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).
[–] • 0 pt

Using telescopes and assuming our measurments are correct.

Q: What specific means of measuring cosmological distances do you believe unreliable?

A: assuming our measurments are correct.

That's not an answer to the question. Please name specific means of estimated cosmological distances that you believe unreliable.

For all we know light could travel much faster in empty space, or slower.

We're just about as sure as one can be that it isn't the case. If the speed of light weren't constant there would be a lot of side effects that would be pretty noticeable.

For example, time dilation wouldn't happen even though we can confirm it happens and measure it with GPS satellites. It just so happens that it matches the values predicted by Relativity.

Another example is the famous Michelson and Morley experiments. They "released" two beams of light at right-angles. One beam was in the direction of Earth's travel and the other perpendicular to Earth's travel. If light's speed weren't constant, the two beams should have had different speeds. They did not.

Kennedy and Thorndike showed that the speed of light is independent of the velocity of the test apparatus, and also confirmed time dilation.

That takes care of the speed of light being independent of inertial reference, but what about in other places in the Universe. Can light have a different speed in different places? Not likely. If it did, the appearance of the Universe would differ depending on which way we looked. Some directions might have regions where light travels faster, and some slower. We don't see that. The Universe, and cosmic background radiation, are remarkably constant no matter which way we look.

[–] • 0 pt (edited )

>No matter which way we look.

But we've only ever looked from inside the solar system. We don't know because we can't until we can go out and check. You keep beating the same point that the measurments are consistent while ignoring that there could be major flaws in our assumptions.

Edit: You admit the stars would "look different" if the speed of light was not constant, which is exactly my point, they would look like they were closer or further away.

[–] • 1 pt (edited )

But we've only ever looked from inside the solar system.

It doesn't matter where you are looking from, it matters what direction you are looking. If you look towards Polaris (the North Star) the cosmic background radiation is virtually identical in character to every other direction you look. That means light is traveling at the same speed through all regions of space.

You keep beating the same point that the measurments are consistent while ignoring that there could be major flaws in our assumptions.

They're not assumptions. That's what's hanging you up.

You admit the stars would "look different" if the speed of light was not constant, which is exactly my point, they would look like they were closer or further away.

No, stars wouldn't look different - the whole universe would look different in one direction versus another direction. Quasars would appear closer in one direction than the other. Light would be more redshifted from stars in one direction than from stars in another direction. Cosmic background radiation would appear closer in a direction that had some region(s) of space where light traveled faster, and it would appear further away in a direction that had some region(s) where light traveled slower. We don't see that. There isn't any evidence that the speed of light in the vaccuum of space varies by a meaningful amount.