The Big Bang: Redshift and Hubble's Law
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 авг 2024
- A description of cosmological redshift due to the expansion of the universe and how it is described by Hubble's Law. This provided the first direct evidence that the universe actually is expanding. We also address some of the common misconceptions associated with the idea of an expanding universe
Let us know what you think of these videos by filling out our short survey at tinyurl.com/ast.... Thank you!
It was initially not know that the universe was expanding when the first redshift measurements were taken. When astronomers did this they got something that looks like the graph that I showed, where pretty much everything is moving away from us and the farther it is the faster it is going. This essentially leaves two conclusions: Either we're at the very center of some special part of the universe where everything's moving away (bit of an ego trip) or the universe is expanding.
Or... This "Red Shift is a bit confusing, as we are measuring the past yes? And the degree of past is variable to the distance, so we are measuring where things WERE thousands, millions, and billions of years ago. So how do we know we are not measuring how fast space WAS expanding? Is it possible that space (whatever that is) WAS expanding ever faster, the further back in time we perceive? After all, if the impossible happened, and a galaxy 10 billion light years away reversed its motion towards us, we would not know that happened for about 10 billion years.
And when we map these vast thousands, millions and billions of light years distant galaxies and galaxy clusters, in order to know where they are NOW we would have to know what there motion was over the past thousands , millions and billions of years, as well as know how said space was expanding during that variable time, and this would completely change the map. In ten billion years a galaxy, a galaxy cluster and a super cluster, and variable space expansion, can move stuff a long way.
@@davidanderson9074 You're partially correct and touching on a point that I'll definitely clarify if I ever get back into making these videos. As I mention in the video, the redshift we detect is due to (1) the expansion of space (basically how much the universe has expanded since the light was emitted, so a greater effect at greater distances) and (2) the motion of galaxies THROUGH space (like that bulge in the graph where the VIRGO cluster is). At very large distances the effect from the expansion of space will dominate so even though its showing (2) is showing the past motion through space, it doesn't have a large overall effect on the graph. For the dominant effect (1), again how much the universe has expanded since the light was emitted, this ISN'T constant, and as you look at much more distant galaxies (billions of light years away instead of the few tens of millions of light years we have in this graph) the pattern does change. It's still the same in all directions (expected for an expanding universe), but the graph won't be a straight line anymore. This does tell us about how the expansion rate was different in the past, and when this was detected in the 1990s, to everyone's surprise, astronomers found the expansion rate has been INCREASING rather than decreasing. Something seems to be causing the expansion of the universe to accelerate and this is what has led to proposals of dark energy or a cosmological constant for the universe (potential drivers of the acceleration).
Let me know if you have follow up questions
(continued) Some theories say that on small scales new forces would appear that would cause the universe to "bounce". Others say that time at the big bang is less like the start of a string and more like the south pole; you can't go any more south but there's no real barrier there. In the quantum world particles routinely spring into an out of existence so maybe one of these quantum fluctuations started the universe. It's an open question that we need interested young scientists to help answer.
Knowing the redshift tells us not only how the universe is expanding now, but by looking at more distant objects tells us how it was expanding in the past. This tells us about how the dynamics of the expansion of space work which is related to the age of the universe, it's composition (including dark matter and dark energy), and the properties of dark matter/energy. We can also use redshift to measure the distances to objects which helps us map the universe.
Two excellent questions. First, when we measure redshift we don't look at the overall colour of the star which changes as the star gets older; we look at the spectral lines that are formed by particular excitations in atoms. The strength of particular spectral lines might change (at different temperatures different atomic excitations dominate) but the emitted wavelength of each line stays the same giving us that reliable reference point (I have some videos on light properties for more on this)
In my reverse engineered model of the universe, it is not a geometrical expansion of space, but an outflow of particle based graviton superfluid (which overlays a flat 3D Euclidean space). So, if I am right, it seems like photons must be experiencing some very small drag that causes them to lose energy. I haven't thought of any other explanation in my model.
