Видео

If the space itself expands then we wouldn't know because, the grid, the ruler itself is expanding so you wouldn't know because EVERYTHING is getting bigger and space is everything and you wouldn't have a reference point. This is very simple logic. Things can expand and drift IN space which causes a redshift but not space itself expansion of space can't cause a redshift because if space is expanding EVERYTHING is expanding. So expansion of space is just a change in scale but that's NOT a physical event.

Why does "mankind" go about making everything we "understand" about the universe so complicated with theory after theory when one "simple" answer to it all is available to us ? GOD SNAPPED HIS FINGERS.....LET THERE BE LIGHT.....

• symmetry breaking (like in the case of phase transitions) is the reason we have complex structures rather than a uniform universe. While symmetry at certain scales is valid, it doesn’t imply symmetry at every scale • Birkhoff’s theorem is crucial for understanding the behavior of spherically symmetric gravitational fields; it applies locally to symmetric configurations. The large-scale structure of the universe doesn’t follow strict spherical symmetry. • hierarchical structure does not refute expansion.

These theories are still just theories. Every single one of them results in guessing, which is all we really can do, since there is no actual evidence. However, we should be ruling out all theories that end with "we think this is happening but can't understand why without making other things up..." So in other words, your science is still just a theory, but a bad one, because you can't say why something else happens. When we come up with a theory that explains everything and cannot be challenged, then we might be on the right track. It's like modern day scientists that study one area of climate change and then think they know the whole answer. We all know climate change on our planet is complex and involves many different sciences. Until all those sciences get together and understand how each one affects the other, you will never understand it and all theories will be wrong. But looking at the actual evidence we have, we can form a better understanding of what affects our planet's climate, and spoiler alert, it has nothing to do with man's burning fossil fuels. This is what we are doing with our theories of space and creation. We see evidence and use it to "prove" something, but that leaves questions - so perhaps you are not using the data correctly. For example, stating the background radiation is evidence of the big bang, but then that means the universe is expanding, causes so many new problems. Then you must introduce things like "black magic - I mean dark matter," to account for things your theory can't explain. You state the universe is only 13 billion years old because you can only "see" that far back - until we actually find galaxies that are over 13 billion years old and fully developed - oops, wrong again. Maybe instead of creating theories you should just look at the evidence. Our Earth and moon are a little under 5 billion years old, we can prove this with carbon dating and other radiation decay methods. Great, so we know the local universe is at least 5 billion years old. We see galaxies that have combined, merged, or are heading towards each other (our Milky Way and Andromeda are on a collision path) this could NOT have happened if every bit of matter came from one single big bang point. It COULD happen if there were separate "mini big bangs" that came from exploding black holes (or groups of matter so large that they collapse under the immense gravitational pull and protons collide, causing the mini big bang explosion and subsequent ejection of all stars and matter for THAT particular mini big bang...) Therefore, not all the matter we see in our local space came from OUR mini big bang, especially if they are coming towards us - it is painfully obvious that those galaxies came from OTHER mini big bangs. Therefore, if we see some that are 13 billion light years away, they could be from other bangs, or could be from our bang but travelling in the other direction. Therefore our mini bang could be only 6.5 billion years old. Or our distance calculations are wrong, but so far scientists are stuck on the 13 billion years age, so they never claim they found anything older than that. However, due to red shifting, we COULD be seeing stars and galaxies from further away than this. What if red shifting is what light naturally does the further away it gets, the longer it has been travelling? Tired light is what they called that, but it makes the most sense, light must lose energy as it travels, otherwise it would be a form of perpetual motion, which we know cannot exist. As light travels it loses wavelength. So much so, that it will shift into the microwave spectrum, and eventually into radio wave spectrum. This could be what we "see" in every direction - VERY old light from very distant stars and galaxies (or mini big bangs...) This would explain why we see it everywhere, because we're just somewhere in the middle of the entire universe, which is so unbelievably huge you wouldn't believe me if I told you how big it is. We should be able to calculate how much light shifts as it travels, how long it must travel to change into microwave and radio, and then we can get a better feel for how many trillions of years our "visible" universe has existed. But even that is not the beginning. It doesn't explain how all that energy came to be. I have an answer. We live on only one plane of existence. There are planes above and below ours. We can see evidence of the plane below - the atomic plane. We see electrons and atoms moving so fast we can't even imagine, however consider if you were living in that plane - time would be going "normal" to that plane. One second in our plane would be lifetimes of "planets" on the plane below. Imagine looking up and wondering how many "stars" there were in the universe on that plane, when all you can "see" are actually just atoms in the thing you are part of. You have no idea there are other "bodies" of clumps of atoms right beside those, let alone planet sized atoms and star sized atoms, and there are trillions of trillions of those. Now return to our plane - we see "stars" that may be simple "atoms" to the plane above. All the galaxies we see locally are just a small part of what the larger plane above us contains. Time goes much faster on our plane than the one above. We will come and go, our sun will cease to exist, by the time a second passes on the plane above. Do this several more times and you will get to plane zero, the absolute nothing plane. It is so large that it is unimaginable. Our entire "universe" is just a small part of the plane above, which is a small part of the plane above that. And because time goes so much slower on each plane above, the amount of time that passes below seems infinite. So on plane zero, where nothing exists, only needs a split microsecond of "something" to happen, which will ripple down the planes to seem like an infinite amount of time in our plane. Now how did everything come from nothing? Well, time is something. Space is also something. Even though there is nothing in that time and space, if enough of it exists, then there can be a natural imbalance of time and space in one direction, given enough time and space - a sagging so to speak, perhaps a gravitational imbalance as one "side" of the vast nothingness of infinity was "heavier" than the other side. And in that fraction of a millisecond when the nothingness snapped back to equilibrium, the energy wave rippled down from plane to plane before going back to nothingness. But because time seems to go faster in the planes below, and energies are very different, we are inside our plane enjoying the "trillions of years" of "existence" that we perceive from that initial accidental "blip." Until I see evidence that disproves my theory, that is what I will believe. So our entire universe has begun and ended already - everything from nothing - but from our perspective we've only just begun.

