15:40 It does not violate the isotropy of the universe as isotropy is having identical values of a property in all directions, and expansion is the same value at all points in all directions. Hence why we say it is expanding everywhere and not just moving into nothingness at the edges.

17:00 In agreeing with your assumptions we also get gravitational blueshift

21:57 meaningless dribble

Yeah it is so funny. "I am no scientist but I hate science and always get it wrong" Well that's probably why you are not a scientist then lol Silly people

A prime tenet of the Big Bang is that it started at a point and expanded. That means the time is important

👆

Here's the basic breakdown: Atomic scale) Spherical - Atomic Nuclei / Spiral - Atoms / Simple branching - Compounds, molecules, & Viruses / Waves - stupidly small stuff in high enough density Micro scale) Semispherical - Small cells, dense cells, large viruses / Simple Branching - large, less dense cells / Waves - Subatomic particles Small scale) Simple branching - Nuerons, slime molds / Waves - homogenous liquids, gasses, and-at the right timescale-solids. Our scale) Complex branching - Nervous systems, limbs, trees, [note that all branching phases have polarity, the roots and the above ground portion of the tree, the river systems on land and in the air, as it were] / Rounding off again - Larger, dense animals and plants [They form so many collections of branches that they tend toward a slightly rounder outer appearance, like a bush, but for evolutionairy pressure like a tree's competition for light or a giraffes need for reach / Waves - Micro scale objects in high density Large scale) Branching - Rivers, paths / Waves - Small to our scale objects in high density and [increasingly] faster timescales Planetary scale) Semispherical - Planetoid / Spherical - Planet, star, black hole / Spiral - Magnetic fields of planetary and solar systems / Branching - Binaries, trinaries, star clusters / Waves - Large scale stuff in high density and timescales, like the movements of plant life on the surface Galactic scale) Branching - Galactic arms / Spherical - star superclusters, galactic nuclei / Spiral - Spiral galaxies / Semispherical - Other galaxies / Waves - Planetary scale stuff in high density Intergalactic scale) Branching - Intergalactic web / Waves - Galactic scale stuff in high density at unimaginably fast timescales I assume I'm missing a few things, but that's the basic gist. I also assume that the pattern extends down some ways into the subatomic particles and out beyond the visible universe. The differing complexities of the branches at different scales may suggest a plank limit, but the complexity reverts back to the same as the atomic scale when the planetary scale is reached, leading me to believe that it's not strong evidence for it. An alternative solution may be that potential complexity maximizes equidistant between the atomic nucleus and the planet. Perhaps, at the right timescale and density, there could be life that uses stars and planets in place of atoms. Alternative to that, there could be layers of fluctuation between branches and spheres, resulting in larger gaps between phases of high potential complexity and/or differing levels of complexity.

Hopefully the ai's don't heat up the planet too much in the meantime, and the people programming them don't forcefeed them more bias against unconventional positions than we already know they do.

Also, I would assume that blueshift is way more dynamic than nullifying the exact right amount of redshift. Every light source has a different gravity than us, every galaxy is a different size, the photons pass objects, spending less time shifting one way if it either starts or ends within the gravity well of a large celestial object, like the galaxy we are in. It feels like the whole field is stuck on binary thinking, when there's an obvious linear option, that itself is probably a gross oversimplification of the dynamic nature of our reality.

This guy is a moron, and so are you for saying that. Is this some kind of advanced shitpost that I'm out of the loop for? Like, here's a quick compilation of everything wrong with #10 alone 1) The estimated age of HD 140283 is within the timespan of the Universe if you take in mind the measurement uncertainty 2) The answer isn't necessarily that the estimated is wrong; indeed, more recent estimates have put it as "young" as 12 billion years old. 3) In general, this doesn't prove that the "Universe is not expanding", or that "science is wrong" - only that you misunderstand the scientific method and its output. This is like seeing a bunch of 5 years old trying to dabble in rocket science...

Agreed. For mainstreamers who think they are perswaded by convincing evidence, calling big bang a religion is the worst insult they can think of. And sooner or later they will be confronted with contrary evidence not even they can deny

And that density is COMPLETELY homogenous. Sure, buddy.

You should definitely do it. It feels good to unload those thoughts. It also helps you develop the idea further. Plus, that sounds like it would be a great philosophical discussion.

