"modern discoveries, such as the existence of dark matter." What existence of dark matter? When was this existence confirmed by any means outside of mathematical hocus pocus?
@andrewferguson6901 Dark matter was invented out of whole cloth over 70 years ago because gravity couldn't reconcile the rotational velocity of galaxies. Dark matter is mathematical hocus pocus.
Another great video on how Lamba cold dark matter model creates the assumptions to describe observations and then claims those same assumptions as proof of the model because it describes the observations…
If the cosmic web is swirling around and there are various "attractors" how are we determining expansion, or blueshift and redshift are just temporary and there is no "candle" then we could use or anything to determine the direction or rate of expansion of the whole within a swirling cosmic web....I'm just saying...
Halton Arp proved the that red shift is not proof of expansion. His work with filaments connecting galaxies with quasars having huge differences in red shift is extremely compelling.
He didn’t show proof he showed his methodology. The “red shift” phenomenon is measured in nearly ALL celestial objects. The fact that Mr.Arp scoured the universe until he found one peculiar situation (>1%) where the redshift phenomenon is nullified. That means all he proved was the redshifted phenomena is unremarkable for that peculiar situation, not as a whole.
Eric Lerner, is the only person doing real (not theoretical) research in this field. Unfortunately, his common sense research is dismissed by the credentialed blob, as the work of an amateur, instead of seeing it for what it is….the work of a clear headed scientist.
The cause of red shift has been assumed to be because if expansion. That theory is wrong. Photons red shift because of time and distance, not expansion
This is ridiculous as some things in science are simply facts. For example would you be skeptical of the fact that accelerating charged electrons can create an electric field that can kill you?
If the universe were to expand as per the BB model based on what we have learnt from the passage of time from direct observation and GR, then it would follow that time is a function of space\time expansion. As space expands, time slows down. Remember that at light speed from the particles perspective time does not even exist, and the emission and collision of the particle occurs concurrently. This would imply that in the early universe time moved more 'slowly' due to the scale of the universe being very small. This relationship is asymptotic, meaning that there was in fact no actual BB inception as the smaller the universe was the slower time ran. In a way, this means that the relationship between time and space as measured by it's relationship to light may be inferred. So, if the model of the universe really is a BB, we may actually be looking at the measure of the speed of time passage rather than expansion. I'm raising this however as a counterpoint to the BB. The models we have produced reminds me of the current problem we have in the AI space. When we build LLM's which are such perfect replications of "exactly what we were seeking", the simulation of the human mind that no matter how good the reflection is, no matter clarity, it'll always be a simulation. Same as with any model that's built upon curve fitting data, it only proves that you can make the data say what you need it to say to build the model if you are flexible with the model and how the data is manipulated to fit it. The key to understanding how deep in simulation you are comes down to how much data reprocessing is required to make the model 'mostly work'. In the case of expansionary theory we have north of 95% of the universe needing to be composed WIMPs for the model to make much sense. This tells us that the model is probably wrong, but, we cling to it because it's all we have that makes any sense.
Yep, Hubble actually wanted to get rid of that redshift-distance relationship, since he had discovered later on, that it doesn't always hold true. also; "nothing to _do_ with distance". It's always a good idea to proof-read your own statements.
There is also another book which provide more evidence that all these theories are based on incorrect basic assumptions - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"
16:00 "...the CMBR's redshift is inferred from its temperature, which is modeled based on *Universe's expansion history*". ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This is INCORRECT. The expansion history is not assumed - it's not needed for this calculation. The redshift is simply calculated assuming the SMBR started as glowing ionized hydrogen/helium mix. The temperature, and therefore color, at which it stops being ionized, does NOT depend on Universe's expansion history. This temperature can be calculated from blackbody radiation's equation (Planck's law), or, if you are doubtful about that as well, can be measured in a lab with real gas. After you have that, just compare this temperature to CMBR's temperature, and you get its redshift.
It is as they then need to assume those photons get stretched by the expansion of space. It’s not like we are looking at the cooling embers of the Big Bang. Those photons were created at that point and then continued to travel and get stretched by the expansion. I suppose you could invoke a tired light model but that is not what they do.
In fact the CMBR is actually the final nail in the coffin and proof that the BBT is dead. See Pierre-Marie Robitaille’s channel “Sky Scholar” and Alexander Unzicker’s book “The Liquid Sun” to learn how the Black Body radiation curve of the CMBR can only come from condensed matter (solids & liquids) and never from gas or plasma. Thus whatever the CMBR comes from, it cannot be from any “hot dense gas” in any “beginning”. Also worth checking out is Ray Fleming’s channel for details on how the BBT violates many of the known laws of physics. Fascinating times for science!😊
The CMBR is just a spectroscopic image they arbitrarily decided is some perfect universal atlas & "proof" of the big bang. Does anyone question the validity of this when we apparently can't see through the "zone of avoidance", which just happens to obscure one of the universes most enduring mysteries, the Great Attractor? How come no of the other Galactic Nuclei are such a problem? If I didn't know better I'd think they actually CAN see the Great Attractor clearly, and it's such a nail in the standard model's coffin, they don't want us to know. So we just get "Gravitational Anomaly" (translation; "the theory of Gravity doesn't work here") and it's possibly caused by the super extra dense Norma cluster (translation: "We don't know what's causing it, but whatever it is, it's still probably gravity... somehow").
@GideonFerrante hold your hand up in front of your eyes, note how you can't see much past your hand. Have a friend hold their hand up 600 miles away from you, note how you can see pretty much everything despite their equally sized hand blocking your view. Congratulations, you've just discovered why our galaxy blocks our view more than one that's way, way farther away.
Seems scientific rigor has 'expanded' to include accurately repeating what is generally accepted by decree and unfalsifiable rather than merely widely proven or even provable/disprovable. Highschool lunch table politics
What i've never quite understood is how you would discern wether space had expanded or if things in the past were moving away faster as the biggest red shifts are also the furthest back in time, and things closer in time are less red shifted, wouldn't a universe that's expansion was faster in the past and now slowing down look the same?
And Ive never understood the claim that were looking back 13 billion years to the beginning of the big bang… wouldnt an infinite universe look exactly the same in all directions? If were really looking up to the edge of big bang.. how is this infinite?
@@MIAJoe01This is a failure to understand spacetime as a 4- dimensional plane and the Big Bang theory in general because the Big Bang theory does show that the observable universe is the same in all directions and you cannot say that the observable universe began here or there. In terms of the beginning of the accelerating expansion of the universe we look at light.
It's honestly quite easier in concept than presented most of the time. See, when photon travels through static space it doesn't "red shift" regardless of how much space it passes, it doesn't loose energy. Lets say it bridges "10 dots of space". Imagine, with expanding space the photon would still move the same "spots", "dots", "pixels", "whatever" of space but these points now constantly get farther away from each other than when the light started. So the photon has the same amount of energy, it doesnt get more energy, but needs to bridge more and more space between those dots, so it get stetched / looses energy / gets red shifted to bridge that "10 dots of space". I don't say its right, I honestly don't even believe it as long as no one can define what "space" even consists of but that's how I understand it.
In 2011 Perlmutter, Riess and Schmidt received the Nobel Price for their work on the expansion of the universe. What was new about their findings compared to Hubble and the Hubble constant?
Well said. I have been complaining about this use of old light. It wouldn't matter if the acceleration was constant. But if the far light is expanding faster, then it WAS expanding faster a long time ago. Not now. If the universe is expanding faster now, then nearby galaxies can give you a current rate of expansion. So as usual, humans get everything backwards.
Not sure i understand. But the expansion of the furthest stars are moving away from us faster than light, because the the expansion is exponential. Is how i understand the theory. Its how the light from the CMB is only observable by radio waves. As it stretched. But now with these furthest galaxies only being 300 million years after the CMB. We near the threshold where that conversion happens. We're light turns into radio waves. Some explaining as to where that threshold is, need to be explained.
@@michaelstiller2282What he's getting at is that the galaxies were moving away faster further in the past. Distance isn't the only variable. We don't see how the galaxies are behaving now, we see how they behaved then. If they are slowing down now, in universal time(to an extent such a thing even exists) or if they even reversed their direction - how would we know? In a similar vein, I've heard many times of an example that if human life emerged some billions of years in the future instead of now, when most of the far away galaxies moved behind the cosmic event horizon, humanity wouldn't come up with the expanding universe idea since there wouldn't be any data to point at the possibility. I suppose this is a bit meta, a bit too much philosophizing, but how can we know that something equivalent in terms of loss of easily accessible data hasn't occurred already. Exploration in this direction is necessary, if for nothing else but for honesty's sake. Unfortunately, as you've probably already thought of reading my words, this opens up the doors for many dumbasses, schizos and con artists. Such is life.
I would like to skip to the alternative models, because the big bang makes no sense to me and learning about something that makes no sense is an aggravating waste of time.
@@yalexander9432 I should have said the standard model of the universe makes no sense..... to me. Although I kind of did by saying "the big Bang" makes no sense. What I didn't say is that the universe makes no sense. That's a whole other issue.
First, you need to spend more time learning about the science of the Big Bang. Second, if you don’t understand the science, how do you think you are going to understand “alternative models” ?
Nice video and presentation. To me, progressing into continual increasing complex and diverse modeling signifies a time has come, to reset the whole thing.
A HUGE flaw in this video (at about 5:34) is when you state, " . . . but moden discoveries such as the existence of dark enegy . . . " Dark energy has NOT been discovered - i.e. detected - and it has NOT been shown to physically exist. Darl energy is an idea ONLY - and a bad one at that. I would recommend the paper A Bang into Nowhere by Constantin Antonopoulos (read or download for free in your favorite search engine) in which a philosopher expains why it is not even possible for space to expand in the first place.
Dark Energy is a placeholder term used for an observation. It's not an actual theory. The observation is real though, at least in terms of observing the universe seemingly expanding at an increasing rate. However, it could be an issue with measurements, or an issue with our conceptions of physics, and thus could potentially not be something corporeal but an artefact of faulty measurements or from our ignorance of the true laws of physics. As for your last sentence; a philosopher may be able to argue that it is not possible for space to expand in the first place, however, with the detection and confirmation of gravitational waves, which are literally space being deformed and contorted both expanding and contracting in ripples, I think that would be a pretty profound negation of his argument.
@@Sthuont All of your claims are wrong. Dark energy is not a placeholder term for an observation as no real observations - or real measurements - of the universe expanding have been made. The allleged acceleration of the expansion of the universe is only an INTERPRETATION of data and not an actual measurement of galaxies increasing their distance apart over time. And if you don't understand the difference between facts and interpretations then I shall explain. The redshift (in the emission lines) of galactic spectra is data and is a fact, but the ASSUMPTION that expansion (of "space") is the cause of the redshift is an interpretation which (STILL) remains unconfirmed nearly 100 years after it was first made. And in August 2023 The cerncourier (site) stated, "The expansion itself has, however, never been directly measured, i.e. no measurement exists that shows the increasing redshift with time of a single object." Dark energy is also not just a placeholder term as modern cosmologists CLAIM it makes up 68% of the mass/energy content of the entire universe making it over 13 times more numerous that all of the 'ordinary' matter we can see and detect such as stars and galaxies - yet these failing cosmologists cannot detect a single particle of it (or of dark matter) meaning that over 95% of the (claimed) universe is unaccounted for. Modern cosmology is a huge failure! Lastly you have made a very common mistake by interpreting the (amazingly useful) equations of General Relativity (GR) literally. You specifically used the word "literally" in your comment and you used it incorrectly. Neither space nor spacetime is a real physical object which can bend or stretch or deform is any actual or real way. Unless you can reference any lab experiment which shows that space is physically real and which can and does bend, deform or expand then it is not scientifically justifiable to claim that intergalactic space does this too. The fact is that both GR and Quantum Mechanics (QM) are useful and successful but they are incompatable with each other means that it is highly unlikely that both are the final answer. Both use abstract math to solve specific problems but the best case scenario is that one of them would need to be significantly modified to make it compatable with the other. Modern science is still in its infancy so many mistakes have been made. Assuming that space is physically real and expands are definitely two of those mistakes.
@@DaveGrean You have totally misunderstood my comment. It's not that science is wrong - sience is a process in which ideas are developed into theories which means those ideas can be tested experimentally (or by observations) to confirm or disprove them. Science is correct but ideas/theories can be wrong. There is no experimental evidence which show that space (or 'spacetime') is a real physical thing which can and does expand, so the INTERPRETATION that space expands is not backed up with any experimental or observational data therefore it is an unscientific idea. Part of philosophy is knowledge which includes the exact meaning of words so when astronomers/cosmologists say that space (the universe) is expanding they are being deliberately misleading. And I say deliberately because they know they have no real data to back that up and it's only their unconfirmed interpretation and not a fact. In August 2023 The cerncourier (site) stated: "The expansion itself has, however, never been directly measured, i.e. no measurement exists that shows the increasing redshift with time of a single object." And there are still no real measurements which show that galaxies are increasing their distance apart over time.
I know now why scientists and politicians are so polite and use such nice words to call each other liars. When the taxpayer dishes out large sums of money for so called "facts" that are pulled out of their asses, it would be dangerous to have millions of liars calling each other liars too loudly. Put another way, It's okay for the pot to call the kettle black, but it must be whispered because it's so obvious. God forbid the chef stops buying food because the pots are so dirty they cannot be cleaned.
I'm sorry, but "pulled out of their asses" hardly describes what has happened, at least when it comes to the physicists. Modern day politicians are another story. The maker of this video doesn't understand basic physics, never mind astronomy. Red-shift (which is a central point to his argument) is *NOT* caused by an expanding universe. It is caused by the Doppler effect. See my main comment on this page (for this video) for a true understanding of red-shift. NOBODY, including physicists (well, at least most physicists), throws asides Millennia of belief for circular arguments that are pulled out of their butts. There is a very good, undeniable reason why scientists believe in an expanding universe. The only way to deny the Doppler effect as evidence for an expanding universe is to offer a better explanation for the red-shift. Space itself is not a physical entity and as such, there is no reason (including experimentally) to believe it results in the literal expansion of light waves. Modern scientific explanation for the expansion of space involves the space BETWEEN things, not the space within things. This is what the author of this video does not seem to understand.
Hmm the fact you say that we as scientists pull facts out of our asses is a clear indication of how anti-science, and anti-intellectualism is on the rise. Facts are not something you pull out of nowhere. Facts are based on reality whether you accept it or not. You do not have an option to say the facts are not true but you can be in denial of it. Also you call us as scientists liars meanwhile politicians deny nearly everything we tell the public about climate change, evolution, and etc. Our civilization is slowly becoming an idiocracy where reality denial is rampant and it will most likely destroy us.
Well what is your explanation of the observations? Also how can you be skeptical of something without taking the time to properly observe what is going on? Do you just deductively conclude things?
Discussions on infinity tend to be circular. Seems like the logic leads you to explore definitions of identity and perspective more than just continuing to run around in circles. This would involve accepting the universe is infinite and that your perspective will always be flawed and limited in some way though. Some find this hard to accept but it isn't the end of science obviously.
