Radio waves aren't sound waves. Sound is defined as a group of atoms/particles within a conected medium that vibrate... Radio waves are a classification of electromagnetic waves. They are coherent (unlike sound) and are often bellow 300 gigahertz with a wavelength greater than one millimeter... This video is great for entertainment but lacks some truth to the information it provides. Please do your research before taking in such information!
Wow I was gonna ask in this comment section if sound can't travel in a vacuum then how do we pick up radio waves. As soon as I was gonna type it I seen your explanation. Thank you
There's an awful lot of pseudo-science, -medicine and -diet 'information' on the web, particularly ones challenging accepted views of the world, including 'conspiracy theories' along the lines of "They don't want you to know this but..." - maybe generated by foreign agents to spread confusion and distrust? Unless you know your stuff, it's best to avoid anything that doesn't have a clearly real life human talking to camera but even if the narration isn't AI generated it doesn't mean the content has any veracity at all.
The commentator says that the Webb Telescope found very old galaxies at the furthest distances visible to it. This is false, being an ad hoc interpretation of the data. What it actually found was fully formed galaxies that were inconsistent with current theories of how long galaxies take to grow to maturity. Being so rich in stars and well-formed does NOT necessarily imply that they had to be old - too old for their distance away. It could mean that galaxies at first developed for some reason much more quickly than nearby galaxies do. A possible reason is that the gravitational constant varies with cosmic time, so that gravity was much stronger in the very early universe, causing stars and galaxies to form much faster.
@Prashant-ci7vsYou don't have to have answers to everything when putting out a theory. It helps, but it's not a requirement, someone else can add to it or debunk it.
@Prashant-ci7vs Not in this case, his theory is about why Galaxies formed so quickly after the big bang. Gravitational Constant would be an entire different work and doesn't need to be proved or disproved in this specific theory.
Check out the Cosmic Web… it is mind blowing. Even more is our galaxy Cluster Laniakea is just 1 of Trillions, and inevitably being sucked into a blackhole so unfathomably large.
We are nothing, A spec of dust, 70 to 100 years is a blink of an eye in universe time. Live your life each day like it could be your last and try not to think about it too much. Enjoy the beauty of it all. I love Nebulas ❤️.
@@justanotheryoutubechannel3102 your comment 👍🏽 gave me an idea for a great question to ask google Gemini AI, the answer was pretty interesting. Here’s the question I used below. If a given that Warp 10 is the maximum speed attainable in the "Star Trek" universe, representing infinite speed. It allows for instantaneous travel across vast distances. Theoretically speaking then if traveling at infinite speed would one cross an infinite distance immediately collapsing the universe? The answer was pretty lengthy, but as for collapsing the universe it said “maybe” you should try it if you’re interested! 🖖🏽
Radio waves are not sound waves and therefore radio telescopes do NOT hear! They pick up the very long wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum that we call radio. Telescopes are designed for certain parts of the electromagnetic spectrum. For example, your standard optical telescope picks up the wavelengths of the visible wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum or what we call visible light. The Hubble telescope picks up visible and near infrared while JWST is optimized for the infrared.
so the vast majority of matter is speeding away faster than the speed of light then you cannot know if it exists but i guess you must know probably happened on a wednesday about 10 am 415673479 million years ago just before i had a cuppa
The problem with us humans is we factor in “time” to any equation we make. The Big Bang theory implies that back in time something went bang. Take away time and the theory collapses
@@lottiemastiff9807 Right? The scientific community does not want to credit a Belgian priest for the greatest insight in cosmology. How ironic, given how they have sworn off creationism as a scientific taboo. So I guess they sweep it under the rug wherever possible. However, Roger Penrose is trying to put cracks in the cosmic egg.
Einstein believed in an infinite and eternal universe. Theories that arise from our perception that expansion is a result of a sudden existence of all matter at a single point may be entirely wrong. With all our knowledge, we just don't know.
That's right. It's all based on straightforward extrapolation based on ceteris paribus. A whole lot of questionable assumptions and inferences rolled out like pretty carpet. We just don't know. It's the best guess we can make at present given the limited information we have. But, cool story, bro...
A “singularity” is a mathematical concept where our math does not compute. It is thus an abstract concept, and not a physical entity which exists - as an example, in a Black Hole. Our math and physics break down when describing parts of a Black Hole - so the singularity is a mathematical / physical konsequence.
There are different kinds of black hole mainly stellar mass and supermassive. In supermassive black holes, gravitational forces are not enough to spaghettify and rip apart objects that fall in, so quite delicate structures and materials can exist inside them. The universe is a black hole, because nothing, not even light can escape, but as we can see, delicate structures and materials can exist within it until it finally collapses into a big crunch.
Well there're two ways to interpret that, and two responses. If you find it difficult to follow, don't worry, it is gibberish and trying to understand it - trying to put it into the context of what you already know - would leave you even more confused now and when you watch any factual videos on this topic. If you know about the topic, then I guess you mean you can't comprehend why the hell the creator would make a video containing gibberish like this. Maybe the creator is deliberately using misinformation to confuse?
Well, it's very muddled and disjointed, so impossible to neatly categorize and "understand". Don't worry about it. Appreciate and enjoy life as. we find it
Just because they say scientific things confidentialy doesn’t mean they understand it either. Your one of the few people to be honest which makes you the best scientist
I have never heard of these voids before, it is very interesting. It almost appears as oil floating in water, this would indicate the void formation retains a higher viscosity in desinsity than the surrounding matter,the free-form perimeter may also discount a super nova extinction. It also maybe a portal of a fluid nature in seeking opportunity into another dimension.
Any reference to “sound” is an error. Electromagnetic waves, regardless for wawelength, is fundamentally different from sound, which requires a medium to propagate - be that solid or a gas.
Dude radio waves aren't "sound" its the same thing as light just at different wavelengths and frequencies. "Sound" is pressure waves through a medium. Solid, liquid, gas, plasma. Sound doesn't really travel through the vacuum of space. Or at least it hasn't since things got spread out enough.
