Eternal Universe: The New Theory that Might Change the Way we Think About the Universe
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 1 окт 2024
- Discover how a 1946 horror movie inspired three Cambridge lecturers to challenge the Big Bang Theory, leading to the development of the Steady-State Theory of the Universe. Let’s explore this cosmic debate!
![NOSFERATU - Official Trailer [HD] - Only In Theaters December 25](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/nulvWqYUM8k/mqdefault.jpg)
The 'New' Theory clickbait.
Where's my lady fedora? Our consciousness is the only reason we view time as linear; technically, 'new' doesn't exist. This *has* all happened already. This *will* always be happening. It *has* always happened. Events are not genuinely new but part of an ongoing continuum. *Eternal recurrence* is the idea that time and events are cyclical or eternally repeating. We exist inside of the active Big Bang where time is only perceived because we have brain matter; our perception of time is a byproduct of our neurological structure.
Followed by 16 min of gobbledygook that doesn't really say anything. And like MOND there are approx. 3 scientists who take it serious.
Clickbait how so?
@@6Vlad6Tepes6 There's nothing new about it.
@@ArnoWalter ahh yeah I was just wondering but now I understand thank you
"...all galaxies are red shifting." (OH, except Andromeda...and many others). Sooooo...not exactly ALL.
That's the problem with academia in general...a recognized scientist could say exactly that and there might be .01% of the population that would or even could say anything contradictory. The rest would just accept it as fact and move on.
Galaxies that are close to us are not moving away , they are moving closer to each other due to gravity , they will become one galaxy in the future, not everything is red shifted
@@velkylev4217 Then they shouldn't say, "all" galaxies are redshifting. They could say all super-clusters are reshifting/moving away from each other or something like that.
@@coginktattoos majority is red shifted few are not , who cares .
@@coginktattoos - exactly - unfortunately when scientists speak a natural language rather than math - they fall into the colloquial patterns - which in english includes 'all or nothing' expressions - either black or whilte without shades of gray - but if you confront a scientist about this - they will correct themselves easily enuf - they know that neighboring galaxies will be converging - and for that reason - some distant galaxies will be seen as oncoming - but the vast vast majority are moving outward - so think of it as rounding off when they say "all"
Fell for the clickbait, the word NEW.
lol, he is a good presenter!
Even WITH the beard!
Yeah I found it a total waste of time.
I am downvoting the video for wrong title.
I hate click bait, it is fundamentally dishonest, it steals views (and dollars) from more honest content creators. There is worse though, at least he didn't start with "Horrified scientists flee CERN in terror as a gateway to Hell opens...".
I watched 80%, realized essentially nothing was new, just a rehashing, then stopped. No upvote. I will continue to watch further videos, hoping he will quit doing this, but if he doesn't I will ignore him.
@@drx1xym154 Hmmmm...that beard is suspicious ngl. I wonder what he's hiding under there 🤔
I'm going with the giant turtle theory.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Harry Potter universe is possible.
Magic with no scientific explanation, which is magic is..
Behold the turtle, and in his back he carries us all.
It's turtles all the way down.
Created by the Great Spaghetti Monster.
Bit of a click bait title, no?
A layman seeks attention and gets corrected. Big news.
Welcome to RUclips
yes - more so than usual - this was about an old theory - fully discredited - with (in this video) a non-professional defending it
I agree but the algorithm forces this kind of thing it's better than another robotic AI video that says pretty much nothing.
As usual
The research on this video was not exactly stellar (pun intended). Yes, you got Lemaitre right and the important facts were okay (not great, but okay). But to even consider "Popular Mechanics" and some complete unknowns for cosmology topics is way off the mark when there is plenty of published literature by professionals. Pop.Mech. is great for Engineering, but not Astrophysics. Considering even the idea that light is particles and particles only is non-scientific at best and immediately disqualifies anything else the author says. The Steady State Theory is history and should be presented as such - there is no longer a debate. If you want to spice things up by challenging Big Bang - go for stuff like Cyclic Conformal Cosmology - at least there is a credible scientist behind that one.
Word!
I guess quantity vs quality. Like that weather change chart that was referring to nothing in the video.
I'd say, Simon needs to always start with the disclaimer, that everyone should do their own fact checking. Obvious, but needs to be vicalized.
But I like the variety of the topics and the fact that they are usually pretty good and also a nice starting point/direction to satisfy your quriousity.
But, yeah. I agree - a bit more quality control could've been beneficial for us, but I'm not sure if it would be the same financially for the creator
You guys saw the word might and saw it as the word will didn't ya
Too much AI, Simon has really overused it lately.
This video topic is total bs. It should be taken down.
New Simon Channel INCOMING!!!!! Moviegraphics :-)
No, Cinegraphics
Simon would actually need to WATCH movies for this to work 😂
@@captainspaulding5963 Yes. I imagine it more like Brain Blaze, where the writers send him scripts and he gets to react to them. Even do games of real/fake like they do with video games.
@mikeygallos5000 now this is a channel I'd be down to watch!!
He has a new channel, but won't tell us. He announced it on the members only brain blaze. He wants it to grow on its own merits.i have not found it yet.
Hey guys, PhD candidate in theoretical physics here, now cosmology is not exactly my area but I have somethings to add here. First even though Wilenchik doesn't like it, the doppler effect is indeed confirmed experimentally, even now as I'm using the internet and gps, the satellites need to consider the relativistic doppler effect in order to function, and what we observe in the universe is that the more distant the galaxy, the redder it looks (we compare the light from its stars to the expected spectrum of main sequence stars and whatnot). Second, the Doppler effect is not the only thing that we have to confirm the expansion of the universe, as Simon says we have this time anisotropy of the universe and other things like baryonic acoustic oscillations and polarization of cmb light by primordial gravitational waves, not counting the cmb itself of course.
No evidence against the big bang is considered, a constant stream of James Webb observations that defy nearly every prediction made by big bang cosmology is not enough to instill any deviance from absolute faith in the big bang,
This is really just absolute faith in prestigious persons and institutions but is not driven by evidence so is not driven by science but is driven by submission to FASHION, to disbelieve in the big bang is to be out of step with the latest institutional imperatives, no funding is provided to disprove the big bang but only to prove the big bang
Repeated failures to predict are just written off with ad hoc measures. No one will be able to fund a career by challenging the big bang therefor we should doubt the big bang all the more!
It is virtually taboo for academic insiders to question the big bang if they expect to be taken seriously by institutions and publishers so the real proof of the big bang is that is what all the funding and prestige coerces insiders to conclude or else.
