Why Can't the Universe be Contracting?

MikeL

Science people, you are going to love to beat me up over this one. I am missing a big bit of information (or logic) about the expansion of the universe, and can't seem to find the answers online. I have been missing missing these pieces for quite some time now. If you could help me fill them in, I would appreciate it.

We are told, after Hubble observed some colored light through his telescope- that light from distant objects in the universe is red shifted. This tells us that the galaxies are all receding away from us. This is true in whatever direction you look. And the velocity of recession is proportional to the distance, with those on the fringe moving the fastest. It is therefore said that the Universe is expanding.

But my conjecture is that it is contracting. We are instead moving away from those galaxies, thus causing a red shift. It makes more sense, as we approach the centre of the universe, the gravitational pull gets stronger accelerating the rush. This explains the shifts and the difference in relative shifts between galaxies.

I also suggest (in case I need to invoke it later) that space contraction around galaxies may be happening. But I won't get into it unless it is needed.

I also wonder; is the inference that we are at the centre of the universe, as everything is red-shifted away from us? It sounds a bit geocentric doesn't it?

It may seem like I am playing semantics, but the when we consider we may have it all backwards, the very fate of the universe, as well as its origin story may be at stake.

Could you provide me with the evidence for the expansion please.

T Clark

Could you provide me with the evidence for the expansion please. — MikeL

It is my understanding that the evidence is, as you say, the red shift. It's not that everything is moving away from us, everything is moving away from everything. The analogy they use is the surface of a balloon. The universe isn't expanding, it's inflating. If my understanding is correct, the universe is not inflating in space, it is space itself that is inflating.

MikeL

↪T Clark

Doesn't it seem a bit strange that it's all based on the red shift? It's equally arguable that its contracting. You would observe the same thing, especially if space was contracting around the galaxies.

T Clark

Doesn't it seem a bit strange that it's all based on the red shift? It's equally arguable that its contracting. You would observe the same thing, especially if space was contracting around the galaxies. — MikeL

If it were contracting, there would be a blue shift.

MikeL

↪T Clark

How do they verify that everything is moving away from everything, rather than everything is moving away from us. We haven't gone to the galaxies to observe the shifts. Its all speculation based on a red shift. If we were approaching it, it would be blue shifted, but if it we were moving away from it (as they say it is moving away from us), or contracting away from us it would be red shifted.

T Clark

How do they verify that everything is moving away from everything, rather than everything is moving away from us. We haven't gone to the galaxies to observe the shifts. Its all speculation based on a red shift. If we were approaching it, it would be blue shifted, but if it we were moving away from it (as they say it is moving away from us), or contracting away from us it would be red shifted. — MikeL

We're reaching the limits of my knowledge. I don't understand what you mean when you say "contracting away from us." Galaxies are moving away from us no matter what direction we look in.

MikeL

No, I'm not invoking any new laws or rules. It's still about the red shift. It's the perception, because of the red shift, that that the galaxies are moving away. Think about if for a second.

1. If they are moving away from us they are red shifted.

This also means

2. If we are moving away from them, they are red shifted (its relative [who is really moving?]). If it's us that's moving faster than them it could be because:

A: We could be moving away from them linearly (as we race faster than them toward the centre of the universe)

OR

B: We could both be contracting, which would also open the space between us, causing a red shift.

I am arguing A, and allowing that B might also be happening.

T Clark

We could be moving away from them linearly (as we race faster than them toward the centre of the universe — MikeL

I don't think there is a center of the universe. If there is, and if we were moving toward it, we would be moving away from some galaxies and toward others. That's not what has been observed.

I'm not sure what you mean by "both contracting." If each individual galaxy were contracting into itself, depending on where we are in the Milky Way we would see some stars in a galaxy moving toward us and some moving away.

MikeL

If there is, and if we were moving toward it, we would be moving away from some galaxies and toward others — T Clark

Hmmm. What I think we've observed is red shifted galaxies relative to us. It could be that those closest to the centre (we need a centre for a big bang or for a new convergence place) are moving faster than us toward the centre, just as those further from the centre are moving slower relative to us. It would make sense as gravity grows stronger - almost like a singularity toward the centre.

We haven't been studying the sky for long enough to observe actual movement of the galaxies relative to each other, but if we did, and it was non-directional, then shrinkage could account for it.

