# Thread: Us shrinking or space expanding?

1. Why do we assume the universe is expanding, instead of us shrinking?

It seems against the spirit of the cosmological principle to say, “We can’t be shrinking therefore the whole universe must be expanding.”

If you mathematically model the universe, with matter shrinking instead of space expanding. You get results that, in my opinion, match observation much better than standard cosmology.
What is better you can do it totally within the excepted laws of physics, no space travelling faster than the speed of light, no dark matter or dark energy, no photons changing energy in flight etc.

It does get a bit complicated with how you measure some constants if your instruments are made of matter that is shrinking.

2.

3. In some ways this is how i think about it too...for instance,a model of the universe i constructed,it appears we are shrinking,inside the 'singularity'...
strange i know...but there you have it...
the snag comes when you look at atoms and sub atomic particles..surely they are shrinking,in this scenario?
There would be the constant of c to consider too...if distance shrunk,the speed of light would increase.....

4. Yes, if the absolute speed of light does not change, then smaller instruments made of smaller atoms will measure a faster speed of light.

This is how you get the redshift, plug a measured increasing speed of light into the equations for energy level of electrons in an atom and the energy levels increase.
Hence ancient atoms in the past emitted longer wavelength light, with no reason for the ancient photons to gain energy as they travel.
You get the same result from assume the electrons are just further away from the neuclius in ancient atoms so lower energy levels, so longer wavelength photons when electrons change levels.
Alternatively, even assume space is expanding and do the maths in comoving space, the maths is identical.

Also, if you plug a faster speed of light into the equations for the size of an atom, then it should be smaller. (bohr radius, covalent radius etc)

The odd thing is the way the laws of physics, including an indirect form of time dilation, make it almost impossible for us to detect the shrinkage other than by looking at old light.

5. I would just put it down as curious..after all,the evidence shows the universe as expanding...so atoms,particles will probably follow that rule too.
Of course its a matter of perspective,whether shrinking or expanding .

6. Yes, when I original started playing with this a few years back, I assumed matter shrinking or space expanding was the same thing.
However, when you start playing with the maths, you get some subtle differences that have major effects over billions of years.
Viewed through our shrinking telescopes they look just like dark matter and dark energy.
And you can only have a bigbang if space is expanding, from the shrink matter point of view the universe is incredibly old.

I can't make the maths for the weak force, W bosons and neutrinos work, they just refuse to shrink, but I don't think it matters for about another hundred billion years, and matter will be so small by then other galaxies will be invisible anyway.

Every time, I read about the high metal content of the earliest galaxies, problems modeling their rotations with dark matter or MOND , or dark energy stuff.
I go back and revive this stuff because it has no problems in those areas.
The maths matches observation with no problems.

See:
Physics in comoving coordinates

http://www.thescienceforum.com/new-h...ase-break.html

These are exactly the same maths but from two different viewpoints.

7. Originally Posted by PetTastic
Why do we assume the universe is expanding, instead of us shrinking?
Because we choose to believe that our measuring tools are invariant, rather than the universe around our measuring tools.

Originally Posted by PetTastic
It seems against the spirit of the cosmological principle to say, “We can’t be shrinking therefore the whole universe must be expanding.”
No, the cosmological principle is simply that we do not live in a special part of the universe, so we assume that any observer anywhere would see pretty much the same thing that we do. This would apply in both scenarios.

Originally Posted by PetTastic
If you mathematically model the universe, with matter shrinking instead of space expanding. You get results that, in my opinion, match observation much better than standard cosmology.
No, you get results that match observation in the same way as the current model, as all you are doing is swapping around the invariants, i.e. changing your coordinate system.

Originally Posted by PetTastic
What is better you can do it totally within the excepted laws of physics, no space travelling faster than the speed of light, no dark matter or dark energy, no photons changing energy in flight etc.
No, you cannot. Apart from everything else, you end up with a speed of light in a vacuum that changes over time, which is definitely not within the accepted laws of physics.

Originally Posted by PetTastic
It does get a bit complicated with how you measure some constants if your instruments are made of matter that is shrinking.
It does indeed, which is why we use Occam's razor and choose the simpler model, where our rulers are invariant.

8. Originally Posted by PetTastic
Yes, if the absolute speed of light does not change, then smaller instruments made of smaller atoms will measure a faster speed of light.
Absolute speed, relative to what?

9. Originally Posted by PetTastic
And you can only have a bigbang if space is expanding, from the shrink matter point of view the universe is incredibly old.
Only if you fail to take cosmological time-dilation into account, which is exactly the same case as with the current model.

Originally Posted by PetTastic
I can't make the maths for the weak force, W bosons and neutrinos work, they just refuse to shrink, but I don't think it matters for about another hundred billion years, and matter will be so small by then other galaxies will be invisible anyway.
You will also have big problems with the fine structure constant, which only has to vary by a small percentage before atoms themselves become unstable.

10. Choosing what is invariant & therefore what coordinate system to use affects the laws of physics as we see them.

By saying atoms/matter is shrinking we are effectively switching from our local coordinate system to comoving space, but not just our view of things but moving the laws of physics to using comoving space as native.

This principly affects the basic laws of motion like conservation of momentium.
Conservation of momentum in our local space implies an object will lose velocity over time when viewed from comoving space.
Conservation of momentum in comoving space implies a moving object will speedup over time when viewed from local space.
(Combined with gravity giving the illusion of dark matter, on scales larger than galaxies)

Only the speed of light measured my shrinking instruments increases, the absolute speed of light in comoving space remains constant.
So the average time for light to travel between galaxies is a universal constant.

In the current accepted model, time dilation only affects our view of the universe. Time is assumed to run at a constant rate.

In this model time runs at a constant rate, but the experience of time changes dependent on the size of matter you are made from.
Larger atoms take longer to emit longer wavelength photons. Electrons take longer to change energy levels, etc.

The maths for the wavelength of light emitted changing in proportion to the size of the atom relies on the fine-structure constant not changing.

11. Fred Hoyle took this point of view. He coined the term "Big Bang" as a means of ridicule. Read about it in "Ten Faces of the Universe". Probably a good introduction for the layman.

http://www.amazon.com/Ten-Faces-Univ.../dp/0716703831

12. Originally Posted by PetTastic
If you mathematically model the universe, with matter shrinking instead of space expanding. You get results that, in my opinion, match observation much better than standard cosmology.
As SpeedFreek says, you must get exactly the same match to observation. If you modify you shrinking model to better match/explain observation then you must be able to make the equivalent modification in standard cosmology to make that fit equally well.

It is possible that transforming everything to shrinking coordinates might give some insights that then be applied to the expanding model. (In the same way we use things like Fourier transforms.) Hasn't happened yet, though.

13. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by PetTastic
If you mathematically model the universe, with matter shrinking instead of space expanding. You get results that, in my opinion, match observation much better than standard cosmology.
As SpeedFreek says, you must get exactly the same match to observation. If you modify you shrinking model to better match/explain observation then you must be able to make the equivalent modification in standard cosmology to make that fit equally well.

It is possible that transforming everything to shrinking coordinates might give some insights that then be applied to the expanding model. (In the same way we use things like Fourier transforms.) Hasn't happened yet, though.
The biggest problem in building a transform function comes from the maths used in standard cosmology all going to zero or exploding 13.75 billion years ago.

If space is not expanding, then I am looking for a continuous function at that point, which describes the scale factor to a comoving coordinate system relative to size of atoms.
Switching this around to thinking, ‘how is matter shrinking relative to comoving space’ proved more useful.

I could not get a sensibly luminosity or angular size distance from matter scaling linearly. In addition, this would have implied the size of atoms reaching zero at a fixed date in the future.

The best match so far comes from the size matter of matter decaying exponentially relative to comoving space. This makes the scale factor for comoving space relative to us change exponentially and therefore a good visual match to the shape of the BBT comoving distance function.

This makes comoving space expand relative to the size of matter and the rate of expansion increase exponentially, so giving the illusion of dark energy for free.

Going with BBT use of z to denote redshift of light coming from time t in the past.
The wavelength of light is proportional to (1+z)
Size of matter is proportional to wavelength (1+z) (Measured speed of light by scaled matter into function for energy levels of electrons in atoms)
Rate photons are emitted by larger atoms & therefore stars & supernova (1+z)
(This is a guess, as many factors involved, not just the time it takes for an electron the change level and emit a photon etc.)

When I did a visual match of the luminosity distance and angular size distance curves (non expanding space) I get a rough match with (1+z) = 1.065t with t in billions of years.

I used the following in Octave/Matlab:

Code:
function [ ret ] = ZCurve ()
z = 0:0.25:50;

# Time equals distance in billions of years or lightyears
AbsDistance = log(1+z) / log(1.065);    # 1+z = 1.065 .^ t;

# Angular dist is reciprocal of angular size
angd = 1 ./ atan2((1+z) , AbsDistance);

# Photon emission rate slower for larger matter
#(time to emit photon of longer wavelength, dist & force on electron changing state etc)
lumd = AbsDistance .* (1+z);

plot(z,AbsDistance, ";Abs dist;", z, angd,";Ang dist;", z(1:11), lumd(1:11), ";Lum dist;");
xlabel "z";
ylabel "Distance (billion ly)";
endfunction

So you get the illusion of dark matter and dark energy without the need for anything to travel beyond the speed of light, not even space.
Plus supernova remnants cooling slower because the rate of photons being emitted is slower.

14. If everything is moving apart, when we look back 13.7 billion years we come to a point where everything is so close together that the physics breaks down.

If everything is staying still but shrinking, when we look back 13.7 billion years we come to a point where everything is so close together that the physics breaks down.

No?

15. If in the processes of that rewinding you are happy with a bout of unexplained expansion at near infinite velocity, galaxies or space moving away from us at beyond the speed of light etc, then yes, no problem.

I personally still have a good deal of confidence in standard cosmology, but I find an alternative that strictly stays within the known laws of physics very appealing.

If I have doubts about experiments with accelerators that show neutrinos traveling beyond the speed of light.
I must then also have doubts about experiments with telescopes that show galaxies traveling beyond the speed of light.

I think the option that the telescope is shrinking and nothing is moving beyond the speed of light should be explored.

16. With the standard cosmology, all forces remain constant, but consequently GR predicts a universe whose size cannot remain constant - the universe will either expand, or contract.

With the "matter is shrinking" model, all forces have to change in order to keep the universe at the same size, but those forces have to interact in a coordinated manner.

You have swapped "that which causes distance to increase" with "that which causes matter to shrink".

Then we add another parameter - dark energy - "that which causes the rate at which distance increases to change". In the shrinking model this becomes "that which causes the rate at which matter shrinks to change".

So, in the shrinking model you have at least five parameters that all have to interact in a coordinated way, in order to keep the comoving distance constant. What do you suggest governs the interaction between all those parameters, to keep matter in a coherent form? How does that remain within the known laws of physics?

Whereas in the standard cosmology only one of the above parameters changes over time - cosmological distance.

17. Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
With the standard cosmology, all forces remain constant, but consequently GR predicts a universe whose size cannot remain constant - the universe will either expand, or contract.
Yes, but on the other hand basic logical says that in an infinit universe there is always equal universe to your left as your right, therefore the forces on every point in the universe cancel out to zero.

