Check out my VSL theory that all redshift is gravitational redshift. Basically if you assume no expansion and all redshift is from gravity then you get a variable speed of light, space time doesn’t warp, light bends because it travels different speeds in different gravitational fields, ie mediums. Great video, I made a top 5 reasons why the universe is not expanding and didn’t think of this one which is fantastic. Incidentally it was my least watched video and everyone thinks I’m crazy. We will know soon enough with AI
Gravity is one likely cause of observed redshift. I suspect it is one of multiple causes producing the phenomena that cosmologist groupthink assumed was due to motion alone. You may be interested in Glenn Borchardt's learned blog on this issue, thescientificworldview.blogspot.com/search?q=redshift&max-results=20&by-date=true. He's a proponent of the infinite universe theory, with which I am in agreement. I'll watch your video too, thanks for mentioning it.
Good to see someone doing thinking about this. As you explain, the evidence says one reality very clearly, but the so-called experts decide they prefer something else to be true. How political is science anyway? Because this sounds so much like politics.
All human activities have some elements and tensions that we could call "political." Within science, as everywhere, there are egos and identities involved, and that causes people to be resistant to change their beliefs.
I have always had this idea that space between objects is zero in the sense that the only thing separating two objects is time. In this universe, space is a 3D singularity. Moving forward in a space singularity loops back upon the original position and future self. This means that there are timelines extending out from the singularity in all directions. The thing that gives space depth is not space itself, but time. Space or the energy contained in it is simply interacting with its self at a given intersection of future timelines. Time itself is an emergent property of a 3D singularity. Imagine an electron in this 3D singularity at t=0. The electron moves forwards to t=1 and interacts with its self. The electron collides with itself. No collision actually occurs, instead the electrons repel each other in different directions/timelines. However, because the electrons were travelling in the same direction there is a net difference in energy. The electron AT t=1 gains energy while the electron FROM t=0 loses energy. The lesser energy electron is now moving backwards relative to its prior direction of movement. Therefore, the lesser energy electron will interact with a higher energy electron at t=2 that is moving forward. The net result is that the electrons will repel each other and there will be some energy exchanged. Replace the electron with a wave moving in all directions and we'll observe many complex wave interactions occurring as t increase. Many timelines will form branching out from the singularity and intersecting in all directions. This is the space we perceive and it is responsible for the red shift of light. As photons intersect through timelines, self-interacting destructive interference occurs. The net result is a loss of energy overtime that manifest as increased wavelength. Space being a singularity also makes quantum physics more intuitive. As we zoom in on the very small, t approaches 0. In this domain interactions occur faster than we can physical perceive and our interacting with these particles to perform science in anyway changes their timelines and obscures their physics. The double slit experiment is a perfect example of space being a singularity. A photon does not enter one slit, it propagates as a wave in all directions. From our emergent perspective, we perceive this as a wave of probability. But from the perspective of the singularity, the wave interactions are due to underlying physics we emergent beings cannot observe. When we attempt to observe the photon, timelines become entangled before the photon wave enters the slits and the photon can no longer interact with itself. Even if we observe which slit the photon comes out of, we have effectively erased all the timelines where the photon would self-interact beyond the slits. Photons themselves give strength to the idea that space is a singularity. How can a photon move at a constant speed and oscillate if it is not interacting with itself? Try to imagine how a photon can interact with itself which would result in an oscillating wave. Self-interference!
I now do not know what to believe. Very confused. Even Einstein took the red shift noted by Hubble to mean the galaxies were receding. What else could anyone conclude?
You are correct. Physicist Sabine Hossenfelder says that physicists care more about their clever mathematical theories than in the evidence and data. She left academic physics for that reason.
I’m no physicist but could it be that when we look out, we still see the after effects of an expanding universe but is currently stopped or maybe even collapsing outside our “light” vision? Like the snap back of a stretched rubber band that hasn’t snapped back to where we are (but coming)? Or maybe the universe is so vast that the farthest our ability to see is still so minuscule in the comparison that we are unable to see whatever is going on (expansion, static, collapsing) with any real certainty? Like our ability to see through a very foggy morning that your entire community was scooped up (quietly of course) and moved 600 miles North/South/East or West and you would have no idea what’s going on past your ability to “see”, but your town looks the same. So nothing changes. You assume your home, neighborhood and town are the same? Anyway that’s what I was thinking.
