andreasjva

Clearly you have not read any of the thread. That couldn't be further from the truth.

I stand corrected. Earlier in the post I stated specifically we are the stored energy within that state, not released energy. Nothing has to act upon it.

I disagree. I don't think you know. These are descriptives, and I have never made any attempt to tie them into field equations. Not sure I could. We're dealing with relative states here though, and I seriously doubt flipping from a view of expansion to contraction would have any serious implication for the standing mathematical interpretations. Aside from being flipped around, do you look any different in the mirror?

agreed. sorry. didn't mean to say it like that.

@Swanson... This is my last post on the subject, as it's a waste of time and energy. You have a whole scientific subculture trying to dethrone Einstein. These are highly educated people who understand much more than me, and many of the people posting here right now. If they fundamentally knew why things can't exceed the speed of light, they wouldn't waste their time trying to disprove it, and they would be doing much more useful science. As for the mass media, it is sciences duty to convey the proper message. The headline should have been, faulty equipment yields unusual result. Actually, it should have never even been a press release at all. They just should have known something was f'd up and fixed it. It's sort of like NASA putting out a press release because they broke a bolt while turning a wrench. Why do a press release at all? This is almost funny. "The story captured the public imagination, and has given people the opportunity to see the scientific method in action" The experiment was faulty. Do we marvel at an auto mechanic fixing a car? I'm sorry, the headlines were what they were, and CERN allowed that to happen by releasing the press release to begin with, when they should have been calling the Maytag repairman. There is no math, so I have no idea why you say that. My guess is, it would still fit. But that's a subjective statement, isn't it? No one is going to know until someone tries to figure it out and builds a model around the idea. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. I don't know. But neither do you.

That kind of validates my point. If they truly understood the fundamentals, they wouldn't be wasting their time, and they could move on to bigger and better things. As near as I can tell, Einstein's work is pretty much gospel.

@Unity Sigh........

The redshift was discussed earlier. It is contracting to the reaction point. Probably the theoretical Higgs. Don't know. Time accelerates with contraction. Times slows with expansion. The closer to nothing we get, that faster the time. If you think about it, it does fit. From our perspective, it's going to look as if things are moving slower the deeper we peer into an atom. Time is a function of separation in the process. Our physical perspective of the universe exists along the surface of matter, or the surface of a sphere. From our perspective, things moving fast have slower times, and things moving slow have faster time.

I would never expect it. I've given possible solutions to a number of questions. They loosely, and curiously, fit a number of key observations. This is a forum to present ideas. What you take away from this forum is entirely subjective. If you see no inherent value in anything I have said, and are completely satisfied with what you have learned from your schooling, then inherently it will be of no value to you. I accept that.

You can debate this all you like, but the fact remains. The story leaked FROM CERN, and it hit the headlines. It hit the headlines for the exact reason I said. A lack of fundamental understanding. Like I said, you may be satisfied with the scientific definition, but the rest of the world is not. I personally don't understand how you think the scientific explanation says anything about the speed limit. It's kind of baffling to me actually. Aren't you more curious than that? Why is anything able to move in the first place? Why do photons immediately hit light speed? These are the questions I want to know.

From where I was sitting, that is precisely what happened, not a revision. The story made headlines, and the rest is history. And from where I was sitting, I said no way. And the reason it made headlines is precisely the reason I stated in the first place. The world lacks a fundamental understanding of these problems. Science cannot offer the reasons why to the world, because they themselves have not figured it out yet. Mass gains with acceleration is not a reason, it's two unknowns defining a physical property. They're getting to an answer one proton at a time. I'd be long dead by the time they figure it out. Sorry, I'm too damn impatient. I want to know before I'm pushing up daisies.