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
With the "matter is shrinking" model, all forces have to change in order to keep the universe at the same size, but those forces have to interact in a coordinated manner.
The basic assumption is that the universe is not shrinking or expanding, that is the navive coordinate ssystem for physics is comoving space.
Space is just space and it is only the atoms, stars and galaxoes that change. Having no effect on the size of space.

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
You have swapped "that which causes distance to increase" with "that which causes matter to shrink".

Then we add another parameter - dark energy - "that which causes the rate at which distance increases to change". In the shrinking model this becomes "that which causes the rate at which matter shrinks to change".
This model has no energy change as such on the scale of the universe, it started with a tiny average energy density evenly distributed, and the collapses concentrating the energy into smaller and smaller volumes under gravity.
What I am trying to get a handle on is how to estimate the energy in photons. As galaxies get smaller and emits higher energy photons, with longer and longer flight times before they hit another galaxy, because galaxies are shrinking all the time they are in flight.

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
So, in the shrinking model you have at least five parameters that all have to interact in a coordinated way, in order to keep the comoving distance constant. What do you suggest governs the interaction between all those parameters, to keep matter in a coherent form? How does that remain within the known laws of physics?
Why should the size of atoms have any effect on the size of space?

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
Whereas in the standard cosmology only one of the above parameters changes over time - cosmological distance.
I only have one magic number 1.065

The only reason I think this alternative cosmolgy is worth playing with is that it matches observation without tweeking the laws of physics.
Including some areas that cause standard cosmolgy problems.

All it assumes is that if the speed of light is an absolute constant of this univeres and that a ruler or instrument made of larger atoms will measure a lower speed of light.
As we are mainly interested in hydrogen you can plug this into the bohr radius, but other version for size of atom all work.

And you get bigger atoms as expected. (no constants changed)

Plug the measured speed of light into the equations for the energy levels of electrons in atoms.

and the energy levels go down.
So the wavelength of light stays proportional to the size of atoms without changing any constants.

There are some complications in interpreting redshift due to real motion because it gets scaled by cosmological redshift.

18. Originally Posted by The Finger Prince
Fred Hoyle took this point of view. He coined the term "Big Bang" as a means of ridicule. Read about it in "Ten Faces of the Universe". Probably a good introduction for the layman.

Amazon.com: Ten Faces of the Universe (9780716703839): Fred Hoyle: Books
His argument against the big bang seems totally philosophical, and not based on the laws of physics.
He just does not like the idea of the universe having a beginning.
I don't understand how after all his work on nucleosynthesis he could have any faith in the stead state theory. How could protons and electrons just pop into existance with no signes of anitmatter?

I was just pointing out there are two ways of getting a redshift effect out of the laws of physics.
Space expanding incredibly fast or matter shrinking incredibly slowly.
Both slow the decay time of supernova explosions by about the same amount.

The second one avoids the need for anything traveling faster than the speed of light and gives a plausible explanation for an illusion of dark matter and dark energy.

It seems incredibly hard to do an experiment to tell the difference, because the primary assumption is that the characteristic wavelengths of light emitted stays proportional to the size of matter.

19. As a thought,if in the shrinking scenario....would the 'size of the universe be static?

20. Well, it would be static, but relative to what?

21. not sure what you mean.....? 'relative to what'

22. Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
Well, it would be static, but relative to what?
The best answer I can come up with for this one is, relative to the native reference frame for the laws of physics.

Newton's basic laws of motion do not scale, and conservation of momentum can only work natively in one set of none accelerating or none scaling reference frames.

If you want to stay within the standard laws of physics, an infinite universe cannot isotopically expand or shrink without something exceeding the speed of light relative to something else in all reference frames.

However, the laws of physics have no problem with the universe just looking like it is expanding from a shrinking viewpoint.

23. Have a read of this discussion on another forum.

(Note the replies by Tensor, Caveman1917 and Shaula - they actually understand this stuff! You will find they are saying exactly what I have been saying.)

24. Thanks SpeedFreek....the discussion on the other forum explains it very well....now i understand your previous reply...static but relevant to what

25. Yes the discussion is spreading quite nicely on many sites since I first started posting about it in march 2010
We are shrinking & the rate of shrinkage is increasing - Topic

My first post here about it was a year later
http://www.thescienceforum.com/new-h...ase-break.html
You SpeedFreek joined in that discussion.

The discussion you highlighted is diverging a bit as he is not consentrationg on the basic in the physics of the atom to justify the argument.

Without that you can't get the distance curves, and therefore make dark matter vanish totally including gravitational lensing.

26. This issue has been discussed many times in the past, since waaaay before march 2010.

27. Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
This issue has been discussed many times in the past, since waaaay before march 2010.
Oh Yes, agreed totally

I am only pointing out that if you get the redshift through basic particle physics, then you also get the time dilation of cooling hot matter, caused by the rate photons are emitted from larger atoms.
This gives you a direct method for calculating luminocity and angular size distances that can be matched to observation.

The best match I could find was matter shrinking at a bit more than 6% a billion years.
From that point, everything drops out from the basic laws of physics, with consistently no need for dark matter or dark energy to explain observation.

28. Hello All. I found this thread via a note PetTastic left on mine at bautforum. A link to the thread is in a post above. My interest in this shrinking model started as I read about 73% of the universe is dark energy. I worked on the perspective and landed around where PetTastic was, years ago.

I have a couple questions to catch up with where you are.

- What is the granularity of the shrinkage? planet systems (ie. solar system), planets (ie. earth) or atomic level? (or even to subatomic level?)
- In the above post, PetTastic wrote "... caused by the rate photons are emitted from larger atoms." which seems to imply larger atoms emit photons at higher rate. Has this been qualified?

Thanks

29. Originally Posted by Summerwind
Hello All. I found this thread via a note PetTastic left on mine at bautforum. A link to the thread is in a post above. My interest in this shrinking model started as I read about 73% of the universe is dark energy. I worked on the perspective and landed around where PetTastic was, years ago.

I have a couple questions to catch up with where you are.

- What is the granularity of the shrinkage? planet systems (ie. solar system), planets (ie. earth) or atomic level? (or even to subatomic level?)
- In the above post, PetTastic wrote "... caused by the rate photons are emitted from larger atoms." which seems to imply larger atoms emit photons at higher rate. Has this been qualified?

Thanks
In my posts I am assuming the speed of light is absolute and constant, and does not slow down as your measuring stick shrinks.

Therefore, if you use your stick in an experiment to measure the speed of light, the measured speed will increases over time.
I assume that the "C" used for the speed of ligth in physics is the measured speed from experiments.

I can only get the maths to work from that atomic level upwards.
At the subatomic level, the weak force does not seem to scale well.

At the larger level a simple lab experiment of bouncing a laser off some mirrors and then generating interference patterns with the original beam would show drift if the size of the lab did not shrink with your measuring stick.

If photons do not change energy in flight, then the stars emitted the light at the wavelength, we see it.
This fits with star made of bigger atoms also being larger with lower surface gravity, and being redder in colour as seen by us.
But a local observer to the star would have seen no reddening because the observer was made of larger atoms at the time.

Originally Posted by Summerwind
- In the above post, PetTastic wrote "... caused by the rate photons are emitted from larger atoms." which seems to imply larger atoms emit photons at higher rate. Has this been qualified?

Thanks
No. The maths says larger atoms emit photons at a lower rate, because the time required to emit a photon is proportional to it wavelength. This seems to apply all the way from single electrons in electric fields up to long wave radio transmitters.
(Please double check and tell me if I am wrong, because I use this as a basis for calculating the luminocity distance)

30. Thanks for the clarification. I have seen models where c * planck's constant is a constant.

31. Hi Summerwind,

I also saw this and your postings on BAUT forum so I thought I'd make a posting here and see if anyone was still listening.

PetTastic,

I also am a proponent of this "us shrinking" model. You can see a book and technical papers concerning a specific cosmological model concerning matter diminution, at Pantheory.org.

The best match I could find was matter shrinking at a bit more than 6% a billion years.
Since we are on the same team here concerning this model we can discuss details as well as any questions which you may wish to ask me since I've been involved with this model since the late 1950's

The rate of shrinking that I have calculated based upon data from galactic observations is about a 1/000 part every 6 million years. Philosophically I'd rather have a slower process as in your numbers.

Maybe you could tell me how you got your figure 6% per billion years? After that I will explain to you where my number came from, OK?

Anybody else interested in this subject we can discuss this model from my own book of about 400 pages proposing a related cosmological model including another theory of gravity to explain away dark matter, another theory of relativity, another Hubble style equation that explains away dark energy, the reason accordingly for the diminution of matter, etc.

I will not interfere with this thread if my own related ideas/ answers are not asked for by you. If not I guess the forum might want me to start another thread based upon the same basic idea but some details would naturally be different?

32. Hi Forrest, nice to see you again...

33. Originally Posted by Strange
Hi Forrest, nice to see you again...
Nice to hear from you too Strange. Hope all is well with you for the holidays. They booted me from BAUT; There's a lot more latitude in this forum although I am just a newbee.

Just glanced at your profile, I vaguely remember that you live in Belgium, Holland, Scandinavia? And you're a writer, cool. As you can see I am still discussing cosmology. This is not my thread so when I have time I will eventually start my own thread on the same subject. I look in on BAUT from time to time as I did yesterday and recall seeing your comments.

To make this an official on-topic reply -- the diminution of matter explains the universe. The observable universe is accordingly much older and not expanding

Best wished to you and yours for the holidays, your friend Forrest

34. Originally Posted by forrest noble
Nice to hear from you too Strange. Hope all is well with you for the holidays.
And to you.

They booted me from BAUT
Yeah, I was sorry to see you go.

Just glanced at your profile, I vaguely remember that you live in Belgium, Holland, Scandinavia?
UK

To make this an official on-topic reply -- the diminution of matter explains the universe. The observable universe is accordingly much older and not expanding
And, my on-topic bit: no it isn't

best.

35. Have a look at the last #17 post on http://www.thescienceforum.com/new-h...ase-break.html
I was just matching the luminocity and angular distance curves.

Probably best to put new alternative cosmology posts on that thread as this is not the best place on the forum for this sort of thing.

What interests me is evidence for space expanding or not expanding.
The only thing that I can find that casts some doubt on the expansion of space is gas falling into gallaxies from vast distances.

36. The planck's constant is the only clue we can use...as that cannot change...if atoms/particles were to alter n size,then this constant is wrong..

37. Originally Posted by brane wave
The planck's constant is the only clue we can use...as that cannot change...if atoms/particles were to alter n size,then this constant is wrong..

38. The idea is that the only thing that changes is the measured speed of light, no constants change.

The universe's speed of light is absolute and unchanging, but the measured speed of light that we use in physics is dependent on the size of atoms you use to do the measurement.
Then you have a circular argument because the size of atoms and their electron energy levels is dependent on the measured speed of light.

If plank's constant or the fine-structure constant or the value of the elemental charge change you break the model.