It could be that the frequency of light naturally shifts in the direction of red over time? Or what if everything in the universe is uniformly shrinking in on its self while the space between remains the same? this would seem as though everything would be getting further apart. Although you may have just debunked that idea in this video as well.
Some physicists theorize that light waves lose energy over time and distance and thus shift to the red. I don't believe that theory is widely held, but it would explain the observed redshifts. Some theorize an oscillating universe in which there is a period of expansion followed by a period of contraction, perhaps back into a singularity and then the cycle begins again. The reality remains, though, that no observed data supports an expanding universe. It was an assumption based on a misinterpretation of redshifts.
Nope, but the observed red shifts must be effects caused by something other than actual velocity. That astrophysicists aren't even looking for that explanation is baffling. It's as I explained, a resistance to change the paradigm despite the clear evidence./
@@InsertPhilosophyHere light expands and reduces in intensity on its way to us, hence redshift. It's illogical for anything to travel for billions of years without losing energy. Besides, what would the universe be expanding into? 😂
@@SciD1 True, and I've also read that studies have shown that light is also affected by passing through dust and gasses. We can't even imagine how much dust and gasses light must have to pass through in a billion light years distance. Also, if space is curved,, that may affect redshift of light. There are much better explanations for the observed redshifts than infinite expansion.
We don't know what effects traveling billions of light years has on light. One theory is that being a wave, light loses energy and thus redshifts. Not sure I buy that conjecture. But again and again, these attempts to defend the expanding universe assumption (EUA) are avoiding the reality that we do not see galaxies flying apart form each other as required by the theory. The only support for EUA is redshift and other evidence defeats it, including that space is flat, so thinks for mentioning that.
@@InsertPhilosophyHere I happen to completely reject the wave model of light, because a few colleagues and I have performed the double-slit experiment in a cloud chamber, or with the use of a smoke machine. What Young was interpreting as wave interference producing that fringe pattern, we have observed completely differently. The fringe pattern is not a result of wave interference, but rather individual reflected rays, rays simply reflecting off the separator, which is never a flat surface, at different angles, and off the opposite sides of both slits (four surfaces total). We were able to follow the path of light between the slits and the screen. This is also how we explain the supposed collapse of waves into particles. The detector is simply detecting individual reflected rays, and interpreting them as discrete particles, hence the HUGE confusion that led to quantum madness. That being said, what does this tell you about redshift? This, of course, completely contradicts quantum mechanics, and is why we have received a lot of hostility. We simply are unable to convince not only the scientific community, but the general public. The wave dogma is old and extremely hard to go against, especially with the enormous amount of technology humanity has been able to produce in the past 100 years or so. Many attribute that to quantum mechanics, of course. Quantum mechanics is nothing more than a probabilistic mathematical framework based on the misunderstanding and the misinterpretation of the nature of light, and the double-slit experiment. Maybe that's why it's "probabilistic"? The MATH may be useful for replicating technology and chemical reactions, but it has no bearing on reality itself, because the theory is founded on the fallacy of quantum state superposition.
Old world cosmogony is very bizarre in how many across the world that will denounce their own mother before they let go of this . We do anthropically plagerize ourselves then prescribe but this was older than the great debate and at that time they were warned how anthrosphy gets computed into theosaphy next iteration by what they wanted . We are repeating ancient world time mistakes by math mapping dark matter spirits in the sky with a methusela equation monds theory of lazy light on deck if it fails. Anylitical phylospher blakes multi verse is more like multi galaxies. Qauntom many world is more like phase state many elements on planets lol
No quest for eqaul measure above all else even if one must re allocate affinities when they stagnate Even in granted deterministic on paper to population species ordering where experts argue over the slightest variation we are forced to make up our own marduk basisn mind model. We have youth clearing out safe spaces for abused orcles to speak safely. They are measuring devine right blood in nephew justifying why you can skip direct reproduction by measuring 72 genders on harmons, melanin in skin races as completly different species. 1900s structuralism is very much a problem threatening the west right now rooted in classrooms
I thought the theory was that at first, the first 6-8 billion years, gravity held in check the dark energy that has more recently been expanding the universe
Thanks. That is one of the workarounds that has been proposed. To the credit of some astrophysicists, they are sincerely trying to account for the data anomalies, but they will eventually have to jettison the assumptions made about red shift and continual expansion. Imagining additional entities is not a good strategy.