No, there is only one logical answer. And it will make sense and follow the observations. It will also be comprehensible in plain English. It's definitely not philosophy. So, with that philosophy, only science can understand the answer. I don't expect anything from anybody, but you seem to expect an awful lot from me. I told you I can't prove it. I'm not trying to prove it. I have shown you one bit of evidence that may or may not support it. I have also made a prediction, whether or not it will be verified remains to be seen. Time will tell. If you want to ignore what I have written, that is your prerogative, not mine. Science has answers to none of those questions. All science knows is the physical properties, because that is all science allows itself to do. Science might be satisfied knowing mass gains with acceleration, but that doesn't mean anything to the rest of the world. Why on Earth do you think people imagine going beyond the speed of light? Science cannot say why. Very recently, CERN made a stunning announcement. They had detected particles traveling beyond the speed of light. My brother had sent me the article. Based on my own understanding, I shot him back an email telling him their equipment was at fault, not the universe. Eventually, CERN admitted their equipment was at fault. Now, you can say my prediction was purely a guess, and maybe it was. But, maybe it wasn't. I was pretty confident they messed up. There is a tremendous amount of irony in the story though. Here we have the collective scientific knowledge of half the planet, using Einstein's formula's to accelerate particles near the speed of light, and they immediately abandon the very fundamental knowledge they're using to accelerate the particles in the first place. Really? You're still going to tell me with a straight face science understand what's going on fundamentally?

I'm not quite sure I follow you Mordred. The expansion and contraction process creates the vacuum of space. The actual force causing the results is somewhat out of our range of perspective. If I were to take a wild arse guess at what's causing the expansion, I would suspect nothing, literally. And there's an infinite amount of it to draw on. To answer your question though, I don't know how it fits thermodynamically. Maybe you should be asking yourself the same question? We know much about the physical processes, but we know next to nothing about the underlying fundamentals of these processes. Why does a hot cup of coffee have a tendency to cool down? Why does mass gain with acceleration? What is gravity? What is mass? Why can't we travel beyond the speed of light? And what the hell is energy anyway? You're asking about question number 1038, 624, and 10545, and I'm asking question 1, 2, and 3. I'm sure it will all fit. I don't really see space expanding locally in a physical sense. I see mass contracting locally against space. For me, I can see why a cup of coffee wants to cool down, because as the molecules contract, they shed energy while they settle into a steady inward motion. There is a slight growing separation between the molecules and they begin to stabilize over time, which is also accelerating. I'm not sure it would really be all that perceivable from our perspective though. We just notice our coffee is cold. As for the galaxies we observe, they haven't really moved from their original locations since the beginning of the universe. Ignoring internal gravitational forces pulling them in one direction or the other. We're cooling down like a cup of coffee. Matter contracts, time accelerates, and eventually the universe that we perceive will just blip out of existence. The point is though, I'm not trying to solve anything mathematically. I'm just trying to understand fundamentally what we don't know. The why's. The hard math is up to people like you. You tell me how it could work.

Strange, I think science is so obsessed with observational data and mathematical formulas, that they ignore the fact it is human beings who imagine the possibilities. Every once in a while you have to put down your pencil and logically think the problem through. If it makes logical sense, it's worth exploring. Science is afraid to take a shot in the dark and try to come up with something new. Science wants to examine the universe 1 proton at a time. I understand why mind you, but it certainly doesn't invalidate anything I've said here. I have no dog in the fight, so I am free to imagine without consequence. Scientists have consequences for their ideas. One screw up and they're potentially a Walmart greeter. The business is harsh, and filled with intellectual bullying. They can't publish ideas without support, and there ideas aren't considered valid until a consensus is formed. And then those ideas won't come to fruition until someone lobbies a politician for funds to explore it. And then there's decades of evidence gathering. What I have written makes perfect sense to me. Is it right? I don't know. I'm not trying to define every single piece of minutia in the problem. I'm trying a general approach. I do suspect it's probably closer to the reality in which we exist. You're thinking of it the wrong way. There are many spheres. It's all around us. It is how we perceive matter. They are the stars, and planets, and molecules that make up the stars and planets. We are a reflection of the process. Everything is a reflection of the greater process. It;s not really a destination, it's a potential state that will never be. We are >0 and <1. 1 is the maximum potential for the totality of the whole universe, and 0 is the potential to be nothing. Our existence is a derivative of infinite potential, and we are the finite aftermath of the process at any given slice of time.