I take your point though that those on our 'left and right' could be moving at the same speed as us and convergence might blue shift them... unless they are also shrinking at a faster rate than the convergence rate (I thought I might need that card).

T Clark

↪MikeL

As I said before, we'll have to wait for someone who knows more than I to carry this on further.

Hey, I just thought of something. Maybe Australia is moving away from the United States. I've noticed that your posts seem a bit red shifted.

MikeL

There is no need for the United States to panic. Even if we are drifting away, we'll still look after you guys.

Hachem

I was considering creating such a thread myself. It is not necessary anymore.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/104721

MikeL

Sorry to steal your thunder. I would love to hear your thoughts.

Hachem

Sorry to steal your thunder. I would love to hear your thoughts — MikeL

Let me first state that I have of course no way of knowing whether the universe is really expanding or not. As it has been noted, the sole argument in favor of expansion is the color shift (red), and that is itself based on a theory that is accepted by everybody... except by me. But since I am, in academic terms, a nobody, don't let it deprive you of your sleep.

see also

https://philpapers.org/post/17834

MikeL

Can you elaborate on that response. You seem to be implying that I have based my assertions on what you said.

Hachem

Can you elaborate on that response. You seem to be implying that I have based my assertions on what you said. — MikeL

Why would I think that? I prefer to think that great minds meet, don't you?

T Clark

Let me first state that I have of course no way of knowing whether the universe is really expanding or not. As it has been noted, the sole argument in favor of expansion is the color shift (red), and that is itself based on a theory that is accepted by everybody... except by me. But since I am, in academic terms, a nobody, don't let it deprive you of your sleep. — Hachem

I am suspicious of theories rejected by the consensus of the scientific community. If you look, there are lots of people that say relativity and quantum mechanics are hoaxes. At the same time, I am sympathetic to the frustration that comes from not understanding the chain of inference that scientists follow on complex issues. It would be helpful if we could get someone on the line who knows the science well.

Hachem

I am suspicious of theories rejected by the consensus of the scientific community. If you look, there are lots of people that say relativity and quantum mechanics are hoaxes. At the same time, I am sympathetic to the frustration that comes from not understanding the chain of inference that scientists follow on complex issues. It would be helpful if we could get someone on the line who knows the science well — T Clark

Your suspicion is shared by many. I find it reassuring that not any objection to the consensus is blindly accepted. I understand the need for Science to be conservative, and set the bar higher. At the same time, discussions of what seems to be an eternal truth should not be silenced. Your suggestion that only people who do not understand a theory do not agree with it is very condescending, and, I am convinced, wrong.
Science changes, and what was regarded as beyond doubt becomes obsolete. Let us not forget that. As Einstein once said to his audience during one of his lectures, yesterday you all believed in the ether.

T Clark

Your suspicion is shared by many. I find it reassuring that not any objection to the consensus is blindly accepted. I understand the need for Science to be conservative, and set the bar higher. At the same time, discussions of what seems to be an eternal truth should not be silenced. Your suggestion that only people who do not understand a theory do not agree with it is very condescending, and, I am convinced, wrong. — Hachem

In what way am I trying to silence you? It is not condescending of me to point out that your position may not be credible. What is your background? Why should we pay attention to your opinion on this matter? Profound new understandings of the nature of the universe don't generally, if ever, come from people outside the scientific community. It's reasonable to ask for high standards of justification if someone makes a claim like yours. It's also reasonable to ask someone with specific scientific experience in the area under discussion to give us their $0.02 worth.

Hachem

@ T Clark
why are you so hostile? If you think I am not credible, just ignore me.

edit: let us not hijack this thread.

Rich

Let me first state that I have of course no way of knowing whether the universe is really expanding or not. As it has been noted, the sole argument in favor of expansion is the color shift (red), and that is itself based on a theory that is accepted by everybody... except by me. But since I am, in academic terms, a nobody, don't let it deprive you of your sleep.

see also

https://philpapers.org/post/17834 — Hachem

The issues you bring up really require a new abstraction of the nature of perception and space. Instead of viewing space as "distance", one can totally disengage from this abstraction, and look upon space as "the ability to act upon" within a given duration. This, I believe, is what Bergson was working on, but it is so different from the way we are taught to perceive, it requires a total shift in the way we understand perception.

One way to begin this process of deliberation would be to try to merge the dream state with the awake state and declare each is exactly the same in regards to space and duration, that is solve the differences and similarities by treating them as one.