@LeonMRr I tried Googling for time anisotropy, but couldn't find anything on it (besides just anisotropy). Do you understand time anisotropy? I would like to learn about it.
I think I've always been skeptical of the Big Bang theory. At the end of the day, all we have to go off of is the light that we receive. It's plausible that light loses energy after traveling millions of lightyears. We just don't know; we might never know...
Interestingly, old light is slower than new, also making a dappled shift
@@hillaryclinton1314 Okay, but what evidence do you have of that? I mean, I only have theories. What you say is plausible, but without proof you can't say that it is true
Aham. And then the Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems smacks the researchers in the face.
I really thought they would be covering the latest James Webb observations. The fact that it's heating up scientific debate right now on this very subject further confuses me.
I, for one, am loving it.
The origin of _cosmological_ redshift is NOT the Doppler effect. It's not relative movement between galaxies (especially at large distances where this becomes negligible). It's due the space itself expanding & stretching the wavelengths of any light transiting through it.
The process is fundamentally different, even if the observables are similar.
Word!
Yes, and because all space os expanding everywhere, EVERYWHERE is the center of the universe
Ha Ha!!!! EXACTLY!!! Just hyped up old nonsense to rake in dollars. Didn't even bother to fact check the AI generated drivel.
They are all just shadows on the wall of Plato's cave.
Question, does that mean that Space/time expands between the peaks of light's wave form?
No, papers have not "cast doubt on the big bang." There is a discrepancy between current models and new data from the JWST but these discrepancies don't invalidate the so-called big bang. Steady-state has so many problems (failing to make predictions that map to empirical observations, for example) that it's not a credible alternative. Nor is Penrose's idea of a conformal cyclic universe (it makes several assumptions we know to be invalid). Today, the only viable theory remains the big bang, though we can expect this to be improved over time as most theories are including the cornerstones of modern physics: general relativity and quantum mechanics, both of which are known to be incomplete. But incomplete is not the same as being invalidated.
Ha Ha!!!! EXACTLY!!! Just hyped up old nonsense to rake in dollars. Didn't even bother to fact check the AI generated drivel.
I think the latest JWST findings regarding well developed galaxies being formed just hundreds of millions years after the Bing Bang is a bit more problematic than what you are acknowledging and I am surprised Simon didn't delve into it. We're missing something big particularly regarding Dark Matter and there's going to be some significant changes to our models of the early universe in the years. We're still at the stage where we don't know what we don't know aka the latest gravitational wave findings!
@@EJBert Correct me if I am mistaken, but weren't those findings using the images in different infrared frequencies but not actual spectroscopy so there is a larger range as to where the hydrogen line is? Didn't another paper come out indicating that based on that larger range the galaxies could still fit within the current model and that until spectroscopy was done to reduce the possible range it can't be confirmed as an issue with the current model?
I don't know if you've seen Dr. Becky, but she has a video titled "Has JWST shown the Universe is TWICE as old as we think" where she goes through the paper that seemed to make the news and indicates what I mentioned as why it may not be as big of news as it looked like.
Gotta agree. The one thing stead state doesn't seem to be talking about, unless it was mentioned somewhere and I missed it, how can matter be created? That would involve a major major major physics rewrite. The rest of it would at least still use mostly the same physics. But thats a fundamental law, "matter can neither be created nor destroyed, only changed."
Quantum theory states virtual particles popping in and out of existence, but they're virtual. Not at all the same thing. So it just doesn't work.
The story of science is the continuing overthrow of mainstream theory. I’m not at all convinced our current big bang theory with inflation, dark matter and dark energy, is for sure the correct one. It’s good to have both defenders of the current theory and those that are pushing new theories.
I dub it the Finnegan’s Wake theory of the universe. Not because it’s cyclical, because it’s impossible to follow.
Ha Ha!!!! EXACTLY!!! Just hyped up old nonsense to rake in dollars. Didn't even bother to fact check the AI generated drivel.
You read that story too? Finnegan's wake is going back a while.
@@MountainFisherFinnegans wake* actually
@@bated_8247 Yes, there is no " ' " in the book title unless he refers to the song of the similar name
But what happened before that? And what happens after that? Ergo, universe is eternal. There can be neither beginning nor end, only points before which and after which we have no frigging clue.
@TheComedyGeek, thank you.
Yeah those 3 guys were smoking that Perfect Cosmological Principle
Ha Ha!!!!
I love PCP
I pSEEp what you did there.
I'm a steady state believer. I have good reasons for that belief. It's good to hear some of them here, but it's only half the theory, there is another part. How and when did the universe begin. There was a primordial atom, but alas, it was just a lonely atom, but not for long. Considering everything, the universe is next to infinitely old.
My hypothesis is that our universe is too large and too old for us to determine its age or how it was created. I call it the We Don't Know theory.
I put the our universe at around 700,000,000,000,000 at least,
Our universe from images is very old as global clusters of galaxies and the highways between them show our universe is very old.
ANother half a trillion years and their will be no filaments of matter between super clusters,
Hubble's constant is tranvertsal velocity as a consequence of Bing Bang Velocity.
The truth is that nobody really knows. But experts in the field will not admit that they do not know because it makes them look clueless.
Why does the 'universe' have to have been created, rather than simply have been there for ever?
Big Bang and God/s are interchangeable terms and/or notions meaning exactly the same thing-
-which is, that nobody actually knows. Myself, I prefer "infinite" universe, and/or "cyclic" universe.
On the face of it that sounds like an almost religious comment - what implication should draw form that statement? Why bother trying, or but we learn so much by trying?
@@johnhough7738 something inside of has always gravitated towards a cyclical model, this isn't backed up by theory as far as I know, it's just my feeling. But does our current understanding go against that possibility? We infer the big bang to be a beginning of sorts, but could it just be part of a cycle that we cannot see past?
I think the fundamental thing for me is that I struggle with the concept of a beginning of everything, what was before? Is 'nothing' even a possible state, surely it cant be a state because it's nothing. I guess i just find an eternal cycle to be a much more tidy explanation.
It’s one of many but can’t be finite by nature. If you have a box there’s still the area outside the box and by definition that is infinite regardless of its ability to be traversed
So it has no beginning, and no end, it just gets recycled. A woke universe.
Ha ha ha 🤣
I think it's infinite and has no beginning. If there was ever truly nothing, then there would have been nothing to cause a change. With nothing to cause a change, then that nothing would remain nothing indefinitely.
👍👍
And so it did ... infinitely.
