On another channel there was a discussion of how the time dilation of Supernovas prove that space is expanding because it is consistent with GR. I pointed out that if space is not expanding and something else is causing the red shift, you will also see a time dilation because if wavelength is constant and frequency is decreasing then time has to slow down to keep the speed of light constant. They argued back that we know the wavelength is increasing. I asked how? They said “because space is expanding” I pointed that that is… circular reasoning. You use your conclusion as independent data for your analysis. This is everywhere and by people who are smart and should know better
They say the CMB is light that was emitted 380,000 years after the Big Bang when the first stable atoms formed. This event is known as recombination. The light stretched down to microwaves, we see today. If a we are finding galaxies 290 million years after the Big Bang, and the light has not stretched down to microwaves. Something not adding up. If we take 14 billion years, (age of universe,) and divide it by 290 million years, we get 50. That's 50 times the required time to stretch light down to microwaves. That would mean to me that all galaxies, beyond 290 million years away should not be visible in the light spectrum. Do i have that wrong?
If the oldest galaxy is only 290 million years older than the CMB, where its said the light emitted from the CMB stretched down to microwaves. The math ain't adding up for me. The age of the universe is 14 billion. That 50 times the required time to stretch down the light we observe from the galaxy, down to microwaves. Meaning the galaxy should only be observable by a radio telescope.
Time dilation is a relic of the flawed Michelson Morley Experiment. It does not happen. Process dilation happens, but that is a change in the rate of a single process, not a change in time itself. It is completely unscientific to measure one and only one process, observe a change in the rate of that process, and then claim it was time that changed and not the rate of the process you just observed changing. One cannot claim that every single process in the universe will be affected the same exact way by testing one and only one process or even several processes. I can take the same exact clock that they just used to claim that "time dilation happened" and increase its temperature and observe "time speeding up." Of course those yahoo physicists will say that it is just the temperature affecting the process rate of the clock and temperature is not causing time dilation. I say the same thing for their erroneous time dilation claims. Also, light has a variable speed in vacuum as it is accelerated by gravity the same as any physical object is accelerated by gravity. See "Effect of Gravity on Gamma Radiation" by Pound and Snider. I do not know why all of these supposed scientists pretend this experiment did not happen just because its findings directly contradict GR. Gravitational acceleration of light is what is causing most of the red shifting as the stars emitting the light are much more massive and have a much stronger gravitational field than earth. As the light leaves the star, it is accelerated towards the star. As light approaches earth, it is accelerated towards the earth, but at a much lower rate. An observer on earth would observe red shifted light due to this process. A change in the speed of light is observed as a change in frequency. The wavelength is not going to change just because something is moving relative to the light. Of course, that is not the story you will get from irrational physicists that think light spontaneously changes its wavelength just because they said so.
@@pedrosura Time dilation is an artifact of the informational processing of matter. The rate of time dilation is relative to the speed of light. It is not as Einstein suggested relative to its location, however, location does define the rate of time in a given location relative to the speed of light. If you imagine, a light cone has linear sides and this represents the progression of time at the speed of light (duration) whilst the volumetric expansion (simultaneity) happens at a variable rate - it spirals from high frequency, low information states coherently into low frequency high information states. And it does this at a rate (proper time) that is relative to the speed of light or coordinate time as Einstein called them.
I'm so surprised that youtube recommended your video as it pretty much never recommends new creators whom I haven't encountered before, let alone those questioning the orthodoxy. Thanks for putting into words so clearly the ideas I've been grasping with. Also, I was not aware of plasma redshift and how it could mimic cosmological redshift and I've been following this topic for over a decade. Looking forward to more of your videos. By the way, I've seen how paradigm shifts happen in other areas, and even if the big bang model is completely wrong, there will never be a 'paradigm shift' in cosmology. Instead, they will slowly incorporate the competing theories into it, bit by bit, until it absorbs the competing theory and will declare itself the winner as if it was right all along.
A little nitpick; the suggestion in the video is, that it's all plasma redshift, and not "cosmological" redshift. Also, this time, it will be impossible to incorporate the competing theory into it, because it has to invalidate the theory of relativity, and most of the current model of cosmology. It will also happen so fast, that many scientists will not have time to adjust, and will experience cognitive dissonance for a while.
I'm glad YT recommendations sometimes do suggest good alternatives, and welcome. I do have a series exploring redshift mechanisms that covers plasma redshift including some of the downsides of the theory, there are also some newer tired light models that I have not covered yet. And I totally agree with you on the paradigm shift but the problem with the BB is that there is so much inferred evidence that makes this a little harder to achieve.
@@SeethePattern read the comment of an idiot with the account name commodore grayum i don't know what to say when this crazy guy blatantly swaps the concept of logic
That is my thinking also. I've already seen how they slowly incorporate the electric universe model bit by bit and explain it as new discoveries. These people have no morals and will present other people's discoveries as their own. And since they own all the media, nobody will know it's all theft.
Great video, however the cmb does not confrom to the big bang model. Based on absorption lines of interstellar CN-molecules, McKellar (1940) had suggested a maximum temperature of interstellar space of no more than 2.7 K. This is what was found. However the Bing bang required a "closed model" due to the bang and expansion resulting in a "closed space and that predicted as high as 30k.....a failure. Thus they revised to an open system and claimed success but an open system does not conform to the Bing bang story of the universe.
Currently, the farthest distance that telescopes can observe is the edge of the observable universe, which is estimated to be around 46.5 billion light-years away. Big Bang... LOL
@@axeman2638 The eye opener is that big bang was only ever pure supposition, and HST debunked it 20 years ago. JWST is just reinforcing what we already know. The observable universe has no start or end.
Uh, only if you accepted Redshift purely as a measure of distance, ignore the inherent problems with anisotropy maps, and ignore the hundreds of examples of highly redshifted galaxies in front of opaque Seyferts. If the subatomic particles in a young galaxy (in keeping with Arp/Narlikar/Lerner models) are of higher Redshift than those in an older galaxy, then this shift must be incorporated into thd formula for total redshift, ie (1+zv)(1+zi)=(1+zt). This quantization nullifies the entire expansion hypothesis.
Given the number of assumptions, guesses, and inferences on which modern cosmology builds its creation story, it would be just a plausible to speculate that the universe was indeed created when the Great Green Arkleseizure sneezed it all into existence.
It's a made up story that falls apart like a house of cards. The Big Bang is comforting and pretty to those unwilling to embrace the vastness of space.
Gareth, do you think we are dealing with three, interlinked standard models, all of which have to be challenged at once? They are: 1. Nuclear structure based on unseen quarks, that build protons and neutrons as separate ‘particles’) surrounded by a cloud of electrons. I prefer Kaal et al’s Structured Atom model of proton-electric pairs instead of neutrons and a close packed nuclear structure. This for me provides a more powerful explanation for the stability of some isotopes. It also leads into processes for low energy nuclear reactions to transmute atoms into other elements. 2. Stellar structure assuming that nuclear fusion can only occur in mega degree environments in the core of stars. I prefer to believe that most nuclear fusion and energy production occurs in the stellar atmosphere of a liquid metallic hydrogen star as the hydrogen evaporates and interacts with the Interstellar Birkeland currents that passes through it. All elements can be created in those stars and the heavier positive ions sink towards the core, accumulating in graded layers, or are expelled in the solar wind, then accumulate in an accretion disc, forming rocky planets. 3. Galactic structure assumed to be determined by gravitational forces only ( but with a bolted on tweak of ‘dark matter and dark energy’). I prefer to think that galactic structure is shaped by electromagnetic forces, which are 37 orders of magnitude stronger than gravity. The EMF, within the ubiquitous plasma ( ions and electrons) of the Universe, self organises into Birkeland currents that link galaxies, link stars within galaxies and link planets/asteroids within solar systems. This all occurs within a Universe of indeterminate age. There is no need to invoke a Big Bang!
Yes if we look at the standard particle model there is also a lot of inference that occurs there. This also sets up how they see stellar nucleosynthesis occuring. So fundamentally we need to address how atoms are built, and where and what cycles they might go through. Then on a larger scale I think understanding galaxies is key
Actually - to DISPROVE a theory, you do NOT have to supply an "alternate framework" - you merely have to knock the pillars from the target theory. Disappointed that was among the first things mentioned. That said - the very first question you'll be asked is, "If not the Big Bang, then what do YOU propose to replace it?" Which is actually irrelevant, but science abhors a vacuum, right?
Yeah, I think he's saying scientists will stick with a theory called into question until something better is developed. I'm thinking of plate tectonics here.
Scientists build predictive models. Even if a predictive theory is fundamentally flawed, if it is still the best predictive we have, then it is the one scientists will operate with. Scientists are very pragmatic in that way.
@@Mandragara I'm not seeing that in practice. I'm seeing hacks and kludges and "special-case math" to keep observations "within" current theories. As a software engineer, I know hacks when I see them. Dark Matter ® and Dark Energy ® are two.
The problem with theoretical physics is that it has relied on inference exclusively since the 1930s, not coincidentally the time that progress came to a screeching halt. But inference is not direct evidence and can never replace direct evidence. And as the tools of the trade progress, inference is being gradually shoved aside. From the beginning, the big bang model has been more about philosophy than physics.
Brilliant!! Someone's finally starting to get it 😁 when you realize there are temporal inconsistencies between measurements and observations, it all starts to make sense. Measurements always happen at a rate relative to inference. Observation starts as a measurement (with your senses) before you infer information from it. The question then becomes, are you observing a measurement (raw data) or are you observing someone else's observation?
When cosmologists say they have measure DM, all they have measured is the amount of DM needed to save the Big Bang theory. There is on observational evidence that DM actually exists.
A small comment: The proper order to use is Grammar, Logic, and then Rhetoric. The Big Bang starts with the rhetoric or the story of how it all fits together. The grammar (observations) and logic - (Causal relationships for example). So by starting with the answer, the logic is skewed and the grammar or observations are cherry picked. Great episode again!
Thanks for a very interesting presentation :) > 5:27 Human cognitive bias (subjective reality) is somewhat central to everything that we do including physics and math. Navigating around this is somewhat difficult, as we cannot stop being human. But we can understand and account for some of the bias and filter that bias out where we can. We don't "perceive" the full extent of the universe, only a very small percentage of it that has been useful for our persistence and evolution. We tend to "naturally" frame everything in the context of that evolution within our brains. 6:00 Decoding this is difficult. The above also comes slightly into play. > There are a number of distance/time concepts, but I will stay with the most simple where the universe is 3D and time is nothing more than an abstract measurement of motion.progression. Everything begins as a series of 3D moments (I don't separate those moments and see it as a continual flow, but some prefer plank lengths). We never see the original (non local) object directly, only the photons that have come from that object. Photons being slow this takes a long time for them to travel any distance. What wee view is a somewhat distorted pseudo 4D like mess. . We (and any measuring device such as a camera) see a 2D "histogram" of the mixed age of photons that reach us. The human side (our brain) "reconstructs" that into a stable 2.5D representation of "a world with objects" according to the rules of our evolution that is useful to us. It's not what the world/universe is actually like. (long story cut short) Back to the 2D photo. We have to map the photon representations (pixels) from the photo both out in distance as well as back in time. Each pixel has a different age. thus the 2D image being a histogram. Similar to motion blur our world that we see has a time blur, except the time blur is invisible to us. If we reconstruct enough consecutive images we can reconstruct a small 3D slice of the past universe. Note: some people describe what we see in the context of our now universe. We can never directly view our now 3D universe. It is highly likely to be out there, but we just have no direct way of interacting with it. . So we have a 2D image (or series) from which we can try to recreate past 2D slices of the universe. That 4D concept is nothing more that a observer illusion due to the latency of photons (a distorted measurement). .. Inflation and expansion. This part gets difficult as we already have some difficult optical distortion to get past. The CMBR is a static[ish] "universe wide" 3D event. It should "always" be present in any past light cone/view. Galaxy/object formation on the other hand are only at a single point in space in that universe. The previous 2 items conflict with each other from a viewer perspective. Add to that the concept of expansion and we essentially end up with 2 past event horizons (visual) that appear to move in different directions in the 4D concept. . Expansion: This is somewhat controversial, but if we look at the predicted density of the early universe light would have been traveling at a slightly slower velocity to what it does now. It's not much, but enough to distort the measurements. It would increase over time. This mixed with the expansion concepts as well as the CMBR event horizon conflict creates a very distorted view of the past early universe. 7:04 All of our understanding of cosmology is blurred across a pseudo 4D histogram. We have no direct correlation of cosmological events in any now 3D space other than some short range observations (non local) in our local solar system. 8:17 Be very careful about attempting to find age distance of the CMBR. It doesn't follow the same rules as for determining the location of galaxies or stars. . 11:55 The CBMR is uneven. Last scattering (when the universe became mostly transparent) occurred over about 10,000 years near the end of recombination. Older photons were already moving significant distances. We have a 3D mix of older and newer infrared photons reaching us in our 2D snap shots. I would expect some heat difference (although very small) between the older and newer photons from that 10k year period and this should be present in a heat graph. 13:43 What I said above can give the variance in temperature if the initial universe expanded slowly and uniformly up to that point. There still needs to be some fluctuation to cause some initial temperature differences though. . 15:40 This is an issue at the very core of Relativity as well :( 17:33 I'm not a huge fan of TL theory. > I am always open to looking at alternative paradigms :)
Maybe we first have to shift our point of view of seeing everything from gravity perspective to electro magnetical one. Maybe the universe indeed are magnetic.
You are correct! 99% of the Universe is Plasma, and plasma is ruled by electromagnetism. Not many know that Edwin Hubble after decade denounce the narrative that Light Redshift indicate galaxy retrieval. After Halton Arp provide photographic evidence in support (the book "Seeing Red")... And now the most complete explanation is coming in the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The universe"
Interesting talk about how psychological and emotional needs might affect supposedly pure science. I’m struck by the synchronous occurrence of relativism and postmodernism in philosophy, and Einstein’s theory of relativity. Both deny the possibility of making valid ‘truth’ statements outside one’s own frame of reference. It’s seen as heretical even now to cast doubt on Einstein’s ideas, even though many cosmologists now accept the existence of the ether, which was the fundamental break relativity made with the ideas of people like Lorentz.
Very well put together. I wonder why science is full of people who forbid "out of the box" thinking that would not violate the verified laws of physics and are gatekeeping theories that are more and more challenged as we get more and more detailed observations. It looks like being a scientist is no more synonym to being intelligent / smart. Almost the opposite.
Eric Lerner at LPPFusion has videos listing predictions of the Big Band hypothesis that he shows/claims are wrong. How about going through his list and addressing these and commenting. P.M. Robitaille at Sky Scholar explains how the ocean can affect the measure CMB measurements. He also presents measured data from the Herouni antenna contradicting the CMB measurements of others that are/may be affected by the ocean. How about reviewing/commenting on this. Robitaille's work on the liquid sun is also interesting. BTW, if the plasma universe explains some observations it can be used to supplement/compliment other observations. It doesn't necessarily mean that gravity plays no role. Also, if one falsifies a hypothesis it does not require that he/she provide an alternative explanation.
There's nothing intuitively convincing to me about the big bang, it just seems to be religion disguised as science. After nearly 5 minutes of being beaten over the head about this "intuitive" fairy tale, I bailed.
I have for a long time become disturbed by what I see as circular reasoning in cosmology. This video explains it better than I could. One thing that has long bothered me is about the CMB, which is assumed to be a big-bang remnant - because when it was discovered, it fit with what was predicted by the big-bang model. But now it is pointed to as strong evidence for the big bang, but it's interpretation relies on the correctness of the big bang model that it is meant to prove. Classic circular reasoning. CMB might have some other cause that just coincidentally fits withe the big bang model, like for example, if there is a lot more cold, dense matter in the universe. I do not see convincing evidence that rules out other possible causes of CMB.
IMO the CMB is nothing more than the radiation given off as the solar wind is braked to an almost complete stop at the heliosphere. It’s not background but foreground radiation. Hence the “Axis of Evil” clearly evident in its signature.
All we really need is to recognize that the BB theory was never anything more than a theory. And to recognize that all the phenomena cited as "evidence" for the BB was never really evidence, not even circumstantial. It was all fancy. Recognizing these realities doesn't somehow compel us to "build" a viable alternative, or that there is some dire human cognitive need for an alternative. How about simply saying, "We don;t know." Moreover, there has long been a school of reputable physicists and cosmologists who questioned the BB theory from the very start, and who are being vindicated by the JWST
BB is an absurd proposition, because - "The Universe Come Out From Nothing for no Apparent Physical Reason"? - I am sorry, but from Nothing is coming out only "Nothing" We are seeing always the origin (The source of Light emission) CMB is on 13.7 BY distance. But... is CMB don't need at least another 13.7 BY to distance itself from us before sending its Lights? You are stating my friend "We don't know" - This is not absolutely correct! Actually we know, but the knowledge is mostly hidden. I am sure, that you don't know for the existence of the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe" There you can find credible explanation of the current "Puzzles" of the Standard Model.
Cosmologists go on and on about ad hoc curve-fitting theories, like BBT and MOND,, and ignore the only self-contained physical theory of the universe: plasma cosmology.
@@williamschlosser The BB theory is a religious invention, it is not scientific, because postulate that the "Entire Universe Come Out from Nothing" - "Something" to Come Out From "Nothing" is a Miracle. I am sorry, but science is based on logic, evidence and principle of "Cause, Interaction and Effect" - Actually the "Effect" is a dead end for Cosmology.
Thomas Kuhn described the development of science with accumulation of anomalies that eventually results in a scientific revolution; a paradigm shift. One anomaly does not in practice lead to the refutation of the whole theory.
My biggest issue with the big bang theory is the establishment of an official timeline in years, when we already understand that the speed of time is so unreliable that GPS satellites depend on its inaccuracy. Sort of throws that entire tenet of the theory in chaos 😅
@@mrquicky - tenet indeed.. let's reverse entropy a bit like a well behaved Maxwell's Demon and untangle this mess.. It's about time any way my friend 🖐️
I think the problem we have today is that the BB framework is so complex and interwoven that the whole model collapses if you try and remove one part. So more band-aids are applied. I'm not sure that scientists would now happily say it's wrong without have an alternative to 'save face'
You are right! When you see that something is wrong, it is just wrong! The good news is that we have the new "Framework" which explaining all - the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"
Complex aspects, to be sure. My thanks. I suggest understanding ball lightning as a pathway forward into a more complete model of our reality. And btw, Consciousness will also need to be fully derived from any truly accurate Kosmological Model. Subjectivity and Objectivity. Quite the yin-yang. Cheers.
Gravity isn't a force. The only forces we know about is electro magnetism. Everything else is pure mathematical speculation. You want to observe matter sticking together or repelling? Electro magnetism is doing it all.
The BBT relies on faith then. Which makes sense since its earliest proponent was a Catholic priest. Even Einstein, Tesla, Feynman, Bruce and others cautioned against the mathmagicians.
Of course the other great tour de force in this symbiotic religiosity is the Particle Theory of Matter. Particle physicists and cosmologists need each other otherwise, like a house of cards, their basic assumptions will collectively collapse. Monuments like the Cern Particle Accelerator both reflect and endorse the illusion of both grandiose ideas, and manifest a priesthood (mathemagicians) to all believers. The idea they have proven the Higgs Boson is a mirage (to me), but one that had to be proven given the callosal size of the investments involved and sold to the public and their sponsors (governments). The irony being the total reliance on giant magnetic fields to drive their ideas, which apparently (and reluctantly according to Cosmologist) are in space but don’t do anything.
Jesus could return and tell physicists that they were wrong with the big bang theory and they would agree and then add a Dark Jesus variable to wright the wayward theory.
Nice video and presentation. Redshift may be appreciated rather differently on understanding one thing we dismissed ignorantly, Aether. It is an incompressible fluid and has no mechanical but electrical properties where e0 permittivity and u0 permeability are measurable attributes of Aether. More importantly, it doesn’t blow through all matters like wind. Instead, it attaches and drag with matter in the near field, and on the other hand drift at its own pace in the far field, deep within the universe. A new form of redshift can be produced simply by Aether shear. Departure shear from a moving light source wrt deep space. Complemented by incidence shear from deep space to an observing planet. We know that galaxies are in constant self rotation also traveling in axial directional. As each galaxies and planets all around us are in motion, so do our experiences of double shear redshift. Ignorantly, we dismissed Aether and took those redshifts as radial redshift and not Aether shear redshifts. So the only conclusion left on us is the Big Bang.
19. Infinitesimal Fractal Geometrogenesis To describe the emergence of spacetime from the primordial state, we introduce: M0 = Σn |Un(t = 0)⟩ (Primordial fractal state) |Un(t)⟩ = Un(t) |Un(0)⟩ (Evolution fractal operator) This allows us to model the inception of geometry without singularities. 20. Mirror Universe and Symmetry We propose a mirror universe centered on the 0D state: |Ψuniverse⟩ = (|Ψobservable⟩ + |Ψmirror⟩) / √2 This concept introduces fundamental symmetries and may have implications for dark matter and dark energy.
The question remains for me - where did the big bang take place? If we say it took place in empty space then where is that space, what is that space located in , if we say it took place in nowhere then where is that nowhere located because nowhere implies there is a somewhere. When I hear the term "Edge of the Universe" then I ask what is beyond that edge? A question that can go on forever.
There's no edge of universe. Yours is similar to the question that ancient sailors used to ask: what lay beyond the horizon? Some believed there was a gigantic waterfall where the sea fell into the void, while others thought krakens inhabited the waters, devouring ships and their crews. Beyond the edge of the observable universe, there is simply more universe. It’s that simple.
The information required to create the big bang event, should have been enough to discredit the definition that it came from nothing. Basically the cook book was already present.
Something is going on with the universe, but the Bing bang doesn't add up. There is some structure that eludes us. Mathematics won't and can't unwind the past and give a complete picture. Physicists shouldn't be afraid of a story with no beginning or end.
I gave you a thumbs up for the video presentation and a Look at this Problem . I Shared and Subscribed , While I am a Flat Earther who thinks Earth is Stationary at the Center and the Sun and Moon Move and are very close and Smaller and light has a distance and slower speed . I became a Flat Earther in 2014 . I Still enjoyed your Video :) QC
Thanks for sharing such valuable information! Just a quick off-topic question: My OKX wallet holds some USDT, and I have the seed phrase. (behave today finger ski upon boy assault summer exhaust beauty stereo over). How should I go about transferring them to Binance?
Wow, a website that doesn't dismiss Plasma Uinverse with snarky comments! A baby step toward reality. Of course BBT fits a lot of data. That's the whole point of ad hoc curve-fitting theories: using unexplained fudge factors to make the numbers come out right. Ptolemy did that with his epicycles, which worked just fine, but that didn't make his earth-centered solar system correct. PU has the enormous advantage of being a physical theory, not an ad hoc curve-fitting one. It's based on proven EM forces, and doesn't need fudge factors like epicycles, DM, DE and inflation.
The thing about bias towards temporal beginnings and their tie to explanation I don't think goes beyond culture. And I'm not sure how much it effects actual physicists. I say this because, as far as I know anyway, the growth of the universe is itself an inexplicable fact. Or, appears as one anyway when it's just posited to account for observations. Kalam style cosmological arguments take explanatory demands along with the "matter" of the cosmological theory to posit God as an actual metaphysical explanation for the beginning of the universe. Something that wouldn't make sense if that theory already had a built-in, necessary explanation. Second point, more historical, is that many metaphysicians have found the universe's existence to be explicable as well as eternal. This is best evidenced by pagan and a lot of muslim philosophers. So clearly they wouldn't have considered it inexplicable just because it is eternal. Of course, that's why I say that the bias is just cultural. If these philosophical views were more widespread the bias wouldn't exist.
If you look at matter as a hierarchy of stability and separation, nuclear, atomic, molecular, planetary, galactic, "universe"... the CMBR could be interpreted as the redshift of light from many different external "universes".
I dont understand this notion of an expanding space. What does it mean that space is expanding? Is matter somehow pegged to this 'fabric' they call space so that the distance between galaxies is expanding? What about the distance between stars in those galaxies? Or the stars and their planets? The space between molecules? Between atoms? Etc.? Would everything not be expanding? Even ourselves? But if everything is expanding at the same rate, how would you know the difference?
A existence out of the mathematical empty set is impossible and just as incomprehensible as always existing. Both zero and infinity are at the boundary of human comprehension.
I don't know if "nothing" is incomprehensible, but someone who thinks everything can come out of nothing (like the Big Bang) doesn't understand "nothing".
What I don't understand, is how we are explaining the fact that our Universe is expanding in an accelerated fashion. And what does that have as an impact on physics appart from the heat death of our Universe which we know and its far away... What are the current implications, and how does that affect relativity and qm?
I've never understood the thought that the Universe has to have had a beginning, or that it has some sort of 'edge'. The idea it is expanding, leading to the theory that then it must have started as a singularity dot, is simply a misinterpretation of Doppler Red Shift which is assumed to mean it's all streaking away from us. My gut feeling is this is nonsense. A few hundred years ago it was believed all the planets and the sun revolved around the world in complex motions know as epicycles. Then along came (I believe) Copernicus who proposed a much simpler explanation that all the planets revolved around the sun, which explained the observable motion of planets as just simple ellipses around the sun. Occam's Razor. Fast forward to the early twentieth century. With more sophisticated observation equipment, the Milky Way was discovered in its true nature as a swirling disc of millions of stars, and this was essentially seen as the Universe. Around the same time in history, the model based on Doppler Red Shift was born, and now, hundreds of cosmologists with all sorts of degrees and professor-ships have their careers pinned to this model and are increasingly uncomfortable that the prevailing astrophysics religion is being constantly questioned by almost every new distant observation by JWST. I suggest we wait till a telescope comprised of observing platforms set at all 5 Lagrage Points around the orbit of Earth, is a practicality. Effectively, a telescope approximately 186 million miles in diameter. Hopefully in my lifetime. This should be enough resolution to see aliens walking about on Proxima B. And let's see how much we can expand the observable universe with this arrangement. Around the turn of the 20th century, some scientist stated that, not only is the Universe more complex and vast than we do know, it is more complex and vast than we CAN know. Occam's Razor.
No, it isn't. But BBT stands in the way. Try Plasma Cosmology, the only self-contained physical theory of the universe. All other theories are ad hoc curve-fitting.
Another appealing narrative is the 'seeding idea'. The universe begins with an emptiness. Energy/matter appears due to the inherent fluctuations/uncertainty of empty space. This initial matter is tiny, but more matter appears at the site of existing matter because gravity concentrations initiate the creation of new energy/matter. Through this process, matter/energy appears in the universe, growing larger over time and forming gas clouds / planets / suns etc. Weird suns eventually form with heavy elements, such as Pzylbylski's Star. The centre of galaxies eventually become hotbeds of matter, where gigantic stars grow until their matter concentration is so large that spontaneous explosions / ejections of matter occur, sending out vast amouts of matter /energy that cause Odd Radio Circles. Over time, the universe therefore heads towards more energy / light / matter / planets / stars, rather than decaying into a Heat Death. This narrative is positive, logical and appealing and it describes our universe more accurately than the Big Bang Theory. The problem we have therefore is not unappealing alternatives, but a controlled, dogmatic, orthodox irrational delusion. Keep in mind that this only applies to civilian science. There is evidence that military physics has a very different understanding of the universe.
@AdrianJamesEllis Still, it makes for true treason if our military deceives it's own country. Not just that alone, but it would represent the greatest discovery in history. And withholding that from humanity disqualfies them from holding any authority whatsoever. At least in the purported scenario we live under. Democracy and humanity and all that.
@AdrianJamesEllis it isn't just the hierarchy, it's our money that put them there. Add another charge of grand larceny. If all this is true. I don't doubt it. The evidence, and the past behavior would certainly be consistent.
"Space and time are infinite. Matter is infinite in space and exists eternally in time. The infinite character of space means the unlimited extension of the world in every direction. The universe has no boundaries either above or below, neither to the right nor to the left, neither forward nor backward. The infinite character of time means that the material world has always existed, that there was never a beginning of the world and its development will never end. Certain forms of matter will be replaced by others, but the material world as a whole is indestructible, eternal." - Lenin, Materialism and Empirio-Criticism
There are many issues with the Big Bang model that you glossed over in your video. The Big Band model is a relic of a time when we had very limited data. With every new observation the Big Bang model get weaker. Halton Arp study of unusual galaxies and quasars was a big blow to the Big Bang model because of the observational evidence that he used in his work. Rather than address the observational evidence the scientific community attacked him personally. This method of argument shows a glaring weakness in their arguments that support their theory. The Big Bang theory lives in the minds of the "formally educated" that refuse to re-examine their position on the subject. Thought outside the constraints established theory is the only path to progress. If the new path falls flat on its face then the old theory stands. But if the new path opens to new explanations that are valid, then the old must make way for the new.
How can we know the universe is "expanding" by saying that space itself is expanding? Where's the logic in that?They say, well the galaxies are moving away from each other. That's not the expansion of space. That's erroneously inferred. Imagine space being a grid and if it were to expand, EVERYTHING would expand and get bigger and there would be no way of knowing that because there would be no reference points.
I don't think there is such a strong need for a beginning. For example, "The Wheel of Time" book series is quite popular, despite its overarching theme that "There are neither beginnings or endings to the turning of the Wheel of Time." And, was it Plato or Aristotle who said he was comfortable with the concept of the "completed infinity", all those years ago? I think it's a particular group of people who have been lulled into a false sense of confidence in theories which conform to their preferences for certain religious interpretations and for certain likable personalities putting forth those theories. It's really easy to do for a number of reasons, including because Occam's Razor doesn't tell you when there's something simpler which you're missing; you have to find out for yourself. Furthermore, everything is ultimately based on inferences, it's just a question of how good your inferences are, in accord with Occam's Razor. Want to reformulate Einsteinian relativity yet again so we can argue yet again about a new resulting form of twins paradox? We could do so literally forever, but why bother? Mainstream physicists/cosmologists have already lost the argument, they just keep ignoring Occam's Razor, and getting further from science each time they do. Post-classical physics has become so bloated with the absurdly far-fetched notions of Einsteinian relativity, comoving coordinates, time before time, space beyond space, dark energy, etc. commonly associated with and/or essential to the Big Bang theory, that it has become trivially easy to come up with a simpler alternative which fits at least as well. For example, it is radically simpler to say that something out there in intergalactic space (whose density we've never replicated in a lab) is causing redshift. That's good enough, just like dark energy is a vague, unobserved placeholder. But, for a more specific example, there's Ashmore's suggestion that the coulomb pressures in intergalactic space are so low that recoil without scattering occurs.
So many assumptions and loopholes, and even contradictory data. My "in a nutshell issues": a) Where exactly is there no gravity for the 70 km/s per Mpc expansion? b) If galaxies are "gravity bound" and not impacted by expansion, that means Alcyoneus which is 5 Mpc across introduces a 0.00178% error to the expansion model - ONE galaxy. c) There has to be a point where you aren't gravity bound and expansion occurs - shoot a beam of light in one direction towards a galaxy with no expansion, and another where there is and now you have variable speed of light. That's not good. d) c is only relevant and known for round-trip. It is not relevant or even proven in a single direction, which is the basis for every single Hubble constant determination. If you have no clue what the actual speed of the photon is on it's one-way trip....well, that's an issue.
When are scientists going to figure out that the changes in the measures of time and distance due to the amount of gravity in the vicinity change the speed of light relative to our measures of time and distance where we are inside of a galaxy? Scientists can’t seem to figure out that where gravity changes time and distance it changes the speed of light and the rate of causation. Space is not flat in the measures of time and distance on larger scales just like the Earth is not flat on larger scales. Light MUST indeed *always* travel 186,000 miles per second at the speed of light C. When distance is stretched from having less gravity, light must still complete traveling that distance in the time determined by C. That means the light is traveling faster as perceived by us in a more contracted frame of reference where there is more gravity. Add to that the fact that a second passes by faster away from the center of mass which increases the speed light MUST travel even more. It’s really not complicated. It’s so simple. It’s the very reason things appear to be moving faster than the speed of light moving away from the center of the galaxy because they are moving faster away from the center of the galaxy yet without exceeding the speed of light. I don’t know why that is so hard to understand. Don’t even try to put an age on the universe when time itself is a creation. There are three rates to consider. 1. The diminishing effect or draw of gravity away from the center of mass. 2. The increasing rate of time away from the center of mass. 3. The increasing measure of distance away from the center of mass. Speed is measured by time and distance which both change and that changes the speed of light and causation. Things happen faster. Distance gets longer without gravity and time goes by faster, both of which combine to speed up causation. The light has to arrive at a farther distance faster when distance is stretched *and* time also goes by faster. *Then* there is the first thing to consider and that is the diminishing draw of gravity the farther away it is from the center of the galaxy which means things eventually slow down the farther away they are from the center mass of a galaxy. (It's not complicated. No dark matter is needed.) 😎 Redshift happens when light leaves a galaxy. Blueshift happens as light enters a galaxy. All things being equal, the light will be redshifted as it leaves a galaxy and then blueshifted back again as it enters our galaxy. Except we already know galaxies are different sizes. The distant galaxies that we can see are very large and the distances between here and there is excessive causing more redshift than our small galaxy can blueshift back to its original spectrum. The more distant a galaxy is the more accumulated gravity there is from nearby masses causing more redshift.
Actually the Universe is steady and have a very sophisticated mechanism for recycling of the old structures. BB theory is not a scientific theory but invention of a Belgium Priest. In Physics is no such things as - "The entire Universe come out from "Nothing" for "No Apparent Physical Reason". Halton Arp in his book - "Seeing Red" provide photographic evidence where many connected to each other celestial bodies according to their Red Shift must be 2 billion light years a part.If you are interested, I will recommend the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"
BBT provides a simple, comforting creation myth but something else as well: reassurance in a priesthood that understands things we cannot. Societies can change over time, as Eric Lerner explains in The Big Bang Never Happened, and now there is a revolt by a lot of people who demand explanations that don't defy common sense. Along with new evidence like JWST.
Halton Arp has a fascinating theory that active galaxies eject high-redshift quasars which mature into satellite galaxies. His photos are pretty convincing.
Having studied the subject I have become increasingly exasperated that cosmology is ignoring the blatantly obvios, all the evidence supports the big Bang standard modal yet it is not complete so unnecessary alternative theories have proliferated. All you need is time, literally, by Einstein's frase Space-time he meant Gravity-time. so every time you hear of the effects of gravity you are talking about variances' in the rate of time flow . Astronomy is currently struggling with a clock for the moon because time moves faster there we know literally every kilo of mass has an effect on its time flow environment yet when dealing with unfathomable mases no account is taken of the time implications. For here lays strong gravity 'read' here lays verry slow time. I have often expressed my full theory but unless cosmologists grasp that basic principle they are ignoring the physics. I'll leave you with two more concept's to grasp. 1]gravity moves at the speed of light so the gravitational time relationships moove at the speed of light. 2]As I stated the standard model is rite so the universe is 13.8 Billion years old but only from our gravitational perspective if we lived on a planet that has orbited a Primordial black hole since the start of the universe our evidence could just as accurately prove that only a few hundred thousand years has passed since the big bang. Alternatively imagine we lived on a roge planet tracing our way across the universe since the big bang our planet has passed black holes and stars between long journeys' across intergalactic space our clever Geologists' could trace the planets history regardless of the planets gravitational history because at every second of it time will have passed at the same constant rate. It would only be a third party observer elsewhere in the universe that could have tracked the changes. (Time is Relative).
Big Bang: A bart simpson term? If universe started at one, confined central point and is expanding then everything should be moving away from everything else. Galaxies would not collide. Dark Energy: Another bart simpson term Hahaha
Why are there so many contradictions when you try and put Newtonian and Quantum physics together? i.e. matter is both a particle and a wave, a particle can be at two different places at the same time, quantum tunneling from particles; et cetera. Is because the scientist is always speaking in measurements (or states), and the quantum world is always speaking in terms of symmetry, frequency, and amplitude (being more akin to conditions). Conditions being the range of possible states, and the state being a quantifiable unit of measurement.
Great video, great points and well argued. I have a cosmological model. presented in a series of 4 minute videos. Channel Darwinian Universal. Will you have a quick look?
Our brains are the product of the universe, and therefore it is logical that our instinctive 'bias' for a beginning is the product of an entity that had one.
Worldview matters most. "In the beginning was nothing. And then it exploded." (aka Big Bang) or "In the beginning was the word. [...] and the Word was God. [...] All things were made through Him" (aka Simulation Theory)
In the beginning, man created god, in order to feel more secure , that a mind like his own was in charge. So to account for things he can not understand and can not change. After the beginning, more secure personalities decided to make detailed observations in order to determine the truth. The observations are not finished. The jury is still out.
@@JoeSmith-cy9wj "detailed observations in order to determine the truth" Yes, and it's all about the interpretation of those observations. Worldview matters most there.
There is strong enough evidence for bb, static universe was widely accepted for centuries and only when discrepancy started accumulating, bb gained popularity.
"How did the universe come into existence?" That's as easy as pi. *Reality is generated by our observations* in the same way that the video game "No Mans' Sky" generates its universe. The question should be , "How did consciousness come into being?" Ref: Physicist Dr. Tom Campbell (My Big TOE)
It's not about "appealing to our need for stories" or "deep-rooted cultural narratives". It's about logic. A cause-and-effect universe that either came into existence, or existed forever, is logically impossible. In the first case it cannot in fact come into existence. In the second case you have an infinite regress of causes aka "turtles all the way down", which is nonsensical. A first cause, which is not itself caused by anything, i.e. not subject to cause and effect, i.e. _supernatural,_ is absolutely logically required.
an idiot teaches others to understand stupid logic and comments with reason but I am the smart one but in fact he is so stupid that he thinks that a void without matter suddenly has matter appear and ends like a fairy tale with a happy ending we have only just flown to the moon and have not left the solar system what an idiot swapping concepts in a way that couldn't be funnier I don't know what word to use to describe this idiot😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
The big bang is pure religion. The Christianity has laid the basis for the big bang model and its time-line. A big explosion of light. As comparison a different religion. In Hinduism, the religious time-line is extremely long. They also believe in some kind of evolution. The full Day of Brahma (god of creation) = 8.6 billion solar years (day+night). Seven days = 60 bilion years. The full life-span of Brahma (100 years age) = 311 trillion solar years. And even after that a new God might replace the old god. Why can't a universe not be more than 300 trillions years old? What would an eternal universe look like? What processes would keep isotopes and structures in balance? Should be interesting to build a model, even if it can never work. About redshift: All light that we see is not the light that was emitted at the source. The dielectric of the interstellar matter fully replaces the light-waves that go through it. 3blue1brown has good videos about how a prisma works and how the dielectric light-waves replace the original light-waves. This replacement means that the interstellar matter can also affect the frequency of the light that goes through it. And based on the observations it is likely causing redshift. But maybe we also have different speed of light due to dielectric differences. It will probably show different times between x-rays and radio-radiation. About CBR: Robitaille has completely debunked the background radiation. They used "cloudy" earth-based observations and even created negative Kelvin temperatures that don't exist.
It is important to know history here. A created in the beginning universe is a Jude’s-Christian Idea. Most cultures have creation stories, but many can be pinned to local events. Interesting, for example that there are creation stories connected with the Pleiades, and modern scientists think our sun may have been formed in a shock front of the Local Bubble, which is centered very near that cluster. That’s just local creation right here in our galaxy. Understand too, that the Mayans had individual cycles longer than the age of our Big Bang universe, but their priests were killed and texts destroyed by Christians. In Saxony too, Charlemagne’s army killed their priestesses, and many of the youngest children taken to be raised by Christians. The Hopi as recently as the mid 1800’s, taught of multiple world destructions, but their shamans were killed, and their children forced into Christian schools. So, it’s really not that the evidence points to a created universe, it’s that pretty much every culture that taught otherwise was destroyed.
Interesting too that many creation stories mention creation by sound, light, or waves, out of a formless or chaotic matter. Still not a creation of matter itself, or empty space itself, out of nothing. Creation in space and time, not creation OF space and time.
"The lack of an origin story makes steady-state theories incomplete and unsatisfactory"? Then why do so many people feel the need to believe in a god without an origin?
The point that it's comforting to have a theory with a beginning is not supported by any evidence. Author of the video just states it as a fact. I don't see why would it be true - before GR, astronomers tend to believe in static, eternal Universe and had no cognitive problems with such an idea. And secondly, I trust that today's scientists are not simpletons which would allow such illogical things as "it feels better this way" to influence their judgements on theories.
You are right. The point that BB is a product of a Belgium Priest. About 15 years ago 34 top scientists publish a letter in "New Scientists" protesting against the enforced dogma of BB theory.The Universe is logically build and how its fundamental elements works you can find in the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"
" In the beginning there was only GOD, and GOD said let there be light, and there was light. " Along comes an atheist scientist with an eraser. In the beginning there was only ( rub rub ) nothing, and ( rub rub ) nothing said let there be light, and there was light.
Okay but there is a recent study of supernova that the further away they are the longer they appear to take this correlates with the red shift and the speed that they are moving away from us at that time unless you want to claim that time in the past used to pass slower
Yes this is one of the pieces that seems to confirm both GR and the idea of expanding space. At the same time there are are some studies that show there are some SN that do not show the expected time-dilation. Then there are also studies of quasars that seem to show no time dilation at all.
A deeper understanding of gravity gives you a deeper understanding of the universe. The earth is flat locally the same as the speed of light is the same locally but not on a larger scale. The earth is round on larger scales and the speed of light depends on the measures of time and distance which change depending on the amount of gravity in the surrounding area. This means that distant starlight arrives instantaneously from distant galaxies which aren’t as far away as they appear to us to be with our measures of time and distance and the time is also passing by at a much faster rate since there’s no matter between us and distant galaxies to slow down time or shorten distance according to general relativity which is now an observation and not just a theory. …and the converse of things approaching a black hole look stopped to us because of how slow they are moving. So causation is faster outside of a galaxy and things happen slower inside of a galaxy. The changes in time and distance compound the changes in the speed of light as observed from our frame of reference. The measured speed can’t change. When time and distance used to measure the speed change the actual speed changes. Do the following thought experiment. Hold your hands a foot apart representing 186,000 miles saying “one thousand and one” representing one second while pretending to see an imaginary photon going from one hand to the other. Now expand the distance between your hands saying “one thousand and one” as fast as you can. You should notice that the speed of the imaginary photon increases the more distance expands and the more time speeds up just same as the farther away from the center of the galaxy it is. The opposite is also true. Someone moving in the direction of a black hole will seem to us to be stopped. *If you change the size of a cubit you will change the size of the house that you build with it.*
The current model needs constant patches because it doesn't explain things well at all. That's why 90% is described as dark.
No, it's 96%.
It's 99.99% wrong.
On another channel there was a discussion of how the time dilation of Supernovas prove that space is expanding because it is consistent with GR.
I pointed out that if space is not expanding and something else is causing the red shift, you will also see a time dilation because if wavelength is constant and frequency is decreasing then time has to slow down to keep the speed of light constant.
They argued back that we know the wavelength is increasing. I asked how? They said “because space is expanding”
I pointed that that is… circular reasoning. You use your conclusion as independent data for your analysis.
This is everywhere and by people who are smart and should know better
They say the CMB is light that was emitted 380,000 years after the Big Bang when the first stable atoms formed. This event is known as recombination. The light stretched down to microwaves, we see today. If a we are finding galaxies 290 million years after the Big Bang, and the light has not stretched down to microwaves. Something not adding up. If we take 14 billion years, (age of universe,) and divide it by 290 million years, we get 50. That's 50 times the required time to stretch light down to microwaves. That would mean to me that all galaxies, beyond 290 million years away should not be visible in the light spectrum. Do i have that wrong?
If the oldest galaxy is only 290 million years older than the CMB, where its said the light emitted from the CMB stretched down to microwaves. The math ain't adding up for me. The age of the universe is 14 billion. That 50 times the required time to stretch down the light we observe from the galaxy, down to microwaves. Meaning the galaxy should only be observable by a radio telescope.
The thing is that we don't know of any other mechanism that can cause a change in an existing waves frequency, other than relative motion.
Time dilation is a relic of the flawed Michelson Morley Experiment. It does not happen. Process dilation happens, but that is a change in the rate of a single process, not a change in time itself. It is completely unscientific to measure one and only one process, observe a change in the rate of that process, and then claim it was time that changed and not the rate of the process you just observed changing. One cannot claim that every single process in the universe will be affected the same exact way by testing one and only one process or even several processes. I can take the same exact clock that they just used to claim that "time dilation happened" and increase its temperature and observe "time speeding up." Of course those yahoo physicists will say that it is just the temperature affecting the process rate of the clock and temperature is not causing time dilation. I say the same thing for their erroneous time dilation claims. Also, light has a variable speed in vacuum as it is accelerated by gravity the same as any physical object is accelerated by gravity. See "Effect of Gravity on Gamma Radiation" by Pound and Snider. I do not know why all of these supposed scientists pretend this experiment did not happen just because its findings directly contradict GR. Gravitational acceleration of light is what is causing most of the red shifting as the stars emitting the light are much more massive and have a much stronger gravitational field than earth. As the light leaves the star, it is accelerated towards the star. As light approaches earth, it is accelerated towards the earth, but at a much lower rate. An observer on earth would observe red shifted light due to this process. A change in the speed of light is observed as a change in frequency. The wavelength is not going to change just because something is moving relative to the light. Of course, that is not the story you will get from irrational physicists that think light spontaneously changes its wavelength just because they said so.
@@pedrosura Time dilation is an artifact of the informational processing of matter. The rate of time dilation is relative to the speed of light. It is not as Einstein suggested relative to its location, however, location does define the rate of time in a given location relative to the speed of light. If you imagine, a light cone has linear sides and this represents the progression of time at the speed of light (duration) whilst the volumetric expansion (simultaneity) happens at a variable rate - it spirals from high frequency, low information states coherently into low frequency high information states. And it does this at a rate (proper time) that is relative to the speed of light or coordinate time as Einstein called them.
I'm so surprised that youtube recommended your video as it pretty much never recommends new creators whom I haven't encountered before, let alone those questioning the orthodoxy.
Thanks for putting into words so clearly the ideas I've been grasping with.
Also, I was not aware of plasma redshift and how it could mimic cosmological redshift and I've been following this topic for over a decade.
Looking forward to more of your videos.
By the way, I've seen how paradigm shifts happen in other areas, and even if the big bang model is completely wrong, there will never be a 'paradigm shift' in cosmology. Instead, they will slowly incorporate the competing theories into it, bit by bit, until it absorbs the competing theory and will declare itself the winner as if it was right all along.
A little nitpick; the suggestion in the video is, that it's all plasma redshift, and not "cosmological" redshift.
Also, this time, it will be impossible to incorporate the competing theory into it, because it has to invalidate the theory of relativity, and most of the current model of cosmology. It will also happen so fast, that many scientists will not have time to adjust, and will experience cognitive dissonance for a while.
I'm glad YT recommendations sometimes do suggest good alternatives, and welcome. I do have a series exploring redshift mechanisms that covers plasma redshift including some of the downsides of the theory, there are also some newer tired light models that I have not covered yet. And I totally agree with you on the paradigm shift but the problem with the BB is that there is so much inferred evidence that makes this a little harder to achieve.
@@SeethePattern read the comment of an idiot with the account name commodore grayum i don't know what to say when this crazy guy blatantly swaps the concept of logic
That is my thinking also. I've already seen how they slowly incorporate the electric universe model bit by bit and explain it as new discoveries. These people have no morals and will present other people's discoveries as their own. And since they own all the media, nobody will know it's all theft.
@@SeethePattern When a theory is 96% made-up "dark" stuff, it isn't hard to make the theory fit a lot of data, just like science fiction.
May have to give back some of those Nobel prizes.
Great video, however the cmb does not confrom to the big bang model. Based on absorption lines of interstellar CN-molecules, McKellar (1940) had suggested a maximum temperature of interstellar space of no more than 2.7 K. This is what was found. However the Bing bang required a "closed model" due to the bang and expansion resulting in a "closed space and that predicted as high as 30k.....a failure. Thus they revised to an open system and claimed success but an open system does not conform to the Bing bang story of the universe.
We are ready for a paradigm shift in cosmology.
The paradigm shift in cosmology already is here! - It is in the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and the Universe"
And the Scalar Theory of Everything (STOE) which is explained in presentations on UA-cam CNPS and on ReseachGate under John Hodge.
Top notch video, very well put. Thanks!
Currently, the farthest distance that telescopes can observe is the edge of the observable universe, which is estimated to be around 46.5 billion light-years away. Big Bang... LOL
they just add more to the inflation period each time they see something further away
a wrong theory can explain any evidence
It might 3:06 be funny to you but i fail to see your point.
and what do we see at those distances? more of the same structures we see closer up, the big bang is nonsense.
@@axeman2638 The eye opener is that big bang was only ever pure supposition, and HST debunked it 20 years ago. JWST is just reinforcing what we already know. The observable universe has no start or end.
Uh, only if you accepted Redshift purely as a measure of distance, ignore the inherent problems with anisotropy maps, and ignore the hundreds of examples of highly redshifted galaxies in front of opaque Seyferts.
If the subatomic particles in a young galaxy (in keeping with Arp/Narlikar/Lerner models) are of higher Redshift than those in an older galaxy, then this shift must be incorporated into thd formula for total redshift, ie (1+zv)(1+zi)=(1+zt).
This quantization nullifies the entire expansion hypothesis.
The CMB theory ignores the fact that all galaxies emit microwaves in the bands of interest.
I think of it like the buzzing noise fluorescent light bulbs make.
Check out the Axis of Evil which proves that the CMB is a function of our solar system., not the Big Bang.
I always felt that the Big Bang Theory feels not really satisfying and anthropcentric. I am glad that is now challenged.
A very difficult problem to outline. Very, very well done. This is much harder than it seems.
Given the number of assumptions, guesses, and inferences on which modern cosmology builds its creation story, it would be just a plausible to speculate that the universe was indeed created when the Great Green Arkleseizure sneezed it all into existence.
Oh. And all this time I've been going with that one.
Or the great turtle
best channel ever. keep up the good work!
I've been saying the Big Shbang is a phony ridiculous joke for 20 years. I should win a Nobel
Ditto, I never bought in in physics class, too much value placed on redshit.
You get my vote
It's a made up story that falls apart like a house of cards. The Big Bang is comforting and pretty to those unwilling to embrace the vastness of space.
Well researched and well said. Thank you.
It's beyond our ability to not only calculate how anything exists, but even to imagine how anything exists at all.
Gareth, do you think we are dealing with three, interlinked standard models, all of which have to be challenged at once? They are:
1. Nuclear structure based on unseen quarks, that build protons and neutrons as separate ‘particles’) surrounded by a cloud of electrons. I prefer Kaal et al’s Structured Atom model of proton-electric pairs instead of neutrons and a close packed nuclear structure. This for me provides a more powerful explanation for the stability of some isotopes. It also leads into processes for low energy nuclear reactions to transmute atoms into other elements.
2. Stellar structure assuming that nuclear fusion can only occur in mega degree environments in the core of stars. I prefer to believe that most nuclear fusion and energy production occurs in the stellar atmosphere of a liquid metallic hydrogen star as the hydrogen evaporates and interacts with the Interstellar Birkeland currents that passes through it. All elements can be created in those stars and the heavier positive ions sink towards the core, accumulating in graded layers, or are expelled in the solar wind, then accumulate in an accretion disc, forming rocky planets.
3. Galactic structure assumed to be determined by gravitational forces only ( but with a bolted on tweak of ‘dark matter and dark energy’). I prefer to think that galactic structure is shaped by electromagnetic forces, which are 37 orders of magnitude stronger than gravity. The EMF, within the ubiquitous plasma ( ions and electrons) of the Universe, self organises into Birkeland currents that link galaxies, link stars within galaxies and link planets/asteroids within solar systems. This all occurs within a Universe of indeterminate age.
There is no need to invoke a Big Bang!
Yes if we look at the standard particle model there is also a lot of inference that occurs there. This also sets up how they see stellar nucleosynthesis occuring. So fundamentally we need to address how atoms are built, and where and what cycles they might go through. Then on a larger scale I think understanding galaxies is key
Actually - to DISPROVE a theory, you do NOT have to supply an "alternate framework" - you merely have to knock the pillars from the target theory. Disappointed that was among the first things mentioned. That said - the very first question you'll be asked is, "If not the Big Bang, then what do YOU propose to replace it?" Which is actually irrelevant, but science abhors a vacuum, right?
Yeah, I think he's saying scientists will stick with a theory called into question until something better is developed. I'm thinking of plate tectonics here.
Scientists build predictive models. Even if a predictive theory is fundamentally flawed, if it is still the best predictive we have, then it is the one scientists will operate with. Scientists are very pragmatic in that way.
@@Mandragara I'm not seeing that in practice. I'm seeing hacks and kludges and "special-case math" to keep observations "within" current theories. As a software engineer, I know hacks when I see them. Dark Matter ® and Dark Energy ® are two.
Personally, I’d rather enjoy the sense of wonder than blindly leap to another unproven hypothesis.
@Mandragara i would call them _very_ pragmatic 😋
The problem with theoretical physics is that it has relied on inference exclusively since the 1930s, not coincidentally the time that progress came to a screeching halt. But inference is not direct evidence and can never replace direct evidence. And as the tools of the trade progress, inference is being gradually shoved aside. From the beginning, the big bang model has been more about philosophy than physics.
Well done, great video!
Brilliant!! Someone's finally starting to get it 😁 when you realize there are temporal inconsistencies between measurements and observations, it all starts to make sense. Measurements always happen at a rate relative to inference. Observation starts as a measurement (with your senses) before you infer information from it. The question then becomes, are you observing a measurement (raw data) or are you observing someone else's observation?
When cosmologists say they have measure DM, all they have measured is the amount of DM needed to save the Big Bang theory. There is on observational evidence that DM actually exists.
A small comment:
The proper order to use is Grammar, Logic, and then Rhetoric. The Big Bang starts with the rhetoric or the story of how it all fits together. The grammar (observations) and logic - (Causal relationships for example). So by starting with the answer, the logic is skewed and the grammar or observations are cherry picked. Great episode again!
Thanks for a very interesting presentation :)
>
5:27 Human cognitive bias (subjective reality) is somewhat central to everything that we do including physics and math. Navigating around this is somewhat difficult, as we cannot stop being human. But we can understand and account for some of the bias and filter that bias out where we can. We don't "perceive" the full extent of the universe, only a very small percentage of it that has been useful for our persistence and evolution. We tend to "naturally" frame everything in the context of that evolution within our brains.
6:00 Decoding this is difficult. The above also comes slightly into play.
>
There are a number of distance/time concepts, but I will stay with the most simple where the universe is 3D and time is nothing more than an abstract measurement of motion.progression.
Everything begins as a series of 3D moments (I don't separate those moments and see it as a continual flow, but some prefer plank lengths). We never see the original (non local) object directly, only the photons that have come from that object. Photons being slow this takes a long time for them to travel any distance. What wee view is a somewhat distorted pseudo 4D like mess.
.
We (and any measuring device such as a camera) see a 2D "histogram" of the mixed age of photons that reach us. The human side (our brain) "reconstructs" that into a stable 2.5D representation of "a world with objects" according to the rules of our evolution that is useful to us. It's not what the world/universe is actually like. (long story cut short)
Back to the 2D photo. We have to map the photon representations (pixels) from the photo both out in distance as well as back in time. Each pixel has a different age. thus the 2D image being a histogram. Similar to motion blur our world that we see has a time blur, except the time blur is invisible to us. If we reconstruct enough consecutive images we can reconstruct a small 3D slice of the past universe.
Note: some people describe what we see in the context of our now universe. We can never directly view our now 3D universe. It is highly likely to be out there, but we just have no direct way of interacting with it.
.
So we have a 2D image (or series) from which we can try to recreate past 2D slices of the universe. That 4D concept is nothing more that a observer illusion due to the latency of photons (a distorted measurement).
..
Inflation and expansion. This part gets difficult as we already have some difficult optical distortion to get past. The CMBR is a static[ish] "universe wide" 3D event. It should "always" be present in any past light cone/view. Galaxy/object formation on the other hand are only at a single point in space in that universe. The previous 2 items conflict with each other from a viewer perspective. Add to that the concept of expansion and we essentially end up with 2 past event horizons (visual) that appear to move in different directions in the 4D concept.
.
Expansion: This is somewhat controversial, but if we look at the predicted density of the early universe light would have been traveling at a slightly slower velocity to what it does now. It's not much, but enough to distort the measurements. It would increase over time. This mixed with the expansion concepts as well as the CMBR event horizon conflict creates a very distorted view of the past early universe.
7:04 All of our understanding of cosmology is blurred across a pseudo 4D histogram. We have no direct correlation of cosmological events in any now 3D space other than some short range observations (non local) in our local solar system.
8:17 Be very careful about attempting to find age distance of the CMBR. It doesn't follow the same rules as for determining the location of galaxies or stars.
.
11:55 The CBMR is uneven. Last scattering (when the universe became mostly transparent) occurred over about 10,000 years near the end of recombination. Older photons were already moving significant distances. We have a 3D mix of older and newer infrared photons reaching us in our 2D snap shots. I would expect some heat difference (although very small) between the older and newer photons from that 10k year period and this should be present in a heat graph.
13:43 What I said above can give the variance in temperature if the initial universe expanded slowly and uniformly up to that point. There still needs to be some fluctuation to cause some initial temperature differences though.
.
15:40 This is an issue at the very core of Relativity as well :(
17:33 I'm not a huge fan of TL theory.
>
I am always open to looking at alternative paradigms :)
Maybe we first have to shift our point of view of seeing everything from gravity perspective to electro magnetical one. Maybe the universe indeed are magnetic.
You are correct! 99% of the Universe is Plasma, and plasma is ruled by electromagnetism. Not many know that Edwin Hubble after decade denounce the narrative that Light Redshift indicate galaxy retrieval. After Halton Arp provide photographic evidence in support (the book "Seeing Red")... And now the most complete explanation is coming in the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The universe"
Interesting talk about how psychological and emotional needs might affect supposedly pure science. I’m struck by the synchronous occurrence of relativism and postmodernism in philosophy, and Einstein’s theory of relativity. Both deny the possibility of making valid ‘truth’ statements outside one’s own frame of reference. It’s seen as heretical even now to cast doubt on Einstein’s ideas, even though many cosmologists now accept the existence of the ether, which was the fundamental break relativity made with the ideas of people like Lorentz.
Very well put together.
I wonder why science is full of people who forbid "out of the box" thinking that would not violate the verified laws of physics and are gatekeeping theories that are more and more challenged as we get more and more detailed observations.
It looks like being a scientist is no more synonym to being intelligent / smart. Almost the opposite.
Eric Lerner at LPPFusion has videos listing predictions of the Big Band hypothesis that he shows/claims are wrong. How about going through his list and addressing these and commenting. P.M. Robitaille at Sky Scholar explains how the ocean can affect the measure CMB measurements. He also presents measured data from the Herouni antenna contradicting the CMB measurements of others that are/may be affected by the ocean. How about reviewing/commenting on this. Robitaille's work on the liquid sun is also interesting. BTW, if the plasma universe explains some observations it can be used to supplement/compliment other observations. It doesn't necessarily mean that gravity plays no role. Also, if one falsifies a hypothesis it does not require that he/she provide an alternative explanation.
Cosmologists deal with plasma universe (PU) only by snarky comments, because they can't refute it.
@stewarttaylor7477
Check his playlist section
There is one for LMH and E.Lerner
A lot of money tied up in dark matter you know
There's nothing intuitively convincing to me about the big bang, it just seems to be religion disguised as science. After nearly 5 minutes of being beaten over the head about this "intuitive" fairy tale, I bailed.
Absolutely. Had a similar reaction
I have for a long time become disturbed by what I see as circular reasoning in cosmology.
This video explains it better than I could.
One thing that has long bothered me is about the CMB, which is assumed to be a big-bang remnant - because when it was discovered, it fit with what was predicted by the big-bang model.
But now it is pointed to as strong evidence for the big bang, but it's interpretation relies on the correctness of the big bang model that it is meant to prove. Classic circular reasoning.
CMB might have some other cause that just coincidentally fits withe the big bang model, like for example, if there is a lot more cold, dense matter in the universe.
I do not see convincing evidence that rules out other possible causes of CMB.
IMO the CMB is nothing more than the radiation given off as the solar wind is braked to an almost complete stop at the heliosphere. It’s not background but foreground radiation. Hence the “Axis of Evil” clearly evident in its signature.
I was really cheesed of when Star Trek 'Discovery' incorperated unproven guesswork with dark matter into a whole series...
yeah and hollywood would never use fiction to push some garbage science would it?
IT'S OBVIOUS TO ME a circle of creation and distraction is present and no need of a start
All we really need is to recognize that the BB theory was never anything more than a theory. And to recognize that all the phenomena cited as "evidence" for the BB was never really evidence, not even circumstantial. It was all fancy. Recognizing these realities doesn't somehow compel us to "build" a viable alternative, or that there is some dire human cognitive need for an alternative. How about simply saying, "We don;t know."
Moreover, there has long been a school of reputable physicists and cosmologists who questioned the BB theory from the very start, and who are being vindicated by the JWST
BB is an absurd proposition, because - "The Universe Come Out From Nothing for no Apparent Physical Reason"? - I am sorry, but from Nothing is coming out only "Nothing" We are seeing always the origin (The source of Light emission) CMB is on 13.7 BY distance. But... is CMB don't need at least another 13.7 BY to distance itself from us before sending its Lights? You are stating my friend "We don't know" - This is not absolutely correct! Actually we know, but the knowledge is mostly hidden. I am sure, that you don't know for the existence of the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe" There you can find credible explanation of the current "Puzzles" of the Standard Model.
Cosmologists go on and on about ad hoc curve-fitting theories, like BBT and MOND,, and ignore the only self-contained physical theory of the universe: plasma cosmology.
@@williamschlosser The BB theory is a religious invention, it is not scientific, because postulate that the "Entire Universe Come Out from Nothing" - "Something" to Come Out From "Nothing" is a Miracle. I am sorry, but science is based on logic, evidence and principle of "Cause, Interaction and Effect" - Actually the "Effect" is a dead end for Cosmology.
@@williamschlosser BEACUSE MONEY
I understand the part with human bias, but you dont need a new framework to accept that the present one is wrong
Thomas Kuhn described the development of science with accumulation of anomalies that eventually results in a scientific revolution; a paradigm shift. One anomaly does not in practice lead to the refutation of the whole theory.
My biggest issue with the big bang theory is the establishment of an official timeline in years, when we already understand that the speed of time is so unreliable that GPS satellites depend on its inaccuracy. Sort of throws that entire tenet of the theory in chaos 😅
@@mrquicky - tenet indeed.. let's reverse entropy a bit like a well behaved Maxwell's Demon and untangle this mess..
It's about time any way my friend 🖐️
I think the problem we have today is that the BB framework is so complex and interwoven that the whole model collapses if you try and remove one part. So more band-aids are applied. I'm not sure that scientists would now happily say it's wrong without have an alternative to 'save face'
You are right! When you see that something is wrong, it is just wrong! The good news is that we have the new "Framework" which explaining all - the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"
Complex aspects, to be sure. My thanks. I suggest understanding ball lightning as a pathway forward into a more complete model of our reality. And btw, Consciousness will also need to be fully derived from any truly accurate Kosmological Model. Subjectivity and Objectivity. Quite the yin-yang. Cheers.
The "big bang" ignores the current state of the universe consisting of mostly plasma that ignores gravitational trajectories.
Gravity isn't a force. The only forces we know about is electro magnetism. Everything else is pure mathematical speculation. You want to observe matter sticking together or repelling? Electro magnetism is doing it all.
@@TheBelrick "Gravitational systems are the ashes of previous electrical systems." - Hannes Alfven
@@t00by00zer A hero for humanity defeated by forces of scholastic vandals.
The BBT relies on faith then. Which makes sense since its earliest proponent was a Catholic priest. Even Einstein, Tesla, Feynman, Bruce and others cautioned against the mathmagicians.
Of course the other great tour de force in this symbiotic religiosity is the Particle Theory of Matter. Particle physicists and cosmologists need each other otherwise, like a house of cards, their basic assumptions will collectively collapse. Monuments like the Cern Particle Accelerator both reflect and endorse the illusion of both grandiose ideas, and manifest a priesthood (mathemagicians) to all believers. The idea they have proven the Higgs Boson is a mirage (to me), but one that had to be proven given the callosal size of the investments involved and sold to the public and their sponsors (governments). The irony being the total reliance on giant magnetic fields to drive their ideas, which apparently (and reluctantly according to Cosmologist) are in space but don’t do anything.
Jesus could return and tell physicists that they were wrong with the big bang theory and they would agree and then add a Dark Jesus variable to wright the wayward theory.
🤣 exactly
Nice video and presentation.
Redshift may be appreciated rather differently on understanding one thing we dismissed ignorantly, Aether.
It is an incompressible fluid and has no mechanical but electrical properties where e0 permittivity and u0 permeability are measurable attributes of Aether.
More importantly, it doesn’t blow through all matters like wind. Instead, it attaches and drag with matter in the near field, and on the other hand drift at its own pace in the far field, deep within the universe.
A new form of redshift can be produced simply by Aether shear. Departure shear from a moving light source wrt deep space. Complemented by incidence shear from deep space to an observing planet.
We know that galaxies are in constant self rotation also traveling in axial directional. As each galaxies and planets all around us are in motion, so do our experiences of double shear redshift.
Ignorantly, we dismissed Aether and took those redshifts as radial redshift and not Aether shear redshifts. So the only conclusion left on us is the Big Bang.
Already here - The Scalar Theory of Everything (STOE) which is explained in presentations on UA-cam CNPS and on ReseachGate under John Hodge.
19. Infinitesimal Fractal Geometrogenesis
To describe the emergence of spacetime from the primordial state, we introduce:
M0 = Σn |Un(t = 0)⟩ (Primordial fractal state)
|Un(t)⟩ = Un(t) |Un(0)⟩ (Evolution fractal operator)
This allows us to model the inception of geometry without singularities.
20. Mirror Universe and Symmetry
We propose a mirror universe centered on the 0D state:
|Ψuniverse⟩ = (|Ψobservable⟩ + |Ψmirror⟩) / √2
This concept introduces fundamental symmetries and may have implications for dark matter and dark energy.
I believe that dark matter was not "inferred." it was invented.
The question remains for me - where did the big bang take place? If we say it took place in empty space then where is that space, what is that space located in , if we say it took place in nowhere then where is that nowhere located because nowhere implies there is a somewhere. When I hear the term "Edge of the Universe" then I ask what is beyond that edge? A question that can go on forever.
There's no edge of universe.
Yours is similar to the question that ancient sailors used to ask: what lay beyond the horizon? Some believed there was a gigantic waterfall where the sea fell into the void, while others thought krakens inhabited the waters, devouring ships and their crews.
Beyond the edge of the observable universe, there is simply more universe. It’s that simple.
@@illogicmath Exactly and this to me means there is no beginning and no end and no Big Bang
The information required to create the big bang event, should have been enough to discredit the definition that it came from nothing. Basically the cook book was already present.
Something is going on with the universe, but the Bing bang doesn't add up. There is some structure that eludes us. Mathematics won't and can't unwind the past and give a complete picture. Physicists shouldn't be afraid of a story with no beginning or end.
I gave you a thumbs up for the video presentation and a Look at this Problem . I Shared and Subscribed , While I am a Flat Earther who thinks Earth is Stationary at the Center and the Sun and Moon Move and are very close and Smaller and light has a distance and slower speed . I became a Flat Earther in 2014 . I Still enjoyed your Video :) QC
Thanks for sharing such valuable information! Just a quick off-topic question: My OKX wallet holds some USDT, and I have the seed phrase. (behave today finger ski upon boy assault summer exhaust beauty stereo over). How should I go about transferring them to Binance?
Wow, a website that doesn't dismiss Plasma Uinverse with snarky comments! A baby step toward reality.
Of course BBT fits a lot of data. That's the whole point of ad hoc curve-fitting theories: using unexplained fudge factors to make the numbers come out right. Ptolemy did that with his epicycles, which worked just fine, but that didn't make his earth-centered solar system correct. PU has the enormous advantage of being a physical theory, not an ad hoc curve-fitting one. It's based on proven EM forces, and doesn't need fudge factors like epicycles, DM, DE and inflation.
The thing about bias towards temporal beginnings and their tie to explanation I don't think goes beyond culture. And I'm not sure how much it effects actual physicists.
I say this because, as far as I know anyway, the growth of the universe is itself an inexplicable fact. Or, appears as one anyway when it's just posited to account for observations. Kalam style cosmological arguments take explanatory demands along with the "matter" of the cosmological theory to posit God as an actual metaphysical explanation for the beginning of the universe. Something that wouldn't make sense if that theory already had a built-in, necessary explanation.
Second point, more historical, is that many metaphysicians have found the universe's existence to be explicable as well as eternal. This is best evidenced by pagan and a lot of muslim philosophers. So clearly they wouldn't have considered it inexplicable just because it is eternal.
Of course, that's why I say that the bias is just cultural. If these philosophical views were more widespread the bias wouldn't exist.
If you look at matter as a hierarchy of stability and separation, nuclear, atomic, molecular, planetary, galactic, "universe"... the CMBR could be interpreted as the redshift of light from many different external "universes".
16:57 discussing red shift says 'reducing wavelength' when it should say increasing I think.
I dont understand this notion of an expanding space. What does it mean that space is expanding? Is matter somehow pegged to this 'fabric' they call space so that the distance between galaxies is expanding? What about the distance between stars in those galaxies? Or the stars and their planets? The space between molecules? Between atoms? Etc.? Would everything not be expanding? Even ourselves? But if everything is expanding at the same rate, how would you know the difference?
Physicists can't explain it either. It is fantasy.
The big bang assumes the conclusion.
A existence out of the mathematical empty set is impossible and just as incomprehensible as always existing. Both zero and infinity are at the boundary of human comprehension.
I don't know if "nothing" is incomprehensible, but someone who thinks everything can come out of nothing (like the Big Bang) doesn't understand "nothing".
What I don't understand, is how we are explaining the fact that our Universe is expanding in an accelerated fashion. And what does that have as an impact on physics appart from the heat death of our Universe which we know and its far away... What are the current implications, and how does that affect relativity and qm?
I've never understood the thought that the Universe has to have had a beginning, or that it has some sort of 'edge'. The idea it is expanding, leading to the theory that then it must have started as a singularity dot, is simply a misinterpretation of Doppler Red Shift which is assumed to mean it's all streaking away from us. My gut feeling is this is nonsense.
A few hundred years ago it was believed all the planets and the sun revolved around the world in complex motions know as epicycles. Then along came (I believe) Copernicus who proposed a much simpler explanation that all the planets revolved around the sun, which explained the observable motion of planets as just simple ellipses around the sun. Occam's Razor.
Fast forward to the early twentieth century. With more sophisticated observation equipment, the Milky Way was discovered in its true nature as a swirling disc of millions of stars, and this was essentially seen as the Universe.
Around the same time in history, the model based on Doppler Red Shift was born, and now, hundreds of cosmologists with all sorts of degrees and professor-ships have their careers pinned to this model and are increasingly uncomfortable that the prevailing astrophysics religion is being constantly questioned by almost every new distant observation by JWST.
I suggest we wait till a telescope comprised of observing platforms set at all 5 Lagrage Points around the orbit of Earth, is a practicality. Effectively, a telescope approximately 186 million miles in diameter. Hopefully in my lifetime. This should be enough resolution to see aliens walking about on Proxima B. And let's see how much we can expand the observable universe with this arrangement.
Around the turn of the 20th century, some scientist stated that, not only is the Universe more complex and vast than we do know, it is more complex and vast than we CAN know.
Occam's Razor.
No, it isn't. But BBT stands in the way. Try Plasma Cosmology, the only self-contained physical theory of the universe. All other theories are ad hoc curve-fitting.
Another appealing narrative is the 'seeding idea'. The universe begins with an emptiness. Energy/matter appears due to the inherent fluctuations/uncertainty of empty space. This initial matter is tiny, but more matter appears at the site of existing matter because gravity concentrations initiate the creation of new energy/matter. Through this process, matter/energy appears in the universe, growing larger over time and forming gas clouds / planets / suns etc. Weird suns eventually form with heavy elements, such as Pzylbylski's Star. The centre of galaxies eventually become hotbeds of matter, where gigantic stars grow until their matter concentration is so large that spontaneous explosions / ejections of matter occur, sending out vast amouts of matter /energy that cause Odd Radio Circles. Over time, the universe therefore heads towards more energy / light / matter / planets / stars, rather than decaying into a Heat Death. This narrative is positive, logical and appealing and it describes our universe more accurately than the Big Bang Theory. The problem we have therefore is not unappealing alternatives, but a controlled, dogmatic, orthodox irrational delusion. Keep in mind that this only applies to civilian science. There is evidence that military physics has a very different understanding of the universe.
A very different understanding and a compelling reason to keep it to themselves.
@@JoeSmith-cy9wj Yes. The ideal advantage is to know the truth, and those that threaten your advantage to believe a falsehood.
@AdrianJamesEllis Still, it makes for true treason if our military deceives it's own country. Not just that alone, but it would represent the greatest discovery in history. And withholding that from humanity disqualfies them from holding any authority whatsoever. At least in the purported scenario we live under. Democracy and humanity and all that.
@AdrianJamesEllis it isn't just the hierarchy, it's our money that put them there.
Add another charge of grand larceny. If all this is true. I don't doubt it. The evidence, and the past behavior would certainly be consistent.
"Space and time are infinite. Matter is infinite in space and exists eternally in time. The infinite character of space means the unlimited extension of the world in every direction. The universe has no boundaries either above or below, neither to the right nor to the left, neither forward nor backward. The infinite character of time means that the material world has always existed, that there was never a beginning of the world and its development will never end. Certain forms of matter will be replaced by others, but the material world as a whole is indestructible, eternal." - Lenin, Materialism and Empirio-Criticism
No one can even explain how stars were formed. How did hydrogen compress itself to billions of psi?
Do you know about the sky scholar channel on UA-cam
His work is so far over my head I get dizzy looking at it. But I try.
The guy who discovered the shift said the bang was rubbish , using slightly more technical language
There are many issues with the Big Bang model that you glossed over in your video. The Big Band model is a relic of a time when we had very limited data. With every new observation the Big Bang model get weaker. Halton Arp study of unusual galaxies and quasars was a big blow to the Big Bang model because of the observational evidence that he used in his work. Rather than address the observational evidence the scientific community attacked him personally. This method of argument shows a glaring weakness in their arguments that support their theory. The Big Bang theory lives in the minds of the "formally educated" that refuse to re-examine their position on the subject. Thought outside the constraints established theory is the only path to progress. If the new path falls flat on its face then the old theory stands. But if the new path opens to new explanations that are valid, then the old must make way for the new.
How can we know the universe is "expanding" by saying that space itself is expanding? Where's the logic in that?They say, well the galaxies are moving away from each other. That's not the expansion of space. That's erroneously inferred. Imagine space being a grid and if it were to expand, EVERYTHING would expand and get bigger and there would be no way of knowing that because there would be no reference points.
I don't think there is such a strong need for a beginning. For example, "The Wheel of Time" book series is quite popular, despite its overarching theme that "There are neither beginnings or endings to the turning of the Wheel of Time." And, was it Plato or Aristotle who said he was comfortable with the concept of the "completed infinity", all those years ago? I think it's a particular group of people who have been lulled into a false sense of confidence in theories which conform to their preferences for certain religious interpretations and for certain likable personalities putting forth those theories. It's really easy to do for a number of reasons, including because Occam's Razor doesn't tell you when there's something simpler which you're missing; you have to find out for yourself.
Furthermore, everything is ultimately based on inferences, it's just a question of how good your inferences are, in accord with Occam's Razor. Want to reformulate Einsteinian relativity yet again so we can argue yet again about a new resulting form of twins paradox? We could do so literally forever, but why bother? Mainstream physicists/cosmologists have already lost the argument, they just keep ignoring Occam's Razor, and getting further from science each time they do.
Post-classical physics has become so bloated with the absurdly far-fetched notions of Einsteinian relativity, comoving coordinates, time before time, space beyond space, dark energy, etc. commonly associated with and/or essential to the Big Bang theory, that it has become trivially easy to come up with a simpler alternative which fits at least as well. For example, it is radically simpler to say that something out there in intergalactic space (whose density we've never replicated in a lab) is causing redshift. That's good enough, just like dark energy is a vague, unobserved placeholder. But, for a more specific example, there's Ashmore's suggestion that the coulomb pressures in intergalactic space are so low that recoil without scattering occurs.
With every new instrument, the Standard model is more and more disproven, with all it's big bang and other fantasies.
So many assumptions and loopholes, and even contradictory data. My "in a nutshell issues":
a) Where exactly is there no gravity for the 70 km/s per Mpc expansion?
b) If galaxies are "gravity bound" and not impacted by expansion, that means Alcyoneus which is 5 Mpc across introduces a 0.00178% error to the expansion model - ONE galaxy.
c) There has to be a point where you aren't gravity bound and expansion occurs - shoot a beam of light in one direction towards a galaxy with no expansion, and another where there is and now you have variable speed of light. That's not good.
d) c is only relevant and known for round-trip. It is not relevant or even proven in a single direction, which is the basis for every single Hubble constant determination. If you have no clue what the actual speed of the photon is on it's one-way trip....well, that's an issue.
The universe we're told keeps on expanding and expanding (Monty Python The meaning of life)
Wtf
The only logical/rational model is eternal/infinite or at least cyclical.
Love those models. You can't have enough.🧙
we measure things using em radiation. we need to learn how to use the strong force to see even smaller things. this should be possible.
maybe by detection and measurement of the harmonics of the object of study.
When are scientists going to figure out that the changes in the measures of time and distance due to the amount of gravity in the vicinity change the speed of light relative to our measures of time and distance where we are inside of a galaxy? Scientists can’t seem to figure out that where gravity changes time and distance it changes the speed of light and the rate of causation.
Space is not flat in the measures of time and distance on larger scales just like the Earth is not flat on larger scales. Light MUST indeed *always* travel 186,000 miles per second at the speed of light C. When distance is stretched from having less gravity, light must still complete traveling that distance in the time determined by C. That means the light is traveling faster as perceived by us in a more contracted frame of reference where there is more gravity. Add to that the fact that a second passes by faster away from the center of mass which increases the speed light MUST travel even more.
It’s really not complicated. It’s so simple. It’s the very reason things appear to be moving faster than the speed of light moving away from the center of the galaxy because they are moving faster away from the center of the galaxy yet without exceeding the speed of light. I don’t know why that is so hard to understand. Don’t even try to put an age on the universe when time itself is a creation.
There are three rates to consider. 1. The diminishing effect or draw of gravity away from the center of mass. 2. The increasing rate of time away from the center of mass. 3. The increasing measure of distance away from the center of mass.
Speed is measured by time and distance which both change and that changes the speed of light and causation. Things happen faster. Distance gets longer without gravity and time goes by faster, both of which combine to speed up causation. The light has to arrive at a farther distance faster when distance is stretched *and* time also goes by faster. *Then* there is the first thing to consider and that is the diminishing draw of gravity the farther away it is from the center of the galaxy which means things eventually slow down the farther away they are from the center mass of a galaxy. (It's not complicated. No dark matter is needed.) 😎
Redshift happens when light leaves a galaxy. Blueshift happens as light enters a galaxy. All things being equal, the light will be redshifted as it leaves a galaxy and then blueshifted back again as it enters our galaxy. Except we already know galaxies are different sizes. The distant galaxies that we can see are very large and the distances between here and there is excessive causing more redshift than our small galaxy can blueshift back to its original spectrum. The more distant a galaxy is the more accumulated gravity there is from nearby masses causing more redshift.
I must be weird; the steady-state, eternal universe is more satisfying to me than the Big Bang version.
Actually the Universe is steady and have a very sophisticated mechanism for recycling of the old structures. BB theory is not a scientific theory but invention of a Belgium Priest. In Physics is no such things as - "The entire Universe come out from "Nothing" for "No Apparent Physical Reason". Halton Arp in his book - "Seeing Red" provide photographic evidence where many connected to each other celestial bodies according to their Red Shift must be 2 billion light years a part.If you are interested, I will recommend the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"
BBT provides a simple, comforting creation myth but something else as well: reassurance in a priesthood that understands things we cannot. Societies can change over time, as Eric Lerner explains in The Big Bang Never Happened, and now there is a revolt by a lot of people who demand explanations that don't defy common sense. Along with new evidence like JWST.
The universe scares most physicists, so they need a beginning and an end to the story.
Every galaxy has a big bang
Every galaxy is a plasmoid.
Halton Arp has a fascinating theory that active galaxies eject high-redshift quasars which mature into satellite galaxies. His photos are pretty convincing.
You left out gravitational redshift which is a directly observed phenomenon. Expanding space is not. This could the place to look.
Except on planets without an atmosphere.
@@raycar1165the moon 🌖 and everything induces grav redshift
Does this mean my backside doesn't look big in this dress?
Having studied the subject I have become increasingly exasperated that cosmology is ignoring the blatantly obvios, all the evidence supports the big Bang standard modal yet it is not complete so unnecessary alternative theories have proliferated.
All you need is time, literally, by Einstein's frase Space-time he meant Gravity-time. so every time you hear of the effects of gravity you are talking about variances' in the rate of time flow . Astronomy is currently struggling with a clock for the moon because time moves faster there we know literally every kilo of mass has an effect on its time flow environment yet when dealing with unfathomable mases no account is taken of the time implications. For here lays strong gravity 'read' here lays verry slow time.
I have often expressed my full theory but unless cosmologists grasp that basic principle they are ignoring the physics. I'll leave you with two more concept's to grasp.
1]gravity moves at the speed of light so the gravitational time relationships moove at the speed of light.
2]As I stated the standard model is rite so the universe is 13.8 Billion years old but only from our gravitational perspective if we lived on a planet that has orbited a Primordial black hole since the start of the universe our evidence could just as accurately prove that only a few hundred thousand years has passed since the big bang. Alternatively imagine we lived on a roge planet tracing our way across the universe since the big bang our planet has passed black holes and stars between long journeys' across intergalactic space our clever Geologists' could trace the planets history regardless of the planets gravitational history because at every second of it time will have passed at the same constant rate. It would only be a third party observer elsewhere in the universe that could have tracked the changes. (Time is Relative).
BY THE WAY NEWEST IDEA SUGGEST THE UNIVERSE IS 49.5 TRILLION YEARS OLD......
Why not simply say, "We just don't know." ?
Tall de-construction order/misplacement
Big Bang:
A bart simpson term?
If universe started at one, confined central point and is expanding then everything should be moving away from everything else. Galaxies would not collide.
Dark Energy:
Another bart simpson term
Hahaha
Why are there so many contradictions when you try and put Newtonian and Quantum physics together? i.e. matter is both a particle and a wave, a particle can be at two different places at the same time, quantum tunneling from particles; et cetera. Is because the scientist is always speaking in measurements (or states), and the quantum world is always speaking in terms of symmetry, frequency, and amplitude (being more akin to conditions). Conditions being the range of possible states, and the state being a quantifiable unit of measurement.
Great video, great points and well argued. I have a cosmological model. presented in a series of 4 minute videos. Channel Darwinian Universal. Will you have a quick look?
It is NOT necessary to provide A new theory to show that the old theory is BS
Our brains are the product of the universe, and therefore it is logical that our instinctive 'bias' for a beginning is the product of an entity that had one.
Worldview matters most.
"In the beginning was nothing. And then it exploded." (aka Big Bang)
or
"In the beginning was the word. [...] and the Word was God. [...] All things were made through Him" (aka Simulation Theory)
In the beginning, man created god, in order to feel more secure , that a mind like his own was in charge. So to account for things he can not understand and can not change.
After the beginning, more secure personalities decided to make detailed observations in order to determine the truth.
The observations are not finished. The jury is still out.
@@JoeSmith-cy9wj "detailed observations in order to determine the truth"
Yes, and it's all about the interpretation of those observations.
Worldview matters most there.
this was always my thought too. We are probably in a bubble. and we are studying the bubble only.
There is strong enough evidence for bb, static universe was widely accepted for centuries and only when discrepancy started accumulating, bb gained popularity.
😂😂😂😂
Wtf you beliven big bang
@@bichthuyentruongthi2600 there are issues with it, but that doesn't mean we need to jump to Electric universe though.
@@kkgt6591😂😂 depending on you try to stick to the big bang religion bye
"How did the universe come into existence?"
That's as easy as pi.
*Reality is generated by our observations* in the same way that the video game "No Mans' Sky" generates its universe.
The question should be , "How did consciousness come into being?"
Ref: Physicist Dr. Tom Campbell (My Big TOE)
The problem with that "explanation" is that it does not explain anything. Just like "god did it".
It's not about "appealing to our need for stories" or "deep-rooted cultural narratives". It's about logic. A cause-and-effect universe that either came into existence, or existed forever, is logically impossible. In the first case it cannot in fact come into existence. In the second case you have an infinite regress of causes aka "turtles all the way down", which is nonsensical. A first cause, which is not itself caused by anything, i.e. not subject to cause and effect, i.e. _supernatural,_ is absolutely logically required.
Are you crazy to think that a universe needs to start from nothing?😂😂😂😂😂
You are sick about the logic
an idiot teaches others to understand stupid logic and comments with reason but I am the smart one but in fact he is so stupid that he thinks that a void without matter suddenly has matter appear and ends like a fairy tale with a happy ending we have only just flown to the moon and have not left the solar system what an idiot swapping concepts in a way that couldn't be funnier I don't know what word to use to describe this idiot😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
@@bichthuyentruongthi2600 More emojis than IQ points?
@@CommodoreGrayum because there are no more words to describe your stupidity
Hubble constant describes "strength" of black body radiation. All matter loses energy over time.
So, what you’re saying is that a woman didn’t grow from a rib, and eat from a “majic tree” because the wise talking snake told her to…? 😮😊
i don.t beliven big bang
I keep it simple; God made it and im confident I’ll understand how one day.
The big bang is pure religion. The Christianity has laid the basis for the big bang model and its time-line. A big explosion of light.
As comparison a different religion.
In Hinduism, the religious time-line is extremely long. They also believe in some kind of evolution. The full Day of Brahma (god of creation) = 8.6 billion solar years (day+night). Seven days = 60 bilion years. The full life-span of Brahma (100 years age) = 311 trillion solar years. And even after that a new God might replace the old god.
Why can't a universe not be more than 300 trillions years old?
What would an eternal universe look like? What processes would keep isotopes and structures in balance? Should be interesting to build a model, even if it can never work.
About redshift:
All light that we see is not the light that was emitted at the source. The dielectric of the interstellar matter fully replaces the light-waves that go through it. 3blue1brown has good videos about how a prisma works and how the dielectric light-waves replace the original light-waves.
This replacement means that the interstellar matter can also affect the frequency of the light that goes through it. And based on the observations it is likely causing redshift. But maybe we also have different speed of light due to dielectric differences. It will probably show different times between x-rays and radio-radiation.
About CBR:
Robitaille has completely debunked the background radiation. They used "cloudy" earth-based observations and even created negative Kelvin temperatures that don't exist.
It is important to know history here. A created in the beginning universe is a Jude’s-Christian Idea. Most cultures have creation stories, but many can be pinned to local events. Interesting, for example that there are creation stories connected with the Pleiades, and modern scientists think our sun may have been formed in a shock front of the Local Bubble, which is centered very near that cluster. That’s just local creation right here in our galaxy.
Understand too, that the Mayans had individual cycles longer than the age of our Big Bang universe, but their priests were killed and texts destroyed by Christians. In Saxony too, Charlemagne’s army killed their priestesses, and many of the youngest children taken to be raised by Christians. The Hopi as recently as the mid 1800’s, taught of multiple world destructions, but their shamans were killed, and their children forced into Christian schools. So, it’s really not that the evidence points to a created universe, it’s that pretty much every culture that taught otherwise was destroyed.
Interesting too that many creation stories mention creation by sound, light, or waves, out of a formless or chaotic matter. Still not a creation of matter itself, or empty space itself, out of nothing. Creation in space and time, not creation OF space and time.
"The lack of an origin story makes steady-state theories incomplete and unsatisfactory"? Then why do so many people feel the need to believe in a god without an origin?
The point that it's comforting to have a theory with a beginning is not supported by any evidence. Author of the video just states it as a fact.
I don't see why would it be true - before GR, astronomers tend to believe in static, eternal Universe and had no cognitive problems with such an idea.
And secondly, I trust that today's scientists are not simpletons which would allow such illogical things as "it feels better this way" to influence their judgements on theories.
You are right. The point that BB is a product of a Belgium Priest. About 15 years ago 34 top scientists publish a letter in "New Scientists" protesting against the enforced dogma of BB theory.The Universe is logically build and how its fundamental elements works you can find in the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"
" In the beginning there was only GOD, and GOD said let there be light, and there was light. " Along comes an atheist scientist with an eraser. In the beginning there was only ( rub rub ) nothing, and ( rub rub ) nothing said let there be light, and there was light.
Everything gets born, so the Universe must have been born. Not the best logic.
Okay but there is a recent study of supernova that the further away they are the longer they appear to take this correlates with the red shift and the speed that they are moving away from us at that time unless you want to claim that time in the past used to pass slower
Yes this is one of the pieces that seems to confirm both GR and the idea of expanding space. At the same time there are are some studies that show there are some SN that do not show the expected time-dilation. Then there are also studies of quasars that seem to show no time dilation at all.
I will be diving into more detail over this series and this is one part I want to cover
A deeper understanding of gravity gives you a deeper understanding of the universe. The earth is flat locally the same as the speed of light is the same locally but not on a larger scale. The earth is round on larger scales and the speed of light depends on the measures of time and distance which change depending on the amount of gravity in the surrounding area. This means that distant starlight arrives instantaneously from distant galaxies which aren’t as far away as they appear to us to be with our measures of time and distance and the time is also passing by at a much faster rate since there’s no matter between us and distant galaxies to slow down time or shorten distance according to general relativity which is now an observation and not just a theory. …and the converse of things approaching a black hole look stopped to us because of how slow they are moving. So causation is faster outside of a galaxy and things happen slower inside of a galaxy.
The changes in time and distance compound the changes in the speed of light as observed from our frame of reference. The measured speed can’t change. When time and distance used to measure the speed change the actual speed changes. Do the following thought experiment. Hold your hands a foot apart representing 186,000 miles saying “one thousand and one” representing one second while pretending to see an imaginary photon going from one hand to the other. Now expand the distance between your hands saying “one thousand and one” as fast as you can. You should notice that the speed of the imaginary photon increases the more distance expands and the more time speeds up just same as the farther away from the center of the galaxy it is. The opposite is also true. Someone moving in the direction of a black hole will seem to us to be stopped. *If you change the size of a cubit you will change the size of the house that you build with it.*