Expanding Universe or, Shrinking matter?

[c335358]

The universe is indeed shrinking. The shrinking force is ..gravity and matter to dark energy conversion which feeds the gravity cycle. Thus..when near large dense mass..more gravity..why? because that is where more energy is being converted to strengthen the gravity force..unless you think gravity can become stronger with nothing behind it but empty space..it is clear that the mass is converting the matter into dark energy that indeed is then converted into gravity force. This is interesting because as the matter shrinks down to the atom size we can see it disappear..and reappear in another space..I would suggest to you that a small amount of matter is converted into a large amount of energy..and when in dark energy..it is that energy which is then converted to gravity force..indeed.

Yes..there is another form of energy...it is in another dimension ..but we know its there because of the gravity signature...just like we know a black hole is there by the way a star zips around it...So..some say the data disappears..it really doesnt..it shrinks..into the most efficent memory storage device ever conceived...if the mass is large enough it will be fully pushed into dark energy...and the gravity force..immense...this is so obvoius to me..why it is not obvious to everyone is beyond me..

[c335358]

I will note that Einstien actually figured this out with a magnet...the hidden force...it was clear to him..as it is to me...there is other forms of energy...you can convert matter to energy...and energy to matter..but you can also convert energy into dark energy..and then into gravity...if you have not noticed how gravity is always..enough to hold the mass together..it never drifts apart..unless it is a cloud or gas...with some charge..thus becoming antigravitational...so..we see...that even the ionic force oposes gravity..different energy frequiencies..should be studies..but caution..more energy can cause one matter to merge into another matter in an unstable heated form note unlike gold melting into some other metal sinking to the bottom..beware..but yes..you can opose gravity..and other things...thats all for now...

[c335358]

it is certain that every molecule every atom is held together by gravity force..pushin upon it almost independantly of the outside..as it is the matter itself that causes the force of gravity to be excerted upon it.......clearly....yes..there is multiple layers of gravity applied..and at some size ignored as the targeted matter has some relationship to the gravity field at play..intertwined and not depending on size..ect...

[c335358]

there is not an outward force...it is an inward force..inward towards every planet..every matter..the force is inward..not outward..we are being compressed..not expanded..the universe is under pressure..the pressure is powered by matter..not space..think of a magnet..self generating field...

gravity..is the same..self generated by the matter before it..obviously..as it not in space...it is in matter..gravity..there is a relationship..not simple of density or mass..but the level and type of matter itself...the further you are from the earth..the less gravity you will feel..and thus your bones would begin to fall away..under less compression..and want to become independant planets...think about it...you are a universe..its all a matter of magnification..

[HydrogenBond]

If you look at a star forming from a cloud of stella gas, gravity will not only cause the cloud to collapse toward a center, but it will also induce a rotation. Relative to the rotation, the induced velocity within the rotation, will counter the radial pull of gravity, since a spiral path toward center of gravity is not the fastest way to the center of gravity. This foot dragging implies something analogous to a type of countering force. I would guess the energy for this foot dragging force is due to the output stemming from the lowering of gravitational potential.

 

The implication is the force of gravity not only induces an attractive force, but there is also a repulsive component (rotation) which slows the rate at which matter is able to reach the center of gravity. This, in turn, implies the cause and effect of action and reaction is gravity =contraction plus a smaller repulsion component. The rotation is not enough to stop the inevitable, just enough to delay it.

 

This would then imply the gravitational contraction of the matter of the universe also has this foot dragging repulsion component. Anywhere matter is contraction there is a contribution to the universe. I would infer that the summation of all this repulsion is the expanding universe.

 

Back to the question of expanding or contracting, since gravity is the primary and the repulsion is secondary, that means universe contraction. This abstraction is analogous to saying a rotating forming star is spinning (which it is), but this is only a slowed down path toward its inevitable compaction. The latter takes more time to see this is true (less obvious).

[enorbet2]

it is certain that every molecule every atom is held together by gravity force..pushin upon it almost independantly of the outside..as it is the matter itself that causes the force of gravity to be excerted upon it.......clearly....yes..there is multiple layers of gravity applied..and at some size ignored as the targeted matter has some relationship to the gravity field at play..intertwined and not depending on size..ect...

 

Excuse me but didn't you mean that molecules are held together by chemical bonds ( a form of electromagnetic bonding called valence) and atoms by another electromagnetic attraction resulting from the charge difference between electrons and the nucleus which is held together by he Weak Nuclear Force? BBT holds that at one time these forces were Unified but since you don;t subscribe to that, how is it that this is all Gravity to your way of thinking? What is "layers of gravity"? and "applied" by what mechanism?

[ShrinkingMan]

I believe the Universe (and I do mean EVERYTHING in the Universe!) is shrinking at a proportional rate. Actually I believe its shrinking at almost the speed of light.