Imagine not being able to articulate that a large portion of matter in the observable universe is moving away from what seems to be an epicentre when time is reversed and you just call it space expansion 😂
@@InsertPhilosophyHere you would need to calculate the number density across time and account for observational biases where less luminous galaxies are only detected at lower redshift in order for this to constitute evidence. It's cool that you have found this seeming trend but I don't think it's time to throw out the whole big bang theory until there is solid evidence that you are correct
If it's not expanding (which I thought I had convincing math for to explain the redshift) then you have to come up with an explanation for "The Dark Energy Survey Supernova Program: Slow supernovae show cosmological time dilation out to z∼1" which is a new paper on archivx
Mind you the paper is mistitled, and it's not time. Dilation but is probably light propagation delay... But then at z=1 the galaxies are moving away at 1 light month per month.... Or the speed of light...
Yes, I read about that paper, though I have not read it in its entirety. However, its conclusion that matter is traveling at the speed of light, if not faster, is another clear piece of evidence that the observed red shifts must be effects caused by something other than actual velocity.
@@InsertPhilosophyHere well within its own space it's not moving that fast.... But the total space plus the small difference as the light travels gives a small stretch. Z=1 isn't 1/2 the frequency
When one's calculations violate the laws of physics, one needs to change either one's calculations or one's beliefs in what are laws of physics. Neither is happening . . . yet.
A light of a star that is 8 billion light years away did not take 8 billion years to reach us, I think your assumption is wrong. The big bang is thought to have happened 13.8 billion years ago, but we can see stuff that is 47 billion light years away. This is presumably because those galaxies were closer when light from them started the journey towards us. But, the space in between us meanwhile got larger, so they are further away now.
"A light of a star that is 8 billion light years away did not take 8 billion years to reach us." You might want to rethink that unless you can prove to physics your brand new definition of "light year."
@@InsertPhilosophyHere They wouldn't need to prove that to Physicists because that's the accepted understanding that you are critiquing. I think you raised an interesting point in the video, if studies really do show that densities are remaining consistent, a lot of cosmology would have to be completely reworked! I really do encourage you to learn about why the current theories lead us to think that light that left a galaxy 8 billion light years away, took 8 billion years to reach us, but is currently thought to be 47 light years away because space has expanded that much over those 8 billion years.
@@Condorosa " a lot of cosmology would have to be completely reworked." It does, and in some areas, they are willing to do the rework, but they still strangely, almost religiously, cling to the expansionist dogma. You allude to one of the mental gymnastics and tortuous contortions that some have come up with to cling to the dogma. When you throw out the laws of physics and logic itself, you can conjecture anything, huh?
When you were analysing those graphs did you account for the telescoping that happens because the universe is expanding? The red to blue graph look like a fan, but that’s not what the actual shape of the universe, the fan should constrict as it goes back in time because the universe was smaller. If you do that then yes the universe was more dense, at least it seems to be from eyeballing it. But that’s why it’s so important to label your axes. Did you also account for the fact that more stars are made as the universe goes on? So we would expect density to increase with time, but it at the very least stays the same.
No one suggests that the "actual shape of the universe." However, it is the data of all the observations, and the observations do not show the density of galaxy distribution required for the expanding universe theory to be true. Creation of stars are irrelevant because stars are within galaxies and the issue is galaxy distribution not stellar distribution. Changing the subject doesn't solve the central issue. Distance equals time, and the labels in the maps of distance to galaxies means as those galaxies were that amount of time ago. That is an inescapable reality that no mental gymnastics can avoid.
It's bizarre how some people will just make up stuff to hide the flaws in their theories. Scientists are as bad as religious fundamentalists in that. Maybe you can just say angels are pulling at the corners of the universe and making it get bigger? It would make as much sense as your dodge of the facts. "You can't see the angels pulling the fan." LOL!