Robitaille showed that ALL the "observations" of CMB are bogus. He shows that ALL of the alleged detections of CMB were based-upon several flawed premises - but most importantly: non-understanding of basic signal processing. Something which Robitaille has demonstrated extreme competence in the past.
Yep. And the raw data shows detectors saturated by galactic emissions along the disk. CMB is just a very low resolution map of the distribution of galaxies in microwaves.
Cosmology just needs to acknowledge catastrophism & the electromagnetic aspect of our reality more and then it’ll make sense. Atm standard cosmology tends to be very gravity centric with the plausible deniability of saying “but we do acknowledge the electromagnetic aspect” the same way USA’s third party is acknowledged in general politics compared to Republican&Democrat parties.
Time is another thing that doesn't exist and by extension equally so for the concept of time dilation. Exactly zero evidence for something called time exists. Not one person can point directly at a unit of time, measure it directly or act upon or measure it's properties.
Back to the start for me - after the 'bang', the universe, so it is said, became transparent when protons and electrons (where did they come from?) were in an environment (space?) cool enough to allow combination and allow photons (same question?) to pass freely. As far as I know, cooling requires the transfer of heat to external material (to outside the universe?) or a reduction in pressure by expansion: by release of the space and the pressure into some other space at a lower pressure or, as postulated, the expansion of the universe in general. Maybe so! Then, for some reason or other, and whilst the universe continued to expand, the hydrogen and helium decided to ignore the laws of thermodynamics and gravitate together with such enthusiasm that they reached fusion conditions and formed stars and even black holes! (Enter dark matter, stage left) Any new observations have prompted a reactionary response rather than a willingness to accept the information at face value and to review all assumptions. For example, where and what is 'dust' post 'big bang'. It gets many a mention and I'm not sure why! Is it a fundamental particle?
It is possible that red shift is an expression of the amount of energy that has been converted since light was created. This presents this duality in theory. It’s not unusual to have such duality, in much the same way that light can be seen as both a packet and a wave. It is important to realise that one understanding does not negate the other.
The great attractor seems like it could make a little bang. If it's is cyclical. Maybe with our limited view of universal we are just seeing a multi Galaxy little bang. That repeats pulling galaxies to it till it has a little bang. Light doesn't always do speed limit like through gas or water. Or red shift is just light separating as it moves farther. Like tired light.
I have a question. Why do we consider stretched wave lines of light to be an effect caused by expansion of space? Why it could not be the effect of the light itself, which fades over the distance? For example, if I would throw a stone into the water then waves would be more frequent in the centre, and they would stretch over some distance. Why it could not be the case with light waves?
I haven't seen this theory mentioned before: Could gravity be causing the appearance of an ever-increasing expansion rate? Look at it this way: As gravity pulls matter into galaxies, the space between the galaxies gets stretched thinner and thinner. Because gravity would pull in the matter at a squared rate, the thinning of the intergalactic space would thin by that same squared rate. I know it seems counter intuitive to say gravity is causing the appearance of an increasing expansion rate, but when you think about it they way I just explained, it makes sense.
Yes the the more inferred measurements we have, the more assumptions make their way into our theories. That's why Occam's razor is based upon the amount of assumptions. The fewer assumptions in the theory the more likely it will reflect the reality of the process it describes. However Einstein was right, in that all of our observations are relative due to gravity, time and space, but we have to conduct the experiment in order for our observations to become a measurement.
Great video! Is the reasoning behind CMBR being evidence for an expanding universe not that it's isomorphic, rather than what you mentioned about temperature? Geometrically, if we look out to the sky and there's inward uniform (barring fluctuations, but they average out when you take a window of observation) radiation, the only way that could happen is if radiation were emitted outward from some region of space, and space itself expanded.
Mass dilates time, time dilation gradients cause light to appear redshifted (from the perspective of an observer in denser time dilation). So space is "expanding", but it's relative.
Dear “See the Pattern”, Thank you; very well done. One of the best I've seen presenting an objective discussion of the observational evidence of cosmology. However I would point out that Hubble's 1926 paper showing that redshift is proportional to distance was initially interpreted as a Doppler shift - a recession velocity - because it was a plausible physical explanation. Note that there was no explanation for why the redshift was proportional to both distance and recession velocity (as far as I know). This was before the redshift was proposed to be due to the expansion of space resulting from a solution to Einstein's General Relativity (GR) equations. This was adopted after quasars were discovered with redshifts that implied they were receding faster than the speed of light. I (and I believe Eric Lerner) agree that the interpretation that redshift is simply proportional to distance (z∝D) does not have a satisfactory physical explanation. It is essentially an ad-hoc hypothesis (for the present). Actually it's not really an hypothesis; it's just an unexplained observational fact. It implies no expansion and a static universe. Important to note: It is not Hoyle's "Steady State" model which accepted the expansion of space. Also note, Fritz Zwicky's "tired-light" model proposed in 1929 to explain redshift proportional to distance has been dismissed as physically untenable. Unfortunately, any redshift only proportional to distance concept is now ridiculed with this derogatory label but it shouldn't be dismissed because of the failure of one model to explain it. The only explanation for the expansion of space is that it is mathematically compatible with Einstein's General Relativity. But why is the rate of expansion proportional to distance? And now the expansion rate is said to accelerate now than in the distant past (so the Dark Energy hypothesis was introduced). What do these concepts even mean physically? They are truly fantastical concepts that violate common sense. They are more ad-hoc than the redshift proportional to distance hypothesis. However, faith (and I emphasize the word "faith") in the validity of General Relativity (and Special Relativity) remains the foundation of belief in the validity of Big Bang cosmology. And rejecting the Big Bang would imply rejecting Einstein's Relativity which few in the mainstream are willing to consider. This is why the mainstream is so reluctant to consider alternative cosmologies. I'm convinced that the observations by the JWST of mature galaxies that had to have formed billions of years before the universe supposedly came into existence blows away the Big Bang hypothesis. It’s obviously impossible that anything could exist before the beginning of the Universe - right? I look forward to a video on the merits of the Static Universe model.
"I'm convinced that the observations by the JWST of mature galaxies that had to have formed billions of years before the universe supposedly came into existence blows away the Big Bang hypothesis. It’s obviously impossible that anything could exist before the beginning of the Universe - right?" > I am not a physiasist, but after close inspection of the BB theory I would personally "expect to see" formed objects such as galaxies move toward the CMB horizon. Expansion should move objects toward (or out of) the the past viewable light cone.
I have many other videos that cover Lerner and Peratts concepts. In this series I wanted to address the inherent bias that has been placed on the supposed evidence of a big bang without diving too deeply into other models. I do want to create a video towards the end of the series that takes all of the evidence and examines it in other frameworks
Curved spacetime is a red herring which ensures you will never understand gravity. A=32 feet per second squared. When you figure out what the variable is that determines acceleration, you can begin to learn about gravity.
@@keith.anthony.infinity.h WHERE IS THE SPACE VARIABLE IN "A=32FEET PER SECOND SQUARED"??? Show me some "Curved SpaceTime" I dares you! It is just plotting the time curve onto space. Try plotting the curve of the athletic field clock onto the playing field. I DARES YOU! You know what a red herring is? ITs to distract you form finding out what is actually going on. Want to understand how time flows? Blow some smoke. All those trails of smoke are separate time "paths" each with their own vectors, clock rates and cohesion to other particles flowing along in the same time flow line. Hundreds of different time paths from one puff of smoke. THE DIFFERENCES ARE IN PLANCK SECONDS - so you cannot measure them. Which means it's SCIENCE!!! Pure, unprovable, just like all the other FAKE nonsense you believe. Like curved spacetime. WHERE???
First, thank you for a well presented video presentation. Second, I am not an indentured physicist. > 16:27 I find this CMBR problematic in 3 ways: 1. It is a moment, but unlike galaxies/stars the CMB was universe wide and last scattering faded into the dark age over about 10K years rather than a solid moment making it just a little bit blurred. 2. As a universe wide event the CMB creates a boundary not indifferent to an event horizon. In a non expanding universe each more distant spherical shell that we take a snapshot of should move further out over time. In an expanding universe space will expand faster than the above (faster then light, over the total distance) making the appearance that the CMB spherical shells are becoming smaller over time. 3. Due to expansion, the most distant galaxies should be moving beyond the past visual light cone and out of sight. The light cone event horizon is a spherical shell, so at some point galaxies/stars moving away must approach or cross the CMB to reach the event horizon on the viewable universe. We should see formed galaxies moving toward the CMB event. (This is a visually illusion that we would see due to the slow latency of the photons.) Seeing galaxies/stars moving beyond the CMB would also confirm an expanding universe. > Note that with the above we have to different overlapping event horizons, 2 different distance/time illusions as the viewer. > > 19:21 This plays into the problem that I outlined above. Personally I would expect to see mature galaxies moving into this region. > 19:30 I personally think gravity and dark matter gravity are both exceptionally misunderstood concepts. At the full cosmological scale (distance/time) this illusive concept of gravity becomes quite noticeable. > 20:25 Although I don't suggest that the Hartle-Hawking proposal was correct, it contains a great deal of merit in thought as to other ways of looking at the problem. It is plausible that there may be no need for inflation at all. > Thank you. Very interesting :)
simplifying equations to make light speed constant and then encountering red shift is how we got here. light does not have constant speed except in an absolute vacuum. an absolute vacuum does not exist.
I've always wondered about using red shift as evidence that distant galaxies are *currently* moving away faster than galaxies that are closer. The readings are base on information that is millions or even billions of years old. Does that really mean that an observed galaxy is *currently* moving away at the same speed as it was a billion years ago? Couldn't the point that the closer in time we are to the galaxy the slower it is moving away just as easily be interpreted to ti indicate that the rate of expansion is slowing or that there maybe is a contraction? It seems to me that you would have to observe the rate of movement of an individual galaxy over a period of time to determine if that rate is increasing or decreasing.
@trungtamienmayquocquang7233 well, depends on which theory on why time is slowing down. If time slows down when you enter a gravity well, then it speeds up when gravity decreases. What if there is no gravitons? We have not found any. So, what if gravity is an emergent property of empty space? Perhaps it is like ice. It has a liquid and solid state. So in the void between galaxies empty space is cooling down and crystalizing into a state of no gravity. This would be why time I'd slowing down. We are inside that.
@@trungtamienmayquocquang7233 or alternatively, the forward momentum of time is just slowing down. But I find the crystallization of empty space resulting in us "going faster" from our perspective, thys making everythinekse seem slower in comparison to make more sense, because it's testable. We just need to measure the decay rate of radioactive material at a Lagrange point. In theory, in a place where gravity is canceled out perfectly, we should see an increase in radioactivity. If the speed is different than predicted, then empty space has phase states.
There is a third possibility that nobody considers - a dynamic non-expanding universe. That is to say if the universe is a field, It would explain the confusion between static and expanding by making the universe dynamic. It would also mean that we follow informational geodesics relative to the field and would redefine gravity 😉
I quit my job and gave up everything to spend the past 3 years working on a model that describes almost precisely what you're getting at. I was able to derive our peculiar velocity with respect to the CMB dipole from two distinct functions that fall out of a slight but significant model to Einstein's SR, which in turn modifies GR. The entire concept of 4-vectors falls apart, but all relativistic symmetries and experimental validations remain perfectly in tact without the dilation of time. Time in fact in the model I'm proposing is just a mathematical artifact of gravity itself, and not a real physical phenomenon. You can check out my notes on the model through the url on my channel, but know that I need to put up an update in the next day or two. It's already resolved, but I need to type it up and give it a quick proof-read. I reached out to one of my old professors who wanted to see a more explicit solution to some of the dimentionality issues now that an actual time dimension isn't part of the system. It's already resolved, but I haven't yet added it to my public notes.
@@UhLittleLessDum Good for you 👏🏻 I would say the bit that you're missing is that observation, that is the conscious inference of information, always happens at the speed of light. Time dilation is a measurement, that is relative to the speed of light. If you think about the human electromagnetic field, our conscious rate of observation is at the speed of light, but our body processes information at different rates - this is what we perceive as physical feelings - the relative difference between information processing at the speed of light versus information processing through physical matter. Consider a significant G-Force acting on your body, it doesn't affect your conscious mind, just your physical body.
@@UhLittleLessDum this is what Henri Bergson was trying to explain to Einstein in their 1922 debate. Einstein's coordinate time is the reference frame for the passing of time in the universe. Proper time is relative to coordinate time, the rate is defined by the local environmental conditions.