39. Sure,i can see what you mean....however its not circular thinking,per say...
as the only way light/photon energy can change, is if h changes.
As all atoms/particles are also defined using h...the heart of particles are dipole(s) at h length.
h was fixed in our universe at the singularity manifold.
Im not ruling out shrinkage/expansion,as they can be results from an interesting perspective of the shape of the universe

40. Originally Posted by brane wave
Sure,i can see what you mean....however its not circular thinking,per say...
as the only way light/photon energy can change, is if h changes.
As all atoms/particles are also defined using h...the heart of particles are dipole(s) at h length.
h was fixed in our universe at the singularity manifold.
Im not ruling out shrinkage/expansion,as they can be results from an interesting perspective of the shape of the universe
You don't need h to change because the energy levels are proportional to the measured speed of light "c".

As atoms shrink you measure a faster speed of light, so the energy levels of the photons goes up, and their wavelength stays proportional to the size of the atom.

It is not quite as simple as it looks above because of the SI unit system not expecting c to change, you need to convert all distances to light seconds etc.

I say:
The key argument being the phrase: “As experienced by matter”.
Anything that cannot be directly or indirectly experiences by matter we know nothing about.
Therefore, the laws of physics are the laws of the universe as experienced my matter.

41. Originally Posted by PetTastic
Have a look at the last #17 post on http://www.thescienceforum.com/new-h...ase-break.html
I was just matching the luminosity and angular distance curves.

Probably best to put new alternative cosmology posts on that thread as this is not the best place on the forum for this sort of thing.

What interests me is evidence for space expanding or not expanding.
The only thing that I can find that casts some doubt on the expansion of space is gas falling into galaxies from vast distances.
I understand. The other thread is in the "new hypothesis and new ideas" section. That makes sense. I will make cosmological comments on the other thread, and comments/ questions to you on "us shrinking or space expanding" on this thread, but without assertions

42. All this fits in rather well with the properties of a black hole..

43. Seasons greetings and best wishes to all

44. Originally Posted by PetTastic

You don't need h to change because the energy levels are proportional to the measured speed of light "c".

As atoms shrink you measure a faster speed of light, so the energy levels of the photons goes up, and their wavelength stays proportional to the size of the atom.

It is not quite as simple as it looks above because of the SI unit system not expecting c to change, you need to convert all distances to light seconds etc.

I say:
The key argument being the phrase: “As experienced by matter”.
Anything that cannot be directly or indirectly experiences by matter we know nothing about.
Therefore, the laws of physics are the laws of the universe as experienced my matter.
Not only a great idea but a cool philosophy I say Horatio (PetTastic) !!!

I suggest that you need ħ (Plank's Constant) to also decrease with time. As atoms and molecules accordingly become smaller, so would the energy levels between atomic shells need to remain proportional to matter which defines Plank's constant. The speed of light accordingly would not need to change since it is a ratio. Time should appear to have been longer, and distances greater as one looks back into time.

I believe thou art a laudable thinker and scholar, speak to it Horatio?

45. Or you could take Occam's point of view that the speed of light is constant, and you don't have to have half a dozen things changing in perfect harmony at the same time to fit the observations...

46. Originally Posted by MeteorWayne
Or you could take Occam's point of view that the speed of light is constant, and you don't have to have half a dozen things changing in perfect harmony at the same time to fit the observations...
The speed of light is a ratio, distance traveled per unit of time. In the past I believe both distance and the speed of time would have been measured differently. Even in the present time frame accordingly the speed of light is a constant, even when time varies according to the altitude. Example: Based upon altitudes here on Earth time varies and its rate increases with altitude. At an altitude of one mile above sea level, for instance, time transpires at a faster rate/pace, but the distance traveled by light also increases, therefore the speed of light remains constant.

Wayne, the reason for the proposed decrease in the size of matter over time is to explain the observed redshifts enabling simpler explanations and mechanics of the observable universe The universe and space does not have to expand to explain galactic redshifts if matter were very slowly becoming smaller. The speed of light as a ratio, would remain constant over time, while matter would be relatively speaking, reducing in size.

The proposed model ( matter shrinking ) has now been modified to such an extent that the observable outcome is indistinguishable from the standard "Expanding Universe" model. In other words, the new model does not make any verifiable predictions which are different in any way from the old model.

48. Originally Posted by forrest noble
I suggest that you need ħ (Plank's Constant) to also decrease with time. As atoms and molecules accordingly become smaller, so would the energy levels between atomic shells need to remain proportional to matter which defines Plank's constant. The speed of light accordingly would not need to change since it is a ratio. Time and distance by their definitions should proportionally increase as one looks back into time.
There is a problem changing the measured value of plank's constant, as it causes problems matching observation.
A simple experiment in the lab, of bouncing a laser off a mirror to create interference patterns with the original beam would show drift in one direction over time.
You can view this experiment as measuring the wavelength of light against the size of the atom, and this alternative cosmology all depends on that relationship being a constant.

I did look at the idea that the universe's value of Plank's constant was changing, but the measured value remained constant.
However, this looks a tricky area, that gets you into the whole thing of the experience of energy.
In this model the photons we emit are getting shorter in wavelength as the universe ages, so matter is getting smaller, denser and hotter.
Changing the experienced speed of light changes the experience of energy, good old E = mc2.
At the begining of the universe the experienced speed of light was very slow, so you could have as much matter as you like from a tiny amount of energy.

Something must be changing to make matter smaller, but as far as I can see, so far only the measured speed of light needs to change, in realtion to the size of the atoms used to measure it.

My main focus is testing this against observation.
I spent a few days before xmas looking at gravitional lensing using the distance curves above.
The distances between the viewpoint, the lensing galaxy and the far galaxy increase by a factor of nealy 4, over the BBT light travel distance.
Therefore the angle the light is bent by is much smalled, making the mass of the lensing galaxy much less, but still a bit on the heavy side.
So I still need galaxies to contain large amounts of dead stars an planets etc., even went the law of physics force you to model galaxies as rapidly growing.
Or maybe the galaxy that was bending the light was just a very heavy slow growing one.
But at least the model is self consistant, even if I can't conclusively show no dark matter.

49. have you modelled this with dark matter as the extra gravity you needed to satisfy the heavier galaxy needed ? :-)

50. Originally Posted by brane wave
have you modelled this with dark matter as the extra gravity you needed to satisfy the heavier galaxy needed ? :-)
I edited that last post.
I think the gravitational lensing makes the galaxies still too heavy to exclude the existence of dark matter.

I was only doing the gravitational lensing test to see if I could find an observed case in which the galaxies mass got lighter than the observed mass, this would have indicated a problem with the model.

51. good work PetTastic...i do find this fascinating..it is a model i keep returning too also

52. PetTastic,

I did look at the idea that the universe's value of Plank's constant was changing, but the measured value remained constant.
Of course all measured values I believe should remain constant in all time frames. It would seem that upon comparison when looking back in time, matter would appear to have been larger, space would appear to have been greater in distance and volume, velocities including the speed of light would appear to have been greater, and time should appear to have been slower. But in their own time frames all would have appeared and would have measured the same in their own time frame as they appear in our time frame.

....so matter is getting smaller, denser and hotter.
Looking backward in time, matter would appear to have been larger in the past. It would appear to have been less dense because distances would appear to have been greater as well as, luminosity would appear to have been brighter. Larger atoms in the past would have produced proportionally longer but more intense EM radiation. This is my model; is it also your model, or are there differences?

In my own model it all seems very simple. Everything appears and measures the same in our time frame, as it did in every other past time frame. Each time frame is identical to all other time frames concerning the relative conditions withing the time frame.

Are we discussing implications of the same model, or in some ways slightly different models? I think we are just discussing such a model's implications if matter were becoming smaller and we are shrinking right? We could disagree on the implications but I have to try to get it right since I have written a 400 page book about it which is being distributed to the far corners of the earth. I continually upgrade the online version of the model based upon new observations and improved insights. If you see a mistake in my logic please enlighten me. I need to know!!

53. Originally Posted by forrest noble
Looking backward in time, matter would appear to have been larger in the past. It would appear to have been ess dense because distances would appear to have been greater as well as, luminosity would appear to have been brighter. Larger atoms in the past would have produced proportionally longer but more intense EM radiation. This is my model; is it also your model, or are there differences?
In this model.
I have larger atoms outputting less energy in the past.
What ever way I do the maths, in comoving space with an absolute speed of light, or in local physical space using the measured or experienced speed of light, I get the energy output of stars or supernovas decreasing by a factor of (1+z)2.
This comes from each photon having less energy, and the rate they are emitted at slowing in larger atoms.
Also the star may be bigger, but it is still made from the same number of atoms.

So far, this model does seem to be a very good match for observation.
It predicts an observer who does not understand that they are shrinking will see the illusion of dark matter and dark energy.

Space not expanding means everything must follow the standard laws of physics.
The colapse of the large scale structure must be accelerating.
Galaxies must be rapidly growing, spawning more galaxies, as the eat the thickening intergalactic medium.
In this model, the laws of physics don't give you many choices, so far everything I can test is a good match for observation, including galaxy rotation curves.

The current discrepancy that I have found is the cosmic microwave background.
In this model, I can't see anyway that the large-scale structure cannot leave a major mark on it.
I need to do some more reading on standard cosmology to see how this works in BBT.

54. I have to conclude that the planck length is fixed...I do have good reasons to say that.
So the shrinking is not possible for me...Phew..i can finally put this to bed..
A nice concept though...and might be feasible,in another type of universe

55. Originally Posted by brane wave
I have to conclude that the planck length is fixed...I do have good reasons to say that.
So the shrinking is not possible for me...Phew..i can finally put this to bed..
A nice concept though...and might be feasible,in another type of universe
Sorry, been through this one on 3 or 4 forums over the last few years.

The units for the planck length is metres, and it has no direct path to convert it to light seconds.
This means it shrinks with the length of the metre and all other units of length that are measured using atoms.
It also shrinks as viewed from comoving space. If you take that approach to the problem.

So the value as measured using atoms is fixed, but the universe's value is unknown.

Could we put all new posts and replies here.
http://www.thescienceforum.com/new-h...ase-break.html
because this stuff is only a fun interesting model.
The problem is how well it works, and how hard it is to break.
I have been posting it with the "please break" for a while but no luck so far, but just because you can't break it does not make it correct.

I think the main issue is that standard cosmology assumes that the fundamental unchanging thing in the universe is the way electrons orbit the nucleus, and bases all units of measurement on that.
However, this results in most of the universe traveling at beyond the speed of light compare to everything else.

56. Originally Posted by PetTastic
However, this results in most of the universe traveling at beyond the speed of light compare to everything else.
Which is not a problem, and does not conflict with SR in any way, as nothing is actually moving or travelling faster than light relative to anything else.

57. Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
Originally Posted by PetTastic
However, this results in most of the universe traveling at beyond the speed of light compare to everything else.
Which is not a problem, and does not conflict with SR in any way, as nothing is actually moving or travelling faster than light relative to anything else.
Just testing, you were being very quiet while this stuff was being posted here.

My model and standard cosmology both agree nothing is really moving.

