Five (Failed) Alternatives to the Big Bang - Ask a Spaceman!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 25 чер 2024
- Full podcast episodes: www.askaspaceman.com
Support: / pmsutter
Follow: / paulmattsutter and / paulmattsutter
What makes the Big Bang theory so successful? How were alternatives ruled out? What are the electric universe and steady state theories? Do any other options remain, like conformal cyclic cosmology? I discuss these questions and more in today’s Ask a Spaceman!
Follow all the show updates at www.askaspaceman.com, and help support the show at / pmsutter !
Keep those questions about space, science, astronomy, astrophysics, and cosmology coming to #AskASpaceman for COMPLETE KNOWLEDGE OF TIME AND SPACE!
00:00 Intro
00:41 #5 The Eternal Universe
02:34 #4 Steady State Cosmology
06:01 #3 The Electric Universe
10:36 #2 The Mixmaster Universe
13:33 #1 Cyclic Cosmology - Наука та технологія
Thank you so much for making it both easy to grasp, and provide a little humor to it, the "You're a slacker!" had Me LOL :) 😂
That cyclic universe model just keeps going around and around in my thoughts.
Love this subject, thanks for covering it...
Awesome video! Thanks for the latest upload ! Is stellar redshift always caused by the Doppler effect (ie recession)?
No, Hubble himself first thoughts were that the observed redshift was being cause by dust in the cosmos. There are many things that can cause redshift, it is not necessary an indication of recession or expansion.
How do we know all of the universe is expanding, when we can only see one part from our vantage point/perspective?
????????????? that makes no sense at all...WE SEE HOW EVERYTHING IS MOVING AWAY FROM EVERYTHING... FROM HERE! That question as as dumb as can be showing no logic and complete lack of understanding the word EXPANDING or that we are HERE and all is moving AWAY sheees I have to be embarrassed for you too dim to be embarrassed for yourselves...2nd graders get this stuff. 8 year old children understand off the bat and 6 of you show you can't t even think basics like 1234556 to see each number is bigger than the last...shame!!! The 1 part is the INSIDE fools!
I don’t know for sure, but to my understanding the red shift of galaxies and other object is increasing on all sides
Isa:40:22: It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
@@fireballxl-5748 motion of energy is NOT a "he" it is an IT....it is to LIE to claim it is a being of any kind...it is to SIN against the truth.
??? education teaches blue and red shits...so we KNOW what is going on and where YOU stop truth continues.
Very informative. Thanks
Paul, when you talk about the "end of the universe" the theories I have seen, following the "big bang", theorize that black holes will have swallowed everything up. But black holes eventually evaporate (Hawking), and you end up with just radiation. I get your point about Penrose's theory not being fleshed out, but put together with Hawking's ideas about black holes, it does have a chance.
I really found this interesting, because in the early 1970s, when I was studying physics and working in the High Energy Physics Department, we had a small library. There was a shelf, about three feet long, with cosmology bools. This includes all the theories you talk about. Takes me back.
Yea but how do we know the big bang happend wares the center 😐? And we see galaxy’s are moving away from us but since who are we to judge the out come of the universe?😐after all how can the entire cosmos’s only be 14 billion years only for a goggle years to end up in heat death ? When we don’t even know if the universe is finite or infinite 😐our telescopes can only measure what we can see however what about before ?😐also the big bang model fails Beacuse it explains the universe was created by (god ) and the structures are to big 😑and inflation explains their is a multiple universes yea 😑how’s about…no 😑also their are no infinite yous out their the brain can’t think of multiple lives then your own 😑to me I say that life is infinitesimal Beacuse before we were nothing and when we die well…be become nothing…again 😑 I feel their is much more to it then just saying their is a Big Bang 😑any fate of the universe requires a big bang heat death Big Crunch big rip all of these 😐require a Big Bang however time and space did not just start from a singularity 😑you need a cause and effect 😐also the universe will end in a goggle years from now but what happend a goggle years before ?🤔your brain does not like dealing with infinity also it’s not space that is expanding 😑it’s the movement of the milkey way the rotation of the sun moves in the milkey way the rotation of the earth going around the sun and the earth rotating every 24 hrs and since our telescopes are not out of the milkey way they orbit earth it feels as if the universe is expanding when it’s not 😐the big rip or heat death requires that space will continue to expand forever galaxy’s will get farther and farther 😐 the Big Crunch say that galaxy’s will and can collide with one another if the universe is expanding galaxy’s would not ever have time to collide 😐but if the universe is not expanding but galaxy’s are moving that means that they can collide with one another 😐 the entire universe is not only 14 billion years old 😑Beacuse for the Big Bang you need a cause and effect 😐in fact we would have no idea that this planet would ever form in the first place Because we were all ready dead we were nothing 😑now we live only to be nothing once again 😐the chances of this planet ever happening from the start was 0 % 😑and yet here we are 😐so my best hypothesis the universe could very well be infinite 😐and we all are just a product of evolution 😑and our lives are infinitesimal 😑 also you say the universe formed 14 billion years ago but even some scientists would say that’s wrong 😑anyone can make since of the big bang without ever explaining it any model or theory we make of the universe it has flaws 😐heat death big rip Big Crunch all have flaws the ccc flawed the big bounce flawed any theory we make is doing to have flaws 😑all Beacuse we humans want to explain everything but you will not ever know 😑the CMB only explains the observable part of the universe but it fails to explain the entire cosmos as a whole 😐 before we came into this world their were no satellites and satellites are only limited for what we can see 😐we also onced said that the earth was the center of the soylar system but it’s not 😑now we are saying earth is the center of the universe 😑yea sure 😑
@@jettmthebluedragon You are a bit incoherent here, but you do raise some good questions. Actually, I think that speculating about how the universe began and how it will end is pseudo-science. There are really no experiments you can do. Penrose's CCC is probably the best theory we have out there since there are tests that can be done. But, it doesn't really answer how it all began.