What I struggle with is our perception of our own point of reference. Where are we in the time continuum ? Near the start, in the middle or on the leading edge as we expand? Are we possibly someone else’s past?
There are some things within our realm of understanding that we are not meant to know, and that's totally ok. Sadly, however, as human's we cannot and will not accept that, thus keep pushing to know more.
If there was a big bang, then what existed before the blue touch paper was ignited? There must have been something……… ahhh, forget it it is beyond my ability to comprehend infinity, even now it makes me uncomfortable to even consider the concept
Everything is potential, a state of becoming. There is the Neil Turok documentary about the mirror universe and how the big bang essentially created a second arrow of time. So it's more like the middle then the beginning. Like Jesus on the cross.
Nothingness can create something because there are no laws within it telling it not to make something therefor anything is possible and eventually inevitable
Could I be right in saying there is no beginning and no end. I'm not an educated man but surely it's a case that we can't actually get our understanding around this subject.
Reheating is thought to have created matter after inflation which caused the Big Bang. We do not know the initial conditions at the start of inflation or what began the quantum field, however.
No point in arguing how many angels dance on a pin. Just agree to disagree, whatever you want to believe or not believe. After all its only a belief until proven otherwise.
Clusters are aggregating while mostly '' moving '' away from each others. A fact most fail to take in account is that expanding space-time is equal everywhere and it is the space between 2 atoms that is widening. Which means matter is mostly where it was at the beginning, only disturbed by gravitional pull of massive amount of matter like the Great Attractor. Hope this help.
How do you see an emptiness that was filled with later galaxies. And if there is a void, it is either a super expanded blackhole or a place that is missed in the expansion.
if we came from a singulairity, that existed in "nothing" what made the singularity? Our scientists are biased with he idea of a beginning and an end because that's how our little world exists. I don't know the answers, but I think there has always been a universe, maybe our universe came from a singularity within an older universe in which we are ultimately inside of, or part of.. fun to think about!
Well DUHHH - if the energy has not had enough time to travel to where Webb can sense it then yes it will appear to be a void. It is not really a void. Just a limitation of Webb's ability.
Fascinating! But could this 'void' really confirm Einstein's prediction? It's interesting to think that the expansion of the universe might be preventing us from seeing the true beginning. What if these voids are just gaps in our understanding rather than literal emptiness?
Does there really needs to be a beginning? I believe the universe has always been and always be. Our limited minds can't comprehend this, doesn't mean it's not true.
My understanding is that galaxies are all moving away from each other. This would not occur if there was a "big bang' where everything is moving away from a point. More likely is that particles of matter randomly disappear from where matter exists and appears where it does not. Like inflating and deflating balloons in a swimming pool. I think over time something like our universe would appear - all through randomness. Please someone write a computer program to simulate this to test if I am right.
@@OOTurok@OOTurok Big Bang - " The big bang is how astronomers explain the way the universe began. It is the idea that the universe began as just a single point, then expanded and stretched to grow as large as it is right now-and it is still stretching! " "The Hubble Law states that distant objects are receding from us at a rate proportional to their distance" - which occurs when there is uniform expansion in all directions. This implies a history where everything was closer together." This is not consistent with the theory of expansion from a single point. it IS consistent with everything moving away from everything else objects further from the centre in a direct line from us would not be travelling away from US as those at the same distance but at right angles to that direction. Explain why I am wrong instead of making snide comments.
@@andrewjenkinson7052 Hubble's Law does NOT demonstrate uniform expansion. It literally demonstrates the opposite. It states that the further a galaxy is from 1 galaxy, the faster that galaxy moves away from that galaxy. This demonstrates that the greater the distance is between galaxies... the faster the rate of cosmic expansion is between those galaxies. . Hubble's Law also demonstrates that the galaxies are NOT moving away from a central point. They are all moving away from each other. Galaxies in galactic clusters are moving away from each other more slowly, & galaxies from other clusters are moving away from other clusters more rapidly. This is does NOT invalidate Big BangTheory, because space is NOT linear, & is expanding in 4 dimensions on 4 axies. Read what Hubble's Law says, instead of only reading the 1st sentence of Hubble's Law from the Google search results, & filling in the rest with your personal assumptions. Otherwise your comments amounts to being nothing more than a strawman.
@@OOTurokplease read what I said. Nowhere did I say anything about uniform expansion. You are repeating what I said using different words. If the Big Bang did not originate from a single point, how many points did it originate from? My hypothesis covers that, and also covers a Big Bang or a steady state. Blow up a balloon at a uniform rate and a point on its surface travels further in the same time as it did when the balloon was smaller. A further distance in a fixed time is usually described as an increase in speed. What do you call it. You may have read a lot but your comprehension does not appear to have kept pace. Do the experiment I suggest and we will settle whether or not my hypothesis is a better description of how our universe behaves than any other. Apply laws to randomness and it can become less random.
Just because our lives have a beginning and end, doesn't mean everything does. The "big bang" theory only proves how limited our understanding really is. Imagine an always was and always will be.
We'll never see past it because due to the expanding of space, that far out the galaxies are traveling faster than the speed of light from our point of observation.
At an earlier time everything started out as Hydrogen. Eventually it all coalesced into denser concentrations. Fusing together and forming everything we see and feel here today for a blip of an eternity.