The big difference is my model predicts that the real velocities expand with the expansion of space, because of conservation of momentum in comoving space.
Remember this one? Metric expansion and real velocities?

Can you point me at something that explains why the large-scale structure does not show up in the cosmic microwave background?
The earliest galaxies still seem to part of the structure, so it must have started forming very early.

I have a problem in my model in that you can't see black space between galaxies, there should always be more galaxies going back beyond z=20 to maybe 100 or more.
Their angular size should completely block out the background, and the ancient radiation would be in the far red not microwave at that time.

58. Originally Posted by PetTastic
Can you point me at something that explains why the large-scale structure does not show up in the cosmic microwave background?
The earliest galaxies still seem to part of the structure, so it must have started forming very early.
Yes, but there is a big difference between the time the CMB was released (t=400,000 years) and when the earliest galaxies are thought to have formed (anything between t=100 million and 500 million years - the oldest galaxy we have seen so far is from around t=800 million years).

Originally Posted by PetTastic
I have a problem in my model in that you can't see black space between galaxies, there should always be more galaxies going back beyond z=20 to maybe 100 or more.
Their angular size should completely block out the background, and the ancient radiation would be in the far red not microwave at that time.
Well that certainly does seem to be a problem, doesn't it?

59. Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
Originally Posted by PetTastic
Can you point me at something that explains why the large-scale structure does not show up in the cosmic microwave background?
The earliest galaxies still seem to part of the structure, so it must have started forming very early.
Yes, but there is a big difference between the time the CMB was released (t=400,000 years) and when the earliest galaxies are thought to have formed (anything between t=100 million and 500 million years - the oldest galaxy we have seen so far is from around t=800 million years).

Originally Posted by PetTastic
I have a problem in my model in that you can't see black space between galaxies, there should always be more galaxies going back beyond z=20 to maybe 100 or more.
Their angular size should completely block out the background, and the ancient radiation would be in the far red not microwave at that time.
Well that certainly does seem to be a problem, doesn't it?
Here I believe PetTastic is referring to Olber's paradox as it relates to a much older universe than the BB model 13.7G years, and a model in which the universe is not expanding.

There are mainly three things in my matter diminution model and I think PetTastic's that explains the dark night sky. The first he mentioned. Distant galaxies are redshifted in the same way in this model as in the standard model but for a different reason, the diminution of matter. Therefore galaxies fade from visible site. The second reason is that both matter and the space between them would appear larger to us with our smaller rulers. Greater expanses of space from our perspective would also decrease luminosity. The third is simply the inverse square law of light enables only a small amount of EM radiation can get to us from the farthest galaxies. These factors together I believe explain the dark night sky and what is being observed, for an infinite universe model, for a model which proposes a much older universe.

But the last comment that PetTastic made I think will be the coup de grâce for the Big Bang model. In an older universe model like this one, we should expect to continue seeing galaxies at greater distances but farther apart. Since the universe accordingly would be much older we also should keep seeing old appearing red galaxies and ellipticals at the farthest distances, beyond what the BB model would allow. Here's a link to several of these recent sightings. I have many dozens of papers concerning such observations dating back since the Hubble first went up.

Mysterious Ultra-Red Galaxies May Be Cosmic 'Missing Link' | NASA & Spitzer Space Telescope | Galaxies & the Distant Universe | Space.com

I expect the James Webb to go up around 2017 and roughly by 2020 I expect to see the beginning of the end of the BB model when these "old appearing galaxies" observations showing up at ever increasing redshifts. From an older-universe model like this one, one should expect to continue seeing at our farthest capability, the same variety and proportions of galaxies as the Milky Way and those that we can observe in our neighborhood.

60. Originally Posted by forrest noble
But the last comment that PetTastic made I think will be the coup de grâce for the Big Bang model. In an older universe model like this one, we should expect to continue seeing galaxies at greater distances but farther apart. Since the universe accordingly would be much older we also should keep seeing old appearing red galaxies and ellipticals at the farthest distances, beyond what the BB model would allow. Here's a link to several of these recent sightings. I have many dozens of such observations dating back since the Hubble went up.

Mysterious Ultra-Red Galaxies May Be Cosmic 'Missing Link' | NASA & Spitzer Space Telescope | Galaxies & the Distant Universe | Space.com
Let's see, the discovery of "Ultra Red" galaxies at the greatest distances seems to support exactly what you say we should be seeing.

61. Originally Posted by MeteorWayne
Originally Posted by forrest noble
But the last comment that PetTastic made I think will be the coup de grâce for the Big Bang model. In an older universe model like this one, we should expect to continue seeing galaxies at greater distances but farther apart. Since the universe accordingly would be much older we also should keep seeing old appearing red galaxies and ellipticals at the farthest distances, beyond what the BB model would allow. Here's a link to several of these recent sightings. I have many dozens of such observations dating back since the Hubble went up.

Mysterious Ultra-Red Galaxies May Be Cosmic 'Missing Link' | NASA & Spitzer Space Telescope | Galaxies & the Distant Universe | Space.com
Let's see, the discovery of "Ultra Red" galaxies at the greatest distances seems to support exactly what you say we should be seeing.
Thanks Wayne. For a while they will continue to try to find explanations for such observations which should only continue if I am correct. But from now on until the James Webb goes up I believe many will start searching for ways to explain what is being observed within the BB paradigm. But after the James Webb is up and if these observations continue, I believe many will begin searching alternative models that propose an older universe. I hope to be out there at that time informing them of the diminution of matter models.

62. Well let's just hope Webb launches and works, so we get to find out

63. Originally Posted by MeteorWayne
Well let's just hope Webb launches and works, so we get to find out
I sure hope so too. Besides all the great science we would lose for maybe decades, there's also a lot of money at stake. And maybe even a lot more risk for science if the US congress would decide that "big-science" projects don't pay off But until then as long as the Hubble is still functioning, and with a number of new and highly capable long baseline radio and infrared scopes going online, I think that such continuing observations will motivate many to consider such a possibility before then

64. Originally Posted by forrest noble
But the last comment that PetTastic made I think will be the coup de grâce for the Big Bang model. In an older universe model like this one, we should expect to continue seeing galaxies at greater distances but farther apart. Since the universe accordingly would be much older we also should keep seeing old appearing red galaxies and ellipticals at the farthest distances, beyond what the BB model would allow. Here's a link to several of these recent sightings. I have many dozens of papers concerning such observations dating back since the Hubble first went up.

Mysterious Ultra-Red Galaxies May Be Cosmic 'Missing Link' | NASA & Spitzer Space Telescope | Galaxies & the Distant Universe | Space.com
None of those sightings are "beyond what the BB model would allow", seeing as with a light travel time of 13 billion years they only have a redshift of around z=7. Why do you think the article says they might be the cosmic "missing link" (in the evolution of galaxies)? In the current model, galaxies are thought to have started to form sometime between 100 and 500 million years in, and these are seen as they were around 700 million years in.

65. [QUOTE=SpeedFreek;300381]
Originally Posted by forrest noble
But the last comment that PetTastic made I think will be the coup de grâce for the Big Bang model. In an older universe model like this one, we should expect to continue seeing galaxies at greater distances but farther apart. Since the universe accordingly would be much older we also should keep seeing old appearing red galaxies and ellipticals at the farthest distances, beyond what the BB model would allow. Here's a link to several of these recent sightings. I have many dozens of papers concerning such observations dating back since the Hubble first went up.

Mysterious Ultra-Red Galaxies May Be Cosmic 'Missing Link' | NASA & Spitzer Space Telescope | Galaxies & the Distant Universe | Space.com
None of those sightings are "beyond what the BB model would allow", seeing as with a light travel time of 13 billion years they only have a redshift of around z=7.
Why do you think the article says they might be the cosmic "missing link" (in the evolution of galaxies)? In the current model, galaxies are thought to have started to form sometime between 100 and 500 million years in, and these are seen as they were around 700 million years in.
The reason why I think they are guessing a missing link in proto-galaxies is because they appear to have the opposite appearance of what they were expecting to see. In the early universe they would expect to see small blue young newly forming proto-galaxies with many galactic clouds of hydrogen with no indications of older stars.

What they are seeing here appears to be the opposite, they look like old fully formed red galaxies with little new star production. The Milky Way is thought to be a galaxy of maybe 12 billion years of age based upon age dating and the appearance of most of its stars yet it would seem that these four galaxies appear to be far older than the Milky Way. For only our closest galaxies can we actually see individual stars so if a galaxy is small blue and bright we beleive it to be a young galaxy, and if is very red, dim, and without a spiral configuration we expect it to be a galaxy of old stars.

Based upon the BB model at this distance they would expect to see very young galaxies. Since these galaxies appear to be the opposite from what they expected to see my guess is that they are thinking they made a discovery of some unknown type of proto-galaxy since it would not be possible under the BB paradigm to consider them old galaxies, maybe older than the Milky Way -- as they appear to be at a time thought to be near the beginning of the universe.

That's what I think. What do you think my friend?

66. I think they sound like very young and short lived galaxies, which would be a perfect fit.

When you say they look older than the Milky way, are you going by the "artists impression" in that article, perchance?

I ask because, from what I read in the article, they are not thought to be anything other than a new type of proto-galaxy. Hell, the artists impression even shows them looking young and "lumpy", rather than old and well defined.

We have found no evidence of galaxies that look older than BB theory should allow. There was a time, well over a decade or so ago, when we started finding galaxies that seemed older than the universe, but that was before we discovered the acceleration of the expansion of the universe and had to revise our age of the universe upwards, accordingly.

67. Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
I think they sound like very young and short lived galaxies, which would be a perfect fit.

When you say they look older than the Milky way, are you going by the "artists impression" in that article, perchance?

I ask because, from what I read in the article, they are not thought to be anything other than a new type of proto-galaxy. Hell, the artists impression even shows them looking young and "lumpy", rather than old and well defined.

We have found no evidence of galaxies that look older than BB theory should allow. There was a time, well over a decade or so ago, when we started finding galaxies that seemed older than the universe, but that was before we discovered the acceleration of the expansion of the universe and had to revise our age of the universe upwards, accordingly.
You are correct. They are presently thought to be proto-galaxies for that is the only thing they could be according to the BB paradigm at that distance. They did however say that for them to appear so red they would need to contain mostly very old stars and be very dusty galaxies, along with their great redshifts, to produce the extent of their observed and uniform redness. This perfectly describes old elliptical galaxies. With a much older universe one would expect to see the entire variety of galaxies that we observe in our neighborhood. Here are a few more or many such observations concerning galaxies of all sizes and appearances. The same types of galaxies as we find in our local group.

Rare Galaxy From 'Dawn of Time' Photographed | Ancient Galaxy GN-108036 & Galaxy Photos | Big Bang & Oldest Galaxies | Space.com

http://www.sciencene...aises_questions

Could the Universe Be Older Than We Think? New Findings Point That Way

68. Originally Posted by forrest noble
They did however say that for them to appear so red they would need to contain mostly very old stars and be very dusty galaxies, along with their great redshifts, to produce the extent of their observed and uniform redness.
No, that is not what they said.

They said those are the three reasons why a galaxy may appear so red, and all of these factors may be in play in the newfound galaxies case, but they are not sure.