We can't possibly come up with a model of the whole universe, we inhabit only a small part of the universe that is observable by us, the observable universe, but the whole universe is much larger then that considering the flatness measurement. The only thing we need to consider is that structure formation does not end at stars, galaxys, galaxy clusters and galaxy super clusters and things like giant walls, but that these structures themselves are part of some larger structure, which had some sort of begin in time (which we call the big bang) from previous existing matter which we don't know about. This solves at least the nastyness of having to assume that all matter had to exist in a point with infinite density or entertain unphysical ideas like an absolute begin of space, time and matter. The larger superstructure of the universe (with the same kind of matter and structures as we can see from our point of observation) may itself be part of larger and larger material structures, of which we have no idea and no means of direct observation, but at least that is a more consistent idea then the idea of an absolute begin of the whole universe, which has no basis in physics. The universe is endless and boundless and has no begin in space or time, matter is eternal. It is impossile to figure out a model of the universe for all space and time, so it is rather pointless to try to model the whole universe, the task of physics and cosmology is to figure out how the part of the universe we can actually observe works, and try to figure out the cause of the expansion of the universe and why there seems to be more mass then the luminous stuff we can see (ie the dark energy and dark matter puzzle) that might be solvable, but to figure out a model of the whole universe is rather meaningless. Only one assumption suffices, namely the assumption that at larger and larger distance scales, there exist more material structure then the ones we know about and can observe, and such structures have their cycles of development and a begin and end of existence, without implying that the whole universe would have a begin or end in time.
I love these "big questions." I wonder if in 200 years we'll know for certain, or still be refining the model? Or will something new be seriously considered? Wonderfully mind-blowing. So happy we have smart folks that can work this and are kind enough to share with the mainstream the wonder of it all.
I heard of a theory that requires a boat load of unknown mass and energy to make the universe work. The same theory even predicts we will all turn into photons one day. It’s almost as if all theory’s of what’s what in space are crazy.
Big bang comes from BLACK hole ober time that got bigger and lost spin then exploded due to MOTION being permitted inside it expanding...so ya GRAVITY FAILS at ABSOLUTE ZERO for very long time as in Aeon(s) of time. and tho Photons ARE last to fade out Black holes seam to be longer now and expand and blow up after they too reach absolute zero and by the time motion is permitted inside it is too late and BIG BANG....so the smaller than atom LIES are rejected as impossible theist lies ( the let lie God did it thing).
What are the books in the background
So is CCC a sort of variation of the Big Bounce hypothesis to account for accelerated expansion ?
Great video!!
How do you explain that Hubber photographed two colliding galaxies if it is said that the Universe is expanding?
Can quasars be points between domains if the points are things in space time versus things trapped inside a super massive black hole outside of space time?
I don't think that only Big Bang can explain expanding Universe. What if we exchange the initial explosion into something different. Let's say Universe underwent phase transition which then started creation of elementary particles in it's whole volume? Remnants of this process would be observable as CMB radiation. This means with such theory we have both expansion and CMB and additionally we avoid problem of initial singularity which Big Bang model is having. Of course a different problem appears there, what was initial shape/composition of our Universe before phase transition. Does it have any mater or it was only vacuum energy?
I enjoyed this one more than others.
Maybe Gravity is in a symbiotic relationship within a ecosystem that creates a healthy balancing effect within the natural environment? "maybe we have gravity right to an extent but we need to figure out there is more layers to gravity, like gears in a car. (There's the gravity we know, then think of the complexities of all sorts of things interacting within an entire galaxy, I'm sure there is more to that then just using the base method we use for our solar system and stuff, like think of all the complex forces that interact over such massive different things in a galaxy. There's not just gravity, there's temperature differences, spin velocity, different masses and all types of interactions within a galaxy of different mass fluctuations then there's electromagnetic charges, gas clouds, static charges, density differences, the effect multiple galaxies can have on each other, and just the entire galaxy inside itself probably having some sort of full effect on itself, it's probably some stuff that's so immense and so grand that it's hard to fully calculate ot comprehend. Because you'll probably have to factor in multiple things influencing the gravity and not just the gravity alone and who's to say the calculation for the mass of each object is fully correct which could make a equation seem off when it might not be? -Then you got another gear when you zoom way into small stuff and that form of gravity must be completely unique and maybe if we get a aspect of gravity like that, then maybe it will fit within what we see? Idk) so instead of trying to explain gravity in a quantum way, think of gravity as a separate thing that coexists with the quantum realm and they live in a interactive way together but gravity doesn't need to be quantum. Just a thought experiment
The universe is cyclic but the timeframe is every Planck second. Every Planck second the universe is both destroyed and recreated.