I don't think you get it. I am assigning it a value of 1 as a set. You can look at it that way. If you do that, then the energy inherently must equal 1 as a set called energy energy is equal to mass. The mass is considered stationary. To release that energy you would need something to act upon it at c^2 so your answer comes out to 1. That's where I made an assumption that expansion and contraction are equal and opposite forces, and expansion/contraction will always yield a static value of -1 as a set called constants. It is considered the primary constant from which all constants are derived. All sets must possess a value of 1. Make sense?

I'm not sure I follow. I see many points. I think the quantum foam is the interaction between expansion and gravity. Maybe the universe cycles through all of them and us, or maybe it acts equally upon the whole. I don't know. I think you misunderstand me somewhat Strange, I won't be able to prove any of this, but it does seem to explain a lot of the "whys" on a much more comprehensible level. Mathematically, it is will over my head. This is for others to ponder with much greater skills than myself. Is it exactly right? No way, not even close. I can't take it any further. This is how it could be working, and if someone had the notion to examine it mathematically, they could. It won't be me. Yes, the universe works from extremes. I've even equated it to precisely that terminology in my thoughts.

I'm curious. This is really a GR view of the universe on steroids. Is it that hard to believe we flipped the problem around 100 years ago? This is more or less a mirror image of the way we've been thinking about the universe, and in my view it really wouldn't be all that different from what we observe now. We've spent the past 100 years trying to prove the universe is expanding, not looking at the inverse possibility. It's the difference between 1 or -1. EXPANSION <----(+c)-----\-----(-c)-----> GRAVITY OFFSET +C/-C = -1. There is an offset between the natural forces of expansion and gravity which creates a natural torque energy or rotary motion. Mass lives primarily on the -C side of the problem. Massless particles live primarily on the +C side, and/or flip back and forth between the two. That offset between the forces can push in either direction, but the value always remains -1 between the two sides. Push matter towards -C and it condenses. Push it towards +C and it expands. There is no 0 between the forces, only energy as we experience it, which is more than likely a form of torque. Keep in mind, I'm not trying to define mass or light to the umpteenth degree. All I'm looking to accomplish is gain a basic logical fundamental understanding of the process. And to be clear, I think the -1 value is a bit more dynamic in reality. It means something different depending on time and your perspective. That perspective always remains more of a static viewpoint though, or fixed perspective. I think rotary motion would be more the reality of the process. Push mass towards +C and it spins faster. Push it towards -C and it spins slower. The centrifugal force expands or contracts the circumference. Gravity and expansion are always on the rise so there's a constant input of energy into the system keeping everything moving. The -1 value represents our relative view of nature. It is a fixed perspective which makes it incredibly difficult for us to understand the underlying reality. Which is a good thing, because the universe probably wouldn't make sense any other way. Time is the difference between the action and the reaction in the process. Expansion is the action, and contraction is the reaction, and there is an inherent delay between them. The further the distance between the two the longer the interval of time. Absolute expansion would represent the slowest possible interval, and absolute contraction would represent the shortest possible interval. When I say absolute expansion, I refer to a potential value of 1. When I say absolute contraction, I refer to a potential value of 0. The faster we travel the closer we move towards expansion, and the further away we are from the reaction in the process. Time slows. The slower we go the closer we move toward the reaction, or the contractive process, so time speeds up. It's a very simple logic. Everything though, rides along the same 2-dimensional line between expansion and contraction. Think about it. Time is not its own temporal dimension, it's a tangible physical property of matter. Everything is part of the same whole, including time. This is the arrow of time, and it always points in one direction, because nothing can exceed the rate of expansion to become the totality of existence, and to head beyond the other direction that something would cease to exist. It's