@@idar.4987 That's too harsh, but the human frailties that distort religion also distort science. Scientists say they don't need philosophy, so they don't learn critical thinking outside their narrow analytic perspective. They really don't know Ockham's Razor.
Yeah, need to look for myself at the data, but distance is not so simple, because yes, if light has travelled towards us for 8 billion years, the distance it travelled at the time for each little piece of space was 8 billion light years, but that is not the distance now, the earlier a distance was travelled the larger it is now. Still this error is not that important, we should see less density now than earlier. But there is some subtlety in this because the very close neighbourhood might be more or less dense than other regions, so you have to look at scales that are isotropic in density, and there is a problem because this measure can only tell you anything if that isotropy and uniformity is there, now thats kot a huge issue, it would be great to prove that either the density of galaxies has to have been non isotropic and unform or the expension is not there, but there are other issues, a simple one is the size of galaxies and the matter in gas, or conversions between dark matter and normal matter that might habe occoured, there is a huge amount of styff to consider, and these concerns are just off the cuff, first you have to make sure that 1 your arguments are sound, and 2 that your claim is true, that the prediction from the expanding model is not reflecting the densities over time.
Are you sure tho, you need to check that the numbers for densities you are referencing does not come from a model of how the universe should look today, given it evolving simultaneously over the entire space. You must be sure that the distributions you reference are from direct observations of what we see, not what we think is there assuming isotropic light velocity.
Very interesting
Well said! It is amazing the expanding universe is so hard wired into everyone’s brains
It's hard wired into Western culture, definitely. There's no room for conceptions of infinite space and time.
Check out my VSL theory that all redshift is gravitational redshift. Basically if you assume no expansion and all redshift is from gravity then you get a variable speed of light, space time doesn’t warp, light bends because it travels different speeds in different gravitational fields, ie mediums. Great video, I made a top 5 reasons why the universe is not expanding and didn’t think of this one which is fantastic. Incidentally it was my least watched video and everyone thinks I’m crazy. We will know soon enough with AI
Gravity is one likely cause of observed redshift. I suspect it is one of multiple causes producing the phenomena that cosmologist groupthink assumed was due to motion alone. You may be interested in Glenn Borchardt's learned blog on this issue, thescientificworldview.blogspot.com/search?q=redshift&max-results=20&by-date=true. He's a proponent of the infinite universe theory, with which I am in agreement. I'll watch your video too, thanks for mentioning it.
Good to see someone doing thinking about this. As you explain, the evidence says one reality very clearly, but the so-called experts decide they prefer something else to be true. How political is science anyway? Because this sounds so much like politics.
All human activities have some elements and tensions that we could call "political." Within science, as everywhere, there are egos and identities involved, and that causes people to be resistant to change their beliefs.
@@InsertPhilosophyHere Good explanation, thanks.
I have always had this idea that space between objects is zero in the sense that the only thing separating two objects is time. In this universe, space is a 3D singularity. Moving forward in a space singularity loops back upon the original position and future self. This means that there are timelines extending out from the singularity in all directions. The thing that gives space depth is not space itself, but time. Space or the energy contained in it is simply interacting with its self at a given intersection of future timelines. Time itself is an emergent property of a 3D singularity.
Imagine an electron in this 3D singularity at t=0. The electron moves forwards to t=1 and interacts with its self. The electron collides with itself. No collision actually occurs, instead the electrons repel each other in different directions/timelines. However, because the electrons were travelling in the same direction there is a net difference in energy. The electron AT t=1 gains energy while the electron FROM t=0 loses energy. The lesser energy electron is now moving backwards relative to its prior direction of movement. Therefore, the lesser energy electron will interact with a higher energy electron at t=2 that is moving forward. The net result is that the electrons will repel each other and there will be some energy exchanged.
Replace the electron with a wave moving in all directions and we'll observe many complex wave interactions occurring as t increase. Many timelines will form branching out from the singularity and intersecting in all directions. This is the space we perceive and it is responsible for the red shift of light. As photons intersect through timelines, self-interacting destructive interference occurs. The net result is a loss of energy overtime that manifest as increased wavelength.