Originally Posted by forrest noble
This perfectly describes old elliptical galaxies. With a much older universe one would expect to see the entire variety of galaxies that we observe in our neighborhood. Here are a few more or many such observations concerning galaxies of all sizes and appearances. The same types of galaxies as we find in our local group.

Rare Galaxy From 'Dawn of Time' Photographed | Ancient Galaxy GN-108036 & Galaxy Photos | Big Bang & Oldest Galaxies | Space.com

http://www.sciencene...aises_questions

Could the Universe Be Older Than We Think? New Findings Point That Way
The first link is to an article about a very dim blob where a lot of star formation is occurring. It is small and very bright, due to it being seen during an "extreme burst" of star formation. Not a lot like any of the galaxies in our neighbourhood, as far as I can tell. The reason it is unusual is due to its brightness. That is the reason we can see such a small galaxy at such a distance. It is an unusual object, unlike any seen around here.

The second link is about a distant Quasar ferchrissakes! The closest Quasar we have seen is around 1.5 billion light-years away, which is hardly in our neighbourhood, or local group. So yet again it is an unusual object, unlike any seen around here. The reason for the article is that it was larger than expected for such a young universe, but not that it was too early for Quasars to have formed.

The third link is to an "article".

69. Re the OP..the shrinking would cause information loss,<gravity loss>......how can that be resolved ?

70. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
The proposed model ( matter shrinking ) has now been modified to such an extent that the observable outcome is indistinguishable from the standard "Expanding Universe" model. In other words, the new model does not make any verifiable predictions which are different in any way from the old model.
Sorry just noticed this one.
Please hilight any changes or evolution in my posts on this thread.
Google "Condensing universe" "we are shrinking" "Shrinking observer", "PetTastic + forum" or "Phyics in comoving space"
The only recent tweek was early last year is that someone hilighted that the way I calculate the luminosity curve also predicts supernova cooling slower in the past as observed.

The big difference is space is not expanding.

If you the follow the standard laws of physics you can test in a lab.
You get no big bang, inflation, dark matter,dark energy.
Just a universe 1000s of billians of years old that is dominated by the longterm effects of gravity on matter.

Predictions for the model (Sorry for posting them in this part of the forum)

The collapse of the large scale structure must be accelerating under gravity making the intergalactic medium thicker.
The intergalactic medium must fall into galaxies at a high rate.

If the gas that falls into galaxies does not spiral in then any new star formed have low angular velocity and fall inward, making the galaxy colapse rapidly under gravity.
The end result would be spectacular and best viewed from a very great distance.

If the gas spirals in and the its velocity increases as the mass of the galaxy pull gas in from greater distances.
Then new stars formed from a mixture of the new gas and the ISM always have higher angular velocity than older stars and spiral outwards.
New stars are always being formed fast than old star, and old stars are always overtaken by new stars before they reach the visible edge of the growing galaxy.
Most of the mass of the galaxy ends up moving outward, with only the central bulge gravitationally bound.

If gas stops falling in or the rate falls below a critical level for the growing galaxy. The galaxy continues to expand, and the ISM rapidly fails.

Anyway if space in not expanding the BBT expected rotation curve is almost impossible, the curve is either quite flat, or you have a quazar.

71. sorry to say,,but you have a gravity leak...what do you propose?
Under tests of this model matter collapse as described is not possible...the ads/cft correspondence wont allow this.

72. Originally Posted by brane wave
sorry to say,,but you have a gravity leak...what do you propose?
Under tests of this model matter collapse as described is not possible...the ads/cft correspondence wont allow this.
Oh that's nothing

When you start digging into it, it screws with many areas of string therory and quantum gravity, that are assocated directly or indirectly with the expansion of space.

On the other hand it works fine with all standard models of gravity and explains why the intergalatic medium is still so hot at 1,000,000k or more.

73. Markus Hanke,

The proposed model ( matter shrinking ) has now been modified to such an extent that the observable outcome is indistinguishable from the standard "Expanding Universe" model. In other words, the new model does not make any verifiable predictions which are different in any way from the old model.
It would seem that the diminution of matter models would make many different predictions from the Big Bang model. Although all would not necessarily agree on the same implications of models which propose matter being larger in the past, these are a few of the great many possible differences/ predictions that I can think of which are applicable and I believe presently observable.

1) The first big one is that we will keep seeing the same portion of old and very large appearing galaxies as far back in time as we will ever be able to look. In the present and future with the new infra-red scope capabilities presently coming on line and with the James Webb going up, we should be able to see old appearing galaxies with larger redshifts as well as larger galaxies in the beginning universe than what the BB model could seemingly allow.

2) There would be a big difference in the density of the observable universe. In an expanding-space model the density of galaxies/ matter/ universe would have been 8 times more dense 7 billion years ago, based upon the volume of an expanding sphere (double the diameter of a sphere and the volume will increase by a factor of 8). On the other hand for the diminution of matter model, the density of the universe in the past would instead appear to have been less dense since our meter-sticks would have become smaller making it appear that the average distance between galaxies then was greater.

3) For models that have no bang like the OP diminution of matter models, the universe would be accordingly much older and the microwave background would have instead been the result of EM radiation from galaxies heating matter in intergalactic space. The largest voids would therefore have a lower CMB radiation temperature than its surroundings, which has been purported to have been observed. The BB model would instead propose a generally even temperature coming from everywhere.

4) Since distances would appear to have been greater in the past, so would velocities in the past because velocity is calculated by distance per unit of time. The speed of light concerning galactic jets would likewise appear to have been faster/ greater in the past (superluminal).

5) Since speeds would have appeared to have been faster, we would estimate, in an expanding space model, greater rotation rates of galaxies in clusters and therefore assume a much greater amount of both gravity and matter in clusters than there actually was.

6) According to diminution models we should see stars that both appear to be older than the Big Bang universe could allow, as well as smaller since there would have been much more time to burn up their fuel.

7) We should expect to see the same proportion of young newly forming galaxies in our galactic neighborhood as well. In the BB model the universe would accordingly be expanding and spreading out so that it would be difficult for new galaxies in our era to form.

8) The farther away a spiral galaxy, the faster the orbital velocity of its disc stars would appear to be. This would be the effect that we would expect to see because our estimation of speed would be based upon our observed distance (which would appear to have been greater) based upon our unit measure of time.

9) We should seemingly be able to see galaxies that the mainstream would contend are almost entirely dark matter, but instead they would be old burned out galaxies.

10) The farthest large appearing galaxies should be made up of the same elements that we observe in local galaxies. The BB model would predict that the very oldest galaxies should contain only hydrogen and helium and a few other light elements, not iron or heavier elements which has been observed.

11) Since intergalactic clouds of matter sometimes move relative to the surrounding galaxies we should in some cases be able to detect this motion of the MBR if it solely due to the temperature of intergalactic matter. In the BB model the CMBR is accordingly a remnant of the BB and seemingly should not be moving relative to the background of galaxies and us, other than the relative motion relating to our motion within the galaxy.

74. Originally Posted by PetTastic
Why do we assume the universe is expanding, instead of us shrinking?

It seems against the spirit of the cosmological principle to say, “We can’t be shrinking therefore the whole universe must be expanding.”

If you mathematically model the universe, with matter shrinking instead of space expanding. You get results that, in my opinion, match observation much better than standard cosmology.
What is better you can do it totally within the excepted laws of physics, no space travelling faster than the speed of light, no dark matter or dark energy, no photons changing energy in flight etc.

It does get a bit complicated with how you measure some constants if your instruments are made of matter that is shrinking.
The closest answer you'll get to proof that the universe is actually expanding is Hobbles Theory.

75. Isn't that Hobbit's theory?

76. I thought it was Hubub's theory...or was it Bubble...something like that i think ?

77. The expanding universe was not really Hubble's (AKA Hobble, Hobbit, Hubbub, Bubble, etc.) theory either, nor was he a Big Bang fan. He believed that the universe was not expanding.

Hubble
discovered the correlation between a galaxy’s redshift and its distance from the use of Cepheid Variable stars as standard candles as well as the inverse square law of light. Although his work helped quantify what is now believed to be the expansion of the universe, he himself did not really believe in it. He instead believed that eventually another cause for the observed galactic redshifts would be discovered unrelated to an expanding universe.

Hubble doubted the Doppler shift interpretation of the observed redshift that had been proposed earlier by Vesto Slipher, whose data he used, and that led to the theory of the metric expansion of space. He tended to instead believe that the frequencies of galactic light could, by some so far unknown means, be progressively diminished and wavelengths lengthened the longer the beam travels through space. This idea later took form in the many theories of tired light, as well as theories of gravitational redshifting, some of which supporters believe have not been disproved to this day.

Edwin Hubble - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

78. The problem with this thread is we are now talking about 2 completely different things.

The original question was how do you tell the difference between space expanding and matter shrinking?
If matter shrinking means larger atoms in the past radiating photons of longer wavelength at a slower rate.

forrest noble's model eliminates the need for dark energy, analyzing supernova brightness data.

79. PetTastic,

..... The original question was how do you tell the difference between space expanding and matter shrinking?
....

I think some ways that we can tell the differences between expanding space and shrinking matter were given in posting #72 above, which I have repeated and detailed below.

1) The first big one is that we will keep seeing the same portion of old and very large appearing galaxies as far back in time as we will ever be able to look. In the present and future with the new infra-red scope capabilities presently coming on line and with the James Webb going up, we should be able to see old appearing galaxies with larger redshifts as well as larger galaxies in the beginning universe than what the BB model could seemingly allow.
Number 1) above: If space were expanding there would have been a beginning to the expansion such as the beginning proposed by the Big Bang (BB) model, therefore there should be an end to how far back in time/ distance we would be able to see fully formed galaxies. On the other hand if matter were shrinking instead of space expanding, we seemingly should be able to keep seeing galaxies to the limit of our telescopes, far beyond the limits that an expanding space model could allow. For matter shrinking we also should be able to observe galaxies of all types and ages at the farthest distances.

2) There would be a big difference in the density of the observable universe. In an expanding-space model the density of galaxies/ matter/ universe would have been 8 times more dense 7 billion years ago, based upon the volume of an expanding sphere (double the diameter of a sphere and the volume will increase by a factor of 8). On the other hand for the diminution of matter model, the density of the universe in the past would instead appear to have been less dense since our meter-sticks would have become smaller making it appear that the average distance between galaxies then was greater.
Number 2) above explains that in an expanding space model the universe would have been far denser in the past with galaxies much closer together. This has never been observed.

In the shrinking matter models, on the other hand, galaxies would not appear to have been closer together in the past since we would judge distances between galaxies to have been greater in the past when using shrinking rulers, therefore galaxies instead would appear to be farther apart.

3) For models that have no bang like the OP diminution of matter models, the universe would be accordingly much older and the microwave background would have instead been the result of EM radiation from galaxies heating matter in intergalactic space. The largest voids would therefore have a lower CMB radiation temperature than its surroundings, which has been purported to have been observed. The BB model would instead propose a generally even temperature coming from everywhere.
Number 3) explains that In matter-shrinking models there would have been no BB beginning, therefore the microwave background radiation would seemingly instead be simply the result of galactic radiation/ heating. The largest voids, therefore, should have a lower temperature of intergalactic space/ CMBR, which has been observed.