Light doesn't have a speed. Unfortunate modern physicists don't know what light is. The truth is out there but you won't find it in schools or people who are by the book
@@UhLittleLessDum I thought you might find this interesting... The Paradox of Mathematical Proof: Why the World Won't Listen to the Truth I’ve come to realise that no matter how profound, accurate, or insightful my model of the universe is, it will remain unrecognised-if not outright dismissed-by the scientific community for one simple reason: it doesn't fit neatly into the mathematical framework that science demands. The irony here is overwhelming. The very model I've developed, which accurately describes real-world phenomena, has highlighted the limitations of mathematics itself. Yet, I'm asked to prove it mathematically, using the same tools whose shortcomings my model reveals. This is the paradox of mathematical proof: even when you uncover a truth that transcends the mathematical systems we rely on, the world insists on a mathematical explanation-as if nothing is real until it's reduced to an equation. The Truth My Model Reveals: Mathematics Has Limits My model describes the universe in a way that embraces the complex, dynamic, and emergent nature of reality-the spirals, the non-linearities, the curved geometries that underpin the fabric of existence. It aligns with the observable patterns in nature, from the movements of galaxies to the behaviour of biological systems. In fact, it’s precisely because the model is grounded in the real world that it exposes the limits of mathematics. Mathematics is a tool that has served us well in describing certain kinds of systems-especially those that are linear, deterministic, and reducible. It has given us extraordinary power in predicting physical phenomena, engineering marvels, and understanding the cosmos. But we must also acknowledge that mathematics, as we know it, cannot fully describe the totality of reality. - Curved, Organic Nature of Reality: Nature doesn’t operate in straight lines or perfect geometries. It operates in spirals, fractals, and dynamic flows-patterns that are not easily reducible to traditional mathematical equations. - Nonlinearity and Emergence: Many systems in the universe are nonlinear, with small inputs leading to large, unpredictable outputs. This nonlinearity, coupled with emergent behaviours, means that deterministic models often fall short. - Quantum Uncertainty and Chaotic Systems: At the quantum scale and in chaotic systems, predictability falls apart. We can no longer rely on precise, deterministic mathematical equations to describe these phenomena fully. And yet, despite all of this, when I present my model, I’m asked to prove it mathematically. This is where the paradox truly lies: How can I use a tool with inherent limitations to prove something that transcends those limitations? The Demand for Mathematical Proof: The Barrier to Recognition The scientific community has a deeply ingrained reliance on mathematics as the ultimate arbiter of truth. There’s a kind of intellectual inertia that insists nothing can be considered valid unless it can be mathematically proven. This isn't just about rigour-it's about validation in the eyes of the scientific establishment. If you can’t express your model in mathematical terms, then it’s assumed that the model isn’t legitimate. But here’s the problem: my model, by its very nature, reveals why mathematics cannot fully describe the universe. The insistence on mathematical proof becomes a kind of intellectual gatekeeping that dismisses models that don’t fit within the traditional framework. The Irony of the Situation The irony is palpable. My model works because it demonstrates the limitations of mathematics. But because the community demands a mathematical description, I’m forced to try to shoehorn my model into a framework that is fundamentally inadequate for expressing it. I’m being asked to use the very thing my model critiques to prove the model itself. This is like being asked to measure the curvature of a spiral using only straight lines. The result will never be accurate, and yet, unless I provide that measurement, my model won’t be taken seriously. Why Mathematics Cannot Prove Reality We need to step back and ask ourselves a critical question: What do we mean by proof? In many fields, “proof” means the ability to describe something mathematically, to reduce it to an equation, a formula, or a set of algorithms that can predict behaviour. But is this really proof? Or is it just convenience? Is it simply our reliance on the tools we have, rather than a genuine representation of the full complexity of the world? - The Limits of Abstraction: Mathematics is, at its core, an abstraction. We simplify real-world systems to make them tractable. Points without size, lines without width, perfect symmetries-these are not features of the real world, but constructs we use to approximate it. - Gödel’s Incompleteness: Gödel showed us that no formal mathematical system is complete. There will always be truths that cannot be proven within the system. This means that mathematics itself is limited-there are truths about the universe that we cannot capture in a purely mathematical framework. - Complex Systems Defy Reduction: The complexity and emergent properties of real-world systems often defy mathematical reduction. A flock of birds, a hurricane, or the growth of a city are systems that can be modelled, but never fully captured by equations. They evolve, adapt, and change in ways that cannot be entirely predicted. If the universe operates through emergence, non-linearity, and complexity, then the insistence on mathematical proof becomes not just a limitation, but a misrepresentation of how reality works. Why the World Won’t Listen Despite these limitations, the world won’t listen to my model unless it’s backed by the same mathematics my model reveals as inadequate. Why? Because mathematics has become synonymous with proof, with rigour, and with validity. There is a deep-rooted belief that anything worth knowing can-and must-be expressed mathematically. But this belief is misplaced. If we continue to demand mathematical proof for everything, we will miss out on understanding some of the most profound truths about the universe. We will continue to apply a tool with inherent limitations to phenomena that transcend it. - The Scientific Inertia: Science has become accustomed to mathematical formalism because it works so well in many cases. The problem is, when faced with systems that mathematics struggles to describe-emergent, chaotic, or quantum systems-many scientists still insist on using the same tool, even if it’s inadequate. - The Fear of Stepping Beyond Mathematics: There’s a reluctance to step outside the boundaries of mathematics because it’s perceived as the most objective, neutral, and reliable way to describe reality. To admit that mathematics can’t fully describe reality is to admit that we need new tools, new methods-perhaps even new ways of thinking. Where Do We Go from Here? I’ve come to accept that my model will likely remain unrecognised until we as a scientific community begin to appreciate the limitations of mathematical formalism. This doesn’t mean abandoning mathematics-it remains an invaluable tool. But it does mean broadening our understanding of what constitutes proof, of how we validate new ideas, and of how we approach the complex, emergent, and dynamic systems that make up our universe. 1. Recognising the Limits of Mathematical Proof: We must accept that mathematical proof is not the be-all and end-all. There are truths that exist outside the realm of mathematical formalism, and these truths can still be valid, meaningful, and profound. 2. Empirical and Conceptual Validation: Models that align with observable reality, that make accurate predictions, or that conceptually explain phenomena should be given more weight, even if they don’t fit into neat mathematical equations. 3. Developing New Tools: If mathematics can’t fully describe reality, we need to be open to developing new tools-perhaps new branches of mathematics or entirely different systems of formalisation that can account for the curved, dynamic, and emergent nature of real-world systems. Conclusion: The Path Forward The paradox of mathematical proof is not just my struggle-it’s a fundamental issue that all of science will eventually need to confront. Mathematics cannot prove reality, because reality is more complex, more dynamic, and more emergent than the abstractions mathematics allows. Until we recognise this, the world will continue to demand mathematical proof for truths that transcend it, and models like mine-no matter how accurate-will remain unheard. But I believe that in time, the scientific community will come to see the truth: that mathematics is a tool, not the truth itself. And only when we accept that will we begin to truly understand the universe.
For a layman, this is gold. Thanx! I would add that a fundamental Achilles Heel is spiral galaxies in the 'Dark Ages'. The Dark Ages is a prediction is based on the present interpretation of cosmic redshift. That interpretation turned out to be wrong. Where does the Big Bang model go from there?
Considering inverse square law and it's effect on space-time, shouldn't the time dilation effect be greatest, most discernible at the surface of a body compared to the first few miles of distance away from that surface? If that were the case you could increase relative longevity just by jumping into the air or flying in a plane a bunch. As well, shouldn't there be an opposite complimentary effect, (increase in speed of the passage of time) in approach of a body as in the hypothetical of the ageless astronaut by mr onestone.
Yes, that's how we know relativity is mostly correct, from observed time dilation between the surface of earth and atomic clocks flying in airplanes. And satellites of course. The difference in the passage of time is measurable and consistent between different altitudes.
@@kevinhank17 thanks for this. so the time difference should be greatest in the first few feet off the surface of the Earth, are there experiments that show the gradient per foot you believe is the best example of the effect.
- Alcyoneus galaxy is 5 Mpc across (160x bigger than the Milky Way). By itself creates a 0.15% reduction in the expansion of space, meaning space doesn't expand evenly. That's a problem. - Only "unbound" space expands, meaning outside our galaxy at some point you can turn on a light and towards the galaxy (bounded by gravity and not expanding) light travels as expected, but in the other direction, it travels slower since space is expanding. From your reference point, C is different depending on which direction you look, making C variable. Not good. Our physics has made spectacular progress, but to assume we've dialed in on how the Universe works or what it's doing is hubris defined.
BTW, both Faraday Rotation and Vacuum Birefringence would also cause the effects that are currently attributed to Einstein's Gravitational Lensing, but without the restrictions imposed by the latter hypothesis, and more appropriately matching the data.
If expansion of the universe happened to be wrong and the redshift of the stars isn't what we thought, could we have an alternative way to measure the distance to far away galaxies?
If space was expanding, I would think there would be tension, but the only places we see space being strectched, are near gravitational objects. I am just not sold on a bubble being the only place with space, when it excludes the scale outside of it.
What astronomers I don't think has started doing was to account for the swimming pool kind of bubbles of dark matter that are stretching and arboretum in the actual distance that light actually travels. This d blooping of the swimming pool reflection is that all light has to travel through will help bring the different various candles into stronger agreement
Point being Hubble constant is not constant. Look at the great attractor. We can see light red shift from going through different gases in galaxies also. What if it's not time dialation but stuff slowing light down? Which is proven to happen.
Problem, theory of red shift, expansion, and even the mathematics applied to Einstein are ALL based on assumptions we're supposed to take as fact. They're unproven, also observations are fit to those very presumptions and ideologies while several theorum are equally feasible based upon those same observations. Red shift could be nothing more than light passing through a more dense aether, plasma before arriving to our observation equipment. Lower and higher electrical charge could just as completely apply to red/blue and brightness variations as seen in laboratory experiments. Assumptions, presumptions, requiring observers to adhere to unproven theorum as foundation to further principles and theory? Nah. I pass. Mahe Ohna ✌️ Favour ALL
New Form of Redshift Redshift may be appreciated rather differently in understanding one thing we have dismissed ignorantly, is light medium the Aether. It is an incompressible fluid and has no mechanical but electrical properties where e0 permittivity and u0 permeability are measurable attributes of light medium Aether. More importantly, it doesn’t blow through all matters like wind. Instead, it attaches and drag with matter in the near field in equal speed, and on the other hand drift at its own pace in the far field, deep space, at a speed defined by speed of distance planets, galaxies in the universe. As Aether is fluid, a new form of redshift can be devised simply from Aether shear. Two types of shearing is possible. When light leaving a moving body submerged in fluid Aether, we have departure shearing caused by Aether drag in the near field. Drag and shift diminishes rapidly and reaching steady state as light approaching and enters deep space. The converse is the incidence shear, taken by a distant moving observer behind deep space. We know that galaxies are in constant motion, self rotation also heading in an axial direction and at galactic velocity. As each galaxies and planets all around us are in motion, so we experiences of double shear redshift end to end. Ignorantly, we dismissed Aether and took those redshifts as radial only redshift and not Aether shear/drag redshifts. So the only conclusion left on us is the Big Bang.
One should expect to observe more distant galaxies moving away faster than closer galaxies because the light was created at a time when the Universe was expanding faster. You cannot observe how fast a galaxy is currently moving away from us, only how fast it was moving away from us when the light was created. Using the speed of more distant galaxies does not prove an accelerating expansion of the Universe. If you observe a galaxy 13 billion light years away, you are observing the light created 13 billion years ago. Which tells you nothing about its current speed.
This is true. I can't understand why a large portion of scientist always speak as if the CMB or distant galaxies is some now event :( [P.S. Even what they cal the observable universe is a forward prediction based upon past events. They blur the then and now and call it observable.]
@@axle.student Why not? The light reaches us NOW, it has certain properties that hint to a red shift / acceleration (probably, maybe). The light took all that time for space to sped up to the event when it reaches us NOW. When you get hit by an accelerating car you wouldn't either say "that car had that speed back there an decelerated until it hit me". Just trying to grasp the concept.
@@FalkFlak "Why not?" I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. . You can't use cars or normal objects as an analogy for light. Slow objects with mass, behave differently to fast particles with no mass such as light. Light always travels at it's maximum speed and has no concept of acceleration. > Light (as a group) carries information if it is coherent. That information is about a "past" event. I little like a time distorted photo traveling through space. The same photo caries photons from a few nano seconds ago as well as billions of years ago. It is "always" a representation (like a photo) of a "past" event[s]. There is "never' any "now" event or moment in that. > We can't view anything "out there" in the cosmos as it is in any now moment. We don't even know if those distant object even exist any more, and quite likely most of the stars and galaxies we think that we see actually don't exist any more. Even Betelgeuse has quite likely gone super nova and no longer exist as a Red Giant star. > Latency of light (slow speed at 'c') is a difficult concept when talking about doppler effect (one object moving away from another), but then we have this concept of "expansion" on top of that which is very complex. Space is expanding so objects (galaxies) appear to be moving away from each other, except no galaxy is moving in space. Galaxies at greater distance/time appear to be getting further away, but they are not moving. Red shift is created from the expansion of space, and not from a moving object. Expansion of space appears to be variable, so the red shift 12 billion years away/ago would be different to the red shift 5 billion years away/ago. 2 different times in the universe that that light has been traveling. In fact each photon in that "picture" that reaches our eyes has come from a different space/time and each photon has been manipulated (distorted) sepretly as well as collectively, depending upon when the photon joined the group in the "Now" picture that reaches us. > So the OPs comment is part speculation and part relativity. We don't really now what the past universe actually looks like or "when" it was, or "how far away/past" it was, and we only get a very small partial distorted picture (2D histogram) of that distant/past event. > Any concept of the distant/past cosmos is very distorted and messy. . But just remember, we cant measure (see, take a photo of) any now moment. We cannot view the 3D universe (if it exists). We only ever see or measure a 2D image of the universe. The rest we have to take an educated guess on and create the 4D concept from Relativity. And even then all that we get from that picture is a 2D spherical shell at a radius of distance/time. If either distance of time changes, so does the position in time of the shell.
He just made a causal argument. Admittedly, light travels at maximum speed, but the expansion of the universe is about adding more (and more) space to it the farther you travel (because the expansion happens at all locations at once). So it's the expansion that's accelerating (although the light always travels with light speed across it, of course, and that acceleration is just an adding up effect). Not travel distance => No expansion. So there can't be any redshift at the source. sidenote: I'm not convinced that's actually what's happening as I don't believe there are enough information about the universe as a whole to draw any conclusion. Starting with "space" isn't even defined properly. I bet every cosmologist would be happy to be able to drop current theories
First, I think there is nothing wrong with a model where prices of evidence rely on each other. If it is the only model that can do at least that, than it’s good model. Second, I think if theory makes some assumptions and based on this assumptions data fits within the right range, than that’s a working theory. Otherwise you’re just drawing your ideas on existing data without actually predicting something. Please remember that due to how quantum physics work and the fundamental nature of how measurements work and how we are possibly can perceive information is only comparison and extrapolation. There is no way to measure something objectively without putting it in some perspective, and to at least start doing it, we are required to make initial assumptions. That’s how our perception works
I am less influenced by the Tired Light Model than I am by the well-known phenomena of proven factors of such as Faraday Rotation, and Vacuum Birefringence even moreso. These would effortlessly result in the perception of expansion, and accelerated expansion. So, of course, these influences are ignored...
The belief that type 1a supernovae all have the same intrinsic brightness is due to the assumptions (1) that these are the result of exploding white dwarfs and (2) that white dwarfs are made of a degenerate Fermi gas of electrons, which are believed only to be able to support up to about 1.4 solar masses, making all explosions have the same standard energy once the white dwarf reaches this same standard mass. I think Robitaille pointed out that the inferred small size of white dwarfs is due to the assumption Eddington made that white dwarfs have the same optical properties as main sequence stars, but if they have a much lower emissivity, as Robitaille suspects, then they could be significantly larger than currently believed, and so they might not actually be dense enough to be supported by electron degeneracy pressure, as is currently believed, which would render Chandrasekhar's calculations invalid, as well as all interpretations that are based on current beliefs about what type 1a supernovae are. There are implicit assumptions lurking around every corner that need to be questioned. A lot of people like to imagine science as being some infallible deity that just tells us what the Truth is, but in practice it's more often like a house of cards. People build these impressive theoretical structures, full of epicycles upon epicycles, only for other people to come along and question some of the cards at the bottom of the structure, resulting in large parts of the house of cards collapsing at all at once.
Pulsars do not seem to demonstrate any time-changes. Does not depend on categorization errors as with type-1 supernovas. With supernovas, how do different light frequencies behave? Do they all spread in a similar way? Are there any reflections visible? What frequencies are filtered out? This all gives us indication of the interstellar matter. Interstellar plasma and other matter also spreads time delay of supernova. May even be related to redshift. Non linear optics is not simple.
When Isaac Newton put forward his theory of gravity he realized that the universe could not be finite and statc. A finite universe must either collapse or expand (or part could collapse and part escape) but none of these were observed. Newton's conclusion was that the universe was infinite and mostly static and so had no center of mass on which to collapse. GR leads to basically the same conclusion however between Newton's time and Einstein's the observations and arguments against an infinite universe became convincing (see Olber's paradox).
