Proof?

Okay, you got me on this one.  Or did you?

Seems there's two things in science we have plenty of, theory and irony.

If you haven't noticed, I have been stressing the fact I don't know if this is right or not.  I really and truly do not know the answer with any certainty.  I suspect its right, but I myself do not believe it.  I don't think anyone reading any of this should waste energy believing it either.  That's where we always seem to get ourselves in trouble.  Beliefs are a slippery slope.    

Truth be told, I'd have trouble calculating my way out of wet paper bag, let alone understanding the mathematics used to define nature.  Hell, I've never even stepped foot in physics class, or even read a scientific paper top to bottom.  I've never even read relativity.  My highest level of math is Algebra I from high school, and that's a distant memory at this point in my life.  I'm just being honest here.

Arguably, one of my greatest strengths is my ability to trust in others.  I'm pretty sure most of the major theories check out mathematically.  I never saw any reason to doubt them on that level, or waste time trying to disprove them on a mathematical level.  Yes, the math is correct.  After all, the collective brain power that went into them dwarfs the collective intelligence of 99.99% of the entire human population.  Kudos to their mathematical abilities, and for getting us this far in our understanding of nature.  And a special congrats/thanks to those handful of truly gifted imaginative geniuses, like Einstein, Planck, Heisenberg, Bohr, Hawkings, and the many others on their level of creative intellect.  They've stretched our understanding far beyond anything we could have imagined on our own.  They really did.  Who'd have thought things were the way they were?

With all that smoke being blown up asses though, two simple facts remain.  Humans are fallible, mathematics are not.  The math has been verified 6 ways to Sunday.  It would be ludicrous to question it, or the scientists who dreamt it up.  In science though, all you really need is the math to be verified, and it is assumed your interpretation of the math is simultaneously verified, or at least correct in principle.  Whatever it is they're talking about in the abstract is pretty much granted the weight of unquestionable theoretical truth to anyone outside of the physics community.  It's defended like an impenetrable fortress of intrinsic human knowledge known only by those guarding it.  If a scientist insists pink unicorns create stars, and can prove it mathematically, well by golly, pink unicorns create stars for the mere mortals of this world questioning it, like me.

Obviously I'm injecting a little overly exaggerated sarcastic humor into the problem.  It's not quite as rigid (or ridiculous) as I'm implying, and abstracts do have to make some sense.  Still, there is an undeniable truth in my words.  Science doesn't appreciate the layman's approach of unbridled and often times relentless speculative inquiry of the facts as they understand them.  I get it, and I empathize with the challenges they are faced, especially in our digitally connected world of easy access to anyone on a moments notice.  Can't imagine the piles of minutia they must have to sift through, mine possibly included I suppose.  Statistically speaking though, there's a pretty good chance someone outside the scientific community understands the truth.  After all, Einstein was a patent clerk.  It's possible.  Am I that "guy?"  No idea.  I'm certainly no Einstein.   

The fact is, human beings make mistakes, and we're all susceptible to sleight of hand parlor tricks.  We are easily fooled.  We are all susceptible to lies and illusions.  No one is perfect.  If there are any mistakes in scientific theory, they're most likely to be found in the abstracts, not the supporting math.  That's where I began my search over 20 years ago.  I've been busy reading the exponential volume of loosely bound interpretations of science offered from the greatest minds in physics by the people using it.  I've sought their interpretations directly, and relentlessly questioned their understanding of physics.  It's a surly bunch to say the least.

Some believe relativity like it's some sort of unquestionable holy trinity, while others reject it like some radical cult or faction.  Everyone is right, and everyone else is wrong.  That's the sediment I see out there in the wild.  One thing about the internet, it offers a glimpse into how people think in their own minds.  They tend to do and say things they'd never say publicly.  It was a harsh journey to say the least, full of arrogance, conceit, and often times, personal humiliation.  There's no apologies either.  They just walk all over you while scraping the blood and guts off their shoes.  There's kind of a sick twisted joy to the process once they spot a lemming to attack.  It's kind of like being attacked by a pack of hyenas.

