What If...

[Capstone]

...the only truly autonomous 'object' in existence were the universe itself?

In keeping true to this theoretical principle, there could be no 'whole separation' (or 'space') between the many apparent aspects of this singularity. Please, don't misunderstand me here; space would exist, but only in outer relation to the singular material. To analogize this idea, think of a string that's been folded in half. While there would indeed be an area between the halves, the "separation" would not be "whole", because the connection at the delineating point would remain intact. Bear in mind, for the sake of the analogy, the folded string would be the object, the halves its aspects, and space would be the area that exists in outer relation to the totality. From this perspective, its necessary to think of space, not as something that exists within the universe, but as the pure nothingness in outer relation to it. More simply: space wouldn’t reside in the universe; the universe would reside in it.

Further implications would be, that although maybe infinite in scope, the amount of nothingness that defines the one would be nonetheless 'constant', and moreover, that the theoretical conflation of 'space' and 'time' ...would be erroneous.

Accordingly, the redshift observations often cited in support of the theory that the universe is expanding would have to be reinterpreted, viewing the apparent increases of the areas between various groupings of cosmological material in deference to the principle that those areas were actually unchanging.

A Contracting Universe

In line with the above, space isn't expanding; the universe is contracting (or, perhaps more properly, rewinding itself) in relation to space. Another analogy: think of two stationary balls of twine that are both directly connected to a third unseen ball. If one were to wind the hidden ball, the visible balls would shrink in accordance to the amount of material being pulled away from each of them. And as the hidden ball grew larger, the area between the others would seem to be increasing, when in reality the respective sizes of the visible balls would simply be decreasing in a constant space. The speed at which material is pulled away from the visible balls is directly proportional with the rates at which they're decreasing in size, and those commensurate decreases would constitute the impetus for the illusion of expanding space between them. I believe this is essentially what's happening everywhere in the cosmos, and that it's only a matter of time before the 'hidden ball' -- the ultimate re-collector -- becomes visible, if only by virtue of its effects, from nearly any point of view in the cosmos.

The Principle of Commensurate Distribution

Commensurate distribution is a vital aspect of my theory. Because all 'things' within a given group are contracting commensurately, the size differential from one second to the next is virtually undetectable from within that group. In reality though, what were 12 inches yesterday (relative E.G. to the group in which humanity resides) aren't the same twelve inches today, because all things in the group -- including the area that qualifies as a 'foot' -- have contracted at paces suited to their surroundings. This explains how and why we (humans) are completely oblivious to the shrinking going on all around us. It is only by looking outside that the various rates of contraction can be measured via redshift observations.

To sum it up: we all know cosmic redshifting shows that groups of material are apparently speeding away from each other. Expansionists presume that "space" isn't constant and that it must be expanding between the groups; I suggest that the groups are shrinking in relation to constant space. The correct answer, as to which idea the redshift "evidence" supports …is both -- meaning the issue of 'truth' stands on the veracity of opposing interpretations of the evidence.

Operating FROM the principle of universal oneness is really no different than operating from any other theoretical principle (such as the various presumptions of most expansionists).

 

[Wry Catcher]

Not to be glib, but how far is up? If conventional theory is correct, and the universe is expanding, it boggles the mind that there is no end, or conversely, that the expansion will bend back upon itself from every point on the non Euclidian compass.

 

[Capstone]

...If conventional theory is correct, and the universe is expanding, it boggles the mind that there is no end, ...

Exactly.

And an end to what? Time? Matter, or maybe just complexity of material formations?

Assuming expansion is occurring from a centralized point (say from the Big Bang outward in all directions), it seems to me that groupings of cosmological material would eventually no longer be able to interact with each other and all of the material within those groups would sooner or later burn out and/or be assimilated by the black holes at the centers of their galaxies. What might happen in a universe full of nothing but black holes (with infinite amounts of space between them) is anyone's guess, but it doesn't seem to hold a viable formula for the eternal perpetuation of simple matter.

...or conversely, that the expansion will bend back upon itself from every point on the non Euclidian compass.

Infinite space coupled with expansion from the center outward could circumvent that eventuality, at least in theory; but that's certainly a problem for any model that doesn't posit a centralized starting point.

 

[editec]

To sum it up: we all know cosmic redshifting shows that groups of material are apparently speeding away from each other. Expansionists presume that "space" isn't constant and that it must be expanding between the groups; I suggest that the groups are shrinking in relation to constant space. The correct answer, as to which idea the redshift "evidence" supports …is both -- meaning the issue of 'truth' stands on the veracity of opposing interpretations of the evidence.

Okay so the universe isn't expanding, but the content within it is shrinking?

 

[Capstone]

Okay so the universe isn't expanding, but the content within it is shrinking?

Yes.