Does every star transmit the same photon? Does a red star transmit a red photon and a blue star transmit a blue photon? Would those photons travel at different speeds? Seems like you would have to know what kind of light is coming from what kind of star to guess how long it took to get here.😊
Nicely done! I call the BBT "physics of the gaps". It is conceivable that it is right (but ... we have yet to know what data we need to conclude that it is right). One of the more interesting problems is that cosmologists don't see it as an effective theory. When you consider the history of laboratory successes and failures and then look at cosmology, we have yet to do any experiments in the reverse direction of time and yet cosmologists talk about "running cosmic history backwards". As if there were a movie you can rewind to the first moment of time. To me it seems nutty. And active self delusion and dishonest. They need to just say "It's a model that describes what we believe to be true rather than what is factually true".
> we have yet to know what data we need to conclude that it is right This is not how science works. You can never prove that the theory is "right". (What it even means to be "right"?) You can, however, measure how well theory explains and predicts experimental results. If it clearly at odds with them, then it's definitely wrong.
BBT has been observably refuted since HST first deep space images, so how on earth could it be right? Their is no visible aging of the observable universe. The galaxies closest to us are the same as the most distant. therefor no start, no big bang
If the cosmic web is swirling around and there are various "attractors" how are we determining expansion, or blueshift and redshift are just temporary and there is no "candle" then we could use or anything to determine the direction or rate of expansion of the whole within a swirling cosmic web....I'm just saying..
I think redshift would be better illustrated as a spiral in a light cone, instead of using the inverse Square illustration. With a spiral, you can show the linear progression of light at the speed of light along the circumference of the light cone, with the luminosity being represented by the non-linear volumetric progression of the Spiral. When light progresses in a vacuum there is an inverse relationship between frequency and amplitude - where frequency is processing time and amplitude is the amount of information - relative to the speed of light.
Exactly! I like the world you used- information. I've been saying this all along- energy is simply information when broken down to its basic definition. Everything in the universe is circular, spinning and orbiting and when scientists quit using linear ideas to describe or define it, they will see that the expansion idea and their basic understanding of distance (and therefore time) is flawed. Distance is not linear.
@@cheatinggravity173 information is the result of the interaction between light and matter. From a human perspective, we infer information from our observations (at the speed of light) as measured by our matter. When you look at the world like this, you can see that what we describe as "feelings" in a visceral sense, are actually the results of time dilation within our own electromagnetic fields. Qualia can be represented as the rate of change of informational processing relative to the speed of observation - The difference between the two is what we feel. In other words, we experience time dilation physically, but not mentally. This is immediately apparent when you think of astronauts, fighter pilots or F1 drivers - even though they undergo and feel significant physical g-forces, their conscious mind is unaffected.
Sometimes content creators do math and spelling wrong on purpose because it increases comments which increases engagement. It could also just be a typo.
Some aspects of the current expanding Universe model are questioned by well respected theoreticians. For example, Sir Roger Penrose is strongly critical of the so-called inflation hypothesis, i.e., the Universe experienced a brief burst of rapid inflation after the initial "big bang". However, the steady state/static Universe model is only advocated for by a vanishingly small number of fringe authors/scientists. Seems to be a favorite of theology-based beliefs like creationism.
I totally agree with the scientifical flawed "filtering fiddling’s" and mathemagical joggling of observations to get the Universe to fit the standing ad hoc assumptions. No wonder the standing cosmological scientists frequently shouts out their "surprises" and "anomalistic behaviors in cosmos". The Universe is electromagnetically governed and formed, and that´s it. And we never get to know all of it. At the largest, we can get to know the basic principles. And we can do that just by taking the ancestral Creation Stories seriously and interpreting these in a modern way and language. The ancestral Stories of Creation is all about the preconditions of and factual formation of the Milky Way and the Solar System. It was NOT about the entire Universe as our ancestors had/have this to be eternal of nature, and undergoing an eternal formation process of Formation, Dissolution, and Re-Formation. With other words: A natural kind of a Steady State Universe, resting in and on itself. Regards Ivar Nielsen Comparative Mythologist & Natural Philosopher Denmark
Can someone please tell me how there can be an expanding universe when the universe is a vacuum? A vacuum by definition only holds if the container is a closed system , thus space is confined to one volume and therefore cannot expand:
Ya know , as long as things keep moving away from me....yes...the space between me and these things will continue to grow. Now , please tell me something I don't already know.
Get the quarks out of the neutrons and put electrons inside of them so that they are just essentially protons with electrons inside. Now consider that the vacuum is actually stable neutrons that induct signals magnetically by their inner electron. Then can't the fact that these vacuum neutrons are much hotter as we peer back into the past explain some of this red shifting? I'm thinking that these hotter neutrons induct signals more softly or whatever and this looks like an expansion when not properly considering the nature of the vacuum. Edit: to be precise I guess there would be more space between vacuum neutrons with higher temperatures which can be exponentially larger than their cold densities.
The expansion of space may only be how we perceive spacetime where relative time is running very fast and relative distance increasing. Expansion and dark energy is just spacetime decompressing in the absence or decrease in gravity/mass. Dark energy is a property of spacetime that describes the ability to compress spacetime and the ability of spacetime to spring back or uncompress. not sure if elasticity of spacetime is the right word or whether density is real or changing. Spacetime is not just curved by gravity/mass as Einstein said but it is also compressed by gravity/mass where relative distance is decreased and relative time is running slower. The opposite happens in empty space away from gravity/mass. The acceleration is due to the relative speed of time increasing and as relative space expands there is more space further away from gravity/mass i.e. gravity/mass is reduced again and relative expansion and time increased. This means the decompression of spacetime is just the same but opposite as compression of spacetime. What is represented by dark energy -g in the equations actually behaves and operates in a equal but opposite way to gravity that is -g (dark energy) and +g gravity are the same process in reverse. Its all in my new book "Damo's relativity- Tips and traps for young players"
@@bichthuyentruongthi2600 😂😂😂 Where did I mention the big bmg or express admiration for it? Please Note, Expansion (what we observe today) and inflation (just after bigbang) are not the same thing, Indeed what I hypothesised has no causal link with the big bang, i.e. it is independent of the the big bang, whether it happened or not. Reply
I've always had a problem with expansion. How do they know? Short answer is they don't. Maybe the entire universe is just turning. Like a planet going around the Sun or the sun going around our galaxy or our entire galaxies turning just like every galaxy out there.
The angular momentum of the universe turning would be detectable, would it not? Also, turning a universe would need a center for the rotation, and expansion theory doesn't require a center.
@MNbenMN that would be true if we could see the edge of the universe. Which we can't. I've also have a problem with the big bang theory. On how we get an entire universe from nothing. The universe has a beginning it's just not the bbt. All explosions require matter. Do they not?
@LG-km8fw You don't need to see the edge of something that is rotating to detect the angular momentum of an object embedded in or attached to it, but rotation always indicates a center of rotation, so I don't follow why observation of an edge is necessary to determine the presence or lack of universal rotation. I don't think any serious physicist considers the "big bang" to be a literal explosion, anyway, using terms like inflation and expansion to point to the aspects that are similar to a conventional explosion, but by analogy, not by definition.
@MNbenMN The problem is we don't know what outside of the universe. Could there be something with a lot of gravitational pull. Seems very plausible. Sounds more plausible than dark energy. Even if the Big bang wasn't an explosion you still can't get something from nothing.
This is a correct assumption. Space cannot be "Nothing" and in the same time to be able to handle the position and orbits of giant celestial bodies. There is a book which explaining the universe on the base of this concept. - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"
(1) No Big Bang, (2) No single Singularity, (3) No cosmic expansion, (4) No photon effect, (5) No Doppler Shift, (6) No Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), ... (7) No explanation about space-time fabrics, (8) No explanation of the composition of atomic proton and atomic neutron, (9) No explanation of cosmic tension (Hubble tension, Einstein tension, ...), (10) No explanation of quantum entanglement, (11) Self-imposed negation of the Aether and sub-quantum existence, (12) No true accretionary theory explained for cosmic evolution of stars, planets, and moons, (13) No cosmic annihilation of matter and anti-matter, no such anti-matter, (14) 31+ physics anomalies and inability to achieve Grand Unified Field Theory between the various sectors, (15) QM, QED, QCD, Quantum Field, unable to work in all sectors, (16) Weak nuclear force and strong nuclear force explanation is over-explained, (17) Gravity, Electromagnetism, Weak Nuclear Force, Strong Nuclear Force not explained, misunderstood, and incompatible providing Grand Unified Theory, (18) No "G"ravitational constant, (19) No cosmic tension constant, (20) No quantum entanglement constant, (21) No electron transition series explained, (22) No anti-matter matter, (23) No Feynman electron - positron annihilation, (24) As such ... (1) Big Manifestation, (2) Innumerable singularities appearing from the Aether domains across the quantum boundary (which - IS - "=" the active CMBR), (3) No cosmic expansion as matter universe is 1-5% of the total cosmos (Aether) 100% (par value 95-99%), (4) Cosmic Steady State, (5) Universe filled with majority number of red-colored (young) stars and minority number of blue-colored (mature, adult) stars, (6) Stellar engine composition and functions explained, (7) CMBR - IS - the quantum boundary showing the appearance of red and blue Aether particulates entering into the matter universe, (8) Electro-gravitic accretionary theory explained for cosmic evolution of stars, planets, and moons, (9) Black holes not black holes, naked star core fragments reattempting accretion of its photosphere and chromosphere, (10) Matter quantum entanglement and Aether sub-quantum entanglement explained and demonstrated, (11) Matter quantum space-time fabrics and Aether sub-quantum space-time fabrics explained and depicted, (12) Matter tensor bosons and Aether tensor bosinos are the key to the whole universe, (13) New (re-)discovered Electro-static (ES) and Electro-gravitic (EG) Model corrects, amends, and eventually negates the Standard Model, (14) All cosmic particles explained and depicted as to their compositional makeup, (15) Solution of 31+ anomalies and barriers between physics sectors allowing the easy Grand Unified Field Theory, and solution to all greater cosmic events, (16) QM, QED, QCD, Quantum Field able to work in all sectors, (17) Tensor bosons are the component with gravitons for the space-time fabric and cosmic tension, (18) Tensor bosons are the active fusion agents in the stellar engine - with no temperature, pressure, or nuclear radiation, (19) Tensor bosons are the atomic tension between protons and neutrons, (20) Weak nuclear force is the electro-static force, (21) Strong nuclear force is the electro-gravitic force, (22) Gravitons explained and depicted, (23) Gravity explained, depicted, and its composition structure explained, (24) Fusion process explained - as well as Van der Wahl's radius and Coulomb boundary, and electron transition series, (25) 3 Matter energy levels and 3 Aether energy levels explained with 6 particle categories in each energy level, (26) Electron transition series directly related to the 3 Matter and 3 Aether energy levels, (27) Two categories of ES and EG electron, ES and EG positron ... tensor boson, neutron, photon and graviton each energy level, (28)
Until someone can explicitly and directly observe, measure and explain what space itself is made of, then there is exactly zero evidence of space expanding. We DO observe stars and galaxies moving through space, but we've never directly measured space itself doing literally anything at all.
@@johnduch2815 You have 2 separate things occurring. a. Space is expanding. b. Objects move around freely in that expanding space. . The great attractor is at a distance so galaxies are likely still moving away from us, even if they are moving toward us in space.
@@johnduch2815 lol, I know what I wrote. I tried to be concise :) That's cosmic expansion according to the Big Bang Lambda CDM theory. Yes, space expanding away, and objects in space moving toward or away being a different thing is weird and difficult to get our heads around. Space moves (expands) toward earth and objects (apples) don't fall, they are stationary in space and earth accelerates up toward the apple (GR).
The galaxies that we observe that are far away may only have been moving away from us billions of years ago. Doesn't say anything abou t those galaxies current speed.
"modern discoveries, such as the existence of dark matter." What existence of dark matter? When was this existence confirmed by any means outside of mathematical hocus pocus?
dark matter really needs to be looked at as the measurement mismatch that it is, rather than assuming it's some kind of matter at all
@andrewferguson6901 Dark matter was invented out of whole cloth over 70 years ago because gravity couldn't reconcile the rotational velocity of galaxies. Dark matter is mathematical hocus pocus.
Theoretical physics has been trapped in circular reasoning since ca 1933.
Another great video on how Lamba cold dark matter model creates the assumptions to describe observations and then claims those same assumptions as proof of the model because it describes the observations…
If the cosmic web is swirling around and there are various "attractors" how are we determining expansion, or blueshift and redshift are just temporary and there is no "candle" then we could use or anything to determine the direction or rate of expansion of the whole within a swirling cosmic web....I'm just saying...
Halton Arp proved the that red shift is not proof of expansion. His work with filaments connecting galaxies with quasars having huge differences in red shift is extremely compelling.
He didn’t show proof he showed his methodology. The “red shift” phenomenon is measured in nearly ALL celestial objects. The fact that Mr.Arp scoured the universe until he found one peculiar situation (>1%) where the redshift phenomenon is nullified. That means all he proved was the redshifted phenomena is unremarkable for that peculiar situation, not as a whole.
@@BruceAlrighty1991 So you have no idea what Arp was actually working on or what he discovered and why the mainstream ostracized him.
@ don’t exalt a person, evidence & repeatability speak for itself.
@@BruceAlrighty1991 That makes no sense. It proves your ignorance.
Eric Lerner’s a true champ. His 5 part series on this blows super inflationary BBT to dust.
Condensed matter models of "expanding universe" indirectly support his claims.
Eric Lerner, is the only person doing real (not theoretical) research in this field. Unfortunately, his common sense research is dismissed by the credentialed blob, as the work of an amateur, instead of seeing it for what it is….the work of a clear headed scientist.
The cause of red shift has been assumed to be because if expansion.
That theory is wrong.
Photons red shift because of time and distance, not expansion
Photons get tired?
The fundamental tenant of science is not observation and reproducibility, it is skepticism. Well done and thanks.
How much rent does scepticism pay? Or do you mean “tenet”?
¿Tenant?
Imagination is important as well, and dogma is just about as useful as it never was.
This is ridiculous as some things in science are simply facts. For example would you be skeptical of the fact that accelerating charged electrons can create an electric field that can kill you?
"DARK MATTER" IS THE COSMIC AETHER THAT THE EARTHLINGS CAN NEVER CATCH.
If the universe were to expand as per the BB model based on what we have learnt from the passage of time from direct observation and GR, then it would follow that time is a function of space\time expansion. As space expands, time slows down. Remember that at light speed from the particles perspective time does not even exist, and the emission and collision of the particle occurs concurrently. This would imply that in the early universe time moved more 'slowly' due to the scale of the universe being very small. This relationship is asymptotic, meaning that there was in fact no actual BB inception as the smaller the universe was the slower time ran.
In a way, this means that the relationship between time and space as measured by it's relationship to light may be inferred. So, if the model of the universe really is a BB, we may actually be looking at the measure of the speed of time passage rather than expansion.