And then, in that Eternal (infinite~!) Nothing, something changed and created a (silent) immensely colossal vast explosion that popped us all (eventually) into existence.
Naaahhh, I can't go along with that one either.
Now, for anyone holding his breath to tell me all about good ole God ...
... where the Hell did good ol' God come from, hmmm? Created by a more Goddy god? Who in turn was created likewise by a more godier God (see where I'm going with this? You can finish it for me ... and good luck).
This is ultimately a philosophical issue, I think. It depends on whether or not one thinks that the "principle of sufficient reason" is true/has always been true. If it's true, then either it's infinite or there is a god. If not, all bets are off.
Nobody claims there was nothing before the BB, just that we can't possibly know what came before it, or even if that question makes sense. Like asking what's north of the north pole.
@@TheDotBot I'm not sure if it's possible to KNOW for CERTAIN or not, but I don't it's inconceivable that we might get to a point at which we could at least rank various possibilities by likelihood.
Even I wrote a paper on using the Doppler Effect in the RF spectrum, that speeding ticket you got based on a "Lidar Gun" is real factual evidence that it works.
LIDAR measures the amount of time for light to bounce back from a moving object. Is that how red shift works?
@@DJDAVEKHEN Measuring distance and measuring speed are done differently. Speedometers evaluate Doppler-shifted light.
This guy denying Doppler shift is embarrassing.
Not exactly. The RADAR gun sends signals that come back at different time intervals based on your speed. It does NOT measure the actual Doppler shift of a single beam.
@@bobfleischmann5208 see doppler lidar , turns out stuff took a log longer to come out of the lab and into measurement/testing equipment.
Then there's also that spinning plate in the microwave but not in a normal oven or under a grill. Interference patterns become relevant at microwave frequencies. Surprised me too.
The more I learn about the universe, the more I realize we really don't know that much, and everything about the creation to end is just assumptions and theories. It's humbling that we still can't figure out gravity.
I hear JWT knocking harder every day. What I found interesting is what he didn't say about tired light and quasars. Such as how a highly red shifted quasar that's supposed to be ancient, appears in front of a less red shifted, much larger galaxy.
Or how quasars always just happen to appear as if they are spinning off from galaxies.
Plasma electric universe has some compelling arguments.
It's about time to challenge the theory of a Roman Catholic priest, who was influenced by the book of Genises.
Tired light was debunked ages ago.
@rosgarthefrog4172 Well you’ve demonstrated how much of the opposition to the BBT has always come from biased anti-theists desperate not to cede anything to the theologians. But most scientists will go where the evidence leads when it’s abundant enough. The electric universe is not a good theory and there’s a big problem of AI and other trash RUclips videos propagating it.
You said all galaxies are redshift, but isn't Andromeda blueshift (coming towards us)?
@@echisbonza3565 objects closer/moving towards us will be blue shifted. Objects farther away/moving will be red shifted. How I understand it.
Our local galactic cluster of about 50 galaxies close to us do not show the red shift for some reason, just another small problem with the theory.
When I was growing up in the early 60's Simon, I was taught the Steady State model, not the Big Bang.
did you pass science - i learned about the big bang in school in the 60s - i loved science and stayed awake during the lectures - and while reading the textbook - i'm not sure if my classmates paid attention tho
@@johneyon5257 I wasn't taught the Big Bang until high school.
@hughb5092 yeah, you may wanna include that next time. Your original comment makes it seem like you weren't taught the big bang at all.
Standard Doctrine should be challenged in all things. It's how we grow and learn and is a core tenant of science. There is a quote from Einstein that comes to mind... 'No amount of experimentation can prove me right, but one experiment can prove me wrong' I believe he was challenging everyone to 'prove him wrong'. So yeah, got evidence of a steady state universe? let's see it. If the theory of the big bang is wrong it will not be a bad day for Cosmology, It'll be a Great day because we've learned something new.
Clickbait. Downvoting and avoiding future content
I think they'll get over it.
Wait, we went from Pimaeval Atom to big bang? But Primaeval Atom sounds so much cooler. I am going to start using that now.
Well sort of. Primevil atom is what happened right after the big bang. It was a term used to describe leptons and muons or the early version of atoms before the universe cooled. 😎
That Wilenchik stuff has extremely strong hallmarks of quackery. It's dripping with it.
Extremely strong hallmarks of flat-earthery, at a cosmic scale, in particular!
Tired light is like someone saying god is real because a book they read says so.
That book just happened to also say that god is "life" and that the universe had a beginning made of light ✅. It also explained the relevance of water in the formation of life ✅ and it described that the ocean was dark before life started ✅ and it described that life started with sea life, turned into flying creatures, and then land dwelling creatures ✅. Yea it said god is real but hey, many know god is real not because of a book and many dont know god is real despite reading said book. I dont know if light gets "tired" (probably not) but i know we dont know alot of things and id bet the bank on that fact.
You can neither prove nor disprove God.
This is one of the dumbest comments I have ever seen. I guess you don't buy anything from history books either, which is a category the bible would technically fall into. There is so much I can say here but I don't have all day.
If stars, all be it huge stars, can create such density when they implode that they create "black holes", which have such gravity that they won't only not let anything escape but which have never been witnessed or even theorized to explode, then how the heck could a spot that holds all of the universe exist, and explode? The Big Bang theory is only based on the observance that things are red shifted.
The universe is big enough that, whatever we want to look for, we will find it. Observations about quasars are flawed. There's every possibility that actually they're younger, smaller and closer than we thought they were. That would change everything. And of course there are now the JWST observations of ancient, mature galaxies at the edges of the observable universe which "shouldn't exist". If these images had been available decades ago, I believe we would not have entertained any notion of a Big Bang.
Interesting! A long time ago, because I have no one I can talk to about these things, I went on Reddit's Astronomy subreddit and asked something like _"What if the Big Bang was not the beginning of everything but just a part of a cycle? What if the universe expanded and somewhere, something like a black hole attracted everything around, leaving nothing except what is now too far away to be observed due to the expansion and at some point, this black hole (or singularity) suddenly "exploded", creating a new big bang and because everything else is now too far away to be observed, we think that what we can see is all there is...?"_
I explained that I dropped out of high school, that all I know about astronomy is what I learned online and that I was there, not to claim anything but to learn from people who actually know about astronomy.
I was ridiculed, people said that questions starting with "what if" are pointless and basically, everyone made me feel like I was just an uneducated fool with idiotic ideas who got lost and ended up in "their" subreddit and that this wasn't a place for people like me.