@@BestCosmologist Thanks, will give it a shot. :)

Great question! I believe the CMBR is blue shifted Hawking radiation. The anisotropy in the bg is caused by subtle variations in the density distribution. I used a rather practical and logical method to find a physical upper limit to relativistic effects. This would be the factor of change due to the entire observable universe (Schwarzschild radius). This results in a giant number that we can use as an upper limit to the factor of change. Then I combine that to the Hawking radiation temperature equation and I get around 6 degrees Kelvin. My method of determining the max factor of change is a little suspect. There's a lot of fine-tuning that needs to be done as well. Hubble's law is almost certainly over-estimated. I plan on revisiting the subject soon and will likely make a video. Just remember, the current explanation of the CMBR requires inflation, at a rate of expansion much faster than today's rate, at a time when mass was compact and gravity was strong. It's literally absurd.

@@BestCosmologist Hawking Radiation is only applicable to a very specific set of circumstances because of the assumptions made to combine General Relativity with Quantum field theory. That is near the event horizon of a Black Hole. I get the impression you’re just combining random equations together without once considering all the underlying assumptions under which those equations are valid. And the CMBR is at 2.7K as predicted by GR, it’s not 6K. And yes, that is a big difference.

The standard model explanation is hardly the only possible explanation for the CMBR. It's not proof of anything. Deep space is in equilibrium with respect to density/temperature and a bunch of EM waves are flying everywhere. Takes a big leap in faith to tie that to something that might have happened billions of years ago.

ok

@@russelltaylor535 Please provide cite for 2.7K prediction. Let's not pretend that "science" had 2.7K penciled in. They did not.

Not following. r^3 / r^2 = r

​@@johnsteeley yes, however if the object experiencing gravitation isn't located at the surface of the ball then you can't do that cancellation, which was @John-gz2km's whole point let's say the radius of the earth is r; the distance some object is from the earth is represented by s. in general, r ≠ s therefore r^3 / s^2 can not be simplified; unless the object is on the earth's surface, in which case s = r and r^3 / s^2 = r^3 / r^2 = r. this is why the 9.8 m/s^2 figure is always defined as "near the surface of the earth"

@@jard 4/3*pi*r^3 is the volume of a sphere with radius r. r in the volume equation is the same r in the g equation. Maybe I'm missing something.

​@@johnsteeley g = GM/r^2 describes the gravitational acceleration that a sufficiently massive object's gravitational field exerts on another object. r in this context is the distance between the center of mass of the large object. M = rho*4/3*pi*r^3 is the mass of a regular sphere ('ball') given its radius and average density. r in this context is the radius of the ball, which the formula then calculates the volume of that ball, and multiplies by its density (mass/volume) to obtain the mass of that ball. they are not equal in both contexts. it is only valid to assert that the distance the object is from the earth's center of mass (r in the first equation) is equal to the radius of the earth (r in the second equation), when that object in question is resting on or very near earth's surface. obviously, the distance from earth's surface and its center of mass is its radius, so an object located near or resting on the earth's surface is also distanced away from the earth's center of mass by earth's radius.