The past was destroyed to create the present and as Lee Smolin says the future is yet to be determined.
Don't mess with Hubble or Einstein.
Dang...The Penrose C.C.C. model was my favorite. I have a hard time accepting the existence of a singularly whether the BB or Black Hole versions.
You base your conclusion that the universe is expanding on a single observation: Redshift
There are other theories that explain Redshift, one of which may come to disprove Expansion. What is particularly troubling is the current position that an expanding universe is a fact, not a theory.
Also, even though the LCDM predicted the existence of a microwave background, we don't know beyond doubt that what we call the CMB is actually this evidence. Yet again, however, this also is treated as fact.
Perhaps more disturbing than recent failures of the LCDM to match predictions is the failure of the greater community to recognize and acknowledge the difference between theory and fact.
By the way, what I find weird is your conscious exclusion of the only contemporary counterpart to the LCDM, the modern incarnation of a Plasma Model. In spite of its gaps and flaws, currently this model is making more correct predictions than the LCDM. Obviously there is much to address to make a full, coherent model that incorporates Plasma, however the LCDM is presently the ONLY investigative model that is receiving funding.
So perhaps we'll never know the potential of this model within the remainder of our lifetimes in spite of mounting evidence for the presence and influence of plasma in the Cosmic Web and interstellar medium, which is disheartening. I have always held that humans do our best science and make the greatest progress when we consider all potentialities and view all assumptions with the utmost skepticism.
It appears that this perspective is out of fashion presently. I hope that some shocking revelation heralds its return...
When talking about Hubble, please give a little credit to Milton Humason as well.
I have the greatest respect for science and scientists,
but I find it hard to imagine a universe of such colossal dimensions being only 13 small billion years old, while our sun is at least minus 6. That makes no sense to me.
If every Galaxy is moving away from each other, why is the Milky Way and Andromeda on a collision course?
Because they are close enough that gravity draws them together. Recall that gravity follows an inverse square law. Our entire local group of galaxies is gravitationally bound. Once you get beyond the local group, dark energy (whatever it is) appears to overcome gravity.
What if the "state of nothingness" is an unstable state (no idea how big this state has to be), that causes a massive output of matter. So basically a big bang inside a big bang, inside a big bang... The Universe would forever keep expanding with more and more matter. It could also make the Universe older (maybe a lot older) than we think it is. How do we know there has only ever been one big creation event (big ang model).
As important as the BBT's explanatory power is to cosmology; imo, more important to it's success as a theory is it's powerful _predictive_ power!
Imo, the explanatory power of a scientific model/theory is always less important than that model's/theory's predictive power because no matter how well a model/theory explains observations, if its predictions fail, it is deeply flawed in some way.
Imo, a model/theory that has weak explanatory power but excellent predictive power us superior in utility and is preferable to one with excellent explanatory power but weak predictive power. Kind of like how Quantum Mechanics has incredible predictive power, but has like 14 proposed interpretations for how it explains observations. Cheers 🙂🙂🙂
@@FelixBat many worlds:-)
The Big Bang: Give us one miracle and we can explain all the rest.
Would love to see a video on why the gravitational and other effects on light traveling for billions of years through space cannot account for the observed redshift.
There is approximately just as much blue shift as there is redshift from gravitational factors in the visible universe, so a persistent redshift can't be explained that way.
What about a mobius strip universe....where the universe flows into existence and non-existence.?
Every galaxy is not moving away from every other galaxy. One example is Andromeda and Milky Way are heading towards each other.
Makes sense to me 💥
Yes we are so insignificant that whatever theory concluded could be wrong about so big matter! Thanks
Oops, the pattern on your shirt seems to be the Steady State Model!?
As I understand the BBT, it does not actually say that the universe had a "beginning", rather it shows that the _expansion of spacetime_ had a beginning?
I mean, as you said, the math breaks down as it approaches the "singularity". I also understand that a singularity in physics is an indication that we are mussing something in our understanding. And if matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed, then the Big Bang could just be a change in state of matter/energy rather than an absolute beginning.
One other thing, I've read that if the BB was the absolute beginning of the universe, then it follows that time, or spacetime if you prefer, would not have existed "prior" to the BB, so there would be no time when the universe did not exist, even if it had s finite past?
Time is a product of the big bang so yes time did not exist when the universe did not exist.
@@infinitemonkey917 yeah that's how I understand it from reading the work done in cosmology as a Layman thank you very much for the reply
@@FelixBat I see what you're saying but I'm pretty sure that that's not what they mean by energy cuz the expansion of SpaceTime is not itself
@@FelixBat and just to be clear I'm not trying to say I'm any expert Rhino the answers I'm just trying to understand how all this relates because if it's a law of physics that energy can't be created then How can any Theory posit the energy was created without contradicting that law and having one of them be revised? You know what I mean?