I'm raising this however as a counterpoint to the BB. The models we have produced reminds me of the current problem we have in the AI space. When we build LLM's which are such perfect replications of "exactly what we were seeking", the simulation of the human mind that no matter how good the reflection is, no matter clarity, it'll always be a simulation. Same as with any model that's built upon curve fitting data, it only proves that you can make the data say what you need it to say to build the model if you are flexible with the model and how the data is manipulated to fit it. The key to understanding how deep in simulation you are comes down to how much data reprocessing is required to make the model 'mostly work'.
In the case of expansionary theory we have north of 95% of the universe needing to be composed WIMPs for the model to make much sense. This tells us that the model is probably wrong, but, we cling to it because it's all we have that makes any sense.
Halton Arp's book Seeing Red Explains how even Hubble said himself Red Shift has nothing to do with distance. I suggest to everyone to read this book.
Yep, Hubble actually wanted to get rid of that redshift-distance relationship, since he had discovered later on, that it doesn't always hold true.
also; "nothing to _do_ with distance".
It's always a good idea to proof-read your own statements.
@@silvergreylion There, happy now. :)
@@warshrike666 Yep 👍
They WON'T read it ! They are to busy happily spinning in circles within the marvelous cul-de-sac they've created.
There is also another book which provide more evidence that all these theories are based on incorrect basic assumptions - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"
Cosmological expansion induce redshift. However redshift isn’t necessarily cosmological expansion.
16:00 "...the CMBR's redshift is inferred from its temperature, which is modeled based on *Universe's expansion history*".
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This is INCORRECT. The expansion history is not assumed - it's not needed for this calculation.
The redshift is simply calculated assuming the SMBR started as glowing ionized hydrogen/helium mix.
The temperature, and therefore color, at which it stops being ionized, does NOT depend on Universe's expansion history. This temperature can be calculated from blackbody radiation's equation (Planck's law), or, if you are doubtful about that as well, can be measured in a lab with real gas.
After you have that, just compare this temperature to CMBR's temperature, and you get its redshift.
It is as they then need to assume those photons get stretched by the expansion of space. It’s not like we are looking at the cooling embers of the Big Bang. Those photons were created at that point and then continued to travel and get stretched by the expansion. I suppose you could invoke a tired light model but that is not what they do.
In fact the CMBR is actually the final nail in the coffin and proof that the BBT is dead. See Pierre-Marie Robitaille’s channel “Sky Scholar” and Alexander Unzicker’s book “The Liquid Sun” to learn how the Black Body radiation curve of the CMBR can only come from condensed matter (solids & liquids) and never from gas or plasma. Thus whatever the CMBR comes from, it cannot be from any “hot dense gas” in any “beginning”.
Also worth checking out is Ray Fleming’s channel for details on how the BBT violates many of the known laws of physics.
Fascinating times for science!😊
@@SeethePattern hi i don't beliven bbt
The CMBR is just a spectroscopic image they arbitrarily decided is some perfect universal atlas & "proof" of the big bang. Does anyone question the validity of this when we apparently can't see through the "zone of avoidance", which just happens to obscure one of the universes most enduring mysteries, the Great Attractor? How come no of the other Galactic Nuclei are such a problem? If I didn't know better I'd think they actually CAN see the Great Attractor clearly, and it's such a nail in the standard model's coffin, they don't want us to know. So we just get "Gravitational Anomaly" (translation; "the theory of Gravity doesn't work here") and it's possibly caused by the super extra dense Norma cluster (translation: "We don't know what's causing it, but whatever it is, it's still probably gravity... somehow").
@GideonFerrante hold your hand up in front of your eyes, note how you can't see much past your hand. Have a friend hold their hand up 600 miles away from you, note how you can see pretty much everything despite their equally sized hand blocking your view.
Congratulations, you've just discovered why our galaxy blocks our view more than one that's way, way farther away.
Thanks!
Seems scientific rigor has 'expanded' to include accurately repeating what is generally accepted by decree and unfalsifiable rather than merely widely proven or even provable/disprovable.
Highschool lunch table politics
They focus on unfalsifiable because they would be in big trouble if they didn't. It is a survival of the fittest applied to the clueless.
Well done
What i've never quite understood is how you would discern wether space had expanded or if things in the past were moving away faster as the biggest red shifts are also the furthest back in time, and things closer in time are less red shifted, wouldn't a universe that's expansion was faster in the past and now slowing down look the same?
And Ive never understood the claim that were looking back 13 billion years to the beginning of the big bang… wouldnt an infinite universe look exactly the same in all directions? If were really looking up to the edge of big bang.. how is this infinite?
@@MIAJoe01This is a failure to understand spacetime as a 4- dimensional plane and the Big Bang theory in general because the Big Bang theory does show that the observable universe is the same in all directions and you cannot say that the observable universe began here or there. In terms of the beginning of the accelerating expansion of the universe we look at light.
It's honestly quite easier in concept than presented most of the time. See, when photon travels through static space it doesn't "red shift" regardless of how much space it passes, it doesn't loose energy. Lets say it bridges "10 dots of space".
Imagine, with expanding space the photon would still move the same "spots", "dots", "pixels", "whatever" of space but these points now constantly get farther away from each other than when the light started.
So the photon has the same amount of energy, it doesnt get more energy, but needs to bridge more and more space between those dots, so it get stetched / looses energy / gets red shifted to bridge that "10 dots of space".
I don't say its right, I honestly don't even believe it as long as no one can define what "space" even consists of but that's how I understand it.
In 2011 Perlmutter, Riess and Schmidt received the Nobel Price for their work on the expansion of the universe. What was new about their findings compared to Hubble and the Hubble constant?
The Nobel was for experiments that showed the rate of expansion was increasing
Acceleration.
The prize is for above average ability to fool the tax payers.
Well said. I have been complaining about this use of old light. It wouldn't matter if the acceleration was constant. But if the far light is expanding faster, then it WAS expanding faster a long time ago. Not now. If the universe is expanding faster now, then nearby galaxies can give you a current rate of expansion. So as usual, humans get everything backwards.
Not sure i understand. But the expansion of the furthest stars are moving away from us faster than light, because the the expansion is exponential. Is how i understand the theory. Its how the light from the CMB is only observable by radio waves. As it stretched. But now with these furthest galaxies only being 300 million years after the CMB. We near the threshold where that conversion happens. We're light turns into radio waves. Some explaining as to where that threshold is, need to be explained.
@@michaelstiller2282What he's getting at is that the galaxies were moving away faster further in the past. Distance isn't the only variable. We don't see how the galaxies are behaving now, we see how they behaved then. If they are slowing down now, in universal time(to an extent such a thing even exists) or if they even reversed their direction - how would we know? In a similar vein, I've heard many times of an example that if human life emerged some billions of years in the future instead of now, when most of the far away galaxies moved behind the cosmic event horizon, humanity wouldn't come up with the expanding universe idea since there wouldn't be any data to point at the possibility. I suppose this is a bit meta, a bit too much philosophizing, but how can we know that something equivalent in terms of loss of easily accessible data hasn't occurred already. Exploration in this direction is necessary, if for nothing else but for honesty's sake. Unfortunately, as you've probably already thought of reading my words, this opens up the doors for many dumbasses, schizos and con artists. Such is life.
I would like to skip to the alternative models, because the big bang makes no sense to me and learning about something that makes no sense is an aggravating waste of time.
Emphasis on "to you". The universe doesn't have to make sense to you. All we can do is observation
@@yalexander9432 I should have said the standard model of the universe makes no sense..... to me. Although I kind of did by saying "the big Bang" makes no sense. What I didn't say is that the universe makes no sense. That's a whole other issue.
@@babaloo42look at it more as finding out what the rules are, do any of them really make ‘sense’?
@@dug3569 Does anything ever have to make sense?
First, you need to spend more time learning about the science of the Big Bang.
Second, if you don’t understand the science, how do you think you are going to understand “alternative models” ?
Nice video and presentation.
To me, progressing into continual increasing complex and diverse modeling signifies a time has come, to reset the whole thing.
A HUGE flaw in this video (at about 5:34) is when you state, " . . . but moden discoveries such as the existence of dark enegy . . . " Dark energy has NOT been discovered - i.e. detected - and it has NOT been shown to physically exist. Darl energy is an idea ONLY - and a bad one at that.
I would recommend the paper A Bang into Nowhere by Constantin Antonopoulos (read or download for free in your favorite search engine) in which a philosopher expains why it is not even possible for space to expand in the first place.
Dark Energy is a placeholder term used for an observation. It's not an actual theory. The observation is real though, at least in terms of observing the universe seemingly expanding at an increasing rate. However, it could be an issue with measurements, or an issue with our conceptions of physics, and thus could potentially not be something corporeal but an artefact of faulty measurements or from our ignorance of the true laws of physics.
As for your last sentence; a philosopher may be able to argue that it is not possible for space to expand in the first place, however, with the detection and confirmation of gravitational waves, which are literally space being deformed and contorted both expanding and contracting in ripples, I think that would be a pretty profound negation of his argument.
@@Sthuont All of your claims are wrong. Dark energy is not a placeholder term for an observation as no real observations - or real measurements - of the universe expanding have been made. The allleged acceleration of the expansion of the universe is only an INTERPRETATION of data and not an actual measurement of galaxies increasing their distance apart over time. And if you don't understand the difference between facts and interpretations then I shall explain. The redshift (in the emission lines) of galactic spectra is data and is a fact, but the ASSUMPTION that expansion (of "space") is the cause of the redshift is an interpretation which (STILL) remains unconfirmed nearly 100 years after it was first made. And in August 2023 The cerncourier (site) stated, "The expansion itself has, however, never been directly measured, i.e. no measurement exists that shows the increasing redshift with time of a single object."
Dark energy is also not just a placeholder term as modern cosmologists CLAIM it makes up 68% of the mass/energy content of the entire universe making it over 13 times more numerous that all of the 'ordinary' matter we can see and detect such as stars and galaxies - yet these failing cosmologists cannot detect a single particle of it (or of dark matter) meaning that over 95% of the (claimed) universe is unaccounted for. Modern cosmology is a huge failure!
Lastly you have made a very common mistake by interpreting the (amazingly useful) equations of General Relativity (GR) literally. You specifically used the word "literally" in your comment and you used it incorrectly. Neither space nor spacetime is a real physical object which can bend or stretch or deform is any actual or real way. Unless you can reference any lab experiment which shows that space is physically real and which can and does bend, deform or expand then it is not scientifically justifiable to claim that intergalactic space does this too.
The fact is that both GR and Quantum Mechanics (QM) are useful and successful but they are incompatable with each other means that it is highly unlikely that both are the final answer. Both use abstract math to solve specific problems but the best case scenario is that one of them would need to be significantly modified to make it compatable with the other.
Modern science is still in its infancy so many mistakes have been made. Assuming that space is physically real and expands are definitely two of those mistakes.
Ah yes I'll definitely go read up on that 'philosopher' who 'explains' why science is wrong.
@@DaveGrean You have totally misunderstood my comment. It's not that science is wrong - sience is a process in which ideas are developed into theories which means those ideas can be tested experimentally (or by observations) to confirm or disprove them. Science is correct but ideas/theories can be wrong. There is no experimental evidence which show that space (or 'spacetime') is a real physical thing which can and does expand, so the INTERPRETATION that space expands is not backed up with any experimental or observational data therefore it is an unscientific idea.
Part of philosophy is knowledge which includes the exact meaning of words so when astronomers/cosmologists say that space (the universe) is expanding they are being deliberately misleading. And I say deliberately because they know they have no real data to back that up and it's only their unconfirmed interpretation and not a fact.
In August 2023 The cerncourier (site) stated: "The expansion itself has, however, never been directly measured, i.e. no measurement exists that shows the increasing redshift with time of a single object."
And there are still no real measurements which show that galaxies are increasing their distance apart over time.
@@DaveGrean😂right? Like wtf what an incredibly silly thing to let leave ur fingertips and not edit before clicking post
I know now why scientists and politicians are so polite and use such nice words to call each other liars. When the taxpayer dishes out large sums of money for so called "facts" that are pulled out of their asses, it would be dangerous to have millions of liars calling each other liars too loudly. Put another way, It's okay for the pot to call the kettle black, but it must be whispered because it's so obvious. God forbid the chef stops buying food because the pots are so dirty they cannot be cleaned.
I'm sorry, but "pulled out of their asses" hardly describes what has happened, at least when it comes to the physicists. Modern day politicians are another story. The maker of this video doesn't understand basic physics, never mind astronomy. Red-shift (which is a central point to his argument) is *NOT* caused by an expanding universe. It is caused by the Doppler effect. See my main comment on this page (for this video) for a true understanding of red-shift. NOBODY, including physicists (well, at least most physicists), throws asides Millennia of belief for circular arguments that are pulled out of their butts. There is a very good, undeniable reason why scientists believe in an expanding universe. The only way to deny the Doppler effect as evidence for an expanding universe is to offer a better explanation for the red-shift. Space itself is not a physical entity and as such, there is no reason (including experimentally) to believe it results in the literal expansion of light waves. Modern scientific explanation for the expansion of space involves the space BETWEEN things, not the space within things. This is what the author of this video does not seem to understand.
Hmm the fact you say that we as scientists pull facts out of our asses is a clear indication of how anti-science, and anti-intellectualism is on the rise. Facts are not something you pull out of nowhere. Facts are based on reality whether you accept it or not. You do not have an option to say the facts are not true but you can be in denial of it. Also you call us as scientists liars meanwhile politicians deny nearly everything we tell the public about climate change, evolution, and etc. Our civilization is slowly becoming an idiocracy where reality denial is rampant and it will most likely destroy us.
Thanks for this excellent series.
Well what is your explanation of the observations? Also how can you be skeptical of something without taking the time to properly observe what is going on? Do you just deductively conclude things?
Discussions on infinity tend to be circular. Seems like the logic leads you to explore definitions of identity and perspective more than just continuing to run around in circles. This would involve accepting the universe is infinite and that your perspective will always be flawed and limited in some way though. Some find this hard to accept but it isn't the end of science obviously.
Robitaille showed that ALL the "observations" of CMB are bogus. He shows that ALL of the alleged detections of CMB were based-upon several flawed premises - but most importantly: non-understanding of basic signal processing. Something which Robitaille has demonstrated extreme competence in the past.
Yep. And the raw data shows detectors saturated by galactic emissions along the disk. CMB is just a very low resolution map of the distribution of galaxies in microwaves.
and they refuse to engage with the points he makes, just call him names.
@@axeman2638 eh?
@@user-yc3fw6vq5n Be?
Cosmology just needs to acknowledge catastrophism & the electromagnetic aspect of our reality more and then it’ll make sense. Atm standard cosmology tends to be very gravity centric with the plausible deniability of saying “but we do acknowledge the electromagnetic aspect” the same way USA’s third party is acknowledged in general politics compared to Republican&Democrat parties.
Wow! Excellent video. Eager to see to follow-ups. Thanks.
