Expanding universe vs shrinking mass

[Gregorygregg1]

Hey, I really like the alt theory section. It is very freeing for the imagination. Here's a nugget of craziness for you.
While there appears to be evidence for an expanding space, how would we differentiate between expanding space and shrinking matter?  If there has always been the same amount of space, but the volume of space occupied by matter was rapidly shrinking, wouldn't that give the same effect?  One could liken it to an idea.  At first it takes up your whole conscious mind, but then you move on. And the idea occupies less and less of your consciousness until it disappears entirely.  One could then imagine man as the memory of the universe, and as he approaches extinction, the substance of the universe shrinks away to nothing, leaving only space.

This might work if there weren't good evidence that the universe doesn't need humanity for its existence.

[yadayada]

Maybe not so crazy? I don't see why both can't be true.

Due to the fixed, relatively slow speed of light, we can only see a relatively small, flat portion of a much greater universe. We could easily be inside an expanding bubble of a much greater collapsing universe.

The size of objects depends on gravitational, electromagnetic, strong force attraction balanced by internal kinetic energies of particles, and energy flows in dynamic counter-balancing states. If any of these are not constant over the life of the universe, which is possible, then the same types of objects could gradually measure as bigger or smaller over cosmic time scales. A nugget of gold or even a hydrogen atom could be smaller, less energetic, than it used to be in earlier eons.

[curiosity]

Oops....didn't see this post before posting a similar one myself.....Just goes to show there are like minded people on here eh. If you fancy kicking this one about a bit, Its just a case of,"your place or mine."

[Dave_Oblad]

Hi all,

Yes.. been saying the same thing for years.. here are quotes from my very first post here:

Dave Wrote:
Variable Density Space-Time is not my idea, but I like it. It provides a better bridge to connecting Cosmology with the mechanics of Gravity. Ok.. we have all seen the model of the expanding universe as an inflating balloon with galaxies pasted on it. The fabricated force behind this inflation is Dark Energy. I postulated earlier that the size of matter is controlled by the fabric of space-time. If you approach a Black Hole, space-time becomes denser and you become smaller, to stay on the same scale as the fabric. So let's see how that would apply to Dark Energy.

Imagine a set of balloons, all inflated to the same size. Draw large galaxies on the first and for each balloon in succession, draw smaller galaxies. This succession is, of course, the passage of time. From the perspective of each galaxy, the others appear to be receding, but in fact, the universe is remaining a constant size. The mass inside each galaxy is compressing space-time, making each galaxy grow smaller over time. Since we are inside the shrinking galaxy, our local rulers don't show this shrinkage.

In other words.. Imagine I live in a house and I can throw a snowball at my neighbors porch. Each night I go to bed and wake up to find my house has grown smaller. Being inside the house I don't sense the shrinking because I'm shrinking with it. But over time, I find I can't reach my neighbors porch with a snowball anymore, it just too darn far away. Of course, since this is being applied to all the houses, I might judge that either all the houses are shrinking or my neighborhood is inflating.

If I can't see my neighborhood (because it's invisible), I'll might conclude that all the houses are moving away from me. A quick call to my neighbors indicates they all think the same thing. The neighborhood is inflating!!! Note: The actual distance from the center of my house and the center of my neighbors house hasn't really changed.

So if Dark Matter is simply Dense Space-Time and Dense Space-Time shrinks the scale of matter, then Dark Energy is probably the opposite and becomes defined as stretched space-time.

When I see a movie about a man shrinking, my first thought is about the wavelength of light and it's scale to the mans eyes as he shrinks. He would become increasingly more sensitive to shorter wavelengths and less sensitive to longer wavelengths. His perception of the color spectrum would slide towards the blue end. So if I use the color green from a remote galaxy as a reference and I start to shrink, that reference would appear to be shifting towards the red end of my local spectrum, but in fact, my spectrum is just shifting upwards. The reference light has been in transit for billions of years and wasn't changing. If that shrinking effect is growing slightly, perhaps because of an avalanching effect seen with gravity, then I might conclude the other galaxies are receding faster each moment and presume some anti-gravity force is responsible. Let's call this Dark Energy.

The idea that matter can shrink/condense shouldn't seem so implausible to anyone that believes in black holes and singularities.

Dave Wrote:
An interesting typical example used for explaining the expansion of the universe is the loaf of bread dough with raisins. The dough expands and pushes the raisins apart. Simple! So when I say that the universe is actually shrinking, I mean imagine the dough without the raisins. A bug takes 10 minutes to swim from end to end in this early dough. As time progresses, the dough condenses into lumps (matter) at the expense of thinning out the dough between the lumps. Now the same bug can swim the loaf, from end to end avoiding the lumps of course, at the same speed as before, but cover the distance in half the time because the dough is now so thin. So did this loaf expand or shrink or remain the same size? Obviously, the size has remained constant but if measured using bug speed (Speed of Light) the loaf (Universe) must have shrunk. So if one uses the speed of light as a ruler, then the universe must be shrinking and not expanding.

Anyway, these are some of my original ideas when I first came to this site.. some have been improved by the interaction with others on this site.

In a nutshell: Dark-Matter and Dark-Eneregy are just the expressions of Variable-Density Space-Time. Think of Dark-Matter as compressed distance. Objects in that space are shrunk.. in the sense that a game of chess can be played on a small board or a large board.. The rules don't change but just the relative scale of the board (Space_Time). See my Blog here on this site to see how Gravity requires this Space-Time flexibility in order to function.