Finally, my post was removed with the mention that I had posted "pseudoscience".
I might not have used the correct words and maybe it had nothing to do with a black hole but it looks like my initial hypothesis wasn't that wrong after all...
Well, a cyclical Universe is nothing new, even in scientific circles. Big Bang-Big Crunch-Big Bang cycles were being talked about even into the 90s. And then we calculated the expansion with new evidence from HST and other observatories. And we realized the expansion was accelerating instead of slowing down. Kinda put a nail in the Big Crunch, at least as it currently exists. I even remember having a book on it as a kid.
As for expanding beyond the visible horizon into new universes, that is possible, though we would expect to see shadows (for lack of a better word) towards the edges of our pocket of the Universe. For such bubbles to break off into their own separate 'verses, the problem would be how you contend with changes in physics where 'verses interact. If there is no interaction, then that implies that instead of being an isolated universe, they would just be very distant islands of gravitationally interacting material, but still part of the larger Universe.
There are tens of thousands of pages worth of literature covering the basics of the various hypothesis, and their merits. It's probably better to read some books on the subject rather than asking randoms on the internet. Even if no one stooped to ridicule, well written books should offer better explanations in most cases, and would give you the language to better communicate on the subjects. To take one of your points, we don't believe that what we can see is all there is (thus why "observable universe" is a term). There are no good reasons to believe that to be the case, and there are many good reasons to believe it definitely is not the case.
An important point to keep in mind is to always try to be aware of what are well founded theories, versus what are interesting but poorly supported hypothesis. The latter might be fun for thought experiments, but until supporting evidence is established that's all they are.
You can thank leftists who hate new ideas for your treatment. People should quit the group think and be kind to people whether they are right or wrong.
I'll point out that even these RUclips comments commenting on your comment contain dismissive, unintuitive rhetoric, so I'm not surprised r/astronomy Redditers are massive, primordial black hole jerks. They're caught up on the singularities related to the economics of a theoretical physics degree in 2023, and old Steve Martin comedies. This is all for me to say don't discount yourself. Ever. For someone who "dropped out of high school" you sure did write an intricate question and told a compelling story (at least to me, beauty to the beholder).
But. Let me answer your question a little by point out the Lorentz factor and ads-CFT correspondence (my contentious conviction). The Lorentz factor is the approximation of the singularity you seem to be hinting at in your question. Because the equation is written as 1/(sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)), you can draw out a graph that goes into infinity- can't divide by zero. The universe doesn't care. Past a black hole's event horizon, light/causality breakdown/invert, since our universe likes to break your old math teacher and go into a 1/0 for Lorentz. Bad generalization, of course, but the key is to understand why people even talk about singularities in the first place (Einstein and Lorentz, cool story too). And I personally think ads/CFT correspondence or The Holographic Universe is the correct answer, which would mean our universe is a black hole universe and black holes reproduce like people (Cosmological Natural Selection Hypothesis).
Hope this helps (or makes a pompous RUclipsr angry) (I'll also point out quantum uncertanity, since I don't know if I'll hit cancel or reply; this comment will still end up in the black hole of my mind *notifications turned off thank you*)
Sounds like you experienced some Grade-A Primo gatekeeping. "What if" is bassically one of the foundations of science, the only difference between your what if & theirs being their own education/ expertise & their unwillingness to explore ideas not of their own origin. I've never used Reddit, but I assume it's like the rest of the interwebs: primarily populated w/ armchair experts & a few experts in training (students) that are afraid to explore thoughts outside of the accepted echo chamber.
There are 3 famous quotes/ sayings that sum up my opinion of "experts" (in any field):
A) "Out of the mouths of babes oft comes wisdom" being the one they seem to be ignoring in your case.
2) "You don't understand a thing unless you can explain it to a 5 year old" occasionally countered by "Well nobody *really* understands it, but we're trying" but usually met with some variation of "It takes years of study to understand so you must take our word for it".
&) "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit". Similar to #2, but more reliant on jargon & the audience's own ignorance to make their point. IMO not very helpful to fostering interest in the field in question.
*HOW MANY CHANNELS IS THIS GUY ON?!?!?* I keep blocking him and new channels keep finding my feed. I cannot stand the mannerisms in his speech, going back and forth from full throated to barely audible throughout the video. Annoying.
A movie themed channel might not be a bad idea…
yet we could still be completely wrong with the big bang
Wait. Isn’t at least one galaxy blueshifted? We’re on a collision course with Andromeda galaxy so it’s light must be blueshifted? Yes?
Yes. Andromeda and (I think) a few other galaxies in the local group are blueshifted due to their particular motion in our general direction. I believe this may also be the case for a scant few galaxies in the next cluster over which just happen to be sliding slightly closer to us even as the majority of the cluster recedes. But please don't take my word for it. I am just going by memory.
Thousands of galaxies are all heading toward what they call the great attractor, their theories have problems
@@real_lostinthefogofwar and they are all being pulled by the Shapley Supercluster
@@OOL-UV2 Ha Ha!!!! EXACTLY!!! Just hyped up old nonsense to rake in dollars. Didn't even bother to fact check the AI generated drivel.
Ha Ha!!!! EXACTLY!!! Just hyped up old nonsense to rake in dollars. Didn't even bother to fact check the AI generated drivel.
Isn't 10 to the 32nd power Avogadro's Number ? Maybe the 10 to the -32nd power is the inverse and results in blah blah blah...the Big Bang starring Kaley Cuoco
I 100% believe arguments like this can be healthy for science and scientists .
If science was religion, Which it is not religion requires no evidence , Science requires evidence, Personal opinion, incredulity and posting bullshit like this on RUclips are not evidence and not the way about getting it reviewed.
Thier is a reason god believer's use social media to PROVE their god instead of the methodology of science.
It is RUclips and channel's like this that area damaging science.
NO! We've all got to believe the experts and not argue. There lies the truth!!!
@@jonathanpork-sausage617 this theory was disproven by the microwave background radiation in 1948.
The solutions to everything are already out there. The problem is, these are lost in some RUclips thread with Zero views. Arguments like this I believe are stupid because 2 people with the ability to argue and the access to make the argument happen, is not the best use of our energy. What IS the best use is to find all the solutions that are already out there and actually list them all and check them all. If every single theory of the universe was listed on a single page, people could attribute supporting evidence to contradicting evidence and people could read through it and just find the solution that line up with every bit of evidence. But instead, 2 wrong people will argue with stupid ideas that waste eveyone's time. Not saying all arguments are like that but many are obviously wrong so why argue them. Argue the ones that are 99.9% accurate across the board. But they have to find them first.