@@a.k.a.billthebusboy1996 it’s sounds like you’re saying that they’re seeing something that’s always been there it’s like making a new discovery but not technically looking into the past
@@tonymontez2358 When you look at a person a few feet away, you believe you're seeing them as they are in that very instant. And in fact, that's very close to the truth because light takes so little time to reach your eyes after reflecting off their faces and bodies. Also, sound reaches your ears at almost the same time that everything just seems to "sync up". Nothing to spoil the illusion. Now, think of lightning bolts. You notice the light from the bolt appears first, but the sound, called thunder, has a delay before you can sense it. This is because sound travels a lot slower than light. What do you think would happen if you were blindfolded and the only way you could discern the lightning hitting the earth was by sound? You'd actually be sensing it a few seconds after it actually happened. In essence, you'd be sensing an event (the lightning strike) as it happened in the past (a few seconds ago from your current time). I brought up sound as an illustration of how a signal can take time to communicate an event to your senses, in a way you should be able to relate to. But we don't have to talk about sound anymore. We now focus on light. In our common experience, light seems to propagate with no delay at all, but we know this is not true. It's very, very fast - in fact the fastest method of communication physically possible - but it is still finite in speed. At short distances it doesn't matter. But at longer distances, it does. The sun is 150 million km or about 92 million miles away from us. The sun's light takes about 8 minutes to reach our eyes on Earth. If something caused the Sun to go out right *now* (imagine me snapping my fingers), you would still be seeing the sun for a full eight minutes. You wouldn't even know anything was wrong for that time. In a sense, you can say that you're seeing the sun in the past. Eight minutes in the past, when it still existed. Only after that time would you know the bad news - the sun is dead, it died eight minutes ago. You should now be able to see the correlation between detecting an event a long distance away and the time it takes for that information to reach us. This is all that people mean when talking about seeing into the past. When seeing the sun, we're seeing its appearance 8 minutes in the past relative to the current moment we're experiencing. When we see the brightest star in the night sky (Sirius) using our naked eyes, we're seeing it as it was more than 8 years ago because light takes that long to reach us from Sirius. When we see the neighbouring galaxies through a simple amateur telescope, we're seeing them as they were tens to hundreds of thousands of years ago. The James Webb telescope is in space, orbiting the sun. It's in space rather than the ground for acquiring really clear images without distortion from the atmosphere. It's capable of detecting light (technically electromagnetic radiation) from visible red to infrared. Because it doesn't get affected by an atmosphere and it has proper shielding to protect it from the sun and reflected light from the Earth and Moon, it's able to sensitively detect light from very far away. This light from distant places has taken a very, very long time to reach us. And when we're detecting these very, very far away objects, we're also seeing them as they were a very, very long time ago, when light from them started making its outward journey, and then just happened to be picked up by our instrument (the space telescope). Essentially, any galaxies we spot from that far away are also going to be very early galaxies because of this correlation between distance of observation to the time it takes for the observation to register on our instrument. We have no way of seeing such objects as they are right now (in the 21st century), they could be long gone, in fact a lot of them are "dead". That's why we talk about seeing into the past, we're looking at them like old photos in an album.
For many years I have found it inconceivable the universe is only as big as we can see from telescopes. If space is empty beyond the visibility of our telescopes that is still part of the universe. But it seems to me rather egotistical to think what we can see is the only matter in the universe. I look at our history, in the 15th century people were convinced Earth was the center of the universe. It wasn't until smart men proved otherwise that we realized Earth wasn't the center of anything.
We don't know that there was nothing. All we know is that everything we see in this "visible universe" is expanding from that point. Small is relative too. As you said most of this is very new information. When my Grandmother was born we didn't know of atoms, of more than one galaxy, and that the universe was even expanding. Einstein, didn't even think that it was expanding for a long time. So as we learn more, and prove more, we will have to understand that reinterpreting the information is going to happen. And not get stuck in thinking that this is all static. I call this the "local news phenomena". Where we take one new bit of data or study and make a determinations from it. Local news takes every study and say it MAY means something, they have to do this to fill up their times between commercials. We, as the uneducated, should let the professionals integrate it into what they already know and keep being astonished that we got where we are so quickly.
Saying the universe has an edge or even saying it is infinite or endless puts a limit on space, But if you put space as limitless them you have no limit, beyond the our universe there is limitlessness ,but in the limitless there are other universes,and even those universes have limitless emptiness,that is forever limitless.
Is there less matter in the Universe today? Obviously matter is being converted into energy every moment. We can only "see" the matter that's in the process of converting matter into energy. How much matter has stopped converting matter into energy and has gone dark? Is all of the mass of all the energy ever converted being included when calculating the mass of the universe? If so, how is the mass of a stream of visible photons being calculated going back 14+ billion years?
imagine space as one big spit. the voids are the bubbles of air in the spit and the space between one droplet and the others. I believe, or rather, I fancy, that the big bang theory is almost right, only that it doesn't start from a singular point. It's more like a big loop, where this matter (space and all it's components) is spit out from a hoop and travels far and expands and makes a large u turn around the hoop and then goes back in the hoop to be spat out again in an endless cycle.
Another great mystery involving the possibility of the "Big Bang" theory which may never be resolved is the question of how can you get something out of nothing??
OK. I'm not well versed in science but how can this telescope supposedly see back in time? I get the light-years it takes for events to be seen here supposedly but how does a telescope see back a million years in only about 30 years time? If it takes millions of years for events that happened to reach here through speed of light then how does a telescope pick stuff up in only that 30 or however many years the telescope has been in existence? Wouldn't the same theory apply in sight? The sight using the telescope has to travel towards the object deep in space at the same exact speed of light?
All we know for sure is that there are literally hundreds of stars out there, and dozens of solar systems. With our ability to see a hundred million miles into space with James Webb telescope, we may never know what lies beyond the most distant objects we can see. We can only guess that beyond our galaxy, there may be another galaxy containing over 100 stars.
Wonderful video ! I love it so much . Thank you for sharing . I think that , there are most of habitable's planets , in the galaxies . But we cannot see them yet , because they are so far from our planet . Happy week to you !
The void could be what the universe is expanding into. We are seeing things we've never seen before and thus are having to find new theories. Galaxies at the very limit of what JWST can see SHOULD be there. The telescope is seeing what amounts to developed galaxies, not primordial ones with little/no structure.
The “Edge of The Universe” time-space curvature. The universe is expanding, space and time are expanding. The law of cause and effect, is a law. The universe (time, space, and mass) began 13.7 billion years ago. We now know that universe is 13.787 ±0.020 billion years. This has been checked, proven and measured with many tools and they all agree. It is not just space that came to be 13.787 billion years ago, but time also. The universe is finite and expanding.