Best wishes,
Dave :^)

[curiosity]

Just a thought!.......With the ever increasing accuracy of clocks, can anyone tell me the exact speed of light? I find 186,000 mps ( That is the figure I was taught.) a little bit vague. I always try to keep things on a scale I can comprehend, so to keep things in perspective I would also like to know what the theoretical expansion of space/contraction of matter (whichever is eventually proven true) is; ie, one lightsecond expands by x distance per year. "Or".... the distance between two objects of the same size 1 lightsecond apart increases by x amount due to those objects each contracting by x % per year. In the second of these models, as both matter with or without mass would be getting smaller "which includes the photons" and the space between objects would be expanding relative to the photons, I believe it would still account for the red shift.
As anyone reading this post can doubtlessly tell, I am without any real education, so I hope someone can set things straight for me regarding my thoughts on this subject, "which may I add fascinates me!"

[Dave_Oblad]

Hi curioisity,

Marshall does an excellent job in answering your question here:
http://sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=72&t=22590

One big problem is there is no way of measuring expansion/shrinkage without an absolute ruler. That would be a ruler (or clock) that never changes regardless of where it's used or what speed it is traveling.

Here is a great explanation of gravitational red-shift:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift

Another neat piece of the puzzle:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_problem

Basically, that the star systems moving along the outer edges of the galaxies are traveling too fast to stay captured by the galaxy. Or rather the whole galaxy can spin like a solid disk, in defiance of Newtonian Dynamics. So Dark Matter was invented to explain such issues. And of course if Dark Matter causes matter to gravitate towards it, then it can be considered a downhill effect to matter. Thus Dark Energy causes matter to gravitate away from it, allowing it to be considered an uphill effect.

But if Dark Matter is a dead end and it's reverse Dark Energy then also becomes a dead end.. then what explanation will they invent next? But if matter gravitates towards denser space-time thus increasing said density then it would also have the opposite effect of decreasing space-time density from where it is vacating thus stretching said density. It seems a perfect and plausible explanation because we already have determined that space-time is very flexible.

So why it is not embraced by Conventional Science is a bigger mystery to me than Quantum Mechanics. Where is this reluctance coming from? It would almost seem to be an Academic Taboo.. but I have never understood those.

Anyway, got to run.. so regards,
Dave :^)

[Gregorygregg1]

Dave Wrote:
An interesting typical example used for explaining the expansion of the universe is the loaf of bread dough with raisins. The dough expands and pushes the raisins apart. Simple! So when I say that the universe is actually shrinking, I mean imagine the dough without the raisins. A bug takes 10 minutes to swim from end to end in this early dough. As time progresses, the dough condenses into lumps (matter) at the expense of thinning out the dough between the lumps. Now the same bug can swim the loaf, from end to end avoiding the lumps of course, at the same speed as before, but cover the distance in half the time because the dough is now so thin. So did this loaf expand or shrink or remain the same size? Obviously, the size has remained constant but if measured using bug speed (Speed of Light) the loaf (Universe) must have shrunk. So if one uses the speed of light as a ruler, then the universe must be shrinking and not expanding.

Here is a train of thought I think might be worth riding for a while.  It seemed to make some sense to me. But then, who am I to judge.
Some time ago an idea occurred about the nature of zero (nothing).  Until that time, it was sufficient to see nothing as empty space.  The thought arose that perhaps the stuff of the universe was not its contents, but that which did the containing.  It seemed reasonable that in order for anything to exist, there must be dimension to contain it.  From this perspective the existence of mater and energy became a puzzle.  It seemed reasonable that there must be some source of matter and energy.  
Then an article or two on Black Holes seemed to present some solution.  The description of the singularity appeared to be the opposite of space.  Reason inferred that in order for both absolute dimension and absolute density to coexist, there must be a transition zone which is some ratio of dimension and density.  This appeared to be a recipe for mass and energy.  The problem was that, if the singularity was the absence of dimension, this left a string with only one end.  zero, the singularity, and infinity (empty dimension).  This seemed to supply many answers, but still did not explain an expanding universe.  

Then an article on binary opposites stirred things up a bit.  Binary opposites, like hot and cold, or light and dark, are obligatory opposites.  Without both, the other has no existence.  Perhaps density and dimension are obligatory opposites.  Without one, the other cannot exist.  

Consider the implications of a universe founded on these binary opposites, density and dimension.  In order for matter or energy to exist, there must be dimension.  In order for dimension to exist there Must be something to contain. Then consider that density and dimension exist as a continuum with zero dimension on one end, and zero density on the other.  Now the string has two ends.  But since one cannot exist in the absence of the other, when dimension reaches zero density, it ceases to exist, and a singularity occurs to fill the void.  When a singularity occurs, dimension once again expands to contain it.  


If dimension and density had a beginning, dimension would have expanded outward more quickly than the mass and energy it contained in order to reach zero density, with more singularities forming all the time, so expansion would be accelerating in all directions instantaneously, which by some coincidence is exactly the speed of light.  In other words density and dimension contain each other.  
This seems to support the Big Bang theory and account for an expanding universe.  The initial expansion of dimension would of necessity have been exactly at the speed of light.  This is because light consists of some ratio of mass and dimension, which accounts for its dual nature.  It is therefore a sufficient requisite for dimension to exist for light to be present.  Only beyond the reach of mass or light, does dimension reach zero density.  

This kind of expansion would have produced a solid ring of singularity and a universe packed with matter.  It does not hold water.  If the dimension/density hypothesis is valid, some explanation is possible.  What is it?
Perhaps the big bang is still occurring in a solid ring that is the margin of zero density.  It is just at a distance so great we cannot imagine it.
Or perhaps the singularity is the edge of the universe. And contains dimension, just as dimension contains the singularity.