Space being a singularity also makes quantum physics more intuitive. As we zoom in on the very small, t approaches 0. In this domain interactions occur faster than we can physical perceive and our interacting with these particles to perform science in anyway changes their timelines and obscures their physics.
The double slit experiment is a perfect example of space being a singularity. A photon does not enter one slit, it propagates as a wave in all directions. From our emergent perspective, we perceive this as a wave of probability. But from the perspective of the singularity, the wave interactions are due to underlying physics we emergent beings cannot observe. When we attempt to observe the photon, timelines become entangled before the photon wave enters the slits and the photon can no longer interact with itself. Even if we observe which slit the photon comes out of, we have effectively erased all the timelines where the photon would self-interact beyond the slits.
Photons themselves give strength to the idea that space is a singularity. How can a photon move at a constant speed and oscillate if it is not interacting with itself? Try to imagine how a photon can interact with itself which would result in an oscillating wave. Self-interference!
I now do not know what to believe. Very confused. Even Einstein took the red shift noted by Hubble to mean the galaxies were receding. What else could anyone conclude?
In 1929, it was a reasonable assumption. But decades later, knowing what we now know, we have to change our assumptions.
thanks for the video. I feel more prepared to handle the inevitable gaslighting and backlash i will get regarding this.
Glad it can be helpful! We do need to hold the line and demand clear thinking about science.
Expanding universe seems like a mathematical trickery.
You are correct. Physicist Sabine Hossenfelder says that physicists care more about their clever mathematical theories than in the evidence and data. She left academic physics for that reason.
I’m no physicist but could it be that when we look out, we still see the after effects of an expanding universe but is currently stopped or maybe even collapsing outside our “light” vision? Like the snap back of a stretched rubber band that hasn’t snapped back to where we are (but coming)? Or maybe the universe is so vast that the farthest our ability to see is still so minuscule in the comparison that we are unable to see whatever is going on (expansion, static, collapsing) with any real certainty? Like our ability to see through a very foggy morning that your entire community was scooped up (quietly of course) and moved 600 miles North/South/East or West and you would have no idea what’s going on past your ability to “see”, but your town looks the same. So nothing changes. You assume your home, neighborhood and town are the same? Anyway that’s what I was thinking.
There are several possibilities that fit the evidence, but the theory of a continuing expending universe is not one of them.
Good show, just subscribed Mate.
Much appreciated!
It could be that the frequency of light naturally shifts in the direction of red over time?
Or what if everything in the universe is uniformly shrinking in on its self while the space between remains the same? this would seem as though everything would be getting further apart. Although you may have just debunked that idea in this video as well.
Some physicists theorize that light waves lose energy over time and distance and thus shift to the red. I don't believe that theory is widely held, but it would explain the observed redshifts. Some theorize an oscillating universe in which there is a period of expansion followed by a period of contraction, perhaps back into a singularity and then the cycle begins again. The reality remains, though, that no observed data supports an expanding universe. It was an assumption based on a misinterpretation of redshifts.
Red shift, red shift no cogent explanation yet?
Nope, but the observed red shifts must be effects caused by something other than actual velocity. That astrophysicists aren't even looking for that explanation is baffling. It's as I explained, a resistance to change the paradigm despite the clear evidence./
@@InsertPhilosophyHere light expands and reduces in intensity on its way to us, hence redshift. It's illogical for anything to travel for billions of years without losing energy. Besides, what would the universe be expanding into? 😂
@@SciD1 True, and I've also read that studies have shown that light is also affected by passing through dust and gasses. We can't even imagine how much dust and gasses light must have to pass through in a billion light years distance. Also, if space is curved,, that may affect redshift of light. There are much better explanations for the observed redshifts than infinite expansion.
We don't know what effects traveling billions of light years has on light. One theory is that being a wave, light loses energy and thus redshifts. Not sure I buy that conjecture. But again and again, these attempts to defend the expanding universe assumption (EUA) are avoiding the reality that we do not see galaxies flying apart form each other as required by the theory. The only support for EUA is redshift and other evidence defeats it, including that space is flat, so thinks for mentioning that.
@@InsertPhilosophyHere I happen to completely reject the wave model of light, because a few colleagues and I have performed the double-slit experiment in a cloud chamber, or with the use of a smoke machine. What Young was interpreting as wave interference producing that fringe pattern, we have observed completely differently. The fringe pattern is not a result of wave interference, but rather individual reflected rays, rays simply reflecting off the separator, which is never a flat surface, at different angles, and off the opposite sides of both slits (four surfaces total). We were able to follow the path of light between the slits and the screen. This is also how we explain the supposed collapse of waves into particles. The detector is simply detecting individual reflected rays, and interpreting them as discrete particles, hence the HUGE confusion that led to quantum madness. That being said, what does this tell you about redshift? This, of course, completely contradicts quantum mechanics, and is why we have received a lot of hostility. We simply are unable to convince not only the scientific community, but the general public. The wave dogma is old and extremely hard to go against, especially with the enormous amount of technology humanity has been able to produce in the past 100 years or so. Many attribute that to quantum mechanics, of course. Quantum mechanics is nothing more than a probabilistic mathematical framework based on the misunderstanding and the misinterpretation of the nature of light, and the double-slit experiment. Maybe that's why it's "probabilistic"? The MATH may be useful for replicating technology and chemical reactions, but it has no bearing on reality itself, because the theory is founded on the fallacy of quantum state superposition.
True, the theory never made enough sense to be held as passionately as they cling to it.
Old world cosmogony is very bizarre in how many across the world that will denounce their own mother before they let go of this .
We do anthropically plagerize ourselves then prescribe but this was older than the great debate and at that time they were warned how anthrosphy gets computed into theosaphy next iteration by what they wanted .
We are repeating ancient world time mistakes by math mapping dark matter spirits in the sky with a methusela equation monds theory of lazy light on deck if it fails.
Anylitical phylospher blakes multi verse is more like multi galaxies. Qauntom many world is more like phase state many elements on planets lol
No quest for eqaul measure above all else even if one must re allocate affinities when they stagnate
Even in granted deterministic on paper to population species ordering where experts argue over the slightest variation we are forced to make up our own marduk basisn mind model.
We have youth clearing out safe spaces for abused orcles to speak safely.
They are measuring devine right blood in nephew justifying why you can skip direct reproduction by measuring 72 genders on harmons, melanin in skin races as completly different species.
1900s structuralism is very much a problem threatening the west right now rooted in classrooms
I thought the theory was that at first, the first 6-8 billion years, gravity held in check the dark energy that has more recently been expanding the universe
Great presentation
Thanks. That is one of the workarounds that has been proposed. To the credit of some astrophysicists, they are sincerely trying to account for the data anomalies, but they will eventually have to jettison the assumptions made about red shift and continual expansion. Imagining additional entities is not a good strategy.
Redshift needs to be rethought.
Not sure. Someone came in, posted several bits of nonsense and then the posts disappeared. He must have deleted them.
@@InsertPhilosophyHere OK, it's possible.
Imagine not being able to articulate that a large portion of matter in the observable universe is moving away from what seems to be an epicentre when time is reversed and you just call it space expansion 😂
Do you have a source for saying all surveys find no difference in galactic number density with redshift or is it just the images?
Images have citations listed on them. But yes, all surveys have yielded the same results. None to the contrary.
@@InsertPhilosophyHere you would need to calculate the number density across time and account for observational biases where less luminous galaxies are only detected at lower redshift in order for this to constitute evidence. It's cool that you have found this seeming trend but I don't think it's time to throw out the whole big bang theory until there is solid evidence that you are correct
If it's not expanding (which I thought I had convincing math for to explain the redshift) then you have to come up with an explanation for "The Dark Energy Survey Supernova Program: Slow supernovae show cosmological time dilation out to z∼1" which is a new paper on archivx
Mind you the paper is mistitled, and it's not time. Dilation but is probably light propagation delay... But then at z=1 the galaxies are moving away at 1 light month per month.... Or the speed of light...
Yes, I read about that paper, though I have not read it in its entirety. However, its conclusion that matter is traveling at the speed of light, if not faster, is another clear piece of evidence that the observed red shifts must be effects caused by something other than actual velocity.
@@InsertPhilosophyHere well within its own space it's not moving that fast.... But the total space plus the small difference as the light travels gives a small stretch. Z=1 isn't 1/2 the frequency
When one's calculations violate the laws of physics, one needs to change either one's calculations or one's beliefs in what are laws of physics. Neither is happening . . . yet.