These theories are still just theories. Every single one of them results in guessing, which is all we really can do, since there is no actual evidence. However, we should be ruling out all theories that end with "we think this is happening but can't understand why without making other things up..." So in other words, your science is still just a theory, but a bad one, because you can't say why something else happens. When we come up with a theory that explains everything and cannot be challenged, then we might be on the right track. It's like modern day scientists that study one area of climate change and then think they know the whole answer. We all know climate change on our planet is complex and involves many different sciences. Until all those sciences get together and understand how each one affects the other, you will never understand it and all theories will be wrong. But looking at the actual evidence we have, we can form a better understanding of what affects our planet's climate, and spoiler alert, it has nothing to do with man's burning fossil fuels. This is what we are doing with our theories of space and creation. We see evidence and use it to "prove" something, but that leaves questions - so perhaps you are not using the data correctly. For example, stating the background radiation is evidence of the big bang, but then that means the universe is expanding, causes so many new problems. Then you must introduce things like "black magic - I mean dark matter," to account for things your theory can't explain. You state the universe is only 13 billion years old because you can only "see" that far back - until we actually find galaxies that are over 13 billion years old and fully developed - oops, wrong again. Maybe instead of creating theories you should just look at the evidence. Our Earth and moon are a little under 5 billion years old, we can prove this with carbon dating and other radiation decay methods. Great, so we know the local universe is at least 5 billion years old. We see galaxies that have combined, merged, or are heading towards each other (our Milky Way and Andromeda are on a collision path) this could NOT have happened if every bit of matter came from one single big bang point. It COULD happen if there were separate "mini big bangs" that came from exploding black holes (or groups of matter so large that they collapse under the immense gravitational pull and protons collide, causing the mini big bang explosion and subsequent ejection of all stars and matter for THAT particular mini big bang...) Therefore, not all the matter we see in our local space came from OUR mini big bang, especially if they are coming towards us - it is painfully obvious that those galaxies came from OTHER mini big bangs. Therefore, if we see some that are 13 billion light years away, they could be from other bangs, or could be from our bang but travelling in the other direction. Therefore our mini bang could be only 6.5 billion years old. Or our distance calculations are wrong, but so far scientists are stuck on the 13 billion years age, so they never claim they found anything older than that. However, due to red shifting, we COULD be seeing stars and galaxies from further away than this. What if red shifting is what light naturally does the further away it gets, the longer it has been travelling? Tired light is what they called that, but it makes the most sense, light must lose energy as it travels, otherwise it would be a form of perpetual motion, which we know cannot exist. As light travels it loses wavelength. So much so, that it will shift into the microwave spectrum, and eventually into radio wave spectrum. This could be what we "see" in every direction - VERY old light from very distant stars and galaxies (or mini big bangs...) This would explain why we see it everywhere, because we're just somewhere in the middle of the entire universe, which is so unbelievably huge you wouldn't believe me if I told you how big it is. We should be able to calculate how much light shifts as it travels, how long it must travel to change into microwave and radio, and then we can get a better feel for how many trillions of years our "visible" universe has existed. But even that is not the beginning. It doesn't explain how all that energy came to be. I have an answer. We live on only one plane of existence. There are planes above and below ours. We can see evidence of the plane below - the atomic plane. We see electrons and atoms moving so fast we can't even imagine, however consider if you were living in that plane - time would be going "normal" to that plane. One second in our plane would be lifetimes of "planets" on the plane below. Imagine looking up and wondering how many "stars" there were in the universe on that plane, when all you can "see" are actually just atoms in the thing you are part of. You have no idea there are other "bodies" of clumps of atoms right beside those, let alone planet sized atoms and star sized atoms, and there are trillions of trillions of those. Now return to our plane - we see "stars" that may be simple "atoms" to the plane above. All the galaxies we see locally are just a small part of what the larger plane above us contains. Time goes much faster on our plane than the one above. We will come and go, our sun will cease to exist, by the time a second passes on the plane above. Do this several more times and you will get to plane zero, the absolute nothing plane. It is so large that it is unimaginable. Our entire "universe" is just a small part of the plane above, which is a small part of the plane above that. And because time goes so much slower on each plane above, the amount of time that passes below seems infinite. So on plane zero, where nothing exists, only needs a split microsecond of "something" to happen, which will ripple down the planes to seem like an infinite amount of time in our plane. Now how did everything come from nothing? Well, time is something. Space is also something. Even though there is nothing in that time and space, if enough of it exists, then there can be a natural imbalance of time and space in one direction, given enough time and space - a sagging so to speak, perhaps a gravitational imbalance as one "side" of the vast nothingness of infinity was "heavier" than the other side. And in that fraction of a millisecond when the nothingness snapped back to equilibrium, the energy wave rippled down from plane to plane before going back to nothingness. But because time seems to go faster in the planes below, and energies are very different, we are inside our plane enjoying the "trillions of years" of "existence" that we perceive from that initial accidental "blip." Until I see evidence that disproves my theory, that is what I will believe. So our entire universe has begun and ended already - everything from nothing - but from our perspective we've only just begun.

