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

©2025 Poal.co

436

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 (edited )

Bullshit, no one went out and checked.

Nobody needs to. If you show me a rectangle property 300 feet wide and 500 feet long and ask me to measure the diagonal distance from one corner to another I won't have to go out and check. I know the distance is the square root of 3002 + 5002 (583 feet 1-1/8 inch). Nobody needs to check because the Pythagorean Theorem has already been well established to be true. The same is true for cosmological distances. That's why I said if you understood the foundations you wouldn't have doubts. There's a reason the people who have doubts are always the people who are ignorant of the foundations.

[–] • 0 pt

I'm aware of the foundations. I don't believe you can say for certainty that your theory is correct without being able to actually check. History is full of theories that were rigorous, well reasoned, and wrong. We don't even know if the speed of light is constant over long distances, we just assume it is because we know it's constant on earth. Same with gravity. Same with all the "universal constants" or "laws of thermodynamics". We know what we can see from earth, notning more. The expanding cosmos is an interesting theory but limited by our inability to travel beyond our solar system.

[–] • 0 pt

I don't believe you can say for certainty that your theory is correct without being able to actually check.

That's what I'm talking about when I say it is checked. You're saying it can only be checked in one specific way.

[–] • 0 pt

No, I'm saying without actually checking we're just guessing based on what we can know so far. It isn't science in the sense there's no way to refute the null hypothesis. It's interesting, but no need to pretend we're certain. This is a major problem in all research but it is most obvious in things like astronomy or archaeology.