4) Since distances would appear to have been greater in the past, so would velocities in the past because velocity is calculated by distance per unit of time. The speed of light concerning galactic jets would likewise appear to have been faster/ greater in the past (superluminal).
Number 4) concerning the idea that if matter were shrinking we would judge both distances and speeds as having been greater in the past since we would be using smaller meter sticks to judge distances, and velocity is distance per unit time. We have observed that distant galactic jets appear to be superluminous which is what one would expect to observe in a shrinking-matter universe.

5) Since speeds would have appeared to have been faster, we would estimate, in an expanding space model, greater rotation rates of galaxies in clusters and therefore assume a much greater amount of both gravity and matter in clusters than there actually was.
Number 5) also relates to velocities appearing to be greater in the past concerning shrinking-matter models. This has been frequently observed concerning the orbital velocities of galaxy clusters. The present explanation of the expanding space model requires dark matter to explain their increased velocity.

6) According to diminution models we should see stars that both appear to be older than the Big Bang universe could allow, as well as smaller since there would have been much more time to burn up their fuel.
Number 6) states that some stars in our galaxy could become older and smaller (because of their age) than what an expanding space model could allow which would have a limit to possible ages and sizes. Such stars have also been observed without explanation.

7) We should expect to see the same proportion of young newly forming galaxies in our galactic neighborhood as well. In the BB model the universe would accordingly be expanding and spreading out so that it would be difficult for new galaxies in our era to form.
Number 7) relates to a problem with the expanding space model in that if densities of matter continue to increase, we should see less young appearing galaxies in our present universe than what we should observe in the distant universe. Contrary to this we see a number of local young galaxies as well as a number old appearing distant galaxies. Although there have been claims that they are seeing more young appearing galaxies in the past, I believe such contentions are solely speculative based upon such a requirement concerning the BB model.

8) The farther away a spiral galaxy, the faster the orbital velocity of its disc stars would appear to be. This would be the effect that we would expect to see because our estimation of speed would be based upon our observed distance (which would appear to have been greater) based upon our unit measure of time.
Number 8. This also would be expected to be observed in matter-shrinking models, having the same explanations as 4) & 5) above.

9) We should seemingly be able to see galaxies that the mainstream would contend are almost entirely dark matter, but instead they would be old burned out galaxies.
Number 9). For Matter-shrinking models the universe could be far older since there would be no 13.7G time limit/ age for the universe such as there is in the BB model. This could allow for very old appearing burned out galaxies. In the BB expanding space model, such observations are explained by dark matter. Of course burned out stars are dark matter but not the kind of dark matter that the present expanding space model proposes.

10) The farthest large appearing galaxies should be made up of the same elements that we observe in local galaxies. The BB model would predict that the very oldest galaxies should contain only hydrogen and helium and a few other light elements, not iron or heavier elements which has been observed.
Number 10). Shrinking-matter models could allow for a much older universe. In a much older universe we should see the same elements at the farthest distances that we see in our own galaxy. Such distance observations of heavy elements have been observed.

11) Since intergalactic clouds of matter sometimes move relative to the surrounding galaxies we should in some cases be able to detect this motion of the MBR if it solely due to the temperature of intergalactic matter. In the BB model the CMBR is accordingly a remnant of the BB and seemingly should not be moving relative to the background of galaxies and us, other than the relative motion relating to our motion within the galaxy.
Number 11). In a matter shrinking model there would not necessarily be an observable beginning of the universe, therefore the microwave background radiation should have a different cause, seemingly the most likely being the temperature of intergalactic space as heated by galaxies. If such temperatures are the temperature of intergalactic matter then some of it should be moving in different directions relative to us. There have been observations that have claimed the relative motion of the CMBR in some locations. This is contrary to a hot BB beginning which is the best known expanding space model.

All above had/ have the purpose of directly addressing the question "how do you tell the difference between space expanding and matter shrinking?"

I'm sure I could come up with many more ways we could tell the difference, but these are maybe the lowest hanging fruit and maybe some of the easiest ways to tell the difference IMO.

80. In your model above why do things get faster?

I don't have any problems with standard cosmolgy's view of things, it seems to explain most of the universe quite well.

The problem is the alternative model that I am talking about also seems to work, but gives very different expanations for common observations.

The biggest issues with my model are: (these come from Condensing universe threads elsewhere, and I do have some answers, but I don't want to post silly claims here if no one is interested.)

In my simple models galaxies need to be growing by about 30% every billion years to get a totally flat rotation curve.(extreme case)
Why has no one noticed that on average that stars are moving outward at 8 or so degrees from the tangent, or that they have maybe a 25km/s radial component to their velocity?

Galaxies are low mass and do not merge but insterad fly apart to form new smaller gallaxies, this gives a very different interpretation to many well known images.

Only the central bulge of galaxies is gravitationally bound, so if the in-falling gas fails. The galaxy continues to expand and flies apart.
Why don't we see lots of supernova explosions in intergalactic space when these jettisoned stars die.

Why can we see stars that look older than the expected life time of a galaxy? (8-10 billion, before size makes it so unstable for spiral part to exist )

The source for the CBM is limited by galaxies blocking the line of sight to 40 billion years ago, in a universe thousands of billions of years old.

However, on balance, the model works well for other stuff as claimed in earlier posts.

81. Originally Posted by PetTastic
In your model above why do things get faster?

I don't have any problems with standard cosmology's view of things, it seems to explain most of the universe quite well.

The problem is the alternative model that I am talking about also seems to work, but gives very different explanations for common observations.

The biggest issues with my model are: (these come from Condensing universe threads elsewhere, and I do have some answers, but I don't want to post silly claims here if no one is interested.)

In my simple models galaxies need to be growing by about 30% every billion years to get a totally flat rotation curve.(extreme case)
Why has no one noticed that on average that stars are moving outward at 8 or so degrees from the tangent, or that they have maybe a 25km/s radial component to their velocity?

Galaxies are low mass and do not merge but insterad fly apart to form new smaller gallaxies, this gives a very different interpretation to many well known images.

Only the central bulge of galaxies is gravitationally bound, so if the in-falling gas fails. The galaxy continues to expand and flies apart.
Why don't we see lots of supernova explosions in intergalactic space when these jettisoned stars die.

Why can we see stars that look older than the expected life time of a galaxy? (8-10 billion, before size makes it so unstable for spiral part to exist )

The source for the CBM is limited by galaxies blocking the line of sight to 40 billion years ago, in a universe thousands of billions of years old.

However, on balance, the model works well for other stuff as claimed in earlier posts.

PetTastic,

I don't think my answers relate to just my own particular model of shrinking-matter, I think that the opinions given would relate to most generic models of matter shrinking.

I'll try to stay with replies that relate to your primary question and try to stay away from anything debatable other than "how do you tell the difference between space expanding and matter shrinking?" OK

The biggest issues with my model are: ..........

In my simple models galaxies need to be growing by about 30% every billion years to get a totally flat rotation curve.(extreme case)
Why has no one noticed that on average that stars are moving outward at 8 or so degrees from the tangent, or that they have maybe a 25km/s radial component to their velocity?
I believe the answer to this question concerning generic shrinking-matter models is just about the same as it would be for the expanding-space models. The generic answer, right or wrong, (the standard model explanation) is that although space expands this is not apparent in galaxies because gravity in galaxies and clusters compensate for the expanding space factor. In the shrinking-matter generic models gravity also accordingly would compensate to maintain galactic density, or close to it.

The rotation curves of stars within galaxies still must be explained by other means in generic versions of both models IMO.

Galaxies are low mass and do not merge but instead fly apart to form new smaller galaxies, this gives a very different interpretation to many well known images.
I am unaware of any such observed galaxies and they seemingly would not be predicted by either model IMO in consideration of the compensating-gravity factor. Insufficient gravity for low-density galaxies might result in the dissolution of a galaxy by one means or another in either model, no?

Only the central bulge of galaxies is gravitationally bound, so if the in-falling gas fails. The galaxy continues to expand and flies apart.
Why don't we see lots of supernova explosions in intergalactic space when these jettisoned stars die.
I think the answer to this is also compensating gravity. In both models gravity would keep trying to pull the galaxy together while the expansion or diminution factors would be working against gravity. I think in this way both generic models would have a similar explanation.

Why can we see stars that look older than the expected life time of a galaxy? (8-10 billion, before size makes it so unstable for spiral part to exist )
For this question the shrinking-matter models predict an older universe, older galaxies, and older stars while the expanding space model forbids them IMO. I think galaxy ages of 8-10 billion years would primarily relate to expanding-space models, while galaxies concerning shrinking-matter models could be many times older.

The source for the CBM is limited by galaxies blocking the line of sight to 40 billion years ago, in a universe thousands of billions of years old.
In shrinking-matter models, or any cosmological model other than the BB model that I know of, the source of the micro-wave background is accordingly the average temperature of galactic radiation as it is re-radiated by inter-galactic matter. The intensity of large distant galactic radiation should be greater than the MBR temperature, so large galaxies beyond the limit that expanding-space models could allow, should be observable in the shrinking-matter models IMO. This is probably the surest and easiest way to tell the difference between the two models IMO. With the James Webb going up and all the new Long Baseline scopes coming together, I think shrinking matter proponents would expect that we will keep seeing old appearing large fully formed galaxies, as well as all types of galaxies, at the greatest redshifts and observable distances.

On this thread I will try not to discuss any particular version of shrinking-matter models -- not even particular possible versions of expanding-space models such as the BB model, only the differences between generic models comparing the ideas of shrinking-matter with expanding-space. Does this seem in accord with what you wanted, I hope ?

82. Originally Posted by forrest noble

In my simple models galaxies need to be growing by about 30% every billion years to get a totally flat rotation curve.(extreme case)
Why has no one noticed that on average that stars are moving outward at 8 or so degrees from the tangent, or that they have maybe a 25km/s radial component to their velocity?
I believe the answer to this question concerning generic shrinking-matter models is just about the same as it would be for the expanding-space models. The generic answer, right or wrong, (the standard model explanation) is that although space expands this is not apparent in galaxies because gravity in galaxies and clusters compensate for the expanding space factor. In the shrinking-matter generic models gravity also accordingly would compensate to maintain galactic density, or close to it.
The whole point of proposing something as strange as matter shrinking, is that basic simple modeling using the standard unmodified laws of physics does give galaxies with flat-ish rotation curves.

It works as follows, please try it for yourself.

Matter is shrinking so slowly it has little effect on the modeling so can be almost be ignored.

The rotation curve is a result of the assumption that space not expanding.

If space is not expanding, then standard gravity says that galaxies must pull in gas from millions of light-years away.
If the gas does not spiral in then galaxy implodes as angular momentum gets diluted by gas with no angular momentum.

If the gas spirals in and speeds up over time as the increasing gravity of the growing galaxy pulls it in faster from greater distances.
Then the new star formed in the galaxy are built from a mixture of ISM that was rotating with the stars, and the faster new gas.
Conservation of momentum from these 2 sources makes these new stars travel faster than older stars, and spiral outward.

