Think about it. When we look out in to space we see that the universe was much hotter and denser than it is now. Maybe all matter in the universe is in a constant sate of collapse due to gravity. Maybe when we look at particles and compare them to each other they only appear to be the same size because they are collapsing at the same rate. Gravity does not stop crushing but instead it reaches the same terminal velocity as particles around it to where the differential is insignificant. My thoughts on this are too complex to fully explain, but this makes a lot of sense to me. Am I just crazy?

EDIT: Appears that I am not the first to think this: martinelli.org/rexpansion

Both, it is a matter of perspective. Similarly, your eye moving or is the origin of the universe changing?

Both, it is a matter of perspective. Similarly, your eye moving or is the origin of the universe changing?

Does the universe have an origin (in that sense)?

EDIT: Appears that I am not the first to think this: martinelli.org/rexpansion

One thing strikes me as odd in that article. If we are 2 meters tall today, and 1 meter tall tomorrow, all distances are halved and you can't notice. Sure, not with a meter stick. But what about light? A meter can be defined as how much distance light travels in some short amount of time. If lengths halved, wouldn't speed of light suddenly double (i.e. it can now cover twice the distance in same amount of time)?

[quote name='EnigmaticProgrammer' timestamp='1335120187' post='4933835']
EDIT: Appears that I am not the first to think this: martinelli.org/rexpansion

One thing strikes me as odd in that article. If we are 2 meters tall today, and 1 meter tall tomorrow, all distances are halved and you can't notice. Sure, not with a meter stick. But what about light? A meter can be defined as how much distance light travels in some short amount of time. If lengths halved, wouldn't speed of light suddenly double (i.e. it can now cover twice the distance in same amount of time)?
[/quote]
I'm glad you brought that up! I'm not sure if the guy who wrote that article clarified it but I think the speed of light is not the results of higgs bosons and it is not a universal constant. I think the speed of light stems from the fact that a photon is simply the smallest self contained unit of energy in the universe. Why do you think it is that the more energetic a particle is the slower it moves? Energy its self slows time. In fact I think if you click the link at the bottom of that page where it says "Time and Clocks" it will explain this concept.

[quote name='frob' timestamp='1335121580' post='4933844']
Both, it is a matter of perspective. Similarly, your eye moving or is the origin of the universe changing?

Does the universe have an origin (in that sense)?
[/quote]

No I don't think it works like a balloon blowing up. All points were one point before inflation, so that kind of means all points can be considered the origin of the universe

No I don't think it works like a balloon blowing up. All points were one point before inflation, so that kind of means all points can be considered the origin of the universe

That depends on whether you allow an external observer or not. To an observer in the universe, any point could be the origin. To a theoretical external observer it could be a single point.

[quote name='hupsilardee' timestamp='1335445405' post='4935057']
No I don't think it works like a balloon blowing up. All points were one point before inflation, so that kind of means all points can be considered the origin of the universe

That depends on whether you allow an external observer or not. To an observer in the universe, any point could be the origin. To a theoretical external observer it could be a single point.
[/quote]

Sorry yes, that was what I was missing. No external observers allowed (Kind of reversing the strong anthropic principle to an extreme - an observer requires machinery like an eye or a camera, but these things need space to exist in, and space doesn't exist outside the universe)

Interesting. This is making sense.

If we are shrinking, while still able to observe that the universe is expanding, that means we are shrinking at a faster than rate than some other parts of the universe, which means that different parts of the universe are probably shrinking at different rates. We are all being sucked in by tiny black holes spread out everywhere.

And perhaps eventually, in a billion years or so, when all matters have gravitated back into one supermassive blackhole, since energy has been condensed so much, that's when Big Bang will occur?

And since we are shrinking at different rates, it could mean that there's not one Big Bang, but multiple Big Bangs happening at different times and locations in the universe. Even as we speak now, there's probably a spot somehwere in the universe that's experiencing another Big Bang. Of course, we are all somehow affected by the tremendous amount of energy that's released, even though it's X billions light years away.

So a Big Bang is the inverse situation of a black hole that is no longer able to contain all the energy that it has sucked in, so the black hole basically "vomits" all energy that it has sucked in, creating new stars, planets, and everything else. Then the cycle repeats!

If this is the case, we can't use light, as light does not escape black holes, to measure this phenomenon.

This is awesome. I always thought expanding universe, existence of black holes, and big bang don't make any sense. But they all connect together now.

I don't think black holes have a problem with large amounts of energy - there's nothing to say that they would 'vomit' up all their energy. In fact, black holes 'ooze' energy in the form of Hawking radiation, which contravenes your postulation that ALL energy would eventually condense into a supermassive black hole.