If scale of sizes goes in both directions infinitely the thats just one more dimension. Time flops after entering black hole also has navigation and dimensional depth which lead to other thresholds where again physics as we know it shift then again and again.
On a different subject.Einstein said if he added electricity to his equations nothing worked.Cosmology and astro -physics are based on gravity.We have magnetic fields throughout the universe which require an electrical current to exist.We are part of one big electro magnetic life force.Our own bodies work on electricity.
Radio telescopes aren't listening for sound, like FM102.6. They detect electromagnetic radiation. Sound must have a medium to travel in. Space is void.
I’m pretty sure black holes aren’t created by a planet exploding. I believe they’re created when a planet collapses into itself and the resulting gravitational field becomes so great that it just Hoovers up anything that passes the event horizon. At least that was always my understanding 🤷♀️.
3:20 So "space" itself came into existence, only after the Big Bang....? Then what was there BEFORE the existence of "space/time"? It cannot be "nothing", because you cannot derive "something" from "nothing", unless "nothing" is just another form of "something".
Oh man... that universe edge we are talking abt is edge of the mega mega mega structure that we are living in... there would be multiple such universes... like galaxy to galaxy, you would find a void... conclusion: we can't reach our universe edge and of course we won't be able to go beyond and reach another universe
I'm not a scientist and I am an amateur astronomer in the strictest sense, but I have studied astronomy for the last four decades and have approximately twenty years of recorded observations with telescopes. So really I'm just a nobody. At 8:05 into this video I had to stop. Like most reporting in Cosmology the ultimate conclusion is about discovering E.T.
The reason we won't be able to see to the edge of the universe, is that there is no edge. Its size is infinite. So Einstein's prediction is disingenuous.
It. Is just crazy to talk about the beginning of the Universe or the beginning of time. This is a very limited outlook, because they cannot or are not able to comprehend the infinity. There is only infinity. Talking about the Bug Bang is just about trying to put the infinity into a box because they cannot think outside the box!
Voids and supervoids are weird. The universe has always been expanding faster than the speed of light. Just because we can't detect any light coming from those voids doesnt mean they're empty. It could mean that the light is traveling slower than the universe expanding. The comments are filled with people correcting you lol
Yeah, perhaps the CENTER of the Universe, if ſuch even exiſts, is an ever-expanding void of pure nothingneſs (ɯhere there is no matter or energy in exiſtence ɯhatsoever). And if that's ſo, then perhaps the Universe itself is chaocentric.
Radio waves aren't sound waves. Sound is defined as a group of atoms/particles within a conected medium that vibrate... Radio waves are a classification of electromagnetic waves. They are coherent (unlike sound) and are often bellow 300 gigahertz with a wavelength greater than one millimeter... This video is great for entertainment but lacks some truth to the information it provides. Please do your research before taking in such information!
Wow I was gonna ask in this comment section if sound can't travel in a vacuum then how do we pick up radio waves. As soon as I was gonna type it I seen your explanation. Thank you
I stopped watching when they said radio telescopes detected sound.
Yep.
There's an awful lot of pseudo-science, -medicine and -diet 'information' on the web, particularly ones challenging accepted views of the world, including 'conspiracy theories' along the lines of "They don't want you to know this but..." - maybe generated by foreign agents to spread confusion and distrust? Unless you know your stuff, it's best to avoid anything that doesn't have a clearly real life human talking to camera but even if the narration isn't AI generated it doesn't mean the content has any veracity at all.
Just typed a similar but less informed response to the video. Should have looked at the other comments first.
The commentator says that the Webb Telescope found very old galaxies at the furthest distances visible to it. This is false, being an ad hoc interpretation of the data. What it actually found was fully formed galaxies that were inconsistent with current theories of how long galaxies take to grow to maturity. Being so rich in stars and well-formed does NOT necessarily imply that they had to be old - too old for their distance away. It could mean that galaxies at first developed for some reason much more quickly than nearby galaxies do. A possible reason is that the gravitational constant varies with cosmic time, so that gravity was much stronger in the very early universe, causing stars and galaxies to form much faster.
@Prashant-ci7vsYou don't have to have answers to everything when putting out a theory. It helps, but it's not a requirement, someone else can add to it or debunk it.
It could also mean the speed of light is not a constant after all.
@Prashant-ci7vs Not in this case, his theory is about why Galaxies formed so quickly after the big bang. Gravitational Constant would be an entire different work and doesn't need to be proved or disproved in this specific theory.
El universo es infinito!
So what all this proves is they still don’t know.
True. Doesn't mean they're all wrong..
True, just mostly wrong, probably :)
yep and never will
Bleak attitude!😅
They really have no clue only their observations back in time. Where is the big bang.
I think Webb is showing us we are a small pocket universe in a larger structure so vast we haven't seen the light from it yet
Check out the Cosmic Web… it is mind blowing.
Even more is our galaxy Cluster Laniakea is just 1 of Trillions, and inevitably being sucked into a blackhole so unfathomably large.
Yes. We've only known this for 100 years.
We are nothing, A spec of dust, 70 to 100 years is a blink of an eye in universe time. Live your life each day like it could be your last and try not to think about it too much. Enjoy the beauty of it all. I love Nebulas ❤️.
Less than a small pocket
Infinity is non ending, Therefore it stands to reason that we will never reach it,
@@petercook4070 likewise one could say; we are experiencing personal moments of eternity…
that's because you haven't tried warp 10 to the power of 1
@@justanotheryoutubechannel3102 your comment 👍🏽 gave me an idea for a great question to ask google Gemini AI, the answer was pretty interesting.
Here’s the question I used below.
If a given that Warp 10 is the maximum speed attainable in the "Star Trek" universe, representing infinite speed. It allows for instantaneous travel across vast distances. Theoretically speaking then if traveling at infinite speed would one cross an infinite distance immediately collapsing the universe?
The answer was pretty lengthy, but as for collapsing the universe it said “maybe” you should try it if you’re interested!