Time is another thing that doesn't exist and by extension equally so for the concept of time dilation. Exactly zero evidence for something called time exists. Not one person can point directly at a unit of time, measure it directly or act upon or measure it's properties.
time is invented by man not inferred you are right
Back to the start for me - after the 'bang', the universe, so it is said, became transparent when protons and electrons (where did they come from?) were in an environment (space?) cool enough to allow combination and allow photons (same question?) to pass freely. As far as I know, cooling requires the transfer of heat to external material (to outside the universe?) or a reduction in pressure by expansion: by release of the space and the pressure into some other space at a lower pressure or, as postulated, the expansion of the universe in general. Maybe so! Then, for some reason or other, and whilst the universe continued to expand, the hydrogen and helium decided to ignore the laws of thermodynamics and gravitate together with such enthusiasm that they reached fusion conditions and formed stars and even black holes! (Enter dark matter, stage left) Any new observations have prompted a reactionary response rather than a willingness to accept the information at face value and to review all assumptions. For example, where and what is 'dust' post 'big bang'. It gets many a mention and I'm not sure why! Is it a fundamental particle?
I have often wondered if a model with static space and only temporal variation could better explain the universe.
It is possible that red shift is an expression of the amount of energy that has been converted since light was created. This presents this duality in theory. It’s not unusual to have such duality, in much the same way that light can be seen as both a packet and a wave. It is important to realise that one understanding does not negate the other.
"The expanding universe" distortions only apply to long wavelength waves🌊. It doesn't apply to short wavelength waves, since they are superluminal.
The great attractor seems like it could make a little bang. If it's is cyclical. Maybe with our limited view of universal we are just seeing a multi Galaxy little bang. That repeats pulling galaxies to it till it has a little bang. Light doesn't always do speed limit like through gas or water. Or red shift is just light separating as it moves farther. Like tired light.
I have a question.
Why do we consider stretched wave lines of light to be an effect caused by expansion of space? Why it could not be the effect of the light itself, which fades over the distance?
For example, if I would throw a stone into the water then waves would be more frequent in the centre, and they would stretch over some distance. Why it could not be the case with light waves?
I haven't seen this theory mentioned before: Could gravity be causing the appearance of an ever-increasing expansion rate? Look at it this way: As gravity pulls matter into galaxies, the space between the galaxies gets stretched thinner and thinner. Because gravity would pull in the matter at a squared rate, the thinning of the intergalactic space would thin by that same squared rate. I know it seems counter intuitive to say gravity is causing the appearance of an increasing expansion rate, but when you think about it they way I just explained, it makes sense.
Excellent video
Yes the the more inferred measurements we have, the more assumptions make their way into our theories. That's why Occam's razor is based upon the amount of assumptions. The fewer assumptions in the theory the more likely it will reflect the reality of the process it describes. However Einstein was right, in that all of our observations are relative due to gravity, time and space, but we have to conduct the experiment in order for our observations to become a measurement.
Great video! Is the reasoning behind CMBR being evidence for an expanding universe not that it's isomorphic, rather than what you mentioned about temperature? Geometrically, if we look out to the sky and there's inward uniform (barring fluctuations, but they average out when you take a window of observation) radiation, the only way that could happen is if radiation were emitted outward from some region of space, and space itself expanded.
Mass dilates time, time dilation gradients cause light to appear redshifted (from the perspective of an observer in denser time dilation). So space is "expanding", but it's relative.
Dear “See the Pattern”,
Thank you; very well done. One of the best I've seen presenting an objective discussion of the observational evidence of cosmology.
However I would point out that Hubble's 1926 paper showing that redshift is proportional to distance was initially interpreted as a Doppler shift - a recession velocity - because it was a plausible physical explanation. Note that there was no explanation for why the redshift was proportional to both distance and recession velocity (as far as I know). This was before the redshift was proposed to be due to the expansion of space resulting from a solution to Einstein's General Relativity (GR) equations. This was adopted after quasars were discovered with redshifts that implied they were receding faster than the speed of light.
I (and I believe Eric Lerner) agree that the interpretation that redshift is simply proportional to distance (z∝D) does not have a satisfactory physical explanation. It is essentially an ad-hoc hypothesis (for the present). Actually it's not really an hypothesis; it's just an unexplained observational fact. It implies no expansion and a static universe.
Important to note: It is not Hoyle's "Steady State" model which accepted the expansion of space.
Also note, Fritz Zwicky's "tired-light" model proposed in 1929 to explain redshift proportional to distance has been dismissed as physically untenable. Unfortunately, any redshift only proportional to distance concept is now ridiculed with this derogatory label but it shouldn't be dismissed because of the failure of one model to explain it.
The only explanation for the expansion of space is that it is mathematically compatible with Einstein's General Relativity. But why is the rate of expansion proportional to distance? And now the expansion rate is said to accelerate now than in the distant past (so the Dark Energy hypothesis was introduced). What do these concepts even mean physically? They are truly fantastical concepts that violate common sense. They are more ad-hoc than the redshift proportional to distance hypothesis.
However, faith (and I emphasize the word "faith") in the validity of General Relativity (and Special Relativity) remains the foundation of belief in the validity of Big Bang cosmology. And rejecting the Big Bang would imply rejecting Einstein's Relativity which few in the mainstream are willing to consider. This is why the mainstream is so reluctant to consider alternative cosmologies.
I'm convinced that the observations by the JWST of mature galaxies that had to have formed billions of years before the universe supposedly came into existence blows away the Big Bang hypothesis. It’s obviously impossible that anything could exist before the beginning of the Universe - right?
I look forward to a video on the merits of the Static Universe model.
"I'm convinced that the observations by the JWST of mature galaxies that had to have formed billions of years before the universe supposedly came into existence blows away the Big Bang hypothesis. It’s obviously impossible that anything could exist before the beginning of the Universe - right?"
>
I am not a physiasist, but after close inspection of the BB theory I would personally "expect to see" formed objects such as galaxies move toward the CMB horizon. Expansion should move objects toward (or out of) the the past viewable light cone.
I have many other videos that cover Lerner and Peratts concepts. In this series I wanted to address the inherent bias that has been placed on the supposed evidence of a big bang without diving too deeply into other models. I do want to create a video towards the end of the series that takes all of the evidence and examines it in other frameworks
Apparently my comment was removed :(
@@SeethePattern can you tell me some of the nonsense of bb i need it so i can talk to the guy with the account davejones he is a square bb
@@SeethePattern dR Unzicker Explains what caused mainstream science to err, Sad but USA is to BLame
Curved spacetime is a red herring which ensures you will never understand gravity.
A=32 feet per second squared. When you figure out what the variable is that determines acceleration, you can begin to learn about gravity.
This does not explain why spacetime is a red herring as acceleration is a product of spacetime curvature?
@@keith.anthony.infinity.h WHERE IS THE SPACE VARIABLE IN "A=32FEET PER SECOND SQUARED"???
Show me some "Curved SpaceTime" I dares you! It is just plotting the time curve onto space. Try plotting the curve of the athletic field clock onto the playing field. I DARES YOU!
You know what a red herring is? ITs to distract you form finding out what is actually going on.
Want to understand how time flows?
Blow some smoke. All those trails of smoke are separate time "paths" each with their own vectors, clock rates and cohesion to other particles flowing along in the same time flow line. Hundreds of different time paths from one puff of smoke.
THE DIFFERENCES ARE IN PLANCK SECONDS - so you cannot measure them.
Which means it's SCIENCE!!!
Pure, unprovable, just like all the other FAKE nonsense you believe. Like curved spacetime. WHERE???
What about the universe pulsates?
First, thank you for a well presented video presentation.
Second, I am not an indentured physicist.
>
16:27 I find this CMBR problematic in 3 ways:
1. It is a moment, but unlike galaxies/stars the CMB was universe wide and last scattering faded into the dark age over about 10K years rather than a solid moment making it just a little bit blurred.
2. As a universe wide event the CMB creates a boundary not indifferent to an event horizon. In a non expanding universe each more distant spherical shell that we take a snapshot of should move further out over time. In an expanding universe space will expand faster than the above (faster then light, over the total distance) making the appearance that the CMB spherical shells are becoming smaller over time.
3. Due to expansion, the most distant galaxies should be moving beyond the past visual light cone and out of sight. The light cone event horizon is a spherical shell, so at some point galaxies/stars moving away must approach or cross the CMB to reach the event horizon on the viewable universe. We should see formed galaxies moving toward the CMB event. (This is a visually illusion that we would see due to the slow latency of the photons.)
Seeing galaxies/stars moving beyond the CMB would also confirm an expanding universe.
>
Note that with the above we have to different overlapping event horizons, 2 different distance/time illusions as the viewer.
>
>
19:21 This plays into the problem that I outlined above. Personally I would expect to see mature galaxies moving into this region.
>
19:30 I personally think gravity and dark matter gravity are both exceptionally misunderstood concepts. At the full cosmological scale (distance/time) this illusive concept of gravity becomes quite noticeable.
>
20:25 Although I don't suggest that the Hartle-Hawking proposal was correct, it contains a great deal of merit in thought as to other ways of looking at the problem. It is plausible that there may be no need for inflation at all.
>
Thank you. Very interesting :)
So the Type Ia SN calibration leads to wrong conclusions. I'm shocked, shocked, well not that shocked.
simplifying equations to make light speed constant and then encountering red shift is how we got here.
light does not have constant speed except in an absolute vacuum. an absolute vacuum does not exist.
History doesn't repeat but it does rhyme!
I've always wondered about using red shift as evidence that distant galaxies are *currently* moving away faster than galaxies that are closer. The readings are base on information that is millions or even billions of years old. Does that really mean that an observed galaxy is *currently* moving away at the same speed as it was a billion years ago? Couldn't the point that the closer in time we are to the galaxy the slower it is moving away just as easily be interpreted to ti indicate that the rate of expansion is slowing or that there maybe is a contraction? It seems to me that you would have to observe the rate of movement of an individual galaxy over a period of time to determine if that rate is increasing or decreasing.
Which makes more sense.
Time is slowing down, or the universe is expanding faster and faster?
Both cause a red shift in every direction.
and nothing is expanding only the stupidity of the orthodox and don't believe in an expanding universe of the bbt my friend
@@trungtamienmayquocquang7233yes
@trungtamienmayquocquang7233 well, depends on which theory on why time is slowing down. If time slows down when you enter a gravity well, then it speeds up when gravity decreases.
What if there is no gravitons?
We have not found any. So, what if gravity is an emergent property of empty space? Perhaps it is like ice. It has a liquid and solid state. So in the void between galaxies empty space is cooling down and crystalizing into a state of no gravity. This would be why time I'd slowing down. We are inside that.
@@trungtamienmayquocquang7233 or alternatively, the forward momentum of time is just slowing down. But I find the crystallization of empty space resulting in us "going faster" from our perspective, thys making everythinekse seem slower in comparison to make more sense, because it's testable.
We just need to measure the decay rate of radioactive material at a Lagrange point. In theory, in a place where gravity is canceled out perfectly, we should see an increase in radioactivity. If the speed is different than predicted, then empty space has phase states.
@@TheEldritchGod So why after the expansion the brightness of the surface remains unchanged and the center of the galaxy remains the same
There is a third possibility that nobody considers - a dynamic non-expanding universe. That is to say if the universe is a field, It would explain the confusion between static and expanding by making the universe dynamic. It would also mean that we follow informational geodesics relative to the field and would redefine gravity 😉
I quit my job and gave up everything to spend the past 3 years working on a model that describes almost precisely what you're getting at. I was able to derive our peculiar velocity with respect to the CMB dipole from two distinct functions that fall out of a slight but significant model to Einstein's SR, which in turn modifies GR. The entire concept of 4-vectors falls apart, but all relativistic symmetries and experimental validations remain perfectly in tact without the dilation of time. Time in fact in the model I'm proposing is just a mathematical artifact of gravity itself, and not a real physical phenomenon.
You can check out my notes on the model through the url on my channel, but know that I need to put up an update in the next day or two. It's already resolved, but I need to type it up and give it a quick proof-read. I reached out to one of my old professors who wanted to see a more explicit solution to some of the dimentionality issues now that an actual time dimension isn't part of the system. It's already resolved, but I haven't yet added it to my public notes.
@@UhLittleLessDum Good for you 👏🏻 I would say the bit that you're missing is that observation, that is the conscious inference of information, always happens at the speed of light. Time dilation is a measurement, that is relative to the speed of light. If you think about the human electromagnetic field, our conscious rate of observation is at the speed of light, but our body processes information at different rates - this is what we perceive as physical feelings - the relative difference between information processing at the speed of light versus information processing through physical matter.
Consider a significant G-Force acting on your body, it doesn't affect your conscious mind, just your physical body.
@@UhLittleLessDum this is what Henri Bergson was trying to explain to Einstein in their 1922 debate. Einstein's coordinate time is the reference frame for the passing of time in the universe. Proper time is relative to coordinate time, the rate is defined by the local environmental conditions.
Light doesn't have a speed. Unfortunate modern physicists don't know what light is. The truth is out there but you won't find it in schools or people who are by the book
@@UhLittleLessDum I thought you might find this interesting...
The Paradox of Mathematical Proof: Why the World Won't Listen to the Truth
I’ve come to realise that no matter how profound, accurate, or insightful my model of the universe is, it will remain unrecognised-if not outright dismissed-by the scientific community for one simple reason: it doesn't fit neatly into the mathematical framework that science demands. The irony here is overwhelming. The very model I've developed, which accurately describes real-world phenomena, has highlighted the limitations of mathematics itself. Yet, I'm asked to prove it mathematically, using the same tools whose shortcomings my model reveals.
This is the paradox of mathematical proof: even when you uncover a truth that transcends the mathematical systems we rely on, the world insists on a mathematical explanation-as if nothing is real until it's reduced to an equation.
The Truth My Model Reveals: Mathematics Has Limits
My model describes the universe in a way that embraces the complex, dynamic, and emergent nature of reality-the spirals, the non-linearities, the curved geometries that underpin the fabric of existence. It aligns with the observable patterns in nature, from the movements of galaxies to the behaviour of biological systems. In fact, it’s precisely because the model is grounded in the real world that it exposes the limits of mathematics.
Mathematics is a tool that has served us well in describing certain kinds of systems-especially those that are linear, deterministic, and reducible. It has given us extraordinary power in predicting physical phenomena, engineering marvels, and understanding the cosmos. But we must also acknowledge that mathematics, as we know it, cannot fully describe the totality of reality.
- Curved, Organic Nature of Reality: Nature doesn’t operate in straight lines or perfect geometries. It operates in spirals, fractals, and dynamic flows-patterns that are not easily reducible to traditional mathematical equations.
- Nonlinearity and Emergence: Many systems in the universe are nonlinear, with small inputs leading to large, unpredictable outputs. This nonlinearity, coupled with emergent behaviours, means that deterministic models often fall short.
- Quantum Uncertainty and Chaotic Systems: At the quantum scale and in chaotic systems, predictability falls apart. We can no longer rely on precise, deterministic mathematical equations to describe these phenomena fully.
