I’m going to display my spectacular ignorance here, but; Any light we are observing at the most extreme distances (the light which indicates that the universe’s expansion is accelerating) would surely NOT be showing us the current situation at that ‘location’, but the situation as it was some time after the ‘Big Bang’ as the light has taken that long to reach us. And shortly after the ‘Big Bang’, the expansion of the universe would, of course, be accelerating. Am I missing something? Surely it’s impossible to know the current situation at extreme distances, so therefore the universe may actually be stable or even shrinking.

I’m going to display my spectacular ignorance here, but; Any light we are observing at the most extreme distances (the light which indicates that the universe’s expansion is accelerating) would surely NOT be showing us the current situation at that ‘location’, but the situation as it was some time after the ‘Big Bang’ as the light has taken that long to reach us. And shortly after the ‘Big Bang’, the expansion of the universe would, of course, be accelerating. Am I missing something? Surely it’s impossible to know the current situation at extreme distances, so therefore the universe may actually be stable or even shrinking.

If the visible universe starts out as a 2d plane and/or the flattened surface of a sphere (like a black hole), it recreates this pattern. It comes from the flattened section 'unfolding' over time into the 3d sphere we see as the CMB.

Love your video❤❤

I heard it incredibly hot like crazy hotter than the sun

...and this 18th January astronomy spectacle arrived in my feed on the 5th Feb!

Postulating the existence of a fifth spatial dimension , which could ostensibly be called "other timelines" , and that Gravity is unbounded while WkNuclear, StNuclear, ElecMag are bounded in three(3) dimensions . #MalutKhala #Arbiter

But Dr Becky - Doesn’t the presence of life (so far) only on our planet make it special and thus disproves the Copernicus principle?

Remember, It's just a movie.

Off course it isn't "Aliens". Those very human space explorers sending signals to Earth are dutifully reporting their findings. N.A.C.A. not N.A.S.A.

Dark Energy and Dark Matter don't really exist, they are mathematical placeholders for observational data. Unlike the previous placeholder for Black Holes, there hasn't been any actual proof of Dark Matter/Energy. How long until a new theory explains the accelerated expansion and counters the Dark is unknown, the data washes out the overwhelming evidence.

The Earth is the center of the Universe. But so is every other point in space. It's all relative.

If galaxies farther away are moving away faster than expected assuming a constant expansion rate, why do we conclude that the expansion rate is speeding up? Why shouldn't we conclude that the expansion rate was larger in the past? The idea is that, we are seeing the more distant galaxies as they were in the distant past. Those galaxies from the distant past are moving away faster. Therefore, they must have been moving faster in the past. No?? Obviously very smart people have concluded the opposite. What am I missing?

I just watched a video 'The Most Fundamental Problem of Gravity is Solved' where someone talks about Ernst Mach in 'Mach's principle' Would that contribute to anything? , because it was a bit too mathematical for me to comprehend.

Miss Becky: You overlooked the CMB low multipole anomalies ... the low m-poles are aligned with the ecliptic and equinox , a > 6 sigma unlikelihood. The CMB sky is said to be the same as 13 billion yrs ago... Was the Solar System formed then, Miss Becky?

i love, love, love this so much. i really want to study in Harvard or oxford and want to study astronomy and cosmology to pursue a career in astrophysics, but is it really worth it? and if you don't mind, could you tell me if the pays good?

21:12 where can I find this nasa Christmas sweater ?

What do the increases in Gamma rays at 0 deg and 360 deg indicate? The predictions appear to be exceeded by measurements there, too.

The Big Bang never happened. The closer you come to admitting that, the less time you waste.

Thank you Dr Becky for this clear and simple explanation for why we have two tides a day! It's difficult to comprehend why anyone would think you've missed anything, as Copernicus and Galileo both understood the centrifugal force of inertia, and classical physicists have understood the essentials of gravitation for sometime now. Thank you for all the important scientific research work you undertake and the informative content you create. Have a great day and remember to keep moving at all times. 👋

I hope the show is as good as the books are said to be.

Given the vastness of the universe, there's a high probability that a unique nail polish color exists in another galaxy.

What the?... what about the axis of evil?

Is there an idiots guide to: "the observation that the furthest galaxies are moving away quicker than expected" to the conclusion that "the rate of expansion of the universe is increasing". In my obviously incorrect simple thinking it would be the other way round. Since the further away stuff is further back in time; not including the expansion after the light has commenced it's journey to us.

Does the dark matter annihilation mean that the amount of dark matter in the universe is decreasing? POtentially having impact on the shape and behaving of galaxies or on the speed of expansion of the Universe?

Becky, you need to up your game my dear. Other channels are way ahead of you in terms of content, delivery and topics.

remember, any life is not special or even microb-life.

keep it simple, its not hard.