🖖🏽
Radio waves are not sound waves and therefore radio telescopes do NOT hear! They pick up the very long wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum that we call radio. Telescopes are designed for certain parts of the electromagnetic spectrum. For example, your standard optical telescope picks up the wavelengths of the visible wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum or what we call visible light. The Hubble telescope picks up visible and near infrared while JWST is optimized for the infrared.
Some much bla bla what has been said already a thousand times. The same clips in every video.
Not worth wasting time.
And when there is no end ?
Watching this A.I. Video renewed some guy's faith in God. (-;
DID YOU REALLY JUST WASTE YOUR TIME COMMENTING THAT IT IS NOT WORTH WASTING YOUR TIME?
AI
At the Bible it's writing that even if the humans live forever.they never will know the beginning or the end of GOD'S WORK
The universe is infinite, but the vast majority of it is moving away from us at many times the speed of light that the light will never reach us.
so the vast majority of matter is speeding away faster than the speed of light then you cannot know if it exists but i guess you must know probably happened on a wednesday about 10 am 415673479 million years ago just before i had a cuppa
Speculation
Really??? Do physicists STILL ignore the word "INFINITE".....Time & space.....!
The problem with us humans is we factor in “time” to any equation we make. The Big Bang theory implies that back in time something went bang. Take away time and the theory collapses
Excuse me? George Lemaitre's predictions came before Hubble, not the other way around. Get your facts straight.
Lmao yes Lamatres predictions( 1927) came way before hubble (1990) ... 😮 crazy
@@lottiemastiff9807 Right? The scientific community does not want to credit a Belgian priest for the greatest insight in cosmology. How ironic, given how they have sworn off creationism as a scientific taboo. So I guess they sweep it under the rug wherever possible. However, Roger Penrose is trying to put cracks in the cosmic egg.
😂😂😂 is he a relative? Pretty aggressive there😂😂😂
@@JoelTopsom No, but only a dipshit uses 6 emojis. And a nutbar begins a sentence with them.
They meant the man named:Edwin Hubble not the telescope that was named after him.
We are just children trying to understand the world with our infantile eyes. We will never know everything, but research is the key.
Thanks for all the crocodiles.
Einstein believed in an infinite and eternal universe. Theories that arise from our perception that expansion is a result of a sudden existence of all matter at a single point may be entirely wrong. With all our knowledge, we just don't know.
Thanks for all the crocodiles.
That's right. It's all based on straightforward extrapolation based on ceteris paribus. A whole lot of questionable assumptions and inferences rolled out like pretty carpet. We just don't know. It's the best guess we can make at present given the limited information we have. But, cool story, bro...
A “singularity” is a mathematical concept where our math does not compute. It is thus an abstract concept, and not a physical entity which exists - as an example, in a Black Hole.
Our math and physics break down when describing parts of a Black Hole - so the singularity is a mathematical / physical konsequence.
There are different kinds of black hole mainly stellar mass and supermassive. In supermassive black holes, gravitational forces are not enough to spaghettify and rip apart objects that fall in, so quite delicate structures and materials can exist inside them. The universe is a black hole, because nothing, not even light can escape, but as we can see, delicate structures and materials can exist within it until it finally collapses into a big crunch.
Sadly, this is WAY beyond my comprehension.
Well there're two ways to interpret that, and two responses.
If you find it difficult to follow, don't worry, it is gibberish and trying to understand it - trying to put it into the context of what you already know - would leave you even more confused now and when you watch any factual videos on this topic.
If you know about the topic, then I guess you mean you can't comprehend why the hell the creator would make a video containing gibberish like this. Maybe the creator is deliberately using misinformation to confuse?
@@zeddy_me'The wisdom of man is foolishness to God' -- 1 Corinthians 3:19
Well, it's very muddled and disjointed, so impossible to neatly categorize and "understand". Don't worry about it. Appreciate and enjoy life as. we find it
Just because they say scientific things confidentialy doesn’t mean they understand it either. Your one of the few people to be honest which makes you the best scientist
I have never heard of these voids before, it is very interesting. It almost appears as oil floating in water, this would indicate the void formation retains a higher viscosity in desinsity than the surrounding matter,the free-form perimeter may also discount a super nova extinction. It also maybe a portal of a fluid nature in seeking opportunity into another dimension.
Any reference to “sound” is an error. Electromagnetic waves, regardless for wawelength, is fundamentally different from sound, which requires a medium to propagate - be that solid or a gas.
How do we know which direction to point a telescope to see the beginning of time?
If big bang is correct it is in all directions
Dude radio waves aren't "sound" its the same thing as light just at different wavelengths and frequencies. "Sound" is pressure waves through a medium. Solid, liquid, gas, plasma. Sound doesn't really travel through the vacuum of space. Or at least it hasn't since things got spread out enough.
"The Universe ends after Dog Doo 7..." (from FUTURAMA) Like God, I believe the Universe has always been here, always will.
What I struggle with is our perception of our own point of reference. Where are we in the time continuum ? Near the start, in the middle or on the leading edge as we expand? Are we possibly someone else’s past?
There are some things within our realm of understanding that we are not meant to know, and that's totally ok. Sadly, however, as human's we cannot and will not accept that, thus keep pushing to know more.
Just because you can’t see it doesn’t mean there isn’t something there.
If there was a big bang, then what existed before the blue touch paper was ignited? There must have been something……… ahhh, forget it it is beyond my ability to comprehend infinity, even now it makes me uncomfortable to even consider the concept
Everything is potential, a state of becoming. There is the Neil Turok documentary about the mirror universe and how the big bang essentially created a second arrow of time. So it's more like the middle then the beginning. Like Jesus on the cross.
As human being you used to time as well as gravity and cannot imagine things without them that is why many humans still believe that Earth is flat
@@dinrash7613
Not being able to imagine things without Time & Gravity... is NOT why some people believe in a flat Earth.
Nothingness can create something because there are no laws within it telling it not to make something therefor anything is possible and eventually inevitable
@@Vastral_Nihil
*OK buddy!*
If you were close to the size of an atom traveling one inch would seem like an impossible task. It's all perspective
Atomic nuclei can travel at almost the speed of light, so traveling for a few light years is easy for them.