I agree, the universe is NOT expanding. If it were, we'd all have expanded into nothing by now. The universe is extremely old - not just 13 billion years old, but trillions of trillions of years old. If it was expanding, even at a slow 78 km/s, we would have been ripped to pieces by now! Our atoms would be kms apart. The theory of an expanding universe was a bandaid to resolve some other unexplainable phenomenon, so they make up theories to account for that. Something Flat Earthers do when they can't explain their model. Here's what you SHOULD do - look at all the data available and find a solution that fits without creating new unexplained things. So, no expanding universe. No mystery dark matter that cannot be found or identified. Instead, matter clumps together with gravitational forces, when objects are of a sufficient size and mass, they implode on themselves, atoms are so close together that they touch at one point of critical mass and then all hell breaks loose - boom! Big bang (local big bang anyway, not the one and only one that created everything once upon a time...) Big bangs have been happening for trillions of years, trillions of light years away from us. Their light, having travelled that long and far, has shifted. Closer galaxies only red shift. Further away galaxies shifted into microwave spectrum. Even further ones likely shifted into radio waves, but we would be hard pressed to "see" those now, although we do occasionally pick up radio waves from time to time. So many of the galaxies we see today came from OTHER big bangs, not our own, and that is why galaxies can collide and why Andromeda is heading towards our Milky Way. If they came from one point, they would NEVER intersect - objects in motion (from the explosion) remain in motion in a straight line. We could not "see" the cosmic background radiation if it was around and shot out at the same time as our star and matter that formed our galaxy - that would have been emitted and ejected at the speed of light before us, we would never be able to see it once it left, any more than we can see the initial explosion of the big bang. We COULD see other big bang creations, far away, that may look like a star that eventually disappears, not beause it is gone, but because the stars are spreading out and not clumped together, making it seem like the "star" disappeared. We do have all this evidence, and it fits my theorty just fine, without having to create new theories to account for missing information. Sometimes the simplest explanation is the right one.

