Author Description

The cosmic radiation redshift detection has been interpreted as the result of expanding universe and many mind-boggling confusions. However, the significance of redshift to determine the receding cosmic objects is in question. Disregarding the redshift, the interpretation of universe expansion is not logically sound. The motion of objects is independent of it's play field. The size and change in size can not be determined unless we can measure the boundary of the universe. We can not say the Solar Systems is expanding if all objects are moving apart, only if the boundary of the Solar System is extending. To prove the universe is expanding, we have to measure it's boundary. However, space can not have boundary. Otherwise, it would separate space from something else outside. In any way, the boundary of space and something else outside can only be extit{space}. Thus, space and the universe can only be considered infinite. Neither, can we linearly revert the universe had started from a very high density and high temperature state based on the receding objects. Suppose the Solar System was proven expanding, it is not absolutely linearly related to the origin of the Solar System. Seeing all people leaving the ball park doesn't mean they were all born in the ball park. Besides, how the state of very high density and high temperature begins? Can chasing the beginning of beginning of the universe ever reach the beginning? Isn't it also paradoxical? Nevertheless, the size of the universe is defined by it's boundary, not the separation and congregation of objects. Unless the boundary of the universe can be detected and measured, size or change in size of the universe can not be proven. The interpretation of big bang and universe expansion based on the receding of objects is fundamentally false.