New Theory: The Universe Isn't Expanding, It's Just Gaining Mass

page: 1
3

log in

join

posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 08:53 AM
link   
Link

A cosmologist Christof Wetterich wiki has proposed a new theory that says the universe isn't expanding its simply gaining mass.




as the standard theory goes. Instead, the redshift effects astronomers see could mean that everything is just gaining more mass, while possibly staying in place, or even contracting.


So this could mean that the galaxies and stars are not as far away as we think.


A mass-gaining universe could create a phenomenon that astronomers see every day: the redshift the light coming from distant galaxies


So if they weren't as far away as we think how close are could they be?

I'm not actually sure if I'm reading this correctly maybe Phage could come along and sprinkle some wisdom but if it is what I'm thinking then maybe the stars out there aren't billions of miles away and closer than we think, what does this mean for the big bang theory?

MAYBE THE EARTH IS 6000 YEARS OLD...



edit on 26-7-2013 by roughycannon because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 09:07 AM
link   
reply to post by roughycannon
 

ehhhh..i'm gonna go ahead and say no on this.

firstly, it isn't testable. secondly, it doesn't make much sense. and thirdly (the most weak argument) this is coming from a single physicist.

OOHH: here we go.


Such an interpretation could help physicists to understand problematic issues such as the so-called singularity present at the Big Bang

yup, i can see the appeal that some physicists would have towards the notion of tossing out the necessity of having a singularity at the beginning. it would be one more step towards the universe not needing a finite starting point.


Instead, the Big Bang stretches out in the past over an essentially infinite period of time.

hah, answered my own point.

most current physicists will try ANYTHING to get away from accepting a finite beginning to the universe, because there isn't much of a difference between saying "god created the universe a finite time ago" and "something we have no knowledge of created the universe a finite time ago".



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by roughycannon
So this could mean that the galaxies and stars are not as far away as we think.


No it could not. It could merely mean the objects are not moving away but stationary.

Additionally I fail to understand what redshift has to do with the age of the earth.



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by roughycannon
 

ehhhh..i'm gonna go ahead and say no on this.

firstly, it isn't testable. secondly, it doesn't make much sense. and thirdly (the most weak argument) this is coming from a single physicist.

OOHH: here we go.


Such an interpretation could help physicists to understand problematic issues such as the so-called singularity present at the Big Bang

yup, i can see the appeal that some physicists would have towards the notion of tossing out the necessity of having a singularity at the beginning. it would be one more step towards the universe not needing a finite starting point.


Instead, the Big Bang stretches out in the past over an essentially infinite period of time.

hah, answered my own point.

most current physicists will try ANYTHING to get away from accepting a finite beginning to the universe, because there isn't much of a difference between saying "god created the universe a finite time ago" and "something we have no knowledge of created the universe a finite time ago".




Well, once upon a time, the world was flat.






We are like babies learning to walk, when it comes to our understanding of the Universe.



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Unrealised
 



Well, once upon a time, the world was flat.

yes, i agree, and there is much we do not know, but creating theories that PURPOSELY avoid "uncomfortable" truths is crazy; and that's what this is.

this type of thinking has been seen for quite a while now in the field of physics. i LOVE physics, it is tied with music for me. the two most enjoyable pursuits in the universe.

i have a major problem with creating overtly complicated and unprovable theories just so someone can avoid accepting something that they find distasteful.



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 09:41 AM
link   
Very interesting. I'm always open to new theories. Just because it's out of the norm doesn't mean it can't work. Now this is highly unlikely until we get more facts but I'd be willing to try and accept anything when it comes to this wacky universe.



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by roughycannon
A cosmologist Christof Wetterich wiki has proposed a new theory that says the universe isn't expanding its simply gaining mass.
One of the comments says it's not peer reviewed. I haven't confirmed this but it wouldn't surprise me.

One piece of evidence commonly cited in support of the big bang theory is the cosmic microwave background. It's unclear how the CMB would form in light of the proposed theory based on information in the article.

Also the article says the idea is not testable. I'm not entirely convinced that's true. If for example the moon was gaining mass, it would either have a greater diameter or a greater density, or both. I think these are measurable to some degree.

Don't let the "expanding Earth" hypothesis advocates see this theory or they'll say "I told you so", LOL.



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 10:40 AM
link   
If our universe is just a black hole, then it would reason that mass could be entering it all the time thus expanding that which is already here.





new topics
top topics
 
3

log in

join