There is definitely momentum against the validity of the Big Bang / expanding Universe concept. Really, driven by a single theory of Hubble's that red-shift must mean objects are moving away from us. The fact that 95 years later we still can't determine the constant. If you use one of the three methods, you get three answers. The CMB is literally "fudged" to remove the milky way's dominance of the mapping by arbitrary reductions to get to a smooth result (and it's not reproducible). If something else is causing the redshift (movement through plasma, movement through electromagnetic fields, etc) then we've wasted 95 years chasing a ghost. Quasars don't act like they should. Galaxy absolute brightness versus redshift predictions isn't correct. Expanding space of 70 km/s implies the massive 5 Mpc galaxy Alcyoneus by itself creates a 0.0017% error to the Hubble constant. If, galaxy-bound objects don't expand, that implies there's a point where in one direction towards the galaxy light travels at a different speed than in the opposite direction as one side is expanding at 70 km/s and the other is 0. That's really not good. ...and my personal favorite: just rewind the clock 7B years. Pick your favorite geometric shape for the universe, and an arbitrary center, doesn't matter. Let's assume all matter / galaxies are in contact even then, now fast forward to today and you've doubled the size of the universe from 14K Mpc to 28K Mpc....if everything (system wide) is expanding and racing away from each other, there should be, by definition, a MASSIVE void in the middle of the Universe. Not observed.

🤜⚡💥⚡🤛 Most lamestream scientists and followers don't understand the problems inherent in the BigDung theory. To wit, an expanding Universe entails matter and space-time [sic] would have to expand, which, per the mass-equivalence principle [E-mc^2], are made of energy. This would either require energy to be continuously created, or the 1st law of thermodynamics [conservation of energy] is invalid, or their density is decreasing. Either way all physical laws and the associated constants would have to have been constantly changing over the life span of the Uni which implies that all atoms and molecules would have been destroyed long time ago, ergo no Uni. The EM spectrum of the past [from distant objects] would be seen today as radically different. Even a slight change in the current constants would undo the present order/equilibrium. By all accounts the Uni would have radically changed over the presumed 13+ billion years, if not have been totally destroyed. The BigDung theory does not take this into account. Clearly the theory is false. 🤜⚡💥⚡🤛 === Yes, presumably there is an interplay tween matter and the fabric of space-time but only because they are intertwined. This principle is arrived from the energy equivalence equation when it is solved for the time component. By Onerock's core definition, space and time are interchangeable. But that's only on the word of that ol' mathamagician [that's not a complement]. By my tone you might have guessed that I'm not a a fan of that theory. IMHO, Plasma Cosmology [Electric Universe theory] predicts and describes the Uni more completely and eloquently. See the Thunderbolts Project channel. Also 'See The Pattern', 'Unzicker's Real Physics', Ray Flemming's[this] and Prof. Pierre-Marie Robitaille's 'Sky Scholar' channels... to start. As a consequence you too will find the current sciences distasteful. Naturally I don't recommend the 'conventional' physics sources as they are on the wrong path. Me, I'm only a triple engineer rewriting the electromagnetic theory which, as you know, touches everything else. I call it the Parallax Electric Theory [PET] which dispenses with the anachronistic notion of magnetism. Everything is but charges [electric fields]. The mike is yours. PS. From where I stand, the Uni is flat, static, eternal and 'c' is just a number [do you know what that means?][hint, add it all up]. [It means that 'c' is not the maximal speed in the Uni... because Onerock is dead )) ]

🤜⚡💥⚡🤛 Most lamestream scientists and followers don't understand the problems inherent in the BigDung theory. To wit, an expanding Universe entails matter and space-time [sic] would have to expand, which, per the mass-equivalence principle [E-mc^2], are made of energy. This would either require energy to be continuously created, or the 1st law of thermodynamics [conservation of energy] is invalid, or their density is decreasing. Either way all physical laws and the associated constants would have to have been constantly changing over the life span of the Uni which implies that all atoms and molecules would have been destroyed long time ago, ergo no Uni. The EM spectrum of the past [from distant objects] would be seen today as radically different. Even a slight change in the current constants would undo the present order/equilibrium. By all accounts the Uni would have radically changed over the presumed 13+ billion years, if not have been totally destroyed. The BigDung theory does not take this into account. Clearly the theory is false. 🤜⚡💥⚡🤛 === Yes, presumably there is an interplay tween matter and the fabric of space-time but only because they are intertwined. This principle is arrived from the energy equivalence equation when it is solved for the time component. By Onerock's core definition, space and time are interchangeable. But that's only on the word of that ol' mathamagician [that's not a complement]. By my tone you might have guessed that I'm not a a fan of that theory. IMHO, Plasma Cosmology [Electric Universe theory] predicts and describes the Uni more completely and eloquently. See the Thunderbolts Project channel. Also 'See The Pattern', 'Unzicker's Real Physics', Ray Flemming's and Prof. Pierre-Marie Robitaille's 'Sky Scholar' channels... to start. As a consequence you too will find the current sciences distasteful. Naturally I don't recommend the 'conventional' physics sources as they are on the wrong path. Me, I'm only a triple engineer rewriting the electromagnetic theory which, as you know, touches everything else. I call it the Parallax Electric Theory [PET] which dispenses with the anachronistic notion of magnetism. Everything is but charges [electric fields]. The mike is yours. PS. From where I stand, the Uni is flat, static, eternal and 'c' is just a number [do you know what that means?][hint, add it all up]. [It means that 'c' is not the maximal speed in the Uni... because Onerock is dead )) ]

