@tobogganablaze Originally I had this idea: If the universe decreases in density since big bang but its radius is still the same, then a lot of space must be sucked inside space-bending structures like black holes. Also, may be matter has big bang density inside of black holes.
So, black holes are maintainers of constant entropy in a constant radius universe. Thus they must be space generators.
The expansion of the universe has been confirmed over and over again since it was discovered in 1929, even won the 2011 noble price when they discovered the expansion is accelerating. It’s been basically confirmed over and over again for close to 100 years.
I guess “What instead of the universe expanding we’re just shrinkng?” would have been a great showerthought. But you really should just leave at that.
Once you’re trying to come up with explanations involving physics buzzwords it just sounds like pseudoscientific gibberish.
@tobogganablaze
Well you can’t win a nobel prize while ignoring the standard model, can you? We sit on giant’s shoulders.
Once a constant speed of light has been assumed, we were able to confirm a lot of things. But we still can’t explain everything, can we?
We don’t know what it’s like in a black hole, do we? Except we would be sucked in by one right now. Which would explain why everything else is expanding exponentially.
Well you can’t win a nobel prize while ignoring the standard model, can you?
Yes you can. You just have to come up with a new model that matches all the current data just as well or better than the standard model.
There hardly ever is a theory that can explain everything. We basically just go with the model that matches that data the closest.
Maybe some future astrophysicist will hook up on this.
I mean the “expansion is just shrinking from another perspective” is not exactly an outlandish or super original thought. I’m sure past astrophysicist have considered it for quite a while, but so far all have dismissed it.
@tobogganablaze My point is: How can you be so sure it has been dismissed? I just found about [1] from 2013.
It appears, the SM doesn’t disagree with shrinkage at all.
But why does it seem your mind being blown by this idea? Maybe be because you didn’t consider us being sucked in anywhere? If that’s the case, here’s why didn’t you consider this yet: I didn’t yet post my post despite the probability of not having a new thought.
That’s how blocking path dependencies in science can be so strong.
“What instead of the universe expanding we’re just shrinking” is not what I posted because my brain didn’t come up with it. If you want things simple and in your words, I suggest a solitary life.
Finally, you don’t know my age or experience. Your unfriendliness could just have hurt a kid’s interest into space. Remember that.
My point is: How can you be so sure it has been dismissed?
Models that don’t work should be dismissed. If you have a model for shrinkage that does work it should not be dismissed.
It appears, the SM doesn’t disagree with shrinkage at all.
Yup, pretty much.
But why does it seem your mind being blown by this idea? Maybe be because you didn’t consider us being sucked in anywhere? If that’s the case, here’s why didn’t you consider this yet: I didn’t yet post my post despite the probability of not having a new thought.
Sorry, I’m not following. My mind is definitly NOT blown and black holes don’t “suck in” things. That’s a common misconception. And I really don’t know what you’re trying to say with the sentences after that.
Your unfriendliness could just have hurt a kid’s interest into space. Remember that.
I’m sorry that you think I was unfriendly.
But this a community for people that smoked too much weed to saything dumb things that sound clever when you don’t think about them too much.
If there is actual kids around that are interested in space theneven more important that unscientific non-sense gets called out.
But the TL;DR here is that so far all “shrinking gravity” models had major flaws and didn’t work. And the last idea of perfeclty scaling atoms is unobservable, so really more of a thought expriment than an actual model.
@tobogganablaze Originally I had this idea: If the universe decreases in density since big bang but its radius is still the same, then a lot of space must be sucked inside space-bending structures like black holes. Also, may be matter has big bang density inside of black holes.
So, black holes are maintainers of constant entropy in a constant radius universe. Thus they must be space generators.
But the radius of the universe is not staying the same, it’s expanding. And entropy isn’t constant, it’s increasing.
@tobogganablaze How can you tell? Maybe we’re shrinking? Maybe entropy isn’t increasing everywhere?
But okay. Somehow everyone settled with constant speed of light so everything must be expanding inevitably.
The expansion of the universe has been confirmed over and over again since it was discovered in 1929, even won the 2011 noble price when they discovered the expansion is accelerating. It’s been basically confirmed over and over again for close to 100 years.
I guess “What instead of the universe expanding we’re just shrinkng?” would have been a great showerthought. But you really should just leave at that.
Once you’re trying to come up with explanations involving physics buzzwords it just sounds like pseudoscientific gibberish.
@tobogganablaze
Well you can’t win a nobel prize while ignoring the standard model, can you? We sit on giant’s shoulders.
Once a constant speed of light has been assumed, we were able to confirm a lot of things. But we still can’t explain everything, can we?
We don’t know what it’s like in a black hole, do we? Except we would be sucked in by one right now. Which would explain why everything else is expanding exponentially.
This gibberish is what this forum is for.
Yes you can. You just have to come up with a new model that matches all the current data just as well or better than the standard model.
There hardly ever is a theory that can explain everything. We basically just go with the model that matches that data the closest.
I mean the “expansion is just shrinking from another perspective” is not exactly an outlandish or super original thought. I’m sure past astrophysicist have considered it for quite a while, but so far all have dismissed it.
@tobogganablaze My point is: How can you be so sure it has been dismissed? I just found about [1] from 2013.
It appears, the SM doesn’t disagree with shrinkage at all.
But why does it seem your mind being blown by this idea? Maybe be because you didn’t consider us being sucked in anywhere? If that’s the case, here’s why didn’t you consider this yet: I didn’t yet post my post despite the probability of not having a new thought.
That’s how blocking path dependencies in science can be so strong.
“What instead of the universe expanding we’re just shrinking” is not what I posted because my brain didn’t come up with it. If you want things simple and in your words, I suggest a solitary life.
Finally, you don’t know my age or experience. Your unfriendliness could just have hurt a kid’s interest into space. Remember that.
[1] https://www.science20.com/hammock_physicist/universe_expanding_or_are_we_shrinking-118673
Models that don’t work should be dismissed. If you have a model for shrinkage that does work it should not be dismissed.
Yup, pretty much.
Sorry, I’m not following. My mind is definitly NOT blown and black holes don’t “suck in” things. That’s a common misconception. And I really don’t know what you’re trying to say with the sentences after that.
I’m sorry that you think I was unfriendly.
But this a community for people that smoked too much weed to saything dumb things that sound clever when you don’t think about them too much.
If there is actual kids around that are interested in space theneven more important that unscientific non-sense gets called out.
Quite interesting article, you should read it.
But the TL;DR here is that so far all “shrinking gravity” models had major flaws and didn’t work. And the last idea of perfeclty scaling atoms is unobservable, so really more of a thought expriment than an actual model.