very simple and straight forward reasoning. I was thinking about virtual quantum particles in the vacuum, and how they pop in and out of existence. I then began applying my newly formed fundamental understanding of time to those particles. Suppose your universe existed in a quantum particle, hypothetically speaking of course. Because you are right on the very extreme edge of the contraction process from my perspective, time for you relative to me, is moving at an almost inconceivable rate. For you though, you've lived a full life, got married, had kids, etc etc. By chance, you were also a renowned theoretical physicist in your little quantum blip of a universe, and you were trying to figure out how the universe came to be, and how long the universe had been around, etc, etc. How would you see the universe compared to me? For me, 1 second is 1 second, and it will always be 1 second. I am absolutely certain of this fact from my point of view. For you 1 second is also 1 second, and you are absolutely certain of that fact. For me, the universe is approximately 13.7 billion years old. Do you think that would be the same perspective for you? My guess would be, yes, that is precisely how you would understand the universe. That makes me wonder about the relevance of our own perspectives. We're both right, but we're both dramatically wrong. I think the universe may be static, exactly as Einstein had originally considered. Well, maybe not quite exactly as he thought, but still static in nature as far as the totality of its existence goes. We may see that potential beginning and ending from our perspective, but it's not a real destination for the whole of the universe. The potential for the totality of absolute something and absolute nothing is exactly that, potential. We are merely the stored energy in that potential. From any perspective, I'm guessing the universe appears to have begun approximately 13.7 billion years ago. I'm guessing that number is going to have a mathematical significance in physics. Although, I think we're studying an apparition to some extent. We're studying a what if, and what might be, but what actually never was and will never be, although it probably will for us. The universe is infinite. Science is right on one hand, but dramatically wrong on the other. Coincidentally, and in further thinking, I could be profoundly right about the sum total of the universe, but dramatically wrong about our own perspective on the universe as it may relate to a quantum fluctuation. I see how it could possibly be a quantum fluctuation, although the idea of randomness is somewhat of a conflict in my mind still, because it was caused by expansion and contraction which stems from an equality. It's not random, rather an indeterminate result due to the sheer complexity of the problem. Consider our perspective like one might consider a bouncing ball. The intervals of time become smaller and smaller with each bounce, until all time and motion stops, and we cease to exist. If this is an isolated or compartmentalized universe within the totality of the universe, our beginning was more like a big bounce, and that first bounce was the totality of our universal domain in which we perceive the universe, and we've been losing a bit of time with each bounce The intervals of time are accelerating in the process exactly as we might watch a bouncing ball, until that ball comes to rest. Our rest point represents the end of our perceived universe though. Eventually we'll just blip off the radar screen of another universe as we might see a virtual quantum particle blip out in our own. ------ If we're contracting, then time would also be accelerating. I suspect the acceleration we see in the redshift is related to accelerating time intervals, and expansion is the redshift from contraction. Hard to say which is which for certain though. This is why we notice the acceleration in the expansion though, whichever the cause. I don't understand enough about the detection process to speculate much further about which would cause either in the results. I understand it fundamentally or in general terms. ------- Another thought I'm having at the moment is galactic spin, and how accelerated time and condensing mass might alter our perception of dark matter as related to galaxies. I understand the spin rate is too high, and galaxies should fly apart. I've never attempted to hypothesize what any of it means on a fundamental level though. This leaves me with little information on what the observation represents and how to apply it to my thoughts. I think dark matter might be the second unicorn along side dark energy. I don't know. A quick wiki investigation tells me it's going to require a tremendous amount of mathematical calculation to see what it really means.