Question? Which way do we look to see the begining?...its not in our capacity to observe the beginning or the ending..its a rumbus with neither..
Don't hang all your beliefs on one of man's toys.
Best advice here!!
Could I be right in saying there is no beginning and no end. I'm not an educated man but surely it's a case that we can't actually get our understanding around this subject.
There is only change. No answers, no questions, it just is.
Thanks for all the crocodiles.
"I know that I know nothing" Socrates.
Are these voids optically black and /or radio silent? Is it possible signals doppler shifted to audible frequencies or less?
"Audible"? WTF?
Time is the engine of the multiverse...
Reheating is thought to have created matter after inflation which caused the Big Bang. We do not know the initial conditions at the start of inflation or what began the quantum field, however.
No point in arguing how many angels dance on a pin. Just agree to disagree, whatever you want to believe or not believe. After all its only a belief until proven otherwise.
Thanks for all the crocodiles.
Are other Galaxies actually moving away from us… Or are they in their own orbit that will arc back to us millions of years from now?
Clusters are aggregating while mostly '' moving '' away from each others.
A fact most fail to take in account is that expanding space-time is equal everywhere and it is the space between 2 atoms that is widening.
Which means matter is mostly where it was at the beginning, only disturbed by gravitional pull of massive amount of matter like the Great Attractor.
Hope this help.
Now that's an awesome angle on the expansion theory! Almost seems like we missed the obvious here lol.
@@mathieusimoneau3358 Ah right! Entropy!
Radio telescopes seeing high wavelength photons, not hearing sounds😂
LONG wavelength photons.
How do you see an emptiness that was filled with later galaxies. And if there is a void, it is either a super expanded blackhole or a place that is missed in the expansion.
if we came from a singulairity, that existed in "nothing" what made the singularity? Our scientists are biased with he idea of a beginning and an end because that's how our little world exists. I don't know the answers, but I think there has always been a universe, maybe our universe came from a singularity within an older universe in which we are ultimately inside of, or part of.. fun to think about!
Matter is the compression of spacetime.
Well DUHHH - if the energy has not had enough time to travel to where Webb can sense it then yes it will appear to be a void. It is not really a void. Just a limitation of Webb's ability.
Fascinating! But could this 'void' really confirm Einstein's prediction? It's interesting to think that the expansion of the universe might be preventing us from seeing the true beginning. What if these voids are just gaps in our understanding rather than literal emptiness?
Does there really needs to be a beginning? I believe the universe has always been and always be. Our limited minds can't comprehend this, doesn't mean it's not true.
If all matter in the universe came from nothing, is it possible that it's all an illusion and that nothing really exists?
My understanding is that galaxies are all moving away from each other. This would not occur if there was a "big bang' where everything is moving away from a point.
More likely is that particles of matter randomly disappear from where matter exists and appears where it does not. Like inflating and deflating balloons in a swimming pool. I think over time something like our universe would appear - all through randomness. Please someone write a computer program to simulate this to test if I am right.
That's NOT what the Big Bang Theory says.
Try actually reading it instead of making assumptions from the name.
@@OOTurok@OOTurok Big Bang - " The big bang is how astronomers explain the way the universe began. It is the idea that the universe began as just a single point, then expanded and stretched to grow as large as it is right now-and it is still stretching! " "The Hubble Law states that distant objects are receding from us at a rate proportional to their distance" - which occurs when there is uniform expansion in all directions. This implies a history where everything was closer together." This is not consistent with the theory of expansion from a single point. it IS consistent with everything moving away from everything else objects further from the centre in a direct line from us would not be travelling away from US as those at the same distance but at right angles to that direction. Explain why I am wrong instead of making snide comments.
So I missed out " at a rate proportional to the distance" which is a consequence of the Big Bang as observed by Hubble.
@@andrewjenkinson7052
Hubble's Law does NOT demonstrate uniform expansion. It literally demonstrates the opposite.
It states that the further a galaxy is from 1 galaxy, the faster that galaxy moves away from that galaxy.
This demonstrates that the greater the distance is between galaxies... the faster the rate of cosmic expansion is between those galaxies. .
Hubble's Law also demonstrates that the galaxies are NOT moving away from a central point. They are all moving away from each other.
Galaxies in galactic clusters are moving away from each other more slowly, & galaxies from other clusters are moving away from other clusters more rapidly.
This is does NOT invalidate Big BangTheory, because space is NOT linear, & is expanding in 4 dimensions on 4 axies.
Read what Hubble's Law says, instead of only reading the 1st sentence of Hubble's Law from the Google search results, & filling in the rest with your personal assumptions.
Otherwise your comments amounts to being nothing more than a strawman.
@@OOTurokplease read what I said. Nowhere did I say anything about uniform expansion. You are repeating what I said using different words. If the Big Bang did not originate from a single point, how many points did it originate from? My hypothesis covers that, and also covers a Big Bang or a steady state. Blow up a balloon at a uniform rate and a point on its surface travels further in the same time as it did when the balloon was smaller. A further distance in a fixed time is usually described as an increase in speed. What do you call it. You may have read a lot but your comprehension does not appear to have kept pace.
Do the experiment I suggest and we will settle whether or not my hypothesis is a better description of how our universe behaves than any other. Apply laws to randomness and it can become less random.
Just because our lives have a beginning and end, doesn't mean everything does. The "big bang" theory only proves how limited our understanding really is.
Imagine an always was and always will be.
Mind-boggling, everything we know is just theory, and until man can venture there, it will remain thus.
The substitute of voids with the image of a gaseous nebula, just looks so fake!☹
We'll never see past it because due to the expanding of space, that far out the galaxies are traveling faster than the speed of light from our point of observation.
Just wait til we develop wormhole technology, the universal expansion will be easily traversed then
Voids in the universe are beautiful things silent and devoid of life as they should and will be
The great Tao
I take it that's a compliment?