@@FelixBat another thing I have trouble comprehending which I just remember from your comment is that they say that the net energy of the universe is 0 so I don't understand how that works if energy is being created by the expansion of SpaceTime I just it's over my head but I seem to see contradictions logically you know what I mean. And I'm sure physicists are well aware of any apparent contradictions and are working on it or understand it or can explain it in a way that doesn't contradict but it just seems to me as if its contradictions like you can't say that it is a law that energy cannot be created and then say that everything in the universe including energy was created during the big bang you know one of those two propositions has to be false because they're mutually exclusive. As a Layman who loves both philosophy and science especially cosmology I'm fascinated by this stuff but try as I might there's some that's just too much for me LOL
Cyclic universes and evolutionary universes are very popular in the public and personally but they all suffer from one problem... tell me how physics works in an entirely different universe. We assume physics would work the same in other universes, that the quantum fields, the forces that created and maintain our universe would be the same or similar in other universes even if the effects of those things were altered. However what if physics were utterly and completely different between universes, so much so that we would have no analog to our forces and fields. To assume the cyclic universe would assume that all universes follow the same physics and the same paths to the same ends. Meanwhile we still dont fully understand our early universe in the times where physics was momentarily utterly broken before recombining and settling. At the end of the day its unlikely we will ever peer into said other universes or the ones which came before if it were truly cyclical. So we can only go by what we observe.
The problem is not all galaxies are moving away from each other. The milky way has already impacted with smaller galaxies and Andromead is on a crash course with us.
You're nitpicking here. Galaxies on average are receding from each other. Of course there are structures that are bound by gravitation like clusters but on average, on large scales they are moving away from each other.
Pure speculation.
I like Fred's playing cards, though...
You are the man, so what was before?
Hey Paul, pardon my modern internet age attempts to solicit scientific discussion on topics I feel pertinent.
Regarding the concept of the universe being eternal, you say at 1:24 "...this all changed with Edwin Hubble's 1920s observation that the universe is expanding,.... This directly contradicts the concept of an eternal universe."
I know it may be that the universe is expanding and that this statement is true, but importantly Edwin Hubble's observation was that there is a correlated increasing rate of redshift per distance in galaxies that is independent of direction. To be fair, the concept of expansion of space as the explanation for the redshift observations requires a step of interpretation afterwards. This step draws upon known mechanics, namely Doppler Shift, to determine a hypothesized mechanic for what we may observe if space were to be expanding--well, it too would produce redshift!
I would propose, though, that the eternal universe concept can still be determined to be valid if a model exists that explains the correlated increasing rate of redshift per distance in galaxies, independent of direction, without requiring new science.
If the universe is eternal, the same line of reasoning can arrive at the universe also being infinite. We know that there are larger and larger "particles", and smaller and smaller. And beyond some certain point, that moves across time, we are unaware of, directly, the actual existence of the systems that can seemingly only be hypothesized at without direct observation. It is known that gravity can cause redshift. Because we do see some form of correlated redshift per distance, this as a whole is only even possible if one single object is causing it. And, because gravity is directionally dependent, it would seem we can safely rule gravity out of the equation, even with this consideration.
However, gravity also bends light. It is possible that if objects are sufficiently massive, then they will gravitationally lens light traveling in our observed universe so substantially that literally all galaxies we observe, especially those beyond a certain distance, have the light they emit gravitationally lensed by a single object. And not just subtly, but so substantially that it is caused to travel directly towards the object's center of gravity. But rather than being absorbed, the light passes through the object like neutrinos passing through the Earth and continues onward, but is then lensed back, causing the light to travel in a Figure-8 orbital flow pattern.
Light traveling in such a manner would in fact produce increasing gravitational redshift per distance due to the physical travel of the light being in a Figure-8 which includes both inward and outward radial motions that cancel as well as orbital motions that are always away from the center of gravity and thus producing gravitational redshift per distance in a correlated manner, and where the light arrives from any angle at Earth where the correlation is in all directions.
This also literally explains how gravity causes magnetic fields in one fell swoop. Significant?
And this really does provide explanation for how we see darkness in the night sky of an eternal universe. Surely it should be filled with light. But, not if larger systems, which emit such massive particles that perhaps we see their radiation as physical galaxies, are gravitationally influencing passing light in the electromagnetic spectrum as we see it and causing darkness to blanket the eternal night sky.
3:33 "...they didn't like the idea of the universe having a starting point, or a creation point,...." I would point out that 0 vs 6000 vs 13.8 billion vs infinite, that really when eternity is on the timeline then the others all become the same. In other words, science can recognize how ridiculous any claims that the universe is 6000 years old are, in terms of the evidence counter to it. And while 13.8 billion seems more reasonable, it is still identical to 6000 when it is next to eternity. From this line of reasoning, it is likely the universe, for all intents and purpose, is eternal since it is for certain older than zero.