And yet, despite all of this, when I present my model, I’m asked to prove it mathematically. This is where the paradox truly lies: How can I use a tool with inherent limitations to prove something that transcends those limitations?
The Demand for Mathematical Proof: The Barrier to Recognition
The scientific community has a deeply ingrained reliance on mathematics as the ultimate arbiter of truth. There’s a kind of intellectual inertia that insists nothing can be considered valid unless it can be mathematically proven. This isn't just about rigour-it's about validation in the eyes of the scientific establishment. If you can’t express your model in mathematical terms, then it’s assumed that the model isn’t legitimate.
But here’s the problem: my model, by its very nature, reveals why mathematics cannot fully describe the universe. The insistence on mathematical proof becomes a kind of intellectual gatekeeping that dismisses models that don’t fit within the traditional framework.
The Irony of the Situation
The irony is palpable. My model works because it demonstrates the limitations of mathematics. But because the community demands a mathematical description, I’m forced to try to shoehorn my model into a framework that is fundamentally inadequate for expressing it.
I’m being asked to use the very thing my model critiques to prove the model itself. This is like being asked to measure the curvature of a spiral using only straight lines. The result will never be accurate, and yet, unless I provide that measurement, my model won’t be taken seriously.
Why Mathematics Cannot Prove Reality
We need to step back and ask ourselves a critical question: What do we mean by proof?
In many fields, “proof” means the ability to describe something mathematically, to reduce it to an equation, a formula, or a set of algorithms that can predict behaviour. But is this really proof? Or is it just convenience? Is it simply our reliance on the tools we have, rather than a genuine representation of the full complexity of the world?
- The Limits of Abstraction: Mathematics is, at its core, an abstraction. We simplify real-world systems to make them tractable. Points without size, lines without width, perfect symmetries-these are not features of the real world, but constructs we use to approximate it.
- Gödel’s Incompleteness: Gödel showed us that no formal mathematical system is complete. There will always be truths that cannot be proven within the system. This means that mathematics itself is limited-there are truths about the universe that we cannot capture in a purely mathematical framework.
- Complex Systems Defy Reduction: The complexity and emergent properties of real-world systems often defy mathematical reduction. A flock of birds, a hurricane, or the growth of a city are systems that can be modelled, but never fully captured by equations. They evolve, adapt, and change in ways that cannot be entirely predicted.
If the universe operates through emergence, non-linearity, and complexity, then the insistence on mathematical proof becomes not just a limitation, but a misrepresentation of how reality works.
Why the World Won’t Listen
Despite these limitations, the world won’t listen to my model unless it’s backed by the same mathematics my model reveals as inadequate. Why? Because mathematics has become synonymous with proof, with rigour, and with validity. There is a deep-rooted belief that anything worth knowing can-and must-be expressed mathematically.
But this belief is misplaced. If we continue to demand mathematical proof for everything, we will miss out on understanding some of the most profound truths about the universe. We will continue to apply a tool with inherent limitations to phenomena that transcend it.
- The Scientific Inertia: Science has become accustomed to mathematical formalism because it works so well in many cases. The problem is, when faced with systems that mathematics struggles to describe-emergent, chaotic, or quantum systems-many scientists still insist on using the same tool, even if it’s inadequate.
- The Fear of Stepping Beyond Mathematics: There’s a reluctance to step outside the boundaries of mathematics because it’s perceived as the most objective, neutral, and reliable way to describe reality. To admit that mathematics can’t fully describe reality is to admit that we need new tools, new methods-perhaps even new ways of thinking.
Where Do We Go from Here?
I’ve come to accept that my model will likely remain unrecognised until we as a scientific community begin to appreciate the limitations of mathematical formalism. This doesn’t mean abandoning mathematics-it remains an invaluable tool. But it does mean broadening our understanding of what constitutes proof, of how we validate new ideas, and of how we approach the complex, emergent, and dynamic systems that make up our universe.
1. Recognising the Limits of Mathematical Proof: We must accept that mathematical proof is not the be-all and end-all. There are truths that exist outside the realm of mathematical formalism, and these truths can still be valid, meaningful, and profound.
2. Empirical and Conceptual Validation: Models that align with observable reality, that make accurate predictions, or that conceptually explain phenomena should be given more weight, even if they don’t fit into neat mathematical equations.
3. Developing New Tools: If mathematics can’t fully describe reality, we need to be open to developing new tools-perhaps new branches of mathematics or entirely different systems of formalisation that can account for the curved, dynamic, and emergent nature of real-world systems.
Conclusion: The Path Forward
The paradox of mathematical proof is not just my struggle-it’s a fundamental issue that all of science will eventually need to confront. Mathematics cannot prove reality, because reality is more complex, more dynamic, and more emergent than the abstractions mathematics allows. Until we recognise this, the world will continue to demand mathematical proof for truths that transcend it, and models like mine-no matter how accurate-will remain unheard.
But I believe that in time, the scientific community will come to see the truth: that mathematics is a tool, not the truth itself. And only when we accept that will we begin to truly understand the universe.
Most times, the endless imagery and boundless dreams of “what ifs” is far more exciting, than the reality of an answer.
For a layman, this is gold. Thanx!
I would add that a fundamental Achilles Heel is spiral galaxies in the 'Dark Ages'.
The Dark Ages is a prediction is based on the present interpretation of cosmic redshift. That interpretation turned out to be wrong.
Where does the Big Bang model go from there?
No. The model is not broken.
@@rogerphelps9939 Yes, it was wrong but forget this is a bbt sect follower
Pretty good example of the Quine-Duhem thesis
Considering inverse square law and it's effect on space-time, shouldn't the time dilation effect be greatest, most discernible at the surface of a body compared to the first few miles of distance away from that surface?
If that were the case you could increase relative longevity just by jumping into the air or flying in a plane a bunch.
As well, shouldn't there be an opposite complimentary effect, (increase in speed of the passage of time) in approach of a body as in the hypothetical of the ageless astronaut by mr onestone.
Yes, that's how we know relativity is mostly correct, from observed time dilation between the surface of earth and atomic clocks flying in airplanes. And satellites of course. The difference in the passage of time is measurable and consistent between different altitudes.
@@kevinhank17 thanks for this. so the time difference should be greatest in the first few feet off the surface of the Earth, are there experiments that show the gradient per foot you believe is the best example of the effect.
sic, nice one
- Alcyoneus galaxy is 5 Mpc across (160x bigger than the Milky Way). By itself creates a 0.15% reduction in the expansion of space, meaning space doesn't expand evenly. That's a problem.
- Only "unbound" space expands, meaning outside our galaxy at some point you can turn on a light and towards the galaxy (bounded by gravity and not expanding) light travels as expected, but in the other direction, it travels slower since space is expanding. From your reference point, C is different depending on which direction you look, making C variable. Not good.
Our physics has made spectacular progress, but to assume we've dialed in on how the Universe works or what it's doing is hubris defined.
BTW, both Faraday Rotation and Vacuum Birefringence would also cause the effects that are currently attributed to Einstein's Gravitational Lensing, but without the restrictions imposed by the latter hypothesis, and more appropriately matching the data.
If expansion of the universe happened to be wrong and the redshift of the stars isn't what we thought, could we have an alternative way to measure the distance to far away galaxies?
Finally, I have confirmation supporting my bias. I thought I was alone in an empty void.
Why do the CMB texture maps superimpose and map directly to the Earth itself?
Thanks for kicking that theory down a notch. I never did agree that the universe was like a balloon expanding into what?
If space was expanding, I would think there would be tension, but the only places we see space being strectched, are near gravitational objects. I am just not sold on a bubble being the only place with space, when it excludes the scale outside of it.
What astronomers I don't think has started doing was to account for the swimming pool kind of bubbles of dark matter that are stretching and arboretum in the actual distance that light actually travels. This d blooping of the swimming pool reflection is that all light has to travel through will help bring the different various candles into stronger agreement
you are beliven bbt right
yes
This is great. Expansion theory never sat quite right with me.
Point being Hubble constant is not constant. Look at the great attractor. We can see light red shift from going through different gases in galaxies also. What if it's not time dialation but stuff slowing light down? Which is proven to happen.
Problem, theory of red shift, expansion, and even the mathematics applied to Einstein are ALL based on assumptions we're supposed to take as fact.
They're unproven, also observations are fit to those very presumptions and ideologies while several theorum are equally feasible based upon those same observations.
Red shift could be nothing more than light passing through a more dense aether, plasma before arriving to our observation equipment. Lower and higher electrical charge could just as completely apply to red/blue and brightness variations as seen in laboratory experiments.
Assumptions, presumptions, requiring observers to adhere to unproven theorum as foundation to further principles and theory? Nah. I pass.
Mahe Ohna ✌️ Favour ALL
New Form of Redshift
Redshift may be appreciated rather differently in understanding one thing we have dismissed ignorantly, is light medium the Aether.
It is an incompressible fluid and has no mechanical but electrical properties where e0 permittivity and u0 permeability are measurable attributes of light medium Aether.
More importantly, it doesn’t blow through all matters like wind. Instead, it attaches and drag with matter in the near field in equal speed, and on the other hand drift at its own pace in the far field, deep space, at a speed defined by speed of distance planets, galaxies in the universe.
As Aether is fluid, a new form of redshift can be devised simply from Aether shear. Two types of shearing is possible. When light leaving a moving body submerged in fluid Aether, we have departure shearing caused by Aether drag in the near field. Drag and shift diminishes rapidly and reaching steady state as light approaching and enters deep space. The converse is the incidence shear, taken by a distant moving observer behind deep space.
We know that galaxies are in constant motion, self rotation also heading in an axial direction and at galactic velocity. As each galaxies and planets all around us are in motion, so we experiences of double shear redshift end to end.
Ignorantly, we dismissed Aether and took those redshifts as radial only redshift and not Aether shear/drag redshifts. So the only conclusion left on us is the Big Bang.
One should expect to observe more distant galaxies moving away faster than closer galaxies because the light was created at a time when the Universe was expanding faster. You cannot observe how fast a galaxy is currently moving away from us, only how fast it was moving away from us when the light was created. Using the speed of more distant galaxies does not prove an accelerating expansion of the Universe. If you observe a galaxy 13 billion light years away, you are observing the light created 13 billion years ago. Which tells you nothing about its current speed.
This is true. I can't understand why a large portion of scientist always speak as if the CMB or distant galaxies is some now event :(
[P.S. Even what they cal the observable universe is a forward prediction based upon past events. They blur the then and now and call it observable.]
Es hat halt alles mit Religion zu tun, Gott hat nur am Anfang gearbeitet und heute ruht er sich nur noch aus.
@@axle.student Why not? The light reaches us NOW, it has certain properties that hint to a red shift / acceleration (probably, maybe). The light took all that time for space to sped up to the event when it reaches us NOW.
When you get hit by an accelerating car you wouldn't either say "that car had that speed back there an decelerated until it hit me".
Just trying to grasp the concept.
@@FalkFlak "Why not?" I'm not quite sure what you mean by that.
.
You can't use cars or normal objects as an analogy for light. Slow objects with mass, behave differently to fast particles with no mass such as light.
Light always travels at it's maximum speed and has no concept of acceleration.
>
Light (as a group) carries information if it is coherent. That information is about a "past" event. I little like a time distorted photo traveling through space. The same photo caries photons from a few nano seconds ago as well as billions of years ago. It is "always" a representation (like a photo) of a "past" event[s]. There is "never' any "now" event or moment in that.
>
We can't view anything "out there" in the cosmos as it is in any now moment. We don't even know if those distant object even exist any more, and quite likely most of the stars and galaxies we think that we see actually don't exist any more. Even Betelgeuse has quite likely gone super nova and no longer exist as a Red Giant star.
>
Latency of light (slow speed at 'c') is a difficult concept when talking about doppler effect (one object moving away from another), but then we have this concept of "expansion" on top of that which is very complex.
Space is expanding so objects (galaxies) appear to be moving away from each other, except no galaxy is moving in space. Galaxies at greater distance/time appear to be getting further away, but they are not moving.
Red shift is created from the expansion of space, and not from a moving object.
Expansion of space appears to be variable, so the red shift 12 billion years away/ago would be different to the red shift 5 billion years away/ago. 2 different times in the universe that that light has been traveling. In fact each photon in that "picture" that reaches our eyes has come from a different space/time and each photon has been manipulated (distorted) sepretly as well as collectively, depending upon when the photon joined the group in the "Now" picture that reaches us.
>
So the OPs comment is part speculation and part relativity. We don't really now what the past universe actually looks like or "when" it was, or "how far away/past" it was, and we only get a very small partial distorted picture (2D histogram) of that distant/past event.
>
Any concept of the distant/past cosmos is very distorted and messy.
.
But just remember, we cant measure (see, take a photo of) any now moment.
We cannot view the 3D universe (if it exists). We only ever see or measure a 2D image of the universe. The rest we have to take an educated guess on and create the 4D concept from Relativity. And even then all that we get from that picture is a 2D spherical shell at a radius of distance/time. If either distance of time changes, so does the position in time of the shell.
He just made a causal argument. Admittedly, light travels at maximum speed, but the expansion of the universe is about adding more (and more) space to it the farther you travel (because the expansion happens at all locations at once). So it's the expansion that's accelerating (although the light always travels with light speed across it, of course, and that acceleration is just an adding up effect).
Not travel distance => No expansion. So there can't be any redshift at the source.
sidenote: I'm not convinced that's actually what's happening as I don't believe there are enough information about the universe as a whole to draw any conclusion. Starting with "space" isn't even defined properly. I bet every cosmologist would be happy to be able to drop current theories
I thought this was about sports leagues expanding. I thought the thumbnail was a stadium
First, I think there is nothing wrong with a model where prices of evidence rely on each other. If it is the only model that can do at least that, than it’s good model. Second, I think if theory makes some assumptions and based on this assumptions data fits within the right range, than that’s a working theory. Otherwise you’re just drawing your ideas on existing data without actually predicting something.
Please remember that due to how quantum physics work and the fundamental nature of how measurements work and how we are possibly can perceive information is only comparison and extrapolation. There is no way to measure something objectively without putting it in some perspective, and to at least start doing it, we are required to make initial assumptions. That’s how our perception works
I am less influenced by the Tired Light Model than I am by the well-known phenomena of proven factors of such as Faraday Rotation, and Vacuum Birefringence even moreso. These would effortlessly result in the perception of expansion, and accelerated expansion. So, of course, these influences are ignored...
you are beliven big bang right
The belief that type 1a supernovae all have the same intrinsic brightness is due to the assumptions (1) that these are the result of exploding white dwarfs and (2) that white dwarfs are made of a degenerate Fermi gas of electrons, which are believed only to be able to support up to about 1.4 solar masses, making all explosions have the same standard energy once the white dwarf reaches this same standard mass. I think Robitaille pointed out that the inferred small size of white dwarfs is due to the assumption Eddington made that white dwarfs have the same optical properties as main sequence stars, but if they have a much lower emissivity, as Robitaille suspects, then they could be significantly larger than currently believed, and so they might not actually be dense enough to be supported by electron degeneracy pressure, as is currently believed, which would render Chandrasekhar's calculations invalid, as well as all interpretations that are based on current beliefs about what type 1a supernovae are. There are implicit assumptions lurking around every corner that need to be questioned.