​ @jard you're correct, but also missing some context. at 2 minutes he says if you move away from the ball it would be r² plus the distance you move away from the ball, and no, that's not correct, it's the square of the distance between the two objects' centers of mass. but, if you're inside a uniformly distributed spherical mass, the effective gravitational acceleration at a distance r from the center is given by considering only the mass enclosed within that radius. M(r)=ρ(4/3πr^3 ), and the derived formula g=Gρ4/3πr is in fact correct inside a uniformly dense spherical mass. But this is a specific case where the gravitational force inside a uniform sphere varies linearly with distance from the center (similar to how gravitational potential inside such a sphere works). If you're outside the spherical mass, you have to consider the entire mass M as concentrated at the center, because you're correct, the r term is found by computing the distance squared between their centers of mass (which is most easily seen in vector solutions where r→ = (r2→ - r1→) and is the scalar distance and is the magnitude of r. outside of the sphere,such as between two masses some distance extended away from each other (as long as they're separate, meaning, one isn't inside of the other) the correct formula would remain: g=G(ρ4/3πr^3)/r^2 ​ If r is the distance an object is away from the center of the sphere of another, and that distance is larger than the sphere's radius, it simplifies back to: 𝑔=GM / r^2​ This doesn't just always simplify to a linear dependence on r. because the force vector F→ = G (m1m2 / r^3) * r→ in otherwords the force vector has a magnitude of G(m1m2/r^2) and points from m1 to m2. the vector r→ provides the direction of the force, scaled by the factor of 1/r^3 to account for the inverse-square law. but, Inside a uniformly dense sphere... Yes, g=Gρ4/3πr is correct, and contextually appropriate - the best kind of appropriate. Outside the sphere tho, and g = GM / r^2 which is the expression for a POINT mass, or, the mass distribution when viewed from the outside. and the Schwarzschild solution is A solution to einstein's field equations, not THE solution. it's the simplest, actually. there are more solutions than this one. In general relativity, the Schwarzschild solution is derived assuming a central mass M. The metric considers the mass M as the source of the gravitational field. What happens if we try to substitute density? Far-Field Approximation: At large distances, the gravitational effects are dominated by the total mass M, not how the mass is distributed (density). This is because the far-field gravitational field of a spherically symmetric mass distribution is identical to that of a point mass M. The Schwarzschild metric already assumes a total mass M at the origin or equivalently distributed spherically. Substituting mass M with density ρ multiplied by some volume term does not change the far-field behavior. The metric remains dependent on the total mass M. The Schwarzschild metric encapsulates the curvature of spacetime due to mass M. Time dilation and spatial curvature depend on M, not directly on ρ unless considering specific distributions inside a radius r. also, Birkhoff's Theorem states that any spherically symmetric solution of the vacuum field equations must be static and asymptotically flat, leading to the Schwarzschild solution. This implies that the external solution is uniquely determined by the total mass M. substituting mass with density (ρ and a volume term) in the context of the Schwarzschild metric is misleading. The Schwarzschild metric already incorporates the total mass M, and at large distances, the metric's form remains invariant regardless of how the mass is distributed within the spherical volume. So, when dealing with the Schwarzschild metric and general relativity, stick to using the total mass M for describing gravitational effects at large distances. Density ρ plays a role in specific contexts (like interior solutions), but not in altering the fundamental form of the Schwarzschild solution for external fields. very creative idea being expressed by mr.brown in the video, but the assumption being made is wrong. you can't just extend something internally consistent and expect it to be externally consistent as well. in fact, if a person sat in the earths center, they would float freely, it would feel an awful lot like accelerating away from the surface and into space, either way you go you'd end up feeling gravity diminish the further away from, or closer to the center you go. and an objects density is critically important there, as the Schwarzschild metric illuminates - there is a critical density at which point a new surface extends to encapsulate the reality of the point mass expression and specifically doesn't contain the terms for density M=ρV=ρ(4/3πr^3) because part of it being a solution to einsteins field equations is because of the fact that it correctly describes that extended surface called an event horizon, within which all that density is contained and compressed into the most point-mass like object even einstein hadn't considered. it was a stroke of brilliance and rigorously mathy in unintuitive ways. Also, the expansion of the universe isn't an assumption, it's a measurement. Like dark matter, it's not a theory, it's an observation, what causes the observation is an unknown and is just called dark matter. it could be something else causing the observable, but it's not an assumption that the measurements are making in the observations. ​ maybe everything far away is actually just shrinking? idk. probably not. stephen wolfram thinks dark matter and dark energy are purely thermodynamic in nature. i think the "big bang" happened at one single point, at one single time, exactly equidistance away from every point in space and time and everything is basically in the process of being exploded into existence at every moment, and swallowed up by non existence a mere second ago. luckily we exploded out just in time to be here right now. and get swallowed up. fortunately, explosions. and the timing is just perfectly in balance. like a trampoline. if it was stuck at the horizon between a blackhole and a whitehole and we can't tell the difference between free falling down, or on the upward parabola of a vomit comet. basically Carlo Rovelli's hinted at pet theory. i'm pretty sure all physicists have their pet theory they can't disprove or provide evidence for but think about a lot. like string theory. loop quantum gravity. ads/cft. superdeterminism. multiverses. I wonder if Chris Brown knows Julian Barbour's work. the Janus Point. i just don't see M(r)=ρ(4/3πr^3) a lot, it's fairly obscure outside of textbooks and physics papers talking about the math inside stars and junk.

The universe can expand and there is nothing outside of it. There is nothing contradictory about that

@@stoppernz229 Do you have any experimental proof about that as the physics ask? No? No. But about red shifting and my thesis about it that it is only an optical phenomenon of depletion of energy, I have experimental proof. It is very easy. Take e regular flashlight and leave it on till will deplete its batteries and see what will happen with its light. I have done this to our laboratory many times and with the use of a spectrometer and there you are, you have red shifting and not only, you have any color shifting till the moment of darkness. Even, before darkness the light is flashing as e star and all of this you have without space expansion. Do you have such an experiment with expansion? No? No. So, physics without experimental proof dear it is only doctrine, a dogma. And if you take the expansion of your Universe, flashback you will have the B.B. and then you have to find a creator and to going to church every day alleluia. But you see, alleluia isn't physics, it is religion and Middle Ages. And please define for us, what do you mean with the term space and after that we will see if your definition need some other space outside it, where can expand peacfully. For this obvious reason, Linde and Penroose are talking obout Multiverse just to save the religion in frond of sciense and physics.

