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

©2025 Poal.co

1.0K

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).
[–] • 1 pt

Hypothetically Let’s say everything lost 1% of its size/mass/energy every 12 months.

If that was true, the universe would be filled with White/brown dwarf stars and the excess energy/matter would have to go somewhere. The rate of expansion of the universe is greater than could be explained by a 1% per year shrinkage (which wouldn't be linear by the way). It's not a good explanation as you say simply because it doesn't scale correctly or match observations.

Stars would fail below a certain mass and we don't see that happening unless another star or black hole is feeding on them. Also the lowered gravitation of massive objects would greatly changes their orbital or galactic mechanics. Again we are not observing any such effects. The expansion of space-time fits well with the observations we have made. It's not a perfect match but it certainly doesn't have the problems a shrinking object theory has.

[–] • 0 pt

The 1% figure was a number pulled out of my butt to use as an example.

I don’t mean if objects shed mass, I mean what if the mass actually shrinks at atomic levels?

We in the universe would not notice any difference in size because it would be relative to our own shrinkage.

To notice the difference you would need to be outside the observable universe looking in and what you would see is every object shrinking while staying stationary which would cause the distance between the objects to get bigger

[–] [deleted] • 1 pt

We can measure the baryon acoustic oscillations formed in the CMB (cosmic microwave background) at the last moment of the cosmic dark ages, when the temperature of the universe finally fell below a threshold to allow atomic nuclei to capture electrons (recombination) and photons could travel freely. Basically an imprint left on the CMB, way back around 300k years after the "big bang."

We can measure the properties of baryons as they were when recombination occurred, and it tells us the particle masses haven't changed since then.

[–] • 0 pt

Lol, that’s retarded. Some fag in a lab coat told you that and it sounded cool… so you instantly believed it.