The universe is not really expanding, but instead the galaxies are decreasing in size. Well, not just their size but their space-time. This would make it appear from our point of view that the universe is expanding, while we are actually shrinking. This is simple relativity. It this would be true we would not have to wonder about the mysterious force that expands the universe and maybe dark matter could be questioned.

Taking into consideration the very dual nature of information contained in the light. This is the theory of Sambursky. Sambursky sees the expansion of the Universe dynamically, arguing theoretically that "the dynamics of expansion are transferred into the dimensions of atomistic phenomena where expansion appears as its reverse – shrinkage" [S. Sambursky, 1937]. Leaving aside the intricate theory, involving the long-term variation of the Planck constant, we consider this theory as entirely feasible, based on the dual nature of light: it carries information about the Macrocosm, but this information can only be extracted through microscopic processes. Shrinking universe  metric could be described with the analogue gravity metric [Neven Bili ́c and Dijana Toli ́c, 2012].

Ordinarily, the spectral shift of distant galaxies, found proportional to their distance from us, has been interpreted as galactic recession:  all other explanations, such as old light, lain aside.  The crux of this choice, made in earlier argument, was that there was no known laboratory demonstration of old light whereas the Doppler effect of wave propagation was well known.  In and by itself there is no quarrel with this choice. 

If the full culmination of such a choice is realized, leading to the Big Bang hypothesis, one can agree that there is also no laboratory demonstration of what might be called a non-initiated laboratory explosion nor a defiance of entropic law, either of which are necessary in the support of open or closed, or oscillatory evolutionary systems, respectively. 

However during the time in which Hubble law was in the forefront, the Big-Bang hypothesis was not being considered, as was the possibility of old light, necessary in defense of the Steady-State hypothesis;  the former being eventually debunked, along with old light.

Today, given the same choice, neither option presents a more reasonable choice in respect to laboratory verifiability.  If the red shift cannot be explained as old light, by the same rules of the road, it should not be explained as galaxies in flight.  An alternate explanation, and quite intriguing in light of modern astronomical data, is the concept of mass decrement, where light is unaffected by the increasing space-gauge, but matter is.

Essential to the support of this concept, are speed and time;  all three: space, time and speed, serving as fundamental keystones to modern physics.  For example, given two distinctly different positions in space, one might readily prove this distance by firing a projectile past both locations, causing a sensor to be tripped;  both events being recorded on a time graph, such as an oscilloscope.  By altering the distance between locations, the duration of time elapsed between trips would change proportionately, indicating the presence of another ubiquitous medium, we know as time, which seems to be somehow metrically linked to space.

In this example, space and time are thought to be constant in their relationship, which means that both might be metrically invariant, or that both might be metrically variant, providing both change in the same way.

Metrically variant is the same as saying that the space-gauge is not constant, and relates to the physical size of things, such as atoms.  If the space-gauge decreases in time, objects become smaller, and atomic distances shorter:  such as the orbital radius of electrons associated with cesium atoms, as example.  Since this relationship is commonly used in laboratory timekeeping, with shorter orbits and electrons moving at a fixed speed around the central atom, laboratory time would speed up.

There is the question of speed, as to whether or not speed is invariant.  If we allow speed to be invariant, there is the third combination in the relationship between time and space, that time is invariant and space is variant.  Let me explain.

First, if space and time are invariant, then over time, objects moving between two locations at some constant velocity, would always take the same length of time, each and every time the experiment was conducted, year after year.

On the other hand, if space and time are variant, proportionately so, then over time, objects moving between two locations at some constant velocity, would always take the same length of time, each and every time the experiment was conducted.

Finally, if space is variant, then over time, objects moving between two locations at some constant velocity, would take different times moving between these two locations, each and every time the experiment was conducted.  If the locations were closer, then it would seem that the time it takes to travel between would be quicker, and if further apart, longer.

If this distance, rather than a straight line between locations, was instead the distance an electron would travel in completing a single orbit around its respective atom, then laboratory time would be variant, exactly offsetting any perceived time changes in the projectiles transit between locations.  In other words, though the projectile travels, say a shorter distance between locations at an always constant speed, since time also speeds up, the observer would never experience any difference;  all three possibilities yielding the same results. 

Summing up, then: the TSU here described would appear to be far removed from the model we are all used to. Instead of the cosmological red shift being caused by the expansion of space, it results from a slowing of time; and instead of the universe expanding between the galaxies, it shrinks everywhere, while time, mass and electric charge change with it. Not only that, but this takes place while the measurement of all such entities and constants of nature remains the same to the inhabitants of the universe throughout all epochs. Also, gravity is caused by the accelerating shrink of the universe as a "hypersphere", and not by hypothetical gravitons. In addition, there are now no problematic singularities, either at the beginning or end of time. Neither does "dark energy" need to be invoked in order to explain any aspect of this universe, unlike in the Big Bang model. Even the commonly held idea that parallel universes might exist "inside" and "outside" of our own, has been enlarged on further, with the additional suggestion that they might all be identical to ours in every way, except for their particular point in history. But perhaps the most dominant underlying hypothesis, drawing everything together in this wide-reaching paper, is the idea that space is a real physical substance, and that all the distinct entities of mass, charge, light, forces and fields, although appearing to exist in a universe where there is no carrier medium, are instead all manifestations of that single substance and the way it behaves. Thus, particles with mass were said to be "humps", while those with charge were "twists" within that same fabric. Finally, after suggesting a possible see-through elastic cubic sub-structure for space, as well as the two different waves by which particles are able to zigzag their way through its interconnecting pathways in a probabilistic manner, we saw how it might explain the wave-particle duality of electrons, as well as their behaviour in quantum theory’s famous "double-slit" experiment.