Here's a more comprehensive explanation. I also have a few more posts regarding matter, time, gravity, time perspectives, and expansion/acceleation. The sum total of all the mass in the universe could be represented with a value of 1 as a set. If you chose to look at it as a set, than the energy that mass set contained would also have to be defined as 1, because there is an equivalence between between mass and energy as Einstein proved in E=mc^2. That leaves us with a fairly meaningless truth of, 1=1. So what? Logically though, this should be a valid way to look at all the mass in the universe, as a singular set labeled mass. What that value means in comparison to the little pieces we arbitrarily (but meaningfully) use to define the universe, is irrelevant at that point. The sum total of the energy in all mass is equal to the sum total of the mass set. Coincidentally, that simple perspective also roughly defines the theoretical singularity before the big bang. The maximum value of the pre big bang state was 1, and we are fractionally less than that beginning or original state. Like I said, the actual value in comparison to elements within the current state of the universe is irrelevant. For all intents and purposes, that singularity was the universe, and it was undeniably equal to itself. It was simply, more than nothing, and 1 atom in the current state of the universe is a lot less than that original something. When I look at Einstein’s formula, and plug in those set values, 1=1c^2, what I see is a potential universe born of precise equivalence, not randomness. The reason I see that is because there are only two logical answers to the problem, c=1 or c=-1. A constant needs to be a physical property that makes mathematical sense. The result of that physical property must produce a constant static value. For example, the speed of light. It is an unchanging physical property of photons based physically on time and the distance traveled in a vacuum. The result of that phenomena is generally accepted as 299792458 m/s. I’m not trying to get into a discussion on light though, so I’ll just leave that to the professionals. It’s a usable constant within the universe based on an observed physical condition converted to a logical numeric value. That defined value or result could also be considered somewhat arbitrary on a more fundamental level, but it is constant in nature. We can’t use this constant as a set value in the formula though, because its value is based on arbitrary assignments which are only meaningful to specific problems using those same arbitrary values. There’s no way to make sense of it in terms of a set as we currently understand velocity. That does leave me with a larger question. Is there a legitimate set value we can use as a constant? It would more or less be defined as the mother of all constants within the universe, and its set value would be precisely definable as 1 or -1, irrespective of individually observed phenomena within the universe. The constant I’m looking for is one that could have also potentially exceeded the presence of our universe, but still be present within the universe in some physical form. One mental exercise I’ve done repeatedly over the years, is imagined empty space without a universe as we currently understand it. Basically I’m looking at the universe in it’s simplest form. Logically, this is all there really is on the most fundamental level. This is the primary ingredient of existence, so it must logically possess a tangible property of energy that can convert to mass or matter and light, etc. I see it as an infinite state of emptiness, and I try to imagine how this state could be responsible for a universe. When I think about what that represents, I keep seeing that emptiness in a constant state of expansion. To me, it implies a potential motion outward in a perpetual manner. There’s always more. It’s like reaching out to the furthest reaches of space to touch a fixed point, but never quite being able to physically touch it. That point perpetually remains just out of reach. When I look at our universe and ask, what has it been doing since it began, I see expansion. It never really hit me until recently, but it seems to me expansion may possibly be a natural force within this infinite vastness I have been imagining all these years. For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction, so the obvious reaction to expansion would be contraction. And contraction would look a lot like gravity. Actually, it would be definable as gravity. I know it sounds like a simple answer to a very complex problem, but why not? Expansion is an omnidirectional force, and gravity is an omnidirectional force. If these two forces were overlaid upon each other, and working in opposite directions, they would meet in the middle at 4 pi r^2, or the surface area of a sphere. I just see this perpetual tug-of-war between these forces in my mind. And because pi is imperfect, the forces release energy along the imperfection in the middle, or point of equilibrium. At that point I can see things twisting and spinning and folding in a circular manner creating twist and bends. It would create a natural spin or torque along the fracture because it stems from a radial imperfection. I see our universe existing within the surface area of a sphere. If absolute equality were allowed to exist, the universe would be a stagnate void of complete emptiness, because the forces would simply cancel each other out in the middle. What it also leads me to see, is that there is