"if someone is telling that the Universe is expanding, that means that the Universe have limits and a V and an M" Err, no, that does not follow. Why do you think so? If the universe is infinitely large, it can expand nevertheless. Try looking about what "the universe expands" actually means in cosmology. "that means that something exist outside the Universe where the universe in it is expanding." Wrong again. Please educate yourself about cosmology instead of simply assuming all that false stuff. "That is only the religion belief of Lemaitre" So you conveniently ignore that the Big Bang theory is based on the work of many physicists, many of them working completely indepedent of Lemaitre. "the attempts of many other guys paid by the Church" Care to name a few of those?

@@user-dialectic-scietist1 "about red shifting and my thesis about it that it is only an optical phenomenon of depletion of energy" How does that explain the CMBR? How does that explain the cosmological time dilation observed e. g. in SN light curves? "ake e regular flashlight and leave it on till will deplete its batteries and see what will happen with its light." It does _not_ redshift! Apparently you don't know what "redshift" actually means! "you have any color shifting till the moment of darkness" What is "color shifting" supposed to mean? Redshift is about the shifting of _spectral lines_! Again: Apparently you don't know what "redshift" actually means! "I have done this to our laboratory many times and with the use of a spectrometer and there you are, you have red shifting " Spectral lines shift when a flashlight depletes its batteries? Seriously? :D :D :D :D :D If you really had made that experiment successfully, a Nobel prize would be ready for you, since that would refute at least 100 years of well-established physics! "So, physics without experimental proof dear it is only doctrine, a dogma." Thanks for showing that you have no clue how the scientific method works in astronomy. "you will have the B.B. and then you have to find a creator" Not at all! The Big Bang does in no way imply a creator! "And please define for us, what do you mean with the term space" The thing which is described by the metric tensor. (Actually, the metric tensor describes spacetime, but you conveniently ignore yourself that General Relativity and hence the BBT uses spacetime in its description, not only space.)

@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 CMBR, the microwave radiation? This is easy. It means more depletion of energy in the image idols and that means more increasing of the wavelength. That means older light. So you did your conclusion that I don't know what is red shifting? Because you said it happens only in specific lines of spectra? So you mean that the Doppler phenomenon because it has to do with the light, it jumps from frequency to frequency, like a miracle, and it hasn't a smooth appearance? It is like god's miracle dear, let my to use your irony one time. Well except the zone of blue, with the increasing of distance from the observer, exists the zone of green after that the yellow, then the zone of red and at the end microwave zone. All that we're calling red shifting, and not only one part of it. Every next zone is bigger than the previous and that not because we have more galaxies but because we have more and more, depending on distance, image idols of the same amount of galaxies. One more recent image idol of a galaxy will be more warm from the older image idol of the same galaxy, and for that reason, the two image idols will have difference spectrum analyze. If you can understand that, why we have more image idols as more far away we look, then you will have understood what means the time increases, more, with the increased distance and for that time which has pass, if it is enough, a galaxy can succeed to create more image idols of it on its trajectory. You know, galaxies aren't static, they travel on trajectories in a cluster. It is the combination result of distance, trajectory, and time pass. I hope you are able to do, with your mind, complicated explanations? But this also happens everywhere in the Universe, because except distances we have and time pass and so the old image idols everywhere before disappeared, not because of distance but because of the time that passing, after time, they will be seen like microwave radiation. For that reason, the microwave radiation is in the background of the Universe. But then why you see zones and every zone to increase? That is because also of the distance one source of light successfully produces more idol images of the same source and that more, again, has to do with the increasing of the distance. More distance, more image idols. Also, the zones do not have a constant appearance in frequencies, but they are change depending on the distance in the same zone, but also it depends, and of the warm's activity of the sources. So. no, the shifting of the light isn't only a few lines on spectra, but if you put them one to the other in a graphic of distance you will see the whole band in the spectrum analysis. The red zone it isn't homogenous as we see from the telescopes. And about the Nobel Prize I can shit on that, because I am a peaceful man and I don't like the dynamite, and I don't give an excuse to Mr. Nobel.