I like your nihilistic (oops: zero-based) ontology as a representation of our knowledge. Beyond that:
I tried to cut out the 'expansion' as a cute idea which got only a justification by ignorance:
it was applicable and no other reasonable proposition was competing with the millions of slanted (theory laden) experiments to prove it - all assuming in advance that it is true.
Hubble was a genius. Not "god's" prophet. He may be right (not necessarily).
In your logic, if 'everything' increases within (including inter- and intraatomic measures, even an expanding space), does it make sense to speak about an unobservable overall change? We, our views, the details, the connections, all change the same way. Is it a fata morgana, if everything stays the same, we just say that the total is getting bigger? (while the universe? - space? being infinite?)
I tried to circumvent this obstacle in my narrative for a beginning (without a "creator"), by assigning 'space' (and 'time) to *our* organization of *our* universe from within. So 'my'
infinite means: the edge of defining space - no such measure beyond that.
Any other "edge" has something beyond it. (Einstein's joke: north of the North Pole?)
Like George, I can dream up occasions for a redshift beside a slow-down.
The conventional physical edifice resulting in missing (dark) things and controversies is the result of views (and calculations!) from an age with less epistemic cognitive inventory to base upon, wishful postulates upon the then logical explanatory trials (discount phlogiston) in concepts not identified to meet our present scrutiny (energy? gravity? their prodigies?)
but used as base in our religious-like belief system of 'physics.
Russell scolded me some years back: Don't I dare call his science a 'religion" - well I don't
but it is a belief system.
This list started to attempt to break loose from it - but too many conventional physicist-opinions terrorized many free spirits back into the 75 subsequent college-generations-brainwashed 'physicist'-community-memes of classical and well calculated physical thought.
Becuase it is efficient and productive it is not necessarily true (like the redshift).
As George said: "I now humbly wait for rebuttals ..." not offers to go elsewhere, because even if I get silenced, after many years of participation, I still want to read this list.
- Re: Then I can jump in with my bias.... John M
- RE: Then I can jump in with my bias.... John Ross