possibly an equivalency between expansion and gravity. They are equal and opposite forces working in complete unison. What happens to one, happens to the other, and the energy gets release in the middle. The result is a universe. The two forces are precisely equivalent, but the geometry that lies between them is imperfect, which allows the energy between the two forces to be release and create a universe. The universe is more or less a pi calculator. Randomness, evolution, and uncertainty is a result of this ever changing value of pi. We can never know what the future holds with absolute certainty, because that value has not been defined. Once defined, it becomes a finite reality within the universe. The universe gets left behind as a finite result of this perpetual resolution of pi. Our existence lies precisely between these forces. Now here’s the hard part that no one will ever accept, but I really don’t have a better way to express it mathematically. Because there is a precise equivalence, we can express mathematically -∞/+∞=-1, without actually knowing the values. It’s irrelevant in the contexts of a set value. Infinity isn’t an abstract conceptual idea, it’s actually a physical state. The set constant is -1, and the universe itself is the physical set constant as defined by infinity. Infinity represents a potential positive and negative force, and that potential between those forces is realized as a universe. 1=1*-1^2 This will be a difficult theory to prove in terms of absolutes, and the overwhelming majority are going to flat out reject my use of infinity within a mathematical calculation. I understand that fully. I don’t really care on a number of levels though, because it is what it is, and it is exactly as I see it. If you don’t like my use of infinity in the expression, then just use an e and g for expansion and gravity. There is also a prediction to be had. Expansion and gravity are equal and opposite forces. What’s happening to one is happening to the other in an opposite manner. So more expansion leads to more contraction or gravity, which might possibly be seen as higher mass. Acceleration might be seen as an acceleration in mass gain throughout the universe. Increased expansion, increases gravity, which is seen as an increase in mass throughout the entire universe. The deeper question I seem to ask myself is whether or not the expansion is the true physical reality, or contraction is the true physical reality. Or maybe it’s a little of both. I tend to consider we are physically contracting to an ever smaller state, and expansion is more of an illusion in the process. It could be more like a discreet perspective change, and that perspective always remains static because -/+ always equals -1. Yes, there is more space between distant objects, but the expansion is realized through the contraction process, not the actual expansion of space. This is where I began this line of thought nearly 10 years ago, but I just couldn’t quite put all the pieces together in a sensible manner. I don’t know. Seems very difficult to prove considering the relative nature of things. To me, this seems to possibly answer a lot of questions of the hows and whys though. For instance, motion may not be exactly what it appears to be. Things only move in or out, or it’s more of a 2-dimensional reality. Although we see things moving left to right, and up and down, what that could really represent is moving towards or away from expansion or contraction. The forces are omnidirectional, so your 2-dimensional journey can occur in a 3-dimensional manner from an observational point of view. The faster we physically move in any direction, the closer we move towards the expansive force. The slower we go, the faster we move towards the contractive state. Technically, there really isn’t an at rest state, only a relative point somewhere between expansion and contraction. Motion is the energy constant. No motion, no energy. Massless particles move towards expansion. Mass particles move towards contraction. Something like that anyway. But we don’t really move in a strange sort of way, although I do have a little trouble getting a handle on the interpretation. I sort of see it though. It’s like a 90 or 180 degree bend between the forces. Move towards expansion, and matter expands. Move towards contraction, and matter condenses. You can’t exceed the forces that created and sustains you though, so we have a speed limit which we define as light speed. Those values are also offset, and they want to be balanced at -1, but there isn’t truly a middle point. Everything moves in one direction or the other. That’s why nothing can exceed the speed of light. Motion is more about resistance and capacitance, and the space that lies between destinations acts more like a superconductor of sorts. Increase resistance to contraction in one direction, and the capacitance naturally increases in the opposite direction, and you have motion. The force always wants to balance at about -1. Something like that anyway. Maximum value in either direction is the defined value for the speed of light. It’s not really about velocities on a more fundamental level though, it’s about offset energy values. I think the real core of the problem lies in a perception of + and - velocity, which is more a manipulation of the natural expansive and gravitational forces. The idea of negative velocities is something that won’t be well received though. Mass wants to move in the negative direction, and light wants to move in the positive direction.

