Amiga.org
Coffee House => Coffee House Boards => CH / Science and Technology => Topic started by: orange on February 22, 2013, 12:23:01 PM
-
I've just had an idea, as-stupid-as-it-gets theory: perhaps universe isn't expanding, but everything in it is shrinking!
-
What if both are happening at the same time? Would we know?
(https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/226959_448425165226309_1135224239_n.jpg)
-
I've just had an idea, as-stupid-as-it-gets theory: perhaps universe isn't expanding, but everything in it is shrinking!
What's the difference? (No, seriously?)
Possibly the speed of light is just slowing and so it's taking increasing times to cover the distances. Anyway, we'll never know.
If the Higgs boson has really been discovered recently chances are the universe is instable enough to suddenly vanish. Or be replaced by something even more bizarre. Probably this has already happened. :D (SNCR)
-
What's the difference? (No, seriously?))
If an object of constant mass were to shrink, it would increase in density. There'd be many observable effects, such as an increase in surface gravity over time. Otherwise they'd have to (by some unknown means) shed mass at a rate equivalent to the cube of their size reduction for constant density and that would result in a reduction in gravitational pull that would be equally observable.
Also, shrinking objects doesn't explain why objects that are more distant to start with appear to be receding faster, only an inflation of the space in which they reside makes sense there.
There are probably various ways to contrive the effects that are actually observed, but an ongoing expansion of space is the easiest.
-
If an object of constant mass were to shrink, it would increase in density.
Not necessarily - if size/space and mass are tied on a fundamental level, the density could remain the same. Alternatively, the gravitational constant could be decreasing with decreasing space, thus higher density wouldn't lead to higher gravity. Or countless other funny things...
but an ongoing expansion of space is the easiest.
Exactly! Good ol' Occam's razor. ;)
-
What if D O G really spells cat?
-
What if time is really running backwards and we're perceiving it in the wrong direction?
(https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/32607_551588074875898_488754597_n.jpg)
-
what do "forwards" and "backwards" even mean in this context? it's just a convention, from making an analogy to walking along, or something. But we can only "see" (i.e. remember) the past, so we're facing the opposite way to our direction of travel anyway.
I've thought before that the Universe might actually be defined with its boundary conditions at the end rather than the beginning, it could kind of makes sense of Quantum Mechanics. Instead of an event having two or more possible consequences and you can't predict which, you'd have two or more situations that lead to the same consequence. So that way round, there's no randomness at all, it's all entirely deterministic.
-
What if in quantum mechanics something was in only one place at a time?
(https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/542565_4478704576183_915255627_n.jpg)
-
...There are probably various ways to contrive the effects that are actually observed, but an ongoing expansion of space is the easiest.
What if observing the effect actually derives the contrivance? That's been done aye.
It's the speeding up bit that gets me.
-
Quantum mechanics is all just a bunch of wankery. They should just say that low-level physics is magic and be done with it.