Or they can waste time researching disproven science....
Funding well spent.
I've always disliked referring to the big bang or the steady state as the "universe". It's just what we can see. There was a time when we thought the Milky Way was the universe and there will be a time in the distant future when galaxies will be too far apart to see, and who knows if any intelligent inhabitants will also consider everything they can see as the "universe" but if they do, we in the past would certainly know that they're wrong.
This has to be the 4th or 5th channel I've subbed to with this dude as the host, gotta say, he is good at what he does
He is. However this video is probably one of the worst
@@lionelmessisburner7393 I agree. Too much for me to handle.
This man has like 12 channels.
Those are rookie numbers, lol
Simon is slowly taking over RUclips.
Everything about your title is highly misleading. Shameful, frankly.
Big Bang doesn't say all matter was in a specific point of space-time. It states that space was the point that expanded into space-time. Big Bang started everywhere, in every single point of space-time.
An infinitely large universe cannot be reversed in time to form a singularity. This wrong idea drives me nuts every time I hear it. The universe may have exploded from a very dense initial state but was always infinitely large from the beginning. Think about it. If there was ever an edge to the universe it implies an already existing universe that our universe exploded into so we can then see an edge, and it also implies that there is a place we can locate in our universe where it all began, which there isn't. There was never a singularity and the state before the big bang was logically some sort of crazy dense medium that existed everywhere and then suddenly expanded to great extent allowing the laws physics and elements to form. It's only our observable universe that could conceivably look like a small sphere or point like singularity when time is run backwards.
@@garman1966 The term singularity doesn't always mean single point in space. In the case of a big bang, it refers to the point where lines on a Penrose Diagram terminate. In the case of the big bang, all space was compressed everywhere. Time and Space are linked, so when space began, so did time. The other way to think about it is the north pole. As you move "north" there is a point in where moving north no longer means anything. You have made it to the end of the north line. Here the same is true of time, all of time spreads out from the singularity. Space, which is everywhere, expands outwards.
@@absolutedisgrace Time is simply the chronological measurement of a change in state. If the entire universe were taken to absolute zero, by no experiment, measurement or any other evidence, could it be proved, that any "time" is/has passed. Without a change in state somewhere, Time is either non-existent, or irrelevant.
Space-Time is an oxymoron, as "Time" is a necessary component of everything in our "dimension" or existence. Photons, that should experience no passage of time due to speed, will still ultimately experience aging and death. Time is a condition of existence in our reality, and nothing escapes it.
But of course, that depends on whether time actually slows down with velocity. The problem is that our present methods to "prove" this, suffer from a confirmation bias. The "clocks/rulers" are susceptible to the effects they are trying to measure. The experiments are like having two cars race, but one has a straight lane, and the other has to navigate a slalom. With both cars doing the same speed, the car on the straight lane, will arrive before the other one. The reason is the difference in distance travelled, but both experienced Time, at exactly the same pace.
In the Macro, we are going in 1 direction, but everything in the micro spins, rotates, revolves and vibrates. My mind may have gone straight from A to B, but everything around me, went all over the place.
What you measure by, dictates the "effect", and until you can separate your Clock from the effects you are trying to measure, we can never be sure if Time marches to different speeds.
@@garman1966 '' If there was ever an edge to the universe it implies an already existing universe that our universe exploded into so we can then see an edge '' Or it can imply that the universe reside in a bubble/dimension that is not intrinsic with the universe itself. We can speculate matters act like water, flowing in the direction of less resistance. And we have no way of finding the '' corridors '' of the time-space the universe evolves in. Was the Big Bang a creation moment or the breach of a '' dam/edge '' ?
I think we are quick to picture the macro universe.
If you were to ping radar waves from water level in the Pacific in any direction, you would never discover the continents surrounding it. It is the same for the universe. There is a limit to how far we can see with '' pings '' and we know light, in all its spectrum, is a limited method of observations.
That's impossible. "Everywhere else" did not even exist yet.
The Big Bang is not a complete theory... it is a working, incomplete hypothesis. Let's face it, there are several gaps in the current model: the age metrics not agreeing, the need for a brief suspension of all laws of physics (inflation), the need for a correction factor (dark matter), the need for a bigger correction factor (dark energy), heck even the causal initiator of it all. All of these resulting in increasingly complex arm waving. If this was any other theory without such momentum, the number and significance of these red flags would be pushing it toward the dustbin of theories.
Something new is needed, even if steady state isnt it.
True. Big Bang sounds too much like religion.
measuring devices that weren't calibrated properly wouldn't unsettle the big bang theory itself
Great video, always good reconsider the whole reality in which we live. I made a video in which our reality on another planet is reconsidered😊
Yess❤
👏🏻👏🏻
Yeah is good to reconsider our reality
This video is straight pseudo science and theories that have been conclusively disproven over a hundred years ago
FOR MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF US, THE BIGBANG HAD ALWAYS BEEN REDICULOUS. UNDERSTANDABLE",CHILDISH" BUT REDICUOUS. THE SCIANCE GAME OF THEORY APON THEORY IS JUST A BIG BUCKET OF GARBAGE, FROM DREAMERS WHO HAVE LOST ALL CONTACT WITH COMMON SENSE, AND COMMON LOGIC.
I can not disregard Halton Arp with the fascinating lecture that can be found on the Thunderbolts Project RUclips channel.
As a grad student in astro back in the 80s, I was fascinated and perplexed by Arp's tenacious adherence to his own theory that redshifts were "non-cosmological" to disastrous effect on his otherwise "stellar" career.
This video is utterly pointless, it's regurgitating well disproved crap that has long since been put to bed, for ever. I am sick of the lack of quality content here on YT, vids constantly made for no other purpose but ads, here's a prediction, YT is going to die because of all this junk...
When I saw the title of this video I was not expecting such an excellent discussion of the subject matter. I love that you frequently acknowledge the limits of your own understanding, while still conveying a lot of very technical information in a very clear way. My compliments to the scriptwriter for this one. I regularly watch PBS Space Time and consider myself to be reasonably knowledgeable about these subjects, and even so, I came away from this video feeling like I had learned some valuable things!
PBS spacetime is really not a great resource. Check out Floathead Physics for one of the best explainers of these incredibly complicated and unintuitive concepts.