[5:42] "The second observation was of course the CMB, the light from the early universe,..." Systems tend to have clouds like an Oort Cloud and galaxy halo, so that there is a large scale largely uniform energy is not necessarily proof of the Big Bang. While it was predicted that there would be such "remnants", it was also *concluded* to actually *be* those remnants upon the discovery. In fact, the discoverers themselves were approached by others who persuaded them that their discovery was in fact proof of the Big Bang model. In other words, the conclusions are biased by preconceived notions and are therefore not absolute proof of anything. If we think it through, there are other explanations for the observation. In fact, the CMB has a dipole that is directly centered on the Great Attractor. If gravity is causing redshift in distant galaxies (as above), then it is also causing the dipole of the CMB and this demonstrates there is a relationship between the CMB and the Great Attractor.
If there are ever larger systems, somewhere up the line one would overwhelm the depths of all that we see and produce such an apparent underlying background energy as the CMB. I maintain the observations do not prove the Big Bang over an eternal model.... Surely, a sincere debate on such concerns from the community is warranted sooner or later. Paradigms shift and pages turn...Odds are, the truth is the one (eternal) that we as a community of independent separately thinking of their own accord people keep coming back to philosophically rather than the one we have arrived at presently. Many people have arrived at an eternal conclusion in a way where they then go forth into the world and "pontificate" the message, separately across time, peppering the landscape with a variety of people coming from different backgrounds, going about their lives and thinking and arriving at the conclusion of an eternal nature of the universe. Whereas, though the Big Bang model is worked on by many and furthered by many, it was a conclusion arrived at by few and then we quickly moved past that so much that we literally stopped considering previous options.
The tides of funds shifted. If people were not working on the agreed upon avenues that we were becoming more certain of, but rather maintained a previous way, then they just did not get supported. Until, like a city surrounded and starved of resources, the ideas could no longer live in the environment and the new ideas could freely control the world view.
That does not make any of them so. Classical mechanics is still the most exact physics, albeit in a rough form lacking true and absolute incorporation of infinity into the model to determine how it truly produces all observations, the rest are approximations. Best-fits which quickly become mathematically complex next to the simplicity of *just* classical mechanics. And ultimately can be confusing next to a simple truth. It's just, at the edges of our understanding we require more nuanced details to fill in the gaps and to see how the observations match.
Like the speed of light being determined by the orbits of the moons of Saturn and seeing they did not match Newton's Laws. They did not form a new science. They realized they were missing details--the speed of light was not instant. And the philosophical, step-by-step approach could be maintained.
Sorry, maybe I'm just habitually speaking into the ether, but I do believe these above points to be valid and yet with any pointed and public responses already engrained into the public conversation. Obviously if these were points I saw already made and responded to in ways I felt to be sufficient, I would be satiated with my desire to actually understand. I do not see the points being made, let alone any responses formed in the scientific community. As far as I can tell, these are largely yet to be considered potentials that are absolutely certain to change everything when truly reaching the public discussion level.
Much love,
Steve Scully, the offputtingly blunt and longwinded self-proclaimed theory of everything discoverer ;D
That was a great review of this video and its ideas, worthy of re reading multiple times with an attempt to fully understand. Thank you.
@@pipersall6761 You are welcome. And thank you, I appreciate your consideration and review of my review :D.
Thanks. I've often wondered about gravity's effect on old light and why it's not brought up more often in discussions of the redshift of old/distant sources. It seems there's a lot of mass/energy out there that has been effecting some light for a long time.
You made one statement that stood out and stopped me reading. Not in a bad way. You said "surely it (the universe) should be filled with light". Indeed. The fact alone you allow "science" to be questioned is evidence enough of an open mind and you have intelligence with the ability to express it. Now can I suggest another step in Wonderland? I will state a fact. One that if you're "normal", you will think I'm nuts. If at first you don't think I'm nuts, you're either abnormal or exceptional. Statement: "Most people who think the earth is flat come to that conclusion after attempting to disprove it".
An intellectually honest investigation leads them there. I hope you find the truth, not the truth of the world, for which "science" speaks, but the actual truth. Remember science is always correct, until it's not and changes it's mind.
God bless you.
"f larger systems, which emit such massive particles that perhaps we see their radiation as physical galaxies," Dark (Non-Radiating) matter are part of galaxies, how would something that doesn't interact with radiation be the result of radiation?
What would have to happen to make all five forces in the universe have equal strength?
The assumption is the universe is expanding. If in the past it was denser, with its components moving randomly, they agglomerate randomly and consequently lose speed and thin out. It appears it has expanded and yes Hubble's law suggests it is a steady volume increase, but merging galaxies lose velocity and "expand" space. And is Hubble constant? Inflation makes sense, inflaton field expanding, creating Y's, CMB, and then particles etc, etc. Then followed consolidation. Quasars are more plentiful seen from afar cos there are more to be seen. They are everywhere as even Milkyway had a recent AGN. Dark energy is also an artifact of galaxy merging, but then type IIa's are not standard candles. It's not for me to rubbish others theories, but then I am not a spaceman.
Interesting arguments, though I don't understand all the abbreviations, in particular Y and AGN.
Things change
I think when a black hole becomes to big it explodes as a quasar, forming a new galaxy and that galaxy will be aborbed by thr black hole in the centre, repeating.
Silly ideas coming up. Rather than the Universe expanding could the same effects be achieved if all matter and radiation was shrinking? Slightly less daft. Could any of the expansion of the universe be caused by the universe rotating?
in fact the theory I have is on black holes in absolute zero COOL and lose gravity effect once at that temp so black holes do not evaporate but expand. If they expand they slow and if they reach too far out before heat they BIG BANG due to gravity breaking motions...expansion of too much mass in too little of a space and BANG...so we are talking a black holes expanding as they get old not evaporating and so expand so big that when HEAT and dense state happen it is outwards not back inwards. You could say the big bang is a white hole death.
Why is there only one theory for the redshift in the universe?
The Bigbang-theory is based on the observation: The larger the distance, the larger the redshift; but maybe that theory is wrong?
Maybe that observation should be regarded as a property of light, and not as a proof for bigbang-theory?
When the redshift in the light of galaxies would be measured (at intervals) over a long period of time, then what happens with that redshift?
According to bigbang-theory then that redshift would increase, but if that redshift does not increase, then that would be proof that the bigbang-theory is wrong??
check Paul steinhart dude
Einstein basically proved Gravity is just the result of Mass curving spacetime so is it even really a force like electricity or the strong and weak force or could it just be the result of some deeper force that causes Mass?
@@FelixBat not all Mass is caused by Higgs only really a small portion I believe. But if it is all caused by it maybe thats the real “force” and not gravity itself with gravity just a effect of the Higgs
Well if dark energy turned on 5 billion years ago perhaps it can also turn back off.
Paul please don’t write me off as a nut. I’m serious here. Everything we see in the universe can be explained in a geocentric cosmology. I really wish you would reach out an offer to debate Robert Sungenis. He is very friendly and will debate anyone who ask. Anyway in a geocentric universe, the earth is stationary while the universe rotates once a day. That is to say the earth sits in a very special location. It sits at the center of mass of a rotating universe. The other planets are still revolving around the Sun while the earth is stationary. In a geocentric universe, you do not need dark energy or dark matter. The reason why galaxies are spinning 10 times faster than predicted is because they are acquiring angular momentum from a rotating universe, so no dark energy needed. Also no dark matter is needed because what scientists are measuring as an accelerating linear expansion is in fact an angular rotational acceleration. Sungenis can explain why the lobes in the CMB appears the way they do and why the “Axis of evil” is pointing directly back to the earth. A very good argument for geocentrism is the fact that the earth daily rotation is very steady. A daily rotation is 23 hours, 4.09 sec and this rotation is only slowing down 1.8 milliseconds per century. All other planet’s rotations are slowing down dramatically, example Venus is slowing down about 6.5 minutes every 16 years. The massive inertial mass of a rotating universe around a stationary earth does explain this observed stability. Do you care to comment on the earth rotational stability?
Science does not back this up, not even a single thing about it, so unless you have something that is hard science, you have no chance. Just like Roger Penrose idea of the cyclical universe, neat idea, but it has nothing that seems to be grounded in science.
Where did you get that crazy number???
The earth rotates once every 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4.09053 seconds, called the sidereal period, and its circumference is roughly 40,075 kilometers. Thus, the surface of the earth at the equator moves at a speed of 460 meters per second--or roughly 1,000 miles per hour.
@@eswn1816 , OK so I forgot to include the minutes. Please address why the earth rotation is so insanely stable compared to all our other planets. With all the earthquakes, volcanic activities and meteors hitting the earth, it only makes sense that the earth’s rotation should be slowing down dramatically.
@@richardhernandez6937 no it doesn't "only make sense". It makes no sense. The evidence doesn't point to that claim at all, which is why it isn't accepted.
I find it endlessly amazing that random, unqualified people who clearly haven't studied the subjects to even a cursory level, are so arrogant they think they can just say "well that science is wrong because OBVIOUSLY X would be true if blah blah". Go study it. Then come back.
What was there before big bang?
GOD.
@@fireballxl-5748 you and I will believe, but Christian scientists don't believe.
They are asking for evidence for His existence
@@lathapauline1063 One cannot directly "prove" God's existence because the hearer can always declare the truth insufficient in some way. This is by (and you know this) God's design because God requires faith, that one believes he exists before one can grasp the truth. As the first one of the "The Santa Clause" movies the line is spoken; "Seeing isn't believing, believing is seeing".
DrSutter: and I do hate2say actually, what if {Gravity} B not as weak as first thought? Bythat I offer a new hypotheses; if knot offered prior , Gravity being more influential with Effect or Affect or both then Mass&Magnetism? Or on a DysonSphere level: SNRs Nebulae CosmicStrings
Though I have kno answer why Andromoda is Attracted in Our direction like surviving a bite of ol'Sparky: a three yearold lit up like a tree bang+wallup2? Peculiar, like Oxymoronic that's my thing
@@SeriouslyWeirdDream Medicinal or Personal? That is the Question & AChoice2!
@@SeriouslyWeirdDream Seriously, is that the best you have? Somewhat confoundable alas such as much is these days!
@@FelixBat Hmm, that may be somewhat to too a little tad tricky! Recreating's easy answering's the prob?
Apologies
@@SeriouslyWeirdDream A bots intelligence will never match human intelligence!
If we were close to the big bang when it happened, would we hear a bang?
No
You would be immediately torn asunder
The truth is we just don’t know 😐i don’t think its expanding 😑 but rather the universe is a constant however it’s the rotation of the earth and the moving of the milkey way moving 😐 and we are looking from the ground however in space it’s different 😑
Earth is stationary....see science experiment....Airy's Failure....and use your ability to think for yourself as to what it means.
@@fireballxl-5748 it’s not 😐it moves around the sun 365 days a year 24 hrs a day and it also matters the tilt of the earths axis as well 😐so no the earth is NOT stationary if it was it would be the center of the Milky Way but it’s not 😑
@@jettmthebluedragon You're making assumptions...such as science, so called, has told you the truth or is even correct. If your mind is not open enough to acknowledge "science" may be and/or may have been wrong, even many times (it has), then assuming what you've been taught is correct is foolish & skews your perspective. There is no "tilt". Airy's Failure proved the earth is stationary....and you could even do the experiment yourself if you have the telescope to do so. (I think the scope will be no good after the test because it would be full of water). The sun moves, the earth does not. However you picture the sun moving incorrectly. Think not like around a ball but in a circle, like over a dinner plate.
@@fireballxl-5748 well if that’s what you want to believe that’s up to you 😐but thuth is your wrong 😑you can’t just have the earth being the center 😑Beacuse you want REAL physics well this is truth 😑if the earth was the center and the sun is not the sun is so massive that the gravity of the sun would pull in Venus and mars all ready 😑Beacuse the gravity is so strong 😑but if the sun was at the center that would mean planets can have a more stable orbit 😐so believe it or not the the earth is NOT stationary 😑also a dinner plate is slightly flat 😑
Isa:40:22: It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
Question, what caused the Big Bang to happen.???
Nothing exploded!
Yes. Nothing in our dimension, at least.
Scripture:
Ge:1:2: "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters".
Do you believe that? If you do as I do then focus on "waters". Water is a solid below 32 deg F and a gas (vapor) above 212 deg F. For "waters" to be waters, water must be at a temperature between those two temperatures. That is easily proven by anyone. However that is not how science (so called) tells us the universe began. So which is correct? Science or God?
As for the "Big Bang", again, science (so called) says we started with a big bang but this false science always chooses the opposite and goes against God. The universe did not start with a big bang but will END with a big bang. So says scripture: 2Peter:3:10: "But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up." That my friends, is a big bang........."great noise" = "big bang".
Intelligent creation
Then there's the 0th failed universe origin theory; the flat earth model of cosmologies:
About 6000 years ago, YHWH said "Let there be light."
OK so why is Hubble wrong? The cause of the redshift has been attributed to the wrong effect and here is why it is stupid to think that a red-shift could happen.
OK so the light is supposed to be being stretched out from expanding space? Let's ask some questions then shall we?
1.) So how is the light being stretched?
1.a) Is it having new space inserted between it? Do we see light segmented as in being cut into a bunch of small pieces?
1.b) Given we have an upper end of the universes age, how do you explain observed light that is "redder" than possible?
2.) Where did all that mass come from?
3.) How did it accumulate to a ball of something?
4.) How can there be no outside to something? Another way of asking this is how can the universe be non-infinite because there is always an outside and when that something is everything there are no real outer edges.
So to demonstrate the correct answer....
The red-shift effect is not because of a modification to the observed wave of light. It is because of a modification of the observer. You and I are being clocked faster now than when that light was emitted a long time ago. Why this is is directly because of how gravity works and that idiot concept of space-time. Space-time is a resultant effect of something else, so the idea that time "flows" at different rates in different regions of space is correct. So what causes the time to change. Basically black holes are emitting these tiny particles which power atoms. The "Hawking radiation". The reason the black holes are black is because the time scale near a black hole is vastly higher than normal space. The light within these regions cannot be carried by normal space. Therefore it appears black. Further the gamma blips you see of mass falling into a black hole are because of this accelerated time region. The atoms clocks are super speeded up and you get the gamma emission. Another thing the black holes cause is the cosmic background radiation from the incompatibility of their fast light with normal space.
Again available for interviews.
This is all explained by science already? Why do you demand answers to "how is the light being stretched?" when you can easily read up about it. It's not remotely controversial. We do it in labs all the time. Laser measurements, radar, speed cameras etc etc all use red shift. We can red shift EMR in a lab any time we like.
It's bizarre you think you know better without even knowing what is being claimed,.
Hahahaha! I feel like donating to Dr. Sutter out of sympathy. Thank goodness I don't get this stuff from any of my students. They couldn't pay me enough to deal with it.
@@robertspence7766 "deal with it"??? What do you mean? Sounds like you are a religious zealot who can't stand being questioned. You could just shoot down one of my statements ....if it could be shot down. So Mr. Spence...Why is a black hole black? Light being pulled in? Then you should be able to describe how a pull works then right? This is of course rhetorical because pulls do not exist. If pulls do not exist then your physics is wrong. You should LISTEN to someone (me) who knows better.
