/sci/ - Science & Math

Are you trying to argue that space itself will continue to expand indefinitely, but all physical matter in the universe will all condense into trillions of mini black holes?

>>9959228
>A week ago i took some LSD

>>9959228
how would you explain the fossil record of a living fossil species that looks very similar if not identical?

>>9959228
Prime example as to how drugs make you think the dumbest shit ever is the deepest shit ever.

Archive this post, sobre up for a few years, then look at it again.

(Though people watching pop-sci on drugs would explain half the posts around here. I suppose, without that, the board would be a whole lot slower.)

>>9959318
Well ofc its dumb shit, its drugs, still doesnt it hold the same? Whats the difference in distances between galaxies expanding or matter on those galaxies shrinking?

>>9959303
Both the fossil and the animal have shrank in equal proportions?

neat idea, but wrong. if everything was shrinking then everything would be going away at the same rate. for example something a distance x away would be receding at a speed Vx ad something 2x away would be receding at a speed Vx as well

however, observations show that things twice as far away are receding much faster than things twice as far away.

>>9959342
much faster than things half as far away*

>>9959342
Oh i see, interesting arguement, but doesnt this have to do with the distance light travels isnt that how we observed that? the red shift of light?
Cant light still take 2x to reach us from galaxies far away compared to closer ones? Can you explain how that correlates to expansion instead of shrinkage? Also does matter expand aswell or is it only the vacuum between galaxies?

>>9959357
I think that brings up another hole in the shrinking theory, actually. Why would we experience redshift just because light/ us got smaller? To me, in a shrinking universe, redshift wouldn't occur at all because there would be no relative movement.

>>9959370
Why wouldnt there be movement?

>>9959373
arent you saying that there's no relative movement in your theory, just distances are getting longer because we're shrinking?

>>9959376
Isnt that still movement from the point of the observer? I mean if a things occupies a circle of radius of 3 and it shrinks to a radius of 2.5 it wouldnt move from its center but it has still receded a bit therefore moved from an outside point of view. Something along those lines i guess

>>9959378
even then, it wouldn't matter how far away you are -- you're moving away at the same rate regardless of the distance between the two objects
that contradicts observation

>>9959382
I see, well thanks for refuting me, appreciate it m8 have a good one.

>>9959387
sorry, m8 if its any consolation we could be shrinking and maybe some other effect is generating redshift
maybe the earth is the center of the universe and things shrink the further you are from the center

>>9959228

>>9959391
No big deal dude, i am not attached to the theory or anything, i was more interested on talking about it even if i was wrong, which was extremely possible to be honest, i am not in a STEM field or anything and had my dissertetion on that, i just like science.

>>9959394
This may explain the 4d tesseract.

>>9959394
>>9959497

Thats interesting, tell us more about a tesseract.

>>9959330
Planck limits and black holes, for starters.

>>9959559
How do those contradict that, dont just hit me with names, explain how they interact and refute my claim.

>>9959574
Cuz you can only fit so much matter in one place before it collapses.

Anytime you get more than three solar masses worth of matter in the area about the size of the moon, nothing can hold that matter up.

>>9959574
>>9959634
That, and the planck length creates a minimum wavelength, which means you have a minimum distance at which things can interact. As particles got closer together, the forces that create matter would no longer hold, as that cycle of interactions would fail.

If the Earth were shrinking at the rate the universe is expanding, it'd collapse to a black hole by the end of the week - and you'd have a whole lotta nuclear explosions going on well before then. Plus, by the end of the day, half of those stars would go nova or wink out of existence (including ours, sometime around the second day).

There'd be other observable consequences, but no one would be around to observe them, so...

>>9959634

But the "place" remains as is its just matter thats getting smaller and smaller, the same amount of it still exists there, that doesnt change, its just smaller.

>>9959643
Why would particles have to get close together? cant they keep the same distance they had adjusted for the shrinkage?

>>9959645
>>9959647
Particles don't interact like conventional objects - they aren't ping pong balls - rather they are waves that resolve into particles on interaction. This probability range of interaction doesn't shrink, simply because they are getting closer together.

Massless particles aren't subject to pauli exclusion principle - meaning you can get as much as you want in once place as you want, but that's part of the problem, because their energy still counts as mass. Get enough in one place and they contribute to that gravitational collapse.

>>9959643
>planck length creates a minimum wavelength
delete this post right now you mutherfucker

>The Planck length is sometimes misconceived as the minimum length of spacetime, but this is not accepted by conventional physics,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length

>>9959647
The particles are already as close together as they can get in order to be atoms.

>The Planck length is sometimes misconceived as the minimum length of spacetime, but this is not accepted by conventional physics
That is correct, space is not discrete, but it still represents the minimum length of any wave, which is how it is defined. Go below that length, and forces cannot interact. Matter does not hold together at that point. (Not that you aren't already into neutron degeneracy pressure before you get there, where no matter as we commonly interact with survives.)

>>9959659
Meh, meant for >>9959655

>>9959643
>>9959655

So which one is it?

>>9959653
Cant they keep existing at the point they exist, and shrink without getting closer together?

>>9959663
>Cant they keep existing at the point they exist, and shrink without getting closer together?
How would things shrink without their component parts getting closer together?

>>9959659
DELET

>So what does it mean for a particle to have a wavelength shorter than the plank length? It means the particle is in a region smaller than the even horizon of the smallest quantum unit of black hole. There is nothing immediate that says this can't happen
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/273888/can-a-photon-have-a-wavelength-less-than-the-planck-length

>>9959666
At which point you have a black hole, which is the whole concept behind Kugelblitz black holes.

>>9959665

By some unknown force? Idk i imagined it something like the mandlebrot set, shame thing but it gets infinitely smaller.

>>9959668
DAMN YOU DAMN YOU DAMN YOU

but if everything was shrinking, wouldn't the plank length be shrinking too?

While you often hear the phrase "atoms are mostly empty space", the truth of the matter is that atoms are already completely occupied by the force of the interactions they are composed of. You can compress to a degree, but it takes gravity or energy to do, and eventually you compress so much that the atoms can no longer hold. (And get a whole lotta nuclear fusion along the way.)

>>9959673
Said unknown force would have to defy logic, near as I can tell, but if ya got some math for me...

>>9959681
Planck length is a function of the speed of light, which remains constant. Not that you don't have the problem of atoms fusing well before you get there.

What is you take a large object and increase its speed to near light. If density increases relative to the observer does it turn into a black hole. Furthermore if it suddenly slows down does the observer suddenly see a black hole then a object materializes from the event horizon.

>>9959330
How would you explain red shifting?

What about if all matter in the universe is expanding relative to empty space as time moves forward. That way as objects get bigger the distance between them gets smaller ,but since we as the observer are expanding at the same rate we perceive it as objects getting closer, aka gravity.

>>9959692
photons shrink?