This process repeats as the galaxy grows giving a flat rotation curve, not the standard cosmology curve that assumes a purely rotating galaxy.

83. PetTastic,

The whole point of proposing something as strange as matter shrinking, is that basic simple modeling using the standard unmodified laws of physics does give galaxies with flat-ish rotation curves.
Of course what is strange or logical is different from one person to another. For me the purpose for proposing matter-shrinking is that I believe it explains observed reality far better than the standard model which IMO is continually contradicted by observed reality. I have never ascribed to the standard model since I first started studying it in the 1950's.

Matter is shrinking so slowly it has little effect on the modeling so can be almost be ignored. The rotation curve is a result of the assumption that space is not expanding. If space is not expanding, then standard gravity says that galaxies must pull in gas from millions of light-years away.
If the gas does not spiral in then galaxy implodes as angular momentum gets diluted by gas with no angular momentum.

If the gas spirals in and speeds up over time as the increasing gravity of the growing galaxy pulls it in faster from greater distances.
Then the new star formed in the galaxy are built from a mixture of ISM that was rotating with the stars, and the faster new gas.
Conservation of momentum from these 2 sources makes these new stars travel faster than older stars, and spiral outward.

This process repeats as the galaxy grows giving a flat rotation curve, not the standard cosmology curve that assumes a purely rotating galaxy.
I think your idea is very logical but there is a calculation problem with it IMO. When inter-galactic gas falls into galaxies, it would fall in at a very slow calculated gravitational rate according to Newtonian gravity. True the velocity would accelerate moving in but at a very minuscule rate. This would not provide the angular momentum needed. What is needed IMO is simply another theory of gravity that would provide the momentum that you are looking for such as my own model of gravity which involves galactic peripheral vortex currents of a background field (ZPF particulates/ an aether), currents that would be stronger and would move faster on the galactic exterior while progressively decreasing in strength inward, since it is a model of pushing gravity involving vortex currents with related equations.

I think there is a predictive failure of the expanding space model even with the inclusion of dark matter, concerning the momentum problem. For the same reason as above, how would dark matter get its momentum since it would also move into a galaxy slowly? However I also think that there are not any matter-shrinking model(s) without gravity amendments which could solve this rotation-curve problem either concerning the problem that you have explained -- the lack of angular momentum

84. Originally Posted by forrest noble
PetTastic,

The whole point of proposing something as strange as matter shrinking, is that basic simple modeling using the standard unmodified laws of physics does give galaxies with flat-ish rotation curves.
Of course what is strange or logical is different from one person to another. For me the purpose for proposing matter-shrinking is that I believe it explains observed reality far better than the standard model which IMO is continually contradicted by observed reality. I have never ascribed to the standard model since I first started studying it in the 1950's.

Matter is shrinking so slowly it has little effect on the modeling so can be almost be ignored. The rotation curve is a result of the assumption that space is not expanding. If space is not expanding, then standard gravity says that galaxies must pull in gas from millions of light-years away.
If the gas does not spiral in then galaxy implodes as angular momentum gets diluted by gas with no angular momentum.

If the gas spirals in and speeds up over time as the increasing gravity of the growing galaxy pulls it in faster from greater distances.
Then the new star formed in the galaxy are built from a mixture of ISM that was rotating with the stars, and the faster new gas.
Conservation of momentum from these 2 sources makes these new stars travel faster than older stars, and spiral outward.

This process repeats as the galaxy grows giving a flat rotation curve, not the standard cosmology curve that assumes a purely rotating galaxy.
I think your idea is very logical but there is a calculation problem with it IMO. When inter-galactic gas falls into galaxies, it would fall in at a very slow calculated gravitational rate according to Newtonian gravity. True the velocity would accelerate moving in but at a very minuscule rate. This would not provide the angular momentum needed. What is needed IMO is simply another theory of gravity that would provide the momentum that you are looking for such as my own model of gravity which involves galactic peripheral vortex currents of a background field (ZPF particulates/ an aether), currents that would be stronger and would move faster on the galactic exterior while progressively decreasing in strength inward, since it is a model of pushing gravity involving vortex currents with related equations.

I think there is a predictive failure of the expanding space model even with the inclusion of dark matter, concerning the momentum problem. For the same reason as above, how would dark matter get its momentum since it would also move into a galaxy slowly? However I also think that there are not any matter-shrinking model(s) without gravity amendments which could solve this rotation-curve problem either concerning the problem that you have explained -- the lack of angular momentum

I agree the gravity is tiny.
The escape velocity we were working with last time we looked at this in 2010 was only 5x10-7 m/s at a million light years out, but the surface area of a sphere that size is 1013 square lightyears.
As the intergalactic medium is at an average temp of about a million K, thermal velocities are massive in comparison.

Remember the intergalactic medium as a gas/plasma, not just objects falling under gravity.
The idea is the gas is spiraling in, in a vortex.
So think more water down a plughole or a hurricane with the molecular clouds under the eye wall.
Rotational forces balance against the inward forces producing a pressure gradient going outwards.

In a hurricane, the gentle rising of warm damp air from the sea powers hurricane-force winds as the system winds itself up.

We had no info on how the intergalactic medium compresses or what form local turbulence took, so we gave up any attempt of detailed modeling.

85. PetTastic,

I agree the gravity is tiny.
The escape velocity we were working with last time we looked at this in 2010 was only 5x10-7 m/s at a million light years out, but the surface area of a sphere that size is 1013 square lightyears.
As the intergalactic medium is at an average temp of about a million K, thermal velocities are massive in comparison.

Remember the intergalactic medium as a gas/plasma, not just objects falling under gravity.
The idea is the gas is spiraling in, in a vortex.
So think more water down a plughole or a hurricane with the molecular clouds under the eye wall.
Rotational forces balance against the inward forces producing a pressure gradient going outwards.

In a hurricane, the gentle rising of warm damp air from the sea powers hurricane-force winds as the system winds itself up.

We had no info on how the intergalactic medium compresses or what form local turbulence took, so we gave up any attempt of detailed modeling.
We seem to have a very similar idea as to what is happening but are using different mediums for the needed angular momentum. You're are using WHIM and I am using aether flow concerning a different theory of gravity. I also use the form/ anology of a hurricane as to how the aether flows into low pressure areas surrounding matter for reasons explained in my gravitational model. I also think you are talking about what is happening to WHIM in the same proposal that I am making but for a different reason. My models entails WHIM just following the aether motion inward adding mass to it.

In a hurricane, the gentle rising of warm damp air from the sea powers hurricane-force winds as the system winds itself up.
Using your scenario it would seem that there would not be enough rotation motivation to counteract gravity?

Since most of these clouds are very low in density, what would be the motivating force for them to spiral in and gain momentum? In a hurricane scenario it a difference in atmospheric pressure which would be the same reason in my model concerning a difference in the aether pressure.

We had no info on how the intergalactic medium compresses or what form local turbulence took, so we gave up any attempt of detailed modeling.
A million degrees K WHIM would compress poorly because of the high temperature. Cold galactic clouds can compress easily under its own gravity because of their very low temperature. The principle is that the hotter the gas the greater its expansion, but the lower its density and compressibility will be. In such a low density medium it would seem that there would be very little internal relative motion. The cloud might interact with another intergalactic cloud or with matter of any temperature having a different relative motion, which could seemingly result in turbulence of many possible types and durations.

The little that space is proposed to be expanding in the standard model, why do you think matter-shrinking is a better model for this process? Understand that I think the standard model is totally wrong and ad hoc concerning its proposal of dark matter, Inflation, dark energy, etc. But I agree with theorists in that something else is needed to explain spiral galaxy rotation curves. For my model it is another theory of gravity perpetuated by aether mechanics. Your model, however, attempts to explain orbital velocities within the domain of accepted theory which many would perceive to be better concerning Ocamm's Razor, if your explanations were valid in this regard

86. Hi PetTastic,

Originally Posted by PetTastic
You don't need h to change because the energy levels are proportional to the measured speed of light "c".

As atoms shrink you measure a faster speed of light, so the energy levels of the photons goes up, and their wavelength stays proportional to the size of the atom.
A note way above is very interesting and I need to make sure I understand them correctly, if you do not mind. In your model, does time speeds up or slows down. I.e. The change in speed of light (length/time) is because of the change in length only or is it from a combined change!

Originally Posted by PetTastic

...
It is not quite as simple as it looks above because of the SI unit system not expecting c to change, you need to convert all distances to light seconds etc.
Could you explain why SI unit system does not expect c to change?

Thank you

87. Originally Posted by PetTastic
I have a problem in my model in that you can't see black space between galaxies, there should always be more galaxies going back beyond z=20 to maybe 100 or more.
Their angular size should completely block out the background, and the ancient radiation would be in the far red not microwave at that time.
By working with shrinking atoms you may have assumed the universe is matter dominated, which may limit your model to the re-ionization period and later.

88. Originally Posted by forrest noble
4) Since distances would appear to have been greater in the past, so would velocities in the past because velocity is calculated by distance per unit of time. The speed of light concerning galactic jets would likewise appear to have been faster/ greater in the past (superluminal).
This natural phenomenon would appear to indicate otherwise :

Natural nuclear fission reactor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

89. Yup, as I indicated in post #8, these models run into problems with the fine structure constant, (which we know hasn't changed over the past few billion years).

90. Originally Posted by Summerwind
Hi PetTastic,

Originally Posted by PetTastic
You don't need h to change because the energy levels are proportional to the measured speed of light "c".

As atoms shrink you measure a faster speed of light, so the energy levels of the photons goes up, and their wavelength stays proportional to the size of the atom.
A note way above is very interesting and I need to make sure I understand them correctly, if you do not mind. In your model, does time speeds up or slows down. I.e. The change in speed of light (length/time) is because of the change in length only or is it from a combined change!

Originally Posted by PetTastic

...
It is not quite as simple as it looks above because of the SI unit system not expecting c to change, you need to convert all distances to light seconds etc.
Could you explain why SI unit system does not expect c to change?

Thank you
There is quite a large group of models / cosmologies that fit with matter shrinking.
If we stick to my favorite I call the "Condensing Universe" I invented for a Sci-Fi book I am working on. (That is not the book title )
That model assumes conservation of momentum is a fundamental property of the universe and works in comoving space.
Anything moving with constant velocity in comoving space will appear to speed up when viewed by a shrinking observer, and that includes photons.

This gives two distinct coordinate systems, comoving space and that of shrinking matter with its shrining physical units of measurement.
Comoving space uses distance based on light and time ie light years or ligt seconds etc.

Yep, the SI definition of the metre does not work well in this model, but I assume the someone did inform atoms of the change in the definition.

Originally Posted by Summerwind
Originally Posted by PetTastic
I have a problem in my model in that you can't see black space between galaxies, there should always be more galaxies going back beyond z=20 to maybe 100 or more.
Their angular size should completely block out the background, and the ancient radiation would be in the far red not microwave at that time.
By working with shrinking atoms you may have assumed the universe is matter dominated, which may limit your model to the re-ionization period and later.
Well, if we stick to the condensing universe model, then there was no big bang or inflation etc.
A total guesstimate for the first galaxies is 100 billion years ago, base on guesses as to the speed of the collapse of the large-scale structure concentrating the intergalactic medium.
The universe started cold compared to modern matter emitting very long wavelength photons.