I think it's important to note though, that "the content within" can only be distinguished from "it" ...in terms of its aspects. To give a linguistic analogy, consider the universe as the only noun that really exists. All other apparent things would be the adjectives that describe it. So, instead of saying something like, "Here is a chair.", I believe it would be more in line with reality to say, "Here the universe is chair-like.". As I see things, the universe IS shrinking; and "all of the content within it", as well as the space outside of it, should be viewed accordingly.

 

[Capstone]

Changing gears from the macro to the micro, quanta too would have to be accounted for in a purely monistic paradigm. This means that "particles" would have to be viewed as peaks, similar to looking down from above on the waves of an ocean and occasionally identifying the very tips of some of those waves. Not a perfect analogy, I know, since there could never be a 'whole separation' between the peaks and valleys at the quantum level of a universal singularity, but I hope you all can at least get some idea as to what I mean.

I don't believe a total disconnect between subatomic particles is necessarily requisite to manipulating some of those peaks, as what I believe happens within the confines of particle accelerators, nuclear power plants, ETC...

 

[SmedlyButler]

I have nagging qualms about using apparent red shift to quantify any model of the universe, dynamic or otherwise. I've only briefly skimmed your post and I have to run now but I will check back and look deeper. It may have relevance to some of my cosmological concerns. Thx.

 

[Unkotare]

The universe is expanding. Not only is it expanding, but it is doing so at an accelerating pace, a phenomenon that is explainable by taking into account dark energy.


There is a German astronomer who recently posited that the universe isn't moving at all (and never was) but that rather the entire universe is getting heavier. The problem with his theory is that it would require us to throw out the notion that mass = energy.

 

[Capstone]

I have nagging qualms about using apparent red shift to quantify any model of the universe, dynamic or otherwise. ...

Appearances can be deceiving, but only when they're interpreted incorrectly.

I think that goes to the heart of the biggest problem with human perception. Too often we make faulty presumptions as much on the basis of what escapes our senses as on what they capture. Did David Blain really penetrate the window of some diner in NYC with a 7 of Clubs from the sidewalk outside? Or did it only seem so by virtue of the failure to see one of his cohorts inside the restaurant sticking the predetermined card to the other side of the glass on cue? Likewise, that we don't directly perceive the physical oneness of reality ...isn't a sound basis for denying its potential reality.

I think you're right, though. Understanding the limitations of perception is as good a reason as any to hold anything "apparent" as suspect in terms of its status as evidential support.

 

[Capstone]

The universe is expanding. Not only is it expanding, but it is doing so at an accelerating pace, a phenomenon that is explainable by taking into account dark energy.

It's fine by me that we disagree.

Where most BB expansion-only models fail, in my opinion, is in their lack of explanatory power where the notion of an eternally self-perpetuating physical universe is concerned. From nothing comes nothing; and given the law of conservation, from any physical something, a state of nothingness could never be derived. This means that something physical has always existed (and something physical will always exist). The task, then, is to discover the impetus for its eternal existence. From an expansion-only model in a pluralistic paradigm, the increasing isolation and consequent lack of interactive capability of the physical building blocks of the universe wouldn't bode well for the existence of matter/energy (dark or otherwise) in the far-off future.

One of the pluses of my theory, BTW, is that it eliminates the need to posit some mysterious force in order to explain the apparent expansion of space. In my view, the universe is not being pushed apart ad infinitum by 'dark energy'; it's simply recoiling itself in relation to constant space.

 

[SmedlyButler]

to read your post in a little more detail and do a little research. I don't know why you carry this empty baggage around with you As others have said it doesn't even approach the threshold of a good idea let alone amount to a "theory" And don't try that "My opinion is good as anybody else's". You present no evidence and demonstrate no predictive value to your approach. It is worse than useless-it has cost me 30 minutes of time I will never get back. So do everybody a favor and leave this trash in a dustbin somewhere.

 

[Capstone]

...You present no evidence and demonstrate no predictive value to your approach. ...

What evidence exists to support the key presupposition of expansionists, namely that space cannot possibly be a constant?

Predictive value notwithstanding, the theoretical conflation of time and space isn't evidence; it's become a sort of fundamentalist dogma.

I've presented my approach as more explanatory than predictive for good reason. I'm an amateur philosopher with a 10th grade education, not a science or maths guy, so I really don't know how to formulate predictions. Of course I realize, for many, this amounts to nothing but more reason to dismiss my ideas as the fodder of a bungling ignoramus, and to those people ...I can only offer my warmest welcome to do so.

I do, however, know how to remain true to my preferred philosophical principles (most notably monism); and with those I'll continue my personal quest to understand and describe the reality I perceive, whether anyone else likes it or not.

Thank you, for your 30 minutes. If I could refund them, I would.

 

[Unkotare]

I'm an amateur philosopher with a 10th grade education, not a science or maths guy, so I really don't know how to formulate predictions. Of course I realize, for many, this amounts to nothing but more reason to dismiss my ideas as the fodder of a bungling ignoramus, and to those people ...I can only offer my warmest welcome to do so.