That being said, there was a lot of great people out there, and any feedback is useful, good or bad.  The picture I started to see though, was that of a fractured chaotic disorganized mess in the scientific community.  Theories are scattered everywhere, and everyone seems to understand just enough to be clueless overall.  Science is on overload with too many possibilities for the same thing.  I would bet if you printed out all the theories written over the past 100 years, you could probably wallpaper the entire earth, several times over.  It's massive!

So, I gathered up the theories I thought seemed pertinent to our understanding, put them in my 5000 piece puzzle box, and shook it up.  All of this was just to get a foothold in understanding mind you.  I had no serious preconceived notions going into it, just a few rough ideas that seemed to make sense to me.  Much of what I was hearing from science was incoherent collectively.

Ultimately though, I can't give you anymore proof than what we already have, and what I have already written.  That's the irony I see here though.  My theory, or conjecture if you prefer, is based on existing theory.  I merely see the collection of observations differently, and I'm sticking to what we actually know, or don't know in this case.  Basically, we're basing our entire fundamental understanding of reality on things lacking fundamental knowledge.   We don't know why light travels 299,792,458 meters per second.  We don't know why mass is X, or why it even exists.  We don't know why matter cannot exceed the speed of light.  We do not understand one physical element of the constants that make them constant.  Heck, we don't even know what energy is, really.  Yes, we observe them, and agree with the hypothesis that they are constant from our perspective, but that's akin to understanding that pushing a gas pedal down makes you go for forward in a car.  That doesn't say much about the rest of the car the gas pedal happens to be attached to, does it?  There is an answer, but until that answer presents itself, we can't jump to a conclusion either way.  Which is what we've done essentially.  I know, they're only theories, not conclusions.  Really though, that's not at all how scientists on the street portrays them, and we certainly aren't looking at any realistic alternatives.  The real driver of science tends to be publishing something for the sake of publishing something.  You have to publish something to be a somebody.  Unless of course you want to talk multiverses and the likes.  Great math, but pretty useless in describing our existence.  Blame it on the media, right?

To prove this wrong several things need to be done.  Starting with, disproving Einstein, Planck, Hawking's, Bohr, Heisenberg, and anyone else who's had a hand at shaping our understanding in physics.  Next, we'll have to prove why constants are constant, other than saying that's the way it is.  Observation are circumstantial where this competing view is concerned.

What I'm talking about is a pretty simple inversion of the current view.  It's pretty much a sign change.  So, take all the theories you like, gather them up, and multiply their answer by -1, instead of 1.  That's what I'm talking about here.  It is simply a different perspective of the same problem, which to me, makes far more practical sense.  Seriously, the universe is accelerating, again?  Really?  Why?  The dark energy we recently added to make up for the error in our expansion prediction?  With a contraction theory, everything is simply dwindling down towards 0, not expanding and accelerating towards a singularity or 1.  As I mentioned before, we are almost exactly like one of those vortex funnel games.  We're like the quarter, spinning faster and faster in a contracting orbit with a rising frequency.

What I'm doing is simply following the laws of physics.  Explosions slow down, cool, and dissipate, they don't speed up, cool, and accelerate.  Expansion and acceleration is a departure from what we actually witness on a daily basis.  It defies logic.  I understand what I'm suggesting is hard to swallow, seriously.  To imagine that we are literally shrinking every moment we exist is mind boggling.  To me though, it's what makes the most practical sense as we understand the world around around us.  And there is nothing, and I mean nothing, in physics to prevent that sort of reality.  Honestly, it just makes more sense to me.  In my view, the more incredible tale would be expansion and acceleration, because it goes against everything we understand in nature.  I'm not saying it isn't possible, but it sure seems unlikely from my perspective, no matter what it looks like from our point of view.

More space is not an issue, and the idea that our universe could possibly represent the whole entirety of space is simply ludicrous in my mind.  The size or scale of our universe is a completely irrelevant consideration against the potential of infinity.  13.7 billion light years is a shard of existence against the backdrop of the infinite potential of space.  There is simply no limits to how big or how small a universe could be.  Limiting it in scale like we've done only increases the odds we have it totally backwards.  In my view of course.