If you go with the Condensing Universe distance curves from above, then distance galaxies are being viewed through is 40 billion light years of hydrogen not 12.
Giving the stronger hydrogen absorbsion. (not done any maths to see if that works, or what average hydrogen density it need back then)

91. You didn't explain post #87. What happens to the fine structure constant in your model ?

92. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
You didn't explain post #87. What happens to the fine structure constant in your model ?
Nothing, it must not change.
If it did change the wavelength of light emitted by atoms would not stay in proportion to the size of atoms, and that would break everything.

93. Originally Posted by PetTastic

Nothing, it must not change.
If it did change the wavelength of light emitted by atoms would not stay in proportion to the size of atoms, and that would break everything.
Wait a minute, did you note state the following in post 72 :

4) Since distances would appear to have been greater in the past, so would velocities in the past because velocity is calculated by distance per unit of time. The speed of light concerning galactic jets would likewise appear to have been faster/ greater in the past (superluminal).
This would appear to contradict the fact that you are claiming the fine structure constant is unaffected ?

94. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by PetTastic

Nothing, it must not change.
If it did change the wavelength of light emitted by atoms would not stay in proportion to the size of atoms, and that would break everything.
Wait a minute, did you note state the following in post 72 :

4) Since distances would appear to have been greater in the past, so would velocities in the past because velocity is calculated by distance per unit of time. The speed of light concerning galactic jets would likewise appear to have been faster/ greater in the past (superluminal).
This would appear to contradict the fact that you are claiming the fine structure constant is unaffected ?
Post #72 is by forrest noble talking about his stuff that is not related to my stuff in any way.
Nothing to do with me.
See post #77

What I am saying is that in my annoying model that won't go away, it that matter is shrinking.
We measure everything using instruments made of matter.
When our instruments measure light from the past we are looking at light from larger atoms that emitted longer wavelength photons at a slower rate.

You then get the illusion of dark matter from objects traveling with constant velocity in comoving space, speeding up over time when viewed by a shrinking observer.

If you go with matter shrinking by about 6% every billion years to match luminance distance and angular size distance, you also get the exponential expansion of the universe compared to the size of the atom. Thus giving the illusion of dark energy.

95. Originally Posted by PetTastic

Post #72 is by forrest noble talking about his stuff that is not related to my stuff in any way.
Nothing to do with me.
See post #77

What I am saying is that in my annoying model that won't go away, it that matter is shrinking.
We measure everything using instruments made of matter.
When our instruments measure light from the past we are looking at light from larger atoms that emitted longer wavelength photons at a slower rate.

You then get the illusion of dark matter from objects traveling with constant velocity in comoving space, speeding up over time when viewed by a shrinking observer.

If you go with matter shrinking by about 6% every billion years to match luminance distance and angular size distance, you also get the exponential expansion of the universe compared to the size of the atom. Thus giving the illusion of dark energy.
My apologies, I missed the fact that this post wasn't yours. Embarrassing
Actually I am getting slightly confused now exactly what it is that your model entails because other people seem to be adding elements to the discussion which aren't part of your own theory - could you briefly summarize which fundamental constants would actually change when matter shrinks in your model, and which ones stay constant ? This way I can do some maths and see what actually happens; that's the easiest way for me

Sorry again for confusing your posts with other posts. I didn't mean to do that...

96. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by PetTastic

Post #72 is by forrest noble talking about his stuff that is not related to my stuff in any way.
Nothing to do with me.
See post #77

What I am saying is that in my annoying model that won't go away, it that matter is shrinking.
We measure everything using instruments made of matter.
When our instruments measure light from the past we are looking at light from larger atoms that emitted longer wavelength photons at a slower rate.

You then get the illusion of dark matter from objects traveling with constant velocity in comoving space, speeding up over time when viewed by a shrinking observer.

If you go with matter shrinking by about 6% every billion years to match luminance distance and angular size distance, you also get the exponential expansion of the universe compared to the size of the atom. Thus giving the illusion of dark energy.
My apologies, I missed the fact that this post wasn't yours. Embarrassing
Actually I am getting slightly confused now exactly what it is that your model entails because other people seem to be adding elements to the discussion which aren't part of your own theory - could you briefly summarize which fundamental constants would actually change when matter shrinks in your model, and which ones stay constant ? This way I can do some maths and see what actually happens; that's the easiest way for me

Sorry again for confusing your posts with other posts. I didn't mean to do that...
The basic idea is a reversal of the primary assumption.
If BBT assumes the universe is expanding compared to us, I was for fun switching to matter shrinking compared to the size of the universe.

Without thinking I then automatically assumed that conservation of momentum was a property of the universe and therefore the speed of light also was a property of the universe. This made them independent of the size of matter.

If the universe's value of the speed of light is absolute and unchanging, then value measured by shrinking matter must increase with time.

I assumed this immediately broke the idea, until I looked at the equations for the size of the atom, there is a circular relationship between the measured speed 'c' of light and the size of atoms you measure it with.

Also the equations of the energy levels of electrons in atoms, makes the energy levels proportional to the measured speed of light, therefore there wavelength proportional to the size of the atom that emitted them.

This gives longer wavelength light from ancient atoms in the past, but also make it practically impossible the measure small changes in the speed of light other than by timing a photon over a known distance over a period of years.

So the idea is that the only value(constant) changing when measured by matter is the speed of light.
But something must be changing in the universe's fundamental constants to make matter shrink, but the measured value using instruments made of matter is unchanging?
The universes value of the plank length is one candidate.

97. So am I right in saying that the speed of light is thus not constant, but changing in your model of the universe ? Also, that the Planck length is potentially not constant ?
Once we have established exactly what it actually is that is changing it will be much easier to lead a meaningful discussion...

So really we can narrow this down to two very simple relations :

and

98. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
So am I right in saying that the speed of light is thus not constant, but changing in your model of the universe ? Also, that the Planck length is potentially not constant ?
Once we have established exactly what it actually is that is changing it will be much easier to lead a meaningful discussion...

So really we can narrow this down to two very simple relations :

and

Please prefix averything below with "in this model", no claims about reality here

If it was that simple, I would be a happy man and forgoten about this 3 years ago.

The problem is the units of measurement, and are we using the universes constants or the constants as measured by matter.

The measured speed of light is only increasing because the units of length metre/foot/mile etc are shrinking with the size of the atom.

Us and all our instruments are made of atoms.
So our telescopes, defraction gratings, prysms, distance between any pair of mattter connected mirrors, and wavelength of reference light source are all shrinking at the same rate.

The difference between comoving space and space measured by matter is very suttle at the human scale.
A metre ruler is only shrinking by the width of an atom every few years.
However,the distant universe is expanding faster than the speed of light if you measure using metres, but only because the metre is shrinking.
Measured in lightyears nothing much is happening.

There is also a second complication.
This model has no time dialation, but the size of atoms effects the rate things happen.
As matter shrinks with no other constants changing forces increase so, chemical reactions go faster, springs stiffer, thermal emission hotter, shrinking stars/planets have hight surface gravity etc.
This is what makes supernovas cool slower in the past, but how does it effect our clocks and how we measure time?

99. The problem is the units of measurement, and are we using the universes constants or the constants as measured by matter.

The measured speed of light is only increasing because the units of length metre/foot/mile etc are shrinking with the size of the atom.

Us and all our instruments are made of atoms.
So our telescopes, defraction gratings, prysms, distance between any pair of mattter connected mirrors, and wavelength of reference light source are all shrinking at the same rate.
Right, I have to be honest with you : to me it seems you have arranged everything in just such a way as to make this whole thing completely undetectable ?
What is it that essentially distinguishes your model from the expanding space model, in terms of experiments and observation ? Or are we dealing with something that is neither verifiable nor falsifiable ?
You will need to point out some way for the scientific community to experimentally test this, otherwise it has little value as a scientific hypothesis.
Also, we need some sort of avenue along which to continue this discussion in an objective manner.

As matter shrinks with no other constants changing forces increase so, chemical reactions go faster,
Well if that's the case then the Oklo Natural Fission Reactor would immediately contradict your model, because the ratios of the physically leftover fission products are just as expected. Note that there are no measurements of time or distance involved in this determination.

This model has no time dialation, but the size of atoms effects the rate things happen.
The GPS in my car would seem to suggest otherwise...?

Please prefix averything below with "in this model", no claims about reality here
You are the one suggesting a model that is radically different than the established one, not me. So far as I am concerned I am happy with FLRW cosmology.

100. Originally Posted by forrest noble
4) Since distances would appear to have been greater in the past, so would velocities in the past because velocity is calculated by distance per unit of time. The speed of light concerning galactic jets would likewise appear to have been faster/ greater in the past (superluminal).
quote Markus: This natural phenomenon would appear to indicate otherwise :

Natural nuclear fission reactor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Markus, don't understand why you think this link has anything to do with the speed of light appearing to have been greater in the past?

The principle concerning my model and I think all of the simplest matter-shrinking models would be that while matter is shrinking, still everything in every time frame would be proportional as in every other time frame. Accordingly distances would appear to have been greater in the past because our yard sticks would be smaller now, since accordingly distances are determined by comparative measurement. Since we would perceive distances in the past to have been greater, so speed would appear to have been greater (distance per unit time) even thought speeds were not greater. Time would also appear to us to have been slower in the past (time dilation) even though it wasn't. Therefore the speed of light in the past would appear to us as having been greater or changing over time, but in fact it would simply be a change in the condition of relativity based upon the diminution of matter.

101. Originally Posted by forrest noble
Originally Posted by forrest noble
4) Since distances would appear to have been greater in the past, so would velocities in the past because velocity is calculated by distance per unit of time. The speed of light concerning galactic jets would likewise appear to have been faster/ greater in the past (superluminal).
quote Markus: This natural phenomenon would appear to indicate otherwise :

Natural nuclear fission reactor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Markus, don't understand why you think this link has anything to do with the speed of light appearing to have been greater in the past?

The principle concerning my model and I think all of the simplest matter-shrinking models would be that while matter is shrinking, still everything in every time frame would be proportional as in every other time frame. Accordingly distances would appear to have been greater in the past because our yard sticks would be smaller now, since accordingly distances are determined by comparative measurement. Since we would perceive distances in the past to have been greater, so speed would appear to have been greater (distance per unit time) even thought speeds were not greater. Time would also appear to us to have been slower in the past (time dilation) even though it wasn't. Therefore the speed of light in the past would appear to us as having been greater or changing over time, but in fact it would simply be a change in the condition of relativity based upon the diminution of matter.
Did you read the article ?
The ratios of the fission products of this natural reactor are a direct consequence of the fine structure constant, which is in turn dependent on the speed of light. If the speed of light was any different in the past than the outcome of this natural phenomenon would have been different to what it actually is. That was my point.

Page 1 of 3 123 Last
 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement