26 Is The New 13
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 25 мар 2024
- Recently captured deep space images from the James Webb Space Telescope reveal the POSSIBILITY that light may not have been as well-behaved in the earliest days of the universe as it is today. To put it simply, light may have been lying to us about the age of the Universe, and if this is true, then instead of a 13-odd billion year old cosmos, it may in fact be 26-odd billion years old instead. Why does this matter? Well - if true - then theoretical band-aids such as Dark Matter and Dark Energy are simply no longer needed… and that’s a big deal.
Join our crack team of elite anti-elitists by becoming a member or making a one-time donation right here:
billwhittle.com/register/
Science - by definition - is NEVER "settled" !
But,,, but,,, but,,, if you DARE question it, you're a 'science denier'.
Tell that to a politician... or a lefty.
science is a tool to discover how the universe works, so you cannot "believe the science" or "the science is settled"......It's like saying "I believe my hammer", it's nonsense.
and yes, i have a science degree and worked in the field of science for 30 years.
The new science is to not question the old science, because that compromises the funding of 'current thing' politically correct science.
Once the honored 'peer review' shuns you, you know you just might be on the right track.
@@veganconservative1109 Yep!
you mean authoritarian science, which is a perversion of the scientific method because it runs the process BACKWARDS
If you take an unprovable theory and assume it’s true, it’s not science.
Of all the "conservative" channels out there, you guys are the only ones who talk about science. That's why you're my favorite fellow nerds. You are the best!
I was thinking that you were going to put forward a theory that 26 year olds have the emotional equivalence of a 13 year old of half a century ago. And that that 13 year old had the emotional and amassed knowledge as a 6 year old from the previous 50.
That’s where I thought this was going too. But even though it’s not what this is about, it doesn’t mean that our theory isn’t right!
"Any idiot can make things complicated. It takes true genius to make things simple." Great statement.
"Dark matter" to Physics always struck me as a model designed by Keynes. Hint: he knew nothing about economics either.
They keep coming up with bandaids to fix their unworkable theories... only to have those bandaids fall off again and again. Science needs to be based on observation and experimentation instead of this idea of using just math. Maths couldn't even figure out how a bumblebee flies.
@@veganconservative1109Agreed, and more reasoned than my pithy comment. Thanks
As a software engineer, I can spot a "kludge" from a mile away. Definition: A kludge or kluge is a workaround or quick-and-dirty solution that is clumsy, inelegant, inefficient, difficult to extend, and hard to maintain. This term is used in diverse fields such as computer science, aerospace engineering, Internet slang, evolutionary neuroscience, and government. It is similar in meaning to the naval term jury rig.
Australian doctor had to infect himself with a bacteria to prove stomach ulcers are not caused by stress, but by bacteria. Maybe stress is a Petre dish for this bacteria however.
God doesn’t play dice with the universe
I haven't word the "elegant" applied to an experiment since I was graduate school. I loved the term then, and I love it now!
Germans use it a lot.
It's settled the moment one starts using abductive reasoning
6000 years old
Maybe the "house of cards" is more than just dark matter. God bless ya!
I first thought this was about 26-year-olds acting immature.
i thought it was about how 1 demographic in usa is thought to be 13% but is actually much higher
"Science advances one death at a time."
Sacrifice a red sacred cow and build the temple of doom.
Looks like what has changed is the presumption of physical principles being constant throughout time. Therefore, the speed of light now, is not what it was in the past.
Bill! Your program on the Daily Wire is exceptional. Well done! This "what we saw" is the best one yet.
As a non-scientist, this information is worth knowing.
I love these guys. always an interesting dialogue.. WOW, so the world is not flat?
26 is the new 13? Don't you put that evil on me! I just got happy about my Insurance rate going down.
Two weeks to stop the spread had a ring of truth to it too. If it's possible for God to create Adam as a grown man, it's possible for God to create an ancient universe
Two weeks to stop the spread never made sense to me. Explain the universe, God built it that way.
When you can only see objects from our perspective, at the speed of light, then it is is plausible that any part of the universe that we cannot see is because the light has not reached us yet. After all we are looking into the distant past. There are what we call "ancient proto-galaxies" that may be fully formed by now.
It's not quite that straightforward. Although information can only reach us from objects at the speed of light, one must take into account that the fabric of space itself is expanding. And it's expansion is accelerating. So not only are objects receeding from us faster the farther away they are, there comes a point at which the speed they are receeding is greater than the speed of light. Hence they are beyond the observable universe to us --- and we to them. Their light will never reach us. Strange as this may seem they are not violating the speed of light, for it is the expansion of space itself causing this recession.
@@thecarman3693 Good point. In an expanding universe there is indeed a point that the light will never reach us. However my point still stands that those galaxies we can see at the observable edge that light can reach us are now billions of years into the future and therefore are probably fully formed.
The thing to remember is that there is no "Now" to the universe as a whole. It is however isotropic, meaning as we see those distant galaxies is how they would see us. There is no special location (or even moment of time) to the universe. So to us our Milky Way is fully formed and their galaxy is also likely fully formed .... to them. I say "to them" because they are moving to us at almost the speed of light, meaning their clocks are ticking ever so slowly to us. So to us they are not as fully formed as they are to those out there. And it's not beause of how long it takes for us to see them. Their galaxy is not forming at the same rate as ours is to us. And our galaxy isn't forming at the same rate to them as is theirs. It's sort of like the twin paradox in relativity, only no one is returning. To them the Earth might still be in its formation phase, long before any life was present. This is a very tricky idea to grasp and even I have trouble keeping it all straight in my head. To them our past still exists, and to us so does theirs. But neither we nor they have immediate access to each other. Just try to remember that relativity not just involves great speeds but also has effects over great distances. And here we have a mix of both, which kind of makes things a bit dicey. I hope this makes some sense.
As a PS: Your conception of this distant galaxy and its state of being fully formed (just as much as ours is to us) would only hold true if it was not receeding from us, but keeping its distance constant. In an ever expanding universe this simply isn't the case, which is why it's not that easy to visualize.
And gravity bends time/space or time/space IS gravity.
I had the same feeling from the beginning that dark matter and dark energy are just placeholders, and that later a different hypothesis will be proposed instead. Now it seems we can rid of these two altogether
The universe is definitely one of the things I look forward to understanding better when I reach the other side.
Might ask Mr. Gupta about the sacred cow thing.
ok bad joke
Dark lies matter. 😁
It's interesting that whenever I see a new Right Angle title, I can guess which of the three gents will be leading the conversation with about 95% accuracy.
A fascinating (as Spock would say) episode, gentlemen. Remember: science progresses funeral by funeral.
This is the true beauty of science and it's by no means the first time this has happened. (Nor will it likely be the last.)
We had learned that the earth was not the center of all things, making celestial mechanics more straightforward. We learned that there was no need for an ether for light to propagate through.
And now to see that we might not need these dark entities to put more pieces of the puzzle together just goes along the same lines.
I am not all that bright. But I had envisioned the crinkling or folding and UNfolding of the Universe 20 years ago. But I got THAT wrong. I thought it explained how the universe could be much younger than was thought. I got it bassackwards.
hey bill, its ok to love your universe, just dont LLLLUUUUUUUUUUUVVVVVVVVVVVVV your universe.
Dark Matter matters.
I love science videos! Thank guys!
Very interesting.
Has anyone ever heard that light has no "speed"?
It's a constant.
That realization should have some affect on up-and-coming astronics.
Problem being we already know that " c " is not constant, and is affected by gravity. Kind of throws everything off by a bit.
I thought it would be about how today's 26yos are yesterday’s 13olds.
Imagine that?
When I saw the title I thought it would be about the immaturity of people that age these days.
I never liked the dark matter/dark energy...any more than i did the 12 extra dimensions that string theory requires. Band aid is a polite way to describe it. I feel as you do, bill. It makes so much more sense than inventing things that are impossible to find in order to make the math work
Epicycles - Look that one up. Flogiston, another theory proven false but at least scientists agreed to the change. I'm not sure that all the small particles, made up of smaller particles, made up of smaller particles, etc isn't a band-aid as well.
Luminiferous Aether
Every time science proves a slice of the pie, strangely, the pie becomes larger. If science teaches us anything, it’s that we simply will never be able to reach the true conclusion.
I do not blame scientists for trying to use dark matter and dark energy to try to understand the expansion of the Universe -- they were looking at the data, trying to figure out how to make sense of it, and were frustrated that (1) every effort to measure dark matter and dark energy came up with *nothing* and (2) every effort to try to come up with a *different* explanation produced a theory that was inconsistent with the data in *other* ways. If this pans out, it will be because we got *more* data, which is *precisely* how science is supposed to work!
However ... several years ago, I attended a math/physics colloquium where the speaker said "I have this model that is *very* controversial: mathematicians and physicists look at it and say 'hey, there may be something to this', while astrophysicists look at it and say 'you're doing *everything* wrong!'". The model basically assumed that galaxies had a rigid structure as a result of interaction of gravity between all the stars, rather than being a loosy-goosy "star soup" -- and that, when acceleration is measured via *this* method of modeling galaxies, there only needs to be 10% of "dark matter" to explain discrepancies of measurement, rather than the current-ish 90%.
While I haven't been in a position to dig into this more, I have always wondered: just what was it that astrophysicists objected to, about this approach to modelling galaxies? I can't help but wonder if there was some other measurement that this model contradicted (which is a *very* *good* reason to reject the model!), but if they were rejecting it at a gut level (which isn't entirely unfair to do), I would nonetheless think that more digging should have been done.
Is dark matter like x in an equation?
It’s closer to 6000 years old
Considering that the foundation of modern cosmology is based on Hinduism, even 26B is closer to Biblical reality than the infinity that has long been proven impossible.
Let God be true, and every man a lier. Funny how everyone of these sience folks leave God's word out of the theories.
Since the late 1990's I've thought that the universe was FAR OLDER that the 13.4 billion years. Our Galaxy might be that old, but the whole universe... It's hast to be at least in the trillions IMO.
dark matter and dark energy always made perfect sense to me. They're 5th dimensional energy and material.
And I thought this was going to be about relative emotional developmental age within a certain demographic...which would be pretty accurate if my impressions are correct, anyway.
Doesn't it seem like... "The universe is almost certainly much older than it looks" should have always been the primary theory.
I've been saying for years our notion of time is wrong if energy can travel ludicously vast light-year distances almost instantaneously during spatial inflation after the Bang. But not being an astrophysicist I don't have the tools to mathematically prove it (nor whether the problem is with our understanding of light-speed as the universal speed limit, or with time per se as a function of a decreasing amplitude constant for all particles or something like that -- the Bang rings a bell for all particles and the ringing is getting quieter approaching the limit of zero.)
If humility isn’t part of your personality, then science is not the career for you.
FYI and for a deeper dive RUclips search: Has JWST shown the Universe is TWICE as old as we think?!
I'm curious about this as one of the (assumedly settled) constants of the universe is the habits of light. Now some are saying it behaved differently at some point in the past. What does that do to all the calibrations based on the properties of light?
Knowing that do the gravity and that it is not a constant throws everything off by some amount, this is just another unaccounted for variable... Of a constant😂
So is like the morse law in computers , is been universally believe 13, now 26 , so the books have to be re written , then if a new future generation of telescope comes on line, then raise it to 39 and the books have to be re written again
I love how big of a space nerd you are, bigger even than myself
And in a year 26 is the new 52, and...rinse and repeat as desired.
Is it moving towards you or are you moving towards it, where were you tangent it with it...
dark matter/dark energy and string theory seem more like a "fudge factor"
2-4BILLION☆StarsMilkyWay of 2TRILLION galaxies that can be seen. All created 1 solar day by an unknown guy that 2000ys ago rode into an oscure small city on an ass?
If your math/model doesn't fit the observable facts, your math/model is wrong.
No matter what you theorize, God created everything we know about 9000 years ago, give or take.
😂
What if the universe was made for us, and the creator of time, space, action, force and matter did what we do when we create a place for our creations to reside -- we give it a past.
Having said that, science is just figuring out the rules of the game we're playing, and is time well spent.
Electric universe theory
Greatest "tool" known to science concerning the age of the Universe is the Bible.
HAHAHAHAHA!
And there's a white bearded guy who live at North Pole who delivers toys to all the kids in the world all in one night on Christmas Eve.
I very much enjoy most of these discussions but I must admit the intellectual acrobatics of this topic is beyond my purview. Maybe in a future episode you guys can have a more sensible and realistic topic, such as how many angels can fit on the head of a pin?
I miss the virtue signal with Alphonso Rachel
Nope. He brought too much religion to the show. For those of us who don’t believe in religious myths, he usually had nothing of value to add to any given episode.
@@Sigmund1924Wow you just shut down your brain based on somebody else's ideas about things. Sound like a libturd to me. 😂 Getting offended at the slightest things can't ignore stuff.
Why does that matter to people that on average don't live more than 80 years? Unless it's a hobby. You don't think anything you're told is true do you? We can't date a rock, but we have a clue about the age of the universe? It sure seems like there is a lot more important info being ignored before the age of the universe matters to anybody.
Hubble even said in his book we don't want it to point to god, so he used non-euclidean geometry to explain the red-shift, the obvious reason we see red shift every direction we look is we are in the center of the universe.
Light is supposed to only go at speed C. We have many experiments that show it doesn't. Anyway they thought if light travels C we should be able to look X distance away to 'look back in time' and see how stars and galaxies were made. Then when they looked that far, they were fully formed. Pointing to creation, not big bang. So how do we fix this? Oh, the universe is 26 billion years old. Did we say 13 before?
Yes dark matter and dark energy were made up, just to keep the 'theory' viable. Inflation was also made up. So was matter coming out of nothing. On and on.
Matter is supposed to come out of the Singularity. So where does the Singularity come from? Oh, it always existed. How do we know this? Because the universe can't come from nothing. How do we know this for certain? We don't.