Hubble's constant can be calculated to the same accuracy that we know the age of the universe. Since we know the age of the universe to be 13,820 million years, Hubble's constant can be calculated to be 21,690 m/s/Mly or 70.75 km/s/Mpc. It is the speed of light divided by the radius of the universe in millions of light-years. (Note: There are 3.2615 Mly in a Mpc.)
That's a little bit of an over simplification. Yes, if you take 1/Hubble's constant you will get a time period (called the Hubble time) that is fairly close to the currently accepted age of the universe, but this is actually a bit of a coincidence. The expansion rate of the universe, and specifically how it changes over time, depends on the composition of the universe, what is the energy and matter density of the universe, which could change the measurement of the age of the universe by a factor of a few. For a universe with a high matter density the Hubble time would overestimate the age of the universe, for a universe with just dark energy and no matter, it would underestimate the age of the universe. We just happen to have the right mixture of matter and energy in our universe that the Hubble time is really close to the age of the universe.
(continued) However, most of these theories have been rejected on the basis that experiments have been done that would be sensitive enough to detect the changes that would be required for these theories. While thinking of alternative theories, I would encourage you to watch the videos on the properties of light to see how we measure these redshifts and how we know that they at least can depend on the relative motion between the source and the observer.
That's exactly right and there are actually a number of galaxies and dwarf galaxies that are moving towards us, most notably the Andromeda galaxy. For all of these galaxies, the magnitude of the blue-shift is quite small (compared to the large redshifts you get from galaxies >100Mpc away) and they are all relatively close to us, so the gravitational attraction between the Milky Way and these galaxies is enough to overcome the expansion of the universe on these relatively small scales.
This theory doesn't make the assumption that we are the center of the universe. It only assumes that on very large scales the universe is uniform (check the big bang assumptions video) which, from observation, it really seems to be. A consequence of this is that from ANY point in the universe you would see all of the galaxies moving away from you in this same characteristic way. It does not mean you are at the center of the universe or even that the universe HAS a center.
However, if we keep rewinding, we get to the point where the universe is both dense and small, small enough that quantum effects come into play. Unfortunately we don't (yet) have a theory that properly connects quantum mechanics and general relativity, so can't predict what would happen in this situation. Quantum gravity and string theories are two attempts to merge these two fields, but there isn't enough observational evidence (yet) to say which one is correct (or at least closer) (continued)
In the early universe the energy density was so high that matter and anti-matter would spontaneously be produced (similar to in particle accelerators, there's that weird quantum world again) and that eventually annihilated as the universe cooled, leaving that bit of normal matter leftover. By measuring the number of CMB photons (the afterglow of the big bang) and measuring the differences between matter and antimatter in accelerator experiments we can find how much of each must have been around
Is there some test to differentiate between:
1. redshift due to expansion of the Universe, from
2. redshift due to photon's loss of energy due to its gravitational interactions with masses along the light's path?
Maciej Jakub Bańkowski Hello Maciej. I am not a physicist but I hope you don't mind me trying to answer. You are right that gravity can affect the energy (and hence, wavelength) of an electomagnetic wave. For instance if earth were in a gravitational well, all light coming in would be blueshifted as it falls into the well and gains energy. In the case of other galaxies, the redshift of their radiation occurs in every direction and depends on the distance between earth and the galaxy. That would require a gravitational anomaly on a universal scale -- which is what the expansion of space really is! (Because gravity is the shape of space-time.)
live2learn sorry, not buying it. IMHO when a light-path gets curved due to gravity there is a transfer of energy in the system. Current theories postulate that the energy transfer is carried by gravitons. I do not know, maybe it is, maybe it isn't.
I postulate only this: light that gets deflected from a straight line gets redder as it loses a tiny part of energy. I think this can be tested in a lab with sufficiently precise measurements.
