@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.
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.
@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.
@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.
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.
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.
@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