If you accept the law of conservation of mass and energy, then the idea that "new" matter is appearing in a steady state universe, causing it to expand is unwarranted. What we know is that matter and energy can be converted back and forth. So, expansion is unnecessary. The idea of linked black holes and white holes or some similar symmetric process could easily provide a mechanism for a steady state universe that was not cyclical on any grand scale, operating more like a simmering pan. Then, as regards "small scale" and "localized," in an infinite universe, no one can define a "scale" which is not a "small scale". Any imaginable area within an infinite universe could be removed, and leave a change in the universe which is indistinguishable from zero. Indeed, from an infinite scale, the universe must necessarily appear smooth, cold, and homogenous, essentially already at maximum entropy. Lastly, the CMB was originally predicted, right around the beginning of WW II under steady state assumptions. That original predicted value is far closer to the measured value than the original prediction from the BBT, which an order of magnitude too high. The cosmological redshift is troublesome because it cannot be due to the speed of the emitting body. Doppler shifts happen at the moment of emission, but cosmological redshift cannot be explained as a Doppler shift. The means that something else is depleting the photon of energy during the time between emission and reception. Or, despite appearances, and known quantum mechanics, the emission frequency is not solely influenced by the speed of the specific atom the photon is emitted from. Which sounds like some form of non-local quantum effect.
I didn't know the proponent of the "tired light" hypothesis was a lawyer, but it makes sense. Stating that light is not a wave might sound like an argument that could convince a jury, but not one to pass a scientific test.
I believe light has certain properties that sometimes make it look like a wave and sometimes like a particle. Since he was a lawyer, he may have been over-relying on the particle properties.
I don't know how many times I have to say this, but there is NO such thing as infinity ! Think about it, all these idiots saying the singularity was "infinitely dense and hot" bla bla bla well if that was true, then it logically must follow that the big bang itself is infinite, ever lasting etc. which it clearly is NOT, it was an event that occurred, then stopped, and expanded, cooled off etc. You learn this in primary school, you can't make infinite into finite, and anything infinite must by definition be ongoing and eternal, but the universe is not like that, the universe is about change, cooling off, etc. The big bang was very powerful yes, but infinite ? oh hell no !
I think that several of the current theories of everything are simply anthropomorphic interpretations. We see/feel/think one way and then extrapolate that this must be true everywhere. We take ordinal finite math designed around counting sheep for our bartering systems and push it out to ridiculous lengths. All the while trying gain dominance over the unknown by putting into a neat and understandable box.
Nothing of what you said actually serves to undermine or gainsay the power of our "finite math", or any other of our finite faculties or tools, to describe or understand circumstances or phenomena besides counting sheep.
It works until it's proven not to.
Emphasis on "proven".
well, everywhere we look, we see same things. Same stars, same Supernova, same spectres, same Microwave background. This is in my eyes very strong observable evidence, that the laws of the universe, at least in the observable universe, are the same.
And there is no observation, i'm aware of, which indicates anything else, so in my opinion, it is best the explanation, even when looking at it unbiased
It is almost in a way back to Plato’s cave. We ‘see’ via a pair of 3mm holes that expose rods and cones sensitive to a narrow range of electromagnetic spectrum. The number of photons we never detect far out weighs the paltry few we convert to sodium ion signals in our brains. My point is that we seem to be too invested in being right/right now.
All of our physics are based on specific assumptions natively to our intelligence but not necessarily the actual physics. Heck we made up the concept of time and proceeded to shoehorn all of our physics into an interval that is based upon Galileo‘s heart rate in earth’s gravitational field.
@@benanddadmechanical6573 hm, for me, physics isn't necessarily about being right, but about making useful predictions. We use little data we have to derive hypophysis, and if they start making useful predictions, they are elevated to theories. No one should insist on them being the truth.
Same with Quantum Mechanics, something doesn't add up (probabilty wave collapse, anyone), but it is just too useful to build tools like computers to not use it 😎
@@benanddadmechanical6573 to conclude, keeping this in mind should make us humble enough to admit, that what we know is just our currently best theorie, can be be replaced with a better one. On the other hand, If we knew everything, how boring would that be?... 😁
Why are you perpetuating nonsense? I'll have to tell RUclips not to recommend this
Well, you got one thing wrong. Not all Galaxy's are going away from us. The Milky Way Galaxy is supposed to collide with the Andromeda Galaxy in approximately 4.5 billion years, so it is going away from us? Then how can we collide with it. If i'm wrong, please explain how. I'm not criticizing or meaning to sound like I'm criticizing. I enjoy your videos very much. I hope you keep making them.
You're right.
unfortunately when scientists speak a natural language rather than math - they fall into colloquial patterns - which in english includes 'all or nothing' expressions - things are said to be black or white without shades of gray - but if you confront a scientist about this - they will correct themselves easily enuf - they know that neighboring galaxies will be converging - and for that reason - some distant galaxies will be seen as oncoming - but the vast vast majority are moving outward - so think of it as rounding off when they say "all"
The name "Big Bang" was given by a detractor of the theory. However, in no way does the theory actually imply any type of "explosion" at the creation of the universe. There was a dramatic expansion of space. Not an explosion of any "primordial atom" .. which itself is also not implied by the theory.
Actually Hoyle meant Bang as in fucking. He was really being derogatory.
@@MountainFisher It's amazing your comment goes through while every attempt I make to politely reply and explain things to people gets insta-banned.
@@MountainFisherthanks for your insightful comment. I didn't know that was the etymology of the phrase.
@@jeffreygordon7194 That was exactly what Hoyle meant. First time it was pointed out to me by a speaker at my astronomy club we all laughed.
@@THE-X-Force Possibly no one flagged me?
Ok , I will watch. But if inflation comes up , I am outta here.
Inflation is hocus pocus B.S.
Another point against Steady State is that, if the universe is infinite and _doesn't_ expand, we wouldn't see points of light in the darkness, light would be EVERYWHERE.
not if tired light is the case
@@billwesley And event horizon says no as well. There isn't light everywhere we look because the vast majority of stellar matter is so far away the light has yet to reach here.
An infinitely large universe cannot be reversed in time to form a singularity. This wrong idea drives me nuts every time I hear it. The universe may have exploded from a very dense initial state but was always infinitely large from the beginning. Think about it. If there was ever an edge to the universe it implies an already existing universe that our universe exploded into so we can then see an edge, and it also implies that there is a place we can locate in our universe where it all began, which there isn't. There was never a singularity and the state before the big bang was logically some sort of crazy dense medium that existed everywhere and then suddenly expanded to great extent allowing the laws physics and elements to form. It's only our observable universe that could conceivably look like a small sphere or point like singularity when time is run backwards.