Well, the article in the link some proof, which is the minimum requirement of proof for the thread to exist. It shows what I am saying is plausible, and not in an invisible dinasour sort of way. It will work mathematically if we trust the numbers worked out by Professor Wetterich. Perpetul expansion is not provable. An equivelance between expansion and gravity may be possible to prove. That's difficult given the relativistic nature of the universe though. I will touch on motion, and time. None of the math needs to be reworked. It is simply a fundamental understanding of what's going on. Acceleration of the universe should be provable mathematically. I would be very curious to see what would happen with galactic spin. What would be needed was a reference point for time, because I see time accelerating with contraction. You want proof, but you really haven't heard the full explanation. What you get out of this thread is up to you, not me. Judge for yourself.

To be very clear, I believe almost nothing, and would never ask anyone to believe anything I say. I've actually worked very hard to shed the word from my vocabulary over the past 20 years. I reserve all beliefs to friends and family, and myself. This is a curious possibility that I just can't shake, and it's been 30 years in the making. I get nothing out of this except the sheer pleasure of thinking. I am a nobody in science, and will die a nobody in the field. This idea is for others to ponder. I used a simple logical approach to assemble the pieces, and looked for a theory that would weave its way through the observation until it made logical sense. I have been developing an abstract to a theory, or an idea. It's not a theory. I think the odds of it being correct are much greater than the current model. Unfortunately, it is merely a fundamental understanding. This is a 0 or 1 approach. If you keep an open mind and listen, you might find something useful. Maybe not. Who knows? We aren't talking about invisible dinosaurs, we're talking red shifts. I would think the professor is capable of making a fairly routine physics calculation. I'm not worried.

It was a question specifically addressing the redshift, nothing more. If the universe was truly contracting, I think it would be safe to assume it would be doing so in such a manner that it would fit either perspective and would be diffuclt determining which direction you were headed. Or maybe, contraction would answer other questions we haven't been able to understand with the current model, like galactic spin and dark energy.

Don't give me this bull about credentials being irrelevant. They are relevant in all walks of life, especially science. Scientists live and die by credentials. A professor has no stock in publishing fables for a few laughs. The odds of him being wrong in his calculations are fairly slim. From an idealistic standpoint, you would be 100% correct in your statement, but that's not the reality we live in. It is reasonably safe to assume the calculations are correct for the purposes of this thread. This is a forum, not a peer review process.

Strainght up contracting to a smaller state. Is it possible? There is no ambiguity in the question. There is mathematical evidence that proves it is possible, exactly as I'm suggesting. Although, the work is not peer reviewed. I seriously doubt you or I are capable of reviewing it though, so we'll just have to assume it is accurate for now. He's a well known reputable theoretical physcisit, and he's a professor. I doubt anyone will find errors in his published work. Although, they may reject what it implies.

Okay, let's talk about the redshift for a moment. Would you agree that the same observational results would be yielded if matter was condensing over time versus moving away from one another? http://www.nature.com/news/cosmologist-claims-universe-may-not-be-expanding-1.13379 .

There is currently no evidence to suggest it isn't infinite, so it's a mute point. You don't know that Strange, so please try to refrain from claiming you know the answer to things you do not. That's not helpful. Respectfully, that's by definition, arrogance. That's exactly what I'm trying to figure out. I happen to consider the possibility fundamentally more palatable. If you keep your mind open and consider the possibility, you might just see exactly what I'm seeing right now and trying to explain. I would like to start a new thread on the subject, and just re-post some of my more recent thoughts. I think they're better formed than what i have here right now. I've taken some of your input and made a few tweaks.