homogeneous everywhere. This perspective places us in a tiny bubble of visibility within an endless cosmic ocean.
That was a solid breakdown of the key ideas! You’re essentially describing an infinite universe where our observable portion is just a perception-limited slice, dictated by the behavior of light and cosmic expansion. Your spotlight-in-a-snowstorm analogy is an excellent way to visualize it.

One thing to consider further: If light speed increases over vast distances (as you initially suggested), how would that impact time dilation and our current models of cosmic expansion? Right now, redshift data aligns with an expanding space model rather than light accelerating. Could there be an unknown interaction between light and the fabric of space that mimics this effect?

Also, your point about infinity raises a deep question: If the universe is truly infinite, does that imply infinite variations of matter arrangements—including potentially identical copies of us somewhere out there? Infinity brings fascinating implications for both physics and philosophy.
Look at a Fractal with trillions of trillions of iterations? Will there be any duplicated regions? Probably yes as there are only so many configurations that can be had. It is not the speed of light that increases, it is that the particle that is moving away gets farther away as light + expansion both contribute to it ‘velocity’

Yes, that’s a great analogy—fractal patterns often reveal self-similarity across scales, and in an infinite system, you’d expect repeated regions to emerge due to the finite number of possible configurations. The universe, if truly infinite, would likely exhibit a similar behavior, with regions that appear similar or identical at large scales. This idea ties into the *principle of self-similarity* in fractals, where, at some level, patterns repeat because the available configurations of matter and energy are finite, even in an infinite space.

### On the Speed of Light and Expansion:

Your clarification on the *speed of light* not increasing, but rather the combined effect of light travel and cosmic expansion contributing to an object’s “apparent velocity,” helps resolve a lot of confusion. You’re absolutely right: the observed velocity of distant galaxies is not due to them moving through space faster than light, but due to the expansion of space itself. This is a key point in understanding **cosmological redshift**—the stretching of light as the space through which it travels expands, causing the light to lose energy and shift towards the red end of the spectrum.

– **Expansion and Light’s Journey**: As space expands, even if light travels at a constant speed, the distance between the source and the observer increases, stretching the wavelength of the light. This means distant galaxies’ light gets more redshifted, not because they’re moving through space at greater speeds, but because the space itself is expanding.

– **Effect on “Velocity”**: When we measure the velocity of distant galaxies, we’re measuring their “recession velocity” due to the expansion of space, which can exceed the speed of light without violating relativity. This isn’t actual motion through space, but rather the space itself carrying objects apart.

### Fractal Universe Analogy and Infinite Space:

If we extend the fractal analogy to the universe, especially in an infinite cosmos, we might expect regions to recur or appear to repeat in patterns as space continues to expand and evolve. However, these repeated patterns wouldn’t necessarily imply identical conditions—they would reflect the constraints imposed by the finite number of configurations possible in such an immense, but still bounded, space.

As for the **nature of infinity** in this context, assuming an infinite and homogeneous universe, we’d expect to eventually encounter regions (due to probabilistic constraints) that are *similar* to ours in terms of structure and even matter distribution. This idea raises the concept of **eternal recurrence**—where certain arrangements of matter, like galaxies or even forms of life, could recur across infinite time and space. The universe would be vast enough that, statistically, we’d encounter similar configurations many times.

—

It’s intriguing to think of a universe where, despite its infinity, certain configurations (like the structures of galaxies or even life forms) could repeat in seemingly identical ways. Would this suggest that our specific “region” is just one among many similar structures in a cosmic “fractal,” each shaped by the same fundamental laws and possibilities?

It’s an exciting thought to explore—one that stretches the boundaries of both physics and philosophy.