Maciej Jakub Bańkowski Just so we are clear on one point: Einstein's theory was that light travels a curved path because space-time ITSELF is being curved, rather than the light being pulled on. That is why the earth spins in an elliptical around the sun without losing energy: It is traveling a straight path through curved space-time. Light would follow the same orbit as the earth if it were traveling at the same speed. In Newtonian theory light is massless and not manipulated by gravity.
So light traveling in curved space does not gain or lose energy. But gravity can cause a redshift or blueshift due to relative time dilation.
+Maciej Jakub Bańkowski The simple answer Is The curvature of space is effected by Gravity so yes it will effect it as the light bent round say a Galaxy would travel further than light coming in a straight line through the galaxy and further means more time spent expanding so more red shift. Don't know how to test the difference though I guess you would need to calculate the exact path of the light. And even if this effect is minute it is still a effect none the less. =) I got a D in GCSE science btw so don't take it as fact he he.
The redshift (z = lambda_obs - lambda_emit / lambda_emit) is actually dimensionless. The redshift velocities (v = zc) are generally quoted in km/s but this could be converted to any other units of velocity that you wanted. In Hubble's Law (v = H*d) the velocities are generally in km/s and d is in megaparsecs (Mpc) so the Hubble constant H is in units of km/s/Mpc (kind of strange units)
(second comment) you're exactly right. When Hubble first measured the redshift of galaxies and found a value for H he was off by about a factor of 8, because the distance measurements to the galaxies were off by a similar amount. Better distance measurements led to a more accurate value of H, but how do we know this one is right? Well in the past couple decades, new (and more importantly independent) methods of measuring H have been found and currently, most agree to within about 10% or so.
The data is from relatively nearby galaxies. The light from these galaxies has only been traveling for a few ten million years. Quasars are much farther away (1000s of Mpc) so their light was emitted a few billion years ago. The rate of expansion of the universe has changed over time so for these very distant sources the universe was expanding at a different rate when the light was emitted which causes the redshift graph to become nonlinear. This is how we found the universe is accelerating.
you're a lifesaver, thank you so much!
This is a great question that (unfortunately) we don't have a good answer for yet. Much of our understand of the big bang comes from understanding general relativity and how space-time can curve and change on large scales. We take this and say "we see this universe around us. Let's take our theory and predict what must have been before that would lead to the universe we see" and in this way we sort of "rewind" the evolution of the universe and see this initial hot dense state (the big bang)
What if it is intrinsic property of light to increase its wavelength as it travels just like what was shown in the graph? I mean, what if the increase of wavelength is caused by light travelling and not caused by the object moving at a faster rate? How sure are we that light's wavelength doesn't change as it travels great distances?
Good question. In fact, when the original redshift measurements were made by Hubble (the person not the telescope), this exact thing was proposed as an alternate explanation; a class of theories called "tired light" theories. Over time many issues have turned up with these theories (scattering effects which could cause the wavelength of light to increase over time would cause distance objects to be blurrier than they are, the surface brightness of distant galaxies would be different than what we actually observe, and other issues). Once the cosmic microwave background was discovered, which matched perfectly with the properties of an expanding universe but caused a host of problems for cosmological theories based on the tired light theory, that was pretty much the nail in the coffin for tired light theories.
So I'm no mathematician or anything, but just curious; if objects are expanding and moving away from us, are there some moving faster than the speed of light? If so, does that mean we can't see them?
I understand that doppler red shift is different to cosmological red shift. Why doesn't light get red shifted due to both doppler red shift AND cosmological red shift? So the actual expansion of the universe may be slower if some of the red shift is caused by doppler effect!