Hey, thanks!

 

[midcan5]

My question is how this fits into to how we live? how we use philosophic ideas and principles to make sense of it all? I agree that the ideas of the universe shown through modern scientific exploration and speculation are interesting. Imagine yourself for a minute in a wayback machine and then consider how the very same universe looked to people of another time? or how it looks today to an uneducated person or to so called primitive cultures?

"The aim of philosophy, abstractly formulated, is to understand how things in the broadest possible sense of the term hang together in the broadest possible sense of the term." Wilfrid Sellars

 

[editec]

Forgive me if I am characterizing this theory incorrectly.

But what it seems to be saying is that the univsere isn't expanding, but instead, everything in it is shrinking.


Seems to me that's a distinction without a difference.

 

[Capstone]

My question is how this fits into to how we live? how we use philosophic ideas and principles to make sense of it all? ...

Speaking for myself, I think the high degree of adherence to a single principle that holds sway across the spectrum (in my epistemological, ontological, and even ethical bents) ...is kind of a crutch to compensate for my personal inability to reach a depth of general comprehension that had always otherwise eluded me. The transformation of my thought processes in the early 2000's was thus an almost spiritual enlightenment event.

I believe most people move through life with various degrees of adherence to what are at base philosophical ideas and principles, and tend to do so with widely different levels of awareness of that fact. The law-abiding citizen needn't be versed in the ethical treatises of history's greatest philosophers in order to buy into and benefit from the laws that have arisen over time from the ideas hashed-out in those works.

...I agree that the ideas of the universe shown through modern scientific exploration and speculation are interesting. Imagine yourself for a minute in a wayback machine and then consider how the very same universe looked to people of another time? or how it looks today to an uneducated person or to so called primitive cultures?

In the many forms it has taken, from humanity's most distant past to the present, I believe 'education' is destined (in the Annunaki sense of the word) to occur in the lives of all conscious beings. Certainly the development of higher education systems seems a natural by-product of the evolution of beings of higher intelligence, but then ...it's not really clear how closely associated the development of an individual's IQ is with the seemingly ever-changing corpora of teachings available at any given point in time to the many cultures that have come and gone.

In my opinion, form (knowledge) has necessarily followed function (experience, speculation, trial and error, ETC.), and in light of the evident richness and manifest imitativeness of culturally divergent celestial mythologies, it seems to me that speculation and religious dogma would've had to rule the day to which any trip in "the wayback machine" might take us. Not entirely different from what might be seen from the windows of a here-and-now machine.

 

[Capstone]

Forgive me if I am characterizing this theory incorrectly.

But what it seems to be saying is that the univsere isn't expanding, but instead, everything in it is shrinking.

Seems to me that's a distinction without a difference.

Well, while I suspect it's true that most (if not all) of the 'predictions' made by some inflationary models could be made equally well (in a mirror image sort of way) by a deflationary one, this could only be done by accounting for 'space' as something wholly distinct from 'the universe'. It's that distinction I believe your characterization may be missing. A more appropriate characterization of my view would be: "Space" (which I believe exists, not within, but in relation to the universe) isn't expanding, but instead, "everything in it" (which, in my view, is synonymous to "the universe") is contracting.

Remember one of the key implications of my approach in the OP: "space doesn't reside in the universe; the universe resides in it."

 

[SmedlyButler]

'....if one explanation will do why do you need two? Why is your model different from epicycles (which went to ridiculous levels of complexity to keep the Earth at the centre of things). This is not an appeal to a philosophical principle (parsimony) but sound practise. Physics is not about reality or truth or beauty or anything like that. It is about models that predict things. It is about ways to describe what we can see. If you propose a physical model for something then you make it as simple as possible but no simpler. Not because it makes some fuzzy happy point about complexity in the universe but because that is how you make a useful model. So if your model makes no new predictions, replicates the current model perfectly but requires a whole load of ad hoc synchronisations and stuff then it is a bad model. Not because it violates a world view but because it is harder to use and gives no benefit.

So a direct questions: Why is your model better? What does it simplify? What does it predict or explain that the current models don't?"

Data Mining is against Site Rules. XXXXXXX

"Thank you, for your 30 minutes. If I could refund them, I would."- Now it's 45 minutes, please don't increase your debt any further.

 

[Unkotare]

This 'theory' is obviously nothing more than empty communicative diarrhea by some kid trying to feel self-important. It should be treated as such.

 

[SmedlyButler]

This 'theory' is obviously nothing more than empty communicative diarrhea by some kid trying to feel self-important. It should be treated as such.

I was trying to intimate a similar reaction without being cruelly blunt. Maybe your approach is the right one. If he tries to maintain his nonsensical narrative your dismissal will be the proven the way to go.