Originally posted by Metal Brain
Is space finite or infinite?

It is unknown.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It is unknown.

So is the big bang theory. Too little is known about it to be a valid theory. Furthermore, I think all this talk about expanding space (another mystery to everybody) is a lot like aether theory (that is now being called superfluid) and does not deserve much of my effort.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
So is the big bang theory. Too little is known about it to be a valid theory. Furthermore, I think all this talk about expanding space (another mystery to everybody) is a lot like aether theory (that is now being called superfluid) and does not deserve much of my effort.

How much would have to be known about it for you to consider it a "valid theory"? What alternative explanation fits our experimental data better for, say, the cosmic microwave background radiation and the redshift?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
So is the big bang theory. Too little is known about it to be a valid theory. Furthermore, I think all this talk about expanding space (another mystery to everybody) is a lot like aether theory (that is now being called superfluid) and does not deserve much of my effort.

So is the big bang theory. Too little is known about it to be a valid theory.

That's simply not true. The big bang theory makes testable predictions just one of which is the cosmic background radiation which has been confirmed by observation but there are plenty of others. It is also falsifiable; if, hypothetically it is false, it is possible to prove it false by showing its predictions to be wrong. By definition, that makes it a valid scientific theory. And your assertion that “Too little is known about it” for it to be a valid theory makes absolutely no sense whatsoever because we KNOW what the theory is! Exactly what isn't “known” about the theory that prevents it being a “valid” theory?

I think all this talk about expanding space (another mystery to everybody)

no, it is not a mystery to “ everybody” -only to those that cannot comprehend. We comprehend its just fine thank you.

is a lot like aether theory

no, it isn't. In what way? The old aether theory was that there is a substance called “ aether” permitting the whole of apparently empty vacuum of space that allows the propagation of light and that, without this aether, no light can propagate through apparently empty space. Einstein showed that no aether is required to explain the propagation of light through a vacuum thus the aether theory was rightly abandoned.
So what does that got to do with space expanding?

P.S. The word “aether” is sometimes given a different more modern scientific meaning from the one I described above which is the older traditional one called "luminiferous aether" -but that meaning is not to be confused with the one you are using here which is the older traditional meaning.

(that is now being called superfluid)

No, it isn't.

Superfluid vacuum theory ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfluid_vacuum_theory ) and luminiferous aether are too very DIFFERENT concepts; the old luminiferous aether ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether ) has been debunked while the new Superfluid vacuum theory is currently given much more favour. If they where the same theory, why would one be given more favour than the other? and why do you think they are they described on totally separate websites and given descriptions that don't match?

and does not deserve much of my effort.

I guess not -since you don't put any effort into thinking nor learning something new. These concepts are to good to deserve being trashed by a dim intellect.They are too good to deserve your misnomer of your "effort" -it takes no "effort" to not to think.

Originally posted by humy

So is the big bang theory. [b]Too little is known about it to be a valid theory.

That's simply not true. The big bang theory makes testable predictions just one of which is the cosmic background radiation which has been confirmed by observation but there are plenty of others. It is also falsifiable; if, hypothetically it is fal ...[text shortened]... ey are too good to deserve your misnomer of your "effort" -it takes no "effort" to not to think.[/b]

"no, it is not a mystery to “ everybody” -only to those that cannot comprehend. We comprehend its just fine thank you."

You can tell me why space is expanding? Please do.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
How much would have to be known about it for you to consider it a "valid theory"? What alternative explanation fits our experimental data better for, say, the cosmic microwave background radiation and the redshift?

Have you seen the big bang wikipedia link? Read the alternative explanation and get back to me.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Have you seen the big bang wikipedia link? Read the alternative explanation and get back to me.

Can you be more specific?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
So is the big bang theory. Too little is known about it to be a valid theory.

Too little is known by you. If you bothered to do a course on the subject you might change your mind.

Furthermore, I think all this talk about expanding space (another mystery to everybody) is a lot like aether theory (that is now being called superfluid) and does not deserve much of my effort.
Call it what you will, it is a measurable fact of astronomy - unless you think you are cleverer and more knowledgeable than all the astronomers out there? If so, why aren't you publishing papers on the subject and getting yourself a Nobel Prize. Its worth a lot of money!

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"no, it is not a mystery to “ everybody” -only to those that cannot comprehend. We comprehend its just fine thank you."

You can tell me [b]why space is expanding? Please do.[/b]

I had assumed that when you said

",...I think all this talk about expanding space (another mystery to everybody) ....",

you meant the concept of space expanding is a mystery to everybody, not the reason why it is expanding. After all, you didn't mention any "why" there in the above. So I naturally assumed you where saying it is impossible comprehend what "space expanding" means or at least impossible to visualize space expanding. Obviously, one would have to be pretty stupid not to be able to comprehend "space expanding" even if nobody knows why it is expanding!
My apologizes for my misunderstanding of your above comment.

But all the rest of my comments in that post (and most of the previous ones ) still stands including that your assertions that the idea of expanding space is "a lot like aether theory" and that the aether theory is "now being called superfluid" is false. Both those assertions of yours are clearly wrong and if you read my post you see why and every scientists in the world you can speak to would say and confirm the same thing.
If you refute this, just give us some science links that say or clearly imply superfluid theory is the same thing as the aether theory......

I see you STILL refuse to answer any of your questions even though I have answered all of yours. You even said you answered my questions even though you hadn't and then even refused to answer my question of which questions of mine you answered. Can you explain your motive of that? Are you afraid to answer my questions or are you just trying to be rude or what?