I loved it when Naomi said "The Mormons are going to be pissed" when it was agreed to use the "Nauvoo" as a giant battering ram to destroy the infected Eros station ! 😂

well everything from earth point of view revolves around people, as usual. if space expands, then the outskirt has different physics. you can calculate it. from sphere mass expanding. prove that internet exists. scary hmh. just get all the models required to show something is actually how you think it is. you can do it. earth can be special in creation sense, even if in the system functioning sense it would not be. God made all universe systems, and selected something like earth, to be used in special ways. people are special even if you dont want the to be special in system sense. speech is nothing special, as humans like to be political about being special. of course if you let outwards acceleration push things longer then of course the outer objects have already been accelerated to faster speed. but that assumes they had more energy to overcome the gravity pull inwards. dark energy is a name for things you cant explain. God's power. people are not special at all, even if they are special. no, just take account all physics calculations, dont try to skip any. skipping means not truth and becomes peoples politics. any discipline is politics. discipline by humans means human is the arbitrator, which does not guarantee any truth. well earth is a local system. ie not just physics. objects in physics have features no common to all places, ie combination of features present only in the local system. ie one individual person is not same as others by physics, but locally individual, not under your control, free from your control, all kinds of control. not even universe mind control. but God is, in control, but in freedom. is universe local. varied local conditions are expected. thats just one universe model, nothing special.

Earth does appear to be special in dimension - intelligent life

The only thing I'm sure of is that any civilization will evolve to the point where money, politics, religion, racism, resource depletion, and mis- and disinformation will destroy them. So much for the Drake equation.

This is the worst edit of a reaction for a movie....she cut all the best parts...

There is a much deeper philosophical idea that underlies the concept of proof. Simplified it comes down to what you see is real or it is not. If it is not there is no possibility of knowing anything, so the assumption is that you can know and from this the concept of proof is born. This is heavily challenged by most religions demanding belief in a strict sense of belief beyond proof, losing all the metaphors that can be true but cannot be addressed by proof.

With big big scale phenomenon like this, I always wonder if it can be solved by adding more big bangs to our models... I always thought it was odd that we assume there's just the one (although obviously there would need to be some spectacular distances involved for there to be more that we don't know about)

Can you please review Lord Jamar and his flat earth rubbish?😂

Wow, this is such an amazing and well-researched video

I've wondered about something I learned once. If particles behave as waves until they are measured, did the first eyeball create the universe and then evolution took over?

Well, some say so, others say otherwise :-) On the one hand: The choice of the coordinate zero point seems to be completely arbitrary according to the relativistic principle - so we can also place it in the center of the earth if necessary. And then describe the rest of the universe as revolving around the Earth. On the other hand, according to the relativistic principle, this is just as possible for any other point in the universe. So the Copernican principle is less a question of its provability than a question of its usefulness for certain purposes, basically a question of craftsmanship :-) The cosmogical principle, on the other hand, seems to be more vulnerable. Homogeneity on sufficiently large scales is supposed to be an observable fact. But we observe nothing of the sort. Nevertheless, most scientists believe it to be correct. Tell someone else that science has nothing in common with faith, even if it is sold as axiomatic in this field.

Bondi's (highly amusing) mid-20th century redefining mind-game expression of the 16th-century-speculative Copernican form of heliocentrism (set out via rather jumbled mathematics in response to decidedly awkward theories asserted based upon observed data mathematically expressed .. phew! what a notion) is, believe it or not, a speculative theory (quite disconnected from Copernicus' view of humanity, its observations, and capacity to 'solve' complex problems - rationally). The principles actually prompting Copernicus's work were not negations of past ideas but corrections in expressing 'facts' made of the data observed, e.g. the interpretation of calculations, i.e. how the human mind works, checks its methods, and alters its understanding (rationally). Or, if you prefer, what came to be called the scientific methodology .. by way of convincing demonstration (even in our own limited ways). That Bondi presented his mind-game as an expression of facts made based on data observed .. by humans, to humans, and for humans .. regardless of speculated or assumed points of view (specific or general, amassed or analysed, etc) witnesses to the quirky place humanity plays in humanity's capacity to reason and ability to observe and desire to explain 'stuff' (a far from privileged position - being quite unlike the bright orb choiring to the young-eyed cherubim, in motion, or some such elevated and detached position). Science can be fun .. when we let it. ;o)

what can you hear starbuck?

This video says 5 Years ago, not true. You wanted to study aliens, but you're supposed to be working DA for for the two years to study an alien planet I thought that was the agreement, well I sorry, I tried, you take care Becky sorry it didn't work out.

Does Timescape infer that it is the gathering of matter into the complex variety of gravitationally bound forms we detect which powers universe expansion?

What if it's both? Could it account for both types existing simultaneously? The Universe is certainly large enough to hold both simultaneously, so I'm expecting there will be a mix of signal types being detected.

I know they claim otherwise, but I still believe it lines up with our system because it originates in our system.

1:48 "special" is a pretty vague term. Maybe 75% of the universe is like us, but 25% being not like us still means that our observations are wrong for a portion of the universe. But I don't think anyone told you're like 75% of the rest of humanity would think that made them special lol

thank you so much for sharing your honest story with us, especially when it came to talk about the tuition fees and all that stuff, i love you 🥹💕

One of the biggest mistakes scientists make is that they tell you how smooth the early universe is and then shows you a diagram of the CMB which has orange and blue. And every single person that looks at it thinks: "But that's hot and that's cold. It's not smooth at all!" So you're using a diagram to represent something and the visual representation conveys the OPPOSITE of the actual data. Not smart at all. Just change that please science people.

I used to sell Amy Mainzer saltwater livestock for her aquarium. I happen to know who she was from her appearances on "how the universe works". Before anybody gets bent out of shape, she chose us specifically because everything we sold was either captive bred or captive grown.

There is one glaring hole in the Copernican principle: SETI and the Fermi paradox.