🤜⚡💥⚡🤛 Most lamestream scientists and followers don't understand the problems inherent in the BigDung theory. To wit, an expanding Universe entails matter and space-time [sic] would have to expand, which, per the mass-equivalence principle [E-mc^2], are made of energy. This would either require energy to be continuously created, or the 1st law of thermodynamics [conservation of energy] is invalid, or their density is decreasing. Either way all physical laws and the associated constants would have to have been constantly changing over the life span of the Uni which implies that all atoms and molecules would have been destroyed long time ago, ergo no Uni. The EM spectrum of the past [from distant objects] would be seen today as radically different. Even a slight change in the current constants would undo the present order/equilibrium. By all accounts the Uni would have radically changed over the presumed 13+ billion years, if not have been totally destroyed. The BigDung theory does not take this into account. Clearly the theory is false. 🤜⚡💥⚡🤛 Yes, presumably there is an interplay tween matter and the fabric of space-time but only because they are intertwined. This principle is arrived from the energy equivalence equation when it is solved for the time component. By Onerock's core definition, space and time are interchangeable. But that's only on the word of that ol' mathamagician [that's not a complement]. By my tone you might have guessed that I'm not a a fan of that theory. IMHO, Plasma Cosmology [Electric Universe theory] predicts and describes the Uni more completely and eloquently. See the Thunderbolts Project channel. Also 'See The Pattern', 'Unzicker's Real Physics', Ray Flemming's[this] and Prof. Pierre-Marie Robitaille's 'Sky Scholar' channels... to start. As a consequence you too will find the current sciences distasteful. Naturally I don't recommend the 'conventional' physics sources as they are on the wrong path. Me, I'm only a triple engineer rewriting the electromagnetic theory which, as you know, touches everything else. I call it the Parallax Electric Theory [PET] which dispenses with the anachronistic notion of magnetism. Everything is but charges [electric fields]. PS. From where I stand, the Uni is flat, static, eternal and 'c' is just a number [do you know what that means?][hint, add it all up]. [It means that 'c' is not the maximal speed in the Uni... because Onerock is dead )) ]

🤜⚡💥⚡🤛 Most lamestream scientists and followers don't understand the problems inherent in the BigDung theory. To wit, an expanding Universe entails matter and space-time [sic] would have to expand, which, per the mass-equivalence principle [E-mc^2], are made of energy. This would either require energy to be continuously created, or the 1st law of thermodynamics [conservation of energy] is invalid, or their density is decreasing. Either way all physical laws and the associated constants would have to have been constantly changing over the life span of the Uni which implies that all atoms and molecules would have been destroyed long time ago, ergo no Uni. The EM spectrum of the past [from distant objects] would be seen today as radically different. Even a slight change in the current constants would undo the present order/equilibrium. By all accounts the Uni would have radically changed over the presumed 13+ billion years, if not have been totally destroyed. The BigDung theory does not take this into account. Clearly the theory is false. 🤜⚡💥⚡🤛

++++++Challenging the Big Bang: The Struggle with Inferred Reality +++ ruclips.net/video/UN3rwk4oD1M/видео.html - BOOK: Physics of the Plasma Universe

Hi. You forget also that the ..MM experiment, AD 1887 is NOT negative but...positive (!) contra MM original conclusion and the rest of...literature on it since that time! Do you the ...Mistake in his @taxtbook calculation?

In the journey of light, why it it always gravity ?? Why does no one ever consider it an electro magnetic phenomenon passing through an electromagnetic medium, which would quite obviously lead to variance.

Logic alone dictates the universe is not expanding and that given what we expect of the early universe we can assume a cyclical model. I feel that gravity plays a bigger role especially in terms of time dilation and that we should look at gravity more as “matter’s attempt to escape death by time”.