Okay, you are correct that these things are so far away that we can't take a tape measure and see how the space between us and nearby galaxies may (or may not) be changing. However, my honest question to you, is what other mechanism could be causing these redshifts that are so well correlated across the sky and with distance? There have been theories that, as time goes on, the laws of physics very gradually change causing stars that are more distant to seem to emit different frequency light...
that longer wavelength must come with a few shortcuts built in so that the photon travels a longer distance in the same amount of time, without violating the light speed barrier. it's either that or one of our many assumptions is mistaked
Hi there this video has helped me an awful lot! thank you so much! for the clear explanation, just to clarify, is km/s the units to redshift, and redshift is the measure of speed of stars and galaxies right? and these speeds are proportional to the distance?:) ohh an another question What can the redshift of stars and galaxies tell us? is it to tell us that the universe is expanding continuously forever? why is that so significant to us? Thanks I'm just so anxious
thank you very much sir..u clear all my doubts..and i love the way you explain..it makes it look all so easy.i am eagerly waiting for the videos that you told u'll make on quantum mechanics. thank you again..
large hot stars are very short lived. As they grow older they grow redder.
How do we know that they are moving away from us rather than those stars being older. ie the red shift is nothing to do with movement.
Also how do we know that that the initial calculations for hubbles constant are correct? If this is even slightly wrong it would make a massive difference over the huge distances involved.
if the big bang started all this that means there is no constant force acting on everything so how can the galaxies go faster and faster if no force is acting on them to cause that?
+Mickael Barker simples space is pushing them apart magic dark energy bra =)
Nar but it could be something to do with the increased energy being pumped into space from stars in the form of em waves. But then i guess they wouldn't be expanding to if that was the case maybe Hawkings radiation, Maybe it is still expanding from the initial blast from the big bang and is increasing as whatever it's expanding into is getting easy'er to travel through, maybe it is getting sucked apart from the outside =) Maybe the mathmagician's are wrong and it's actually collapsing or fixed in size. So many questions who knows lol Good Question though I would like to know that to.
Q: If there would be a
redshift because of the distance, then galaxies that are moving away seem to
move away with increasing speed?
Or not?
The data that I've shown here is not enough to show that an individual galaxy is accelerating away from us. In order to see that effect you need to look at the redshift of even more distant objects (generally type Ia supernovae). A good way to interpret the data that is shown here is that the further away a galaxy is: the further in the past its light must have been emitted (since light travels at a finite speed). The further in the past the light was emitted, the most the Universe has expanded from that time, stretching the wavelengths of light with it (causing a greater redshift). The pattern that we see in more distant galaxies having a greater redshift matches what we would expect from an expanding Universe.
Halton Arp, period !
So the galaxy far away from uswould be traveling away from us at that speed in the early ages ofnthe universe, because the photons take so long to get here. Does this mean an alternative to the universe expanding could be that everything is slowing down after initialy moving away from eachother?
Even as he is specifically talking about COSMOLOGICAL redshift, he relates redshift to velocity as : cZ = V. This is an approximation of the Relativistic DOPPLER Redshift for Z
The distance measurements in that graph come from independent measurements (check out the cosmic distance ladder videos). If the universe were not expanding and this redshift was purely from the proper motion of the galaxies, it would be an incredible coincidence that that the farther they are the faster they are receding.
Other than Doppler shift, cosmological redshift, and gravitational redshift I don't know any other ways to get redshift. Do you have any links describing this Plasma Redshift?
Hubble's quantum law states that a photon's frequency decreases with each new wave oscillation by a quantum amount equal to the Hubble constant, which is being observed as a redshift. To determine by how much the frequency of the photon has decreased, the Hubble constant must be multiplied by the number of the committed oscillations that is completely consistent with the results obtained by the modern method of the "standard candles".
A report in MSU: alemanow.narod.ru/hubbles.htm
If what we called antimatter would have been left over, in everyday experience it would make no difference. Anti-atoms would form and anti-Earth would be populated by anti-people. But they would just say that they were made of matter and what we are used to is the anti-matter. The only problems come up when matter and anti-matter meet and annihilate, so I wouldn't recommend shaking the hand of an anti-person (even though I'm sure they would be perfectly decent people)
thank you very much...and i have heard that in one theory,they say that before the universe started, there was matter and antimatter..and both these matter and antimatter collided,,so both got cancelled and because the matter compared to antimatter was a little bit (i really don't knw how much) more, the matter that survived it became the whole universe we know right now.ok, then if(just for instance) the antimatter particle was more than matter ,would the whole universe (continued)...
