6 ms·

A few years ago, a published article suggested an alternative to the universe expanding is increasing mass. Older objects increase their mass and therefore are

A few years ago, a published article suggested an alternative to the universe expanding is increasing mass. Older objects increase their mass and therefore are red shifted. Why is this alternative plausible theory recieving such little attention? Edit: changed mass decay to increase in mass. I misremembered the theory.

casperc 6y ago
I would love to hear someone talk about this actually as it has been my pet theory for the last 15 years since high school physics. My reasoning was p = mv. m drops (through various processes in a star emitting energi==mass) and since p is constant, v increases. Probably totally naive, but it is just a thought which has stuck around with me.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- whimsicalism 6y ago
  If the star is emitting massive particles, then it doesn't have constant momentum.
hchasestevens 6y ago
Hm - but older from what perspective? Since light travels at c, aren't all journeys light takes instantaneous from the point of the photon? My understanding as well being that all known natural processes (like beta decay) are time-dilated at relativistic speeds. Also, how would this jibe with the parallax-based observations mentioned in the article?
- pault 6y ago
  But light only travels at c in a vacuum, if I remember correctly. So the journey isn't instantaneous, but still very very short. :)
wruza 6y ago
But you are the oldest, because every distant object that you see only shows its past. The further, the younger.
- edgefield0 6y ago
  Good point. The theory is that mass is increasing not decaying. Here's the paper: https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2013-08-cosmologist-universe.amp https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2013-08-cosmologi...
pdonis 6y ago
> Why is this alternative plausible theory recieving such little attention? If you're referring to the paper published by Wetterich in 2013 [1], it's because it isn't plausible at all: his theory requires that atoms are shrinking, and that is easily falsified by local experiments. [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/1303.6878 https://arxiv.org/abs/1303.6878

casperc 6y ago

I would love to hear someone talk about this actually as it has been my pet theory for the last 15 years since high school physics. My reasoning was p = mv. m drops (through various processes in a star emitting energi==mass) and since p is constant, v increases. Probably totally naive, but it is just a thought which has stuck around with me.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
whimsicalism 6y ago
If the star is emitting massive particles, then it doesn't have constant momentum.

hchasestevens 6y ago

Hm - but older from what perspective? Since light travels at c, aren't all journeys light takes instantaneous from the point of the photon? My understanding as well being that all known natural processes (like beta decay) are time-dilated at relativistic speeds. Also, how would this jibe with the parallax-based observations mentioned in the article?

pault 6y ago
But light only travels at c in a vacuum, if I remember correctly. So the journey isn't instantaneous, but still very very short. :)

wruza 6y ago

But you are the oldest, because every distant object that you see only shows its past. The further, the younger.

edgefield0 6y ago
Good point. The theory is that mass is increasing not decaying. Here's the paper: https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2013-08-cosmologist-universe.amp https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2013-08-cosmologi...

pdonis 6y ago

> Why is this alternative plausible theory recieving such little attention? If you're referring to the paper published by Wetterich in 2013 [1], it's because it isn't plausible at all: his theory requires that atoms are shrinking, and that is easily falsified by local experiments. [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/1303.6878 https://arxiv.org/abs/1303.6878