At an earlier time everything started out as Hydrogen. Eventually it all coalesced into denser concentrations. Fusing together and forming everything we see and feel here today for a blip of an eternity.
I’ll never understand the concept of a telescope “seeing into the past”
Because what we see happened light years before we see it. By the time we see it, it's history and we're only now getting the news.
what you see is just light reflecting on your eyes. when you see rocks 1 km away, it was mili mili mili second state of the past.
@@a.k.a.billthebusboy1996 it’s sounds like you’re saying that they’re seeing something that’s always been there it’s like making a new discovery but not technically looking into the past
@@anton8267 idk what you’re saying sounds like someone looking at a old person and saying you can see their past lol 😂
@@tonymontez2358 When you look at a person a few feet away, you believe you're seeing them as they are in that very instant. And in fact, that's very close to the truth because light takes so little time to reach your eyes after reflecting off their faces and bodies. Also, sound reaches your ears at almost the same time that everything just seems to "sync up". Nothing to spoil the illusion.
Now, think of lightning bolts. You notice the light from the bolt appears first, but the sound, called thunder, has a delay before you can sense it. This is because sound travels a lot slower than light. What do you think would happen if you were blindfolded and the only way you could discern the lightning hitting the earth was by sound? You'd actually be sensing it a few seconds after it actually happened. In essence, you'd be sensing an event (the lightning strike) as it happened in the past (a few seconds ago from your current time).
I brought up sound as an illustration of how a signal can take time to communicate an event to your senses, in a way you should be able to relate to. But we don't have to talk about sound anymore. We now focus on light. In our common experience, light seems to propagate with no delay at all, but we know this is not true. It's very, very fast - in fact the fastest method of communication physically possible - but it is still finite in speed.
At short distances it doesn't matter. But at longer distances, it does. The sun is 150 million km or about 92 million miles away from us. The sun's light takes about 8 minutes to reach our eyes on Earth. If something caused the Sun to go out right *now* (imagine me snapping my fingers), you would still be seeing the sun for a full eight minutes. You wouldn't even know anything was wrong for that time. In a sense, you can say that you're seeing the sun in the past. Eight minutes in the past, when it still existed. Only after that time would you know the bad news - the sun is dead, it died eight minutes ago.
You should now be able to see the correlation between detecting an event a long distance away and the time it takes for that information to reach us. This is all that people mean when talking about seeing into the past. When seeing the sun, we're seeing its appearance 8 minutes in the past relative to the current moment we're experiencing. When we see the brightest star in the night sky (Sirius) using our naked eyes, we're seeing it as it was more than 8 years ago because light takes that long to reach us from Sirius. When we see the neighbouring galaxies through a simple amateur telescope, we're seeing them as they were tens to hundreds of thousands of years ago.
The James Webb telescope is in space, orbiting the sun. It's in space rather than the ground for acquiring really clear images without distortion from the atmosphere. It's capable of detecting light (technically electromagnetic radiation) from visible red to infrared. Because it doesn't get affected by an atmosphere and it has proper shielding to protect it from the sun and reflected light from the Earth and Moon, it's able to sensitively detect light from very far away. This light from distant places has taken a very, very long time to reach us. And when we're detecting these very, very far away objects, we're also seeing them as they were a very, very long time ago, when light from them started making its outward journey, and then just happened to be picked up by our instrument (the space telescope). Essentially, any galaxies we spot from that far away are also going to be very early galaxies because of this correlation between distance of observation to the time it takes for the observation to register on our instrument. We have no way of seeing such objects as they are right now (in the 21st century), they could be long gone, in fact a lot of them are "dead". That's why we talk about seeing into the past, we're looking at them like old photos in an album.
For many years I have found it inconceivable the universe is only as big as we can see from telescopes. If space is empty beyond the visibility of our telescopes that is still part of the universe. But it seems to me rather egotistical to think what we can see is the only matter in the universe. I look at our history, in the 15th century people were convinced Earth was the center of the universe. It wasn't until smart men proved otherwise that we realized Earth wasn't the center of anything.
Great Video-It’s no surprise that Einstein is in a league of his own. Beyond Genius!
We are billions of years behind in trying to observe certain effects from the beginnings of the universe. We may never catch up.
We don't know that there was nothing. All we know is that everything we see in this "visible universe" is expanding from that point. Small is relative too. As you said most of this is very new information. When my Grandmother was born we didn't know of atoms, of more than one galaxy, and that the universe was even expanding. Einstein, didn't even think that it was expanding for a long time.
So as we learn more, and prove more, we will have to understand that reinterpreting the information is going to happen. And not get stuck in thinking that this is all static. I call this the "local news phenomena". Where we take one new bit of data or study and make a determinations from it. Local news takes every study and say it MAY means something, they have to do this to fill up their times between commercials. We, as the uneducated, should let the professionals integrate it into what they already know and keep being astonished that we got where we are so quickly.
Saying the universe has an edge or even saying it is infinite or endless puts a limit on space,
But if you put space as limitless them you have no limit, beyond the our universe there is limitlessness ,but in the limitless there are other universes,and even those universes have limitless emptiness,that is forever limitless.
Kuku lalalalala
Is there less matter in the Universe today?
Obviously matter is being converted into energy every moment.
We can only "see" the matter that's in the process of converting matter into energy.
How much matter has stopped converting matter into energy and has gone dark?
Is all of the mass of all the energy ever converted being included when calculating the mass of the universe?
If so, how is the mass of a stream of visible photons being calculated going back 14+ billion years?
imagine space as one big spit. the voids are the bubbles of air in the spit and the space between one droplet and the others. I believe, or rather, I fancy, that the big bang theory is almost right, only that it doesn't start from a singular point. It's more like a big loop, where this matter (space and all it's components) is spit out from a hoop and travels far and expands and makes a large u turn around the hoop and then goes back in the hoop to be spat out again in an endless cycle.
Einsteins observations had very little to do with the astronomy of his time. He was busy furthering Maxwell's equations and Mach's ideas.