In order to follow the law of conservation, I have a gut feeling that it's possible there's a whole bunch of bubbles interacting with each other on a grand medium like oil in water where the density's separate the oil in perfect little circles and they can absorb each other and move and maybe black holes are grand recycling machines in the universe and the laws of conservation of matter aren't broken, they take a form of matter and they convert it to other forms of matter but it doesn't gain or disappear, it just alters, maybe into gas form or plasma who knows, they could travel through the black hole 🕳️ into another universe bubble and recycle ♻️ energy there still with the universe, or it could transfer to a different far off region of the same universe bubble? Maybe in different bubbles they all run by the same base laws but maybe in every bubble the factors to the power and the interactions of those base forces are randomly jumbled up, and there's many bubbles that are unstable, but through natural selection, you would come across stable bubbles but it would be like nature and evolution or if babies survive to past birth and childhood to adult hood... Idk just a random theory but of course nothing answers how that started I don't understand how we will ever figure that out and honestly I'm okay with that. I've found peace with finding that it's okay to not find the answers for everything, for certain things, maybe that's the point. It's probably impossible for us in our human perspective to figure out these questions and that's okay, nature has it's ways and I'm sure it will all work out in the end or else why would it function the way it does. Nature is very therapeutic for me. Observing the seasons as I hike with my dogs, how trees get recycled by fungi, interconnection within ecosystems. It all can teach us things about other things if we look at those things with the right Perspective.
only a quantum god could create our universe!
Lol yeah all of the billions of trillions of tons of gas and solid particles just magically came into existence...on it's own...out of nothing. Gotcha
11 seconds into your video. Actually no. The big bang theory is completely wrong. Answer this question. "How does a pull work?" How does light get sucked into a black hole. Take two theoretical objects and describe how one pulls the other? Because your a dummy (compared to myself) I'll help you out.
How does gravity know where each object is in order for it to pull on the other guy?
If it senses the other guy then the effect of gravity would necessarily be slower than observed. Why because it would have to send a "thing" out that does the sensing and then send something back to the original piece of matter. That is two trips at C. But we see the effects of gravity as 1 trip of C. So nope can't be a sensing action. Besides how does it know where to return to.
This leaves us with the warped space theory. Except how do you warp a nothing? You have the conundrum of space offering no resistance to a material yet somehow changing the path of materials in a non-insignificant manner. So that does not work either because you have to have two opposite effects going on from the same thing. These opposing thing are that space both pushes and allows free movement.
Another idea is the graviton (a pure moron thought). Its a particle that is emitted in infinite amounts to fill space to somehow produce a pull. Let us do some simple math. If the graviton has any mass at all the some mass times infinity is how much mass? Well it's infinity mass. So to believe in graviton we have to believe that all mass emits infinity mass. Then there is the problem of answering how an emitted particle "pulls" something. Try an experiment. Take a bb gun and shoot a metal sphere within a vacuum. See if you can ever get that sphere to "pull". I'll save you some effort - you can't.
So what could the answer be? The answer is obviously a field of energetic particles existing in space are pressing things together. To be specific the shadows cast between nucleons reduces force between each nucleon and this imbalance causes gravity. Here is the math:
Force between two mass M and N depends on shadows
created between each nucleons in each mass. These shadows
are created within a field of Planck size particles
that are simply pieces of mass. Each nucleon blocks
these tiny particles from hitting the other masses
nucleons.
Given two masses M and N.
M has m nucleons within it.
N has n nucleons within it.
Each nucleon in M has a shadow formed with every other nucleon in N which is represented as (n * m).
Each shadow reduces the force by G.
Each shadows ability to reduce by G diminished with distance by 1/(r*r).
Combining all the above:
F = (n * m) * (G / (r*r))
This equation should be recognized as Newton's law
of universal gravitation.
But but but...general relativity....shhhhhh
Consider this is a model not an equation.
You have small particles that are traveling at C.
So the inaccuracies of Newton's law are completely
fixed by this model when computed by a computer
that tracks the effects. This IS the most accurate
calculation of gravitation possible.
Create the program and you'll quickly discover
it is 100% accurate. Quicker than that however
you'll discover that the program can't be made
because of the enormity of the number of particles
and the size differences. So the best you can do is make
simulations with small particles and big same sized
objects and see that it "appears" to work.
I am available for interviews.
Then publish your hypothesis and let it be peer reviewed. Otherwise, you're (and it is "you're"...not "your") just some nutter mouthing off on UA-cam...to an actual cosmologist LOL.
@@RaveyDavey The publish your paper argument is a system put in place to thwart change. It is a black hole of knowledge posing as a legit system. Its like the patent system. BTW your right about your and also its. I intentionally don't follow that rule because EVERYONE knows what your means and the people that point stuff like this out are "progressives" who follow all the rules have no creative thoughts and can just believe the system. Same type of people the Germans needed back in WWII. People ask how could the "population" have gone along? Now you know. Question everything. But seriously just answer the question instead of diverting.