 

Here's some BASIC things to consider.

 

We all pretty much know that light travels in a straight line and is only "bent" if the space/time it travels through is warped.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Stanley_Eddington

After the war, Eddington travelled to the island of Príncipe near Africa to watch the solar eclipse of 29 May 1919. During the eclipse, he took pictures of the stars in the region around the Sun. According to the theory of general relativity, stars with light rays that passed near the Sun would appear to have been slightly shifted because their light had been curved by its gravitational field. This effect is noticeable only during eclipses, since otherwise the Sun's brightness obscures the affected stars. Eddington showed that Newtonian gravitation could be interpreted to predict half the shift predicted by Einstein. (Somewhat confusingly, this same half-shift was initially predicted by Einstein with an incomplete version of general relativity. By the time of the 1919 eclipse Einstein had corrected his calculations.)

 

So consider a black hole, or "event horizon". What's happening to the light? It's being bent in on itself, right? But actually it's the space/time which is being bent in on itself. The expression "Event Horizon" to me, means a physical horizon where space and time is completely "flipped". Now I think that when you have enough mass to actually FLIP SPACE TIME in on itself with a spherical object like a black hole, then your actually creating something very much like a big bang.

 

The question actually is WHAT happens to matter which is inside the space/time being warped! Now:

 

Imagine you could stand in the centre of a black hole when space time flipped in on you. You are inside a sphere or bubble of space time within the black hole. Space time has flipped and all of a sudden, this bubble of space time your in is being compressed down at the speed of light. You, the gasses / dark matter and everything are shrinking relatively at the speed of light. Galaxies form. Suns form. Planets form. The black hole you are in when observed from outside has remained a constant size, but you, inside your black hole, with the galaxies and the suns and planets continue shrinking forever at the speed of light. BECAUSE space time itself is shrinking.

 

Imagine being anywhere inside a collapsing sphere of space time. When you travel in ANY direction within a sphere, by any speed or degree, you would be travelling AGAINST the collapse of this space time. Surely this is why there are time discrepancies with satellites. In a way, they're time travelling. (I believe its actually this collapsing of our space and time which gives us the sensation or dimension of time passing from one moment to the next).

 

Take the double slit experiment. Why does a photon of light appear to jump through a solid wall either side of a slit. A photon travels at the speed of light. BUT, now consider that the universe is shrinking and everything else along with it. Problem solved.

 

The photon leaves the gun. In between the photon leaving the gun and hitting the wall, the wall (actually the entire universe) has shrunk ever so slightly (including the wall) which makes the illusion of the photon travelling through a solid wall when it hits the photon detector wall. A photon of light is the only thing which would be able to travel fast enough to do this. I think we could actually use this to figure out how fast our universe is shrinking; and rather than just using a simple explanation like this people invent string theory to suggest the photon of light is actually in two places at once!

 

It's a beautifully simple theory (which is why I whole heartedly believe in it). It's based on what we SEE in our own universe (black holes). Doesn't really require any strange maths or string theory (Einstein pretty much nailed it all with Relativity).

 

Super-massive black holes within super-massive black holes Etc. Etc. Etc.

There's one are the centre of almost EVERY galaxy. Millions of galaxies and millions of black holes at the centre of them. Infinite.

 

If men could invent an artificial event horizon, no matter how minute (and I'm sure we will one day in our never ending quest for energy), I believe we would actually be creating an artificial universe. In fact, people are probably doing it every day at Cern at not even realising it.

[abe]

I'm not sure about matter itself shrinking but i like the idea that the universes is shrinking.

If the matter in the universe is in some sort of vortex being sucked faster and faster, like a tether ball, down and into the center then the space between objects in the vortex would be increacing and accelerating as observations of the cosmos suggest. The force of gravity would be responsible for the acceleration and we wouldn't have to invent new unseen forms of energy like dark matter. It seems much more likely to my simple mind.

 

but what do i know

i just trim trees for a living

and this subject makes my brain hurt

[newdealtn]

Thanks folks for all the input, I also believe in the expanding model, just thought it might be an interesting topic to kick around for a while. I would like however, just for the adventure in it, to pretend for a minute that the universe is an enormous black hole. I understand that this is more than likely not the case, but bear with me on this one. Pretending that our universe is a black hole, and trying to then understand the effects of tidal forces on the matter all around us, how would things look. Because tidal forces would compress matter as we wind our way down into the bottomless pit, as it were, would it appear as though distance between objects was increasing? Just a wild thought, any ideas?

infamous, if space-time is a property of the universe, then the universe is an expanding space-time bubble that is all inside with no outside. So maybe our universe is sort of a black hole, only inside out, a vast and expanding bubble of space-time inside a singularity, a bubble in which, if you could go beyond the domain of matter and energy within, you would arrive at a threshold (surface?) of which every possible point is the same, identical point. This added trick to your black hole game would explain our increasing velocity of expansion as the effect of falling deeper into the rim of the bubble.

