Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

612

Is it possible that things in the universe are shrinking rather than moving away from each other?

Hypothetically Let’s say everything lost 1% of its size/mass/energy every 12 months. From our perspective, because everything was shrinking we wouldn’t notice but if all of the objects were in a finite space it would appear that the objects were physically moving apart.

The smaller everything got the faster that expansion would seem to be happening. This seems a good explanation for the mystery of why the expansion of the universe appears to be accelerating against the known laws of physics.

Is it possible that things in the universe are shrinking rather than moving away from each other? Hypothetically Let’s say everything lost 1% of its size/mass/energy every 12 months. From our perspective, because everything was shrinking we wouldn’t notice but if all of the objects were in a finite space it would appear that the objects were physically moving apart. The smaller everything got the faster that expansion would seem to be happening. This seems a good explanation for the mystery of why the expansion of the universe appears to be accelerating against the known laws of physics.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (47).
[–] • 0 pt

Yes, my point is that without going out and checking, it is impossible to know if we are right or if we are just consistently wrong. I understand you're having difficulty with the concept as your mind appears to rebel against uncertainty. There are many things we can't know for sure as we lack the ability to really check. I accept that in many cases we've managed to develop approximations that are close enough to work with, but saying you know for sure is religion, not science.

We can really check, but you don't agree that it's "really" checking.

To the degree that there's uncertainty, that's true of everything. If you use a tape measure it could be inaccurate. Did you really check that it wasn't? What'd you check it against? That's not to say that the potential error is of consequence. Likewise in this case.

[–] • 0 pt

You keep confusing uncertainty of knowledge with uncertainty of measurment. It's the difference between true and valid. Valid means it is internally consitent, but it does not mean it is true. Theories are valid, but that does not mean they are correct. History has shown over and over that theories can be quite rigorous and well regarded but ultimately incorrect. For example, Newton's idea that light behaved like a ray was incorrect. The geocentric model was incorrect, despite being more accurate at predicting the planets locations than the early heliocentric models. The climate change models are incorrect. I could go on, and on, and on and that's my point.

[–] • 1 pt (edited )

You keep confusing uncertainty of knowledge with uncertainty of measurment.

Let me put it this way: what specific means of measuring cosmological distances do you believe unreliable, and why do you believe them to be unreliable?

[–] • 0 pt

Using telescopes and assuming our measurments are correct. We have no idea how deep space actually works having never been through it. For all we know light could travel much faster in empty space, or slower.