So if there are galaxies moving towards us, are they experiencing blueshift?
The universe expantion is decreasing ! What they not put in the calculation is that the redshift data ( the photons ) are a delay particle from the past. And here it shows a reverse diagram for redshift, which causes a reverse and wrong conclusion that the universe is expanding.
I like your videos a lot.You said Zed; are you Canadian?
so the universe expands faster than light speed? I see numbers much higher than 300km/s on the chart.
Really cool Video but I have a question. Is the wavelength of the light increased because it is stretched with the universe as it expands or does it fall into the relativity bug that everything in the universe seems to have and the wavelength is only increased relative to us because of the difference in motion ?
ok..i have seen ur viedos,,its awesome !! it helps me a lot ! i m 14 yr old...and i have great interest in astronomy...soi have a question that's confusing me..well,scientists say that the big bang happened..i accept..but before the big bang,there was nothing..no space,no time,,nothing 1..well how could this be possible ? how could something just come out of nothing and make up the whole universe ? well even the 1st quark has have came from a source or something might have produced it..
Is the the song Gulik uses as intro song in his MineCraft videos? #GulikArmy
Galaxies of the distant past should be closer together than those of the present. But they measure about the same. Why?
Vernon Brown Are you referring to the distance between galaxies that are very far away?
Imagine a small circle with the earth at the center, and two distant galaxies next to one another on the perimeter of the circle. The two galaxies shoot light rays toward earth at the center, and these rays are two radii of the circle. Now grow the entire circle in scale, just like the universe. Let's say you make it 2x larger. As a circle grows, the angles on the circle do not change. The two outside galaxies will still have the same angular distance. But they will now be twice as far from one another (the arc distance along the circle grew) as they were when the light left them. To us on earth, staring down the radii to the two outer planets, the planets appear in the correct position as they are today, with the true arc distance, but will appear younger in age.
jboi
It will be true only when earth is the center of the expansion and earth itself doesn't move. In any other cases we should see closer distant galaxies. Or maybe scientists do believe that earth is the center of the universe.
Gulik Army! Best ever, thanks for teaching. I call FaZe Gulikkk
(continued)- be the real same as now but just the opposite of it ? or the universe might have had some fluctuations and and what if the universe did not come into existence and just all the particles and all freely floating in space..? (this s just for instance)..
The first 4 minutes are wrong. Or upside down. You are saying "the universe is expanding, thus the light is shifted red". You just cannot. You need to go like this: "the light is shifted red, thus ... "
And the "thus" can be expansion of the universe or something else...
The portion of the video after that explains that the expansion is of 70.4 m/s per megaparsec. Fine. But that is only 0.023% of the speed of light, which is 300,000 km/s.
In other words, such a minor variation could well be the caused by something else, given that it is so minimal.
I am not a defender of the redshift theory and the Hubble expansion of the universe. That explanation needs the universe to be absolute vacuum, where the light does not lose in wavelength over time.
The theory of "tired light", indicates that when light travels through a denser transparent medium, the wavelength expands. And for this, all it takes in the explanation that the universe is not a complete vacuum. Even infinitesimally low density of matter allows for a lengthening of the wavelength. And this can well be that the wavelength of light expands by 0.023% per megaparsec ?
Or is it something else ? Not the expansion of the universe ? Neither the non-absolute vacuum of the universe ?
I am happy to debate this.
Here is the example of the cyclist:
If you are traveling with a bicycle from A to B, say 30 km, on a given day, you clock a time of say 3600 seconds.
The next day you clock 3600 seconds + 0.023% = 3600.828 seconds.
Which variable caused this ?