Watching this again now just blows my mind. The schwarzschild radius matching the observable is amazing. And the distance measurement based on Hubble’s law. I know several astronomers in the UAP field, I could ask them to an online discussion (zoom) where you explain the main point about the schwarzschild graph and give the basic math derivation to that. Makes total sense to me. I also think Huygens principle somehow applies. Since light spreads as a sphere (berkhoffs theorem) and allegedly all the information inside a sphere is on its surface.

8:12 its not dark. Its transparent.

As a neophyte trying to learn cosmology have had my doubts about theoreticals, questionable metrics, and expansion theory. Thank you for blowing away the Bullshit! Really like your 9/4/24 video on general relativity.

fwiw, I'm really good at logic, and I know some physics. The big bang is completely absurd. There is absolutely no good logic in the so-called deduction of the big bang event. and for the record same goes for dark matter and dark energy. Someone should teach these fools propositional logic sometime. And while we are at it, it should really be obvious that the universe is not expanding at an accelerating rate. Logically completely absurd. Which means you need to find a better explanation for red shift.

There is only one reason the Universe is not expanding. It's the only known example of an Isolated thermodynamic System (Function) composed of space, time, Laws of Nature, matter & energy with increasing entropy. And all thermodynamic Systems (Functions) originate from the "surrounding" Universe or existence/reality. Engineers had known this fact about actual Universe by the beginning of the 20th Century and "Atheist" Cosmologists & Physicists ignore this fact believing at that time the Universe was infinite and always existed and definitely not Created by God who is timeless, infinite & always existed. lol. Universal Functions is the hypothesis for Sir Issac Newton's Watchmaker Analogy over 300 years ago and all Machine Analogies (Observations) used by Christians to explain Creation of the Universes (Natural Function) by God (Unnatural Intelligence). The Scientific Method (Function) designed by Man (Natural Intelligence) to explain Natural phenomena (Functions) relying on fixed Laws of Nature (Functions) is simply: 1. Observation 2. Hypothesis 3. Test & Predict ( relying of fixed Laws) 4. Conclude 5. Refine( only if valid/true). Universal Functions easily passes the scientific Method and proves space, time, Laws of Nature, matter & energy are Natural Functions with clear purpose, rules, properties, processes & design (Information) that can only come from the Mind of a ... single,, timeless, infinite, nonphysical, multidemensional Unnatural Intelligence with freewill & Nature called ..... God. The Mind of any Intelligence has to be Unnatural ( spirit). Therefore the Mind of Natural Intelligence (Man) is Natural (body) & Unnatural (soul) and both are Functions with clear purpose, rules & design .... to give Man .... freewill, nature, intellect, memory, senses, feelings and consciousness of the natural first then the unnatural. Science only supports God of the Bible .... creating Man ... in His image with a body & soul ... for a reason/purpose. Atheism is a religion that believes Nature & Natural processes made the Universe & Life and follows fake science with fairy tale laws( Not the Laws of Nature). We have religions that believe in "the gods" because Man is a Natural Intelligence ... with an INTELLECT ... living in a world & universe where everything including Man's body has clear purpose, rules & design which can only come from the Mind of an intelligence. See. There is only one reason the Universe is not expanding. It's a Natural Function, composed entirely of natural Functions with clear purpose, rules & design made by ..... God. The Redshift data is likely due to inertia gravity slowing down the speed of light ... during the 6 day creation. God created the Universe in 4 days ... starting with Earth in the space of the Universe (1st heaven) and a very bright light (energy) surrounding Earth. Over 4 days this "hollow" sphere of light (energy) began to dim as it "expanded" away from Earth at greater than the speed of light ..... forming the stars, galaxies etc and filling the space God assigned for the Universe. By Day 4 ... all the stars/galaxies had been set in place ... and only then did God create the Solar System within the Milkyway ( originating from the Light) and formally defined a day, year, seasons, night/day, morning & evening. So the only "expansion": of energy & matter occurred over 4 days at many times faster than the speed of light due to the size of the Universe. There were no Laws of Nature during Creation except gravity. See. Gravitational inertia. Time & the Laws of Nature as we know them now ... began 5994 years ago when Adam & Eve sinned bringing decay(entropy) and death to all of Creation. Now you know the reason for the constant temp of the CMBR ... in all directions ... and why all observed date shows Earth at the center of the Universe. The Theory of Everything ... that unifies Classic Physics, General Relativity, & Quantum Mechanics is Universal Functions derived from the obvious observation that everything is like a machine composed entirely of machines and requires a machine maker due to the information every machine has to exist & to ...... Function. Everything is clearly a Function ... with purpose, rules & design .... made by a Natural & Unnatural Intelligence for a reason/purpose.