The cosmological redshift has nothing to do with the Doppler-effect. The galaxies are not moving through space, but the space in between them is expanding, hence their emitted light is 'stretched' resulting in a decreasing frequency. Having said that, there in fact is a little Doppler effect as well, because galaxies are indeed moving through space, e.g. the Andromeda galaxy is moving towards us and will collide with the Milky Way in a few million years. This Doppler effect however is tiny. It's useful to detect the rotation of the galaxy, since parts of the distant galaxy rotate towards us while other parts move away. However, this effect is on top of the cosmological redshift and very tiny.
It's funny that you say Doppler red-shift is "tiny". I understand that this is relative to space expansion at the edges, but there is terrestrial technology that has to compensate for Doppler shifting at terrestrial speeds. Even our weather uses Doppler radar in order to track precipitation speeds. Important to tell if there's a swirl.
@@BenjaminCronce 'Tiny' in the sense that the galaxy's own movement through space is slow in comparison to the expansion rate of the universe.
do you realized you contradicted yourself - "galaxies are not moving" - " galaxies are indeed moving through space" - the term 'doppler effect' refers to the stretched sound or light wave - it has nothing to do with how the objects are being moved
@@johneyon5257 *do you realized you contradicted yourself - "galaxies are not moving" - " galaxies are indeed moving through space"*
Yes ;)
The cosmological Redshift has nothing to do with the Doppler effect, as the galaxies are *not moved through spacetime* by the expansion - like dots on a surface of a balloon do not change their positions, when you inflate the balloon; only the distance between the dots increases.
However, each galaxy has its proper motion through spacetime in relation to an observer due to interactions with other galaxies and galaxy-clusters, and this proper motion causes a Doppler effect.
@@cyanah5979 - you are contradicting yourself thru out this post too - there's no point in trying to get you straightened out - but know that only the shallow and gullible are going to be taken in by your ramblings
OK, I'm definitely not the audience for this channel. A quarter of an hour wasted because someone thinks the Doppler effect isn't real. Note to self: When it comes to astrophysics, there are youtube channels that are infinitely better than this one.
"The reason why the universe is eternal is that it does not live for itself; it gives life to others as it transforms."
-- Lao Tzu
"Scooby dooby doo !"
- Scooby Doo
Topics like these make my head hurt.
Especially the notion of an endless universe I can't comprehend. How can something be endless. But if it does have an end, what's beyond the end of the universe. And what beyond that. I shouldn't watch videos like this, it's bad for me. Yet so interesting
I think we humans know as much about the universe as my dogs know where on earth they are located. We still don't even know how much we can detect or see or how much we are missing. Where did the matter for the big bang come from? And into what did the universe expand? If anyone has the ability to fly to the end of the known universe if there is an end, what is after that end? So much we just really don't understand.
they are not aware that they are not aware of their own unawareness, this is why all these funny sci-fi theories lol
@@KM-gt5is exactly, that's what I was trying to say. You worded it perfectly.
Give us One Miracle and we'll explain the rest.
The Big Bang = Let there be light?
Alternative cosmological theory papers never make it past the gatekeepers. There are some solid ideas that ride more on observational evidence as opposed to mathematics alone, but established science keeps the general public ignorant in order to protect thier own egos and livelihood.
Exactly plasma electric and magnetic universe theories are banned by the evil gatekeepers
A theory is a guess in a dress. I don't think we have the technology yet to determine the source of of how it all began.
It seems ludicrous that finite creatures could ever really define what is infinite.
Hey our matter is also infinite.
DNA is designed for permanent existence.
I would flip that on its head - it's ludicrous that any part of an infinite continuum could define something as finite.
Utter nonsense. We can define eternity, what we cannot do is comprehend the infinite though we can apprehend the concept. The fact that we have a word for infinity shows we can define it. If something exists now then something has always existed since eternity past. If at anytime there was nothing (nonexistence) there wouldn't be anything still, but there is something so the past is infinite. Just like we can conceive of nothing we can conceive of infinity, we just cannot visualize or comprehend either concept. It is why words mean things that cannot be visualized, but can be conceptualized unless you're a physicist who despises philosophy all the while using piss poor philosophy.
Well guess what, intelligence is OP.
even wrong theories can help us understand the world better
take flat earth for example.
it lets you understand that people really are dumb
Am i the only person who has always thought that the big bang theory sounds like complete bullshit? It's like a scientist was trying to make up a bedtime story for his kids and somehow accidentally submitted it for peer review and they just went with it...😂
that's not how science works
Apparently it is. And when you can't balance the books you invent fairie dust, like, oh, I don't know, Dark Matter. I just hope that I live long enough to see them eat a big slice of humble pie.
@@SkYsLiDeR9000 you're delusional
Why is there a global temperature chart at the beginning of this video? What does that have to do with cosmology?
You need to cross reference all of your channels, will help the algorithm massively.
There is something that's always bothered me about the big bang theory, if everything is expanding outward from an original point of infinite everything, then why is everything moving away from us? Is there something that determines that we are at the epicenter or is everyone that has been finding all this stuff that proves big bang just that conceited that they see everything moving away and haven't stopped to consider that if everything is expanding from a single point then whatever is between us and wherever that point is should be shifting at a different rate to every other possible direction or catching up to us so blue shifting?
The reason why the big bang is the accepted theory is how much it explains and how it fits into the standmodel. There are incredible amount of experiments done to test different aspects of it. Its similar to proving evolution through natural selection. Its not one test, but many, of many different properties. And the more evidence is collected the more it seems to be tge right theiry.
Ha Ha!!!! EXACTLY!!! Sadly this is just hyped up old nonsense to rake in dollars. Didn't even bother to fact check the AI generated drivel.
It's wrong. The microwave background is just light from extremely distant galaxies.
Oh really? Then explain why 1) the universe expanded much faster than the speed of light only for a fraction of a second, then slowed way down, and 2) why we would be so lucky to find ourselves at the center of it.
@phillipsusi1791 We are not "in the center" of the universe..... Seriously. That's like third grade level stuff.
Why would you think we are "in the center?"
@@anderslarsen4412 go outside tonight at look.
Why do people think that the farthest light we can see is the oldest light in the universe?
12:52 - the “tired light model” is not only “incompatible with the Big Bang,” but it’s also incompatible with Special Relativity: Photons can’t lose energy over the ages, because, traveling at the speed of light, they do not age. Time does not pass for photons.
Also, 13:40 - the question of whether light is a particle or a wave, isn’t even a question; it is both and neither. You can’t think about such objects through “classical physics” eyes.