The wind ? The position on your bike ? The air temperature ? The air humidity ? The air pressure ? A curve you didn't have a good trajectory on ? The fact that you slept not so well ? Your food ? Your digestion ? The oil on the cogs ? You tightened your shoe laces too much and felt cramps in your calves ? Or your mental disposition (your wife just pissed you off and you went out for a ride) ?
Or an expansion of the road from 30,000 meters to 30,006.90 meters (expansion of +0.023%).
Or a combination of the above ?
I hate to bug you. But the good defenders of the old Edwin Hubble Theory on expansion need to produce a much more solid explanation.
If you are good defender of the expansion in an absolute vacuum universe, I am happy to debate this.
is every galaxy in our local cluster, few 10's of million light years in size, blue shifted?
is every galaxy in our super cluster, several 100's of million light years in size, blue shifted?
why did hubble intentionally observe the galaxies that are not in our super cluster to call it a red shift? it would make much more sense to see the blue shifting galaxies first and talk about it, at least with those old telescopes that they had.
The redshift evidecence is not as strong as this video tries to imply.
Neither is that how dopplers efect works.
The red shift evidence is just as strong as implied. In the big bang scenario, one expects the redshift will increase with the distance to the source, and it does. It's pretty hard to see how this is not as strong evidence as claimed.
Also, he has not described the red shift due to the doppler effect: he has used the correct origin of the cosmological redshift which is the metric expansion of space, i.e. the stretching of space. Considering that he _could_ have plumped for the intuitive, but wrong, doppler shift explanation he has done very well.
teddansonLA Oh ok, have allways been told that it was due to dopplers effect. But that makes sence.
The quasars and their vicibility, highly breaks against the smothness of the hubble parameter.
Supernovae redshift violates the theoretical expectations.
***** supernovae redshifts support theoretical arguments. In this very video there is an excellent example. The video really is extremely good; you should re-watch it if you remain unconvinced.
teddansonLA Supernovae observations shows a redshift, which is interpreted as if the universe is accelerating in its expansion. It violates against the model, rendering mainstream cosmologists with out any valid model for the observeble universe.
THat is you interpreting the evidence in a contrary way to what professional cosmologists do. Why should I believe you?
You are assuming many things with this theory. How can tell if the universe is expanding are our planets moving away from each other? See space would need to expand in all directions and we don't see that in our observation so you must be wrong. Red shift may be something totally different. It may just be time stretches light as it travels. Prove to me that we are moving thru space. You can't all you can prove is something is moving, Not what is moving. I think your idea is incorrect. It's just my opinion. but when you use terms like best estimate, seem to me, etc it doesn't sound too sure to me. Answer the basic questions how are planets made, why do some have magnetic fields some don't, where did the moon come from. Who wrote our dna? Where does information come from? Face it we don't know what we think we know. We have a lot to learn. If you are wrong and I think you are, it would mean there was no big bang. Remember this is just a theory and nothing more. No evidence available at this time.
Well there's a lot in here but let me try a response.
In the video I talk about the redshift of different galaxies and how all galaxies outside our own local group all seem to have their light redshifted. It's the same basic effect of how the sound of a passing ambulance changes as it passes by you, but just for light. The pattern of all galaxies moving away from us (in all directions so we do see that in our observations) and that more distant galaxies are more redshifted exactly matches the pattern you would expect in an expanding universe.
You're technically right that redshift may be something completely different, and for quite a while in the 1930's - 50's this was greatly debated. However, the expanding universe model also led to the discovery of the cosmic microwave background, and observations of the elements present in the earliest galaxies also match the predictions of the big bang theory. So multiple lines of evidence that all match with the same idea seems like it should be fairly convincing.
Also, you don't seem to understand the use of the term "theory" in the scientific sense. A hypothesis isn't considered a theory until it has already successfully explained all of the available data, and has also been thoroughly tested and passed every critical test of its validity. The big bang theory has so far done this. Doesn't mean we understand everything, but it is by far the best idea we currently have.