Nope you are wrong. The universe has a defined origin and an infinite moving edge defined by r=t

Your first argument about the expansion as an assumption is wrong. Einstein created the Cosmological Constant to STOP the expansion because he didn't believe in it either. But the expansion is real, the value he got was experimentally proven, the constant was his biggest blunder because he rejected the facts for a starionary universe

8:00 Video starts

2:30 OH we just make things up when it feels good huh?

well that makes zero sense

"It is so simply you just have to believe boundaries are not real." Oh is that it? Just stop believing my body exists and bingo I'm a smart cosmologist now!!

Most of these comments are "I don't know much science but I've never liked the idea the universe is expanding so I'll believe any rubbish that says it isn't".

Space is an endless void. Because, what endless void would the universe be expanding against if it were expanding?

Im not sure what people conceive when they hear the words "expanding universe". As far as solar systems and galaxies are concerned, there is conceivable the process of growth. Within our own solar system, Jupiter and Saturn are close to being duns themselves. B.T. Spalding recorded a model of planetary birthing from within the sun, with each planet being formed, one by one, each taking on further flung orbits as new planets are popped out. The model he described deemed Neptune as the oldest planet, and that eventually it will fly off into a much further orbit and go nova, becoming a sun. Dual sun systems are more numerous than such as ours presently is. This model suggests our own sun was once a planet orbiting another. The old concept of Vulcan, a planet inside the orbit of Mercury might have some probity, as a future event, though Spalding's model suggested there was already a plasma sphere there, and when a new anet is born, all the other planets will be displaced outwardly. Thus there are nine planets extant in his theory . . . Earth was the sixth planet born of our star, Venus seventh, Mercury eighth, and "Vulcan" the ninth. Spalding posited that our system can only accomodate 9. Hence why Neptune will move off to start its own family of planets. At any rate, this process if multiplied billions and trillions of times would suggest that while the metric of space is constant, systems grow, the population expands. The theory at least reflects how all things grow.

I get irritated about redshift=velocity=galactic rotational curve=dark matter. No, we measured redshift. That is all we measured, the rest is an assumption!

a week has passed and you failed to respond correctly...your time is off sucker

Lol. Those would get on our pepper plants. My grandfather would send me out there to pick them and id always accidentally grab one thinking it was a pepper. Scared the mess out of me! 🤣 Of course we'd get them off but jeez when your expecting to feel a pepper and you feel something warm and squishy.. it will make you jump.

Kiitos perusteluistasi ja koko videosta! Itse pidän kaikkeutta äärettömänä. Ja tuo mitä Friedmanin yhtälöistä sanotaan koskee vain ns staattista universumia, jota ei ole olemassakaan. Jos, ja kun universumi on dynaaminen ja itseuusiutuva kiertoprosessi, jossa materia - eri asteisesti rakentuu - ja myös taas purkautuu ja tämä jatkuu ikuisesti, niin on todellakin tarve päästä eroon tästä nykyisestä "konsensuksesta", joka kumartaa jotain "yleistä käsitystä". Se ei ole tiedettä ollenkaan!

i managed to get to 2:23 before realizing you probably don't know what you're talking about, but then 2:28 makes it almost certain. first you claim HD 140283 is one of the oldest objects, which is correct, then go on to claim HD 140283 is the oldest star, which is incorrect. which is it? additionally, if science did discover an object older than the Universe, what has that to do with its expansion? it means either the age of the Universe is wrong or the age of the star is wrong. how exactly is expansion relevant, here? as for the obviously clear-headed and objective diatribe about dogmatism, atheism, materialism, scientific fraud, dogma, cutthroatness and, hilariously, narcissism, i suggest you pray to God to give you a little more of His grace before making another video about science.

.... you seem like a nice guy but I gotta say. NEWTON WAS WRONG! Specific Gravity is real yes. Universal Gravitation is just a personification of Luke Skywalker "forcing" material to compress. Planets are MAGNETICALLY COUPLED to their birth place.... Aka. The Sun's Core. As they decay and lose charge they drift further and further and further away. It's not homogenous.... the pressure is denser closer to the Sun. Planets seek hydrostatic equilibrium and decompress as they move out of the pressure gradient.

If the universe is not expanding, then what is it doing according to this video? Static, or collapsing?