Also the law of conservation of energy.
"New Theory"
Ha Ha!!!! EXACTLY!!! Just hyped up old nonsense to rake in dollars. Didn't even bother to fact check the AI generated drivel.
Redshift must be an artifact of large distances. The idea that the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light sounds like bad science fiction.
Ha Ha!!!! EXACTLY!!! Sadly this is just hyped up old nonsense to rake in dollars. Didn't even bother to fact check the AI generated drivel.
The SPACE is expanding faster than the speed of light. The objects with mass in it are not.
@@THE-X-Force Only the space further away from us than the cosmic horizon is expanding away from us faster than the speed of light. Space near by is hardly expanding at all.
@@phillipsusi1791 I don't know where you studied astrophysics, but consider asking for a refund. "Local" space is no different than the rest of space. That doesn't mean that objects compelled by gravity won't interact.
At least fact check your AI generated drivel.
I keep hearing that all the other galaxies are moving away from us yet isn’t Andromeda headed towards us?
Ha Ha!!!! EXACTLY!!! Sadly this is just hyped up old nonsense to rake in dollars. Didn't even bother to fact check the AI generated drivel.
Andromeda is very close by on a cosmological scale. All part of the "local cluster". The universe's expansion is on universal scales.
@THE-X-Force you did not answer the question.
@@Patrick-kq9fyandromeda close expansion far
@@Patrick-kq9fy You don't understand the question or the answer.
Electric universe. Plasma universe. Magnetic universe
🍺
Eternal universe isn't a new theory. This is an old theory repackaged.
That's literally what the video is about
Well done. Have a cookie
EXACTLY!!! Just hyped up to rake in dollars. Didn't even bother to fact check the AI generated drivel.
Steady state was discredited over 60 years ago.
Ha Ha!!!! EXACTLY!!! Sadly this is just hyped up old nonsense to rake in dollars. Didn't even bother to fact check the AI generated drivel.
That hurt.
Clickbait, "The New Theory" is nearly 100years old
The universe is eternal or infinite are ignorant statements
10:55 "All galaxies are red-shifting. IE they're moving away from us" Not true. The Andromeda galaxy is moving towards us and will eventually collide with the Milky-way galaxy.
Ha Ha!!!! EXACTLY!!! Sadly this is just hyped up old nonsense to rake in dollars. Didn't even bother to fact check the AI generated drivel.
15:06 We should always be open; even when lots of evidence points in a particular direction. Not just open, but actively looking in other directions. Unless want another Galileo scenario… the greatest advancements will always come from the parts of science we are not currently investigating.
8:09 [The Big Bang] identifies a clear point in space and time in which the universe blew up into existence."
This is misleading. The Big Bang model is that _all of space_ expanded from that "primordial atom." It didn't occur at a specific point: all points were infinitely close. It happened _everywhere,_
Space and time did not exist yet so 'a clear point in space and time' has no meaning.
My problem with red shift is light isn't attached to timespace, the expanding universe should only make it take longer , not expand the light wave .
Gravity lensing doesn't cause a red shift and it warps timespace
The problem with the universe is no one knows anything. They think they do but they don’t. There is no point in trying to understand it because it will change nothing, it won’t help us with anything and it’s a lot of time, effort and money for a futile cause.
Nothing could be further from the truth. So many things science has discovered that at first appears not to be significant becomes significant. Plastic, electromagnetism etc.
Ur right we may not figure out "how it all began". But the journey could bring untold treasure to mankind. ✌️
If nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, how did the universe expand faster than the speed of light @1:46?
Mass can’t travel faster than light but space isn’t made of matter.
I fell for it, channels are spam garbage
What we know about the origins of the universe, is merely a placeholder for the truth that has yet to be revealed.
There is all sorts of evidence against steady state, but this video almost makes it sound like a coin flip, or a difference of opinion. Ugh. Not one of the better videos this guy has been associated with.
Ha Ha!!!! EXACTLY!!! Sadly this is just hyped up old nonsense to rake in dollars. Didn't even bother to fact check the AI generated drivel.
Not your best. More academic research needed!! MUCH..
You do realize to even equate that sum you need to stop using exponents and kick it up to tetration right which they dont even bother teaching cause the amount of digits required to represent it will take actual years to write out
Does Wilenchik also want to revive the luminiferous aether?
Ha Ha!!!! EXACTLY!!! Just hyped up nonsense to rake in dollars. Didn't even bother to fact check the AI generated drivel.
Yea, that guy was off base, but so too is the big bang theory. We could not be so lucky as to find ourselves at the center of the universe, nor does it make any sense that it expanded many times faster than the speed of light for only a fraction of a second, then slowed way, way down.
It's incredible how much curiosity and intrigue these phenomena generate. For those as captivated by these mysteries as I am, I love creating content about various intriguing phenomena, including Alien and UFO sightings, on my channel, ORBIT - BEYOND THE BLUE. It's amazing to see such a strong community of enthusiasts and researchers sharing their findings and theories. Keep up the great work, and let's continue exploring the unknown together!
We can see what existed long ago because our observation only happens at the speed of light, so we're looking back in time, yet he mentions there are less radio sources now and quasars only existed billions of years ago. If measurements are limited to the speed of light, how do we know what the universe looks like right now, so many lightyears away? How would we know how many radio sources or quasars exist before light can reach us?
We measure their light and, knowing how much time it has passed and the direction it came from, we can project their movement forward and draw a relatively accurate map of where everything has moved from where it was when it emitted that light.
Whenever I hear something is “settled science” I cringe.
Simon whistler is like, Hold my beer…
I don't believe Tired Light would work. Doppler shift moves spectral lines, I dont believe Tire light would as that would shift spectra yes making things more red but off the top of my head should not shift spectral lines in anyway. That dude just seems like a drunk uncle spouting nonsense. If I had to guess he is the same Lawyer that just recommended using Lasers as a means of producing Antimatter to propel space craft. Sounds good if ya dont know what you are talking about.
Ha Ha!!!! EXACTLY!!! Sadly this is just hyped up old nonsense to rake in dollars. Didn't even bother to fact check the AI generated drivel.
While I don't believe in tired light, it makes no sense to say that the light can be shifted, but not the spectral lines. The lines are *in* the light, so if the light is shifted, so too are the lines.
I ended this video exactly the same as i started it.
Just 16 min older
I did the same.
I would´ve the laughter of my life if someone would disprove the Big Bang theory in my lifetime.
(Yes, unlikely but it would be still very funny)