Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

senormonje t1_j1pvyx3 wrote

I mean if this was true then the laws of physics would also have to be constantly changing so that shrinking objects would behave in the same way at every scale, instead of having all kinds of changes related to surface to volume ratio, differences in behavior of forces at different scales/distances etc. And if you need the laws of physics to change constantly to explain a theory, and the theory is only provable/observable from outside our universe, it doesn't have any usefulness to us, other than as an intellectual curiosity...

8

Za_Lords_Guard t1_j1pwoku wrote

Observed phenomena would have to support that conclusion. Things like red shifting, density meaures, local gravity, etc. would all behave differently.

7

Lance-Harper t1_j1pyqi3 wrote

You’re making it way more complex than it is.

That’s no « different » way to think about it. Space creating more space at each point in space is exactly the way. To add « god mode » to your explanation will only get people more confused, but doesn’t add to your explanation at all since something not testable/observable is sterile in the exercise of explaining something to someone.

You could just say that one will realise going from one wall to the opposite takes longer, then one chair to the next. You can add that if extrapolated, one day the distance between the chairs will be longer than the initial distance between walls. People will be wowed and will begin to understand how expansion works.

I do not see why you went into relativity, nor what « perspective of space look into mass » mean.

My advice is keep it to what you’re trying to explain, and evaluate if adding more confuses more or not. It takes time. Even Dr. Neil Degrasse Tyson spends days on one way to explain things in one shot in a compelling way.

2

kimthealan101 t1_j1q0jk9 wrote

If Red shift was due to the spectrometers getting smaller, farther sources would not show more red shift.

2

cjameshuff t1_j1q4phj wrote

That part kind of works: the light from further sources was emitted at longer wavelengths. But you have to not only shrink everything material, but shrink the interactions with light while not shrinking the light in transit, increase the rate at which physical processes happen while objects shrink (since otherwise the speed of light would appear to increase as distances shrink), etc. There's a whole mess of things you have to adjust that mean other things need to be adjusted in compensation, all while covering up any physical sign that any of this is happening. It doesn't lead to any new understanding and certainly doesn't simplify things, so it's little more than an academic curiosity.

3

kimthealan101 t1_j1q5ysw wrote

We know the spectrum of hydrogen very well. It has the same spectral lines everyplace that the conservation laws work. The spectrum from farther stars have the exact same lines, they are just shifted to longer wavelengths while in route to our spectrometers. There is more shift, they farther away the star is. We know how far the star is by known candles. Certain binary stars have identical novas due to one star siphoning mass from its partner. At a certain stage, when the mass is sufficient, these stars nova with the same energy and brightness. By knowing the perceived brightness on earth, we can tell exactly how far away it is.

1

Nerull t1_j1q9ycf wrote

The scenarios look absolutely nothing alike once you consider any of the physics involved at all. It's one of those ideas that sounds great when you're stoned but doesn't really work.

2

ChrisARippel t1_j1q3ws3 wrote

Scenario 1 began with a Big Bang when space started expanding, creating more actual space between objects forming within that expanding space. This produces a CMB radiation and cosmological redshift both of which we have observed.

How does scenario 2 work? The universe starts already huuuuge. And objects in the early universe must also start out huuuuge so they shrink for at least 13.8 billion years. How would scenario 2 create the observed CMB radiation and cosmological redshift?

1

mienaikoe t1_j1q5a3g wrote

I’ve had this thought as well but I think you need to work on your delivery of the idea. Appeal to theoretical mathematics first, and don’t inject life or god into your narrative.

0