Standard model of particle physics is backed by lots of evidence? But the standard model of particle physics also has a ton of assuptions behind it and there's little evidence for the assumptions behind the SMPP.

The big bang model does not explain the origin of the universe; so does not explain away God.

Space cant expand because space arent a Thing-in-itself theres no space by itself just distance, like time theres no time by itself just duration

What if the universe is expanding in some areas and contracting in others?

I'm sure there are people out there who will peer review your work, Chris. Are you familiar with See the Pattern? He has done many videos on alternatives to the redshift = expansion paradigm. Hit him up. I think he'd be very interested in what you're doing here. I love what you're doing. I am starting to piece it together, but just not there yet. The two circles showing the Schwarzchild radius growing faster than the radius of the boundary very helpful. Please keep the videos coming.

I hope you have never taken my comments where I sometimes give my ideas as discouraging. I may state my ideas but they are not intended to be taken as trying to override yours. I like taking and giving feedback.

LOOKS LIKE YOU HAVE NOT REALIZED YET ALL SCIENCE ERRORS ARE MADE TO FIT WITH RELIGIONS AND NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND> EXPANDING UNIVERSE IS THE RELIGIOUS COSMOGONY MOMENT...THE QUANTUM PHYSICS IS MADE TO FIT KABBALAH...WHERE EVER WE ARE WRONG THEY HAVE A RELIGIOUS IDEA...THE FAIL OF ARCHAEOLOGY ALSO PERMITS THEM RELIGIOUS PEOPLE TO FIT IN THEIR IDEAS...I GIVE YOU A WEEK TO CORRECT HIS AND I WILL QUIT ON YOU

3:39 WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT? CORRECT NOT WRONG...THAT WAS HILARIOUS SORRY...CORRECT*...THE EXPANDING UNIVERSE WAS MADE TO FIT TO RELIGIONS CREATIONISM

If the Big Bang is wrong, then the CMB needs another light source. Could it be distant starlight thats undergone redshift, and then shifted through into the microwave frequencies? I did some calculations and if the CMB is microwave shifted starlight then it was emitted approx 44 billion years ago. And represents a vista onto a truely spectacular universal visable horizon. Think along the lines of Olbers paradox. Stars blanketing every point in the sky

A like from me. I listerned with interest and agree with your stance. A stance I can justify with reason. I have a paper detailing a good deal of considerations, I'm happy to share with you if you like? Mayvbe run it past AI LLM's to judge the quality of the material. AI will inform you its very comprehensable, well explained, plausable and perswasive. Are you interested? You'll be surprised with what you find

Honestly, the math is beyond me, thank you [this comment will get removed if I name it on a video that's not specifically about it], and I only watch because these videos validate my own perception, but from another angle. Basically, there's a pattern of sphericalness, branching, barred spirals, and waves, depending on density, scale, and timescale. I.e. the magnetic field lines of a star are the same as those of a galaxy, barred spirals, which I suspect would be the same as the x-rays of an atom, if the exposure time was small enough. Similarly and more obviously, electroscopies of atomic nuclei show them almost perfectly spherical, while a 40 km wide celestial body is the threshold for a spherical planetoid, and a supercluster of stars is generally spherical. So, based on these repeated patternns, I hypothesize that we do live inside one of possibly many or infinite black holes, which may or may not be inside other black holes, or something comperable to them. If there is a true plank length, then increasing the scale also increases the complexity, meaning it's something like a black hole, but not exactly a black hole. But if there is no true plank length, if it's just a limit imposed by the ideas of the time and self-important scientists, then the complexity is infinite and the observable complexity is entirely dependent on these three factors; density, scale, and timescale, and we literally live inside a black hole inside a black hole inside a black hole, ad infinitum.

The visualizations definitely help for the Schwarzchild radius. For the blue shift issue, is there no “cancelling out of the redshift by the blue shift” because the blueshift light expands in one direction only? I think the confusion is the blue circle would nullify the red circle red shift. From your video I understand that some of the light would be blueshifted by earths gravity field but not the large mass of matter inside the blue sphere. I’ll check out the visualization on the website. Yes, many people just comment and don’t actually watch the video. And people naturally like to troll for some weird reason. But, we will know the reality I think in the next 3-5 years when AI really comes online. It’s important someone thinks about and posts this stuff so it gets put into the possible solution set:)

To an intelligent person, you make a lot of sense.

That Sean Carrol quote explains it all. “If you doubt the Big Bang is true, we don’t let you on the stage.”