A light of a star that is 8 billion light years away did not take 8 billion years to reach us, I think your assumption is wrong. The big bang is thought to have happened 13.8 billion years ago, but we can see stuff that is 47 billion light years away. This is presumably because those galaxies were closer when light from them started the journey towards us. But, the space in between us meanwhile got larger, so they are further away now.
"A light of a star that is 8 billion light years away did not take 8 billion years to reach us." You might want to rethink that unless you can prove to physics your brand new definition of "light year."
@@InsertPhilosophyHere light year, a distance light travels in a year through space.
Quick quiz: how long does it take for light to travel one light year???
@@InsertPhilosophyHere They wouldn't need to prove that to Physicists because that's the accepted understanding that you are critiquing.
I think you raised an interesting point in the video, if studies really do show that densities are remaining consistent, a lot of cosmology would have to be completely reworked!
I really do encourage you to learn about why the current theories lead us to think that light that left a galaxy 8 billion light years away, took 8 billion years to reach us, but is currently thought to be 47 light years away because space has expanded that much over those 8 billion years.
@@Condorosa " a lot of cosmology would have to be completely reworked." It does, and in some areas, they are willing to do the rework, but they still strangely, almost religiously, cling to the expansionist dogma. You allude to one of the mental gymnastics and tortuous contortions that some have come up with to cling to the dogma. When you throw out the laws of physics and logic itself, you can conjecture anything, huh?
When you were analysing those graphs did you account for the telescoping that happens because the universe is expanding? The red to blue graph look like a fan, but that’s not what the actual shape of the universe, the fan should constrict as it goes back in time because the universe was smaller. If you do that then yes the universe was more dense, at least it seems to be from eyeballing it. But that’s why it’s so important to label your axes.
Did you also account for the fact that more stars are made as the universe goes on? So we would expect density to increase with time, but it at the very least stays the same.
No one suggests that the "actual shape of the universe." However, it is the data of all the observations, and the observations do not show the density of galaxy distribution required for the expanding universe theory to be true. Creation of stars are irrelevant because stars are within galaxies and the issue is galaxy distribution not stellar distribution. Changing the subject doesn't solve the central issue. Distance equals time, and the labels in the maps of distance to galaxies means as those galaxies were that amount of time ago. That is an inescapable reality that no mental gymnastics can avoid.
It's bizarre how some people will just make up stuff to hide the flaws in their theories. Scientists are as bad as religious fundamentalists in that. Maybe you can just say angels are pulling at the corners of the universe and making it get bigger? It would make as much sense as your dodge of the facts. "You can't see the angels pulling the fan." LOL!
@@idar.4987 That's too harsh, but the human frailties that distort religion also distort science. Scientists say they don't need philosophy, so they don't learn critical thinking outside their narrow analytic perspective. They really don't know Ockham's Razor.
Yeah, need to look for myself at the data, but distance is not so simple, because yes, if light has travelled towards us for 8 billion years, the distance it travelled at the time for each little piece of space was 8 billion light years, but that is not the distance now, the earlier a distance was travelled the larger it is now. Still this error is not that important, we should see less density now than earlier. But there is some subtlety in this because the very close neighbourhood might be more or less dense than other regions, so you have to look at scales that are isotropic in density, and there is a problem because this measure can only tell you anything if that isotropy and uniformity is there, now thats kot a huge issue, it would be great to prove that either the density of galaxies has to have been non isotropic and unform or the expension is not there, but there are other issues, a simple one is the size of galaxies and the matter in gas, or conversions between dark matter and normal matter that might habe occoured, there is a huge amount of styff to consider, and these concerns are just off the cuff, first you have to make sure that 1 your arguments are sound, and 2 that your claim is true, that the prediction from the expanding model is not reflecting the densities over time.
Are you sure tho, you need to check that the numbers for densities you are referencing does not come from a model of how the universe should look today, given it evolving simultaneously over the entire space. You must be sure that the distributions you reference are from direct observations of what we see, not what we think is there assuming isotropic light velocity.
"be sure that the distributions you reference are from direct observations of what we see" They are.