As for your list of questions (none of which have anything to do with the big bang theory), let me give it a quick try. These are going to be quick simplifications and I'll be omitting details out of time. We also don't have full understandings, but just because we don't know everything for sure doesn't mean we don't know quite a bit:
Planet formation: As a cloud of gas and dust is pulled in by gravity to make a star, it generally has a bit of spin, which causes a bit of the gas and dust to form a disk around the forming star. Bits of material in the disk gradually get pulled together by gravity to make planets.
Magnetic fields: Is the planet large enough that its core still has the heat leftover from formation to have a partially liquid core to generate the magnetic field
Moon: Probably the early Earth being impacted by another large body, and the debris formed the Moon. (lots of things colliding in that disk around the forming star)
DNA: Who is a bad way of asking the question. It implies intention from an agent when that's not necessarily the case. We don't know how the first self replicating molecules formed (currently being studied) but once you get any self replicating molecule that will sometimes have small changes during replication, then even though those changes are random, the random changes that make it better at replicating will produce more offspring and natural selection will start to do its thing. This may lead to a DNA strand that we think has information, but it's just a chemical that's gotten really good at reproducing.
Hope that answers your questions
@@PhysicistMichael a well though out cogent answer. Lets break it down.
Red shift - time may tell.
Theory - using available data you make a guess I understand this - but it is still a guess until it is proved and now a law to explain what is observed is used. I understand I am an electrician by trade.
There are laws for electrical theory that prove the theory is probable correct.
Planet formation how can you have a gravitational force with no mass. Dust doesn't have enough mass to attract other dust. It doesn't make sense and if the gas and dust was moving that makes it harder to attract as well. Face it we don't know how a planet forms.
As for the moon, once again we don't know but the way science talks we have it all figured out. That's all I am saying. Is we have a lot to learn.
I myself am a creationist and though you think dna is just a chemical chain, it's impossible to just arbitrarily come together as you suggest. Mathematically this just doesn't work. I am also a builder and understand that nothing can be built without a blueprint. NOTHING! Irreducible complexity. also the big bang, to believe that everything came from nothing is just nuts. In my humble opinion. Thanks for the thought exchange. I enjoy it when we can converse about things we may never know the answer to but continue to search. May all our question be answered.
@@ravynej I'm going to try to focus my answers back on the topic of the video and what scientists mean by theory. I will point you to some resources for the other parts, but I'm not an expert on some of those other topics (the biology part) and don't have time to do the research to give fully referenced answers. If you want, I can compile some resources for you later, but I think going into more detail about what a theory is will be critical. In this response please know that I don’t intend this to be condescending in any way, you seem like a decent person (I’ve received much more hostile comments and I don’t bother with longer responses for those), and I have no intent to directly attack any religious beliefs that you may have (the purpose of my channel is to just offer some of the scientific evidence and ideas behind these topics).
Let's go back to what a theory is first. A scientific theory is an explanation for some phenomena that has passed every critical test of its validity. If it can't be tested, it's not scientific. If it hasn't been rigorously tested yet, it's a hypothesis. If it has failed any tests, it must be modified or rejected. The more it is tested (and passes those tests), the stronger the theory. At no point does it graduate into a law. A law is a mathematical description of a phenomena; basically the pattern some system follows under certain conditions. They're different (though often linked) things that both have to be rigorously tested to be accepted.
In science we don't talk about proof, for theories or for laws. The best we can do for theories or laws is offer as many possible ways of DISPROVING the claim as possible by offering as many ways to test the idea as possible. If the idea passes all those tests, then we have failed to disprove the idea, so the idea seems pretty good. If you don't have a way of testing the idea (if there is no outcome of any experiment or observation that you could make where you'd say, okay, my idea was wrong) then it's not scientific.
