• tobogganablaze@lemmus.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Ah, you mean they compress matter and then free up the space that matter occupied. Now it makes sense.

      It’s really confusing when you talk about a cosmological topic but then use “space” in a non-cosmological sense.

      • Verwechslungsgefährte 🍿@dresden.network
        cake
        OP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        @tobogganablaze Originally I had this idea: If the universe decreases in density since big bang but its radius is still the same, then a lot of space must be sucked inside space-bending structures like black holes. Also, may be matter has big bang density inside of black holes.

        So, black holes are maintainers of constant entropy in a constant radius universe. Thus they must be space generators.

        • tobogganablaze@lemmus.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          5 months ago

          But the radius of the universe is not staying the same, it’s expanding. And entropy isn’t constant, it’s increasing.

            • tobogganablaze@lemmus.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              The expansion of the universe has been confirmed over and over again since it was discovered in 1929, even won the 2011 noble price when they discovered the expansion is accelerating. It’s been basically confirmed over and over again for close to 100 years.

              I guess “What instead of the universe expanding we’re just shrinkng?” would have been a great showerthought. But you really should just leave at that.

              Once you’re trying to come up with explanations involving physics buzzwords it just sounds like pseudoscientific gibberish.

              • Verwechslungsgefährte 🍿@dresden.network
                cake
                OP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                5 months ago

                @tobogganablaze
                Well you can’t win a nobel prize while ignoring the standard model, can you? We sit on giant’s shoulders.

                Once a constant speed of light has been assumed, we were able to confirm a lot of things. But we still can’t explain everything, can we?

                We don’t know what it’s like in a black hole, do we? Except we would be sucked in by one right now. Which would explain why everything else is expanding exponentially.

                This gibberish is what this forum is for.

                • tobogganablaze@lemmus.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  Well you can’t win a nobel prize while ignoring the standard model, can you?

                  Yes you can. You just have to come up with a new model that matches all the current data just as well or better than the standard model.

                  There hardly ever is a theory that can explain everything. We basically just go with the model that matches that data the closest.

                  Maybe some future astrophysicist will hook up on this.

                  I mean the “expansion is just shrinking from another perspective” is not exactly an outlandish or super original thought. I’m sure past astrophysicist have considered it for quite a while, but so far all have dismissed it.

                  • Verwechslungsgefährte 🍿@dresden.network
                    cake
                    OP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    @tobogganablaze My point is: How can you be so sure it has been dismissed? I just found about [1] from 2013.
                    It appears, the SM doesn’t disagree with shrinkage at all.

                    But why does it seem your mind being blown by this idea? Maybe be because you didn’t consider us being sucked in anywhere? If that’s the case, here’s why didn’t you consider this yet: I didn’t yet post my post despite the probability of not having a new thought.

                    That’s how blocking path dependencies in science can be so strong.

                    “What instead of the universe expanding we’re just shrinking” is not what I posted because my brain didn’t come up with it. If you want things simple and in your words, I suggest a solitary life.

                    Finally, you don’t know my age or experience. Your unfriendliness could just have hurt a kid’s interest into space. Remember that.

                    [1] https://www.science20.com/hammock_physicist/universe_expanding_or_are_we_shrinking-118673