Now my brain hurts.
@@Paladin1873 I am pretty sure the steady state theory has been thoroughly debunked. Meaning matter did not always exist. The current guess how it came from nothing, is them playing with math. Since there is positive and negative in math, maybe a particle pops into existence then is disappears. Appears with a positive charge then disappears with a negative charge the math says this is possible. Stupid but possible. Then if this happens a billion times, or a trillion times maybe one does not disappear. No logic here at all and even more stupid. So this is how they think matter appeared. Very scientific isn't it?
You know, at my door, should you ever happen by, look down (that’s just a direction to look, not a pointer on a map for anyone’s soul). You’ll see a welcome mat that merrily says, “Let the shenanigans begin!”
It’s what we Irish do and, for all I know, there’s a similar welcome mat at the gates of Heaven. I’m certain God has a sense of humor, after all. Take, for example, hair. A man can grow a fine crop of hair on his head and, as he ages, sculpt a set of manly whiskers. But then, as he further ages, he starts to lose the hair where he wants to keep it, and starts growing it where he never, ever thought he’d ever have it. That takes a real sense of humor!
Shenanigans. There must be shenanigans in heaven too. ☺️☘️🇮🇪
So, is this Universe age difference a well-based "theory" or a "SWAG?"
Swag
"Scientists must use the simplest means of arriving at their results and exclude everything not perceived by the senses."
- Ernst Mach
I've long considered dark matter and dark energy to be fudge factors. Ditto for string theory. It's all too messy and complicated. I'm on the fence with Quantum theory (Particles behave this way when they aren't observed, but behave that way when they are observed). I detest Schrodinger's cat and the Singularity. I'm not even sure I buy the Big Bang theory. Anyway, I would be surprised if fifty or a hundred years from now our successors aren't laughing and belittling our current state of ignorance. No doubt when another century has passed, they too will be ridiculed. Such is the way of science.
🗽USA❤🤍💙
Could there be a biblical answer? Genesis 1 says God created the heavens and the earth. Then Gen:2 he said let there be light. So the stars were in place before they gave light. The stars were flipped on like a light switch according to the bible. After God spoke it into excitens
Sorry... this change in theoretical age doesn't fix the rotational curves of galaxies and they'll keep those ugly bandages and keep on adding more bandages until the big bang is eventually abandoned. Just my$0.02 🙂
Useless poppycock and empty conjecture
Man I haven't heard poppycock in a long long time, some call that a coon's age. 👍
I wonder how science even functions when they impose current rules on ancient situations…especially when we know time, speed of light and gravity are not constant and interconnected.
Ever since I was a teengager and first took AP Physics, I instinctly rejected the idea that the speed of light in a vacuum (i.e. 'c') was an absolute hard cap. The idea of time dilation is another one of those things that seems overly complicated compared to a more elegant idea that you can just go 'c + 1' m/s in principle. We haven't yet figured out how to do that practically, and scientists tell us it'd take an infinite amount of energy, but they used to claim the same about the sound barrier - that it'd take an infinite amount of energy to surpass - and yet we break that limit on a daily basis.
I do still think there are probably multiple universes existing in parallel to our own that might or might not have a physical effect on our own in the same way I can hold two sheets of paper in parallel along the third dimension and they'd have an influence on each other, but no 2D being can detect or go to it.
If the book of Genesis is right, it my be 26,000 not 26Bn...😂
Boy, this video isn't what I expected. I figured we were going to talk about the relative maturity of ... more recent generations.
Don't get me started on dark matter. That's EXACTLY what it is ... (only it's not matching a theory to the data, it's making up data to fit the theory ... which is not the way we do science) it's "hey, our equations say there should be this much mass, and we can't detect it, but it MUST be there because the model says it should be" .... so we'll just make this shit up ... which is not the problem. The problem is is that dark matter has for a while now been talked about as if it's real. Like we KNOW it' there. I majored in a hard science. I know how we make models. So I recognized right away what "dark matter" ... "was".
Scientists or science are not geared to imagine the inconceivable: that universe has no beginning or end. It is as in the Lord's prayer: "Forever and Ever." where one 'forever' refers to the future and the other to the past. It always was and always will be. That's God. The same goes with size. There is no edge of the universe. It just goes on and on and on and on.... Observed 'expansion' can be explained in other ways than the 'big bang.'
In the beginning, God created...
I already do not trust the interpretation of what is observable because it starts by flatly ignoring the biblical world view.
The fact is the size and age , are the true full make up of the universe will be a mystery to humanity for centuries to come.We can’t even see a small fraction or even travel much beyond our outer solar system.Just hope that our universe as a learning experience is not shut down to “profit” science such as biology, pharmaceutical , practical all knowledge institutions.