For example, in the video I literally talk about Hubble’s Law, which is the mathematical relationship between the distance to different galaxies and how much redshift we see in its light. We see that this pattern holds true no matter what direction you look in, and it’s been observed for over 90 years, from the observations of Hubble (the astronomer) in the 1930’s (astro.unl.edu/naap/distance/hubbles_law.html) to observations from the Hubble Space Telescope (www.cfa.harvard.edu/~dfabricant/huchra/hubble/hubble.key.summary.jpg). The best (most thoroughly tested) explanation for this pattern comes from the Big Bang Theory, since it is also a direct consequence of applying the theory of general relativity to the Universe as a whole, and has successfully predicted the existence of the cosmic microwave background, the composition of primordial gas clouds via primordial nucleosynthesis, the large scale structure of the Universe, and other observed phenomena. These are some of the successful tests have resulted in most of the scientific community considering the Big Bang Theory really the only currently viable theory on how the Universe has changed over its history. The odds that the Big Bang Theory would lead to all of these successful predictions of new phenomena with such accuracy purely by accident is incredibly small, so while we still don’t know everything about the earliest moments of the Big Bang (during the Planck time) it doesn’t mean that we can’t describe with great accuracy the general properties of the Universe up to that incredibly early time.
So when you say “time may tell” about redshift, I’m wondering which aspect you’re referring to. The observed pattern of redshift and distance? We’ve measured both for many thousands of galaxies and at the redshift of millions. The explanation of this pattern via an expanding Universe? You’d either need to identify a new test or observation that directly contradicts the predictions of the Big Bang or come up with an alternate theory that not only explains the redshift, but also all of the other things the Big Bang explains (CMB, primordial nucleosynthesis, large scale structure, etc.) Currently there are no other theories that I know of that match all of those tests in a way that is potentially falsifiable.
Vibrating sinusoidal Spherical Wavefronts of Only Spiral Motion always transverse One Unit of Space Now -1 per One Unit of Time Dilation. . ..Or Entangling Energy Input +1=0 now -1 unfolding 2pi Spiral Radians 360 degrees from A to B.. . .Therefore is no spooky action in between You and Me.. . .At the positive surface of a negative expanding light sphere compressing the wave amplitude higher frequency photons +1=0 now -1 have shorter expanding spiral wavelengths 360 degrees.. . .And therefore, the time period will slow down relative to the perspective of an outside observer billions of light years away, who sees longer spiral wavelengths 360 degrees first.. . .Simply because the greater the Energy Compression, or mass the shorter the expanding spiral wavelengths, and the time period relative to the perspective of an outside observer.. . .Time is inverse multiplying energy compression +1=0 now -1 dividing expansion like frequency and wavelength.. . .As the frequency gets higher the Planck's constant will be multiplied by a larger rate and the time period will slow down relative to the perspective of an outside observer.. . . Relative to their Own Energy Compression=Mass now. de-compressing expansion C2 as time unfolds into the future.. . .And therefore we can all look back in time at the beauty of the Star's. . ..Absorbing that information +1=0 now we can see them, as they were in the past from when those light waves were emitted.. . .independent of the motion of their source's.. . .Everything is formed by a surrounding 4pi Spherical inward absorption +1=0 now -1 outward emission of electromagnetic waves.. . .All motion is 2pi Spiral.. . .And all 3D directions are 4pi Spherically curved thus : individual input +1=0 now -1 output Wave Centres of photon energy E=hf are everywhere relative to an infinite future of potential possibilities, shaped rather like onions relative only to their frequency f continuously coming into +1=0 now -1 out of existence, forming the total oscillating amplitude of Sine Wavefronts at each and every point of space compressing energy +1=0 now -1 de-compressing Two Opposing Spiral Vortices, or contracting +1=0 now - 1 expanding Virtual Pair's Spiralling out of existence.. . . Therefore visible light is just an added pressure condition to a wave medium that is already there continuously coming into +1=0 now -1 out of existence.. . .Rather like the zeros and ones of a computer screen, with the Planck's constant h continuously forming a blank canvas that we can interact with turning the possible into the actual.
like als je dit kijkt door gulik
like if gulik brought u here
***** Like if your a nineties kid
#GulikArmy
***** #TruNinetiesTruSwag
broke the replay button