A lot of people like to imagine science as being some infallible deity that just tells us what the Truth is, but in practice it's more often like a house of cards. People build these impressive theoretical structures, full of epicycles upon epicycles, only for other people to come along and question some of the cards at the bottom of the structure, resulting in large parts of the house of cards collapsing at all at once.
Amazing
Pulsars do not seem to demonstrate any time-changes. Does not depend on categorization errors as with type-1 supernovas.
With supernovas, how do different light frequencies behave? Do they all spread in a similar way? Are there any reflections visible? What frequencies are filtered out? This all gives us indication of the interstellar matter.
Interstellar plasma and other matter also spreads time delay of supernova. May even be related to redshift. Non linear optics is not simple.
When Isaac Newton put forward his theory of gravity he realized that the universe could not be finite and statc. A finite universe must either collapse or expand (or part could collapse and part escape) but none of these were observed. Newton's conclusion was that the universe was infinite and mostly static and so had no center of mass on which to collapse. GR leads to basically the same conclusion however between Newton's time and Einstein's the observations and arguments against an infinite universe became convincing (see Olber's paradox).
Once again putting ourselves at the center of the universe! 😂🫠🙄🙂↕️😵💫
Does every star transmit the same photon? Does a red star transmit a red photon and a blue star transmit a blue photon? Would those photons travel at different speeds? Seems like you would have to know what kind of light is coming from what kind of star to guess how long it took to get here.😊
Nicely done! I call the BBT "physics of the gaps". It is conceivable that it is right (but ... we have yet to know what data we need to conclude that it is right). One of the more interesting problems is that cosmologists don't see it as an effective theory. When you consider the history of laboratory successes and failures and then look at cosmology, we have yet to do any experiments in the reverse direction of time and yet cosmologists talk about "running cosmic history backwards". As if there were a movie you can rewind to the first moment of time. To me it seems nutty. And active self delusion and dishonest. They need to just say "It's a model that describes what we believe to be true rather than what is factually true".
> we have yet to know what data we need to conclude that it is right
This is not how science works. You can never prove that the theory is "right". (What it even means to be "right"?) You can, however, measure how well theory explains and predicts experimental results. If it clearly at odds with them, then it's definitely wrong.
BBT has been observably refuted since HST first deep space images, so how on earth could it be right? Their is no visible aging of the observable universe. The galaxies closest to us are the same as the most distant. therefor no start, no big bang
If the cosmic web is swirling around and there are various "attractors" how are we determining expansion, or blueshift and redshift are just temporary and there is no "candle" then we could use or anything to determine the direction or rate of expansion of the whole within a swirling cosmic web....I'm just saying..
The electrical model off the universe proves that redshift has nothing at all to do with expansion of the universe.
i want new video about plasma universal have eric lerner
I think redshift would be better illustrated as a spiral in a light cone, instead of using the inverse Square illustration. With a spiral, you can show the linear progression of light at the speed of light along the circumference of the light cone, with the luminosity being represented by the non-linear volumetric progression of the Spiral. When light progresses in a vacuum there is an inverse relationship between frequency and amplitude - where frequency is processing time and amplitude is the amount of information - relative to the speed of light.
Exactly! I like the world you used- information. I've been saying this all along- energy is simply information when broken down to its basic definition.
Everything in the universe is circular, spinning and orbiting and when scientists quit using linear ideas to describe or define it, they will see that the expansion idea and their basic understanding of distance (and therefore time) is flawed. Distance is not linear.
@@cheatinggravity173 information is the result of the interaction between light and matter. From a human perspective, we infer information from our observations (at the speed of light) as measured by our matter. When you look at the world like this, you can see that what we describe as "feelings" in a visceral sense, are actually the results of time dilation within our own electromagnetic fields. Qualia can be represented as the rate of change of informational processing relative to the speed of observation - The difference between the two is what we feel. In other words, we experience time dilation physically, but not mentally. This is immediately apparent when you think of astronauts, fighter pilots or F1 drivers - even though they undergo and feel significant physical g-forces, their conscious mind is unaffected.
1:06 gavity?
Sometimes content creators do math and spelling wrong on purpose because it increases comments which increases engagement. It could also just be a typo.
Oops typo. Sorry
British spelling. 😋
Some aspects of the current expanding Universe model are questioned by well respected theoreticians. For example, Sir Roger Penrose is strongly critical of the so-called inflation hypothesis, i.e., the Universe experienced a brief burst of rapid inflation after the initial "big bang".
However, the steady state/static Universe model is only advocated for by a vanishingly small number of fringe authors/scientists. Seems to be a favorite of theology-based beliefs like creationism.
this is bb fan
You should know that BB theory is a real religion, you stupid idiot
A scumbag who follows a religion, what the hell are you talking about?
I totally agree with the scientifical flawed "filtering fiddling’s" and mathemagical joggling of observations to get the Universe to fit the standing ad hoc assumptions. No wonder the standing cosmological scientists frequently shouts out their "surprises" and "anomalistic behaviors in cosmos".
The Universe is electromagnetically governed and formed, and that´s it. And we never get to know all of it. At the largest, we can get to know the basic principles.
And we can do that just by taking the ancestral Creation Stories seriously and interpreting these in a modern way and language.
The ancestral Stories of Creation is all about the preconditions of and factual formation of the Milky Way and the Solar System. It was NOT about the entire Universe as our ancestors had/have this to be eternal of nature, and undergoing an eternal formation process of Formation, Dissolution, and Re-Formation.
With other words: A natural kind of a Steady State Universe, resting in and on itself.
Regards
Ivar Nielsen
Comparative Mythologist & Natural Philosopher
Denmark
I think they decided what red shift is and went about proving it. If they had to made something up, well they are not the first one.
Can someone please tell me how there can be an expanding universe when the universe is a vacuum?
A vacuum by definition only holds if the container is a closed system , thus space is confined to one volume and therefore cannot expand:
It isn’t a vacuum
Ya know , as long as things keep moving away from me....yes...the space between me and these things will continue to grow.
Now , please tell me something I don't already know.
Get the quarks out of the neutrons and put electrons inside of them so that they are just essentially protons with electrons inside. Now consider that the vacuum is actually stable neutrons that induct signals magnetically by their inner electron. Then can't the fact that these vacuum neutrons are much hotter as we peer back into the past explain some of this red shifting? I'm thinking that these hotter neutrons induct signals more softly or whatever and this looks like an expansion when not properly considering the nature of the vacuum. Edit: to be precise I guess there would be more space between vacuum neutrons with higher temperatures which can be exponentially larger than their cold densities.
The expansion of space may only be how we perceive spacetime where relative time is running very fast and relative distance increasing. Expansion and dark energy is just spacetime decompressing in the absence or decrease in gravity/mass. Dark energy is a property of spacetime that describes the ability to compress spacetime and the ability of spacetime to spring back or uncompress. not sure if elasticity of spacetime is the right word or whether density is real or changing. Spacetime is not just curved by gravity/mass as Einstein said but it is also compressed by gravity/mass where relative distance is decreased and relative time is running slower. The opposite happens in empty space away from gravity/mass.
The acceleration is due to the relative speed of time increasing and as relative space expands there is more space further away from gravity/mass i.e. gravity/mass is reduced again and relative expansion and time increased. This means the decompression of spacetime is just the same but opposite as compression of spacetime. What is represented by dark energy -g in the equations actually behaves and operates in a equal but opposite way to gravity that is -g (dark energy) and +g gravity are the same process in reverse.
Its all in my new book "Damo's relativity- Tips and traps for young players"
😂😂😂 big bang fan lol
@@bichthuyentruongthi2600 😂😂😂 Where did I mention the big bmg or express admiration for it? Please Note, Expansion (what we observe today) and inflation (just after bigbang) are not the same thing,
Indeed what I hypothesised has no causal link with the big bang, i.e. it is independent of the the big bang, whether it happened or not.
Reply
@@Damo-np7ul saying that the universe is expanding is a support for that damn theory
halton arp
I've always had a problem with expansion. How do they know? Short answer is they don't. Maybe the entire universe is just turning. Like a planet going around the Sun or the sun going around our galaxy or our entire galaxies turning just like every galaxy out there.
The angular momentum of the universe turning would be detectable, would it not? Also, turning a universe would need a center for the rotation, and expansion theory doesn't require a center.
@MNbenMN that would be true if we could see the edge of the universe. Which we can't. I've also have a problem with the big bang theory. On how we get an entire universe from nothing. The universe has a beginning it's just not the bbt. All explosions require matter. Do they not?
@LG-km8fw You don't need to see the edge of something that is rotating to detect the angular momentum of an object embedded in or attached to it, but rotation always indicates a center of rotation, so I don't follow why observation of an edge is necessary to determine the presence or lack of universal rotation. I don't think any serious physicist considers the "big bang" to be a literal explosion, anyway, using terms like inflation and expansion to point to the aspects that are similar to a conventional explosion, but by analogy, not by definition.
@MNbenMN The problem is we don't know what outside of the universe. Could there be something with a lot of gravitational pull. Seems very plausible. Sounds more plausible than dark energy. Even if the Big bang wasn't an explosion you still can't get something from nothing.
Once one accepts the dimension we live in, is an energy rich system where photons react with said energy over any distance time depending
You are beliven big bang right
@@bichthuyentruongthi2600 One believes in energy interaction via phase wave sequencing starting a dimension whole new ball game
You beliven big bang right
This is a correct assumption. Space cannot be "Nothing" and in the same time to be able to handle the position and orbits of giant celestial bodies. There is a book which explaining the universe on the base of this concept. - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"
@@Orion15-b9j As the saying goes ,Nothing is Nothing depending on ones interpretation of nothing
(1) No Big Bang, (2) No single Singularity, (3) No cosmic expansion, (4) No photon effect, (5) No Doppler Shift, (6) No Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), ... (7) No explanation about space-time fabrics, (8) No explanation of the composition of atomic proton and atomic neutron, (9) No explanation of cosmic tension (Hubble tension, Einstein tension, ...), (10) No explanation of quantum entanglement, (11) Self-imposed negation of the Aether and sub-quantum existence, (12) No true accretionary theory explained for cosmic evolution of stars, planets, and moons, (13) No cosmic annihilation of matter and anti-matter, no such anti-matter, (14) 31+ physics anomalies and inability to achieve Grand Unified Field Theory between the various sectors, (15) QM, QED, QCD, Quantum Field, unable to work in all sectors, (16) Weak nuclear force and strong nuclear force explanation is over-explained, (17) Gravity, Electromagnetism, Weak Nuclear Force, Strong Nuclear Force not explained, misunderstood, and incompatible providing Grand Unified Theory, (18) No "G"ravitational constant, (19) No cosmic tension constant, (20) No quantum entanglement constant, (21) No electron transition series explained, (22) No anti-matter matter, (23) No Feynman electron - positron annihilation, (24)
As such ... (1) Big Manifestation, (2) Innumerable singularities appearing from the Aether domains across the quantum boundary (which - IS - "=" the active CMBR), (3) No cosmic expansion as matter universe is 1-5% of the total cosmos (Aether) 100% (par value 95-99%), (4) Cosmic Steady State, (5) Universe filled with majority number of red-colored (young) stars and minority number of blue-colored (mature, adult) stars, (6) Stellar engine composition and functions explained, (7) CMBR - IS - the quantum boundary showing the appearance of red and blue Aether particulates entering into the matter universe, (8) Electro-gravitic accretionary theory explained for cosmic evolution of stars, planets, and moons, (9) Black holes not black holes, naked star core fragments reattempting accretion of its photosphere and chromosphere, (10) Matter quantum entanglement and Aether sub-quantum entanglement explained and demonstrated, (11) Matter quantum space-time fabrics and Aether sub-quantum space-time fabrics explained and depicted, (12) Matter tensor bosons and Aether tensor bosinos are the key to the whole universe, (13) New (re-)discovered Electro-static (ES) and Electro-gravitic (EG) Model corrects, amends, and eventually negates the Standard Model, (14) All cosmic particles explained and depicted as to their compositional makeup, (15) Solution of 31+ anomalies and barriers between physics sectors allowing the easy Grand Unified Field Theory, and solution to all greater cosmic events, (16) QM, QED, QCD, Quantum Field able to work in all sectors, (17) Tensor bosons are the component with gravitons for the space-time fabric and cosmic tension, (18) Tensor bosons are the active fusion agents in the stellar engine - with no temperature, pressure, or nuclear radiation, (19) Tensor bosons are the atomic tension between protons and neutrons, (20) Weak nuclear force is the electro-static force, (21) Strong nuclear force is the electro-gravitic force, (22) Gravitons explained and depicted, (23) Gravity explained, depicted, and its composition structure explained, (24) Fusion process explained - as well as Van der Wahl's radius and Coulomb boundary, and electron transition series, (25) 3 Matter energy levels and 3 Aether energy levels explained with 6 particle categories in each energy level, (26) Electron transition series directly related to the 3 Matter and 3 Aether energy levels, (27) Two categories of ES and EG electron, ES and EG positron ... tensor boson, neutron, photon and graviton each energy level, (28)
Did you know that redshift is quantized? It occurs in discreet steps.
Yes I covered this in my Halton Arp evidence series
Stupid question but is the cosmic microwave backgrounded redshifter ? And if not why ?
Until someone can explicitly and directly observe, measure and explain what space itself is made of, then there is exactly zero evidence of space expanding. We DO observe stars and galaxies moving through space, but we've never directly measured space itself doing literally anything at all.
Circular reasoning can only come when work by scientists is only coming from behind a computer and not out in the lab or field.
You ảe beliven bb right
So if everything is moving toward the great attractor. how can it be expanding? ???
Per the theory, space is expanding, and objects move around separately to that in space.
@@axle.student NO, everything is red shifted so that means they are moving away from earth hence Expanding.
@@johnduch2815 You have 2 separate things occurring.
a. Space is expanding.
b. Objects move around freely in that expanding space.
.
The great attractor is at a distance so galaxies are likely still moving away from us, even if they are moving toward us in space.
@@axle.student reread what you wrote.
@@johnduch2815 lol, I know what I wrote. I tried to be concise :)
That's cosmic expansion according to the Big Bang Lambda CDM theory.
Yes, space expanding away, and objects in space moving toward or away being a different thing is weird and difficult to get our heads around.
Space moves (expands) toward earth and objects (apples) don't fall, they are stationary in space and earth accelerates up toward the apple (GR).
The galaxies that we observe that are far away may only have been moving away from us billions of years ago. Doesn't say anything abou t those galaxies current speed.
We have zero possible direct awareness of any now moment in the cosmos. Everything is a past event that has long moved on or may not even exist :)