Greetings, All (-- and best wishes for 2011 to all)
Diving right in, it seems to me that many commonly accepted 'implications' of certain cosmological observations have been underpinned by a very specific notion of 'space', and that this foundational principle (which is really nothing more than a popular presupposition) has resulted in a propensity to misinterpret the evidence, which has in turn given rise to certain conclusions, primarily where the idea of an expanding universe is concerned. It is therefore my intention to propose a vastly different theory of 'space', and to show (if only indirectly) that the aforementioned “conclusions” are more the product of the theoretical principles on which they stand than anything else.
The Monistic Paradigm
In order to fully grasp my proposal, it’s first necessary to understand the paradigmatic rules to which it strictly adheres -- the key principle being that of oneness. In my view, there exists only one object: the universe itself. In keeping true to this postulate, there can be no whole separation (or “space”) between the many aspects of this singularity. Don't get me wrong; space exists, but only in ‘outer’ relation to the singular material that comprises the object and all of its aspects. To analogize this idea, think of a string that’s been folded in half. While there would indeed be an area between the halves, the “separation” would not be “whole”, because the connection at the delineating point would be intact. Bear in mind, the folded string is the object; the halves are its aspects; and space is the area that exists in outer relation to the totality. From this perspective, it’s necessary to think of space, not as something that exists within the universe, but as the pure nothingness in outer relation to it. Simply stated: space doesn’t reside in the universe; the universe resides in it.
The Constancy of Space
As I see things, the most important implication of this idea, at least in terms of interpreting cosmological data, is that “space” (or the amount of nothingness that defines the one) would be constant. Accordingly, the redshift observations often cited to support the theory that the universe is expanding would have to be reinterpreted, with the apparent increases in the areas between various groupings of cosmological material being viewed in deference to the postulate that those areas are nonetheless constant.
A Contracting Universe
In line with the above, space isn’t expanding; the universe is contracting (or, perhaps more properly, rewinding itself) in relation to space. Another analogy: think of two stationary balls of twine that are both directly connected to a third (albeit unseen) ball. If one were to wind the hidden ball, the visible balls would shrink in accordance to the amount of material being pulled away from each of them. So, as the hidden ball grows larger, the area between the others would seem to be increasing, when what’s really happening is that the respective sizes of the visible balls are decreasing in a constant space. The speed at which material is being pulled away from the two visible balls is directly proportional with the rates at which they're decreasing in size, and those commensurate decreases constitute the impetus for the illusion of expanding space between them. I believe this is essentially what's happening everywhere in the cosmos, and that it’s only a matter of time before the ‘hidden ball’ (the ultimate re-collector) becomes “visible” (if only by virtue of its effects) from nearly any point of view in the universe.
The Principle of Commensurate Distribution
Commensurate distribution is a vital aspect of my theory. Because all 'things' within a given group are contracting commensurately, the size differential from one second to the next is virtually undetectable from within that group. In reality though, what were 12 inches yesterday (relative E.G. to the group in which humanity resides) aren't the same twelve inches today, because all things in the group (including the area that qualifies as a 'foot') have contracted at paces suited to their surroundings. This explains how and why we (humans) are completely oblivious to the shrinking going on all around us. It is only by 'looking outside' that the various rates of contraction can be measured (via redshift observations).
To sum it up: we all know cosmic redshifting shows that groups of material are apparently speeding away from each other. Expansionists presume that "space" isn't constant and that it must be expanding between the groups; I suggest that the groups are shrinking in relation to constant space. The correct answer, as to which idea the redshift "evidence" supports …is both -- meaning the issue of 'truth' stands on the veracity of opposing interpretations.
Meurid is a new member of BAUT, He wrote the entire OP above based upon his own cosmological model. I liked Meurid's proposal and consider it to be a great proposal because of its kinship to my own model
-- so when Meurid decided not to continue defending his proposal any longer I asked his permission to defend his "great" fundamental ideas and I also liked the "ring" to his words in the OP as well as his title "the incredible shrinking universe" since my own words of similar meaning "the diminution of matter," I think, is much more bland and less dramatic than Meurid's words
So we can pick up where he left off if you wish. The OP can stand as it was originally stated by Meurid above and if you asked questions before in his thread I will answer according to my own related model using his OP as an analogy of reality, as he did.
I have repeated Meurid's OP above verbatim (with his permission) so that no one will have to look back to his original OP that can be found on the board just about a week before this OP opened. It has the same title without the "too" addendum that I attached with a smile
best regards, Forrest