We are not at the ‘center’ of the universe. How can we look in one direction to see the beginning? 🤔🤔🤔
Another great mystery involving the possibility of the "Big Bang" theory which may never be resolved is the question of how can you get something out of nothing??
OK. I'm not well versed in science but how can this telescope supposedly see back in time? I get the light-years it takes for events to be seen here supposedly but how does a telescope see back a million years in only about 30 years time? If it takes millions of years for events that happened to reach here through speed of light then how does a telescope pick stuff up in only that 30 or however many years the telescope has been in existence? Wouldn't the same theory apply in sight? The sight using the telescope has to travel towards the object deep in space at the same exact speed of light?
The appearence of expansion is an illusion to us because we exist in the center of a void ourselves. The universe has always existed.
All we know for sure is that there are literally hundreds of stars out there, and dozens of solar systems. With our ability to see a hundred million miles into space with James Webb telescope, we may never know what lies beyond the most distant objects we can see. We can only guess that beyond our galaxy, there may be another galaxy containing over 100 stars.
There are 2 trillion galaxies in the observable universe. And each galaxy has about 200 billion stars.
There are literally hundreds of BILLIONS of stars. Only having dozens of solar systems would give you a pretty dark night sky
might there be way to see space - time (gravity) that started or was present at beginning of universe?
Wonderful video ! I love it so much . Thank you for sharing . I think that , there are most of habitable's planets , in the galaxies . But we cannot see them yet , because they are so far from our planet . Happy week to you !
What one of my professorse said, "The miracle is that we exist at all!"
Contrary to what you are saying, this observation by the James Webb goes against what EINSTEIN said
Like Carl Sagan once said; 'If you want to know what its like inside a Black Hole, all you have to do is look around.'
The void could be what the universe is expanding into. We are seeing things we've never seen before and thus are having to find new theories. Galaxies at the very limit of what JWST can see SHOULD be there. The telescope is seeing what amounts to developed galaxies, not primordial ones with little/no structure.
Don't sweat it. It's here enjoy it.
Light from those stars in the void, haven't reached us yet, that's why it's dark.
The “Edge of The Universe” time-space curvature. The universe is expanding, space and time are expanding. The law of cause and effect, is a law. The universe (time, space, and mass) began 13.7 billion years ago. We now know that universe is 13.787 ±0.020 billion years. This has been checked, proven and measured with many tools and they all agree. It is not just space that came to be 13.787 billion years ago, but time also. The universe is finite and expanding.
It makes sense if the universe came into existence everywhere at once then you won’t ever be able to see the beginning.
If scale of sizes goes in both directions infinitely the thats just one more dimension. Time flops after entering black hole also has navigation and dimensional depth which lead to other thresholds where again physics as we know it shift then again and again.
You can see the edge of the universe whenever you look at a black hole.
On a different subject.Einstein said if he added electricity to his equations nothing worked.Cosmology and astro -physics are based on gravity.We have magnetic fields throughout the universe which require an electrical current to exist.We are part of one big electro magnetic life force.Our own bodies work on electricity.
If everything is always moving away from us then why are the stars in the same place every night
Radio telescopes aren't listening for sound, like FM102.6. They detect electromagnetic radiation. Sound must have a medium to travel in. Space is void.
Our ignorance vastly outweighs our knowledge
Thanks for all the crocodiles.
I’m pretty sure black holes aren’t created by a planet exploding. I believe they’re created when a planet collapses into itself and the resulting gravitational field becomes so great that it just Hoovers up anything that passes the event horizon.
At least that was always my understanding 🤷♀️.
The Web telescope just saw a void. There are many of those in the universe .
It's possible there are as many universes as galaxies, but we may never know for sure.
3:20 So "space" itself came into existence, only after the Big Bang....?
Then what was there BEFORE the existence of "space/time"? It cannot be "nothing", because you cannot derive "something" from "nothing", unless "nothing" is just another form of "something".
If a tree falls in a forest and know one is there to hear it. Does it make a sound?
Oh man... that universe edge we are talking abt is edge of the mega mega mega structure that we are living in... there would be multiple such universes... like galaxy to galaxy, you would find a void... conclusion: we can't reach our universe edge and of course we won't be able to go beyond and reach another universe
could voids be regions of space - time / gravity?
He just happened to work at the us patent office.
I'm not a scientist and I am an amateur astronomer in the strictest sense, but I have studied astronomy for the last four decades and have approximately twenty years of recorded observations with telescopes. So really I'm just a nobody.
At 8:05 into this video I had to stop.
Like most reporting in Cosmology the ultimate conclusion is about discovering E.T.
The reason we won't be able to see to the edge of the universe, is that there is no edge. Its size is infinite. So Einstein's prediction is disingenuous.
Please tell me more about your hypothesis
@@jaykiller4510 The universe is simply corporeality. Corporeality is a domain, not a place per se. Essentially it is a quality, not a quantity.
Why am I not surprised that Einstein was right again.
It. Is just crazy to talk about the beginning of the Universe or the beginning of time. This is a very limited outlook, because they cannot or are not able to comprehend the infinity. There is only infinity. Talking about the Bug Bang is just about trying to put the infinity into a box because they cannot think outside the box!
Beautiful voice
You don't see anything at that distance, you do calcs and make assumptions.
We live in a black hole
We live in a void. There's a bubble around our system
Voids and supervoids are weird. The universe has always been expanding faster than the speed of light. Just because we can't detect any light coming from those voids doesnt mean they're empty. It could mean that the light is traveling slower than the universe expanding.
The comments are filled with people correcting you lol
James Webb image of Earth.? Shocker it can’t do this
Yeah, perhaps the CENTER of the Universe, if ſuch even exiſts, is an ever-expanding void of pure nothingneſs (ɯhere there is no matter or energy in exiſtence ɯhatsoever). And if that's ſo, then perhaps the Universe itself is chaocentric.
The origin of the universe is whatever who's funding the research says it is. Been that way forever.
Expansion of the universe is faster than light. The early universe was too hot for photons.