Once again: Isn't it possible that the universe is imploding in on itself.?

Question

Scientists tend to state that the universe is expanding. Doesn't it make more sense, given that nothing exists outside the universe: that it is infinitely small and from that viewpoint it seems more logical that everything contained in it is imploding in on itself at the rate that scientists claim it is expanding?
The point that I'm trying to make (apparently poorly since I've had to ask it twice) is that if everything within the universe is shrinking, then everything would appear via observations, to be moving away from each other. If all the elementary particles are shrinking at the same rate the observations would be exactly the same wouldn't they? The observations (including doppler shift) would be exactly the same.

TheHza is the only one getting my drift. If the universe is infinitely small (or large - take your pick) it cannot change size because infinity is a constant. Therefore the only way I can see the observations we make (everything appearing to move away from each other) is for the contents of the universe to be shrinking relative to the size of the entire universe. I understand it doesn't change the mathematics involved, but it is an interesting concept to comtemplate.

Answer 1

Don't you think that relativity dictates that those two things are the same?
Edited my old answer after thinking-
my answer is:
It doesn't make a difference if I say I'm going 65 miles/hr or if I say everything else is and I'm going 0. For all intents, purposes, and consequences, it's the same. It's the same in this case, frame of reference is crucial in measurement, and so essentially, there is no difference in macro scale physics.
General theory of relativity wise, I'm still not sure about. It seems like there might be serious consequences for this idea due to the speed of light/space relationship. It also seems like I'm not really qualified to do those calculations, and the people who are could very well have already thought of this. They are rather bright.
So my rating for viability of the idea is: (drum roll)
23%

Answer 2

I'm confused about what you are trying to say. Are you saying that if everything around us is shrinking, including our rulers, than that would make it look like space is getting larger? Or are particles shrinking but the space between particles staying the same? Neither one makes sense - if everything, including our rulers, was shrinking then we would not measure any changes. And if particles shrank without changing space, those particles would become infinitely dense, for which we have no evidence.

The universe is infinitly _large_, there is nothing outside of it because there is no _outside_. And the universe is expanding - different clusters of galaxies are moving away from each other. To dispell a common misconception, our galaxy is not expanding, neither is our solar system expanding. The _space_ between galaxy clusters is getting larger. We know this because we can measure the speeds of distant galaxies relative to us, and the galaxies outside of our local cluster are all moving away from us, and the farther ones are moving faster. But _matter_ is not expanding, _space_ is expanding.

One more thing, the expansion of the universe is accelerating, not slowing down.

Answer 3

What makes you think that the particles in the universe are expanding or shrinking at the same rate as the universe's size change. They needen't change at all. Further, even if they did, it might not be noticeable due to the vastness of the universe.

No, your theory is flawed. The evidence still supports an expanding universe.

Answer 4

That's a scientific theory (I believe it's called the "rubber band" theory). When the big bang occurred, it began stretching the universe outward, much as you do with a rubber band. But as momentum slows down, so does the stretching, and at some point, the kinetic energy isn't great enough to support expansion and it will just collapse in on itself.

Hm, maybe that's how the big bang started, huh? A previous universe "twanged" back on itself, causing a big bang, causing...

I think you'll like the link below. The site is not a religious site, but rather a compilation of various fates of a) civilization and b) the universe. This link is directly to several possibilities like you're suggesting!

edited to add: Uh, durr, I guess I could have included the link, huh?

Answer 5

No, that makes no sense. How could a particle that is already much smaller than one meter shrink for years at a rate of thousands of meters per second? Also, if the Doppler shift were due to some property of the particles themselves, nearby particles and distant particles would emit light with the same Doppler shift, but we observe little or no Doppler shift from nearby particles and high Doppler shift from distant particles.

Answer 6

You are forgetting one of the biggest rules in science. The Simple explanation is usually the right one. There is no evidence to support your theory and to be honest your theory doesn't make much sense. If everything was shrinking it wouldn't affect current observations since all the units of measurement would shrink along side everything else. So no your theory has too many holes in and you have accounted for how you could measure this shrinking. Who tried to trick you into believing this?

Answer 7

The universe will definitely implode on itself one day, very very far in the future. The universe is expanding, yes but that is a velocity...the acceleration is negative (slowing the expansion). Its like driving a car up a hill (the hill is compared to gravity), go real fast and then throw it into neutral. It will still go forward but slow down more and more until you go backwards and get back to the bottom of the hill. It will take an extremely long time, but the universe will come back to a single point.

Answer 8

No.

How simple does it have to be.

No.

If the universe were shrinking the doppler shift would be toward the blue. It is not.

Answer 9

everything is possible until it is proven incorrect. until we can conclusively prove something none of the answers are right or wrong. even After we prove something other answers may still be true as well.

Live, Laugh and Love.
Mandi

Answer 10

Your pot is too strong if you are equating the size differential between atoms and solar systems.