 

Regarding the rest, we must consider our measuring devices and means of measure, don't you think? We're not using a ruler to measure astronomical distances, so the shrinking of our yardstick may not apply. We measure large distances often by calculating red shift. How would red shift be affected by a massive gravity well? I know Einstein equated gravity and acceleration. Would increased gravitational tidal forces have an effect similar to doppler shift due to expansion? What causes the black lines in prism light associated with the elements? Could the black line for sodium for example be relocated by the effects of the compression of matter at the atomic scale? I'm at a loss.

 

Samm

[EddieG]

How naive of me to think that I was the first to think of shrinking matter last year. I am still quite surprised that the mainstream scientific community hasn’t reviewed any evidence for or against the idea. Today’s leading explanation for the red shift is that the universe is expanding as a result of a mysterious force called dark energy. This sounds more like the next generation of epicycles to me. The more logical explanation for the red shift is that all the matter in the universe has been shrinking into smaller space as a result of losing energy/mass. An observer could not directly detect the loss of energy/mass because they themselves are made of the particles that are imploding into smaller space. However, one observation that can be interpreted as evidence for this theory occurs as protons approach light speed in particle colliders. The injection of energy into the particle by the accelerator may be slowing the loss of energy/mass, rendering the re-energized matter to appear more massive to observers at relative rest. Could the energy accelerating the proton be slowing the rate at which it implodes into smaller space? This would appear to us observers as the particle growing, when in fact it was shrinking less rapidly.

 

String theory attempts to explain gravity’s weakness when compared to the Strong Force, the Weak force, and Electromagnetism. Perhaps the force of gravity isn’t a force at all. What if it's like inertia, a property of shrinking matter. Could the implosion of matter be what pulls in more matter? It's logical that the more matter shrinking in a denser (smaller) space would create more gravitational effects than less dense matter. Do we really need extra dimensions to explain that gravitons travel between alternate universes? This sounds like more epicycles to me.

Edited April 25, 2012 by EddieG

[Pincho Paxton]

Shrinking matter is acceptable to me. I am not averse to the idea. I am also not averse to Galaxies moving apart. The forces that I use in my theory creates both scenarios, so it could actually be both at the same time. Think of a valley with a deep river running through it, you get both.

Edited April 25, 2012 by Pincho Paxton

[EddieG]

:rolleyes:

 

But - if the universe is shrinking, what should we use to measure it against?

 

I don't believe the universe is shrinking as it is infinite. The matter within it on the other hand, reacts to the energy that transfers from one state to another.

[CarlNGraham]

This is one of my pet subjects.

A while back, I posted this thread on it, in the alternative theories section.

 

Condensing universe

There are also a few threads on other sites that have some interesting bits.

 

The main interesting question for me is expanding or shrinking relative to what?

The best answer seems to come from conservation of momentum.

It can only by correct in one set of expanding or shrinking reference frames.

Constant velocity as measured by instrument made of shrinking atoms, or constant velocity as measured in comoving space?

 

Another intersting point from these threads is that conservation of momentum in comoving space combined with gravity looks like the effects of dark matter.

[EddieG]

Here is a thought experiment: If you focused a camera with a lense the size of a single photon at a very distant galaxy that is bright enough for its light to reach the camera, would it only be able to take a picture of a single photon from that galaxy?

[EddieG]

If every effect would be the same, does it matter?

The implications of cause and effect are completely different for an Expanding Universe vs. Shrinking matter. If the universe is expanding, what is the force causing the expansion? If the matter is shrinking, what is the matter losing with time? You can only play semantics with the ratio of space to matter, but not with the forces at work. Can you say that a room full of balloons expanded if the balloons deflated with time?

[Pincho Paxton]

The main interesting question for me is expanding or shrinking relative to what?

 

Relative to zero.

 

If the matter is shrinking, what is the matter losing with time?

 

It's creating time, gravity, magnetism, and energy from matter.

 

 

Are these questions, that I am not supposed to answer? I get confused when science asks questions then bans me.

 

If I am not supposed to answer, forget the above.

Edited April 25, 2012 by Pincho Paxton

[maddog]

Here is a thought experiment: If you focused a camera with a lense the size of a single photon at a very distant galaxy that is bright enough for its light to reach the camera, would it only be able to take a picture of a single photon from that galaxy?

A problem with this is a photon a Quantum Mechanical object is being thought of in a classical way (i.e. having a size or width). It does not in this conventional way. So if you allow the resultant to be instead an Expectation value (i.e. instead a probability of hitting your lens), then you will get results. Because of QM you might find that you camera could in theory get a lot more than one photon assuming you at least gave it some aperture (width of lens). Say the aperture in this camera is a Micron (10E-6 m).

 

maddog