This approach requires tremendous dedication, and I may be too old to try it, but the only starting point that I know of is a total familiarity with Bergson and then take it from there.

BTW, there is an excellent chance you will not understand this but since you seem to be traveling in this direction, I decided to give it a try. It is only for the most dedicated, creative, and inquiring minds.

Hachem

@Rich
I do not share your enthusiasm for Bergson, even if I do feel much sympathy for his ideas. Einstein has opened the way of thinking about space in a non-Newtonian way (mathematicians were before even Einstein in their quest for non Euclidean geometries), and maybe we should keep looking in this direction, and not consider the results of the 20th century as immutable.
I confess that I find the fact that we can see across immense distances with a telescope as something that has not been fully analyzed in all its consequences.

Rich

↪Hachem

Any mathematical approach is necessarily going to lead to all kinds of paradoxes and contradictions because mathematics is symbolic and discontinuous. It cannot capture the nature of the universe. This is abundantly obvious to me. Even quantum, while providing some clue, because it is wave based, is incomplete because of mathematics.

The only way to understand nature is via direct observation and intuition based upon studying patterns. There is no shortcuts and requires an enormous amount of dedication (sorry, meditation or any other shortcuts fall far short). As I said, it requires a mind tremendously skilled in intuition and pattern recognition and thus takes a long time to acquire. Definitely not for everyone and only for the most dedicated. Bergson was too far ahead and his brilliant insights outside the envelope of understanding of almost everyone. Einstein's response to Bergson's critique was a good case in point.

T Clark

T Clark
why are you so hostile? If you think I am not credible, just ignore me.

edit: let us not hijack this thread. — Hachem

I don't get it. I'm being polite. I'm being responsive to the OP. In a situation like this, since you are expressing a controversial opinion, I think it is reasonable to ask about your qualifications. How is that hostile? How am I a hijacker?

Hachem

@T Clark
I am too old to interview for a job I do not want. My qualifications are my posts and comments. If you need references before you can respond to an opinion then you should only read articles of established journals.

Rich

↪Hachem

I'm always looking for new ideas. Some of the best ideas I've heard have come from folks who have to observe nature closely in order to survive, e.g. those who love in the city streets. I am only interested in ideas. I can work out the details myself.

While your paper is tangential to my steam of philosophical inquiry, it reignited some questions on my mind concerning merging dream and wake states. It is very important but I'll have to show my mind to work on it in my dreams.

Hachem

[quote

I'm always looking for new ideas. Some of the best ideas I've heard have come from folks who have to observe nature closely in order to survive, e.g. those who love in the city streets. I am only interested in ideas. I can work out the details myself. — Rich

thank you

Hachem

↪ — Rich

I couldn't find this code. So I have to use quote or @. Where is this broken arrow?

Srap Tasmaner

↪Hachem

It's the "Reply" button.

Click or tap on a post and several buttons will appear.

If you select some text from a post, a "Quote" button will appear.

Replying (without quotation) or quoting will both notify the poster of your response.

Using the '@' by itself does not notify a member that you have mentioned them. You must include their username in double quotes after the '@'. The '@' button does this and allows you to search for a name.

Hachem

↪Srap Tasmaner

thank you :)

noAxioms

Hmmm. What I think we've observed is red shifted galaxies relative to us. It could be that those closest to the centre (we need a centre for a big bang or for a new convergence place) are moving faster than us toward the centre, just as those further from the centre are moving slower relative to us. It would make sense as gravity grows stronger - almost like a singularity toward the centre. — MikeL

If this were so, the red shift would be greatest towards the mass that is pulling everything in since acceleration would be greatest there. Smaller red shift in the opposite, and blue shift in the other 4 directions as things parallel to us all get sucked closer to this mass. This tendency is called tidal force: expansion in 2 dimensions and contraction in the other 4, and is a signature of a strong gravitational field.

As for us or the other galaxies dong the receding, it doesn't matter if it is us or them receding. Those are just different choices of frames. Point is, separation between us is increasing.

I find it reassuring that not any objection to the consensus is blindly accepted. I understand the need for Science to be conservative, and set the bar higher. At the same time, discussions of what seems to be an eternal truth should not be silenced. — Hachem

Challenging accepted view is fine, but doing so without bothering with the work of making some predictions (this idea makes plenty, and they all fail) is not science. Great minds do the work when positing something new. The rest of us get educated.

Why Can't the Universe be Contracting?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions