Could be something like at a critical tipping point where the superstrings within atoms short circuit or break up to become micro-strings thus shrinking all of matter. I like string!
Or the vast spaces within atoms between the electrons and the proton/neutron group reduces in size for some reason, (slower electron spin / increased attraction-gravity), and the atomic volume is reduced, thus shrinking all of matter.

Super cooling shrinking matter; colder than minus Kelvin ?

Clouds of massless gravity engulfing and compressing and crushing matter.

It's all imaginary anyway because when I sleep nothing is real, and when I wake up, it's all unbelievable.

You do realize there can be nothing colder than true absolute zero.
Absolute zero is the cessation of all movement.
There is no minus because once movement stops it stops.

Gravity requires mass. That doesn't make sense.
Without mass there can be no gravity.


Super-strings is a theory.
So is vacuum energy (zero point energy).
There is a theory that the super massive structures of the Universe are created/guided/governed by what is known as filaments.
However, filaments are also a theory.

I have explored the shrinking Universe theory.
The one force that doesn't fit is time.
Duration is relative to the observer.
However, duration is governed universally by time.
While the relative duration might diminish in a shrinking Universe the fundamental force of time is unaffected.


How do you KNOW?

Consider this.
We are within the Universe. Part of the Universe.
Everything we do, say, dream or imagine is in a sense the Universe doing, saying, dreaming and imagining.

What constitutes reality when you are awake?
Dust, random elements, deterioration, decay.
I have had dreams that are real where I experience dust, random elements, deterioration and decay.
Is it possible that some dreams are merely your ability to connect with a different part of the Universe with different circumstances?
Like a twisted version of reality?

Take a point.
Draw a line thru the center of that point.
You have two directions.
Now draw a line 90 degrees from the first point.
Now you have 4 directions.
If you continue to draw lines thru that point at different angles the possible direction of each line multiples as you add more dissections.
If each point in time has multiple possible paths leading to other points in time, its possible that all paths might exist.
What if dreams are a glimpse into the possible paths of time that are not reality to you but reality in some other way.

Each possible path for each moment of life is happening within this Universe.
Because, we are within this Universe.
We are part of the Universe and it is part of us.
You...Are the Universe trying to figure itself out.

your so right now many people won't accept the limit others have championed more and more people are thinking there isn't a limit to the universe it's eternal infinity if your
Instruments say 17.5million then that's just the best we can do now we look forward to even more advanced measurers though we can never fully measure eternal infinity because example it's immeasurable

You have probably heard of the bubble universe theory. It makes some sense to me
we can only see as far as our bubble. There could be a lot of bubbles.
Agood one to contemplate in the bath.:)

I have heard of and read about the bubble Universe theory.
One thing that is lacking is the fact that we are stuck within this one Universe and can never prove any other Universes exist unless we have a serious break-thru in technology, and I do mean SERIOUS.

But, this is a philosophy forum so bubble Universes are fair game for discussion.
One common factor in the bubble Universe teory is that the bubble Universes are of the similar size and within the same dimensional constraints as this "known" Universe.
This assumption is what fails in science theory.
In science, never assume anything.
You test, retest and test again.
You put your theory out there and 'encourage' others to tear it apart.
If they can't and their tests yield the same results then your theory has validity until it is proved inacurrate.
We are currently proving some very well-known theories as inaccurate as we advance our intellectual understanding.

One of the 'simple' proofs is that the Earth is not the center of the Universe.
We know it is not.
However, if we discover a new understanding we might find that it is the center of the Universe or better yet, the mind is the center of the Universe.
That theory can't be proven, it may be complete fantasy. But...It also can't be disproven.
Do we know all there is to know about the relationship of the Universe to the mind? Do we even understand the mind? Can we even understand the mind of other species? There's just too much we don't know and we haven't the technology or understanding to figure out. Try to imagine the questions we are not intelligent to ask yet. Time will tell...

Here's a scary thing for you to think about. What if your right and when its able to be proven someone finds these posts you put on and his like wow who is this bloke and why has no body wrote about him.

LOL, I don't care if I'm right.
It just makes sense to me.

Its a way to look at things I might not have considered before.
If I live long enough, I might have other ideas that make sense as I learn more.

Anyone not willing to settle for the established explaination can come up with their own ideas of how things are.
All it takes is to use your own reasoning and understanding and figure out what makes the most sense to ya.

Unless, you are the kind of person that needs to be told what to think about reality and never question it.

Observed RED SHIFT is a very strong argument AGAINST your theory.

That figure of 13.7 billion years has me thinking. Suppose the universe is very much bigger and suppose also that at a point 13.7 billion years ago light was initiated? If there was no light before that point in time, there would be no way of knowing how old the universe is since we have no other way of measuring it.

from Wikipedia:

"Laura Mersini-Houghton is very interesting. She is an Albanian-American cosmologist and theoretical physicist, and professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She is a proponent of the multiverse hypothesis and the author of a theory for the origin of the universe that holds that our universe is one of many selected by quantum gravitational dynamics of matter and energy. Predictions of her theory have been successfully tested by astrophysical data. She argues that anomalies in the current structure of the universe are best explained as the gravitational tug exerted by other universes."

She also claims that current black hole thory is flawed. All of her work is highly recommended, but can leave the brain hurting if you try to understand it.

Something else you might ponder.
Consider that light is multi-directional.
So, if light we detect is 13.7 billion years old, the light moving in the opposite direction is also 13.7 billion years old as well as all the possible tangents from that point. Like a starburst (taste the rainbow, lol).

Also consider this...
We detect light on the path at which our detectors are located.
There is the possibility the light we detect (our light) has been obscured by something before 13.7 billion years ago.
We don't know because we have no detectors at a significant distance from us, say, 1 billion lightyears beside our current location. A billion light years that away. Pick a direction.

Redshift doesn't prove anything about the Universe.
Redshift is the moving away of a light source relative to our detection.
Redshift is significant because it allows us to understand the light as it comes at us. Our detection arc is less than a pinhead compared to the volume of the Universe. So, we base all our understanding on what happens in those short glimpses of a tiny pinprick of light.
Its all relative to our position, ability and duration of time looking/measuring.

The Universe could be shrinking while we see it as expanding because we are looking from inside. If you could stand on an atom during an explosion it may look like it is contracting depending on our relative reference view.

Nearly all cosmological science theory is based on our relative view.
There are more variables than we can calculate.
Granted, we can send probes anywhere in the Solar system but when we start navigating to other stars, things change drastically.
There are too many variables.

To navigate to Proxima Centauri, we would need to calculate our trajectory during flight.
If you get a WOW! signal from a star and you point the detector at that star, you will get static because not only has the star moved since the signal left, it also moved since you sent your reply.

Here, you get a WOW! signal from a star system 500 light years away.
That signal has already traveled 500 years from its source.
During that time, we have moved and so has the source.

Interstellar wind, Sol oscillation in its Orion's Arm vicinity while also spiraling closer to the center of the galaxy.

Once we detect the WOW! signal and send a reply, not only has the Earth moved its relative position, the source has moved its relative position.
At best, the source has moved 1,000 years. Given we don't know all the trajectories of all celestial objects, our signal arrives at an empty spot completely missing the source.
We have no idea what all the influences are on the sources trajectory.
We have no idea what actual lies in interstellar space.
Light is a wave.
Gravity affects waves (Gravitational Lensing).
We detect it coming at us (we can see around mass) but we have no idea about how it affects an outgoing signal.

When you sense the Sun's position you are not sensing the Sun as it is but as it was about 8 minutes ago. We can send a signal to the Sun and probably hit it because 8 minutes is insignificant. We may not be able to hit a pinpoint target on the Sun unless we calculate its relative movement.
The Moon's relative position is an even smaller difference.
We sent New Horizons to Pluto and beyond because we were able to calculate the variables. Because the variables are insignificant compared to light years.

If the signal originates outside our galaxy, our galaxy has also moved.
I don't know if it has oscillation in its path?
The further distant the source, the more deviation from location.

I see the Universe as a closed system.
Inside the Universe matter and energy are subject to the Universe.
If the Universe were shrinking, it may be at a universal rate.
We wouldn't know it because we are in the Universe and shrinking at the same rate. Everything is.

There is a problem with the shrinking Universe and the Big Bang Universe.
It should be shrinking or expanding from a source point.

With a white singularity (black hole) we see matter and energy shrinking onto the singularity. Imagine if you were that singularity.
The Universe would appear to be shrinking toward you.
There would be directionality to the movement.

We should be able to detect the Universe's directionality.
But, we can't.
It seems to be expanding in all directions.
Cosmic Anisotropy VS Homogeneity and Isotropy

An anisotropy deviation of 0.76 and 0.79, respectively, and a preferred direction of (309°, 21°) and (314°, 28°), respectively.
September 7, 2011
(PhysOrg.com) -- According to the cosmological principle, there is no special place or direction in the universe when viewed on the cosmic scale. Due to the cosmological principle, scientists also assume that the universe is “homogeneous” - having a uniform structure throughout - and “isotropic” - having uniform properties throughout.
A few recent studies have found the possible existence of cosmological anisotropy: specifically, that the universe’s expansion is accelerating at a faster rate in one direction than another.
The researchers, Rong-Gen Cai and Zhong-Liang Tuo from the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing, have posted their study at arXiv.org.
But as Cai and Tuo note in their study, the case is far from closed. In contrast with the current results, some previous analyses of Type 1a supernovae data have not found any statistically significant evidence for anisotropies. And many other data - such as that for the cosmic microwave background radiation, galaxy statistics, and dark matter halos - strongly support the assumption of homogeneity and isotropy on the cosmic scale.
If the cosmological principle turns out to be wrong, it would dramatically change the way we look at the world.

I have not seen any new data on cosmological anisotropy.
I imagine news of proving directional trajectories in the Universe would be significant.

But, even if it is proven, doesn't change the idea of a shrinking Universe governed by an still unknown force which reduces size universally.
Everyone is ready to believe the Universe is expanding, nobody is studying contraction.

In my mind:
A particle of matter that was frozen at absolute zero imploded.
Something (some force or property) outside the Universe prevented from exploding.
Think of this matrix as very thick ice cream.

Inside this implosion matter forms as it shrinks.
The imploding force causes all matter to shrink at the same rate.
If you were standing outside the Universe, you would see a flash of light as the particle gets progressively smaller (you have a very powerful microscope).
You notice pinpoints of light within this implosion.
As you watch it gets brighter while slowly getting smaller and smaller.
The light stops and the implosion stops.
You have another smaller particle.

From inside the implosion, we see expansion.
We see expansion because relative to our view (inside the implosion) mass is moving at different speeds.
We see light has directionality.
Everything has directionality within the implosion.
What we can't see is everything getting smaller at the same rate.
The implosion is not detected because relative to us, everything seems to be exploding.
The same way a car beside you looks like it isn't moving when it matches your speed.

I am probably wrong.
I'm not a scientist, I'm a disabled truck mechanic with a lot of time.
But what if I am right?
Nobody looks because we think we have it figured out.
There is no scientific theory because everybody assumes it is expanding.
What if there really is an undiscovered force regulating relativity all thru the Universe?
What if there were a way to test it?
What if that undiscovered force were branch in time?
A branch we can't detect yet?
What if it were the Unifying Force of all forces?

The unification of forces is the idea that it's possible to view all of nature's forces as manifestations of one single, all-encompassing force.
In physics, a unified field theory (UFT) is a type of field theory that allows all that is usually thought of as fundamental forces and elementary particles to be written in terms of a pair of physical and virtual fields.
All four of the known fundamental forces are mediated by fields, which in the Standard Model of particle physics result from exchange of gauge bosons.

Strong interaction:
the interaction responsible for holding quarks together to form hadrons, and holding neutrons and also protons together to form atomic nuclei.
The exchange particle that mediates this force is the gluon.
Electromagnetic interaction:
the familiar interaction that acts on electrically charged particles.
The photon is the exchange particle for this force.
Weak interaction:
a short-range interaction responsible for some forms of radioactivity, that acts on electrons, neutrinos, and quarks.
It is mediated by the W and Z bosons.
Gravitational interaction:
a long-range attractive interaction that acts on all particles.
The postulated exchange particle has been named the graviton.

Right now, there is no Time interaction.
Maybe a Duriton could be the exchange particle.

Right now, we have found a scalar particle (Higgs boson) but there is no interaction associated with it.
What if it is responsible for relativity?

Theoretical physicists have not yet formulated a widely accepted, consistent theory that combines general relativity and quantum mechanics to form a theory of everything. Trying to combine the graviton with the strong and electroweak interactions leads to fundamental difficulties and the resulting theory is not renormalizable.

What if this unknown force is the unification of Unified Field Theory?
What if the Higgs boson is merely a yet unknown branch of this unknown force?
A small part of the whole.
Maybe we just haven't figured it out yet because we (relatively) just started looking?

The Universe is related to particle physics.
There could be a quantum constituent.

If we could interrupt relativity, we might see something getting larger as it is relative to everything but in actuality its not getting larger, it stopped shrinking compared to the rest of the Universe.
We and the rest of the Universe continues shrinking.

With all this, I believe either condition could apply.
I liken the firm belief of an expanding Universe to a religious 'close mind'.
A similar 'closed mind' which prevents science from looking for implosion.
Its the similar 'closed mind' as FTL and Time travel.
It can't happen so we won't look.

Zero Kelvin and anti matter.
Does the 'anti' part mean opposite, so zero Kelvin is even colder, and not standard zero; or the 'anti' part means the heat colour is reversed; or beyond zero is a different form not hot or cold ?
Not matter Zero Kelvin, but
Antimatter infinity Nivlek.

It is the red shift (Doppler Effect) that tells us the universe is expanding. But, suppose that red shift is actually caused by something else? Just thinking outside the box here, but if it was, then we might not be expanding at all and that would change all our current thinking about dark matter, whatever that is!

I don't think you can say that nobody is looking at the possibility of FTL travel. I bet that somewhere there is a researcher who is looking again and again at the known physics, trying to find a way to prove that it *could* be possible. And if it is, that researcher will be getting the Nobel Prize - the thing they all want to get!

Agreed, and something i have pointed out!!

does anyone accept Lawrence Krauss, theoretical physicist and cosmologist explanation of tying the "Soup Theory" to the "String Theory" combination?




and if the Big Bang (coined for God Speaking "originally") does not have the proofs from what we observed from the KOBE Telescope Expedition and findings, and from what Krauss expanded upon after the video revealed no Soup Theory ingredients and just blank openness of darkness when suddenly a LIGHT APPEARS and then the LIGHT erupts and then goes into full blown remake of the Universe forming and eventually expanding...does this mean we are no closer to the "Truth" than we had assumed?

Exactly! The point of science is to try to prove that your theory is wrong. It is more realistic to do that and avoids the problem of bad science where people point out all the evidence that supports their theory while conveniently ignoring any evidence that suggests the theory might be wrong. Good scientists hope they will fail and evenutally prove their theory to be right - at least until some new advanced science comes along with a different perspective.



I think the mind is perhaps the last thing to be fully understood. There is a great deal to be done here. People like spiritualists and those who are certain they have 'seen a ghost' will be of enormous benefit to research when it really gets going. For the moment, I'm quite sure there are many 'unexplained' things happening. Things that will become clearer as our understanding of the world increases. Who knows, as Einstein showed that 'simple' physics was only part of the picture, we will one day consider our science in the 21st century to be perhaps only a small part of human knowledge. Somehow I doubt that no matter how long mankind is around, however many centuries, we will never reach the point at which we can confidently state that we know everything there is to be known.

How I wish I was younger with many more years to live and much new science to observe as it unfolds! If anyone finds a pill that can add a hundred years to your lifetime, I want to buy one!

before we polluted our environments to the point where it has become genetically part of our biological makeup, i believe we were more connected to the unknown concerning the ever expanding Universe and all within.




we understand currently what cause Psychological Disorders and other mental illnesses. but i doubt we will ever know from "Lab Results" how we can use our minds to heal, that to me, is not something Science can answer.




we can understand hunger, the need to protect, the need to run, the general need to survive like every single Species currently and past have. what we cannot understand, the specific Reasoning behind why those things are valuable to all Species (from Species to Species).