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

©2025 Poal.co

1.1K

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

I already said a couple of replys back, there's a lot of assumptions that the measurements require. Just because the math works in theory doesn't mean there are as yet undicovered factors the equations don't take into account. Like I said before, there are tons of examples all through history of instances where the theories were logical, rigorous, and wrong. Assuming a constant speed of light through all of space is a big assumption considering we've never even left the solar system.

[–] • 0 pt (edited )

I already said a couple of replys back, there's a lot of assumptions that the measurements require.

Like what?

What you're missing here is that your conjecture is what is a guess. To even propose that something like a distance estimate is wrong requires you to have a superior method of measuring that distance. Otherwise you have no basis upon which to judge a measurement as incorrect.

If you tell me it's 100 yards from here to there. My responding, "That's not 100 yards. Other people who have measured things have been wrong before" isn't a contradiction of your statement. The only way to contradict your statement is for me to show that the distance from here to there is, in fact, greater or less than 100 yards. The only way to do that is by some measurement that is superior to yours.

[–] • 0 pt

>Requires you to have a superior method"

No it doesn't pointing out something relies on assumptions and is therefore uncertain is enough. You seem to have difficulty accepting uncertainty. This is common. The human mind always tries to fill in the blanks. I'm just pointing out the limits of our ability to know something.

[–] • 0 pt

No it doesn't pointing out something relies on assumptions and is therefore uncertain is enough. You seem to have difficulty accepting uncertainty. This is common. The human mind always tries to fill in the blanks. I'm just pointing out the limits of our ability to know something.

Oh, how tricksters love to hide in the shadows of uncertainty.

When we measure the distance to a galaxy as 15 million light years everybody knows there is uncertainty. It could be 13 million or maybe 17 million. That uncertainty in no way impacts the validity of theories resting on its distance. You're trying to use the term in a different way to suggest that the uncertainty means we have no idea if that's even close to the "real" distance. That assertion is false.